The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
AG Jeff Sessions has resigned at President Trumps request, announced via twitter.
Posts
I believe the description is that we have three “co-equal” branches of government.
Now, my major was biology and not English; but it sure seems to me that the judiciary was not designed to be “inferior” by the founding fathers.
Federalist Society, usually.
A good question to ask is what the hell does this guy think a judge is supposed to do in the case that the law as written by congress is in direct violation of the constitution? Just shrug and kick the can back down to the lower courts or congress?
You start with the bottom of the barrel, then you cut a hole in that and reach into the pit of refuse the barrel was supposed to cover.
No, it's definitely not. My American Gov classes made it pretty damn clear that the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches are all equal checks against each other. If two of them over step, then the third can tell them to chill the fuck out. That's the entire reason our government is setup this way and why any one party have a supermajority is never a good thing. It's all supposed to be equally balanced out.
The fact that this idiot thinks the judicial branch is inferior to the other two, and that the New Deal was somehow a bad thing pretty much screams that he's a moronic scumbag.
There is no "inferior" branch. That's the whole point of "balance of power" or "equal branches".
FFS it's called balance of power.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
"What happens if these laws conflict" was, by my understanding, well understood to be the job of judges at the time, and so is covered by literally the first sentence of article III stating SCOTUS holds supreme judicial power.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
no
it's a highly radical interpretation of the constitution
A highly radical interpretation would be that the 2nd amendment should allow us to store nukes in the basement. This seems more like he's never even read the fucking thing,
Let’s not get optimistic. This is the shit we’ve been bracing for. Until we find out otherwise we need to be preparing to fight this
He's not wrong in that that the Constitution does not really give SCOTUS the huge authority it wields now. Judicial Review is a power Marshall basically gave himself in the Marbury decision (ironically, by striking down a law expanding the courts' powers).
However, relitigating Marbury would basically pull the rug from under 200 years of constitutional law, so it's difficult to imagine anyone doing it.
Should've held on to more PTO...
More like deconstitutionalization.
they've had this planned out for a while
it wasn't "self-made" so much as utterly obvious and so broadly and universally assumed to be true based on English Common Law that Marbury vs Madison was only necessary when people saw a technically correct loophole and tried to exploit it...
not taking a dig at you at all, just chuckling at myself when reading the bolded part.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
The whole logic behind Sessions' recusal was that he was a big part of the Trump campaign, which is itself a major target of Mueller.
no, it was very specifically because he lied about meeting with the russian ambassador when he was being confirmed
"Haha silly me, I've been holding it upside down the whole time!"
Im so tired all the time.
The constitution is really vague on so many things because ti assumes everyone reading it has a encyclopedic knowledge of Common Law
NBC reporter.
Whitaker's conflicts of interest piling up. This is obscene. Please tell me there's rumblings of protest tomorrow.
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
To do what? A House committee investigator can't convene grand juries unless I am mistaken. And they don't need him to hold hearings. They could charge people with perjury before a committee I guess...
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I need a lawyer to tell me whether something like this would normally be grounds for recusal or just 'lawyering is a small world; this stuff happens'
Yes, I'm actively rumbling. From the looks of /r/politics' megathread I'm not the only one.
Isn't recusal voluntary? Can you force someone to recuse themselves?
this is a nice sentiment but it's basically retroactive justification; the framers pretty clearly intended the legislature to be the superior branch (and the judiciary barely to be a branch at all)
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
No, it can't be literally forced. I think the closest you would see is Whitaker caving to overwhelming pressure from Congress and/or DOJ ethics officials.
The hilarious outcome, per OremLK's "half-baked" comment above, would be if Whitaker immediately says, "Of course I'm recusing myself, it's only appropriate."
Recuse himself?