Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
Yes, that is the answer of one faction. The answer of the other faction is that they do not trust Jia Cobb and her ilk to determine what is and is not lawful and correct (and they do not always believe that those are the same thing). You can hate that people think that way, but they do in fact think that way.
I have no doubt that people think that way. I think that way about a great many decisions of our current Supreme Court. But I think the government should obey them anyway. I thought the Supreme Court judgement striking down Biden's student loan forgiveness was not a well reason decision, but it still would have been wrong of him to say to hell with the court and do it anyway.
If you think we should only have a judiciary if the judiciary makes decisions you agree with and produces outcomes you like and when that doesn't happen we should instead have a single executive take the law and its determinations into their own hands then I think you are anti-American. You are clearly opposed to the fundamentals of the American experiment and what it means to be an American.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
Suddenly announcing that illegal orders from the President shouldn't be followed may literally be a hypothetical claiming that to the extent the orders are unlawful they don't need to be followed. But what it actually means is "the President is giving out illegal orders now and they should be disobeyed now," even if the speech doesn't literally include the word "now".
The quoted section is just a factual description of what is occurring, according to the branch of government charged with making that kind of determination.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3hr ago
All of this is happening in the context of a serious battle for authority on a grand scale. Whether the troops should (that's a moral should, not a legal should) be listening to their elected president Donald Trump or U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb is precisely the issue in question.
To ask this question is to answer it: Jia Cobb, until some court above her says otherwise. The President is not above and superior to the judiciary. You want to know why people say Trump wants to be king? Shit like this. Apparently Donald J. Trump is to be the sole arbiter of what the law is and what is legal and illegal and no one may gainsay him!
If you see the world in that way, what is this video saying? Firstly, this video wouldn't be made if the makers didn't think that Trump was giving illegal orders, or was about to do so. So they're not just speaking about a hypothetical, they're standing up and saying, "Either the orders you're being given now, or the orders you're going to get soon, are illegal and you should ignore them". They are not only attacking the president and by extension those who voted for him, they are deliberately attempting to usurp his power of command.
The constitution does not give the President, or any official, the power to give orders contrary to itself or to law. To the extent the President's orders are unlawful, he has no authority to give them.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3hr ago
Prior to the determination by a single circuit court judge that the deployment was illegal, would it have been the role of the individual members of the national guard to evaluate the constitutional authority of the deployment and decide whether to obey orders based on their own individual evaluation?
If soldiers are not empowered to push back on illegal orders before carrying them out then the prohibition on doing so is toothless.
Given the overturn rate of the DC circuit courts on appeal in this administration, how confident should we be that the deployment will remain “illegal” after appeal?
I think it's pretty good. Just about every court to consider the question has come to the same conclusion. In Oregon and California and DC and Chicago. None of them, to my knowledge, overturned by either the relevant circuit or SCOTUS.
I'm just gonna post a transcript here because the reaction to this seems insane to me.
[Video opens with the six congresspeople (Elisa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow) identifying themselves and giving their military/intelligence backgrounds] We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. Who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders [Kelly]. You can refuse illegal orders [Slotkin]. You must refuse illegal orders [Deluzio]. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up [Kelly]. Don't give up [Deluzio]. Don't give up [Crow]. Don't give up the ship [Slotkin].
Characterizing the speech above as a call for a coup or sedition seems crazy. Like, courts have held that some of the orders Trump has given the military on American soil are unlawful! That is literally a thing that is happening! Trump is, as literally as possible, giving the military illegal orders as determined by a court of law. This is not even getting into the boat strikes that I think are straightforwardly murder. "If the president tells you to do something illegal, as he has already done, you must not do it." "THIS IS TREASON!"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2d ago
Technically the house in question is in Virginia, but I still see a distinction between the language and your description. I don't think James contests her was the legal occupant of the property, but it's not clear to me that being the legal is the same as having control over the occupancy or use. Like, the legal owner can presumably evict the legal occupant, right? Which would seem to entail control over occupancy. Downstream of that it seems like the property owner could also lawfully restrict the legal occupants use of the property. I've had rental agreements that prohibit using the rented property for commercial purposes, for example.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
I don't think they apply in a case where the owner is aware of and consents to an individuals occupancy.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
I am also not familiar with the case law but I would be pretty surprised if the existence of tenant protections meant that every act of renting constituted an agreement that the renter had "control over the occupancy or use of the property." That would functionally make it impossible to rent any second homes issued with conforming loans in states with such protections, which I am skeptical is how this language is understood to operate.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
Note the slight of hand in paragraph 6 of the indictment that you quote, emphasis added:
The loan was originated by OVM Financial under a signed Second Home Rider, which required JAMES, as the sole borrower to occupy and use the property as her secondary residence, and prohibited its use as a timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or agreement that requires her to either rent the property or give any other person any control over the occupancy or use of the property.
I assume it is not in dispute that James did not use the property as a timeshare or other shared ownership arrangement. The critical text does not prohibit James from "renting" the property, it prohibits her from entering into an agreement that requires her to rent it (or to give another control over the occupancy or use of the property). James' behavior is only violation of that paragraph if she went beyond renting and entered into an agreement with her family member that required her to to rent to them or gave the that family member control over the occupancy or use of the property.
Of course, it's also not hard to look up the standard Fannie Mae Second Home Rider which provides, in relevant part:
6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower’s second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower’s personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower’s control.
Another way the renting may have been legal is if the lender agreed in writing to permit her renting.
I did intend that more in royal-you kind of way, not necessarily you specifically. I appreciate the clarification.
Perhaps I should take a different tact. My impression, based on polling, is that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC is not just unlawful, it is also unpopular. Here is a Quinnipiac poll from August finding voters disapprove 56-41. Here is an NPR-Ipsos poll from late September showing a disapproval of 47-37 for DC that rises to 52-34 when the question is about National Guard deployment to "your local area." To the extent Trump's resistance to the judiciary is premised on having popular support over them, I do not think that is the case with this issue.
Thanks for the article! I'm enjoying it so far.
More options
Context Copy link