- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California to open special session preparing for anti-Trump lawsuits
Posted on 12/2/24 at 3:56 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 12/2/24 at 3:56 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Cut them off Federal Funding until they get in line
1
Posted on 12/2/24 at 3:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well "lawfare", depending on the day/thread, can apply to criminal prosecution, civil suits, AND administrative actions.
Maybe you can explain to us how Michael Colangelo a senior associate AG to Garland went from that position to a special counsel role in the Manhattan DA’s office and was coincidently staffed to the Trump case? Seems like an odd career move to go from a senior DOJ role to work for a city DA?
So not lawfare?
Posted on 12/2/24 at 3:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I only had 11 days to study for it, no less.
And years of school. If you went from zero knowledge to passing the bar in 11 days, I'd be impressed.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:00 pm to Morpheus
quote:
Cut them off Federal Funding until they get in line
Honestly, with the way they spend they should've been cutoff years ago from anything resembling government funding. They are an embarrassment to the country as a whole state, honestly.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:00 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Maybe you can explain to us how Michael Colangelo a senior associate AG to Garland went from that position to a special counsel role in the Manhattan DA’s office and was coincidently staffed to the Trump case? Seems like an odd career move to go from a senior DOJ role to work for a city DA?
So not lawfare?
"connecting them dots" isn't defining the term, especially when those dots have literally no relationship to the operative definition.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:01 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Just cut off federal funding. Easy enough
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Recently? FEMA and North Carolina. That disaster was called "lawfare" early and often.
I didn't see that in anything I read about it, and it seems wholly nonsensical to me. I guess your cute point here is that any executive action can be labeled "lawfare" and therefore it's a nonsensical term. I've personally never considered it as being anything outside of utilizing judicial actions, but at the same time, I'm not sure it's a term I've ever directly utilized either way.
Carry on, I guess.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:03 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
And years of school.
Where I did not read.
quote:
If you went from zero knowledge to passing the bar in 11 days, I'd be impressed.
It wasn't 0. I'm not claiming that. If you had someone with a legit didactic memory (which isn't that common, if it exists at all), they could probably do that with Barbri and some writing background...and an IQ over 110. The memory is the most important part in that equation, if you're legit starting from 0.
And most proper students with years of school need weeks of prep.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:05 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
and it seems wholly nonsensical to me.
It is, just like civil suits being lawfare, but any discussion about the lawsuits against Rudy G or Alex Jones will likely have a claim of lawfare.
Including Alex Jones, generally, makes defining it hard (as he has no overt political connection to politics at all).
quote:
I guess your cute point here is that any executive action can be labeled "lawfare" and therefore it's a nonsensical term.
Based on the malleability of the term's use, yes.
My issue has always been that malleability.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sounds like they're preparing to fight lawfare from Trump
We don’t have to wonder. We will see in a few months if one side is the plaintiff in much greater numbers than the other. The article sounds to me like California plans on being the plaintiff. We will see.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:09 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Let them waste more of their money while their remaining taxpayers continue to flee for Red states.
Gavin already putting in work, posturing for a 2028 run. He might have the largest deficit in the nation by then.
Gavin already putting in work, posturing for a 2028 run. He might have the largest deficit in the nation by then.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
We will see in a few months if one side is the plaintiff in much greater numbers than the other.
That also depends on if that plaintiff is only suing in response to admin/regulatory behavior by the Trump admin, which would make it Trumpian lawfare as they acted politically first.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"connecting them dots" isn't defining the term, especially when those dots have literally no relationship to the operative definition.
I just connected the dots for you. You’re Welcome!
Defining lawfare is like defining pornography. I know it when I see it.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:14 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Defining lawfare is like defining pornography. I know it when I see it.
I already said earlier today that y'all use it that way.
It's also a one way street.
That's the problem.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That also depends on if that plaintiff is only suing in response to admin/regulatory behavior by the Trump admin, which would make it Trumpian lawfare as they acted politically first.
Hmmm. Seems to be a broad definition. I always considered lawfare to be personally prosecuting a political opponent for the sole purpose that they are a political opponent.
Though I guess things like retroactively changing statutes of limitations for the sole purpose of prosecuting a political opponent could be regarded as regulatory. Akin to a substance over form discussion.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:19 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Seems to be a broad definition.
That's the point
quote:
. I always considered lawfare to be personally prosecuting a political opponent for the sole purpose that they are a political opponent.
Some people have a personal definition that limited
Many others do not.
quote:
Though I guess things like retroactively changing statutes of limitations for the sole purpose of prosecuting a political opponent could be regarded as regulatory
Was literally called lawfare
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was literally called lawfare
I understand. The substance of the law being passed was done with the sole purpose of prosecuting a political opponent. The form of the law being passed was regulatory. The IRS would call this move a step transaction.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:you go 20 pages defending every bullshite Trump case. You've gargled jack smith's balls on here for over a year. Gtf outta here with this
dismantling the Police State.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sounds like they're preparing to fight lawfare from Trump
They aren’t preparing very well, how far does 25 million dollars go when you are up against the federal government?
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
but Fauchi is for it
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News