Clown Car III: Who's Laughing Now

[FriendlyFire]

So, the President can apparently do almost anything he wants, unless a judge says he can't, yet the President nominates all the Supreme Judges, can replace the Chief Attorney, apparently fire people actually investigating him... Is it only me seeing a massive conflict of interest here?

Consitutional Crisis is the words that J is looking for here

 

[metalhead]

So, the President can apparently do almost anything he wants, unless a judge says he can't, yet the President nominates all the Supreme Judges, can replace the Chief Attorney, apparently fire people actually investigating him... Is it only me seeing a massive conflict of interest here?

The turnover in the judiciary is pretty low, even over the course of an 8 year term. At most a president can expect to replace 1/3rd of the Supreme Court, barring an extraordinary number of deaths or retirements. The rest of the federal judiciary will experience less turnover than that. Honestly, this is a point in favor of lifetime judicial appointments. If judges had limited terms, presidents would be replacing most of the judiciary in their 2 terms in office. The alternative is elected judges which is . . . much much worse.

That being said, there are still plenty of potential conflicts, yes. Congress is supposed to be a check on these things, by denying sycophantic appointments and providing adequate oversight. If people don't care enough about such things to replace a Congress that isn't checking an administration installing a sycophancy in the judiciary and law enforcement, then tough. You can't make people care about their Republic failing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The turnover in the judiciary is pretty low, even over the course of an 8 year term. At most a president can expect to replace 1/3rd of the Supreme Court, barring an extraordinary number of deaths or retirements. The rest of the federal judiciary will experience less turnover than that. Honestly, this is a point in favor of lifetime judicial appointments. If judges had limited terms, presidents would be replacing most of the judiciary in their 2 terms in office. The alternative is elected judges which is . . . much much worse.

That being said, there are still plenty of potential conflicts, yes. Congress is supposed to be a check on these things, by denying sycophantic appointments and providing adequate oversight. If people don't care enough about such things to replace a Congress that isn't checking an administration installing a sycophancy in the judiciary and law enforcement, then tough. You can't make people care about their Republic failing.

This is the heart of the problem with the Nunes memo. It strikes directly at the oversight function of congress. To a whole lot of people it demonstrates that the oversight function, which is critical, cannot actually be entrusted to congress. While it is possible that the elections will resolve the problem, they cannot undo the damage. And the US electorate has demonstrated that they can't really be trusted to remember from one election to the next the solution they applied. When they elected Obama to try to repair the damage done by Bush one may have thought they learned from their mistakes...but they have proven that that hope was misplaced.

 

[Takhisis]

The purported significance is that it shows the FBI is engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the Trump administration. The real significance is that it shows the Republican Party is engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the Republic.

With, as we saw this week, thunderous applause.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Florida has a program to give voting rights back to felons. It's an arduous, time-consuming process that can last for months and years. Despite this, it was not particular capricious - past governors gave these rights back to tens or hundreds of thousands of ex-felons. Current governor Rick Scott has restored rights to less than 3,000 people and has made the process entirely arbitrary and capricious. He is apparently personally involved in the process and bases his decisions on purely personal grounds. He refused to restore rights to one felon who had committed drunk driving because Scott's uncle was killed by a drunk driver (and not the one in question).

And of course, there are darker motives at work:

In one withering anecdote, Walker described the case of a white man who was convicted of casting an illegal ballot in 2010. When the man went before the board three years later, Scott asked him about his illegal voting.

“Actually, I voted for you,” the man said. Scott laughed and told him, “I probably shouldn’t respond to that.” Seconds later, the governor ordered his voting rights restored, according to the ruling.

The plaintiffs identified five similar cases in which former felons were denied restoration of their voting rights because they had cast illegal ballots. Four of the five of them were African American, according to the ruling.

More than 20 percent of Florida’s black voting-age population can’t vote, according to figures from the nonpartisan Sentencing Project cited by the judge.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-rights-felons-ruled-unconstitutional-n844096

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-federal-judge-rules/?utm_term=.974a9d9bf453




If you can't win elections then just steal them any way you can!

 

[Takhisis]

Just seen it on the box: FOX FACTS: NUNES MEMO OMITS FACTS

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Apparently Nunes didn't actually read the underlying intelligence. He literally just made a wish list of suppositions which ended up disproving his own thesis.

 

[Takhisis]

In a highly predictable turn of events…

Donald Trump President claims Nunes memo 'totally' vindicates him
President tweets ‘the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on’ as FBI director urges agents to ‘keep calm and tackle hard’​

 

[Birdjaguar]

You mean that Trump is totally innocent of all wrong doing? How unfortunate for the rest of us. It's hard to believe, but if Trumps says so, it must be true.

 

[onejayhawk]

So, the President can apparently do almost anything he wants, unless a judge says he can't, yet the President nominates all the Supreme Judges, can replace the Chief Attorney, apparently fire people actually investigating him... Is it only me seeing a massive conflict of interest here?

You are correct to be concerned. The potential conflict of interest is real, as is the potential for FF's Constitutional crisis.

However, you are looking at it from a person's perspective. Consider the office. We saw just yesterday that the office can declassify material over the FBI's objections. The DoJ and FBI literally report and answer to the President. The limit of power lies in the other branches--the Judges and Justices are not in his desmesne. Nor is Congress.

You mean that Trump is totally innocent of all wrong doing? How unfortunate for the rest of us. It's hard to believe, but if Trumps says so, it must be true.

No one is totally innocent. Ask any Priest.

J

 

[Takhisis]

Judges and Justices are not withing the President's domain? Why? This one's not called Obama.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No one is totally innocent. Ask any Priest. J

Jesus for example certainly guilty (of being a Liberal and secret Muslim born in Jorden clearly a terrorist). just ask any priest /s

A more appropriate qoute would be Nixons
Fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No one is totally innocent. Ask any Priest.

J

Most of the world isn't Christian.

 

[Takhisis]

Most of the world isn't Christian.

Certainly not the current POTUS.

 

[Arakhor]

However, you are looking at it from a person's perspective. Consider the office.

It's just a shame that the office has a person sitting in it, one who should have been thoroughly embarrassed to use official powers to declassify a document only to later crow that it totally vindicates him.

No one is totally innocent. Ask any Priest.

I don't subscribe to original sin, thanks. Making people feel bad for simply being human is one of the worst things religion ever invented.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No one is totally innocent. Ask any Priest.

The little boy was asking for it... leaving the house dressed like that... ask any priest.

 

[Kyriakos]

I know the clown thread has been just for US politics, but i don't feel like starting a thread on this, and yet i wish to refer to this clown/goon, fyi:

Tensions with Turkey over the Aegean soared on Feb. 1 after a chief advisor to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned any Greek who tries to put a foot on the disputed, uninhabited rocky islet of Imia will be beaten or worse.

“We will break the arms and legs of any officers, of the prime minister or of any minister who dares to step onto Imia in the Aegean,” Yigit Bulut told Turkish TV, referring to the islet where Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos, a Turkish taunter, threw a wreath to mark a 1996 military incident there that brought the countries to brink of war and saw three Greek servicemen killed in a helicopter crash, the details of which have been kept secret.

Bulut said that Athens will “feel the anger of Turkey, worse than that in Afrin,” referring to the Kurdish-controlled enclave in Syria where Turkish troops have engaged.

(links, in english and greek: http://en.protothema.gr/unbelievable...to-imia-video/

http://www.ekathimerini.com/225425/a...t-foot-on-imia

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/201...hreats-turkey/

https://www.thenationalherald.com/18...ont-step-imia/ )

I think that Turkey has no place among civilized countries, and it is an ongoing farce that they are still in nato as well. Nice of the glorius eu to not care about open threats of war solidarity and the usual stuff. @r16, feel like breaking legs? Why not eat a red apple instead.

 

[Arakhor]

I believe that the usual government response is not to negotiate with terrorists. Do you really want the EU to dignify that stupidity with an official response?

 

[Kyriakos]

I believe that the usual government response is not to negotiate with terrorists. Do you really want the EU to dignify that stupidity with an official response?

Come on, they should at least make a show out of being dismissive of such goons. By now, not even that happens.
Yet the Turkey issue is serious. A war (which Turkey will declare, obviously) is not in the realm of fantasy. Such is what we have to deal with since decades.
But it does force us to buy tanks from Germany and airplanes from the US, so it is all good for them.

 

[Arakhor]

Even assuming that the EU has a single voice and a single will (which of course it doesn't, how do you respond to that situation diplomatically? What has your government said, for instance?