Thanks, yes, MS Edge is the browser. Works OK for me. My Win 10 has its own web search engine, too. Called Bing, I guess. It' too, works fine for my needs. You may be right about the Windows browser and Word playing nice with each other. I still do all my serious writing in Word and I'm so cantankerous I always select "Word 2003" to save the file to avoid the dreaded .docx. At 74 I do all I can to simplify my life! Less stuff = less stress, and stress kills :)
If you're getting "ghostly prediction[s] of what [you're] gonna say next" then I'm guessing you're typing on an Android phone and you're seeing Android's predictive typing at work. IOW, I don't think that, in this one case at least, Disqus is your problem.
And don't spend any brain cells worrying about SCOTUS either. This case was a rancid turd from the jump, and three extremely conservative judges just flushed it. Let's hope not, although with the clowns on the bench there now, I wouldn't put anything past them.
My understanding is that impeachment is an inherently political process, with high crimes and misdemeanors left to the definition of the House. Actual crimes are possible to pursue with prosecution, and of course would also be grounds for impeachment, but clearly impeachment can be used for egregious transgressions like Cannon's violatiions of judicial norms in furtherance of a partisan program and/or protection of a specific politician. This is not impeachment without grounds. I don't think we should be surrendering ground to the GOP in these matters of public perception. There are plenty of ways to push counter-narratives. I dont think all have been explored. Certainly for one of the few tools available, besides electoral and legislative remedies, to resist a slide into authoritarianism, we shouldn't be looking for excuses to not use it, IMO.
My understanding is that impeachment is constitutionally a matter of the House determining that 'high crimes or misdemeanors' have been committed. That it is an inherently political remedy to unacceptable behaviour in the executive and judicial branches. For the judicial branch it is the only remedy, since the judiciary cannot police itself, and judges are not elected. Prosecutable crimes don't need to have been committed. Trump's impeachments did not refer to inductions or convictions. I don't think it matters that the history of judicial impeachment has been about bribery or other crimes. My argument is that we are in new territory, in terms of the kind of transgressions judges are willing to commit, and in terms of the serious risk of turning into a de facto one-party authoritarian regime People are still thinking "it can't happen here". If you have reached the conclusion that it very much can happen here, is happening now, I think these concerns, for example the history of how impeachment was used for judges, can be seen as more than a little quaint.
"Because digging up dirt on people in order to have some power over them is his modus operandi. It's been well documented."
Has it though? I see people claiming he has or must have dirt on others a lot, but never the actual dirt.
"I don't think many people would do all that just because they like authoritarianism. Especially when TFG is no longer an authority."
That's not how authoritarianism works, especially not if you're an adherent of a would-be dictator who still insists he was cheated of the election that lost him his power. If it were how authoritarianism worked, authoritarians would instantly support whatever democratic government replaced a fallen authoritarian one. That doesn't happen.
I think that the last few years of US politics have really exposed this blindness in US culture to what authoritarianism is and looks like. People really want to believe that powerful, publicly accountable figures have to be manipulated or blackmailed into supporting someone who essentially promises them more power and less accountability. They have to believe there are extenuating circumstances that explain away a taste and greed for power. There aren't. These people want what Trump offers, so they support him. There doesn't need to be salacious pictures or details of drug addictions or offshore bank accounts- just that belief that the kind of leader Trump wants to be is the kind of leader you want.
Cannon needs to be forced to pace in front of her courthouse wearing a sign that says "I tried to interfere with a federal prosecution because they are going after the guy who gave me my job."
Not sure why the shittiness of Americans warrants wiping out everyone else on Earth by an asteroid. Just because America is rapidly becoming an irredeemable shithole doesn’t mean every other country’s people should also suffer.
I think there are a bunch of GOPers whose fingerprints are all over those documents (McCarthy) who made sure the Special Master got paid. I think the party ponied up some money too.
I understand why this looks like a matter of principle. But moving this to the Congress would be seen as a cheaply partisan dodge, and since impeachment is a political move, it needs to be considered in political, not just legal, terms.
It would go nowhere in a GOP-led House. Not using impeachment in this instance doesn't cede the ability to use impeachment in future. It's the sort of grandstanding the GOP does, and never with any success except to please its fire-breathing base. Starting next month, the House is a dead letter for the next two years. I think the Dems do better to focus on Trump and his fellow criminals and the criminal investigations now maturing, and not become the party of Impeach.
The tone of the 11th Circuit's decision was extraordinarily harsh. I think it puts Cannon on notice that if she pulls anything like this again she will face consequences - perhaps the Florida bar might sanction her. One of the norms or traditions of the federal courts is to handle disciplining its members internally.
Thanks, yes, MS Edge is the browser. Works OK for me. My Win 10 has its own web search engine, too. Called Bing, I guess. It' too, works fine for my needs. You may be right about the Windows browser and Word playing nice with each other. I still do all my serious writing in Word and I'm so cantankerous I always select "Word 2003" to save the file to avoid the dreaded .docx. At 74 I do all I can to simplify my life! Less stuff = less stress, and stress kills :)
Josh Hee-Hawley?
Might as well throw about 6 feet of dirt on her "career."
Damn Liz, that was an exceptionally well written and entertaining article.
If you're getting "ghostly prediction[s] of what [you're] gonna say next" then I'm guessing you're typing on an Android phone and you're seeing Android's predictive typing at work. IOW, I don't think that, in this one case at least, Disqus is your problem.
"This case was a rancid turd from the jump, and three extremely conservative judges just flushed it. No one's fishing this thing out again."
This is the Wonkette content I am here for.
And don't spend any brain cells worrying about SCOTUS either. This case was a rancid turd from the jump, and three extremely conservative judges just flushed it. Let's hope not, although with the clowns on the bench there now, I wouldn't put anything past them.
My understanding is that impeachment is an inherently political process, with high crimes and misdemeanors left to the definition of the House. Actual crimes are possible to pursue with prosecution, and of course would also be grounds for impeachment, but clearly impeachment can be used for egregious transgressions like Cannon's violatiions of judicial norms in furtherance of a partisan program and/or protection of a specific politician. This is not impeachment without grounds. I don't think we should be surrendering ground to the GOP in these matters of public perception. There are plenty of ways to push counter-narratives. I dont think all have been explored. Certainly for one of the few tools available, besides electoral and legislative remedies, to resist a slide into authoritarianism, we shouldn't be looking for excuses to not use it, IMO.
My understanding is that impeachment is constitutionally a matter of the House determining that 'high crimes or misdemeanors' have been committed. That it is an inherently political remedy to unacceptable behaviour in the executive and judicial branches. For the judicial branch it is the only remedy, since the judiciary cannot police itself, and judges are not elected. Prosecutable crimes don't need to have been committed. Trump's impeachments did not refer to inductions or convictions. I don't think it matters that the history of judicial impeachment has been about bribery or other crimes. My argument is that we are in new territory, in terms of the kind of transgressions judges are willing to commit, and in terms of the serious risk of turning into a de facto one-party authoritarian regime People are still thinking "it can't happen here". If you have reached the conclusion that it very much can happen here, is happening now, I think these concerns, for example the history of how impeachment was used for judges, can be seen as more than a little quaint.
I heard it referred to as a 21-page bench slap.
"Because digging up dirt on people in order to have some power over them is his modus operandi. It's been well documented."
Has it though? I see people claiming he has or must have dirt on others a lot, but never the actual dirt.
"I don't think many people would do all that just because they like authoritarianism. Especially when TFG is no longer an authority."
That's not how authoritarianism works, especially not if you're an adherent of a would-be dictator who still insists he was cheated of the election that lost him his power. If it were how authoritarianism worked, authoritarians would instantly support whatever democratic government replaced a fallen authoritarian one. That doesn't happen.
I think that the last few years of US politics have really exposed this blindness in US culture to what authoritarianism is and looks like. People really want to believe that powerful, publicly accountable figures have to be manipulated or blackmailed into supporting someone who essentially promises them more power and less accountability. They have to believe there are extenuating circumstances that explain away a taste and greed for power. There aren't. These people want what Trump offers, so they support him. There doesn't need to be salacious pictures or details of drug addictions or offshore bank accounts- just that belief that the kind of leader Trump wants to be is the kind of leader you want.
Cannon needs to be forced to pace in front of her courthouse wearing a sign that says "I tried to interfere with a federal prosecution because they are going after the guy who gave me my job."
Not sure why the shittiness of Americans warrants wiping out everyone else on Earth by an asteroid. Just because America is rapidly becoming an irredeemable shithole doesn’t mean every other country’s people should also suffer.
funny, Alito must have missed that day in law school. And when he scoured 150 year old legal opinions to prove wimmenz have no constitutional rights.
I think there are a bunch of GOPers whose fingerprints are all over those documents (McCarthy) who made sure the Special Master got paid. I think the party ponied up some money too.
I understand why this looks like a matter of principle. But moving this to the Congress would be seen as a cheaply partisan dodge, and since impeachment is a political move, it needs to be considered in political, not just legal, terms.
It would go nowhere in a GOP-led House. Not using impeachment in this instance doesn't cede the ability to use impeachment in future. It's the sort of grandstanding the GOP does, and never with any success except to please its fire-breathing base. Starting next month, the House is a dead letter for the next two years. I think the Dems do better to focus on Trump and his fellow criminals and the criminal investigations now maturing, and not become the party of Impeach.
The tone of the 11th Circuit's decision was extraordinarily harsh. I think it puts Cannon on notice that if she pulls anything like this again she will face consequences - perhaps the Florida bar might sanction her. One of the norms or traditions of the federal courts is to handle disciplining its members internally.