Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The court's republican majority is not going to issue a ruling it knows Trump will ignore. They will say it's a political issue and punt.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The court's republican majority is not going to issue a ruling it knows Trump will ignore. They will say it's a political issue and punt.

That's my bet as well. If the case involves Trump breaking the law they will kick it to congress and say impeachment is the only remedy. And we know there's no chance of that happening with the spineless bags of goo that make up the GQP congress critters.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Trump said he would be a dictator on day 1. Not sure how you missed that.

Thiel’s guru, Yarwin, prefers to cast the executive’s role as a monarchy.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The court's republican majority is not going to issue a ruling it knows Trump will ignore. They will say it's a political issue and punt.

 

3 hours ago, The Royal We said:

That's my bet as well. If the case involves Trump breaking the law they will kick it to congress and say impeachment is the only remedy. And we know there's no chance of that happening with the spineless bags of goo that make up the GQP congress critters.

There is a difference between breaking the law (criminality) and violating the Constitution.  For crimes, yes, impeachment would be the way to address it.  There is also a difference between political issues and legal questions.  What Trump is doing clearly, clearly invokes a legal issue, which deals with one of the most fundamental tenets of American law. That's one of the things that is so stupid about all of this. First year con law students can tell you that just about everything that is being done violates separation of powers. Constitutionality, which is what this is about, is the Supreme Court's primary function. They aren't punting Constitutionality, especially not such critical issues as these. The Supreme Court justices have become de facto political tools, but that is as much a function of the electorate and Congress as anything.  But they are not spineless sycophants. I consider Barrett and Kavanaugh to be illegitimate because both should have been Dem. nominees but for Mitch McConnell's party-over-country fuckery.  The justices are proud, learned people. They REALLY don't want to be seen as Trump's stooges. Especially considering Roberts' track record, I see the Supreme Court as delivering the beginning of the end of this Trump/Musk fascist dictatorship cartoon. And I see it all being done with 9-0 per curiam opinions.

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

There is a difference between breaking the law (criminality) and violating the Constitution.  For crimes, yes, impeachment would be the way to address it.  There is also a difference between political issues and legal questions.  What Trump is doing clearly, clearly invokes a legal issue, which deals with one of the most fundamental tenets of American law. That's one of the things that is so stupid about all of this. First year con law students can tell you that just about everything that is being done violates separation of powers. Constitutionality, which is what this is about, is the Supreme Court's primary function. They aren't punting Constitutionality, especially not such critical issues as these. The Supreme Court justices have become de facto political tools, but that is as much a function of the electorate and Congress as anything.  But they are not spineless sycophants. I consider Barrett and Kavanaugh to be illegitimate because both should have been Dem. nominees but for Mitch McConnell's party-over-country fuckery.  The justices are proud, learned people. They REALLY don't want to be seen as Trump's stooges. Especially considering Roberts' track record, I see the Supreme Court as delivering the beginning of the end of this Trump/Musk fascist dictatorship cartoon. And I see it all being done with 9-0 per curiam opinions.

I hope you are right!

Posted
24 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

There is a difference between breaking the law (criminality) and violating the Constitution.  For crimes, yes, impeachment would be the way to address it.  There is also a difference between political issues and legal questions.  What Trump is doing clearly, clearly invokes a legal issue, which deals with one of the most fundamental tenets of American law. That's one of the things that is so stupid about all of this. First year con law students can tell you that just about everything that is being done violates separation of powers. Constitutionality, which is what this is about, is the Supreme Court's primary function. They aren't punting Constitutionality, especially not such critical issues as these. The Supreme Court justices have become de facto political tools, but that is as much a function of the electorate and Congress as anything.  But they are not spineless sycophants. I consider Barrett and Kavanaugh to be illegitimate because both should have been Dem. nominees but for Mitch McConnell's party-over-country fuckery.  The justices are proud, learned people. They REALLY don't want to be seen as Trump's stooges. Especially considering Roberts' track record, I see the Supreme Court as delivering the beginning of the end of this Trump/Musk fascist dictatorship cartoon. And I see it all being done with 9-0 per curiam opinions.

Man, I was with you right up until that last bit.  I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I think they're going to deliver it all on a silver platter.  They've already set the table.

Posted

The thing John Roberts cares about most of all is maintaining the appearance of the Court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. He will not issue an order that Trump will disregard, because the moment that happens the Court loses all public legitimacy as a co-equal branch of government.  This isn't complicated. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

But that's as far as I predict it will go.

#teammarshallmadisonholla

i hope you're goddamn right

ray of hope: shitgibbon is bitching this afternoon about the courts slowing him down

hitler didn't bitch - he went and got the rulings he wanted

in the category of bitchassedness, loompa is creating an endless vortex of timesuck for himself in gaza

unfortunately for the palestinians - bad for them - good for us - he has less time to fuck shit up over here

Posted
4 hours ago, The Royal We said:

That's my bet as well. If the case involves Trump breaking the law they will kick it to congress and say impeachment is the only remedy. And we know there's no chance of that happening with the spineless bags of goo that make up the GQP congress critters.

i looked at this last night

i was told no maths - my understanding is 67 is the senate conviction requirement - no VP tiebreaks - & i'm factoring the 2 current indeps as blue

current score: blue 47, red 53

in 26 (if we have elections) in play: 13 blue, 22 red

we need 33 of 35

some will stand down, a couple will pass on, but here's the moonshot list

it's never happened but oh what a glorious day it would be

ORANGE SHITGIBBON: YOU'RE FIRED!

VANCE: YOU'RE FIRED TOO!

under the constitution, no appeal, instant removal from office, barred from ever holding office again

i'm saying there's a chance :)

Minnesota     Tina Smith     Democratic    March 4, 1958 (age 66)
Colorado     John Hickenlooper     Democratic     February 7, 1952 (age 73)
Delaware     Chris Coons     Democratic     September 9, 1963 (age 61)
Georgia     Jon Ossoff     Democratic     February 16, 1987 (age 37)
Illinois     Dick Durbin     Democratic     November 21, 1944 (age 80)
Massachusetts     Ed Markey     Democratic     July 11, 1946 (age 78)
Michigan     Gary Peters     Democratic     December 1, 1958 (age 66)
New Hampshire     Jeanne Shaheen     Democratic     January 28, 1947 (age 78)
New Jersey     Cory Booker     Democratic     April 27, 1969 (age 55)
New Mexico     Ben Ray Luján     Democratic     June 7, 1972 (age 52)
Oregon     Jeff Merkley     Democratic     October 24, 1956 (age 68)
Rhode Island     Jack Reed     Democratic     November 12, 1949 (age 75)
Virginia     Mark Warner     Democratic     December 15, 1954 (age 70)
            
Alabama     Tommy Tuberville     Republican     September 18, 1954 (age 70)
Alaska     Dan Sullivan     Republican     November 13, 1964 (age 60)
Arkansas     Tom Cotton     Republican     May 13, 1977 (age 47)
Florida     Ashley Moody     Republican     March 28, 1975 (age 49)
Idaho     Jim Risch     Republican     May 3, 1943 (age 81)
Iowa     Joni Ernst     Republican     July 1, 1970 (age 54)
Kansas     Roger Marshall     Republican     August 9, 1960 (age 64)
Kentucky     Mitch McConnell     Republican     February 20, 1942 (age 82)
Louisiana     Bill Cassidy     Republican     September 28, 1957 (age 67)
Maine     Susan Collins     Republican     December 7, 1952 (age 72)
Mississippi     Cindy Hyde-Smith     Republican     May 10, 1959 (age 65)
Montana     Steve Daines     Republican     August 20, 1962 (age 62)
Nebraska     Pete Ricketts     Republican     August 19, 1964 (age 60)
North Carolina     Thom Tillis     Republican     August 30, 1960 (age 64)
Ohio     Jon Husted     Republican     August 25, 1967 (age 57)
Oklahoma     Markwayne Mullin     Republican     July 26, 1977 (age 47)
South Carolina     Lindsey Graham     Republican     July 9, 1955 (age 69)
South Dakota     Mike Rounds     Republican     October 24, 1954 (age 70)
Tennessee     Bill Hagerty     Republican     August 14, 1959 (age 65)
Texas     John Cornyn     Republican     February 2, 1952 (age 73)
West Virginia     Shelley Moore Capito     Republican     November 26, 1953 (age 71)
Wyoming     Cynthia Lummis     Republican     September 10, 1954 (age 70)

 

 

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

There is a difference between breaking the law (criminality) and violating the Constitution.  For crimes, yes, impeachment would be the way to address it.  There is also a difference between political issues and legal questions.  What Trump is doing clearly, clearly invokes a legal issue, which deals with one of the most fundamental tenets of American law. That's one of the things that is so stupid about all of this. First year con law students can tell you that just about everything that is being done violates separation of powers. Constitutionality, which is what this is about, is the Supreme Court's primary function. They aren't punting Constitutionality, especially not such critical issues as these. The Supreme Court justices have become de facto political tools, but that is as much a function of the electorate and Congress as anything.  But they are not spineless sycophants. I consider Barrett and Kavanaugh to be illegitimate because both should have been Dem. nominees but for Mitch McConnell's party-over-country fuckery.  The justices are proud, learned people. They REALLY don't want to be seen as Trump's stooges. Especially considering Roberts' track record, I see the Supreme Court as delivering the beginning of the end of this Trump/Musk fascist dictatorship cartoon. And I see it all being done with 9-0 per curiam opinions.

as a fellow lawyer, I want to believe. but let's just for a minute believe. First, who is going to enforce these rulings - truly?  The executive branch is not going to enforce a ruling it does not want to follow - especially given the swift and decisive removal of anyone that is not loyal. The removal of J6 prosecutors, the offer to quit with a buyout, and all of their personnel moves are as much about removing dissidents and installing loyalists as it is about shrinking government. So you have to believe the executive branch will lack the power to enforce the ruling against Trump.  

Beyond that, there's nothing unconstitutional with being merely negligent in the administration of the executive. I think if funding can't stop the way Trump wanted, they will decapitate agencies by firing or putting agency leaders on leave (already doing this) and the agencies will spiral with no leadership and therefore cease to function properly, an end around on the rulings regarding funding and now the agency is simply inept.

The only way out is political - there are only two ways this can happen - Congress grows a pair and impeaches and convicts, or in a two step electoral process (midterms and 2028 presidential election). sweeping the mid terms will only prevent harmful legislation it won't stop the executive train wreck. 2028 will undoubtedly go to the Democrats - possibly in the first real landslide in the current era but will it be too late?  the executive and the constituent agencies in the executive will likely be eviscerated by then.

So that brings us back full circle... will SCOTUS really rule against Trump?  I honestly don't think so. They should, but the easy out is to say it's a "political question" and leave it to Congress to impeach and convict. You might even have Roberts author the opinion with a scathing rebuke of Trump and yet SCOTUS will still punt to Congress for the political solution.

We are so fucked right now, it's not sad, it's not even funny. It's just devastating for everyone, including those that don't know it.

Edited by troph
Posted

BREAKING

20 MINUTES AGO


21 min ago
“I always abide by the courts,” Trump says after several policy priorities were halted
From CNN's Donald Judd

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he will “always abide by the courts,” after reporters asked if he’d follow a judge’s ruling if it blocked one of his administration’s policy priorities.

“Well, I always abide by the courts, and then I’ll have to appeal it. But then what he’s done is he’s slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books,” Trump said.
“So yeah, the answer is, I always abide by the courts, always abide by them, and we’ll appeal, but appeals take a long time.”

Posted
1 minute ago, Hagbard Celine said:

BREAKING

20 MINUTES AGO


21 min ago
“I always abide by the courts,” Trump says after several policy priorities were halted
From CNN's Donald Judd

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he will “always abide by the courts,” after reporters asked if he’d follow a judge’s ruling if it blocked one of his administration’s policy priorities.

“Well, I always abide by the courts, and then I’ll have to appeal it. But then what he’s done is he’s slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books,” Trump said.
“So yeah, the answer is, I always abide by the courts, always abide by them, and we’ll appeal, but appeals take a long time.”

Well, he is a world-class liar, so...

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, troph said:

as a fellow lawyer, I want to believe. but let's just for a minute believe. First, who is going to enforce these rulings - truly?  The executive branch is not going to enforce a ruling it does not want to follow - especially given the swift and decisive removal of anyone that is not loyal. The removal of J6 prosecutors, the offer to quit with a buyout, and all of their personnel moves are as much about removing dissidents and installing loyalists as it is about shrinking government. So you have to believe the executive branch will lack the power to enforce the ruling against Trump.  

Beyond that, there's nothing unconstitutional with being merely negligent in the administration of the executive. I think if funding can't stop the way Trump wanted, they will decapitate agency leaders and the agencies will spiral with no leadership and therefore cease to function properly, an end around on the rulings regarding funding and now the agency is simply inept.

The only way out is political - there are only two ways this can happen - Congress grows a pair and impeaches and convicts, or in a two step electoral process (midterms and 2028 presidential election). sweeping the mid terms will only prevent harmful legislation it won't stop the executive train wreck. 2028 will undoubtedly go to the Democrats - possibly in the first real landslide in the current era but will it be too late?  the executive and the constituent agencies in the executive will likely be eviscerated by then.

So that brings us back full circle... will SCOTUS really rule against Trump?  I honestly don't know. They should, but the easy out is to say it's a "political question" and leave it to Congress to impeach and convict. You might even have Roberts author the opinion with a scathing rebuke of Trump and yet SCOTUS will still punt to Congress for the political solution.

We are so fucked right now, it's not sad, it's not even funny. It's just devastating for everyone, including those that don't know it.

If the POTUS refuses to follow a ruling from SCOTUS, and Congress does not impeach (and they won't, that ship has sailed and the mechanism no longer exists), then you know the answer: there is literally one manner of recourse remaining.  Force of arms.  That's it.  Either a significant enough group of the people rises up and actually does what the NRA says we are supposed to all be keeping and bearing arms for, or we surrender to the fact that we have now become an absolute monarchy.  

Because understand, if the POTUS doesn't need to obey an order of the SCOTUS enforcing item A from the Constitution, why would he obey any OTHER part of the Constitution, like item B (like the 22nd amendment, limiting the POTUS to two terms)?  He wouldn't.  It's over.  There is no check on presidential power.  It's not even presidential power anymore.  It's whatever the person currently residing in the White House decides it is, with no limits except what the apparatus of force and violence (federal law enforcement and the military) decide they will or won't do in response to his orders.  That is, the only limit on the president's powers would be, when he orders the Air Force to carpet bomb California because Newsom hurt his fee-fees, Air Force leadership says "no."*

* But understand, even that won't last.  He will oust leadership and install leadership who will obey his orders, and kill Americans as he orders.

That's how this all ends.  It was always going to be this way.  What is happening is not new, it has happened numerous times before.  Pick up those books, skip ahead to the later chapters, and you see the "bloodshed, violence, murder of his own people" chapter.  It is ALWAYS in there.

2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

BREAKING

20 MINUTES AGO


21 min ago
“I always abide by the courts,” Trump says after several policy priorities were halted
From CNN's Donald Judd

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he will “always abide by the courts,” after reporters asked if he’d follow a judge’s ruling if it blocked one of his administration’s policy priorities.

“Well, I always abide by the courts, and then I’ll have to appeal it. But then what he’s done is he’s slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books,” Trump said.
“So yeah, the answer is, I always abide by the courts, always abide by them, and we’ll appeal, but appeals take a long time.”

He is lying.   "He lies relentlessly" is one of the early chapters in the books I mentioned.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If the POTUS refuses to follow a ruling from SCOTUS, and Congress does not impeach (and they won't, that ship has sailed and the mechanism no longer exists), then you know the answer: there is literally one manner of recourse remaining.  Force of arms.  That's it.  Either a significant enough group of the people rises up and actually does what the NRA says we are supposed to all be keeping and bearing arms for, or we surrender to the fact that we have now become an absolute monarchy.  

Because understand, if the POTUS doesn't need to obey an order of the SCOTUS enforcing item A from the Constitution, why would he obey any OTHER part of the Constitution, like item B (like the 22nd amendment, limiting the POTUS to two terms)?  He wouldn't.  It's over.  There is no check on presidential power.  It's not even presidential power anymore.  It's whatever the person currently residing in the White House decides it is, with no limits except what the apparatus of force and violence (federal law enforcement and the military) decide they will or won't do in response to his orders.  That is, the only limit on the president's powers would be, when he orders the Air Force to carpet bomb California because Newsom hurt his fee-fees, Air Force leadership says "no."*

* But understand, even that won't last.  He will oust leadership and install leadership who will obey his orders, and kill Americans as he orders.

That's how this all ends.  It was always going to be this way.  What is happening is not new, it has happened numerous times before.  Pick up those books, skip ahead to the later chapters, and you see the "bloodshed, violence, murder of his own people" chapter.  It is ALWAYS in there.

 

you are correct, though in theory and possibly in practice, Congress and the rest of the government has a chance at each violation to do the right thing. we have to hope that at some point it goes too far for even swarmy Cruz. I know, I need to forgetaboutit.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If the POTUS refuses to follow a ruling from SCOTUS, and Congress does not impeach (and they won't, that ship has sailed and the mechanism no longer exists), then you know the answer: there is literally one manner of recourse remaining.  Force of arms.  That's it.  Either a significant enough group of the people rises up and actually does what the NRA says we are supposed to all be keeping and bearing arms for, or we surrender to the fact that we have now become an absolute monarchy.  

Because understand, if the POTUS doesn't need to obey an order of the SCOTUS enforcing item A from the Constitution, why would he obey any OTHER part of the Constitution, like item B (like the 22nd amendment, limiting the POTUS to two terms)?  He wouldn't.  It's over.  There is no check on presidential power.  It's not even presidential power anymore.  It's whatever the person currently residing in the White House decides it is, with no limits except what the apparatus of force and violence (federal law enforcement and the military) decide they will or won't do in response to his orders.  That is, the only limit on the president's powers would be, when he orders the Air Force to carpet bomb California because Newsom hurt his fee-fees, Air Force leadership says "no."*

* But understand, even that won't last.  He will oust leadership and install leadership who will obey his orders, and kill Americans as he orders.

That's how this all ends.  It was always going to be this way.  What is happening is not new, it has happened numerous times before.  Pick up those books, skip ahead to the later chapters, and you see the "bloodshed, violence, murder of his own people" chapter.  It is ALWAYS in there.

 I refuse to believe that our entire nation, as storied, victorious, and strong as it is, with all of the power and wealth on the line, comes down to "You're not the boss of me."

Posted
8 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 I refuse to believe that our entire nation, as storied, victorious, and strong as it is, with all of the power and wealth on the line, comes down to "You're not the boss of me."

You have ingested the myth of "American Exceptionalism."  We are no less stupid than every other people and country who have come before.  Once you realize that basic truth, the rest of the truth comes falling down on your head like a deluge.

It CAN happen here.  All of it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 I refuse to believe that our entire nation, as storied, victorious, and strong as it is, with all of the power and wealth on the line, comes down to "You're not the boss of me."

I'm between you and brisket. I think SCOTUS will absolutely call it a political question and punt in a scathing opinion - one for the ages actually - hoping Congress does the dirty work. I think the opinion will be 7-2 or possibly 9-0 and will be the invitation, even the request that Congress impeach and convict (alito and Thomas will not participate in the majority if Roberts goes too far). then the question is how far does Trump have to go before Congress actually does its job and impeaches and convicts him. 

I think if that happens, he will be ousted. I'm not sure what mechanism will force him out, but I believe there will be an executive revolt against him at that time.  secret service might arrest him. you wouldn't need the FBI and certainly wouldn't need the military. I do not think he will successfully orchestrate an armed coup, his coup is entirely dependent upon no one doing a damn thing about it - and that starts and ends with Congress.

so until you see Congress grow a pair, there's no chance. none, not one iolta of a chance. zilch, nada, nothing.

 

Edited by troph
Posted
5 minutes ago, troph said:

so until you see Congress grow a pair, there's no chance. none, not one iolta of a chance. zilch, nada, nothing.

Exactly.

So the choice will be either force of arms by the people, or we simple accede to becoming a monarchical dictatorship.  I know which one I'm betting on.  And as a bonus, that path ends in blood too, because once a despot gets absolute and total power, with no checks on it....he uses it.

Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Exactly.

So the choice will be either force of arms by the people, or we simple accede to becoming a monarchical dictatorship.  I know which one I'm betting on.  And as a bonus, that path ends in blood too, because once a despot gets absolute and total power, with no checks on it....he uses it.

If republicans are forced by an avalanche of protests and constituents they will do it - but only if they think their power is truly in question.  

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, troph said:

If republicans are forced by an avalanche of protests and constituents they will do it - but only if they think their power is truly in question.  

Their power will never be in question. They have folded to him at every single opportunity for 10 years now.  At a 100% rate.  Not 99%, 100%.  That will not change.  It is over.  He is king.  There is no party, only Trump.  They will do as he says, because they are cowards, and because they already bestowed on him the absolute power to grant of deny them power.  The only "keep power" move is to do what the king says.

Because the only other option is to shoot for the king (metaphorically).  And as they say, when you shoot for the king, you best not miss.  It takes a person of courage to take that step.  All such persons have been removed from the Republican party.  And from the looks of it, the Democratic party, and the rest of American society as a whole.

Edited by Brisketexan
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Their power will never be in question. They have folded to him at every single opportunity for 10 years now.  At a 100% rate.  Not 99%, 100%.  That will not change.  It is over.  He is king.  There is no party, only Trump.  They will do as he says, because they are cowards, and because they already bestowed on him the absolute power to grant of deny them power.  The only "keep power" move is to do what the king says.

Because the only other option is to shoot for the king.  And as they say, when you shoot for the king, you best not miss.  It takes a person of courage to take that step.  All such persons have been removed from the Republican party.  And from the looks of it, the Democratic party, and the rest of American society as a whole.

they haven't folded because their constituents worship Trump too. there is a path, an unlikely path, but a path nonetheless to removing him.

this is coming from someone actively looking to leave the country (hoping we can make it 3-4 years).

Posted

Congress is a fucking joke.  If you have to pin your hopes on those spineless windbags you are turbo-fucked.

If SCOTUS punts it as a political question or, 

if Trump defies a SCOTUS order then we have to march on Washington.  I'm dead fucking serious.  And I will ask all of you to come with me.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Congress is a fucking joke.  If you have to pin your hopes on those spineless windbags you are turbo-fucked.

If SCOTUS punts it as a political question or, 

if Trump defies a SCOTUS order then we have to march on Washington.  I'm dead fucking serious.  And I will ask all of you to come with me.

 

I agree congress is a joke but impeachment and conviction is the only option that will be given when the Supreme Court rules this is a political question not a legal one. 
 

we have 200 years of court rulings that tell us exactly how this will go. To expect different is insane.

Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

They REALLY don't want to be seen as Trump's stooges. Especially considering Roberts' track record, I see the Supreme Court as delivering the beginning of the end of this Trump/Musk fascist dictatorship cartoon. And I see it all being done with 9-0 per curiam opinions.

 

I think the pig is out of the pen on SCOTUS not wanting to be seen as Trump stooges. The Colorado ballot case and the immunity decision are pretty hard to overlook. I sure hope you are right, but I tend to lead more to the Brisket school of thought on this one.

Trump and Musk are already ignoring court orders and there are GQP congressmen hand waving it away. There's no one coming to save us. I think it's going to come down to massive protests (with protestors getting shot) and/or a general strike before anyone in the GQP even starts to get queasy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

 

I think the pig is out of the pen on SCOTUS not wanting to be seen as Trump stooges. The Colorado ballot case and the immunity decision are pretty hard to overlook. I sure hope you are right, but I tend to lead more to the Brisket school of thought on this one.

Trump and Musk are already ignoring court orders and there are GQP congressmen hand waving it away. There's no one coming to save us. I think it's going to come down to massive protests (with protestors getting shot) and/or a general strike before anyone in the GQP even starts to get queasy.

Yeah, the executive branch is responsible for carrying out the law as interpreted by the judicial branch. If they're ignoring the judicial, we're waaaaayyyyyy off the map in terms of civics

Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Yeah, the executive branch is responsible for carrying out the law as interpreted by the judicial branch. If they're ignoring the judicial, we're waaaaayyyyyy off the map in terms of civics

the big lebowski dude GIF

These congressmen are giving away all of their power way too easily. I mean, I'm not surprised, but it's still shocking to see shoulder shrugs at the Executive telling the Judiciary to get fucked.

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You have ingested the myth of "American Exceptionalism."  We are no less stupid than every other people and country who have come before.  Once you realize that basic truth, the rest of the truth comes falling down on your head like a deluge.

It CAN happen here.  All of it.

Absolutely.

We put innocent Japanese-Americans into camps during WWII.  

And that version of America was an awful lot less crazy on average than this one.

There are no limits to how bad this can go.  And the worst part is that half of us will cheer no matter what occurs.

Posted
37 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Congress is a fucking joke.  If you have to pin your hopes on those spineless windbags you are turbo-fucked.

If SCOTUS punts it as a political question or, 

if Trump defies a SCOTUS order then we have to march on Washington.  I'm dead fucking serious.  And I will ask all of you to come with me.

 

A March on Washington will end in a LOT of bloodshed. It will be the war Trump has been readying his uneducated stooges for for years now. They already fought their supposed "good guys" in Blue at the Capitol. Imagine the restraint they'll show against the evil leftists they've been seething over for a decade. That's why he's releasing them all. He may just need them again.

Have fun with all that. I'll think of another way to survive this. This country has exploited mine and others for long enough. My tíos and pops fed into all that model minority bullshit serving the country to prove their patriotism. Look where they got us. Right back around to Project 2025, 50 years later. 



×
×
  • Create New...