Out of interest, in the next 5 weeks, what could Joe Biden do with the
immunity SCOTUS has bestowed on him ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 07:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Jethro_uk wrote:

Out of interest, in the next 5 weeks, what could Joe Biden do with the immunity SCOTUS has bestowed on him ?

Nothing, because he is a decent man. It will be interesting to see if
Judge Chutkan unseals the grand jury report that Jack Smith presented
to her a couple of days ago. And it will be even more interesting to
see if the effect is similar to what happened in 2016 when the FBI
merely said Hilary Clinton had been under investigation.

What _I_ wonder about is what President Biden will do between Nov 5th
and Jan 6th if America votes for Trump. He could, for example,
declare martial law and then order a revote in all the states, or
some of them, with Federal troops supervising. Or he could simply
refuse to accept Trump electoral votes, under the 14th Amendment,
despite the Supreme Court's ruling.

Do I think that's very likely? No, because unlike Trump, Biden
believes in the peaceful transfer of power, which includes admitting
it when your side has lost. But is it possible? Yes, thanks to the
SCOTUS. Since Biden is not a candidate, there could be no question
that he was acting as President and not as a candidate (unlike Trump
in 2021), so I think he would be in the clear legally. And he could
make a convincing case that he was preserving democracy, based on
Trump's announcing to "my beautiful Christians" that if they voted
him in there would be no need for any further elections.

The Constitution guarantees "a republican form of government" to
every state, but does not make the same guarantee for the Federal
government. The Founders didn't even foresee political parties, or a
civil war over slavery. They _did_ foresee a President trying to make
himself king -- see the Federalist Papers -- but they believed that
the legislature and the judiciary would restrain the executive. We've
seen that safeguard fail repeatedly, and the danger to the United
States is as grave as it was in 1861. Lincoln stretched the powers of
the Presidency to fight and win that war; thanks to the stunningly
bad decision by SCOTUS, Biden wouldn't have to stretch at all.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 28 Sep 2024 21:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Stan
Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 07:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Jethro_uk wrote:

Out of interest, in the next 5 weeks, what could Joe Biden do with the
immunity SCOTUS has bestowed on him ?

Nothing, because he is a decent man.

To nitpick, possibly, he asked "could", not "would". But even if Biden
were evil, tactically it would seem to me better to wait until after the election. A good chance Harris will win. (Although even then, that
there are 41 or 43 or 48% of the voters that would vote for trump is so
very depressing.)

It will be interesting to see if
Judge Chutkan unseals the grand jury report that Jack Smith presented
to her a couple of days ago.

One pundit predicted Yes, and within 2 weeks of the date she got it.

And it will be even more interesting to
see if the effect is similar to what happened in 2016 when the FBI
merely said Hilary Clinton had been under investigation.

Comey is trying to rehab himself by saying a few negative things about
trump. I don't know why he escaped total condemnation for what he did
to Hillary.

What _I_ wonder about is what President Biden will do between Nov 5th
and Jan 6th if America votes for Trump. He could, for example,
declare martial law and then order a revote in all the states, or

They're having to reprint all the election materials in N. or S.
Carolina because RFK Jr. dropped out after the deadline, and ballots or something had already gone out, but a court insisted they reprint them
anyhow and now many people will be in violation of state law, because
they have been forced to miss the statutory deadline. Of course this
was done to benefit trump since he will get most of RFK's votes. BTW,
it will cost the counties millions and millions of dollars to reprint
and re-mail.

I thought of this because a revote in all the states will cost the
states or counties lots of money. Might be cheaper just to destroy the ballots from some red states like Texas, say they were lost in a fire
and since they were not certified in time, they don't get to be
counted***. That has the advantage? that it's the reciprocal of
Republican plans to not certify one or more Republican counties in
Democratic states so that those states can't cast their electoral votes.
***I'm thinking this lowers the total number of electoral votes cast
while keeping the Democratic votes the same so even if the Dems appear
to have less than 270, they wouldn't need 270 anymore, only more than
the Reps.

Biden couldn't be prosecuted (Until the SC hears the case and decides to revisit their decision and decides he can be, because the goal of the
immunity decision was never to do justice but to help trump.) but all
the people beneath him could. Now trump doesn't care about the little
people, and even I think, to make an omelet, you have to break a few
eggs, so if some people working for Biden get imprisoned for setting
Texas ballots aflame, it's worth it, and they'd probably agree. This
sounds far easier to do than some of the Mission Impossible squad's achievements on TV, and those guys were always ready to go to barbaric *foreign* jails or even be executed.

Even though some/many Mission Impossible plots are too complicated and
too dependant on vinyl masks to take seriously, and even though no POW
camp in Germany accomplished 1/20th or 1/1000th of what Stalag 13 did on Hogan's Heroes, when I watch either show, I'm still reminded of how many patriots this country has had who risked or gave their lives for the US, compared to trump and his many assistants.

some of them, with Federal troops supervising. Or he could simply
refuse to accept Trump electoral votes, under the 14th Amendment,
despite the Supreme Court's ruling.

Sounds simpler.

Do I think that's very likely? No, because unlike Trump, Biden
believes in the peaceful transfer of power, which includes admitting

Peaceful and legal transfer of power. The first four of trump's 5-step
plan to steal the last election were all peaceful. (I don't think
"doing violence to the law" is included in what most people think of as
violent or non-peaceful.)

it when your side has lost. But is it possible? Yes, thanks to the
SCOTUS. Since Biden is not a candidate, there could be no question
that he was acting as President and not as a candidate (unlike Trump
in 2021), so I think he would be in the clear legally. And he could
make a convincing case that he was preserving democracy, based on
Trump's announcing to "my beautiful Christians" that if they voted
him in there would be no need for any further elections.

OTOH, trump said that if he lost Jews would be to blame. I think the
word is not blame but credit (although with only 2.5% of the population,
we probably shouldn't get much of either).

The Constitution guarantees "a republican form of government" to
every state, but does not make the same guarantee for the Federal
government. The Founders didn't even foresee political parties, or a
civil war over slavery. They _did_ foresee a President trying to make
himself king -- see the Federalist Papers -- but they believed that
the legislature and the judiciary would restrain the executive. We've
seen that safeguard fail repeatedly, and the danger to the United
States is as grave as it was in 1861.

Worse, because afaik, the South only wanted to secede. It didn't seek to destroy the governmental system for the North. Much worse, because the southern secessionists envisioned a democracy in the south, with blacks
still slaves but that would have been no worse than it had been, and a democracy in the north, probably with no slaves. Two democracies.

Lincoln stretched the powers of
the Presidency to fight and win that war; thanks to the stunningly
bad decision by SCOTUS, Biden wouldn't have to stretch at all.

Good point.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/29/2024 9:35 PM, micky wrote:

I thought of this because a revote in all the states will cost the
states or counties lots of money. Might be cheaper just to destroy the ballots from some red states like Texas, say they were lost in a fire
and since they were not certified in time, they don't get to be
counted***. That has the advantage? that it's the reciprocal of
Republican plans to not certify one or more Republican counties in
Democratic states so that those states can't cast their electoral votes. ***I'm thinking this lowers the total number of electoral votes cast
while keeping the Democratic votes the same so even if the Dems appear
to have less than 270, they wouldn't need 270 anymore, only more than
the Reps.

If you destroy some of the ballots in (e.g.) Texas, the remaining ones
would be counted and Texas would still certify 38 electors and transmit
the results to the President of the Senate (that is, the current Veep)
and the Archivist of the United States. (Also to the state's Secretary
of State and to the judge of the district where they meet. That's four
copies, and it would be kind of hard to destroy all of them.)

If you destroy *all* the ballots, I suspect the TX state legislature
would decide, and the current Supreme Court would back them up. (In
fact, I suspect even the pre-Trump SC would do that, it's the logical
thing to do.)

Note that the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such
Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the
State may be entitled in the Congress"

It doesn't say that the legislature can itself appoint the electors. If
a state legislature decided to ignore the popular vote and appoint the
electors directly, there would be good reason for SCOTUS to say, "No,
you can't do that." Unfortunately, I suspect their ruling would depend
on which way the legislature went. If they chose electors for Trump,
SCOTUS will probably approve it. If they choose electors for Harris,
SCOTUS will probably disapprove it. If two or more legislatures do
opposite things, I have no idea what SCOTUS will decide. That would be a
very difficult question. Trying to rule in favor of one and against the
other while preserving the illusion of being nonpartisan would be very difficult.

But I think that a legislature could enact a rule _before the election_
that says if the popular vote is tainted by ballot destruction or other problems, the legislature will decide, and I think that would pass
SCOTUS scrutiny.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/29/2024 12:52 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 07:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Jethro_uk wrote:

Out of interest, in the next 5 weeks, what could Joe Biden do with the
immunity SCOTUS has bestowed on him ?

Nothing, because he is a decent man. It will be interesting to see if
Judge Chutkan unseals the grand jury report that Jack Smith presented
to her a couple of days ago. And it will be even more interesting to
see if the effect is similar to what happened in 2016 when the FBI
merely said Hilary Clinton had been under investigation.

What _I_ wonder about is what President Biden will do between Nov 5th
and Jan 6th if America votes for Trump. He could, for example,
declare martial law and then order a revote in all the states, or
some of them, with Federal troops supervising. Or he could simply
refuse to accept Trump electoral votes, under the 14th Amendment,
despite the Supreme Court's ruling.

Do I think that's very likely? No, because unlike Trump, Biden
believes in the peaceful transfer of power, which includes admitting
it when your side has lost. But is it possible? Yes, thanks to the
SCOTUS. Since Biden is not a candidate, there could be no question
that he was acting as President and not as a candidate (unlike Trump
in 2021), so I think he would be in the clear legally. And he could
make a convincing case that he was preserving democracy, based on
Trump's announcing to "my beautiful Christians" that if they voted
him in there would be no need for any further elections.

The Constitution guarantees "a republican form of government" to
every state, but does not make the same guarantee for the Federal
government. The Founders didn't even foresee political parties, or a
civil war over slavery. They _did_ foresee a President trying to make
himself king -- see the Federalist Papers -- but they believed that
the legislature and the judiciary would restrain the executive. We've
seen that safeguard fail repeatedly, and the danger to the United
States is as grave as it was in 1861. Lincoln stretched the powers of
the Presidency to fight and win that war; thanks to the stunningly
bad decision by SCOTUS, Biden wouldn't have to stretch at all.

I doubt seriously if any of that would happen in the real world - not
because Biden is a "decent man" (which he is) but because the other
branches of government would not allow it to happen. Contrary to what
some people seem to think, the Supreme Court did not issue blanket
immunity to presidents to do whatever they want. They left it up to the
courts and individual judges to determine if presidential actions are
truly presidential or just personal. It's not a big stretch to assume
that declaring martial law after your VP and party lost an election and ordering a re-vote would be regarded as personal - especially when
ordered by an elderly president whose own party already effectively
declared he was too old to function as president and denied him the
nomination. There would be immediate court injunctions requested to
prevent this and I think they would be granted.

You also need support from the military to order the kind of martial law
you are suggesting, and I don't think he would get that. I frankly
think that if he reacted to the election in the way you suggest, there
would be a quick bipartisan effort to remove him from office via 25th
amendment and subsequent impeachment and conviction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:01:12 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:

I doubt seriously if any of that would happen in the real world - not
because Biden is a "decent man" (which he is) but because the other
branches of government would not allow it to happen.

Meaning no disrespect, that is an extremely na�ve statement. Have you
forgotten that a Republican-dominated Senate twice refused to convict
Trump, despite his obvious guilt? And have you forgotten that the
Mitch McConnell SCOTUS granted Trump (or Vance, or anyone) blanket
permission to run an insurrection, unless Congress passes legislation
to enforce the 14th Amendment, which is immensely unlikely?

The checks and balances that we learned in civics class and have
always depended on are broken. A necessary condition for fixing them
-- necessary, though it may or may not be sufficient -- is to keep
the current Republican candidate out of the White House and break the Republican stranglehold on Congress. That's not hyperbole: the
Republican party has doubled down again and again on choosing
subservience to Dear Leader over their oaths to the Constitution.

Contrary to what
some people seem to think, the Supreme Court did not issue blanket
immunity to presidents to do whatever they want. They left it up to the courts and individual judges to determine if presidential actions are
truly presidential or just personal.

Right -- through a process which is guaranteed, every time a
President claims immunity as a defense, to spawn appeals to circuit
court and then to Supreme court on the immunity question, wasting
months to years. And in the unlikely event that a district court's
ruling of "not immune" is actually upheld, that will just start the
next round of trial, appeal to circuit court, and appeal to the
Supreme Court on the substance of the crimes.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 21:09:52 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:01:12 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:

I doubt seriously if any of that would happen in the real world - not
because Biden is a "decent man" (which he is) but because the other
branches of government would not allow it to happen.

Meaning no disrespect, that is an extremely naïve statement. Have you forgotten that a Republican-dominated Senate twice refused to convict
Trump, despite his obvious guilt? And have you forgotten that the Mitch McConnell SCOTUS granted Trump (or Vance, or anyone) blanket permission
to run an insurrection, unless Congress passes legislation to enforce
the 14th Amendment, which is immensely unlikely?

The checks and balances that we learned in civics class and have always depended on are broken. A necessary condition for fixing them --
necessary, though it may or may not be sufficient -- is to keep the
current Republican candidate out of the White House and break the
Republican stranglehold on Congress. That's not hyperbole: the
Republican party has doubled down again and again on choosing
subservience to Dear Leader over their oaths to the Constitution.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, the Supreme Court did not
issue blanket immunity to presidents to do whatever they want. They
left it up to the courts and individual judges to determine if
presidential actions are truly presidential or just personal.

Right -- through a process which is guaranteed, every time a President
claims immunity as a defense, to spawn appeals to circuit court and then
to Supreme court on the immunity question, wasting months to years. And
in the unlikely event that a district court's ruling of "not immune" is actually upheld, that will just start the next round of trial, appeal to circuit court, and appeal to the Supreme Court on the substance of the crimes.

Most countries can get by with just one massive civil war. It seems the
US may need two at least.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/2/2024 12:09 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:01:12 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:

I doubt seriously if any of that would happen in the real world - not
because Biden is a "decent man" (which he is) but because the other
branches of government would not allow it to happen.

Meaning no disrespect, that is an extremely naïve statement. Have you forgotten that a Republican-dominated Senate twice refused to convict
Trump, despite his obvious guilt? And have you forgotten that the
Mitch McConnell SCOTUS granted Trump (or Vance, or anyone) blanket
permission to run an insurrection, unless Congress passes legislation
to enforce the 14th Amendment, which is immensely unlikely?

The checks and balances that we learned in civics class and have
always depended on are broken. A necessary condition for fixing them
-- necessary, though it may or may not be sufficient -- is to keep
the current Republican candidate out of the White House and break the Republican stranglehold on Congress. That's not hyperbole: the
Republican party has doubled down again and again on choosing
subservience to Dear Leader over their oaths to the Constitution.

Meaning no disrespect, to use your words, but have you forgotten that
the Republican Senate you think is so evil was elected by the people
through a democratic process defined by our Constitution? As elected
officials they have a perfect right to make the decision they wanted in
the impeachment trials, and as a citizen you have a perfect right to try
to convince your fellow citizens to try to change the Constitution to
follow a different process. Democracy doesn't mean that you get to
agree with every decision made by our legally elected officials. To
think otherwise is, to use your own words, extremely naive.

Contrary to what
some people seem to think, the Supreme Court did not issue blanket
immunity to presidents to do whatever they want. They left it up to the
courts and individual judges to determine if presidential actions are
truly presidential or just personal.

Right -- through a process which is guaranteed, every time a
President claims immunity as a defense, to spawn appeals to circuit
court and then to Supreme court on the immunity question, wasting
months to years. And in the unlikely event that a district court's
ruling of "not immune" is actually upheld, that will just start the
next round of trial, appeal to circuit court, and appeal to the
Supreme Court on the substance of the crimes.

But again, the Supreme Court you also think is evil was appointed by
presidents who were legally elected according to a process defined by
our Constitution. The tone of your remarks suggests that we are all
under the control of a dictatorship who forced its way into controlling
our nation. Not true. Our government is legally elected by us - the
people - and the Supreme Court was legally and duly appointed by
officials who were also legally and duly elected by our democratic society.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rick <[email protected]> wrote:

But again, the Supreme Court you also think is evil was appointed by presidents who were legally elected according to a process defined by
our Constitution. The tone of your remarks suggests that we are all
under the control of a dictatorship who forced its way into
controlling our nation. Not true. Our government is legally elected
by us - the people - and the Supreme Court was legally and duly
appointed by officials who were also legally and duly elected by our democratic society.

A majority of Supreme Court members were appointed by Republican presidents
who lost the popular vote. Some were rushed through without proper investigation, and have been taking a wrecking ball not only to well established precedent, but have made decisions that make no sense under the terms of the Constitution, but only make sense from a purely partisan viewpoint.

Just because the people elect someone to Congress doesn't mean that person
has any faithfulness to the Constitution, law or fairness.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/2/2024 2:45 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Rick <[email protected]> wrote:

But again, the Supreme Court you also think is evil was appointed by
presidents who were legally elected according to a process defined by
our Constitution. The tone of your remarks suggests that we are all
under the control of a dictatorship who forced its way into
controlling our nation. Not true. Our government is legally elected
by us - the people - and the Supreme Court was legally and duly
appointed by officials who were also legally and duly elected by our
democratic society.

A majority of Supreme Court members were appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote. Some were rushed through without proper investigation, and have been taking a wrecking ball not only to well established precedent, but have made decisions that make no sense under the terms of the Constitution, but only make sense from a purely partisan viewpoint.

Just because the people elect someone to Congress doesn't mean that person has any faithfulness to the Constitution, law or fairness.

That's actually not true. Three of the members were appointed by Trump
who indeed lost the popular vote. But Roberts and Alito were appointed
by G.W. Bush during his second term, and he did win the popular vote for
that second term over Kerry.

And it wouldn't matter anyway because our Constitution does not require presidents to receive a majority of the national popular vote - it
requires winning a majority of the electoral vote. People often like to
make a big deal out of the fact that both Trump and G.W. Bush for his
first term lost the popular vote - but what you forget is that those
campaigns were run knowing that the election would be decided based on electoral and not popular vote. The candidates would have campaigned differently and focused on different states if the election were based
on popular vote, and there's really no way to know what the outcome
would have been in those or other close elections.

As for your comment that recent Supreme Court decisions have taken "a
wrecking ball not only to well established precedent, but have made
decisions that make no sense under the terms of the Constitution, but
only make sense from a purely partisan viewpoint" - I actually think
that comment itself comes across as highly partisan. You're certainly
entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't think you can deny my
basic premise that the Court was legally appointed by presidents and
approved by a Senate that were legally elected under the rules of our Constitution. The Court was not appointed by dictators or autocrats or monarchs or anyone who forced their way into power using the military or
any non-democratic process. The Court members were appointed by a legal democratic process that is 100% consistent with our Constitution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)