[FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?

[glen]

OK. I guess I can see how [un]official is a lawyerism, thereby routing more disambiguation into the court system, where the lower courts act as a sieve. But for that to work, they're gonna need some competence from the legislature. New laws (and executive orders, for that matter) have to be constructed so as not to overwhelm the courts. Unless we step back and consider the "them", here, is rich people, including justices who can curry favor from other, richer, people. Only rich people have the inertia to sustain a chain of appeals. And if that's the case, the collapse will only come as an effect of the overproduction of elites. They'll eat each other, trampling the grass all the while.

On 7/1/24 10:21, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The conservative arm of SCOTUS is just optimizing their lifestyle for the rest of their lives by giving power to themselves (Chevron) and to their friends.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:02 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?
> 
> An interesting edge case is Sotomayor's comment. If Biden ordered the assassination of Trump via Seal Team 6, would that be an official act of that office? No. I can't imagine even Cannon or Chutkan would suggest it was. I wonder, though, if Biden ordered the assassination of, say, Iran's Supreme Leader, would that be an official act? I think maybe, yes. But it's against our foreign policy. So we'd expect a chain of actions, first an Executive Order allowing it. But it's against international law. Right? So while I agree with the gist that this ruling helps place us in the same category as every other state governed by some tin-pot dictator, it also smells a bit like a neoliberal move to a World Order. If we can't rein in our President, we have to empower the UN (or maybe Google and Palantir?) to do so. The ruling surrenders our ability to govern ourselves and hands that power over to some as-yet un-resolved agent.
> 
> It's difficult for me to believe the conservative arm of SCOTUS is so completely stupid as to surrender their ability to check the admin's power. So I have to assume I simply don't understand their long game.
> 
> On 7/1/24 09:32, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Besides the heroic act of following LBJ, another one could be to deal with Trump.  Hard to punish an old person with threat of incarceration.  His defense could last years until he died, and meanwhile they argue diminished capacity.   Let's go Dark Brandon.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 9:25 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?
>>
>> I don't think so. E.g. Trump's threat to fire the AG for not opening investigations seems official, if a bit unethical. So the righties' rhetoric about "Biden's persecution of Trump" is nonsense. It would (now) be a clearly official act for Biden to threaten the AG for refusing to open an investigation into Trump. But the conclusions of that investigation are another matter. The effects of such acts percolate down through the admin, then back up through the courts. What's missing in action is the 3rd branch, here. And I think it's safe to claim the Senate bears most of the responsibility for a defunkt legislature.
>>
>> Anyway, the hysteria on all sides to this ruling seem similar to the Dems' hysteria w.r.t. Biden's debate performance. It's like everyone's lost their executive function. I'm starting to think we need to send every citizen through pilot training so they can learn to stay calm under duress ... and I'm normally the first to insult the Rationalists. 8^D
>>
>> On 7/1/24 08:49, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> The "outer perimeter" would allow Biden to through Trump in a dungeon, etc.  No?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 7:59 AM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/01/supreme-court-trump-immunity-claim-decision-updates#top-of-blog
>>>
>>> Anyone care to take a stab at explaining why the ruling doesn't simply kick the can down the road a bit? I mean, how could (say) hiding secret documents, riot incitation at a campaign event, etc. be considered official acts of the Office of the President? I suppose I can see some of the evidence being thrown out, like claims about POTUS not getting involved in protecting the Capitol building. But is this ruling really that damaging to the prosecution's case?
>>>


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ