4 ms·

Prediction: trump wins presidency. Midterms swing hard towards Dems. Next president's Congress reforms supreme court.

by bloopernova 2y ago

lotsofpulp 2y ago
How would a president reform the judicial branch? That power is in the legislature's hand.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  After today? Easy: the entire court is loaded into a black helicopter in the middle of the night and never seen again. The White House spokesperson says, winking, “The White House officially has no comment.” This quickly becomes a standard ritual at the changing of each administration, and an accepted job hazard for incoming justices.
  - sergiogjr 2y ago
    Oh, look, the moment decisions don't go the way I agree with, we throw democracy and institutions out of the window. Who's a "threat to democracy" now? Good on you!
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      Not a window, a helicopter. I’m not saying it should be done, but that’s the reductio ad absurdium this decision leaves us with. The aspiring despot’s toolbox has been converted into a full-blown machine shop.
  - the_lonely_road 2y ago
    When did the discourse become so childish? Official acts is pretty clear and all of the fascination with the new standard will be derived from the gray area where reasonable adults disagree but the president can’t just order a bombing run on Toronto or murder political opponents now anymore then he could last week.
    - karmajunkie 2y ago
      i think the thrust of the courts opinion today is that it’s not at all clear what’s official and what’s not and even if you can delineate what’s official, prosecutors are unable to use anything that isn’t public record and “unofficial” in their case, which eviscerates any real ability to enforce accountability.
    - hughesjj 2y ago
      In the dissent, they call out that what Nixon did wouldn't have been prosecutable under this interpretation. If you can't enter private comms into evidence, all a president need do is privately communicate the disappearance of someone, domestic or foreign, and that evidence would be barred from any possible court cases. Of course, you could still impeach, but no criminal prosecution could occur. If you're 35, at worst (legally) you'd lose out on your remaining term. The implications of this ruling are absurd, and rife for abuse, should one decide to go rouge.
    - everforward 2y ago
      I read the ruling, and my takeaway is that either a) "official acts" is so overly broad that virtually any action could be done as an "official act", or b) "official acts" is very, very unclear. E.g. from the court's opinion: > Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re- sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct. It's not a huge leap to infer that the President, as Commander in Chief, is engaging in official conduct any time they ask the army (or its many contractors) to do something. The only thing the Constitution says is: > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States There's nothing in there that says they can't be used domestically, or for what purposes the President can control them. There could be some quibbling about what "actual Service" means, but I suspect it becomes recursive to "whatever the president says actual Service is". The specific reason that everyone is freaking out is this part of the opinion: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to ju- dicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. I.e. the president's motive is unquestionable, the only question is whether the action was taken via some power granted to the President. If it is, the President has immunity, and the president has _very_ broad powers.
- bloopernova 2y ago
  D'oh! I meant during the next president's term, a friendly Congress does it.
- SubiculumCode 2y ago
  What the other guy said, but also there's court packing.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    They have to be confirmed by the legislature.
aklemm 2y ago
You think Dems will win elections and get seated if Trump has another term?
- docmars 2y ago
  I think with as many Dems that are losing faith in their party and seeing the bigger picture by moving to Trump, I doubt they would this time around.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    I'm unaware of any disaffected democrats moving to Trump. At most, they're not voting or voting third party. I'm sure that's there's a handful, but it's not what I'd consider even a miniscule population doing so.
BadHumans 2y ago
Prediction: Trump wins presidency and there are no more fair elections.
- austin-cheney 2y ago
  If Trump wins he will be term limited by constitution irrespective of any election that comes after.
  - laidoffamazon 2y ago
    I think you're overestimating the impact that will have on whatever he would decide to do, given the events of today.
    - austin-cheney 2y ago
      The only official act that could, in theory, bypass this is a declaration of Martial Law that moves out the next inauguration. This has not been tested and likely wouldn’t work. Just because a crazy mob attacked congress at the behest of Trump does not mean official institutions would do so even if so ordered.
      - laidoffamazon 2y ago
        Him and his supporters have said openly that they want to refill the institutions, including the military [0], with politically aligned appointees. [0] https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-vows-fire-generals-push-wokeness-cant-woke-military https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-vows-fire-generals-push-...
        austin-cheney 2y ago
        Yes, he has said all kinds of nonsense that had no means to ever materialize. For example I don’t see Mexico paying for a border wall.

Prediction: trump wins presidency. Midterms swing hard towards Dems. Next president's Congress reforms supreme court.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

How would a president reform the judicial branch? That power is in the legislature's hand.

mullingitover 2y ago
After today? Easy: the entire court is loaded into a black helicopter in the middle of the night and never seen again. The White House spokesperson says, winking, “The White House officially has no comment.” This quickly becomes a standard ritual at the changing of each administration, and an accepted job hazard for incoming justices.
- sergiogjr 2y ago
  Oh, look, the moment decisions don't go the way I agree with, we throw democracy and institutions out of the window. Who's a "threat to democracy" now? Good on you!
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    Not a window, a helicopter. I’m not saying it should be done, but that’s the reductio ad absurdium this decision leaves us with. The aspiring despot’s toolbox has been converted into a full-blown machine shop.
- the_lonely_road 2y ago
  When did the discourse become so childish? Official acts is pretty clear and all of the fascination with the new standard will be derived from the gray area where reasonable adults disagree but the president can’t just order a bombing run on Toronto or murder political opponents now anymore then he could last week.
  - karmajunkie 2y ago
    i think the thrust of the courts opinion today is that it’s not at all clear what’s official and what’s not and even if you can delineate what’s official, prosecutors are unable to use anything that isn’t public record and “unofficial” in their case, which eviscerates any real ability to enforce accountability.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    In the dissent, they call out that what Nixon did wouldn't have been prosecutable under this interpretation. If you can't enter private comms into evidence, all a president need do is privately communicate the disappearance of someone, domestic or foreign, and that evidence would be barred from any possible court cases. Of course, you could still impeach, but no criminal prosecution could occur. If you're 35, at worst (legally) you'd lose out on your remaining term. The implications of this ruling are absurd, and rife for abuse, should one decide to go rouge.
  - everforward 2y ago
    I read the ruling, and my takeaway is that either a) "official acts" is so overly broad that virtually any action could be done as an "official act", or b) "official acts" is very, very unclear. E.g. from the court's opinion: > Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re- sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct. It's not a huge leap to infer that the President, as Commander in Chief, is engaging in official conduct any time they ask the army (or its many contractors) to do something. The only thing the Constitution says is: > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States There's nothing in there that says they can't be used domestically, or for what purposes the President can control them. There could be some quibbling about what "actual Service" means, but I suspect it becomes recursive to "whatever the president says actual Service is". The specific reason that everyone is freaking out is this part of the opinion: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to ju- dicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. I.e. the president's motive is unquestionable, the only question is whether the action was taken via some power granted to the President. If it is, the President has immunity, and the president has _very_ broad powers.
bloopernova 2y ago
D'oh! I meant during the next president's term, a friendly Congress does it.
SubiculumCode 2y ago
What the other guy said, but also there's court packing.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  They have to be confirmed by the legislature.

aklemm 2y ago

You think Dems will win elections and get seated if Trump has another term?

docmars 2y ago
I think with as many Dems that are losing faith in their party and seeing the bigger picture by moving to Trump, I doubt they would this time around.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  I'm unaware of any disaffected democrats moving to Trump. At most, they're not voting or voting third party. I'm sure that's there's a handful, but it's not what I'd consider even a miniscule population doing so.

BadHumans 2y ago

Prediction: Trump wins presidency and there are no more fair elections.

austin-cheney 2y ago
If Trump wins he will be term limited by constitution irrespective of any election that comes after.
- laidoffamazon 2y ago
  I think you're overestimating the impact that will have on whatever he would decide to do, given the events of today.
  - austin-cheney 2y ago
    The only official act that could, in theory, bypass this is a declaration of Martial Law that moves out the next inauguration. This has not been tested and likely wouldn’t work. Just because a crazy mob attacked congress at the behest of Trump does not mean official institutions would do so even if so ordered.
    - laidoffamazon 2y ago
      Him and his supporters have said openly that they want to refill the institutions, including the military [0], with politically aligned appointees. [0] https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-vows-fire-generals-push-wokeness-cant-woke-military https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-vows-fire-generals-push-...
      - austin-cheney 2y ago
        Yes, he has said all kinds of nonsense that had no means to ever materialize. For example I don’t see Mexico paying for a border wall.