OK. I guess I can see how [un]official is a lawyerism, thereby routing more
disambiguation into the court system, where the lower courts act as a sieve. But for that
to work, they're gonna need some competence from the legislature. New laws (and executive
orders, for that matter) have to be constructed so as not to overwhelm the courts. Unless
we step back and consider the "them", here, is rich people, including justices
who can curry favor from other, richer, people. Only rich people have the inertia to
sustain a chain of appeals. And if that's the case, the collapse will only come as an
effect of the overproduction of elites. They'll eat each other, trampling the grass all
the while.
On 7/1/24 10:21, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The conservative arm of SCOTUS is just optimizing their lifestyle for the rest
of their lives by giving power to themselves (Chevron) and to their friends.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:02 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?
An interesting edge case is Sotomayor's comment. If Biden ordered the
assassination of Trump via Seal Team 6, would that be an official act of that
office? No. I can't imagine even Cannon or Chutkan would suggest it was. I
wonder, though, if Biden ordered the assassination of, say, Iran's Supreme
Leader, would that be an official act? I think maybe, yes. But it's against our
foreign policy. So we'd expect a chain of actions, first an Executive Order
allowing it. But it's against international law. Right? So while I agree with
the gist that this ruling helps place us in the same category as every other
state governed by some tin-pot dictator, it also smells a bit like a neoliberal
move to a World Order. If we can't rein in our President, we have to empower
the UN (or maybe Google and Palantir?) to do so. The ruling surrenders our
ability to govern ourselves and hands that power over to some as-yet
un-resolved agent.
It's difficult for me to believe the conservative arm of SCOTUS is so
completely stupid as to surrender their ability to check the admin's power. So
I have to assume I simply don't understand their long game.
On 7/1/24 09:32, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Besides the heroic act of following LBJ, another one could be to deal with
Trump. Hard to punish an old person with threat of incarceration. His defense
could last years until he died, and meanwhile they argue diminished capacity.
Let's go Dark Brandon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 9:25 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?
I don't think so. E.g. Trump's threat to fire the AG for not opening investigations seems
official, if a bit unethical. So the righties' rhetoric about "Biden's persecution
of Trump" is nonsense. It would (now) be a clearly official act for Biden to
threaten the AG for refusing to open an investigation into Trump. But the conclusions of
that investigation are another matter. The effects of such acts percolate down through
the admin, then back up through the courts. What's missing in action is the 3rd branch,
here. And I think it's safe to claim the Senate bears most of the responsibility for a
defunkt legislature.
Anyway, the hysteria on all sides to this ruling seem similar to the Dems'
hysteria w.r.t. Biden's debate performance. It's like everyone's lost their
executive function. I'm starting to think we need to send every citizen through
pilot training so they can learn to stay calm under duress ... and I'm normally
the first to insult the Rationalists. 8^D
On 7/1/24 08:49, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The "outer perimeter" would allow Biden to through Trump in a dungeon, etc. No?
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 7:59 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/01/supreme-court-trump-immunity-claim-decision-updates#top-of-blog
Anyone care to take a stab at explaining why the ruling doesn't simply kick the
can down the road a bit? I mean, how could (say) hiding secret documents, riot
incitation at a campaign event, etc. be considered official acts of the Office
of the President? I suppose I can see some of the evidence being thrown out,
like claims about POTUS not getting involved in protecting the Capitol
building. But is this ruling really that damaging to the prosecution's case?
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
