14
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 10:24 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
I’m finding myself in a weird small group that feels comfortable telling the truth about people I don’t like, just because it’s the truth.


You're not.

Trump has been found guilty if criminal misconduct including rape.

He tried to overturn a democratic election.

He should be in prison.

I live in a country occupied by your troops.

Trump will have no hesitation ordering them to start killing us.

He hates all Europeans, but he hates the British with a passion.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 10:26 am
Excellent reporting from the NYT
Quote:
A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday that, on paper, are about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee that they consider unreasonable. But the lawyers who have helped to propel their case to the nation’s highest court have a far more powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch.

The case is one of the most consequential to come before the justices in years. A victory for the fishermen would do far more than push aside the monitoring fee, part of a system meant to prevent overfishing, that they objected to. It would very likely sharply limit the power of many federal agencies to regulate not only fisheries and the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other activities, legal experts say.

“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former Obama White House official. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”

The lawyers who represent the New Jersey-based fishermen, are working pro bono and belong to a public-interest law firm, Cause of Action, that discloses no donors and reports having no employees. However, court records show that the lawyers work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by Mr. Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries and a champion of anti-regulatory causes.

The law firm’s board of directors includes a top lawyer at the firm that has represented Koch Industries in a range of cases, like the company’s past defense against lawsuits linked to its handling of petroleum coke, a byproduct of oil refining, and in its opposition to stronger regulations on the substance.

The lawyer also represents Koch Industries in an ongoing lawsuit filed by the Minnesota attorney general that accuses the company of deceptive practices related to climate change.

Other members of the board include executives at groups predominantly funded by Mr. Koch or by Koch Industries, America’s second-largest privately held company, after Cargill.

Ryan Mulvey, counsel for Cause of Action and one of the lawyers litigating the case before the Supreme Court, said the focus “should be on the fishermen and what they are fighting.”

“This case is about the livelihoods of hard-working, family-run fishing companies that are under threat because of unconstitutional overreach by the government,” Mr. Mulvey said.

A spokeswoman at Cause of Action said the group was within its constitutional rights to not disclose its donors. The spokeswoman, who declined to be identified, said that Cause of Action and Americans for Prosperity were separate organizations. Neither Mr. Koch nor Koch Industries were involved in the case, she said. Koch Industries did not respond to requests for comment.

Rolling back the power of the state to regulate business has been a longstanding goal of conservative legal activists and their funders, who have been engaged in a yearslong effort to use the judicial system to rewrite environmental law. In 2022, they scored a victory with a Supreme Court decision that could sharply limit the federal government’s authority to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants. Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are a primary cause of climate change.

The legal doctrine being challenged in the fishing case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-452, has wider implications. The doctrine, known as the Chevron deference, after a 1984 Supreme Court ruling involving the oil and gas giant, empowers federal agencies to interpret ambiguities in laws passed by Congress.

Congress is not equipped to manage the day-to-day administration of the legislation it passes, the reasoning goes, so it should rely on federal agencies to carry out laws and policies. Weakening or eliminating the Chevron deference could limit the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer.

The Biden administration has defended the rule, arguing that executive agencies, unlike courts, are politically accountable.

Supporters of the rule say the case is a vehicle for other interests beyond the fishermen’s complaint.

“These fisheries workers are providing cover for what is ultimately a Koch campaign,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the progressive watchdog group True North Research and a former senior Justice Department official.

With the Supreme Court’s shift to the right in recent years, free-market proponents appear to see an opportunity to clip the wings of federal power, in part by bringing carefully selected cases before sympathetic judges.

That shift has been aided by groups, including those linked to Mr. Koch, that worked to support the nomination and confirmation of the five most recent Republican appointees on the bench.

At a forum hosted in November by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, a lawyer laid out the strategy.

“To successfully wage such a campaign, you need three things,” Damien M. Schiff, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said at the forum. “Money, legal personnel and a judiciary that’s receptive to strategically selected and timed legal arguments.”

Conservative groups and their backers now have all of those things, Mr. Schiff said, according to a video. In particular, “money’s never going to be a problem,” he said. “One can easily litigate to the Supreme Court on the cheap.”

“Congratulations,” responded David Doniger, a lawyer in attendance at the event who, 40 years ago, argued the original Chevron case on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But to me, this is clothing nakedly private interests in highfalutin’ constitutional arguments.”

In an interview, Mr. Schiff said that cases like these were fast becoming the preferred way for groups to fight federal regulations. “When you compare how much impact that one can have on society through litigating, and especially winning in the Supreme Court, to lobbying with administrative agencies or through political campaigns,” he said, “it’s much more efficient.”

His group, Pacific Legal Foundation, is part of a network of conservative research organizations that has received funding from Mr. Koch and other donors.

The Loper Bright case, now consolidated with a similar case involving fishermen from Rhode Island, has in many ways offered litigators a compelling story line of small businesses fighting for survival. The fishermen feature prominently on a page offering information on the case, promoted via Google ads.

“Nobody in a family business wants to be the last one to do it, everyone wants to pass it along, and my fear is I might not be able to,” Stefan Axelsson, introduced as a third-generation commercial fisherman, says in one featured video, titled “Fishermen fight back against unlawful, job-killing government mandate.” Mr. Axelsson couldn’t be reached for comment.

The page doesn't mention the Koch affiliations, though a contact form generates an email to Cause of Action, as well as to Stand Together, a nonprofit group founded by Mr. Koch, who remains one of its donors.

The Cause of Action Institute has disclosed little of its funding: A year before it was created, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling had enabled billions of dollars in spending by groups that don’t disclose their donors.

Cause of Action’s founder, Daniel Z. Epstein, had previously been an associate at the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The group’s first known address was the same as that for Americans for Prosperity.

In an interview, Mr. Epstein, who later served as counsel to Donald J. Trump’s first presidential campaign and transition team and is now an associate professor at St. Thomas University, said Cause of Action’s work with fishermen hadn’t been born of a motivation to overturn the Chevron doctrine. “It had everything to do with an observer program that spies on the fishermen,” he said.

He declined to discuss funding.

Cause of Action has had two cash infusions, both from Mr. Koch’s Stand Together, according to tax filings from Stand Together, including more than $4 million in 2019, and $1.1 million in 2020. In its most recent tax filing, covering the time when the fishermen’s case was being worked on, the group reported having no employees. The case is being litigated by lawyers who work for Americans for Prosperity, including Mr. Mulvey.

The board that directs Cause of Action includes William Burck, who is managing partner at the law firm Quinn Emanuel, which has represented Koch Industries in litigation against environmental regulations. Mr. Burck is the lead lawyer in Koch Industries’ defense in a separate case before the Supreme Court, the lawsuit filed by Minnesota accusing Koch and other oil and gas companies of undermining the public’s understanding of the dangers of burning fossil fuels.

Other board members include Emily Seidel, the chief executive of Americans for Prosperity, formerly director of special projects for Koch Companies Public Sector, Koch Industries’ lobbying arm; and Kurt Level, the current deputy general counsel at Koch Companies Public Sector.


Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 10:33 am
@izzythepush,
Trump said when you’re rich and famous, women will let you do anything to them—you can grab them by the pussy.

I think that’s probably true with a subset of women.

There’s no crime in being crass or gross.

Quote:
Trump wants to destroy the planet, exterminate Mexico, give Europe to Putin and kill anyone who disagrees with him.


A tad hyperbolic, but I don’t have much room to criticize.
______________________

Biden is significantly worse than other presidents. Many of them have participated in war crimes that approach genocide etc, but were more successful at keeping it off the front burner of our news / minds. With Biden, it’s full frontal dismemberment of children 24/7–he’s the first president I know of who’s actually equivocating a genocide.

He stands alone in that.

Disclaimer: Trump is bad.
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 10:55 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Lash wrote:
But, what’s your point? Trump won decisively—despite almost a decade of assassination by ‘judicial means’, media suppression, an outright war on him by agencies, media, etc.

I thought you said you didn't like Trump.

My goodness.

There are a great number of ways in which Lash reveals her actual political ideas and her real intentions in posting here but this post makes those ideas and intentions perfectly transparent.


Granted that Hillary ran a campaign that can reasonably be faulted, but Lash and others of her ilk helped defeat Hillary...and gave us Trump.

Now, she and those others are trying to give us another dose of him.

They may succeed. I hope not.

But, whether he wins this next election or not, future historians will not forget what Trump and his enablers did to America and the world.

Lash and others of her ilk are a significant part of the Trump enabling.

blatham
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 11:10 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Lash and others of her ilk are a significant part of the Trump enabling.

However one might perceive Lash's game, yes, this is a certain consequence.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 11:24 am
@Lash,
You're not living in acountry under occupation.

I am.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 11:28 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Hitler will be twirling in his grave with envy.

Why?
The parliamentary system of the Weimar Republic had already been undermined before 30 January 1933, the day on which President Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor of the Reich.
Hitler intended to free himself from all parliamentary scrutiny, but he needed the support of a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag to enact such legislation.

With the Enabling Act - which empowered the Government to enact laws without the consent of Parliament, even if they were inconsistent with the Constitution of the Reich . the Reichstag downgraded itself from a legislative body to an acclamatory auditorium.


Ver<y soon afterwards, Hitler created the "Führer State" - Reichstag bodies were successively abolished.
On 2 August 1934, a law amalgamating the offices of President and Chancellor - likewise adopted without parliamentary approval - enabled Hitler to assume the title of ‘Leader and Chancellor of the Reich’ (Führer und Reichskanzler).

Incidentally, in all elections from November 1933 onwards, only the NSDAP stood for election . (The National Socialists had achieved their goal by seemingly legal means. There was only one party left in Germany: the NSDAP. With the "Law against the Formation of New Parties" of 14 July 1933, the National Socialist one-party state was finally manifested.)
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 12:05 pm
@izzythepush,
A hardy percentage of Americans might argue that point—we have about as much say re the behavior of our militaristic government as you do.

Your own government marches in lockstep with ours.
If the UK govt is complying and collaborating with my rogue, authoritarian govt, I can’t see how your situation is worse than mine.

At least you have healthcare.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 12:15 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:


Your own government marches in lockstep with ours.


And why the **** do you think that is?

Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam and he was forced out.

Jim Callaghan was a bit more compliant.

Chris Mullins was inspired to write A Very British Coup.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 12:18 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Because, once the 2 American parties are united, the defeat of the US will likely be impossible.

This, because of the US’ weapons arsenal and the widespread knowledge, as evidenced by current events on the global stage, that war against the US would leave the world forever changed—because of what we have & will obviously use.
_______________

But, that was some fancy political maneuvering by AH. I expect when the time comes in the US, no one will get to vote on it.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 12:19 pm
@Lash,
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 12:28 pm
@Lash,
A "fancy political maneuvering by AH" you call it.
Aha.

On 3 March 1933, the Nohra concentration camp was set up in a military school near Weimar as the first concentration camp of the Third Reich.
On 13 March 1933, Munich's provisional police chief Heinrich Himmler ordered the establishment of the Dachau concentration camp (near Munich). On 21 March 1933, the Oranienburg concentration camp (north of Berlin) was established as the first concentration camp under the control of the SA.
During this time, Ahrensbök concentration camp, Alt-Daber concentration camp, Bad Sulza concentration camp, Benninghausen concentration camp, Brandenburg an der Havel concentration camp, Börnicke concentration camp, Breitenau concentration camp, Breslau-Dürrgoy concentration camp, Esterwegen concentration camp, Kemna concentration camp, Sonnenburg concentration camp and finally Bredow concentration camp were also established.

Everywhere there, political opponents of the regime and members of the former political parties were taken into "protective custody" outside the normal legal system and mistreated.

A "fancy political maneuvering by AH" you call it.
Aha.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 01:35 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Trump said when you’re rich and famous, women will let you do anything to them—you can grab them by the pussy.

I think that’s probably true with a subset of women.


No, he said that in reference to going in a changing room filled with, models aka teenage girls.

You are spinning Trump's paedophilia.
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 01:48 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Well, that would have been good information to have in your *previous* post.
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 01:52 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Lash wrote:

Trump said when you’re rich and famous, women will let you do anything to them—you can grab them by the pussy.

I think that’s probably true with a subset of women.


No, he said that in reference to going in a changing room filled with, models aka teenage girls.

You are spinning Trump's paedophilia.

I could be wrong (and I’ll check as soon as I hit Reply), but I’m almost sure he said that in a famous interview with … Billy …Burke?… or some such person with a major network. I must have seen that clip a hundred times.

Anyway, I’ll confirm one way or another.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 01:58 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Well, that would have been good information to have in your *previous* post.
Sorry, I'd thought that these basic facts of the Nazi regime were known, especially since you often draw comparisons to the Nazi era and also because Nazi concentration camps should not be unknown even to you.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 02:00 pm
https://www.vox.com/2016/10/7/13205842/trump-secret-recording-women

Billy Bush

Caught on a hot mic when he thought he was having a private conversation. Still revealing. I wouldn’t give any other presidential candidates a break for a hot mic convo.
____________________

Moments later, Trump notices Arianne Zucker, the soap opera actress who would later escort him and Bush to the set. Bush calls her “hot as ****.” Trump jokes that he should “use some Tic Tacs” in case he starts kissing her.

“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait,” Trump said. “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
__________________
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 02:01 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Trump said when you’re rich and famous, women will let you do anything to them—you can grab them by the pussy.

I think that’s probably true with a subset of women.

There’s no crime in being crass or gross.


Please explain what subset of women who would enjoy being sexually assaulted in such a manner. Please explain why you wouldn't think this is a crime.



0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 02:07 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Oh dear! What a disappointment for you.

No American middle school English teacher knows random dates of the opening of various concentration camps as compared to dates of Hitlerian edicts like the Enabling Act.

Tragic.

Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Jan, 2024 02:14 pm
@Lash,
I also had to look up the exact dates.

But that's not what I meant at all.

Originally, the concentration camps were set up by the National Socialist government for political opponents. (Only from 1937 onwards, more and more other persecuted people were sent there - Jews, Sinti and Roma, homosexuals, alleged "asocials" and "criminals".)

That was my point. Sorry, I didn't explain the purpose of the Nazi concentration camps simple enough.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 09:42:03