Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. They upheld the Constitution. The issue here was whether individual states could invoke their own interpretation of a federal law. Obviously the answer is no since that could lead to contradictory interpretations between states and federal laws must apply uniformly to all states. Now, if Colorado had something similar to sec 3 of the 14th amendment in the election laws of their state constitution, they may well have been allowed to remove him from the ballot.
    6
  2. At issue was whether individual states could invoke their own interpretation of federal law. The only answer to that is "no" since that could lead to contradictory interpretations between states and federal laws must be applied uniformly to all states. A unanimous decision was the only possible outcome if the Constitution were to be upheld. Edit: If Colorado had something similar to sec 3 of the 14th amendment in the election laws of their state constitution, they may have been able to remove him from the ballot.
    4
  3. Two completely different things. At question here was essentially whether individual states could invoke their own interpretation of a federal law. Obviously the answer has to be no since doing so could end up with contradictory interpretations and federal law must apply uniformly to all states. What you're talking about is a requirement from the election laws of an individual state as laid out in their state constitution. Generally, the use of registration fees etc. is up to the state as long as it is reasonable and doesn't somehow violate the US Constitution (the requirement you mentioned would most likely be considered legitimate.) Interestingly, if Colorado's state constitution included something similar to sec 3 of the 14th amendment in it's election laws, then they may have been allowed to keep him off the ballot (or at least, it likely wouldn't have been a unanimous decision by SCOTUS.)
    3
  4. The only difference between the younger and older generations is that younger generations temper knowledge with naivete and blind idealism. While older generations temper knowledge with experience and realism.
    3
  5. A lot of it can be quickly skimmed as it's just drawn out legalese. The actual core of what it does would take up about 500 pages (maybe up to 1,000 if you wanted to make sure you didn't miss any minor points.) Very little of which has anything to do with covid relief. Bills like this are why they have aides and interns to summarize things for them. There's no excuse for them not knowing what it did before voting. Now to be fair, everyone is making it out to be a covid relief bill with a bunch of junk tacked on when it's not. It's name is the Consolidated Appropriations Act. It's basically a spending bill with covid relief tacked on. For some reason, the covid part wasn't sent to the President as a stand alone bill like it should have been. It's all or nothing. I can't stand Trump, but Congress is playing dirty here and should be ashamed of themselves.
    3
  6. Nah, Pence will end up invoking the 25th amendment on him and declare him mentally unfit for office. The Republicans would much rather that happen as it doesn't require a trial.
    2
  7. +Zachary Hawley "And it is abundantly clear the judicial branch has no business interfering with the executive branch in regards to presidential powers." That's one of the main reasons for their existence...to keep the other two branches "honest." The first version of the order was very poorly written to the point that the powers it gave the President were so vague and open ended that they could have been interpreted as giving the President total power over immigration with no oversight (not what the Constitution intended.) Then, there was the religious based preferential treatment clause. That version had to be tossed by the courts (even if the part dealing directly with the ban had been found to be legal.) Now the new one seems to have fixed those problems and has a strong chance of being legal. It does alter the powers of the President concerning immigration a bit though, so it really needs to go to the Supreme Court for a final say. Some judges will likely put stays on it more to speed up that journey than because they think it's not legal.
    2
  8. ​ @babaranks198 A conviction most likely isn't required. Section 3 of the 14th amendment became law long before the federal statute directly pertaining to insurrection and rebellion existed. It doesn't make sense that it's authors would have included a conviction of a non-existing law in order for disqualification to be applied (as that would make the entire section completely pointless to begin with.)
    2
  9. The issue here was whether individual states could invoke their own interpretation of federal law. Obviously the answer has to be "no" since that could lead to contradictory interpretations between states and federal laws must be applied uniformly to all states. If Colorado had something similar to sec 3 of the 14th amendment in the election laws of their state constitution, they likely would have been allowed to remove him from the ballot. They didn't so they weren't. SCOTUS got this one right.
    2
  10. Trump is bi-polar. The narcissism is from his delusions of grandeur as is the lying. The reason he has no attention span and speaks at a 4th grade level is because his thoughts are running faster than he can process. He holds onto ideas like the electoral college win because it's something simple that he can hold onto. In the past, he could get out of the spotlight and people could pull him back from his mania. As President, he's fucked in that department so his mania will continue to worsen until he has a complete psychotic break. If they would just sneak some lithium in with his morning vitamins, they might save us from that horrible fate at least...
    1
  11. I'm pretty sure it was serious.. and I also generally agree with your opinions...just not so much your methods (which is why I don't subscribe)...You try to come across as serious and yet I've seen far too many bullshit arguments from you delivered in a serious manner that many people who don't like to think too hard or fact check things for themselves take as legitimate...It doesn't help the "causes" you support...it damages their legitimacy...It's...for lack of a better term...sleazy...
    1
  12. Trying to impeach on that would be a waste of effort and political capital. The part that deals with the actual ban might actually be allowed. The other aspects covered in the order however are so poorly worded and open ended in defining new powers for POTUS that they could be interpreted as giving POTUS complete power over Immigration (with no defined oversight save SCOTUS.) It's so horribly done that stupidity would be a legitimate defense...(for impeachment they would really need to prove intent to raise the powers of POTUS above what those already granted by the constitution in order to have a good chance of succeeding.)
    1
  13. I've read it and I agree with the OP. They competently addressed the many problems the original had. I hate to say it but I'll actually lose respect for the courts if they decide to block this one. Everything in it is well within the President's Constitutional powers. The only issue left is whether or not it's necessary and that's not something for the courts to determine. As far as the law and the Constitution go, this one is fine.
    1
  14. Feel free to point out any part of it you think goes beyond the President's powers. The real reason the courts blocked the original wasn't due to it being some sort of "Muslim ban" (though that made for a good excuse and good publicity), it was all the poorly worded and vague new powers it gave to the President, the lack of clarity concerning who the damn thing applied to, the wording of religious preferential treatment clause for refugees it contained, and other stuff that the media chose to mostly overlook in favor of emotional arguments. Those problems have been appropriately fixed in this version. The only arguments left against this one are on emotional / moral grounds, neither of which are the courts concern...or shouldn't be if they're doing their jobs right.
    1
  15. #1 is a given (were it not, all of this would be moot)...#2 and #3 do nothing to overturn the order in a legal sense. They merely point out that the :"due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14th amendment do apply and that the States could individually challenge the order and have a reasonable chance of doing so successfully (had it gone to SCOTUS, those points would not be reason to overturn the order.) #4 is pointless fluff. Nowhere is the President specifically required to show cause or give a reason to block immigration / refugees (especially not temporarily.) It'd be nice if there were such a rule...but there isn't (and it would require an amendment, not a court decision, to implement such.) Were SCOTUS to make that a primary argument to overturn it, they'd be overstepping their bounds (something they're generally pretty good at avoiding.) #5 is also fluff. Inconvenience is not a legitimate legal argument (especially if it's one of the primary arguments.) All that's at question is the constitutionality of the order. The original had unconstitutional aspects to it. This one fixes those.
    1
  16. +wong If I didn't think he suffered from bi-polar disorder, I'd laugh at him. As it is, I find it somewhat sad (and occasionally scary as hell when I remember that he has the nuke codes etc.)
    1
  17. +wong As worded, it's definitely within the powers of the President. The question should be "Would I stake my life on the Supreme Court agreeing / making the right decision?" No. They've been known to fuck up from time to time. (assuming that it even makes it to SCOTUS. I think the lower courts may likely put stays on it hoping to pass the buck to the next court. It'll be a matter of how hard Trump wants to push it.)
    1
  18. He's bi-polar. We've seen the mania, now we get to see the depression.
    1
  19. It wasn't really a state rights issue. The question was whether individual states could invoke their own interpretation of a federal law. Obviously, the answer has to be "no" since that could lead to contradictory interpretations between states and federal laws must be applied uniformly to all states. Now, if Colorado had something similar to sec 3 of the 14th amendment in the election laws of their state constitution, then it would have been a state rights issue and they would likely have been able to keep him off the ballot. The 10th amendment only sends something to the states if nothing in the US Constitution gives the federal government specific powers pertaining to the issue. By the Constitution, federal law has always taken precedent over state law and sec 3 of the 14th amendment is federal law. SCOTUS got this one right.
    1
  20. It's not just right wing. Many with education/experience in certain fields can look at the medical examiner's report and see that there's simply no physical evidence from the autopsy to support the official cause of death. Also, those who work in fields that deal with drug addiction and are aware of the overdose statistics for fentanyl etc. will notice that the state's toxicology expert based his testimony (refuting overdose) on a fentanyl level half that found at autopsy and that the autopsy level was indeed well into the potential fatal overdose range. Floyd also showed obvious signs of fentanyl overdose from the earliest video evidence all the way to the end when became unresponsive. Regardless of how badly you hate Chauvin (and he more than earned it), there was simply more than enough information to create reasonable doubt on the two murder charges to anyone who knew what they were looking at/understands what they heard during the trial. Liberal or conservative, makes no difference. Unfair trials and wrongful convictions should not be tolerated.
    1