News of the Day III

[Hoek]

Those people are basically Dunning Kruger effect in its purest form. Stumbled onto some sort of success and now think they're experts in everything as a result.

[nutznboltz]

Texas AG files suit against WI, GA, MI and PA, asking the SCOTUS to upend the election results. Can the sycophants get any more desperate?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-asks-u-supreme-court-152630191.html

[Maverick9911]

Funny how "States' Rights" is only a thing when it comes to restricting the rights of brown people. The commentary from the rubes on this particular suit is delicious. They seem to be under the illusion that a.) SCOTUS can just issue opinions at will, like editorials, even without being prompted by a particular case, and b.) SCOTUS MUST hear this action because it is a controversy between two states. No and no.

"We're 1-49 in State and Federal Courts because this is our genius strategy to get in front of SCOTUS!!!"

Oh, and Jenna Ellis has COVID.

"Scoop: President Trump's lawyer Jenna Ellis has informed associates she has coronavirus, multiple sources tell Axios, stirring West Wing fears after she attended a senior staff Christmas party on Friday."

[Bolthed]

She’s the one Ghouliani farted on.

[ChaseSpace]

Texas AG files suit against WI, GA, MI and PA, asking the SCOTUS to upend the election results. Can the sycophants get any more desperate?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-ask...152630191.html

I don't think they're really thinking this through. Aside from waving their sedition flags loud and proud if the Supreme Court sees merit in hearing this case to this but ultimately strikes it down it opens up all of the states that have enacted harsh voting restrictions to similar lawsuits from states that have fairer and more open elections.

If "states not properly protecting mail-in ballots" is grounds for a suit then one would imagine states implementing draconian voter ID laws and shutting down polling places in ways that systematically target and affect minority populations would be very fertile grounds for lawsuits challenging their election laws.

[Bolthed]

Good post, but you could have ended it here ...

I don't think they're really thinking

This entire gambit is desperate, doomed, idiotic and treasonous. So

[Maverick9911]

SCOTUS just said "GTFO" to the attempt to nullify PA's certification.

"but muh kraken"

[dannybolt]

Hey Mav, there has been some debate on whether or not the POTUS can pre-emptively pardon his filthy family and business associates without them having been charged with any crimes (yet).

I understand that there's precedent with Ford and Nixon, but
#1 Nixon was going to be indicted,
#2 that wasn't self pardoning,
#3 that wasn't pardoning people doing work at the President's behest, and
#4, didn't include close family members.

As a lawyer, what is your opinion on the above?

[Hoek]

Did that Nixon precedent make it to the Supreme Court? I feel like it's not much of a precedent if it wasn't actually tested.

[Maverick9911]

Hey Mav, there has been some debate on whether or not the POTUS can pre-emptively pardon his filthy family and business associates without them having been charged with any crimes (yet).

I understand that there's precedent with Ford and Nixon, but
#1 Nixon was going to be indicted,
#2 that wasn't self pardoning,
#3 that wasn't pardoning people doing work at the President's behest, and
#4, didn't include close family members.

As a lawyer, what is your opinion on the above?

I will try to add more later if I can, and admittedly I don't know much more than just the basics on this area, but I will add what I know at the moment: What Ford did to Nixon is still okay now and isn't specific precedent because Ford issued the preemptive pardon for past actions committed between 1969-1974 and it never got to SCOTUS. It wasn't a "Get out of jail" free card for any future actions, just that specific period. Trump could issue all the preemptive pardons he wants to whomever he wants (the one main no-no is when it concerns pardons issued in cases of impeachment) but it won't matter in the state courts. When it comes to himself, that's a tricky area. Pardons aren't supposed to be issued as part of a criminal conspiracy and it's debated that if Congress finds this is why he is issuing them en masse, all of them could become moot (especially if they are issued too broadly or if it is found he issued them for payment.)

Bottom line, no POTUS has ever pardoned themselves so there's no precedent upon which to rely. The DOJ's position is that self-pardons aren't viewed upon favorably (in Ford's era they said that it is inappropriate for the POTUS to be the judge in his own case) so at that point it may come down to whether a.) Biden's DOJ has any interest in prosecution at all, b.) Biden's DOJ lets the states get first dibs, or c.) it goes to SCOTUS and they go...somewhere.

[ChaseSpace]

Hot take: Presidents(and to a lesser extent Governors) shouldn't have the ability to pardon anyone, the only relief mechanism they should be allowed to employ is commuting a sentence and that's it.

[RSchmitz]

Hot take: Presidents(and to a lesser extent Governors) shouldn't have the ability to pardon anyone, the only relief mechanism they should be allowed to employ is commuting a sentence and that's it.

Why does the executive branch have the authority to do either?

[ChaseSpace]

Why does the executive branch have the authority to do either?

I understand being able to commute a sentence(views change on the initial crime/punishment or a punishment that does not equal the crime committed[such as Alice Marie Johnson who was 21 years into a life sentence for connection to a drug trafficking conspiracy, a non-violent offence, when Trump commuted her sentence]).

[jdhebner]

I'm waiting for the day that the 52.7 million votes for Trump that were cast by Russian Bots are discovered.

[Bolthed]

Trust me, you just have to go down to a certain hideaway in a Venezuelan rainforest to find them. People are saying they’re there.