Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 375: Joe Bidin' his time

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ive never understood the argument that 13 would just be undoing what McConnell did. He unquestionably stole one seat, but not two; Trump filling Ginsbergs seat was a brazen act of hypocrisy, sure, but it was only a theft if you accept McConnells original logic that a president cant fill a seat in the last year of their term.

It's a "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" penalty. Increasing to 11 still comes out to a net benefit to the GOP because the "cost" of stealing a seat was that they "only" got enjoy the rewards for... X years.

Call it one for stealing Garland and another for a hypocrisy tax on their own logic for Barrett.

---

masterplum posted...

Really? I've read quite a bit about Kavanaugh and found him extremely qualified.

IMO his temperament in his congressional hearings disqualified him, regardless of his guilty/not guilty status
---

Jakyl25 posted...

IMO his temperament in his congressional hearings disqualified him, regardless of his guilty/not guilty status

it's funny because certain people who loved kavanaugh (i'm talking about sephyg) also gave beto a ton of shit for using the f-word in a rant. i thought kavanaugh's behavior in those hearings was a lot more egregious than beto's.

---

Wow JFC, seems like Alito and Gorsuch would have been willing to go along with the absolute garbage argument that the rest of the ACA couldnt be severed from the individual mandate:

https://twitter.com/raverbruggen/status/1405570769669832713

(the actual decision was just that the states didnt have standing)

---

Jakyl25 posted...

IMO his temperament in his congressional hearings disqualified him, regardless of his guilty/not guilty status

Ah, you mean qualified from a personal perspective.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wow JFC, seems like Alito and Gorsuch would have been willing to go along with the absolute garbage argument that the rest of the ACA couldnt be severed from the individual mandate:

https://twitter.com/raverbruggen/status/1405570769669832713

(the actual decision was just that the states didnt have standing)

That shouldnt be surprising from Gorsuch at all who is an extreme literalist when it comes to laws. If a law was passed where there was a loophole that made murder legal he probably would rule it was the government who made the law and murder was now legal.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wow JFC, seems like Alito and Gorsuch would have been willing to go along with the absolute garbage argument that the rest of the ACA couldnt be severed from the individual mandate:

https://twitter.com/raverbruggen/status/1405570769669832713

(the actual decision was just that the states didnt have standing)

I don't get this argument. Surely, if Congress had wanted to repeal the whole act, they would have done so? And who cares that the 2010 Congress thought the provisions were inseverable - the 2017 Congress obviously disagreed because they severed them.

---

masterplum posted...

Ah, you mean qualified from a personal perspective.

your perspective isn't personal?

---

In good news, the House voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF 268-161 today. Dems 219-1; GOP 49-160-2. Dem nay was Luria (VA-2)

Schumer says the Senate will take up its own repeal of the AUMF and Biden said he supported the House's repeal so maybeeeee? I mean, would not be shocked to see the GOP filibuster.

---

I dunno, the Iraq war is toxic even to Republicans now thanks to Trump.
---

Only 23% of the House GOP voted to repeal! 23% of the Senate GOP is 11.5 Senators! That's cutting the 60 vote threshold pretty close!

---

Hey, on the subject of Supreme Court rulings, what the fuck is this Nestl child slavery shit? Maybe someone more versed in the court can explain it.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/justices-scuttle-lawsuit-against-nestle-cargill-for-allegedly-aiding-child-slavery-abroad/

Like, to an extent I understand there are legal complexities here. International law is messy. Nestl has enough degrees of separation because they are only business partners with slavers, which gives them a degree of plausible deniability. By directly funding slavers as part of normal business operations they are only indirectly funding slavery, even thoughsurely it's Nestl's funding that creates this environment at all. Plus, the burden of proof to show they are aware of the slavery and child labor is probably really high. The argument seems to be the plaintiffs should be suing the slavers themselves. There's opinions on whether companies can even be sued over international law violations I won't even pretend to understand. But uh...does anyone actually believe any of this?

As a layman I can't help but read this as a total failure of the legal system. As in, the 8-1 verdict (Alito the lone dissenter?) only tells me that the law is completely unequipped to deal with the problem. And the issue in question is so heinous that's unacceptable.

---

https://twitter.com/JanNWolfe/status/1405598143232741382?s=19

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Hey, on the subject of Supreme Court rulings, what the fuck is this Nestl child slavery shit? Maybe someone more versed in the court can explain it.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/justices-scuttle-lawsuit-against-nestle-cargill-for-allegedly-aiding-child-slavery-abroad/

Like, to an extent I understand there are legal complexities here. International law is messy. Nestl has enough degrees of separation because they are only business partners with slavers, which gives them a degree of plausible deniability. By directly funding slavers as part of normal business operations they are only indirectly funding slavery, even thoughsurely it's Nestl's funding that creates this environment at all. Plus, the burden of proof to show they are aware of the slavery and child labor is probably really high. The argument seems to be the plaintiffs should be suing the slavers themselves. There's opinions on whether companies can even be sued over international law violations I won't even pretend to understand. But uh...does anyone actually believe any of this?

As a layman I can't help but read this as a total failure of the legal system. As in, the 8-1 verdict (Alito the lone dissenter?) only tells me that the law is completely unequipped to deal with the problem. And the issue in question is so heinous that's unacceptable.

The plaintiffs sued in US court for things that were done outside the US. Usually, the US lacks jurisdiction to decide such cases. I've seen Alito decline to strictly follow the letter of the law when there's something morally outrageous happening before (like the Westboro Baptist Church case) so I guess I'm not too surprised that he's the lone dissenter here.

---

hell yes

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Hey, on the subject of Supreme Court rulings, what the fuck is this Nestl child slavery shit? Maybe someone more versed in the court can explain it.

So, looks to me that the plantiffs - the former child slaves - sought to sue Nestle and Cargill under the Alien Tort Statue, a 1789 law which gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims brought by foreigners when there has been a violation of international law.

The court is saying that the ATS only applies when the crime in question occurs in US territory (i.e. the violation of international law was committed in the US) because unless a law is explicit otherwise, all US laws are assumed to only apply within the US and can not be enforced abroad - and failing that explicit mention in the law (as they have ruled the ATS does not have such), it must be proven that the relevant conduct in the claim occurred in the US. The Court notes that while both sides disagree as to what occurred - even if they assumed the plantiff's story to be the truth. the slavery and financial assistance all occurred on the Ivory Coast, not in the US and therefore was outside the US so the ATS does not apply.

The Court goes on to state that "decision making" such as operational decisions is a "general corporate activity" and therefore alone is not enough to establish a strong enough link to say the primary harm was committed domestically. I agree that's pretty fucked up.

That's where the official decision of the court and the legal precedent ends.

Thomas, joined by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, goes further and says the ATS only applies to piracy, rights of ambassadors, and right of safe passage - and that child slavery isn't a legitimate cause to raise under the ATS in the first place and that you would need Congress to amend it or pass a new law to make it so.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer agree with the conclusion that the harm occurred overseas and therefore they must dismiss the case but writes an opinion dunking on Thomas's theory that *only* those three crimes can be valid uses.

Alito's dissent is actually pretty interesting. He argues that the Court was only asked to determine whether corporations are immune from liability under the ATS (as Nestle, etc. argued) and goes "Nope." (Notably the Court seems to have at least a majority on this point. As Sotomayor points out there's at least 5 of them - by my count: Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, Alito, and Gorsuch.) His dissent is that rather then answer just that question and send in back down to the lower courts to deal with, the Court ignored that question (the actual ruling does not address it) and dismissed it on the grounds outlined above. He doesn't think they should have gone that far and made that decision over whether the conduct counts as domestic or not if the companies themselves hadn't asked it of the Court. (FWIW, he sounds sympathetic to Thomas's narrow interpretation of the ATS. So it's not like he's taking some moral stand here he just thinks the court dodged the question they were actually asked and settled the case by answering questions they weren't asked)


---

xp1337 posted...

The court is saying that the ATS only applies when the crime in question occurs in US territory (i.e. the violation of international law was committed in the US) because unless a law is explicit otherwise, all US laws are assumed to only apply within the US and can not be enforced abroad - and failing that explicit mention in the law (as they have ruled the ATS does not have such), it must be proven that the relevant conduct in the claim occurred in the US. The Court notes that while both sides disagree as to what occurred - even if they accepted the side of the former child slaves argument over what the crux of the issue was - the slavery and financial assistance all occurred on the Ivory Coast, not in the US and therefore was outside the US so the ATS does not apply.

The Court goes on to state that "decision making" such as operational decisions is a "general corporate activity" and therefore alone is not enough to establish a strong enough link to say the primary harm was committed domestically. I agree that's pretty fucked up.

So am I correct in assuming that the SC is essentially officially saying US companies are free to violate laws oversees with no legal repercussions in the US (at least with regards to this statute) or is that a leap in logic? Because that's where it's interesting, the 9th Circuit ruled that corporate decision making and financing was enough to consider it a domestic crime, which the SC has decided to overturn.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

So am I correct in assuming that the SC is essentially officially saying US companies are free to violate laws oversees with no legal repercussions in the US (at least with regards to this statute) or is that a leap in logic? Because that's where it's interesting, the 9th Circuit ruled that corporate decision making and financing was enough to consider it a domestic crime, which the SC has decided to overturn.

I'm not sure it's that straightforward but I also don't think you're that far off either.

My understanding (and IANAL) is that strictly speaking this means a foreign citizen can't bring suit against a company (or person) in US federal court for anything done abroad - at least not under this law. Further, it establishes that anything it deems "a practice common to corporations" is insufficient to link them directly to an action they have a degree of separation from (i.e. these companies didn't own or operate these farms, they "merely" decided to engage with them financially)

Basically, they're saying the place to resolve this isn't US federal court. In theory the court is saying to try and bring suit against these companies in the Ivory Coast I think. Or an international court that has jurisdiction.

---

https://twitter.com/drmistercody/status/1405954525052080128?s=21

Interesting how no Democrats are suggesting this!

---

https://twitter.com/VaporousBeef/status/1405961290787528708?s=19

---

Barely politics-adjacent but the topics been slow: https://twitter.com/hideki_naganuma/status/1406650643717128193?s=21

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Interesting how no Democrats are suggesting this!

To be fair, our last President committed a TON of crimes, and never went to jail for any of them.

---

Dont you know that crime is just a thing for the poors.

Forget crime, why did no Dems suggest banning starvation or poverty!

---

want to play good news/bad news: nyc mayor edition?

Good news: Yang is no longer the frontrunner/leading the polls.
Bad news: This guy is. https://twitter.com/mattiekahn/status/1407056491597737993

Aside from that very normal answer he's the ex-cop who got endorsed by Giuliani and praised by Tucker and has been trafficking in Trumpian "stolen election" language in recent days to any prospect of him maybe losing. also said we could have one teacher teach "300 to 400" kids with Zoom.

---

xp1337 posted...

want to play good news/bad news: nyc mayor edition?

Good news: Yang is no longer the frontrunner/leading the polls.
Bad news: This guy is. https://twitter.com/mattiekahn/status/1407056491597737993

Aside from that very normal answer he's the ex-cop who got endorsed by Giuliani and praised by Tucker and has been trafficking in Trumpian "stolen election" language in recent days to any prospect of him maybe losing. also said we could have one teacher teach "300 to 400" kids with Zoom.

This makes that time Yang couldn't name a Jay-Z song look great by comparison

curtis mayfield didn't die a few years ago, wut? he died in 1999.

---

This dude

https://twitter.com/derekjay_/status/1407064811624701959?s=19

---

Supreme Court unanimously rules that the NCAA can place no limits on education-related compensation to student athletes:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31679946/supreme-court-sides-former-players-dispute-ncaa-compensation

Kavanaugh, surprisingly, wrote a concurrence suggesting that the NCAAs limits on all compensation for student athletes would also be illegal

---

can NYC please just not be incapable of electing a normal person for mayor

Oh, also just so we can reminisce on the old days... /s

In the early days of the pandemic, Trump proposed the idea of sending Americans infected with COVID-19 overseas to Guantanamo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/06/21/abutaleb-paletta-book-nightmare-scenario-trump-covid/

Washington Post reports...

In the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, as White House officials debated whether to bring infected Americans home for care, President Donald Trump suggested his own plan for where to send them, eager to suppress the numbers on U.S. soil.

"Don't we have an island that we own?" the president reportedly asked those assembled in the Situation Room in February 2020, before the U.S. outbreak would explode. "What about Guantanamo?"

"We import goods," Trump specified, lecturing his staff. "We are not going to import a virus."

Aides were stunned, and when Trump brought it up a second time, they quickly scuttled the idea, worried about a backlash over quarantining American tourists on the same Caribbean base where the United States holds terrorism suspects.

Also in the article:

"I'm going to lose the election because of testing! What idiot had the federal government do testing?"

"Uh, do you mean Jared?" Azar responded, citing the president's senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

---

woke jared strikes again!

---

xp1337 posted...

want to play good news/bad news: nyc mayor edition?

Good news: Yang is no longer the frontrunner/leading the polls.
Bad news: This guy is. https://twitter.com/mattiekahn/status/1407056491597737993

Aside from that very normal answer he's the ex-cop who got endorsed by Giuliani and praised by Tucker and has been trafficking in Trumpian "stolen election" language in recent days to any prospect of him maybe losing. also said we could have one teacher teach "300 to 400" kids with Zoom.

Well other than that Mr. Adams how was the play?

---

https://youtu.be/Fvg5RTrFLfI

I havent watched yet, but Ethan Klein tricked Stephen Crowder by bringing Sam Seder on the show to surprise debate him.

If you dont know who these people are, Sam is a leftist podcaster/youtuber, Ethan is a comedian/podcaster, and Stephen Crowder is human diarrhea.

---

Crowder was shook
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

If you dont know who these people are, Sam is a leftist podcaster/youtuber, Ethan is a comedian/podcaster, and Stephen Crowder is human diarrhea.

i find it hard to imagine people not knowing who ethan is (especially since in the past few weeks, he's been involved in huge drama that all the drama channels have been talking about), but he's definitely the kind of person half of board 8 would go "who?!?" about

---

I have little more than a vague familiarity with the name h3h3

Sam S and Crowder tho easily recognize

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

I have little more than a vague familiarity with the name h3h3

Sam S and Crowder tho easily recognize

that's funny because i'd never heard of sam and he has way fewer subscribers than h3!

also jesus christ, crowder has about 5.5 million subs?! does he have the biggest political commentary channel on youtube? faith in humanity destroyed yet again.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i find it hard to imagine people not knowing who ethan is (especially since in the past few weeks, he's been involved in huge drama that all the drama channels have been talking about), but he's definitely the kind of person half of board 8 would go "who?!?" about

Why is that hard to imagine? Not everyone keeps up with all the latest drama.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i find it hard to imagine people not knowing who ethan is (especially since in the past few weeks, he's been involved in huge drama that all the drama channels have been talking about), but he's definitely the kind of person half of board 8 would go "who?!?" about

I find it hard to imagine something less appealing for me to watch than a YouTube drama channel. Thats just not a realm I want to know anything about.

That said, I do have a loose understanding of Ethan existing, but Im not at all sure where my knowledge originates.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://youtu.be/Fvg5RTrFLfI

I havent watched yet, but Ethan Klein tricked Stephen Crowder by bringing Sam Seder on the show to surprise debate him.

If you dont know who these people are, Sam is a leftist podcaster/youtuber, Ethan is a comedian/podcaster, and Stephen Crowder is human diarrhea.

I find this comparison unfair to diarrhea because diarrhea can be funny.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I find it hard to imagine something less appealing for me to watch than a YouTube drama channel. Thats just not a realm I want to know anything about.

---

I keep up with this topic just to try keeping on top of some political news...though I'm inclined to skip a few hundred posts every once in a while when you guys go on some awful tangent.

Anyway, I have no idea who any of the people are in that video, at least on a name recognition basis. As such, definitely not going to watch because who cares (he says somewhat ironically) what I bunch of internet-randos have to say.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Why is that hard to imagine? Not everyone keeps up with all the latest drama.

you don't have to watch drama channels to have heard of h3h3productions. vape nation is one of the biggest meme videos in the history of youtube.

---

anyway, i watched the "debate" and jesus christ, it's horrendous even by steven crowder standards.

lol @ him using the "YOU'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF WOMEN WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES" attack. for the people who don't get what he's on about, he's referring to ethan running a (now cancelled) podcast with trisha paytas, who has several mental health issues. yeah, god forbid ethan treats her like a person and gives her an opportunity to host a podcast. why don't we just put these people in padded rooms, right? fucking idiot.

also lol @ him literally using "I HAVE SO MANY MORE SUBSCRIBERS THAN YOU" as an argument against sam seder. in the words of gradeaundera: "you have a lot of subscribers. not brain cells."

---

I can honestly say I did not know any of these people or h3h3.

What big drama were they part of?

---

Maniac64 posted...

I can honestly say I did not know any of these people or h3h3.

What big drama were they part of?

the big drama ethan was in recently what i was talking about above - his podcast with trisha paytas (called frenemies) ending. trisha angrily stormed off on the final episode a few weeks ago and after that, they've been publicly fighting pretty much non-stop.

---

Yeah I definitely have not heard anything about that.

---

i've never heard the name trisha paytas before

---

Maniac64 posted...

Yeah I definitely have not heard anything about that.

yeah, that is something you would only know about if you follow ethan/trisha/drama channels, admittedly.

---

Can also confirm that I have heard of none of these people besides Crowder

---