• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
2,627
Points
1,160
The "fractures" in the USA are, partially, regional (blue vs red states) and John Ibbitson, writing in the Globe ands Mail suggests that they are present in Canada, too, and growing in intensity :

"Western disillusion with Liberal governments in Ottawa stretches back to the 1950s. But Mr. Trudeau made things worse by imposing restrictions on oil and gas development and by using the federal power to tax and restrict carbon emissions, rather than work co-operatively with the provinces to reduce those emissions.

The result: Western voters are so estranged from Central Canada that some of them are pushing for sovereignty, and the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan are lending an ear.

Those same voters form the core of Mr. Poilievre’s Conservative Party, along with voters in rural Ontario and the Interior of British Columbia."
 

Attachments

  • red vs blue states.jpeg
    red vs blue states.jpeg
    163.4 KB · Views: 8
  • red vs blue canada.jpeg
    red vs blue canada.jpeg
    28.9 KB · Views: 8

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,739
Points
1,260
Doesn’t help when parties are considered “right” and “wrong” - and my comment encompasses both wings.
Agreed. Which is part of why I added the wink emoji.
Generally I despise most of the Politicians anyways regardless of party, simply due to their actions.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,729
Points
1,210
I can watch stuff from the past without judging it, which seems to be difficult for a lot of people these days. (Although, I admit Stripes doesn't seem as funny as I remember it when I was a teenager.)
When I tried to watch Davy Crocket I turned it off not because I was offended, it was because it was so full of US Manifest Destiny Bullshit that I couldn't stand the propaganda.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,553
Points
1,090
When I tried to watch Davy Crocket I turned it off not because I was offended, it was because it was so full of US Manifest Destiny Bullshit that I couldn't stand the propaganda.
We see a lot of that today too. Propaganda and revionism.

Braveheart, The Patriot, The Woman King, Anchorman 1 and 2…
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
966
Points
1,060
I watched this one all the time as a kid... I am likely deeply disturbed as a result ;)

Here Come the Brides


Here Come the Brides is an American comedy Western series from Screen Gems that aired on the ABC television network from September 25, 1968 to April 3, 1970. It was loosely based on Asa Mercer's efforts in the 1860s to import marriageable women (the Mercer Girls) from the East Coast cities of the United States to Seattle, where there was a shortage.


The "fractures" in the USA are, partially, regional (blue vs red states) and John Ibbitson, writing in the Globe ands Mail suggests that they are present in Canada, too, and growing in intensity :

"Western disillusion with Liberal governments in Ottawa stretches back to the 1950s. But Mr. Trudeau made things worse by imposing restrictions on oil and gas development and by using the federal power to tax and restrict carbon emissions, rather than work co-operatively with the provinces to reduce those emissions.

The result: Western voters are so estranged from Central Canada that some of them are pushing for sovereignty, and the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan are lending an ear.

Those same voters form the core of Mr. Poilievre’s Conservative Party, along with voters in rural Ontario and the Interior of British Columbia."

saw this on the internet although it included Saskatchewan as well as Alberta
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,729
Points
1,210
Anchorman 1 and 2…
anchorman GIF
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,575
Points
1,010
When I tried to watch Davy Crocket I turned it off not because I was offended, it was because it was so full of US Manifest Destiny Bullshit that I couldn't stand the propaganda.
Yes. I suppose more people should raise the money to tell their own stories.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
370
Points
910
Another strike against Donald Trump. In a ruling that was widely anticapted, the 11th Circut Court of Appeals stated that District Court Judge Aileen Cannon's never had jurisdiction to block the DOJ investigation of documents seized at Trumps Mar-E-Lago compound nor did she have jurisdiction to appoint a Special Master to oversee those documents.

Eleventh Circuit Quashes Trump Effort to Block Federal Government Access to Mar-a-Lago Documents

In a brief and forceful opinion, a unanimous court explains why the trial court never had jurisdiction to consider Trump's filings in the first place.

JONATHAN H. ADLER | 12.1.2022 8:14 PM

Today, an unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the District Court Judge Aileen Cannon never had jurisdiction to block the federal government's access to documents seized at Mar-a-Lago or to appoint a special master to oversee document review. This outcome is not a surprise. The Eleventh CIrcuit previously stayed one of Judge Cannon's orders after which the Supreme Court refused to intervene. The oral argument also made the weakness of Trump's case crystal clear.

The relatively brief per curiam opinion in Trump v. United States, on behalf of Chief Judge Pryor and Judges Grant and Brasher, is direct and to-the-point, and should put an end to Trump's efforts to obstruct the federal government's investigation of his retention and alleged mishandling of classified documents and other materials that belong to the federal government.

The opinion begins:
This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no. . . .
Exercises of equitable jurisdiction—which the district court invoked here—should be "exceptional" and "anomalous." Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d
29, 32 (5th Cir. 1974).1 Our precedents have limited this jurisdiction with a four-factor test. Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1239, 1243–44 (5th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff's jurisdictional arguments fail all four factors.
In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.
The Court did not think much of the former President's arguments.
Only the narrowest of circumstances permit a district court to invoke equitable jurisdiction. Such decisions "must be exercised with caution and restraint," as equitable jurisdiction is appropriate only in "exceptional cases where equity demands intervention." In re $67,470, 901 F.2d 1540, 1544 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Hunsucker, 497 F.2d at 32. This is not one of them. . . .
When we examine Plaintiff's arguments about the Richey factors, we notice a recurring theme. He makes arguments that—if consistently applied—would allow any subject of a search warrant to invoke a federal court's equitable jurisdiction. That understanding of Richey would make equitable jurisdiction not extraordinary, "but instead quite ordinary." United States v. Search of Law Office, Residence, and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). Our precedents consistently reject this approach. We have emphasized again and again that equitable jurisdiction exists only in response to the most callous disregard of constitutional rights, and even then only if other factors make it clear that judicial oversight is absolutely necessary. . . .
Plaintiff's alternative framing of his grievance is that he needs a special master and an injunction to protect documents that he designated as personal under the Presidential Records Act. But as we have said, the status of a document as personal or presidential does not alter the authority of the government to seize it under a warrant supported by probable cause; search warrants authorize the seizure of personal records as a matter of course. The Department of Justice has the documents because they were seized with a search warrant, not because of their status under the Presidential Records Act. So Plaintiff's suggestion that "whether the Government is entitled to retain some or all the seized documents has not been determined by any court" is incorrect. The magistrate judge decided that issue when approving the warrant. To the extent that the categorization of these documents has legal relevance in future proceedings, the issue can be raised at that time.
All these arguments are a sideshow. The real question that guides our analysis is this—adequate remedy for what? The answer is the same as it was in Chapman: "No weight can be assigned to this factor because [Plaintiff] did not assert that any rights had been violated, i.e., that there has been a callous disregard for his constitutional rights or that a substantial interest in property is jeopardized." 559 F.2d at 407. If there has been no constitutional violation—much less a serious one—then there is no harm to be remediated in the first place. This factor also weighs against exercising equitable jurisdiction. . . .
Only one possible justification for equitable jurisdiction remains: that Plaintiff is a former President of the United States. It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president—but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation. The Richey test has been in place for nearly fifty years; its limits apply no matter who the government is investigating. To create a special exception here would defy our Nation's foundational principle that our law applies "to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank." State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1, 4 (1794).
The court concludes:
The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts' involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.
The district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we VACATE the September 5 order on appeal and REMAND with instructions for the district court to DISMISS the underlying civil action.

 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,538
Points
1,110
Another strike against Donald Trump. In a ruling that was widely anticapted, the 11th Circut Court of Appeals stated that District Court Judge Aileen Cannon's never had jurisdiction to block the DOJ investigation of documents seized at Trumps Mar-E-Lago compound nor did she have jurisdiction to appoint a Special Master to oversee those documents.
Yup. He was trying to claim that he could block federal investigators and prosecutors from furthering an investigation using the items found in the course of a lawful search warrant, until a separately appointed individual had adjudicated a whole bunch of highly questionable claims of executive privilege. Simply put, there’s no precedent in le for what he asked for. He was able to find one judge at the lowest level who granted his motion, but, predictably, when it got through to appellate court they returned a decision that, essentially, amounts to “WTF? No!”

He will likely try to emergency appeal this to SCOTUS. They will likely not hear the matter.

FBI and DOJ (and the special counsel) are now completely free and clear to use the materials seized in the Mar a Lago search to further the investigation into criminal allegations related to mishandling of classified documents and defence information.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,739
Points
1,260
I’m pretty sure the entirety of SCOTUS is hoping he’s indicted before he makes yet another Hail Mary attempt their way.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1,192
Points
960
I’m pretty sure the entirety of SCOTUS is hoping he’s indicted before he makes yet another Hail Mary attempt their way.
I just hope the GOP is ready to move on and won't try anything funny if that happens.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,575
Points
1,010
Most of the GOP is perfectly happy to watch Trump and the Biden DoJ finish their Thunderdome match.
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,538
Points
1,110
I’m pretty sure the entirety of SCOTUS is hoping he’s indicted before he makes yet another Hail Mary attempt their way.

You think an indictment would mean he tries to bring less bullshit to the Supreme Court?

Two of his White House counsel - Patrick Philbin and Patrick Cipollone - both spent hours today testifying to a grand jury in DC, though it’s not clear whether it pertains to the criminal investigation into Jan 6th, or the classified documents investigation. Trump has been fighting both hard and unsuccessfully to assert executive privilege claims to stop former advisors and legal counsel from having to testify before grand juries.

Whatever’s going on, the grand jury(ies?) can’t get much closer to Trump and his decision making than they are now. At least one and probably two federal criminal investigations are settled into a very tight orbit around him personally.
 
Top