Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[verbal8]

there should be legit disbarment proceedings for some of these fools

The next Democratic President needs to **** come down on these **** like a ton of bricks. Everyone that protects this President’s criminal behaviour’s life needs to be destroyed.

One thing I think would make a lot of sense would be a widespread pardon on immigration offenses.

I would have a couple exceptions - those who are doing fraud with others and human smuggling.

For immigrants who committed other crimes, those would stand so they would remain imprisoned or in the deportation process.

[dckingsfan]

Interesting (opinion) piece of falling birthrates.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/capitalism-children.html

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

This guy is scared and unraveling. He was always an insane ****. Now him losing his **** is just accelerated.

[I_Like_Dirt]

another dumb thing about republicans packing the court with fedsoc pro-lifers (and joe sixpack delighting in Trump doing so) is that 99.999% of them won't ever make a pro-life ruling. they're taking wrongful termination cases, ADA cases, criminal cases, patent law cases, etc.

Yeah, this is something more people need to understand. People might think this is about packing the courts to prevent abortion because that's what it's being sold as. It's absolutely not. It's about packing the courts for patent and antitrust rulings. It's dangerously selling out the country for a hope and a prayer that something will change things the way you want them to change without you actually having to do anything, anyone potentially benefiting in any way, and with strong evidence to suggest that it won't actually work on multiple levels. Antitrust and patent laws are the major danger here.

[pancakes3]

another dumb thing about republicans packing the court with fedsoc pro-lifers (and joe sixpack delighting in Trump doing so) is that 99.999% of them won't ever make a pro-life ruling. they're taking wrongful termination cases, ADA cases, criminal cases, patent law cases, etc.

Yeah, this is something more people need to understand. People might think this is about packing the courts to prevent abortion because that's what it's being sold as. It's absolutely not. It's about packing the courts for patent and antitrust rulings. It's dangerously selling out the country for a hope and a prayer that something will change things the way you want them to change without you actually having to do anything, anyone potentially benefiting in any way, and with strong evidence to suggest that it won't actually work on multiple levels. Antitrust and patent laws are the major danger here.

i don't think the danger goes so far as it being a concerted effort with the primary focus being to pack the courts to actively influence antitrust and patent specifically, or any other area of law specifically because:

- partisan influence over antitrust and other regulatory fields (environmental for sure) can be more directly affected by the executive via political appointments over agencies that govern those fields, as well as the Attorney General setting the tone on what gets prosecuted via the DOJ (sessions prioritizing marijuana enforcement, the current immigration docket being influenced by ALJ [administrative law judges that aren't the same as federal lifetime judges], etc.)

- these nominees are just flat out unqualified across the board. it's not like these nominees are uniformly subject matter experts in antitrust or whatever. the only common denominators are that they're pro-life, and they're woefully underqualified in trial law.

- it's giving trump too much credit in having a conspiratorial plan this intricate.

but you do raise a concern that i haven't really thought about: these new judges know they're unqualified are will probably take their marching orders from the nefarious FedSoc (the group supplying Trump with names of nominees) and I wouldn't put it pass FedSoc to implement a conspiratorial plan like this. they very well could provide these judges with marching orders on how to rule in certain cases and influence law that way. at the very least, they could heavily suggest issuing statutory maximums on criminal sentences to be "tough on crime" across the board, be pro-business across the board, etc.

and i don't mean to suggest that these nominees are idiots (though some of them are). when i say unqualified, i mean that they lack trial/courtroom experience. you can be a very smart and successful "comma lawyer" and never see the inside of a courtroom, and indeed most attorneys are. but that's not the pool that you draw from to be judges. there's example after example of Trump nominees admitting to the Senate in their confirmation hearings that they've never tried a case, or even taken a deposition. you just CAN'T be a judge that presides over hundreds of trials a year and oversees thousands of points of procedures including depositions when you're that unqualified. it allows for wholesale abuses of the law on both sides

[pancakes3]

lol, trump "contemplating" testifying AND baseless rumors that Trump is going to resign due to poor health instead of going through impeachment.

[dobrojim]

Interesting thoughts on judges. Not surprising that the GOP/FedSoc would ignore
actual experience ie qualifications over other factors.

On a completely different subject, being a long time reader of Boswell I read his
piece in today’s sport re the Slurs. DS is a perfect example of someone who is
fabulously wealthy, probably intelligent by IQ measures, but just dumb as a
frickin rock or too clever by half. He has utterly destroyed an asset he paid
dearly to own, a perfect example of why it’s not always true that fabulous wealth
indicates much more about someone beyond that they have a lot of money.
It certainly doesn’t confer much in the way of virtue.

[I_Like_Dirt]

i don't think the danger goes so far as it being a concerted effort with the primary focus being to pack the courts to actively influence antitrust and patent specifically, or any other area of law specifically because:

- partisan influence over antitrust and other regulatory fields (environmental for sure) can be more directly affected by the executive via political appointments over agencies that govern those fields, as well as the Attorney General setting the tone on what gets prosecuted via the DOJ (sessions prioritizing marijuana enforcement, the current immigration docket being influenced by ALJ [administrative law judges that aren't the same as federal lifetime judges], etc.)

- these nominees are just flat out unqualified across the board. it's not like these nominees are uniformly subject matter experts in antitrust or whatever. the only common denominators are that they're pro-life, and they're woefully underqualified in trial law.

- it's giving trump too much credit in having a conspiratorial plan this intricate.

It isn't necessarily about giving Trump credit. It's about understanding his motivations and the motivations of the people who are advising him. Regulatory capture is great and all but is much easier to reverse in a short amount of time depending on how elections go. There is absolutely no reason not to stack the courts with yes-men if they can do it.

As for the supreme court, a lot of focus was obviously on the women's rights issues but let's assess Kavanaugh's history of rulings on antitrust:

https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2018/07/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-antitrust

Kavanaugh did recently allow for cases to go forward against Apple for antitrust, which represents a significant change for any conservative judge and swayed the partisan lines that had been drawn but he also didn't actually rule against Apple - just allowed for the cases to be heard in court.

[daoneandonly]

Of course folks here dismiss and try to discredit qualified judges just because they stand for accountability & life

[I_Like_Dirt]

Of course folks here dismiss and try to discredit qualified judges just because they stand for accountability & life

Surely if that was the case they'd be able to find a few of them that didn't consistently rule in favor of monopolies - even to the point of overruling regulators or trying to.

You're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating why this is such an effective strategy, though. So long as the anti women's rights crowd is more concerned with punishing rather than preventing and isn't interested in helping, it's a great way to pass the buck and try for judgements and punishments and such. That you can't/won't take the time to understand the reasons why literally the only people supporting your position are doing so in the interests of basically owning the economy as a whole... there's really no point in discussion because I know where you stand, but it's definitely telling nonetheless.

[Ruzious]

Guys, don't quote the troll. Da1, there's no getting around the fact that you've become a troll in every sense of the word. When you make posts like your last one, you're eliminating any chance of having a reasonable discussion by implying we have no integrity. There's no point in you posting here if that's going to continue being your posting style.

[daoneandonly]

Guys, don't quote the troll. Da1, there's no getting around the fact that you've become a troll in every sense of the word. When you make posts like your last one, you're eliminating any chance of having a reasonable discussion by implying we have no integrity. There's no point in you posting here if that's going to continue being your posting style.

Of course folks here dismiss and try to discredit qualified judges just because they stand for accountability & life

Surely if that was the case they'd be able to find a few of them that didn't consistently rule in favor of monopolies - even to the point of overruling regulators or trying to.

You're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating why this is such an effective strategy, though. So long as the anti women's rights crowd is more concerned with punishing rather than preventing and isn't interested in helping, it's a great way to pass the buck and try for judgements and punishments and such. That you can't/won't take the time to understand the reasons why literally the only people supporting your position are doing so in the interests of basically owning the economy as a whole... there's really no point in discussion because I know where you stand, but it's definitely telling nonetheless.

Yea im trolling but calling people anti women isnt. But all dirt does is argue how can we "prevent", not just on this subject either. How can we help prevent crimes too? Essentially how do we incentivize people not to commit murder, rape, burglary, assault, etc. So in essence, lets reward people so they dont act a fool

No I never implied anyone outside of 3 specific ones on here lack integrity, I think its ridiculous that hard working judges' merits are being spit on just because the elite progressive left dont agree with their pro life stance. Kavanaugh's credentials speak for itself, as does the others. You want to talk people who are in position they were no where near qualified for, look at AOC and Omar.

And a certain community organizer who im sure everyone here would frame as one of the best if not the best ever to hold the most prestigious office.

[tontoz]

[Ruzious]

Ok, now I have 1 poster on my foes list.

[payitforward]

LOL !!

[daoneandonly]

I'm devastated, someone a fellow ghettosburg resident considers me a foe, how can I ever go on?

[dobrojim]

Kav's credentials do speak for themselves.

There are some tidbits here that cons can cling to until you have to answer the question
of whether out of the entire list of judges one could select, that he was, on merit,
at the top of the heap.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/05/american-bar-association-reevaluate-kavanaughs-high-rating-citing-his-temperament/

[Ruzious]

Add 1 more for the list of impeachable offenses. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-impeachment-ire-turns-on-pompeo-amid-diplomats-starring-roles/ar-BBWVTD5 He apparently made it clear to Pompey (one of his biggest stooges, at that), that he expected Pompey to "reign in" his people that were testifying - the "Never Trumpers" - another one of his code words. That's basically conspiracy to order federal employees to lie to Congress, so now all federal employees know that the President of the US expects them to protect him even if it means perjuring themselves in front of Congress. Are we all just numb or just dumb to shrug stuff like this off?

[queridiculo]

Interesting thoughts on judges. Not surprising that the GOP/FedSoc would ignore
actual experience ie qualifications over other factors.

On a completely different subject, being a long time reader of Boswell I read his
piece in today’s sport re the Slurs. DS is a perfect example of someone who is
fabulously wealthy, probably intelligent by IQ measures, but just dumb as a
frickin rock or too clever by half. He has utterly destroyed an asset he paid
dearly to own, a perfect example of why it’s not always true that fabulous wealth
indicates much more about someone beyond that they have a lot of money.
It certainly doesn’t confer much in the way of virtue.

Regarding Snyder, clever and cunning are attributes I'd be willing to ascribe, but at some point you would think that somebody with above average intelligence would manage to be self-reflexive enough to break through the cycle of stupid the slurs are stuck in.

Snyder gained his fortune by being a fraudulent, unscrupulous shyster.

I imagine that the same self-deception that has him convinced of his genius business acumen is probably at play with what has been happening at slurs park for the past two decades.