My parents are total Trump supporters. They admitted that Trump's tax cuts didn't shit for them but they don't care. Many liberals in this forum have admitted that the Democrats don't do shit when they have power (the exception bring @ThacoBell who actually benefited personally from Obamacare and I respect his viewpoint). The Dems rolled over on the Supreme Court issue and I personally think it's because they now have a foil to blame for not getting what they really don't want anyway. Wake up people! I try to wake up my parents and I also try to wake up Democrats. I'm truly sorry if it seems like I agree with nobody, but that's pretty much where I stand...
What was Obama supposed to do, send in armed guards to force McConnell to hold a hearing on Garland?? The only thing he could have done was recess appoint him, which has ALSO never been done. And he would have been accused of an unconstitutional act for doing so. Once again, the system is predicated on the actors in SOME degree in good faith. And Republicans threw it out the window.
They weren't obligated to vote for any particular Obama nominee. What they WERE obligated to do is consider Garland or anyone else Obama put up after. And they just said "we aren't doing that anymore, no more Democratic Supreme Court picks". It wasn't Hillary's or Trump's pick to make, regardless of who won. Obama was elected to a 4-year term. And everyone who voted for him had one of those years chopped off. 3/4s of a vote, if you will.
There are a lot more people trying to cross than there were under Obama because of the situation in Central America. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
Garland's stalled nomination was indeed an unethical move, it changes the long standing rules for short term gain and that's incredibly dangerous. I worry a lot of the talk we see from the Democrats about doing similar moves like packing the Supreme Court or abolishing the electoral college to be responses more to Garland's nomination than to Trump.
But the proper response is not for both parties to start cheating each other by manipulating the rules as they see fit, but for this act to be acknowledged for what it was and to prevent it from happening again. I'm not sure if taking Gorusch off the bench would be the right move, it's not his fault really, but some sort of legislation preventing this sort of thing would be helpful. Say, if a party stalls like this until the end of a Presidential term the nomination gets chosen by that Presidents party instead.
But the proper response is not for both parties to start cheating each other by manipulating the rules as they see fit, but for this act to be acknowledged for what it was and to prevent it from happening again. I'm not sure if taking Gorusch off the bench would be the right move, it's not his fault really, but some sort of legislation preventing this sort of thing would be helpful. Say, if a party stalls like this until the end of a Presidential term the nomination gets chosen by that Presidents party instead.
In general, I agree with this - but I dont think the Democrats can afford to risk that the GOP will ever play fair again as it relates to the supreme court. By destroying that centuries old institutional norm, it has really damaged the good faith that the GOP can be trusted to act appropriately when they arent in control of the White House.
Unfortunately, it will take the GOP falling on their sword to even attempt to restore good faith to the supreme court nomination process. They need to either remove a sitting justice, or replace the next one with a left-leaning moderate. Anything short of that, and Democrats have no incentive to play fair.
This is all pretty easily seen in Game Theory. Both sides had a real vested interest to play fair. As soon as one side starts cheating, the only appropriate response is for the other side to cheat as well (and, unfortunately - to do it better than the other side).
Garland's stalled nomination was indeed an unethical move, it changes the long standing rules for short term gain and that's incredibly dangerous. I worry a lot of the talk we see from the Democrats about doing similar moves like packing the Supreme Court or abolishing the electoral college to be responses more to Garland's nomination than to Trump.
But the proper response is not for both parties to start cheating each other by manipulating the rules as they see fit, but for this act to be acknowledged for what it was and to prevent it from happening again. I'm not sure if taking Gorusch off the bench would be the right move, it's not his fault really, but some sort of legislation preventing this sort of thing would be helpful. Say, if a party stalls like this until the end of a Presidential term the nomination gets chosen by that Presidents party instead.
I agree sort of and appreciate the recognition of a problem. That being said, how could Democrats ever trust Republicans again? Their actions have forced us to retaliate. There has been zero responsibility or acknowledgement of the wrong done from the Republican side and they are continuing to do this sort of thing. McConnell just changed the rules, again, to pack the courts literally last week.
Trump was sort of an overreactiion to having a black President, I guess. The horror was apparently unbearable so an extremist like Trump was bearable I guess. It's silly because he was a Republican basically in his policies.
Well guess what, now Dems have been punched in the face specifically by McConnell and Trump and voters are going to do whatever it takes to set things right especially since no Republican is willing to lift a finger to acknowledge mistakes and transgressions. Yep, court packing, abolishing the electoral college, passing voter protections, Medicare for all. Those sort of things will be appealing in these times. And that's still not enough payback.
My parents are total Trump supporters. They admitted that Trump's tax cuts didn't shit for them but they don't care. Many liberals in this forum have admitted that the Democrats don't do shit when they have power (the exception bring @ThacoBell who actually benefited personally from Obamacare and I respect his viewpoint). The Dems rolled over on the Supreme Court issue and I personally think it's because they now have a foil to blame for not getting what they really don't want anyway. Wake up people! I try to wake up my parents and I also try to wake up Democrats. I'm truly sorry if it seems like I agree with nobody, but that's pretty much where I stand...
What was Obama supposed to do, send in armed guards to force McConnell to hold a hearing on Garland?? The only thing he could have done was recess appoint him, which has ALSO never been done. And he would have been accused of an unconstitutional act for doing so. Once again, the system is predicated on the actors in SOME degree in good faith. And Republicans threw it out the window.
They weren't obligated to vote for any particular Obama nominee. What they WERE obligated to do is consider Garland or anyone else Obama put up after. And they just said "we aren't doing that anymore, no more Democratic Supreme Court picks". It wasn't Hillary's or Trump's pick to make, regardless of who won. Obama was elected to a 4-year term. And everyone who voted for him had one of those years chopped off. 3/4s of a vote, if you will.
Trump isn't afraid of 'unconstitutional' actions. Why was Obama? I say it's because he and his party didn't care. What better way to disguise the fact that they didn't care about it? Hiding behind 'holiness'. Yeah, right...
I may not be the greatest supporter of the US constitution, but ignoring it is dangerous. If you don't like the rules of a game, is the appropriate response really to ignore the rules and change the referee?
How far would Trump have to go to ring alarm bells? He's taken actions like forcible splitting up of families, indefinite internment, closing of borders and declaring a fake emergency to get funding for a wall. All of those seem to me to be blindingly clear indications of executive government over-reach - yet the party of 'small' government has supported them.
There is no way to "rectify" the Garland seat that went to Gorsuch. Supreme Court picks are a lifetime appointment. Which means it not just something you can fix with the next Presidential election. Gorsuch is going to be on the court for 25 to 30 years. That's generational. The earliest I personally will see that seat come up again, in my estimation, I will be approaching retirement. Scalia's seat coming up was the ONE chance liberals had to prevent the court from becoming a permanent right-wing rubber stamp on major issues. They won the election that put their President in office when the vacancy came up. And we always hear about how elections have consequences. Except, in this case, they didn't. There was no consequence to the Republican Party losing that Presidential election.
Nothing was more significant in Obama's second term than filling that seat. His constitutional authority was nullified. And it was nullified because the Republican Party figured out that there is NO price to be paid for simply throwing out the entire rulebook. There is no mechanism to actually punish or enforce norms on people who decide they aren't going to play by them anymore. And now that they have figured it out, we see it playing out everyday. Take Trump's taxes. The Ways and Means Chair is not "asking" for Trump's tax returns to be turned over to the committee. It isn't a request. It's the law. The chairman has the absolute right to request the taxes of anyone. But do you think they'll get them?? No, of course not, because Trump will order the Treasury Secretary and the IRS not to give them up. What will be the consequence of this?? The answer is absolutely nothing.
Because there are no rules anymore. Republicans have figured out what Cersei Lannister told Littlefinger, which is that "power is power". If you have it, as long as you have the cynicism, lack of shame, and willingness to destroy the fabric of how the government has functioned up to this point, then there is really NOTHING that can stop you from exercising it. Sure, votes still have to take place on certain things, but that is basically all that's left. And yes, even though it is depressing to think about, there is nothing the Democrats can do to rectify the situation by turning the other cheek and hoping the American public "rewards" them for not responding in kind. But frankly, most of them STILL don't understand this, so they will continue to pretend institutions and a sense of comity will save the day, oblivious to the fact that those things are being systematically dismantled.
There is no way to "rectify" the Garland seat that went to Gorsuch. Supreme Court picks are a lifetime appointment. Which means it not just something you can fix with the next Presidential election. Gorsuch is going to be on the court for 25 to 30 years.
Hate to break it to you but he could be on the court for 60 more years. There should definitely be term limits or something for justices. Even though RbG is great and all we really don't need people in their late 80s+ with that much power.
There was no consequence to the Republican Party losing that Presidential election.
Because there are no rules anymore..
Yep. Well it is on our representatives to get justice. Vote accordingly. Primary the wimps, there must be consequences for Republicans flagrant corruption and violations of the Constitution.
Everyone's suggestions about how to rectify the Supreme Court situation are wonderful in theory. They are also total fantasyland. None of them are even going to come within light years of actually taking place. Gorsuch isn't getting removed, Kavanaugh isn't getting impeached, and the Dems won't pack the court even IF they had the swing in power to do so. The BEST you can hope for is a Democratic Senate taking a nomination away from a Republican President in the same manner. And, quite frankly, that scenario simply isn't likely anytime soon either. I mean, Trump isn't going to get reelected if Democrats take back the Senate in 2020. There is no way those two things are going to take place in the same cycle.
In yet another dark turn from authoritarianism towards totalitarianism, the Chinese government is pressuring its citizens to obsessively use a Propaganda Department-developed app called "Study the Great Nation". Students, workers, and government officials are required to use it and can be reprimanded or suffer salary cuts if they don't get high scores on the app. It's a new way of policing people's thoughts and demanding political conformity--and the government is very aggressive about promoting it.
Since its debut this year, Study the Great Nation has become the most downloaded app on Apple’s digital storefront in China, with the state news media saying it has more than 100 million registered users — a reach that would be the envy of any new app’s creators.
But those numbers are driven largely by the party, which ordered thousands of officials across China to ensure that the app penetrates the daily routines of as many citizens as possible, whether they like it or not.
Schools are shaming students with low app scores. Government offices are holding study sessions and forcing workers who fall behind to write reports criticizing themselves. Private companies, hoping to curry favor with party officials, are ranking employees based on their use of the app and awarding top performers the title of “star learner.”
Xi Jinping has already removed term limits on his own office, instituted a phony "crackdown" on corruption to destroy his political rivals, threatening China's neighbors, and started locking up ethnic minorities in Xinjiang in actual, legit concentration camps. Now he's trying to exercise total control over the minds of his people.
I can only imagine what's coming next for China, because these things don't just stop. There are going to be more and more abuses of power as long as Xi and his cronies remain in power.
More incompetence and mismanagement. A few mooches ago I posted all the empty positions like SecDef, and others. Trump demands loyalty to him personally, not America, but you will get no loyalty back he'll happily toss you aside on a whim whenever it suits him. Nielsen is the latest to be tossed aside via tweet. She was not a good person and good riddance but that's just cowardly.
More incompetence and mismanagement. A few mooches ago I posted all the empty positions like SecDef, and others. Trump demands loyalty to him personally, not America, but you will get no loyalty back he'll happily toss you aside on a whim whenever it suits him. Nielsen is the latest to be tossed aside via tweet. She was not a good person and good riddance but that's just cowardly.
This would be good news if it wasn't for the probability that he's going to replace her with someone even worse.
It seems there's also endless supply of fools and opportunists who think "just because he lies, cheats, and stabbed everyone else in the back surely he won't lie to me and stab me in the back!"
More incompetence and mismanagement. A few mooches ago I posted all the empty positions like SecDef, and others. Trump demands loyalty to him personally, not America, but you will get no loyalty back he'll happily toss you aside on a whim whenever it suits him. Nielsen is the latest to be tossed aside via tweet. She was not a good person and good riddance but that's just cowardly.
This would be good news if it wasn't for the probability that he's going to replace her with someone even worse.
All indications are she was removed because she wasn't draconian ENOUGH. As in, there were things even she was unwilling to do that she told Trump were just not possible because they were against the law. And considering she acquiesced to mass kidnapping, you have to seriously wonder what Trump and Stephen Miller have planned next.
Edit: Yep, Trump wants to kidnap more children, and Nielsen said they couldn't do it again:
Edit 2: We are now getting reporting that Trump personally told border agents to break the law and ignore judicial orders, after which their supervisors had to tell them not to listen to the President because they would open themselves up to personal liability.
The woman who lied her way into Mar-a-lago apparently had a device that could detect hidden recording devices. Little is still known about her; it seems nothing she's told interrogators has been confirmed, and unfortunately, one of the interviews had no audio recording due to human error. We still don't know who she really is or what she was there to do, but whatever she was up to, she was anxious not to be overheard.
Republicans are fighting to keep prescription costs high.
Republicans Are Warning Drug Companies Not To Cooperate With A Congressional Investigation
The House Oversight Committee is attempting to study how drug companies set prescription drug prices, but Republicans have advised the industry not to cooperate.
Random interview from CNN (I know - they're the devil, etc, etc). It's an interesting read - and importantly (contrary to what seems like a common opinion in this thread), not a particularly positive story.
I dont think it's exactly negative either. Some of it, anyways. Without more context, Harris's position on the death penalty does look a little clouded, although generally seems like she's trying to do what's right, either institutionally or personally.
Random interview from CNN (I know - they're the devil, etc, etc). It's an interesting read - and importantly (contrary to what seems like a common opinion in this thread), not a particularly positive story.
I dont think it's exactly negative either. Some of it, anyways. Without more context, Harris's position on the death penalty does look a little clouded, although generally seems like she's trying to do what's right, either institutionally or personally.
First off, this article spends 50% of it's time making it seem like Kamala Harris might as well have killed the cop herself. It wasn't until more than halfway through the article the killer even enters the story. Secondly, someone needs to explain to me why killing a cop is more "worthy" of the death penalty than killing a random citizen, because that is CERTAINLY the view of both the police and alot of the people interviewed for this story, if not said outright, then certainly in the attitude being conveyed. And finally, if prosecutors were only going by the opinions of the families of the victims of murders, we would be having public hangings on street corners before juries heard one word about the cases. It's justice, not the personal vengeance of those affected.
But as long as CNN is at it, maybe they can run a story about how the President of the United States continued to call for the death penalty for the Central Park Five AFTER they had been exonerated by DNA evidence. Which is essentially calling for them to be murdered for no reason. But that would probably be too much to hope for. And a iron-clad, 100% lock prediction: if Harris is the nominee, we will hear ENDLESSLY about this particular case, and NOTHING about how Trump took out full-page newspaper ads calling for 5 innocent men to be put to death, and then continued to hold that position after they were set free. Book it.
Random interview from CNN (I know - they're the devil, etc, etc). It's an interesting read - and importantly (contrary to what seems like a common opinion in this thread), not a particularly positive story.
I dont think it's exactly negative either. Some of it, anyways. Without more context, Harris's position on the death penalty does look a little clouded, although generally seems like she's trying to do what's right, either institutionally or personally.
I am shaking my head at this story that is blasting Harris. She did nothing wrong. She didn’t politicize this guy’s death, she made a rational decision based on what the people of California voted her to do.
Then you have Feinstein in the same article, at this guy’s funeral calling for the death penalty and getting a standing ovation for it. That is politicizing a person’s death and that is when I stopped reading it.
Yes it sucks this guy died doing his job and I can see how emotional the family would have been when they were seeking vengeance for his death but this story will not affect Harris one bit.
William Barr has said he'll release the Mueller report within a week, but it will be redacted and he notably refused to answer whether he briefed the White House on the contents of the report--which clearly means he did brief the White House. I'm guessing the Trump administration wanted time to study the report and find ways to blunt any PR impact from its release, and I have little doubt some of the redactions will be designed the same way.
This reminds me of something that happened during Larry Nasser's sentencing (the Michigan State Dr. who sexually abused gymnasts in his care for years). Near the end, one of the fathers asked the judge if he could have five minutes alone in a room with him. The judge said "you know I can't do that, you know why I can't do that". The man then proceeded to jump the barricade and attempted to attack Nasser. He was obviously restrained. In this case, the judge accepted his apology after he was detained for a short amount of time and decided not to charge him with anything. But the real revelation was the comments all over Twitter and Youtube. I'd venture to say upwards of 80% of them said the judge should have LET the father go after him. As in, a judge should allow the father of a victim to ASSAULT a defendant in her courtroom. Nasser's punishment is that he will never again be a free man. The judge brought the hammer down on him. But the general public reaction seemed to be that a judge should also allow him to be beaten to a pulp with her blessing. At which point I realized that alot (and I mean alot) of people don't believe in our system AT ALL. Many people clearly believe vigilante justice is appropriate. There is a damn good reason the families of victims aren't in charge of prosecutions and sentencing.
Yup. We live in a society governed by the rule of law; vigilante justice has no place in our system whatsoever. If a person is truly deserving of punishment beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal justice system will carry that out. No one has the authority to declare the legal system invalid and substitute their own personal sense of justice. I'd hate to live in a world where people were entitled to attack each other simply because they personally thought it was justified. You don't give supreme legal authority to private citizens.
Nasser was a scumbag and a criminal, and his punishment was carried out legally, just like it was supposed to.
Yup. We live in a society governed by the rule of law; vigilante justice has no place in our system whatsoever. If a person is truly deserving of punishment beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal justice system will carry that out. No one has the authority to declare the legal system invalid and substitute their own personal sense of justice. I'd hate to live in a world where people were entitled to attack each other simply because they personally thought it was justified. You don't give supreme legal authority to private citizens.
Nasser was a scumbag and a criminal, and his punishment was carried out legally, just like it was supposed to.
I want to say that, to start - I completely agree with both of you. So what I'm saying next is me playing Devil's advocate:
I kind of understand their reaction. I agree it would have been a terrible mistake to acquiesce to the father's demands - but we do have a very real problem in this country in which there are absolute TRAVESTIES of rulings handed down. It doesn't excuse vigilantism - but I think it's a generally healthy response from society to say that they don't think justice was applied appropriately, and for us to look at changing it. I'll give an example:
Brock Turner is the guy who was given 3 months in jail for raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. I imagine virtually EVERYONE agrees that this was a total miscarriage of justice. Obviously, the woman in question's family shouldn't be allowed to harm him, but I don't think the outrage expressed at his punishment was a bad thing. Vigilantism is bad in all of this,, but the desire to change the level of punishment of a perpetrator isn't necessarily unhealthy.
Yup. We live in a society governed by the rule of law; vigilante justice has no place in our system whatsoever. If a person is truly deserving of punishment beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal justice system will carry that out. No one has the authority to declare the legal system invalid and substitute their own personal sense of justice. I'd hate to live in a world where people were entitled to attack each other simply because they personally thought it was justified. You don't give supreme legal authority to private citizens.
Nasser was a scumbag and a criminal, and his punishment was carried out legally, just like it was supposed to.
I agree that a similar criminal system with reasonable doubt and no personal justice is ideal. Still, I have to point out that
If a person is truly deserving of punishment beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal justice system will carry that out.
is unfortunately not true. I am not even referring to the obvious cases of corruption in which there was no real effort to investigate and persecute because the perpetrator had influence and money. Even in a ideal version of the system you will have cases where there is a real crime and victim (plus family), in which the perpetrator will never face justice due to lack of evidence outside of the heads of the victim and perpetrator.
There is no reasonable doubt from the perspective of the victim, who lived through the crime.
So while I agree that society should not allow individuals to take justice in their own hands, I understand victims and their families wanting to do so in some cases.
However, in the Nasser case I agree 100%. It was already clear that he was going down in court - the justice system did not fail the victim here. The additional desire for lynch mob justice is disgusting in that case, at least when coming from people not even involved in the crime. One of the few reliable ways to make me hate someone on the Internet are people looking forward to criminals getting beaten up or even raped in jail.
There is a very real belief among a large section of the public that men who go to prison getting raped is basically part of the punishment. It's been a nearly universal running joke for decades.
Yup, the justice system definitely doesn't get things right every time. I think we can all think of a few examples of that. But it's far more reliable and just than the available alternatives. The mob doesn't get to convict a suspect any more than it gets to exonerate a suspect.
It's sickening to me that rape is ever trivialized, whether it takes place in prison or not. I think public opinion is turning on that point, in that prison rape isn't treated as much like a joke as it used to be, but I've not heard of any new policies to try to limit it and hold prison officials accountable for crimes committed under their noses.
If you don’t like the law, just change its meaning...
I think when history looks back at the Trump years, this is what the take away is going to be, bending certain clauses and meanings to get what they want. From National Emergencies to tariffs on National Security grounds against Allies, to now literally saying “commercial transactions don’t count as gifts,” it is getting beyond comical.
There's no way he will ever let us see the real Mueller report. Whatever he puts out after Gulliani and Trump's lawyers have a pass at it won't be the Mueller Report. Of course Barr was going to clear Trump, that's why Trump picked him, because Barr sent a memo before being hired and wrote that President's can't possibly obstruct justice, hint hint.
The rule of law in the land is gone thanks to Republicans blindly enabling and following a con-man as he seizes more power for his narcissistic self. Along the way, they find any excuse to follow him off the cliff and drag us with them. They are committing treason to America because they've are not loyal to America they are loyal to one man.
Comments
There are a lot more people trying to cross than there were under Obama because of the situation in Central America. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
But the proper response is not for both parties to start cheating each other by manipulating the rules as they see fit, but for this act to be acknowledged for what it was and to prevent it from happening again. I'm not sure if taking Gorusch off the bench would be the right move, it's not his fault really, but some sort of legislation preventing this sort of thing would be helpful. Say, if a party stalls like this until the end of a Presidential term the nomination gets chosen by that Presidents party instead.
In general, I agree with this - but I dont think the Democrats can afford to risk that the GOP will ever play fair again as it relates to the supreme court. By destroying that centuries old institutional norm, it has really damaged the good faith that the GOP can be trusted to act appropriately when they arent in control of the White House.
Unfortunately, it will take the GOP falling on their sword to even attempt to restore good faith to the supreme court nomination process. They need to either remove a sitting justice, or replace the next one with a left-leaning moderate. Anything short of that, and Democrats have no incentive to play fair.
This is all pretty easily seen in Game Theory. Both sides had a real vested interest to play fair. As soon as one side starts cheating, the only appropriate response is for the other side to cheat as well (and, unfortunately - to do it better than the other side).
I agree sort of and appreciate the recognition of a problem. That being said, how could Democrats ever trust Republicans again? Their actions have forced us to retaliate. There has been zero responsibility or acknowledgement of the wrong done from the Republican side and they are continuing to do this sort of thing. McConnell just changed the rules, again, to pack the courts literally last week.
Trump was sort of an overreactiion to having a black President, I guess. The horror was apparently unbearable so an extremist like Trump was bearable I guess. It's silly because he was a Republican basically in his policies.
Well guess what, now Dems have been punched in the face specifically by McConnell and Trump and voters are going to do whatever it takes to set things right especially since no Republican is willing to lift a finger to acknowledge mistakes and transgressions. Yep, court packing, abolishing the electoral college, passing voter protections, Medicare for all. Those sort of things will be appealing in these times. And that's still not enough payback.
I may not be the greatest supporter of the US constitution, but ignoring it is dangerous. If you don't like the rules of a game, is the appropriate response really to ignore the rules and change the referee?
How far would Trump have to go to ring alarm bells? He's taken actions like forcible splitting up of families, indefinite internment, closing of borders and declaring a fake emergency to get funding for a wall. All of those seem to me to be blindingly clear indications of executive government over-reach - yet the party of 'small' government has supported them.
Nothing was more significant in Obama's second term than filling that seat. His constitutional authority was nullified. And it was nullified because the Republican Party figured out that there is NO price to be paid for simply throwing out the entire rulebook. There is no mechanism to actually punish or enforce norms on people who decide they aren't going to play by them anymore. And now that they have figured it out, we see it playing out everyday. Take Trump's taxes. The Ways and Means Chair is not "asking" for Trump's tax returns to be turned over to the committee. It isn't a request. It's the law. The chairman has the absolute right to request the taxes of anyone. But do you think they'll get them?? No, of course not, because Trump will order the Treasury Secretary and the IRS not to give them up. What will be the consequence of this?? The answer is absolutely nothing.
Because there are no rules anymore. Republicans have figured out what Cersei Lannister told Littlefinger, which is that "power is power". If you have it, as long as you have the cynicism, lack of shame, and willingness to destroy the fabric of how the government has functioned up to this point, then there is really NOTHING that can stop you from exercising it. Sure, votes still have to take place on certain things, but that is basically all that's left. And yes, even though it is depressing to think about, there is nothing the Democrats can do to rectify the situation by turning the other cheek and hoping the American public "rewards" them for not responding in kind. But frankly, most of them STILL don't understand this, so they will continue to pretend institutions and a sense of comity will save the day, oblivious to the fact that those things are being systematically dismantled.
Hate to break it to you but he could be on the court for 60 more years. There should definitely be term limits or something for justices. Even though RbG is great and all we really don't need people in their late 80s+ with that much power.
Yep. Well it is on our representatives to get justice. Vote accordingly. Primary the wimps, there must be consequences for Republicans flagrant corruption and violations of the Constitution.
I can only imagine what's coming next for China, because these things don't just stop. There are going to be more and more abuses of power as long as Xi and his cronies remain in power.
https://people.com/politics/kirstjen-nielsen-resigns-twitter-donald-trump-announcement/
More incompetence and mismanagement. A few mooches ago I posted all the empty positions like SecDef, and others. Trump demands loyalty to him personally, not America, but you will get no loyalty back he'll happily toss you aside on a whim whenever it suits him. Nielsen is the latest to be tossed aside via tweet. She was not a good person and good riddance but that's just cowardly.
This would be good news if it wasn't for the probability that he's going to replace her with someone even worse.
It seems there's also endless supply of fools and opportunists who think "just because he lies, cheats, and stabbed everyone else in the back surely he won't lie to me and stab me in the back!"
All indications are she was removed because she wasn't draconian ENOUGH. As in, there were things even she was unwilling to do that she told Trump were just not possible because they were against the law. And considering she acquiesced to mass kidnapping, you have to seriously wonder what Trump and Stephen Miller have planned next.
Edit: Yep, Trump wants to kidnap more children, and Nielsen said they couldn't do it again:
Edit 2: We are now getting reporting that Trump personally told border agents to break the law and ignore judicial orders, after which their supervisors had to tell them not to listen to the President because they would open themselves up to personal liability.
Republicans Are Warning Drug Companies Not To Cooperate With A Congressional Investigation
The House Oversight Committee is attempting to study how drug companies set prescription drug prices, but Republicans have advised the industry not to cooperate.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/republicans-warn-drug-companies-oversight-investigation
Random interview from CNN (I know - they're the devil, etc, etc). It's an interesting read - and importantly (contrary to what seems like a common opinion in this thread), not a particularly positive story.
I dont think it's exactly negative either. Some of it, anyways. Without more context, Harris's position on the death penalty does look a little clouded, although generally seems like she's trying to do what's right, either institutionally or personally.
First off, this article spends 50% of it's time making it seem like Kamala Harris might as well have killed the cop herself. It wasn't until more than halfway through the article the killer even enters the story. Secondly, someone needs to explain to me why killing a cop is more "worthy" of the death penalty than killing a random citizen, because that is CERTAINLY the view of both the police and alot of the people interviewed for this story, if not said outright, then certainly in the attitude being conveyed. And finally, if prosecutors were only going by the opinions of the families of the victims of murders, we would be having public hangings on street corners before juries heard one word about the cases. It's justice, not the personal vengeance of those affected.
But as long as CNN is at it, maybe they can run a story about how the President of the United States continued to call for the death penalty for the Central Park Five AFTER they had been exonerated by DNA evidence. Which is essentially calling for them to be murdered for no reason. But that would probably be too much to hope for. And a iron-clad, 100% lock prediction: if Harris is the nominee, we will hear ENDLESSLY about this particular case, and NOTHING about how Trump took out full-page newspaper ads calling for 5 innocent men to be put to death, and then continued to hold that position after they were set free. Book it.
I am shaking my head at this story that is blasting Harris. She did nothing wrong. She didn’t politicize this guy’s death, she made a rational decision based on what the people of California voted her to do.
Then you have Feinstein in the same article, at this guy’s funeral calling for the death penalty and getting a standing ovation for it. That is politicizing a person’s death and that is when I stopped reading it.
Yes it sucks this guy died doing his job and I can see how emotional the family would have been when they were seeking vengeance for his death but this story will not affect Harris one bit.
Nasser was a scumbag and a criminal, and his punishment was carried out legally, just like it was supposed to.
I want to say that, to start - I completely agree with both of you. So what I'm saying next is me playing Devil's advocate:
I kind of understand their reaction. I agree it would have been a terrible mistake to acquiesce to the father's demands - but we do have a very real problem in this country in which there are absolute TRAVESTIES of rulings handed down. It doesn't excuse vigilantism - but I think it's a generally healthy response from society to say that they don't think justice was applied appropriately, and for us to look at changing it. I'll give an example:
Brock Turner is the guy who was given 3 months in jail for raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. I imagine virtually EVERYONE agrees that this was a total miscarriage of justice. Obviously, the woman in question's family shouldn't be allowed to harm him, but I don't think the outrage expressed at his punishment was a bad thing. Vigilantism is bad in all of this,, but the desire to change the level of punishment of a perpetrator isn't necessarily unhealthy.
I agree that a similar criminal system with reasonable doubt and no personal justice is ideal. Still, I have to point out that
is unfortunately not true. I am not even referring to the obvious cases of corruption in which there was no real effort to investigate and persecute because the perpetrator had influence and money. Even in a ideal version of the system you will have cases where there is a real crime and victim (plus family), in which the perpetrator will never face justice due to lack of evidence outside of the heads of the victim and perpetrator.
There is no reasonable doubt from the perspective of the victim, who lived through the crime.
So while I agree that society should not allow individuals to take justice in their own hands, I understand victims and their families wanting to do so in some cases.
However, in the Nasser case I agree 100%. It was already clear that he was going down in court - the justice system did not fail the victim here. The additional desire for lynch mob justice is disgusting in that case, at least when coming from people not even involved in the crime. One of the few reliable ways to make me hate someone on the Internet are people looking forward to criminals getting beaten up or even raped in jail.
It's sickening to me that rape is ever trivialized, whether it takes place in prison or not. I think public opinion is turning on that point, in that prison rape isn't treated as much like a joke as it used to be, but I've not heard of any new policies to try to limit it and hold prison officials accountable for crimes committed under their noses.
If you don’t like the law, just change its meaning...
I think when history looks back at the Trump years, this is what the take away is going to be, bending certain clauses and meanings to get what they want. From National Emergencies to tariffs on National Security grounds against Allies, to now literally saying “commercial transactions don’t count as gifts,” it is getting beyond comical.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/barr-doj-investiation-fbi-russia/index.html
Barr is a total Republican hack.
There's no way he will ever let us see the real Mueller report. Whatever he puts out after Gulliani and Trump's lawyers have a pass at it won't be the Mueller Report. Of course Barr was going to clear Trump, that's why Trump picked him, because Barr sent a memo before being hired and wrote that President's can't possibly obstruct justice, hint hint.
The rule of law in the land is gone thanks to Republicans blindly enabling and following a con-man as he seizes more power for his narcissistic self. Along the way, they find any excuse to follow him off the cliff and drag us with them. They are committing treason to America because they've are not loyal to America they are loyal to one man.