That would be good, and we could start by trashing “Citizens United”, but it will NEVER happen.
I wonder what they think a takeover by White Nationalists should look like such that they don’t think it looks like what they see on the news. Maybe if they overcranked the film of a Trump rally and added in some skips and scratches people would realize what they’re seeing.
They’re not waiting for the next election, they’re purging the non-whites now. They’ve already stopped considering white nationalist terrorist groups to be be terrorist groups (more of a Republican PAC these days) and decided that war crimes don’t need investigation. They’re trying to marginalize the press now. They are declaring government agencies to be disloyal now. This isn’t a dress rehearsal.
If it weren’t for money in politics, then what do you recommend to balance majority rule and how do you allow politicians to engage in horse trading?
Money going into politics by donors does not accomplish either of those things, it just means that the congresscritters are beholden to their paymasters, not their constituents.
As far as horse trading, I think that politics became less civil with the removal of earmarks. That allowed congresscritters from wealthier areas to “buy” the votes of those representing areas with less economic prospects. This meant that wealthy areas that did not care about money as much as social issues could contribute to poorer areas of the country in exchange for support on those social issues.
With no earmarks, those representing the poorer areas are still wanting to be able to bring jobs and money back to their districts, but they are not willing to work across the aisle on social issues to do so.
I think people think money in politics is a new thing. It’s not. And when there’s no money in politics, there’s still power plays behind the scenes.
I think the best thing to do is allow money, and require that it all be disclosed.
It would have been regardless. Difference is that now it might end. Welcome to Cold Comfort Farm.
Before citizen’s united, there was money in politics. And if you were reasonably well off, you could donate the max contribution, and get the ear of someone with legislative power for a few minutes. The ~$10,000 price tag is a bit, but it is not completely out of reach for most people that really want to have their voice heard.
With citizen’s united, there is no limit. You can scrounge together your max donation limit, and you won’t even get a staffer to return your call. If you don’t have millions to donate to political campaigns, your opinion does not matter.
Pre CU, they could donate to 527s for any amount they wanted. And money was pouring in already, before CU was decided.
Here’s a really good article on what CU did and didn’t do. (This will be my last post on this to avoid perpetuating the hijack.)
LOL, Matthew Peterson is a special kind of dumb (let’s call it Trump Dumb), and I’d never put you in such a category!
I have not read the rule. As mentioned, I simply heard about this as a potential avenue available to Mueller by a former US attorney speaking on a news program. There may be particular rules governing how Mueller could proceed, but the talking head guy referred specifically to a lawsuit, which I interpret to mean a civil action.
The rule may be arcane, but the process isn’t. There will be a federal court that has jurisdiction over this type of proceeding, though I’m not certain which one. I am not nearly so familiar with federal level legal procedure as state level, specifically California. Mueller’s team will, though, and that’s the important thing. It isn’t a matter of willingness on the part of any judge. You file your case in whatever court has jurisdiction to hear it, and it will be heard on its merits.
The case is named based on how it is filed, and there’s no way to know which of Mueller’s team would file their complaint or how they would title it. Since this is not the sort of case that is commonly (ever?) filed, hard to speculate (at least by me) on how it would be titled. I expect as plaintiffs, they would name as many entities and/or individuals as they could whom they felt had standing to bring the case, against as many entities and/or individuals as they felt were culpable for the arbitrary and capricious firing of Mueller.
Then it’s game on and it would move along like any other trial. Discovery would proceed and be exchanged. Depositions taken. Pretrial motions filed and heard. Status hearings scheduled. I would expect the Trump defendants to try for a quick resolution – although this could certainly backfire on them if the Court found their case had no merit and ruled for plaintiffs in, say, a pretrial motion – and the Mueller plaintiffs to litigate robustly. They could build an element of delay into the process. It’s not unusual. Trials commonly take a couple of years to arrive at a disposition.
If it ever got to an actual trial, then yes, witnesses could and probably would be called.
However, I imagine the case would be rendered moot before it ever came to trial, since Mueller would simply continue to do his work pending trial. The more work Mueller accomplishes, the more arbitrary and capricious his firing would appear. Especially if more indictments are issued, plea deals revealed and/or his report to Congress contains a recommendation to impeach based on solid evidence of serious, widespread criminal activity.
If the Court found that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case (unlikely), it could be dismissed. Alternatively, the Court might grant an injunction for the investigation to cease pending a resolution, but I imagine that would only be if the Court could make a finding there is a reasonable belief that the defendants would prevail in their action and that they would be irreparably harmed if the investigation were allowed to proceed. While Trump defendants may well feel they could be irreparably harmed, that standard wouldn’t apply if the investigation reveals they were breaking the law – which is the whole point of the investigation.
The public interest is not well served if the investigation is stopped. Federal judges know this. Trump defendants would have a pretty high bar to show Mueller’s firing was anything other than arbitrary and capricious in light of the fact that the investigation has already yielded indictments and plea agreements, and that Mueller’s firing could also be construed as yet another attempt to obstruct justice. (I mean, what are the odds?)
Mueller has really boxed Trump in, best I can tell. He’s rendered Trump’s pardoning power feeble at best by bringing parallel state criminal proceedings that carry sufficient weight against key witnesses so pardons don’t enter into their decisions to cooperate; he has potential remedies against being fired. All Trump has left is The Smear. He might be good at it, but he’s a one-trick pony and more Americans tumble to the gimmick every day. The new tax scheme should help with that.
Of course, none of this contemplates what happens if martial law is declared due to large protests held in the wake of our attack on North Korea.
Mandatory disclaimer: The above is pure speculation, and IANAL.
Thank you, **Aspenglow **for that excellent reply. (I knew I could count on you.) Your speculation is more solid than a lot of people’s facts. 
The Administrative Procedure Act is hardly obscure. There are entire lawfirms who specialize in APA litigation.
That’s cool. It was referred to in the interview I saw as “arcane,” not “obscure.” Good to know Trump will have a variety of law firms to choose from.
That’s nice to hear, so thanks. 
No disagreement at all - an accurate summary of your southern neighbor I’m afraid. You guys will have a refugee crisis on your hands before long. And I’m only half-LOLing.
I saw something nasty in the woodshed!
Is this how you characterize the American Congress over the last few decades, or some idealized construct?
Well, I ain’t saying that Congress is up there with John Locke. But I would suggest that the question of whether football players should kneel or stand for the anthem is at least a smaller concern in the every day of the Senate than it is in the general public.
Détente and fiat money are topics that I doubt would have received much serious debate among the 99%. I think it safe to say that we’d either be on the gold standard or engaging in some mad and ill conceived monetary scheme invented by a TV commentator if you left monetary policy to the general public.
The House, in particular, is not always significantly better than simply grabbing a random collection of Americans off the street. But they do at least have to compromise with one another to some degree, they are checked by the other elements of the government, and, as said, they have more time and resources to investigate the issues (and are a target for those who do know about the issues to lobby - so they can’t completely escape encountering reality). The stupid is somewhat mitigated.
I think that systems could be implemented to make these bodies better and closer to an idealized form, and I don’t deny that they can do and do so stupid things, but they are still better than the general public by a long shot.
More than that, it makes the system less democratic because there are now fewer limits on contributions from individuals. In that past, an individual could contribute to his favorite PAC and the money would get pooled along with other contributions. Although special interests aren’t necessarily democratic, they’re at least pluralistic. Now, a single individual, or a group of really super rich individuals, could come together and have enormous influence over an individual senator or representative.
It’s absolutely true that money in politics has been a problem since well before Citizens United, but the SCOTUS verdict made those problems essentially permanent. Before the ruling, there was a problem with money in politics. Since the ruling, we’re seeing now, out in plain view, the corruption of democracy by an increasingly powerful billionaire donor class who has bought an entire political party. You can forget bipartisanship - forever. Or at least until there is a massive revolt at the ballot box that undoes their power. And I don’t mean simply having a mid-term election that splits congress or gives the democrats a small majority. Any meaningful change would really have to be an electoral uprising like that which occurred in the 1930s.
In the meantime, there’s also another consequence of the ruling: the intent to destroy organized labor. Among other things, the Citizens decision not only empowered corporations and individuals, but also labor unions. As a result, it is clear to the donor class the task that lies ahead of them, and that task is to crush organized labor so that they can’t raise funds. It’s starting with public unions, because they are the strongest. You’ve seen this is a major priority of Koch and Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Legislation dressed up as individual rights not to contribute labor union dues sound like a righteous cause, until you figure out that the goal is to annihilate labor and labor rights.
We shall have a counting.
Interesting article. Here’s a very creepy bit of foreshadowing at the end:
So that’s how it went for Romney. So in the post-CU environment, the winning candidate should not be beholden to party, but a demagogue who serves his own ambition by wholly appropriating whatever outside-party popular fires are raging at the time. Sound like anybody we know?