US Politics Megathread

[fightinfrenchman]

Literally laughing out loud at this one

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.
THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.

[fightinfrenchman]

I love when SCOTUS comes up with these vague and arbitrary rules

First, courts
should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers.
“ ‘[O]ccasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two
branches’ should be avoided whenever possible.” Cheney v. United
States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 389–390 (quoting Nixon, 418
U. S., at 692). Congress may not rely on the President’s information if
other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it
needs in light of its particular legislative objective. Second, to narrow
the scope of possible conflict between the branches, courts should insist
on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective. The specificity of the subpoena’s request
“serves as an important safeguard against unnecessary intrusion into
the operation of the Office of the President.” Cheney, 542 U. S., at 387.
Third, courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered
by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative
purpose. The more detailed and substantial, the better. That is particularly true when Congress contemplates legislation that raises sensitive constitutional issues, such as legislation concerning the Presidency. Fourth, courts should assess the burdens imposed on the
President by a subpoena, particularly because they stem from a rival
political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the President
and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage. Other
considerations may be pertinent as well; one case every two centuries
does not afford enough experience for an exhaustive list.

[fightinfrenchman]

So the Court basically said that Trump can continue stonewalling investigations indefinitely, at the very least until after the election, and he still says it's unfair. Pathetic

[Horsemen]

I love when SCOTUS comes up with these vague and arbitrary rules

First, courts
should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers.
“ ‘[O]ccasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two
branches’ should be avoided whenever possible.” Cheney v. United
States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 389–390 (quoting Nixon, 418
U. S., at 692). Congress may not rely on the President’s information if
other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it
needs in light of its particular legislative objective. Second, to narrow
the scope of possible conflict between the branches, courts should insist
on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective. The specificity of the subpoena’s request
“serves as an important safeguard against unnecessary intrusion into
the operation of the Office of the President.” Cheney, 542 U. S., at 387.
Third, courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered
by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative
purpose. The more detailed and substantial, the better. That is particularly true when Congress contemplates legislation that raises sensitive constitutional issues, such as legislation concerning the Presidency. Fourth, courts should assess the burdens imposed on the
President by a subpoena, particularly because they stem from a rival
political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the President
and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage. Other
considerations may be pertinent as well; one case every two centuries
does not afford enough experience for an exhaustive list.

You should get onto SCOTUS and change things up

#NominateTheEar

[fightinfrenchman]

You should get onto SCOTUS and change things up

#NominateTheEar

I would accept it if nominated @JoeBiden

[Mr_Bramboy]

So the Court basically said that Trump can continue stonewalling investigations indefinitely, at the very least until after the election, and he still says it's unfair. Pathetic

Yep, that's not what the court said. Try again.

[fightinfrenchman]

So the Court basically said that Trump can continue stonewalling investigations indefinitely, at the very least until after the election, and he still says it's unfair. Pathetic

Yep, that's not what the court said. Try again.

They kicked it back to the lower courts, where the administration will continue to fight against releasing any information.

[spanky4ever]

As the tweet says, if elected, based on his current policy positions he would be the most progressive president in recent history. He could've easily given Bernie the bird and said fuck you, I'm going alone. But he didn't.

I think he would if he was sure enought to get millenials onbord. That is only me specualting though, but then again, why would he discuss anything with Bernie if not

Are some seriously considering not voting at all?

I always vote in my own country (Norway)

[wardyb1]

Unfortunately the decision is pretty justified. The court doesn't like ruling on things that haven't really been fully tested in the lower courts. It has now ruled on what it sees as necessary and will let the lower courts explore the decision in the future. Unfortunately for us all, is that the world is going to keep moving while these things happen, and that there is no deadline for "emergency" proceedings. It is a little bit of a kick in the guts with the election only 4 months away, but nonetheless it is still a good result and probably as good as it was going to get. Alito and Thomas are completely lost causes so it was never going to be 9-0 like it should be. If Trump wins in November this will come back to haunt him in his 2nd term so it isn't too bad. The ruling was also going to be political one way or another and I would suspect Roberts sees this as the best way to not get too involved in it all, whether people believe the SCOTUS should or not.

[chris1089]

Lol, Alito and Thomas are the only decent judges on the court. Not even sure about Alito.

[fightinfrenchman]

Lol, Alito and Thomas are the only decent judges on the court. Not even sure about Alito.

You live in Britain, why are you so committed to a specific political party of a country you don't even live in?

[Dolan]

The USA is like history's virtual reality testing ground.
Europeans created it to test the idea of a federated union between people of different ethnicities and cultures.
And the whole world has been watching the experiment on the sides, taking notes, nodding from time to time "ahum, yeah, that doesn't work".

But now it's kinda starting to look like Area 51 of nation-building testing, that will need to be cordoned and closed for the public.

[chris1089]

Lol, Alito and Thomas are the only decent judges on the court. Not even sure about Alito.

You live in Britain, why are you so committed to a specific political party of a country you don't even live in?

Nothing to do with a political party.

[n0el]

Lol, Alito and Thomas are the only decent judges on the court. Not even sure about Alito.

Why do you think their arguments hold any merit?

[chris1089]

Lol, Alito and Thomas are the only decent judges on the court. Not even sure about Alito.

Why do you think their arguments hold any merit?

I'm talking in general. I've only read a couple but they seemed right.

[fightinfrenchman]

Outflanking again

[spanky4ever]

surprized?

[fightinfrenchman]

I truly believe that Andrew Gillum high on meth would do a better job as governor than DeSantis

[n0el]

gg no re

[fightinfrenchman]

gg no re

Insert slidewhistle sound here

viewtopic.php?f=315&t=16266&p=387725&hi ... sm#p387725

[deleted_user]

COVID happened.

[fightinfrenchman]

COVID happened.

Who on Earth could have predicted that Donald J. Trump would badly mishandle a crisis

[chris1089]

gg no re

I still think Trump is going to win.

[n0el]

COVID happened.

Who on Earth could have predicted that Donald J. Trump would badly mishandle a crisis

Who on Earth could have predicted a crisis like we are in today

[duckzilla]

COVID happened.

Who on Earth could have predicted that Donald J. Trump would badly mishandle a crisis

Who on Earth could have predicted a crisis like we are in today

Which one do you mean?
The virus? The climate? The race issue? The Chinese aggressions in the Southern Chinese Sea? The US allies openly undermining international rule of law? The Israeli settlements? The Iranian nuclear facilities? The Turkish interventions into Libya and Syria?

However, he handled one (perceived) crisis quite well. The US has seen a drastic decline in highly educated foreign nationals who see their future in America. People begin to see more opportunities in India and China than in the US.