Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[visionary]

 

 

 

[twa]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Trump is dumb as ****. Putin could care less if he gets caught. He's already been caught.

 

And still we sit here while he elucidates.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Pretty sure that is unconstitutional and a very dangerous slope.

Why? If he took office illegally why should his actions be allowed to stand?

This is why the GOPers don’t care if they are complicit, when Trump is thrown out on his ass the laws he signed will stay in affect.

Edited December 20, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan

[visionary]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

6 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Why? If he took office illegally why should his actions be allowed to stand?

This is why the GOPers don’t care if they are complicit, when Trump is thrown out on his ass the laws he signed will stay in affect.

It just screams unconstitutional in removing confirmed judges based on nothing they have done.

 

I want you to be right, but I do not believe that could work.

[SoulSkin]

Thought about the Guys I need recommendations on the next TV series I should start watching thread, but this is not really a series. I liked it though. Good refresher on past and present, for me anyways.

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by SoulSkin

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It just screams unconstitutional in removing confirmed judges based on nothing they have done.

 

I want you to be right, but I do not believe that could work.

Judges illegaly nominated.

[DogofWar1]

I think Congress could try to remove Trump's judges.

 

I suspect the judiciary would fight back, and the only place to adjudicate such a thing would be the judiciary.

 

I mean, definitely, this kind of thing is Constitutional Crisis territory, and I don't think many people would blame the Congress for trying if Trump is indeed removed based on substantive (not just procedural) bad conduct (though Trump should be removed for procedural bad conduct too, such as obstruction).  But the pushback would be large and the mechanism for such a thing doesn't exist at the moment, so it's a hard pill to swallow to allow them to be removed.

 

I'm thinking we would need a Constitutional Amendment to pull that off, and while yes, there absolutely SHOULD be support for such an amendment, I don't think it'll happen.

[redskinss]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Judges illegaly nominated.

But confirmed by politicians who weren't illegally elected. 

That's why we have checks and balances. 

I gotta agree with Benningroad here,  as much as it sucks the only way to get rid of what trumps done is slowly and through our process of government the same  way trump is getting rid of obamas accomplishments. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by redskinss

[Llevron]

11 minutes ago, redskinss said:

But confirmed by politicians who weren't illegally elected. 

That's why we have checks and balances. 

I gotta agree with Benningroad here,  as much as it sucks the only way to get rid of what trumps done is slowly and through our process of government the same  way trump is getting rid of obamas accomplishments. 

 

Right. Again, there are two problems with our government. Republicans will do anything and everything up to and including using the rules the way they were not intended to insure they get whatever it is they want ($$$). The other is that the Democrats have zero vision and are either uninterested or unable to use the rules in place to thier advantage. 

 

What we end up with is a weak ass Democratic list of accomplishments that are easy to destroy. And paid players in Republicans that give zero ****s about the good of the country as long as they get their money. 

[redskinss]

18 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Right. Again, there are two problems with our government. Republicans will do anything and everything up to and including using the rules the way they were not intended to insure they get whatever it is they want ($$$). The other is that the Democrats have zero vision and are either uninterested or unable to use the rules in place to thier advantage. 

 

What we end up with is a weak ass Democratic list of accomplishments that are easy to destroy. And paid players in Republicans that give zero ****s about the good of the country as long as they get their money. 

When democrats get back in power they need to grow a set of balls. 

The fact that Mitchell mcconnell cried about making sure we seat Scott brown before we vote on healthcare reform and we did,  then turning around and cramming this tax bill down our ****in throats as fast as humanly possible despite its unpopularity and the impending seating of an Alabama democrat is so damn frustrating to me I wanna throw my phone against a wall as I type this. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by redskinss

[AsburySkinsFan]

Awesome

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, redskinss said:

But confirmed by politicians who weren't illegally elected. 

That's why we have checks and balances. 

I gotta agree with Benningroad here,  as much as it sucks the only way to get rid of what trumps done is slowly and through our process of government the same  way trump is getting rid of obamas accomplishments. 

The system of checks and balances FAILED. The electoral college FAILED. Now GOPers in Congress are cashing in what they can while they can, they are complict. They’re shoving through unqualified regressive ideologically driven activist judges because they know their time is limited. They are bank robbers who hear the alarms and are grabbing as much cash as they can before they run. And you want to talk about process and systems.

[redskinss]

28 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The system of checks and balances FAILED. The electoral college FAILED. Now GOPers in Congress are cashing in what they can while they can, they are complict. They’re shoving through unqualified regressive ideologically driven activist judges because they know their time is limited. They are bank robbers who hear the alarms and are grabbing as much cash as they can before they run. And you want to talk about process and systems.

Man I agree with you,  I just know that there are millions and millions of Americans who don't. 

Those americans elected these robbers and until we figure out a way to convince them they've been duped unfortunately this is what we're left with. 

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

Man I agree with you,  I just know that there are millions and millions of Americans who don't. 

Those americans elected these robbers and until we figure out a way to convince them they've been duped unfortunately this is what we're left with. 

 

Worse, they have been taught by the President of the United States that any view point that threatens their own is not only a flat out lie but a lie from their enemy. And they God honestly believe that ****. 

 

We are ****ed like a Russian whore on Barack Obama's bed. And pissed too. 

[DogofWar1]

The only way this could somehow have even a slight chance of surviving a constitutional challenge would be if the Senate got wrapped up in it too, as in multiple senators who voted for these nominees were caught doing illegal things in the course of the investigation that would have resulted in them not being seated.  Even then it's a slim shot, but I think the argument is at least reasonable there; that not was the President retroactively disqualified by illegal actions but the Senate check was not legitimate due to others who committed illegal acts.

[visionary]

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

31 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The only way this could somehow have even a slight chance of surviving a constitutional challenge would be if the Senate got wrapped up in it too, as in multiple senators who voted for these nominees were caught doing illegal things in the course of the investigation that would have resulted in them not being seated.  Even then it's a slim shot, but I think the argument is at least reasonable there; that not was the President retroactively disqualified by illegal actions but the Senate check was not legitimate due to others who committed illegal acts.

In criminal cases all assets acquired as a result of the illegal activity are subject to confiscation. I don’t see why his legacy would get to stand just because everything he did after illegally taking office was done after the election.

[Predicto]

16 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I think once the Dems take back Congress that they pass a law that once Trump is impeached for illegal Russian collusion that every Executive act he made is automatically and instantly reversed, including judicial appointees, EO’s and ANY legislation he signed.

 

It doesn't work that way, for good reason.   The doctrine of ostensible authority kicks in, and those appointees were confirmed by Congress.  This is the same thing that birthers used to say about Obama: "If he was born in Kenya, he's not a natural born citizen and can't be President and so everything he ever did will magically be annulled."  They were wrong about him being born in Kenya and they were wrong about what would happen if it was discovered that he WAS born in Kenya.

 

Unfortunately, the process of cleaning up after Trump is going to be difficult and will take a while.

 

7 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Judges illegaly nominated.

 

It doesn't matter if Donald was a cheating lying **** (he was and is).  He was elected president and the Congress confirmed the judges.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by Predicto

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, Predicto said:

 

It doesn't work that way, for good reason.   The doctrine of ostensible authority kicks in, and those appointees were confirmed by Congress.  This is the same thing that birthers used to say about Obama, and they were wrong too. 

 

Unfortunately, the process of cleaning up after Trump is going to be difficult and will take a while.

 

It doesn't matter if Donald was a cheating lying **** (he was and is).  He was elected president and the Congress confirmed the judges.  

Even if he gained office through illegal actions.

If that’s our system then we’re screwed.

[DogofWar1]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

In criminal cases all assets acquired as a result of the illegal activity are subject to confiscation. I don’t see why his legacy would get to stand just because everything he did after illegally taking office was done after the election.

Yes, but this isn't quite a criminal case.  Basically, I think the burden would fall on the Dems to show that but for the illegal conduct of not just the Pres but also Senators, these guys would have never been confirmed.  That's a really tough burden to get past, and even then there's no precedent for it.

 

The better option would be to try and squeeze them out.  Most of these guys probably value money and Trump's agenda more than the law, if they see better money options and Trump is gone, who knows, maybe a bunch will resign.

[Predicto]

5 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

I think Congress could try to remove Trump's judges.

 

I suspect the judiciary would fight back, and the only place to adjudicate such a thing would be the judiciary.

 

I mean, definitely, this kind of thing is Constitutional Crisis territory, and I don't think many people would blame the Congress for trying if Trump is indeed removed based on substantive (not just procedural) bad conduct (though Trump should be removed for procedural bad conduct too, such as obstruction).  But the pushback would be large and the mechanism for such a thing doesn't exist at the moment, so it's a hard pill to swallow to allow them to be removed.

 

I'm thinking we would need a Constitutional Amendment to pull that off, and while yes, there absolutely SHOULD be support for such an amendment, I don't think it'll happen.

 

You can't remove sitting federal judges except through the  Congressional impeachment process.  You would have to amend the constitution and that's not happening.  

45 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The only way this could somehow have even a slight chance of surviving a constitutional challenge would be if the Senate got wrapped up in it too, as in multiple senators who voted for these nominees were caught doing illegal things in the course of the investigation that would have resulted in them not being seated.  Even then it's a slim shot, but I think the argument is at least reasonable there; that not was the President retroactively disqualified by illegal actions but the Senate check was not legitimate due to others who committed illegal acts.

 

Nope.  Doesn't change a thing.  The Senate acted as a body, asserting its constitutional authority.  Retroactive removal of individual senators would have no effect.  The judges are confirmed and have taken their seats.  It's done.  

[Predicto]

21 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

In criminal cases all assets acquired as a result of the illegal activity are subject to confiscation. I don’t see why his legacy would get to stand just because everything he did after illegally taking office was done after the election.

 

Because the constitution provides the only means for removing sitting federal judges, and it takes precedence over everything else.

[visionary]

Judges are capable of removing themselves...yes?  Seems the best course would be to make that happen. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

12 minutes ago, visionary said:

Judges are capable of removing themselves...yes?  Seems the best course would be to make that happen. 

Phat chance!!