51–60 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP.
> you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP Not me. They’re ordinary people doing administrative tasks. Most of them have dutifully turned up for work and done their jobs as the law required them to. They’re now being asked to work overtime to fix a mistake they didn’t make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it only immunity as long as Congress is controlled by the same party so that no impeachment/conviction? Otherwise, Congress technically still has that ability. That's also what Trump was screaming the whole time that Congress is the only way to hold POTUS accountable.
> That's also what Trump was screaming the whole time that Congress is the only way to hold POTUS accountable. And this is just wrong - anyone can see that every branch must be held accountable by other branches. This supreme court has done more damage to America than most historical supreme courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You absolutely can, if you're rich. Rich people settle their tax debts with the IRS for pennies on the dollar all the time, with the threat of dragging the government into years of expensive litigation if the offer isn't accepted. You and I, of course, don't have this option.
Poor people do this much more often than rich people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP Not me. They’re ordinary people doing administrative tasks. Most of them have dutifully turned up for work and done their jobs as the law required them to. They’re now being asked to work overtime to fix a mistake they didn’t make.
Just following literally illegal orders.
Besides, we’re taking about imposing tariffs, not depriving people of life or liberty. Have some persective.
Of course it's worth noting that CBP repeatedly argued in its previous court filings that there was no need for an injunction to halt the tariffs while they were being litigated, because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them. For instance: > In other words, plaintiffs’ asserted irreparable harm is the purported inability to obtain a refund after a final and unappealable decision becaus…
We need some mechanism in litigation (and imho in public life in general) that requires claims to be secured in some way. That is, if you go into court and make an argument like this, you have to chain it to consequences, such as being stripped of specific legal consequences or losing 10% of your shares or whatever.
It's illegal to commit perjury, but there are no real consequences for making bous legal arguments, and lawyers are structurally incentivized to make tacit misrepresentations on behalf of their clients - that is, to make inflated or handwavey claims in the hope that they're not challenged during the fact-finding stage, or even stipulated, due to an assumption of basic good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's also what Trump was screaming the whole time that Congress is the only way to hold POTUS accountable. And this is just wrong - anyone can see that every branch must be held accountable by other branches. This supreme court has done more damage to America than most historical supreme courts.
SCOTUS didn't say that Congress couldn't impeach. As I understand it, SCOTUS said that POTUS couldn't be prosecuted as a civilian for things he did as POTUS. This puts an asterisk on the "no man above the law", as they are saying that if POTUS does something impeachable but Congress doesn't impeach/convict, then there's no other recourse for holding POTUS accountable. Trump is taking advantage of that for everything…
The JUDICIARY is the branch that lost power, not Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The strangest "The President is not King but we give home this power of a King" section in the Constitution.
It isn't strange per se. The Chief executor by definition has discretion. The thing that's gone haywire now is that discretion is being used in a repugnant manner to most actually sane people.
This was probably expected. What wasn't expected is that voters would put the people doing this back into office AFTER they had done it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SCOTUS didn't say that Congress couldn't impeach. As I understand it, SCOTUS said that POTUS couldn't be prosecuted as a civilian for things he did as POTUS. This puts an asterisk on the "no man above the law", as they are saying that if POTUS does something impeachable but Congress doesn't impeach/convict, then there's no other recourse for holding POTUS accountable. Trump is taking advantage of that for everything…
Scotus removed the ability of the JUDICIARY to hold criminal convictions against the president. The JUDICIARY is the branch that lost power, not Congress.
I see what you're saying. As much as I dislike it, it makes sense if you agree with the Project 2025 view of the power of POTUS. Clearly the majority of SCOUTS does with that ruling. I don't agree with it as I don't think the founding fathers would have ever wanted POTUS to have that much protection, but I'm of no significance so what I do or don't agree with is just some guy on the internet yelling at clouds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You absolutely can, if you're rich. Rich people settle their tax debts with the IRS for pennies on the dollar all the time, with the threat of dragging the government into years of expensive litigation if the offer isn't accepted. You and I, of course, don't have this option.
Poor people do this much more often than rich people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poor people do this much more often than rich people.
I would love to see your source for this claim.