When he's not whining about Democrats he's relentlessly insulting them, and then he wants them to cooperate?

i mean personal issues aside, it's unconscionable that any dem would want to co-operate with an administration that pushes an agenda like this one. gutting medicaid to give a tax cut to the wealthy, rolling back environmental regulations, dismantling government agencies as well as the democratic process and ethical norms/oversight, ramping up failed domestic policies of mass incarceration and draconian immigration restrictions/enforcement, etc etc

**** cooperating with that

ban for obtuse trolling

Travel ban will be argued in front of SCOTUS in October

What parts of it take effect?

I'm so glad I don't watch the news. I just use my Reuters app to get the news and fade all the sky is falling bull**** that sends people here into a panic.

That said people gotta stay on healthcare and make sure that whoever votes for this gets hammered hard.

Sent from my HUAWEI CUN-L01 using Tapatalk

Now?

Injunction against it lifted, but if anyone can demonstrate any sort of relationship to any person in the US, they cannot be prevented from traveling here. I expect there will be a lot of litigation about this until they issue a ruling (which probably won't be until like March, maybe even later).

ty

So the 90 day ban will be in effect for approximately 100 days prior to judicial review?

Thought travel ban was only for 90 days to figure out what is going on? Do we not know what is going on yet?

No. All efforts to figure out what's going on must be suspended while travel ban is under challenge. It was in the fine print.

Yep. Although the decision will take much longer.

Almost certainly the lower courts will be reversed--see Thomas' (with Gorsuch and Alito) dissent saying he would have FULLY reversed the injunction.

SCOTUS just handed out 3 decisions in the last hour? That true? If so, retirement imminent?

No retirement announcements today. Seems unlikely Kennedy is going to retire this year, at least.

By the way if Trump gets to name a replacement for Kennedy (or god forbid, RBG or Breyer), we are all ****ed forever. Just want to be clear. If he gets two more Justices, we will have a society identical to The Handmaid's Tale within the year.

The WP story is kind of a hit piece. AFAICT there is no reported connection between the loan and Russia and no real argument that the loan needed to be disclosed under OGE rules.

I'm very skeptical about CRE loans made pre-election being corrupt. First, nobody thought Trump would win. Second, commercial real estate loans are highly regulated and the underwriting is basically standard across the industry.

Well, there could be a revolution.

But, mostly it will be red states continuing to become more repressive, racist, economically depressed and isolated while the coastal blue states continue to have civil rights, health care, and a functional economy.

You are being naive if you truly think a fully right wing government in all three branches wouldn't extend to coastal blue states as well. A truly conservative SCOTUS could strike down civil rights laws, heath care, etc. in blue states.

Well, sure it's possible. Some things might be harder - like deciding California can't have a state funded health care program - but, hopefully anyway, what's likely is the continuation of states like Cali to step up where the feds fail. And already we have better civil rights protections than the red states*, eg protection for workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I guess in the Handmaid's Tale (I've never seen or read it ? ) world that could be ruled unconstitutional.

Then I guess it'll be time for revolution/secession.

*some red state exceptions UT, IA

It's very unlikely but if they go back to the Lochner era then it'd be very bad, but I imagine that's where the Koch wing wants to go.

All it takes is for someone to challenge a state civil rights law as infringing on his/her First Amendment rights (Freedom of Religion, most likely) and for a right wing SCOTUS to agree to strike down the law. There's nothing the state can do about this.

(this is already sort of happening with the baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay couple)

I guess I have to get lumped into the naive category, though I prefer to call it idealistic. I just think justices are less beholden to the people who appointed them and more greatly influenced by the culture of the court and the legal profession...and society. A justice's discussion of an issue with his adult child likely carries as much or more weight than a politician's view.

President Obama wasn't ready to sign off on gay marriage at the beginning of his term. His acceptance of it evolved and he finally had to come to terms with it when Biden spoke out. So, my hope is that in spite of conservative appointments, the court could still gravitate toward the middle.

i thought the leader for the dems in california recently just killed the idea of single payer healthcare, claiming that it would steal focus from the ACA fight.

You mean Jerry Brown or Nancy Pelosi?

The first attempted bill here for single payer might not do it anyway.