I’m kinda surprised that the President subverting the rule of law and officially transitioning the US into a banana republic hasn’t gotten more attention. I kind of respect how many places seem to be mostly ignoring the deranged rantings of a madman. Heck, CNN has Matt Kuchar paying his caddie 50k above the fake emergency headline.

well, its been over 4 yrs of his ranting if you include the primaries. now its just normal. no one is surprised so no reason to report it.

I don't think this is LOL at all. I very easily could see John Roberts voting with Breyer, Sotomayor, RBG, and Kagan for exactly this reason.

The Supreme Court would never endorse suspending elections as some in this thread are suggesting. And it's hard to see how a S. Ct. opinion could be written in a way that would keep the genie in the bottle.

This is alarming for all the obvious reasons, but it's far from clear that this gambit will work for Trump. There is a reason why he risked (and received) a kicking during the shutdown rather than declare a national emergency right out of the gate.

Yeah, yesterday, MSNBC said Republicans are divided about the President's declaration of a national emergency, but first, here's a Democrats in disarray story about creeping Socialism. ****ing mother****ers.

Also ANN COULTER = A LONER ****

Top notch grifters Diamond and Silk. Respect.

Diamond & Silk call themselves Diamond & Silk but they're not made of Diamond & Silk.
Chessmate

What’s the female version of an Uncle Tom?

Asking for a friend

Aunt Jemima

So good.

I've been thinking about this national emergency declaration and the House's ability to start the 18 day clock on the Senate to vote on the termination. Are there any downsides to the House doing so? Like some hidden Judicial gotcha later on where this particular national emergency declaration threads the needle and 5-4s through a non precedent setting ruling, and then if a Democratic president declares climate change a national emergency and the judiciary points to democratic opposition to again 5-4 the other way on it?

I'm trying to think through all the permutations of Democratic opposition to this, it seems like a multi-pronged approach(courts, legislative, court of public opinion) is correct, but I feel like given the setup of the country there is a gotcha I'm not seeing.

Thanks for thoughtful replies!

Michelle Wolf already answered that one, Aunt Coulter.

I'm suggesting that Trump would try it, NOT that the Supreme Court would uphold it... But if he declares a national emergency and suspends elections or throws out the results, regardless of how SCOTUS rules, I think there will be widespread unrest. We're too divided and both sides are too convinced of their ownership of facts.

No Americans can be against the wall, because we all live in houses and rooms with walls. Only homeless people can oppose the wall.

And they're presumably getting rich for this ****?

If Trump/GOP intentionally throw the case and scotus rules they can't declare a national emergency, is this the only high profile intelligent thing the trump presidency has done?

It gets them everything they actually want, they don't even need to waste money on the wall they get just talk about it which is just as effective in controlling immigration. The wall could be their next roe v wade for next couple decades if they just ensure it is never actually built.

There is no strategy beyond


Chaos



To take eyes off of

Treason


For a little while

Yep; stop saying trump has strategy; he doesn’t

He is tactical and just does whatever he think wins in that moment

Hillary vs Trump was like when good players complain they can't win in play money games on PokerStars-- it's hard for smart people to deal with opponents that don't think at all.

Trump runs at zero level thinking 90% of the time, and negative level thinking the remaining 10%.

Edit. Whoops. Wrong thread.

How about the democrats pick the least favourable court and lose and appeal so they get to the Supreme Court and if the Republican majority court rules in Trumps favour now they have the right to do the same.

Plus all those Republican states that are going to lose those $$$ for military construction projects that are approved are going to be pissed

If the SCOTUS rules in favour of Trump, 99% chance it will be narrowly tailored to this specific situation so if the Dems try it for a liberal cause, it will get insta-struck down.

Won’t need SC on our side in a few decades when Miami is underwater to get Climate Change to be taken seriously

Of course, by that point, the pain and cost of dealing with it will be 134884747x worse

lol swing and a miss, the nonthinking opponents are the best kind

anybody who claims to hate or have trouble playing vs them is categorically horrible at poker (and, fittingly, hillary is categorically horrible at politics)

Bill Shine's wife, in anti-vaccine rant, says "bring back our childhood diseases"

Hillary should've moved up to where they respected her arguments.