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

[Foxi4]

We're simply not gonna agree on what fulfills those requirements. Gifts provided to justices above and beyond a certain monetary value constitute a conflict of interest that's ongoing until the debt is repaid. You want to pretend it's over and done with, but the obligation remains. The Kochs would have undue influence over conservative justices even without having spent tens of thousands of dollars on air time for them, which just further solidifies the case for term limits.

My problem with your reasoning is that this standard disqualifies every single justice as all justices ran nomination campaigns at one point or another, presumably. You are creating an environment where donating to everyone across the board makes one untouchable. We would have a very different discussion if Mr.X gave money or an item of high value to Justice Y, to hand. This is not the case here, we're talking about advertising via a third party. To put it in different terms, if I as a private citizen donate money to a PAC, that PAC in turn spends that money to advertise on behalf of a candidate, and later down the line I happen to be in court and that candidate is presiding over the case, you cannot say that I've bribed the judge with a straight face. The judge has no financial interest, or any other interest, in my case, regardless of whether I supported their nomination or not. We are multiple steps removed from what I would consider a bribe and on completely different planets when it comes to what could be considered a financial interest in the outcome. The relevant part of the equation is the interest in the outcome of the case, of which there is none here.

 

[Xzi]

My problem with your reasoning is that this standard disqualifies every single justice as all justices ran nomination campaigns at one point or another.

Err...not really. Justices lobby for themselves at their confirmation hearing, sure, but running full-blown campaigns? Nah.

To put it in different terms, if I as a private citizen donate money to a PAC, that PAC in turn sends that money to advertise on behalf of a candidate, and later down the line I happen to be in court and that candidate is presiding over the case, you cannot say that I've bribed the judge with a straight face.

There are several degrees of separation in your example that don't exist for the case in question. AFP ran the advertisements for the justices, and AFP is arguing one side of this case. They're going into this with the expectation that Trump's appointees will rule in their favor, and not without reason.

 

[Foxi4]

Err...not really. Justices lobby for themselves at their confirmation hearing, sure, but running full-blown campaigns? Nah.

There are several degrees of separation in your example that don't exist for the case in question. AFP ran the advertisements for the justices, and AFP is arguing one side of this case. They're going into this with the expectation that Trump's appointees will rule in their favor, and not without reason.

There are multiple reasons why they would expect that which do not involve any impropriety. Don't mistake my reluctance to accept your argument with antagonism to your case - I can see how a conflict of interest *might* arise in such a case, you just haven't demonstrated one in a way that would fit within the accepted guidelines of what constitutes one, or at least in a way that I would find satisfactory. If we were arguing about the Shell case, I'd agree that ACB should recuse herself since her father spent 30 years as an attorney for Shell Oil and that proximity does raise eyebrows, even if she herself has no interest in the outcome. This case? Not so sure, I would really have to do a deep dive on it to make a determination. Based on what you said, I'm unconvinced.

 

[Lacius]

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.

• The Senate is an unrepresentative body where a vast majority of citizens are represented by a minority of Senators.
• The House has a gerrymandering problem.
• The Electoral College gives more power to some citizens over others based on where they live, and a minority of citizens often choose the president in part because rural/Republican places have more voting power.
• A Supreme Court Justice is nominated by a president chosen by the broken Electoral College, and they can be blocked by a single Senator from a broken Senate due to arbitrary and inconsistent rules dictated by that Senator alone. In 2016, the rule was "Democratic presidents don't get to have their nominees voted on."
• In addition to the issues above, there are inherent problems with lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.

There is nothing untoward about wanting to fix these problems. The system is becoming increasingly undemocratic, and members of the Democratic Party are trying to fix that. As a result of the problems above, conservatives have a 6:3 majority on the Supreme Court, but just about every position on the left has majority support from its citizens. However, there is something very untoward about trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and there's no excuse.

Please don't confuse anti-Democratic for anti-democratic. That's the mistake you're making.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

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

The former was an attack on a democratic institution (our elections, the peaceful transfer of power, the idea of democracy in general, etc.). The latter two were not.

 

[Foxi4]

• The Senate is an unrepresentative body where a vast majority of citizens are represented by a minority of Senators.
• The House has a gerrymandering problem.
• The Electoral College gives more power to some citizens over others based on where they live, and a minority of citizens often choose the president in part because rural/Republican places have more voting power.
• A Supreme Court Justice is nominated by a president chosen by the broken Electoral College, and they can be blocked by a single Senator from a broken Senate due to arbitrary and inconsistent rules dictated by that Senator alone. In 2016, the rule was "Democratic presidents don't get to have their nominees voted on."
• In addition to the issues above, there are inherent problems with lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.

There is nothing untoward about wanting to fix these problems. The system is becoming increasingly undemocratic, and members of the Democratic Party are trying to fix that. As a result of the problems above, conservatives have a 6:3 majority on the Supreme Court, but just about every position on the left has majority support from its citizens. However, there is something very untoward about trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and there's no excuse.

Please don't confuse anti-Democratic for anti-democratic. That's the mistake you're making.

I like how the fix seems to be "put more of our guys in there". Thankfully all of those proposals will die on the Senate floor, which is the correct outcome.

 

[Lacius]

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.

The Democratic Party never tried to overturn Trump's election. Opposing his deplorable policies and impeaching him when he committed impeachable offenses are not attempting to overturn an election.

The Democratic Party didn't like the results of the 2016 election, but they accepted the results of the 2016 election because they aren't an anti-democratic party.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I like how the fix seems to be "put more of our guys in there". Thankfully all of those proposals will die on the Senate floor, which is the correct outcome.

We don't know what the recommended fixes will be. Considering everything I said above though, I don't know how a person could say putting more Democratically-appointed justices onto the Supreme Court is untoward.

 

[Xzi]

I can see how a conflict of interest *might* arise in such a case, you just haven't demonstrated one in a way that would fit within the accepted guidelines of what constitutes one, or at least in a way that I would find satisfactory.

It's a pivotal case that will impact the integrity of our elections going forward, so even if it doesn't rise to the level of conflict of interest in your mind, any faint whiff of impropriety should be cleared from the air before it proceeds.

 

[Foxi4]

We don't know what the recommended fixes will be. Considering everything I said above though, I don't know how a person could say putting more Democratically-appointed justices onto the Supreme Court is untoward.

Call it what it is - packing the court. The plan is to add seats in the absence of any vacancies to tip the balance in favour of the ruling party - that's fascistic. They don't want a 50/50 split, which would at least suggest a degree of good intent, there's a strong desire to add four additional seats to flip the script from 6-3 to 6-7. I'm sure the completely, totally non-partisan commission Biden's administration has put on the case will come up with an excellent solution that isn't a thinly-veiled attempt at seizing control of the highest court in the land, I can't wait to read their report.

It's a pivotal case that will impact the integrity of our elections going forward, so even if it doesn't rise to the level of conflict of interest in your mind, any faint whiff of impropriety should be cleared from the air before it proceeds.

Controversy is not sufficient grounds for recusal.

 

[Valwinz]

Biden is sick

Spitting on thousands of dead Americans, some of them forever entombed below the waters of the Pacific, in a pathetic attempt to frame January 6 in an absurd way is disgusting, unpresidential, & unAmerican.

— AJZ (@ajzeigler) April 29, 2021

 

[Lacius]

Call it what it is - packing the court. The plan is to add seats in the absence of any vacancies to tip the balance in favour of the ruling party - that's fascistic. They don't want a 50/50 split, which would at least suggest a degree of good intent, there's a strong desire to add four additional seats to flip the script from 6-3 to 6-7. I'm sure the completely, totally non-partisan commission Biden's administration has put on the case will come up with an excellent solution that isn't a thinly-veiled attempt at seizing control of the highest court in the land, I can't wait to read their report.
Controversy is not sufficient grounds for recusal.

Let's not beat around the bush. Republican attacks on the 2020 election are anti-democratic and were justifiably compared to "establishing the fourth reich." Lol at you comparing pro-democratic efforts by the Democratic Party to fix the Supreme Court, Senate, etc. to "establishing the fourth reich." Nobody on the Democratic side is talking about overturning elections or storming the Capitol.

I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view what the Democratic members are doing as anything other than pro-democracy, and I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view Republican attacks on American democracy as anything other than untoward. What you're doing is textbook whataboutism, and it's not even applicable whataboutism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Biden is sick
https://twitter.com/ajzeigler/status/1387565599555997696

Biden didn't mention Pearl Harbor, but he did correctly point out that, when it comes to attacks specifically against American democracy, January 6 was the worst since the Civil War, which also started as an attack on the results of a presidential election. Try again.

 

[Foxi4]

Let's not beat around the bush. Republican attacks on the 2020 election are anti-democratic and were justifiably compared to "establishing the fourth reich." Lol at you comparing pro-democratic efforts by the Democratic Party to fix the Supreme Court, Senate, etc. to "establishing the fourth reich." Nobody on the Democratic side is talking about overturning elections or storming the Capitol.

I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view what the Democratic members are doing as anything other than pro-democracy, and I'm not sure what world one has to be living in to view Republican attacks on American democracy as anything other than untoward. What you're doing is textbook whataboutism, and it's not even applicable whataboutism.

>Pro-democratic efforts at fixing the court
>Adding justices by government mandate

...weren't you the one who *just* outlined the difference between "pro-Democratic" and "pro-democratic"? When did they ask the public if it wants them to pack the court? I must've missed that referendum. Polls show that the public is against the president supporting a court-packing scheme - 65% against 31% for, according to Mason-Dixon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mason-dixon-poll-americans-reject-court-packing-11619200597

This is way up from when the court-packing question was asked by Siena College on election day when 58% opposed it and 31% supported it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/politics/biden-trump-times-poll.html

It's not a "pro-democratic" move since the public opposes court packing, overwhelmingly so. It is "pro-Democratic" because it gives them more power on the sole basis of them saying that they're in deservement of it.

 

[urherenow]

The Democratic Party never tried to overturn Trump's election. Opposing his deplorable policies and impeaching him when he committed impeachable offenses are not attempting to overturn an election.

Starwman bullshit as usual. Tell me one thing about the first impeachment that had to do with his policies. One thing that wasn't straight up FABRICATED. Which impeachable offense did he commit again? Not a goddamn thing. Stayed in office. Documents leading to the impeachment proved to be made up. Try again.

and more on "his" policies. You mean among which was to actually enforce policies put forth by previous administrations, including Joe and Obama? Yea, tell me how the border is working out now... deplorable policies indeed

 

[Lacius]

>Pro-democratic efforts at fixing the court
>Adding justices by government mandate

...weren't you the one who *just* outlined the difference between "pro-Democratic" and "pro-democratic"? When did they ask the public if it wants them to pack the court? I must've missed that referendum. Polls show that the public is against the president supporting a court-packing scheme - 65% against versus 31% for, according to Mason-Dixon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mason-dixon-poll-americans-reject-court-packing-11619200597

This is way up from when the same question was asked by Sienna college on election day when 58% opposed it and 31% supported it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/us/politics/biden-trump-times-poll.html

It's not a "pro-democratic" move since the public opposes court packing, overwhelmingly so. It is "pro-Democratic" because it gives them more power on the sole basis of them saying that they're in deservement of it.

The Supreme Court does not represent the voters who elected the Presidents who appoint justices and the Senators who confirm justices. The Supreme Court has a 6:3 split in the conservative direction, despite the fact that a majority of voters voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, and a majority of voters voted for Democratic senators when looking at all of the sitting Senators between 2016 to now and their elections. I would also remind you that the rule for a long time has arbitrarily been "Democratic presidents don't get to appoint justices." I'm not sure why someone would think this is okay.

As for your argument that anything about what the Democratic members might do to the Supreme Court is undemocratic, I'll remind you to re-read what I posted and point out that the Democratic members wanting to do this were democratically elected, lol.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Starwman bullshit as usual. Tell me one thing about the first impeachment that had to do with his policies. One thing that wasn't straight up FABRICATED. Which impeachable offense did he commit again? Not a goddamn thing. Stayed in office. Documents leading to the impeachment proved to be made up. Try again.

Trump tried to elicit foreign election interference by extorting a foreign government. That's why he was impeached the first time.

 

[urherenow]

The Supreme Court does not represent the voters who elected the Presidents who appoint justices and the Senators who confirm justices. The Supreme Court has a 6:3 split in the conservative direction, despite the fact that a majority of voters voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, and a majority of voters voted for Democratic senators when looking at all of the sitting Senators between 2016 to now and their elections. I would also remind you that the rule for a long time has arbitrarily been "Democratic presidents don't get to appoint justices." I'm not sure why someone would think this is okay.

As for your argument that anything about what the Democratic members might do to the Supreme Court is undemocratic, I'll remind you to re-read what I posted and point out that the Democratic members wanting to do this were democratically elected, lol.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Trump tried to elicit foreign election interference by extorting a foreign government. That's why he was impeached the first time.

um... try again. All false.

 

[Lacius]

um... try again. All false.

Screaming "false" without any context doesn't move the conversation forward in any meaningful way. What did I say specifically that was false? Try again.

 

[urherenow]

Screaming "false" without any context doesn't move the conversation forward in any meaningful way. What did I say specifically that was false? Try again.

Playing stupid doesn't move the conversation either. You replied to me with two short sentences. If you can't figure it out, well, that explains a lot

 

[Foxi4]

The Supreme Court does not represent the voters who elected the Presidents who appoint justices and the Senators who confirm justices. The Supreme Court has a 6:3 split in the conservative direction, despite the fact that a majority of voters voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 2016, and a majority of voters voted for Democratic senators when looking at all of the sitting Senators between 2016 to now and their elections. I would also remind you that the rule for a long time has arbitrarily been "Democratic presidents don't get to appoint justices." I'm not sure why someone would think this is okay.

As for your argument that anything about what the Democratic members might do to the Supreme Court is undemocratic, I'll remind you to re-read what I posted and point out that the Democratic members wanting to do this were democratically elected, lol.

Being democratically elected officials does not preclude them from using fascistic power grabs to gain even more control than they already have. Adding justices to the court because they say so is in fact a fascistic power grab - if they claim that the court needs to be rebalanced, they have to provide evidence to demonstrate that the current rulings are skewed. That'd be rather hard to do considering the newly-appointed conservative judges did not rule in favour of all conservative causes as the political left expected them to, they remained fairly balanced in their rulings. The public is against you on this, overwhelmingly so, which de facto means any attempt at packing the court goes directly against the wishes of We The People. It'd be done in service of the party, which is why it will rightfully die in the Senate, as it should.

 

[Lacius]

Playing stupid doesn't move the conversation either. You replied to me with two short sentences. If you can't figure it out, well, that explains a lot

Your previous post was essentially just "nope," so there's not much I can say in response without having an argument with myself, and as much as I like reading and re-reading what I type, I don't think anybody else here wants me to do that.

Please respond to me directly or tag me if you decide to post a substantive response to anything I've said. Thank you.

 

[Valwinz]

IMAO
CNN’s Democrat audience gave Biden a lower positive reaction than Trump

View of speech watchers, per CNN poll. The speech watchers tonight overall leaned Democratic. pic.twitter.com/9VslE8ir7Z

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 29, 2021

 

[urherenow]

Your previous post was essentially just "nope," so there's not much I can say in response without having an argument with myself, and as much as I like reading and re-reading what I type, I don't think anybody else here wants me to do that.

Please respond to me directly or tag me if you decide to post a substantive response to anything I've said. Thank you.

the entire first impeachment was predicated under false pretenses from the beginning: a fake dossier.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-dossier-deceit-11595027626
Just as Trump said, the whole thing was a sham. Had he been guilty of an impeachable offense, it wouldn't have been dismissed in the senate. End of story. But you do you and keep clinging on to whatever lies meet your notion of him.