Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Louse]

I'm not the one who incorrectly suggested the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is doing something untoward.

no, i got ya. just worries me that people still hold on to the that kind of misinformation

 

[Valwinz]

Clown president just say January 6 was worst than Pearl harbor

 

[chrisrlink]

A) The government is interested in NOT wasting funds now? LOL
B) If fraud is found, there could be major, major consequences.
C) At least they have people looking into it who actually are interested in finding foul-play, as opposed to all the people who have previously "looked" into it who knew finding anything would be bad for them.

View attachment 260310​

I imagine most of those "illegal votes" were for trump anyays I mean there were republicans who was gonna storm the Phili convention center armed to put illegal trump votes in to the legit votes

 

[TheN00b21]

Clown president just say January 6 was worst than Pearl harbor

lol, America is going to fall apart sooner or later. It's just waiting to collapse into 2, just takes something big to push it over the ledge.

 

[Xzi]

lol, America is going to fall apart sooner or later. It's just waiting to collapse into 2, just takes something big to push it over the ledge.

Idiots have been saying "the South will rise again" ever since the Civil War ended...hasn't happened yet.

 

[Lacius]

Clown president just say January 6 was worst than Pearl harbor

1. Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor as far as I can tell. He compared the January 6 attack to the Civil War because both happened because a stupid section of the population couldn't handle election results.
2. January 6 was an attack on our democracy.
3. Pearl Harbor was a literal attack on a naval base, not democracy.

I don't think Biden is the clown here.

 

[Xzi]

1. Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor as far as I can tell.
2. January 6 was an attack on our democracy.
3. Pearl Harbor was a literal attack on a naval base, not democracy.

I don't think Biden is the clown here.

He called it the worst attack since the Civil War, so we can assume he was referring specifically to internal domestic attacks. Valwinz is not very good at picking up on contextual clues.

 

[Valwinz]

1. Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor as far as I can tell. He compared the January 6 attack to the Civil War because both happened because a stupid section of the population couldn't handle election results.
2. January 6 was an attack on our democracy.
3. Pearl Harbor was a literal attack on a naval base, not democracy.

I don't think Biden is the clown here.

The Biden fact checker is here imao and is telling me that January 6 is worst than pearl harbor and 9/11

 

[KingVamp]

In Georgia, they literally rewritten the rules to takeover both county election boards and just removed Raffensperger.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not the one who incorrectly suggested the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is doing something untoward.

The Democratic party is absolutely doing "something untoward" - if you're going to suggest that the Republicans are trying to overturn a totally legitimate election because they're "unhappy with the results", you'll also have to accept that the Democratic party is trying to throw off the balance of the Supreme Court because they don't like the previous administration's justice selection. If they do end up packing the court just to ensure a "liberal majority" (in spite of the fact that those are lifetime nominations and no justice needs to pay fealty to either party), that's a textbook fascistic move to seize control of a branch of government, specifically the judiciary. They don't like the current guys, so they want to pack it with "their guys" to have a majority, outside of the usual process. I don't see how there can be any other interpretation.

 

[Xzi]

you'll also have to accept that the Democratic party is trying to throw off the balance of the Supreme Court because they don't like the previous administration's justice selection. If they do end up packing the court just to ensure a "liberal majority" (in spite of the fact that those are lifetime nominations and no justice needs to pay fealty to either party), that's a textbook fascistic move to seize control of a branch of government, specifically the judiciary.

You keep pushing this bullshit narrative as though nobody remembers anything about the past. McConnell declared Supreme Court justices could not be nominated in an election year to prevent Obama's pick from getting a confirmation hearing. Then he fast-tracked an unqualified Trump nominee through in an election year. So either Gorsuch or Barrett is sitting in a stolen seat, take your pick. Expanding the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional or illegal, and it has been larger in the past.

The Democratic party is also the only party in which imposing term limits for Supreme Court justices has gained any traction. So there's that.

 

[Foxi4]

You keep pushing this bullshit narrative as though nobody remembers anything about the past. McConnell declared Supreme Court justices could not be nominated in an election year to prevent Obama's pick from getting a confirmation hearing. Then he fast-tracked an unqualified Trump nominee through in an election year. So either Gorsuch or Barrett is sitting in a stolen seat, take your pick. Expanding the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional or illegal, and it has been larger in the past.

The Democratic party is also the only party in which imposing term limits for Supreme Court justices has gained any traction. So there's that.

McConnell was very clear about the historical precedent - you're keen on mentioning the election year part, but not the support of the Senate part. The appointment clause of Article 2 states clearly that the President is entitled to nominate justices, but those justices are confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. There was no obligation to confirm any of Obama's picks, the Senate did not consent.

Term limits in the SC is a terrible idea - the whole point of having lifetime appointments is specifically to prevent a situation where justices can be swayed by the other branches under the threat of terminating their term. Having a lifetime term that cannot be revoked allows the SC to be impartial, the unfortunate consequence of that is that it also leads to living fossils on the court. Not sure what the solution here is, but having them beholden to the administration isn't one of them.

 

[Xzi]

McConnell was very clear about the historical precedent

What he made very clear is that McConnell is 100% full of shit, 100% of the time. Republicans always think Democrats are too timid to play the "eye for an eye" game, but it would seem not this time. Assuming Biden actually goes through with expanding the court, anyway. There's still no guarantee of that, it's only in the "exploratory committee" stage.

Having a lifetime term that cannot be revoked allows the SC to be impartial

Funny joke. ACB and Trump's other appointees are already declining to recuse themselves from a case with massive conflicts of interest for them. They were put on the court with a mission to rule in favor of corporations and the wealthy whenever applicable/possible.

Not sure what the solution here is, but having them beholden to the administration isn't one of them.

That's only the case if their terms are two or four years. No reason they couldn't be eight or even twelve-year terms instead, but lifetime appointments just aren't gonna work any more with how polarized Americans are.

 

[Foxi4]

What he made very clear is that McConnell is 100% full of shit, 100% of the time. Republicans always think Democrats are too timid to play the "eye for an eye" game, but it would seem not this time. Assuming Biden actually goes through with expanding the court, anyway. There's still no guarantee of that, it's only in the "exploratory committee" stage.

Funny joke. ACB and Trump's other appointees are already declining to recuse themselves from a case with massive conflicts of interest for them. They were put on the court with a mission to rule in favor of corporations and the wealthy whenever applicable/possible.

That's only the case if their terms are two or four years. No reason they couldn't be eight or even twelve-year terms instead, but lifetime appointments just aren't gonna work any more with how polarized Americans are.

They seemed to work just fine from 1789 up until now, but *now* America is polarised, more polarised than during the Civil War, or during the two World Wars, or during the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, or... Okay, settle down.

As for recusing or not recusing themselves, again, the justices are supposed to be impartial. I have serious doubts whether they were asked to recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest or because they're Trump nominees. They're not meant to sway in the wind like blades of grass, it doesn't matter if someone's asking them to recuse themselves or not, that's their determination to make. I'd have to look into the details of the case to myself to comment in more detail, what are we talking about here? Shell? Mail-in ballots? She's been asked to recuse herself on a number of occasions, I'm not surprised she started ignoring such calls, as she should.

 

[Xzi]

They seemed to work just fine from 1789 up until now, but *now* America is polarised, more polarised than during the Civil War, or during the two World Wars, or during the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, or... Okay, settle down.

Did you sleep through January sixth? It's a deep polarization, and a new type of polarization now that we've realized one of two major political parties is susceptible to joining cults of personality.

As for recusing or not recusing themselves, again, the justices are supposed to be impartial. I have serious doubts whether they were asked to recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest or because they're Trump nominees.

The people arguing one side of the case paid for advertisements for all three of his appointees in favor of confirming them. "Americans For Prosperity," a Koch-funded group. It's a very clear-cut conflict of interest, and ACB promised to recuse herself from such cases during her confirmation hearing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...k-money-case-of-koch-funded-group/ar-BB1g7iVQ

 

[Foxi4]

Did you sleep through January sixth? It's a deep polarization, and a new type of polarization now that we've realized one of two major political parties is susceptible to joining cults of personality.

It would be easy to sleep through, in all fairness. I've never seen a more orderly insurrection in my entire life - not only they were let in through the front door, they also left right in time for curfew. Shame about the podium and all the poop.

The people arguing one side of the case paid for advertisements for all three of his appointees in favor of confirming them. "Americans For Prosperity," a Koch-funded group. It's a very clear-cut conflict of interest, and she promised to recuse herself from such cases during her confirmation hearing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...k-money-case-of-koch-funded-group/ar-BB1g7iVQ

You do know that confirming or not confirming a judge is up to the Senate, not the general public, right? I honestly don't know why they even ran ads at all, I'm not sure what kind of effect that might even have in such an insular environment. Regardless, their appointments are lifetime - do they receive any benefits from this side of the case *right now*? If not, they are not beholden to that side in any way, unless you believe in some silly scout's promise or somesuch nonsense. A conflict of interest occurs when something is given and can be taken away - you don't want a judge to rule on a case that affects their bottom line. This does not affect the judge's bottom line - they're already appointed. Your only argument here is weird sentimentality towards a former donor which would have to be evidenced further. Do you think the judges "owe" that side a favourable verdict? If so, under what threat are they if the verdict is unfavourable, exactly?

 

[Xzi]

I've never seen a more orderly insurrection in my entire life

Five dead and hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage, but sure let's just play make believe.

You do know that confirming or not confirming a judge is up to the Senate, not the general public, right? I honestly don't know why they even ran ads at all, I'm not sure what kind of effect that might even have in such an insular environment.

I guess the idea was to make people call their Senators about confirming? But yeah obviously with the Republican majority they would've voted to confirm even a convicted pedophile, so somewhat pointless on the Kochs' part.

A conflict of interest occurs when something is given and can be taken away - you don't want a judge to rule on a case that affects their bottom line. This does not affect the judge's bottom line - they're already appointed.

Money was spent on their behalf, and now they'll rule in favor of the people who spent that money (let's not pretend otherwise). That's as clear-cut a conflict of interest as there's ever been for a justice. And it isn't about the individual's "bottom line," it's about preserving the legitimacy and integrity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public.

 

[urherenow]

There's only one party in the United States that is actively trying to overturn an election because they didn't like the results, and it's not the Democratic Party.

wrong answer. The democratic party did it for MORE than 4 years (started before he was even sworn in), and 2 false impeachments. Try again.

The nonsense spectacle in DC aside, Everything Trump tried was through the courts. Almost all were done (and lost) before the inauguration. Is he still even trying? I honestly don't know. It hasn't warranted mention in the news in a couple of months already, and I live overseas. That's a far stretch from 4 years and literally inventing lies to try overthrowing a sitting president.

 

[Foxi4]

I guess the idea was to make people call their Senators about confirming? But yeah obviously with the Republican majority they would've voted to confirm even a convicted pedophile, so somewhat pointless on the Kochs' part.

Money was spent on their behalf, and now they'll rule in favor of the people who spent that money (let's not pretend otherwise). That's as clear-cut a conflict of interest as there's ever been for a justice. And it isn't about the individual's "bottom line," it's about preserving the legitimacy and integrity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public.

Why? Why would they do that? Their appointment is lifetime, they stand nothing to gain or lose in this scenario. Things would be different if they were ruling on a matter that directly involves them, for instance if they owned a significant amount of stock of a given company involved in a suit and the outcome of the suit could have a monetary consequence to them. If the justices have no present obligation or duty, financial or otherwise, to one side of the suit then there is no conflict of interest. If they are not involved at present, they are not required to recuse themselves. Conflicts of interest are not established based upon former association, they're established on current pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest. If the former was the case, a donor could theoretically donate towards all candidates that ever arise, however little, and effectively shield themselves from any prosecution ever. That's silly. In order to establish a conflict of interest, you have to outline *an interest*, some kind of role that generates loyalty in the present. "They owe the donors a favour" is not satisfactory evidence, it's conjecture.

Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual finds himself or herself occupying two social roles simultaneously which generate opposing benefits or loyalties. The interests involved can be pecuniary or non-pecuniary. The existence of such conflicts is an objective fact, not a state of mind, and does not in itself indicate any lapse or moral error. However, especially where a decision is being taken in a fiduciary context, it is important that the contending interests be clearly identified and the process for separating them is rigorously established. Typically, this will involve the conflicted individual either giving up one of the conflicting roles or else recusing himself or herself from the particular decision-making process that is in question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

As far as practice of law is concerned, a legal expert may find themselves in a conflict of interest if they're put in a position of working on a case for or against a former client. This is not the case here from what you outlined - a political donor is not a former client.

The basic formulation of the conflicts of interest rule is that a conflict exists "if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer's own interests or by the lawyers' duties to another current client, a former client, or a third person." The duty of loyalty requires an attorney not to act directly adverse to an existing client, even on an unrelated matter where the lawyer has no client confidences. Such a loyalty conflict has been labeled a concurrent conflict of interest. The duty of confidentiality is protected in rules prohibiting so-called successive conflicts of interest, when a lawyer proposes to act adversely to the interests of a former client. A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter is precluded from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client. These two basic formulations – that a lawyer may not act directly adverse to a current client or adverse to a former client on a substantially related matter – form the cornerstone of modern legal conflicts of interest rules.

Tl;dr If you claim conflict of interest, outline which two interests that exist currently are conflicting.

 

[Xzi]

Why? Why would they do that?

Why will they do that, you mean? I dunno, perhaps out of some misguided sense of loyalty, to the Kochs or Trump. Perhaps because all their friends, family, and business associates are either Republicans, wealthy, or both, and they'd also benefit from such a decision. Perhaps because Kavanaugh is easy to blackmail and ACB's religious cult worships the rich.

If the justices have no present obligation or duty, financial or otherwise, to one side of the suit then there is no conflict of interest.

So unless money is changing hands inside the courtroom and while court is in session, there is no conflict of interest? That's bullshit and you know it. Money was spent on their behalf. That creates obligation, or expectation of reciprocation. Trump's appointees cannot be trusted to remain impartial in this case, and therefore there's a conflict of interest.