Backintheday544 Posted July 15 Posted July 15 1 minute ago, Doc said: What changed since Biden's disastrous debate to make you believe what 538 is selling? 538 historically has been pretty good. They were one of the few that started calling the sway to Trump in 2016. 1
Scraps Posted July 15 Posted July 15 5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The SC office(s) did nothing to quell the notion of bias, if anything, it exacerbated those feelings. Nothing the SC office did would quell the notion of bias amongst the right wing propaganda machine.
Doc Posted July 15 Posted July 15 2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: 538 historically has been pretty good. They were one of the few that started calling the sway to Trump in 2016. Their final forecast in 2016 gave Trump a 29% chance of winning. And again a lot of Dems are still calling for Biden to step down and there to be an open convention. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 15 Posted July 15 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: That is probably true as a public opinion matter (and is obviously true as it relates to Republicans). But as a legal matter, the AG still had ultimate authority over Smith's decisions. He was a "special counsel," not the old "independent counsel." The decision is flat wrong as a legal matter given how this has always been interpreted, until Clarence Thomas's opinion (not the majority) about a month ago gave her cover to do this. Another reason Thomas should have recused. Frank, Chi said one day something to the effect that "the law was complicated..that's why you need lawyers". I get and accept that. On the other hand, the SC exists to render decisions and reflects the considered judgement of individuals uniquely qualified to move the country forward. Using your terminology, 'as a legal matter', Thomas offered an opinion in that capacity. He seems to think that just because things were always done a certain way does not make them fair or reasonable. As a matter of public opinion, yes--picking and choosing who can break what laws, who can ignore safeguards and who can flaunt positions of power will completely erode trust in the institutions designed to do quite the opposite. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 15 Posted July 15 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Frank, Chi said one day something to the effect that "the law was complicated..that's why you need lawyers". I get and accept that. On the other hand, the SC exists to render decisions and reflects the considered judgement of individuals uniquely qualified to move the country forward. Using your terminology, 'as a legal matter', Thomas offered an opinion in that capacity. He seems to think that just because things were always done a certain way does not make them fair or reasonable. As a matter of public opinion, yes--picking and choosing who can break what laws, who can ignore safeguards and who can flaunt positions of power will completely erode trust in the institutions designed to do quite the opposite. It isn't a good legal argument.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 15 Posted July 15 6 minutes ago, Scraps said: Nothing the SC office did would quell the notion of bias amongst the right wing propaganda machine. Sounds ominous. All I can tell you is what I know to be true: Apply the law equally, and we can discuss whether or not the law is fair and just. Apply it arbitrarily, it's silly to feign outrage when people lose trust in institutions. 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: It isn't a good legal argument. Maybe you poindexters should, in unison, suggest that those in political power stop threading needles, bending laws, applying justice arbitrarily, and seek some level of consistency. 4
Backintheday544 Posted July 15 Posted July 15 9 minutes ago, Doc said: Their final forecast in 2016 gave Trump a 29% chance of winning. And again a lot of Dems are still calling for Biden to step down and there to be an open convention. If you don't want to beleive 538, then you're welcome to look at a map and polls. Assuming all the normal Dems and Republicans stay, Biden's clearest path to victory is MI, WI, and PA. 538's average of the polls out there is Trump +0.6. (the recent was Trump+3 and a Biden +5) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/ WI is Trump +1.3. The ones from July (Trump +1, Trump +2, Trump +2, Biden +3, Biden +2) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/ PA is Trump +3.1 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/) Most recent is Trump +7, Trump +3. All within the margin of error. 1
Scraps Posted July 15 Posted July 15 (edited) 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Sounds ominous. All I can tell you is what I know to be true: Apply the law equally, and we can discuss whether or not the law is fair and just. Apply it arbitrarily, it's silly to feign outrage when people lose trust in institutions. I believe the law is being applied evenly. Had Trump been cooperative with the National Archives, he wouldn't have been charged. Edited July 15 by Scraps
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 15 Posted July 15 Just now, Scraps said: I believe the law is being applied evenly. Super. 3
The Frankish Reich Posted July 15 Posted July 15 30 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Maybe you poindexters should, in unison, suggest that those in political power stop threading needles, bending laws, applying justice arbitrarily, and seek some level of consistency What do you think of the Eastman plan to refuse to have Pence refuse to certify the election, send the certifications back to certain states, and have the Republican legislatures of those states certify alternate (Trump/Pence) slates? That plan relied on finding loopholes in the constitution and the statutes implementing it. It was a cynical effort to misread the object and purpose of the law without expressly violating any specific term of it. Pence's own counsel found it to be an unconstitutional stretch. I am not arguing the ultra-legalistic "Poindexter" (haven't heard that since I was a kid!) approach. The Eastman ploy was based on a cynical misreading of the constitution (as the California State Bar has found). Cannon's decision here is also based on a cynical "Poindexter-ish" missing-the-forest-for-the-trees misreading of the Appointments Clause. 1
Pokebball Posted July 15 Posted July 15 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: What do you think of the Eastman plan to refuse to have Pence refuse to certify the election, send the certifications back to certain states, and have the Republican legislatures of those states certify alternate (Trump/Pence) slates? That plan relied on finding loopholes in the constitution and the statutes implementing it. It was a cynical effort to misread the object and purpose of the law without expressly violating any specific term of it. Pence's own counsel found it to be an unconstitutional stretch. I am not arguing the ultra-legalistic "Poindexter" (haven't heard that since I was a kid!) approach. The Eastman ploy was based on a cynical misreading of the constitution (as the California State Bar has found). Cannon's decision here is also based on a cynical "Poindexter-ish" missing-the-forest-for-the-trees misreading of the Appointments Clause. Wasn't the issue those states constitutions and statutes and rules not being followed? 2
Scraps Posted July 15 Posted July 15 5 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Wasn't the issue those states constitutions and statutes and rules not being followed? Hadn't that been litigated? 1
Tiberius Posted July 15 Posted July 15 MAGAization of the government. Trump judge, this will be appealed 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 15 Posted July 15 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: MAGAization of the government. Trump judge, this will be appealed Go back to your safe space. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 15 Posted July 15 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: What do you think of the Eastman plan to refuse to have Pence refuse to certify the election, send the certifications back to certain states, and have the Republican legislatures of those states certify alternate (Trump/Pence) slates? That plan relied on finding loopholes in the constitution and the statutes implementing it. It was a cynical effort to misread the object and purpose of the law without expressly violating any specific term of it. Pence's own counsel found it to be an unconstitutional stretch. I am not arguing the ultra-legalistic "Poindexter" (haven't heard that since I was a kid!) approach. The Eastman ploy was based on a cynical misreading of the constitution (as the California State Bar has found). Cannon's decision here is also based on a cynical "Poindexter-ish" missing-the-forest-for-the-trees misreading of the Appointments Clause. I wasn't sure if you would take "Poindexter' seriously or not, but figured what the heck. As for the Eastman plan as you describe it, here's the most important part: "That plan relied on finding loopholes..." and "...cynical misreading of the constitution...". I'm not all that swayed by conversations about "loopholes", because one politico's "loop hole" is another's brilliant "novel theory". What's obvious to me is this: tell me the subject of the discussion, the political sensibilities of the audience, and I'll be pretty darn accurate at predicting who thinks it's a "loophole" and who thinks "novel theory". Such is life these days. We've discussed Alvin Bragg's approach to neutralizing Trump. We've also seen a temporary reimagining of statute of limitation issues for certain civil cases significantly impact that which we traditionally considered justice. We've seen the use of Intelligence Community to make broad, sweeping declarations that turn out to be unfounded. There are quite a few other scenarios I can point to that don't make much sense to me from a fairness/equity perspective, but you might think are reasonable. I'm all for justice applied equally across the board, but in the big picture, reject hyper-fixation on one person/subject while ignoring the way business is conducted generally in Washington. Mike Pence, btw, was one of the heroes of the election process in 2020. 1 1
TH3 Posted July 15 Posted July 15 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: It isn't a good legal argument. Are you high? Surely a rookie judge with no almost no legal experience, appointed by the guy being indicted.... understands and sees things that decades of legal precedant didn't....well other than Clarence Thomas. I can't beleive this is where our country is....
Doc Posted July 15 Posted July 15 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: MAGAization of the government. Trump judge, this will be appealed By the time anything happens, Trump will be President again. Just now, TH3 said: Are you high? Surely a rookie judge with no almost no legal experience, appointed by the guy being indicted.... understands and sees things that decades of legal precedant didn't....well other than Clarence Thomas. I can't beleive this is where our country is.... Yes and we can't prosecute a guy because he's senile, but perfectly fine to be President, much less be re-elected. 1
TH3 Posted July 15 Posted July 15 6 minutes ago, Doc said: Yes and we can't prosecute a guy because he's senile, but perfectly fine to be President, much less be re-elected. I have no idea what Judge Cannon has to do with Biden.
The Frankish Reich Posted July 15 Posted July 15 5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Mike Pence, btw, was one of the heroes of the election process in 2020 True. As for the rest: we all have political biases, including judges. Maybe even more so for federal judges, who are appointed by the President, serve life terms, and are in many cases people who've been involved in political campaigns or at least partisan causes. So we know that. I think I'm pretty fair as a lawyer (and for a long time, a federal government lawyer): I don't like advancing legal arguments that ignore the context of a law or the practical implications of a decision. I think that's a conservative value - unless there's a really damn good reason to upend a well-understood meaning of the law or a clause of the constitution, we should continue along the set path. That path set expectations, and people conformed (or should have conformed) their behavior to those expectations. 1
Recommended Posts