4 Likes
Trump poor guy needs a break he’s just a little confused while speaking and mixed the word Wall with the word Rails.
if you replace the word wall with rail or rails in every instance of this speech he makes a lot more sense.
When I read that he had installed a new golf simulator in the White House recently to replace Obama’s lame-o one (this is not a joke), this is not what I imagined.
2 Likes
[Sotomayor’s] final sentence in that dissent is today’s chilling reminder of what happens when the Supreme Court rubber-stamps a pretextual power grab by a president who has no respect for the Constitution: “Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court’s decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.
6 Likes
That’s fucking terrifying. Thanks for sharing.
5 Likes
4 Likes
will the trump copyright/trade mark the wall people
3 Likes
2 Likes
How many copyright strikes before they cancel his account? /s
8 Likes
When Truman tried to overreach the powers of “Emergency” the courts found against him - Anyone see any glaring similarities with this new “emergency”
In large part this was the result of the fact that the administration had made a weak case—the evidence of an actual emergency was tenuous, …even weaker by overstating its position and offering incoherent arguments in the early phases of the litigation that turned public opinion against it, while framing the public debate in the most simplistic terms.
Honestly… I think that’s his whole plan.
If Trump had kept negotiating and occasionally shutting down the government, it’d look weaker and weaker, a war of attrition.
Instead, he declared an emergency – basically, the nuclear option – knowing that this will be stuck in courts throughout the re-election campaign. His entire campaign will be centered on it. “You need to re-elect me to let me finish the job! If a Democrat gets elected, they’ll kill the wall! Let me FINISH THE WALL!” (we’re already seeing his re-election slogan on signs at his rallies). This is all part of his plan. He’s gone all-in on the wall as the central symbol of his presidency and is staking his whole re-election on it.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Unfortunately, unlike Truman, Trump has an Act of Congress giving him the power to declare a national emergency and governing what he can do if he declares one.
There is nothing in the National Emergencies Act that says there has to be a ‘real’ emergency or how to determine whether an emergency is ‘real’.
If the President says so, it’s an emergency. The Act (and the Constitution) assumes that if Congress doesn’t like what the President is doing, they’d stop him.
So long as that fails to be the case…
This bit from the article @jerwin linked above quoting Gorsuch is not wrong (its anti-‘liberal’ rhetoric aside):
“American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. … At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has—its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes.”
Americans in general have come to rely on courts and judges to deal with things that the electorate apparently cannot agree on.
“Settling disagreements about law” is more or less what Federal courts and judges are for.
2 Likes
Which is why Trump literally sang a song in his press briefing about how the Supreme Court would deliver him his wall. His whole assumption is that he’ll be sued, get stuck in court long enough to look like it’s a “fight”, and then he’ll have a triumphant victory in the SCOTUS.
1 Like
Disagreements about law sure.
Disagreements about what the law should be…
True.
But arguably, it is the job of the legislature to make laws that are made so well that disagreements over them are a rare exception, not the norm.
The courts are a corrective to catch the fuckups, they are not part of the lawmaking process.
In theory anyway…
2 Likes
Rulings against segregation or in favor of abortion rights or against state laws banning same-sex marriage aren’t about what the law “should be,” they are about granting the protections of existing law to those who were previously denied it.
1 Like
