Thread by @ahumorlessfem

*logs on to discuss the incredibly asinine appellate brief by Cheato's lawyers*

Oooh boy, this was bad. I mean it was so bad I had to wash my computer to clean the stank.

Let's get started! First off, the Constitution gives Congress super duper broad powers to do whatever the fuck they want as long as there is some kind of legislative purpose that could result from this.

Including checking if the President committed crimes.

Here's something fun. While a President can be *impeached for being convicted of a crime* it does not say that a dude who committed crimes that we all know he committed despite the statute of limitations having run out can't be Prez.

In other words, the fact that the Cheatos did a long term financial and tax fraud scheme up to the mid-1990s means that all of the ones not dead yet could run as long as they met the other qualifications.

BUT! Impeachment doesn't require an actual conviction to impeach-just that the person did a crime.

Bill Clinton was never found guilty of perjury yet he was still impeached for it. So in theory, Congress can investigate this for the legislative purpose of "Did Cheato Break The Law Lots Of Times In The Past Seven Years? No? Well Now It Is Illegal. So There"

So that whine fest up there is on the surface stupid. BUT THEN! In part twa: "anything they could come up with would be unconstitutional! Why do we think that? Because *mumble mumble* we stole two seats on SCOTUS *mumble mumble*"

The District Court, properly, pointed out that the court does not have the authority to issue advisory or pre-emptive judicial opinions on what law Congress comes up with being unconstitutional. There has to be a question presented and if there isn't, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

SCOTUS can pull the shit Roberts pulls (where it answers a question not before the court) but a district court can't.

So to scare the appellate court (and SCOTUS at the very idea!!! Oh my smelling salts), they tried to say this means that Congress thinks they could regulate you! Oh heavens!

They claim, apparently with a straight face, claim that Congress has no authority look into the background of Justices before or after they get on the bench.

Um. ADVISE AND CONSENT MUTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?

YES THEY DO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY YOU FUCKING IDIOTS. ASK ABE FORTAS.

Sorry for the yelling. This is annoying me. What really annoyed me is the reference to cases that don't support, at all, their stupid positions.

For instance: McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)

They are trying to make it seem like Congress is severely limited because otherwise there would be cats and dogs living together, Bill Murray not getting the lifetime achievement award he deserves, no more twinkies, just mass chaos.

Yeah well, the case they cite says this:

They were trying to claim #9 but #10 says "yeah well, Congress can do as they want. They're Cartman and you're that stupid kid who ate his parents in chili then cried in front of your heroes."

They then cite a Roberts decision about the fact that it is unconstitutional to compel someone to buy a private product (which I agree with, hence Joe Lieberman shall be spanked forever by whips in Hell for wrecking the public option.)

These twizzlerheads are not reading necessary and proper correctly because that ruling said that the individual mandate doesn't fall under it, not congressional investigations themselves.

It is not a limiting ruling on congressional investigations. Legislation stemming from the investigation can be found unconstitutional not the fact that Congress did their damn homework on it.

They then make the claim that Congress can't regulate the office of the Presidency.

They say "oh well, Congress is like super limited in how they do it."

Okay, that isn't how they wrote it but if they did, at least it would make sense for how unbelievably shoddy this legal reasoning is.

They cite this case:
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)
In THAT case, Congress unconstitutionally limited the control that the President could have over a subordinate member of the executive branch.

Which is true. The President has to faithfully execute the laws of the US and they can't if they don't have the authority because Congress took it away.

But that's not what Congress is trying to do here. What they are trying to do is determine 1. if the president is a fucking crook that we all know he is but they need to prove it, and 2. maybe have some tightening up of legislation so IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

So how a law that removed effective control over executive branch agencies to ensure good governance means that Congress suddenly can't actually investigate the President to figure out how to make sure a crook doesn't get elected, I have no fucking idea.

The whole filing is stupid and filled this type of gibberish that doesn't really mean what they think it means. To them it doesn't matter I guess, because their assumption is that they have immunity because of Gorsuch and Kavabeer.

While wandering around about this particular nonsensical filing, I found this: brookings.edu/research/how-t…

Because this pissed me off:

McConnell is a fucking asshole and the fact that we can throw him out of office physically is really fucking annoying.

Also, this is good too: crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/…

I'm off to get ice cream.