So maddof has always claimed that the banks were in on his scheme? And now I'm reading JPMorgan is obstructing the investigation and maddof wants to testify to congress? Damn, is this going to be something good or just a storm in a ass of water?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
It begs the question as to why they would obstruct. It could be that they just suspected something but had no proof and are afraid of having some sort of liability (the most likely reason), or they straight up helped him pull it off (unlikely as he would have thrown them under the bus a lot sooner).
If the president believes that a law is unconstitutional, why shouldn't there be a "constitutional crisis" (a term which sounds much more exciting than it is)? Our goal shouldn't be to limit constitutional crises, but to limit the imposition or enforcement of unconstitutional acts. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), presidents tend to have an expansive view regarding what is constitutional, and so have few opportunities to refuse to enforce a law because they believe it to be unconstitutional.
As for Obama's approach with DOMA (continuing to enforce the law but refusing to defend it in court), it's clear that it is less effective at getting an opinion from the Supreme Court than a complete refusal to enforce the law would have been. If Joe the IRS auditor feels that he is being forced by presidential order to violate the law by recognizing a same-sex marriage, then clearly Joe has standing and the courts can reach the merits of DOMA; Obama's method left the door open for the Court to dismiss without reaching the merits, limiting the effect of the ruling.
Finally, just as a personal matter, do you really prefer a president who enforces what he believes to be unconstitutional laws over a president who refuses to?
Well the article claims he mentioned the banks as soon as he was arrested so my interest is piqued. Hard to imagine really but banks are fucked up places. You never know.
Whistleblower of the century if true.
We took a brief look at the case in Biz Law and Ethics a semester back and one of the NY Times articles we looked at had this bit:
The bolded parts, to me, make their behavior a bit suspicious. Pulling all of your investments and steering people away from him seems like you know more than you're letting on.
Wow that's a pretty damming article. Thanks man. I'm looking forward to developments in this case. Anything to see the banks burn.
This may be pretty interesting if he really can blow the whistle on the banks.
No yea that's really suspicious. Unless they alerted the relevant regulators to their suspicions then they have a legit fear of being held accountable, because they are.
I like that typo.
Mississippi, the state that just ratified the 13th amendment at he bottom of the pack.
I missed all the same-sex marriage fun, I'm guessing.
I read the oral arguments. Again, I don't think you can read too much into it. I'll stick to what I said, DOMA section III is done, guaranteed. In fact, I think it will be more than 5 justices agreeing, though for different reasons.
Prop 8 still unsure how narrow the decision will be. I'm feeling like it will be narrow somehow and they will wait for a state with a gay marriage ban to come up in a few years (possibly after 2016) to strike it down and legalize it nationally.
The standing arguments for prop 8 were interesting. I don't think they will claim a lack of standing, though.
I read the oral arguments. Again, I don't think you can read too much into it. I'll stick to what I said, DOMA section III is done, guaranteed. In fact, I think it will be more than 5 justices agreeing, though for different reasons.
Prop 8 still unsure how narrow the decision will be. I'm feeling like it will be narrow somehow and they will wait for a state with a gay marriage ban to come up in a few years (possibly after 2016) to strike it down and legalize it nationally.
The standing arguments for prop 8 were interesting. I don't think they will claim a lack of standing, though.
Mississippi is truly the worst state. The fattest, poorest, and one of the least educated states. Just ratified the 13th Amendment. Won't have a majority support marriage equality until 2040 at the earliest and probably won't recognize it at a state level until 2161.
Anyone here in Mississippi? are we even sure they discovered the internet?
OK, here are some more from a USA Today article about Eastern European commemorations of Pres. Reagan's 100th birthday last summer:
It is not hard to find Eastern European dissidents who praise Pres. Reagan's importance to their cause. It's not likely that they're all in the tank for the Republican party or just being nice.
Regarding détente: even Pres. Carter gave up on it after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Pres. Reagan did not kill it and prolong the Cold War for a decade.
I want this guy as my friend.
No one with half a brain feared him to begin with.
I live just outside Memphis and have a Mississippi address. The city I live in has a gay Republican mayor mired in a corruption scandal for, among other things, using city funds at a gay sex shop in Canada. Seriously. He's running for reelection right now.
It wasn't dissidents in Hungary, it was the government, and there wasn't really a revolution there, they opened the border to Austria which was a monumental event in the fall of the soviet block, but the Russians pretty much left on their own.
And more importantly, I really think that bringing flattering quotes from random people in eastern Europe at Reagan memorials it's not the best way to assess his contribution to the fall of the soviet block.
Not true.
Carter had to ramp up his anti-soviet rhetoric leading up to the '80 election, but it was mostly as a reaction to Reagan and his merry band of chicken littles.
Carter signed SALT II and didn't withdraw for it even after Afghanistan, it was Reagan who unilaterally broke that treaty (and we know now it was because of some baseless bullshit).
Honestly, it's weird to even see that point being argued, that was the main thing Reagan campaigned on in '80, you know "detente is what the farmer has with the turkey before thanksgiving" and all that jazz.
Sure, in retrospect the idea that the USSR was secretly preparing for a surprise attack against the US in the 80s is silly, but pretending the Reagan didn't believe in it and campaign on it is even sillier.
Believe it, we're Texas-like on this front and a herald for terrible damned ideas of the short term thinking nature for the region---while other states might be assailed by droughts and such we were dumb enough to legislate our way into crops just rotting on the ground, among many other ways the state makes the news. Hell, it is even common here to default to "Well, at least we're not Mississippi~"
Question I've always had on the Cold War. Bush 1 drew back from Reagans overt hawkish stance didn't he?
I remember reading about his muted reaction to the berlin wall because he feared the Russians seeing the americans celebrating and cracking down.
I've always assumed based on my reading that the Iron Curtain fell because economic conditions that really started in the 70s and were something the state run socialism couldn't effectively respond two which lead to and ever evolving opening which spiraled out of their control.
Lech Walesa is not a random person. There are Reagan statues and streets named after him in Eastern Europe, and prominent people there who were involved in the fall of the Soviet Bloc credit his contribution to their cause. It is likely that the people who live there and experienced it firsthand have a better perspective on Pres. Reagan's contributions to the fall of the Soviet Bloc than his domestic political opponents. (Unless Team B orchestrated it all before it started planning 9/11).
I never claimed Reagan isn't loved in Poland, I claimed that the soviet block would've collapsed just fine without him.
I also think that he probably delayed it for about a decade.
Not sure how that's a counterpoint.
p.s.
You should really read about team b if you think this is some sort of conspiracy theory, those idiots could've got us into war.
I'm not going to laugh because I'd rather Wisconsonians find jobs even if it's under the watch of an idiot, but yeah good job, good effort Walker.
Their unemployment rate is 6.7. Not surprising that a state with low UE would be low on job creation
What the hell does Thomas do? He certainly doesn't give any indication he so much as thinks; he seems to exist solely to rubber stamp the conservative bench. Has he written any minority/majority opinions recently?
They voted that dipshit in, they can suffer under his reign.
Thomas is a blemish on the court, but one thing I can't fault him for is remaining silent during oral argument. Lawyers consider oral argument on appeal unlikely to affect the result. And jurists like Scalia only use it as a kind of bully pulpit. The adage is that cases may be lost on oral argument, but not won (and very unlikely to do either). I consider Thomas's silence during oral argument his best quality. By far.
Speaking of Hungary and post Communism. I wonder why so many people there prefer the old system, almost 3/4th in fact. Many people in the former Soviet bloc believe that life was better than.
I wonder why this is. I mean when I think of the Soviet Bloc I don't think of peace and prosperity. I've talked with some Yugoslavians and it goes back to "Unity, wages were the same, everyone had jobs, and most of the old farts from the previous government stayed anyway".
I sort of wanted to make a thread on it but I'm worried that it could get too heated with mostly non-Eastern Europeans fueling the fire as well as most people who do chose to participate being too biased. Sort of like Venezuelan threads.
Like I said this guy has been horrible to us.
Yes,and Lech Walesa and other Eastern European dissidents directly contradict that. I will defer to their expertise on the matter.
What expertise? The expertise lies with historians and political scientists who have actually thoroughly researched the subject. Did/does lech Walesa know the inner workings of the soviet union or the state of their economy, etc and a whole crap load of other factors?
Do you have any examples that weren't from, you know, statue dedications and commemorations of Reagan's birthday? Obviously the speeches made at such events should not be considered attempts at objective policy statements.
Yeah, it really sucks. I'm thankful I found a good gig and am now eagerly helping a small business become something that will someday be a pretty large business here in Wisconsin. I just wish others did, because then my good gig would be even better (since they'd have the money to spend at my place!)
It's really just awful how badly we've done compared to everyone else. PD can sit there and say yeah it's because we were doing alright to begin with. Sure, but Walker promised much more, and any way you slice it getting worse is literally worse. You can't tell me he's got good policies if they're making things worse. You just can't. And hopefully Walker can't tell anyone that when he tries to run and people point to the fact that he has barely done shit in this state besides piss people off.
If the US were shedding jobs under Obama's watch you'd be writing his political obituary. Oh wait, you do that anyway.
Tell me exactly how Wisconsin consistently losing jobs indicates a good job done by Walker. I'm really curious.
Well, there shouldn't be constitutional crises because they literally directly undermine the principle of separation of powers on which the government is based. That's the whole reason we have such an exciting name for them! It's straightforwardly not the job of the executive branch to determine the constitutionality of laws. We have a whole other branch to do only that. If the president starts doing it, what if SCOTUS disagrees with him? And what if the president refuses to change his mind?
Yes, and in your example, the choice is no longer between striking down DOMA or dismissing the case and allowing the plaintiff to prevail anyway, it's between striking down DOMA or finding the president guilty of malfeasance. What happens if SCOTUS makes a finding that the president should be impeached and Congress fails to do it? We don't have good answers for all these questions, that's why it's called a constitutional crisis!
robert bolt said:
I do prefer a president who adheres to separation of powers over a president that doesn't, yes. I remember George W.'s signing statements all too well.
It is emphatically the responsibility of each branch of government to determine the constitutionality of laws. Your questions are equally applicable to a scenario where the president must enforce unconstitutional laws until adjudication by the Supreme Court. What if the president believes a law is constitutional, the Supreme Court disagrees, and the president refuses to stop enforcing the law? This isn't only possible, but has happened. Bear in mind that the Constitution doesn't grant the courts the power of judicial review of laws--the Supreme Court assumed that power by virtue of its duty to uphold the Constitution as against unconstitutional laws, and each branch has that duty.
But, to answer your question, nothing would happen. The Supreme Court would have given the president its blessing to enforce the law, and the president would still refuse to do so. That might give Congress a basis for impeaching the president, but so what? That's how checks and balances should work. If the president has no authority to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws prior to the Supreme Court's adjudication, then why should he swear to uphold the Constitution? Why not just swear to uphold acts of Congress that aren't struck down by the Supreme Court?
The utility of a plaintiff's victory in this case by a finding of lack of standing is very limited--literally no court in the nation would be bound to come to the same conclusion on the merits in future cases (save, perhaps, the district court which originally entered the judgment). If the president's goal is to never have the Supreme Court adjudicate the merits of DOMA, then his method is perfectly suited to that goal. If the president's goal is a ruling on the merits, then my proposed method is inestimably better suited.
We actually have very good answers to that question: nothing, because there is literally no case in which the Supreme Court would find that the president should be impeached--that's the job of the House of Representatives (with conviction to follow by the Senate).
This issue doesn't involve the separation of powers. Members of all three branches swear to uphold the Constitution, and so they have a duty to determine whether their actions do so. And to imply that the president would violate the rule of law by refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law, you're missing the fact that the Constitution is supreme over legislative enactments. A president doesn't refuse to enforce the law by refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law; instead, the president would be refusing to enforce the supreme law (the Constitution) by enforcing the unconstitutional law. Put it this way:
John Marshall said:
To conclude, a quick Google search confirms that I'm not crazy in having adopted my position; so says this New York Times article, this professor of law here, and this dude who probably knew a thing or two about this subject.
How did you determine the likeliness/unlikeness of the scenarios?
Well I sort of went into it already in my post. If the banks had helped him pull it off do you really think he wouldn't have been blabbing it to everyone who would listen? We'd have heard about how the banks helped him pull it off long before now. His lawyer would have tried to cut a deal or they would have gone to the press. Obviously none of that happened. So, odds are the banks just turned a blind eye to what was going on (which is supported by an early post featuring an article from the NYTimes) and are currently worried about being held liable by a regulatory committee.
Being honest what alternative do Wisconsin Democrats have? I can't think of anyone that can challenge him.
There was a great thread title change in the OT that PoliGAF might be interested in, if you guys haven't seen it already: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=531438
My 'when he tries to run' was referring to presidency. I hope even though Wisconsin buys his crap that the country by and large probably won't.
As for anyone trying to beat him for governor... No clue. I said it a few pages ago, too. He'll probably win again. I just don't know who can challenge him and win. He's too good of a bullshitter. People buy it all hook, line, and sinker. And his fans are like raving mad pants-on-head crazy for him. He's got too big of a base that are completely invested in supporting him no matter what.
Even though we are legitimately getting a bit worse or at best stayed about the same I think there's still a slow gain in positivity. The rest of the country is getting better, and the outlook overall is getting better. That means though Walker is putting us back, it's just too hard of a case to actually make that he's destroying us or something like that. People aren't going to angrily vote him out. They're not angry now. Not enough anyway.
Dems need to run this in national ads
"Are you looking for some republican medicine? The side effects may be hard to swallow..."
Yeah, he rode in on the tea party wave. It also didn't help that Doyle wasn't all that liked (at least from what I saw), so people wanted to mix it up a bit and go Republican to begin with.
His big issue when running was stopping high speed rail, and people fell for it and voted for it. It also didn't help that Barrett's really just not that charismatic at all. No one was excited to vote Barrett...
Reagan was already drawing back by the end of his term and started talking to people.
But there is no reason to assume their view of history is accurate other than to what they can personally attest. They were inspired by him . . . great. But that is not what bankrupted the USSR.
What did?
Did you guys see Obama's gun speech today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ajd7DDBHNis
I haven't seen him be that emotional in a while. Powerful stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ajd7DDBHNis
I haven't seen him be that emotional in a while. Powerful stuff.
Any gun legislation is completely dead now. You don't get stuff passed by using the bully pulpit every now and then. There's been almost no White House contact with the House or senate on guns (or just about anything) since the second term started. I just don't get it. Talking to republicans won't compel them to vote your way, but it strikes me as a more effective tactic than these sparse bully pulpit moments.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked