chasfh Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 19 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: LOL, YOU APPOINTED THESE PEOPLE SIR! Which is why he didn't characterize them as an embarrassment to himself, because you can't embarrass the embarrassless. Quote
chasfh Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Good. Let him burn as many bridges as he can. It won't be the last decision this court has to make that affects him, but he's too stupid to think strategically - which is something to be thankful for. Honestly, I don't think that makes a difference either way, because he can destroy the country with or without strategy. Quote
buddha Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago I guess we'll have to switch the narrative on the whole "supreme court is in the bag for trump" thing now... Quote
gehringer_2 Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: what's interesting here is that logically, he is making the exact argument that would also defeat Citizen's United. Congress has the power to change corporate law and basically eliminate current corporate structure as a legal entity in the US and every US corporation as currently constituted with it, but the court ruled Congress does not have the power to regulate a subset of that entity's existence - i.e. political contributions. Exact same argument. Verrrrry interesteenk! Edited 1 hour ago by gehringer_2 1 Quote
TJ Rollercoaster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 5 minutes ago, buddha said: I guess we'll have to switch the narrative on the whole "supreme court is in the bag for trump" thing now... Until they gut the Voting Rights Act Quote
Edman85 Posted 45 minutes ago Posted 45 minutes ago 42 minutes ago, buddha said: I guess we'll have to switch the narrative on the whole "supreme court is in the bag for trump" thing now... Except Trump vs. USA is what is allowing him to do whatever the hell he wants without criminal consequences... Quote
buddha Posted 44 minutes ago Posted 44 minutes ago 31 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: what's interesting here is that logically, he is making the exact argument that would also defeat Citizen's United. Congress has the power to change corporate law and basically eliminate current corporate structure as a legal entity in the US and every US corporation as currently constituted with it, but the court ruled Congress does not have the power to regulate a subset of that entity's existence - i.e. political contributions. Exact same argument. Verrrrry interesteenk! in citizens united the court built on a previous ruling that money = speech in the context of political contributions, so congress (or the states) couldnt regulate citizens' political speech by telling them what amounts they could contribute to their favored political candidate. in the same way that congress cant pass a law that says G2 cant stand outside and tell everyone how much he loves president trump. not that it would ever need to pass such a law. i dislike citizens united very much, but i dont think this ruling has anything to do with it. but as usual, i could be wrong. this is a major questions doctrine/ieepa/taxing power/statutory interpretation question. the early commentary is interesting in that it talks about the roberts court's take on restricting congress' ability to delegate its powers to the executive, which would be a wonderful thing if congress would actually go back to doing its job. sarah isgur has a comment on it in the times from back in december that people are pointing to as prescient, if youre interested. Quote
buddha Posted 42 minutes ago Posted 42 minutes ago Just now, Edman85 said: Except Trump vs. USA is what is allowing him to do whatever the hell he wants without criminal consequences... so he paid for that case but not this one? i know trump is dumb with money, but it seems like a poor and limited investment. maybe roberts wanted to shake him down for more payments? like its an NIL thing? more cash or i'm transferring to the second district appellate court. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted 37 minutes ago Posted 37 minutes ago 3 minutes ago, buddha said: but i dont think this ruling has anything to do with it. ... I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that if you accept this logical construct of Trump's on tariffs (basically that the power of creation/destruction implies the power of complete regulation) I don't see how you can avoid the logical connection to how that would apply to CU. Granted that the law defies logic often enough. Quote
buddha Posted 36 minutes ago Posted 36 minutes ago 44 minutes ago, TJ Rollercoaster said: Until they gut the Voting Rights Act They might. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted 23 minutes ago Posted 23 minutes ago (edited) 22 minutes ago, buddha said: sarah isgur has a comment on it in the times from back in december that people are pointing to as prescient, if youre interested. Conservatives used to accuse Liberals of being 'Ivy Tower'. but it seems it's now Conservative that pine for idealistic constructs that have no relation or possibility of implementation in the real world. Independent administrative agencies insulated from executive branch politics are a perfectly practical solution to technological regulation. The Federal Society's complaint that they don't conform to their idealizations of government structure is windmill tilting of the highest order. And she's dead wrong about campaign finance reform. Edited 17 minutes ago by gehringer_2 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.