Jump to content

What will happen if the Trump Administration ignores a Supreme Court ruling?


Recommended Posts

Posted

Apologies if this has been discussed in other threads.

I assume that Thomas and Alito are down for whatever, but my guess is that some of this stuff will eventually be a bridge too far for Roberts and one of the others. At that point we have a showdown. Given how far the wheels are off already, the fact that Congress won't do shit, and the amount of loyalists that have been packed into the administration, it seems inevitable that Trump will eventually just say "nah, I'm not going to abide by that" if something doesn't go his way. What then? Has that ever happened in history?

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Apologies if this has been discussed in other threads.

I assume that Thomas and Alito are down for whatever, but my guess is that some of this stuff will eventually be a bridge too far for Roberts and one of the others. At that point we have a showdown. Given how far the wheels are off already, the fact that Congress won't do shit, and the amount of loyalists that have been packed into the administration, it seems inevitable that Trump will eventually just say "nah, I'm not going to abide by that" if something doesn't go his way. What then? Has that ever happened in history?

Andrew Jackson ignored the court. Nothing really seemed to happen.

But was almost 200 years ago.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Andrew Jackson ignored the court. Nothing really seemed to happen.

But was almost 200 years ago.

A slightly more recent example is Brown v. Board of Education.  The Court issued the decision in 1954, and it took another decade for large parts of America to fall in line.  And it's not because state and local governments just decide it was time to obey a decision from the highest court of the land.  It took federal and congressional enforcement.  

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

You'd see California and New York AGs go after the people on the ground who aren't complying with the ruling. Seizing their bank accounts and assets, and possibly being jailed, generally making life difficult for them because they're following Trump's orders, putting them in a situation to choose between their jobs and their own freedom. If that doesn't work, then the states will work their way up the chain of command until eventually the federal government complies with the ruling.

I also think the business community, who are the ones who really got Trump to back off tariffs, will also factor heavily into what Trump tries to do in defiance of a SCOTUS ruling.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
On 2/5/2025 at 9:21 AM, chainsaw said:

You'd see California and New York AGs go after the people on the ground who aren't complying with the ruling. Seizing their bank accounts and assets, and possibly being jailed, generally making life difficult for them because they're following Trump's orders, putting them in a situation to choose between their jobs and their own freedom. If that doesn't work, then the states will work their way up the chain of command until eventually the federal government complies with the ruling.

I also think the business community, who are the ones who really got Trump to back off tariffs, will also factor heavily into what Trump tries to do in defiance of a SCOTUS ruling.

Ackshually, I think what should happen is offending parties, like school districts in the case of Brown, are sued in the local district before a friendly or at least law-abiding judge and you get ongoing supervision from a Barefoot Sanders or Billy Wayne Justice and Texas prisons.  Or Janis Jack with the foster-care system.

But, that assumes a non-feckless 5th Circuit.  Then again, if it is a Supreme Court order, the 5th can't really disobey it.

Posted
1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

what should happen is that he is immediately impeached and removed from office. 

But of course you need a functioning 3rd branch of government for that to happen. 

This would definitely fall under High Crimes, but the Supes said anything he does as President is legal. Gotcha!

  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, CTC2 said:

My father was tasked with implementing Brown in a Texas school district in ……1980. 

There were court cases in the Louisiana parish I grew up in until the early 2000s still litigating Brown. The first time my wife (then girlfriend) went to meet my parents she saw the newspaper and said, "Y'all still haven't segregated schools here?"

Posted
12 hours ago, CTC2 said:

My father was tasked with implementing Brown in a Texas school district in ……1980. 

Hell, the state of Mississippi did not ratify the 13th amendment outlawing slavery until 1995. But they got that wrong and had to correct the error and so finally outlawed slavery in 2013.

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Season 8 Bravo GIF

 

 

supreme court has already said that trump is above the law while performing acts of being president 

 

Exactly. He can always defend ignoring a ruling by claiming he disagrees and is acting on behalf of future presidents.

Official Act Loophole son!

Posted
McConnell and the GOP had every opportunity after the failed coup attempt to bar that prick from ever holding office again but didn’t. If a president trying to violently stop Congress from certifying the election wasn’t enough for conviction by the Senate then literally nothing will be. 
 
It was the Sandy Hook moment but for impeachment. Once we let elementary school children get mowed down by assault weapons and failed to act, then we should just accept we will never do the right thing on the issue 

Yeah. Once Congress allows that, and then the people vote him back into office, well I guess that’s just who we are now.
  • Rage+1 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

McConnell and the GOP had every opportunity after the failed coup attempt to bar that prick from ever holding office again but didn’t.

Just to add some nuance, I think McConnell would have done it if he had the votes.  
 

I’m more upset that Merrick Garland and the Biden administration seemed to fantasize that Trump would just fade away.  Instead, if NYT columnist Brett Stephens is to be believed, they convinced a portion of the low IQ swing electorate that the Biden admin was just as corrupt as the GOP AND too weak to take him off the chess board.  

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
On 2/5/2025 at 10:14 AM, RPM said:

We're witnessing the end of our nation and half the idiots are cheering.

Nothing to cheer about putting down a sick animal. Sometimes it's just got to be done.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
4 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Just to add some nuance, I think McConnell would have done it if he had the votes.  
 

I’m more upset that Merrick Garland and the Biden administration seemed to fantasize that Trump would just fade away.  Instead, if NYT columnist Brett Stephens is to be believed, they convinced a portion of the low IQ swing electorate that the Biden admin was just as corrupt as the GOP AND too weak to take him off the chess board.  

McConnell chose not to whip votes. He told the caucus to “vote their conscience”.  Even recently he has stated that he voted no to impeachment because he thought the judiciary would handle it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 2/5/2025 at 9:00 AM, Keef said:

They would never issue a ruling he telegraphed to them he would ignore.

Marbury v Madison out front shoulda told ya.

Posted
On 2/7/2025 at 4:15 PM, CTC2 said:

McConnell chose not to whip votes. He told the caucus to “vote their conscience”.  Even recently he has stated that he voted no to impeachment because he thought the judiciary would handle it. 

McConnell voted no because he didn’t want to become a target. This new age of politics comes with a wave of death threats and family harassment. Look what happened to Pelosi. It’s like Scientology on steroids. You just have to shut the fuck up and be quiet or they will make your daily life a living hell. Not saying “poor Mitch” because fuck that racist turtle, just saying it’s gonna take youthful energy with the fire of Jasmine Crockett types on both sides of the aisle to stand up against Trump because the olds just don’t want to deal with it and they’re too embedded in the system to actually do anything about it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 2/5/2025 at 8:47 AM, tokamak said:

Apologies if this has been discussed in other threads.

I assume that Thomas and Alito are down for whatever, but my guess is that some of this stuff will eventually be a bridge too far for Roberts and one of the others. At that point we have a showdown. Given how far the wheels are off already, the fact that Congress won't do shit, and the amount of loyalists that have been packed into the administration, it seems inevitable that Trump will eventually just say "nah, I'm not going to abide by that" if something doesn't go his way. What then? Has that ever happened in history?

 

On 2/5/2025 at 8:54 AM, royiv said:

IMG_2217.gif.81d8ef0147c87bc5ea1144aec250393b.gif

Just came here to post this.  Bears repeating.

Posted

He will declare that everything he does is an official act as the President, and state he has already been told he can't be held legally responsible for those acts. So technically the Supremes basically will have fucked themselves over, and the whole country is along for the ride 

  • Rage+1 3
  • Drool 1
Posted

'Stepping very close to dangerous ground': J.D. Vance triggers alarm for CNN legal expert
Brad Reed
~3 minutes

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig on Monday warned that Vice President J.D. Vance is nudging the United States toward total lawlessness with his suggestions that judges have no power to rule against the executive branch.

While discussing Vance's weekend attacks on judges who have shot down Trump administration policies, Honig argued that the vice president was heading into uncharted territory with respect to the rule of law.

J.D. Vance said over the weekend that a judge who halted Elon Musk from accessing Treasury records was overstepping their authority. "Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power," he posted on social media.

"J.D. Vance is really stepping very close to dangerous ground with that statement and he knows it," he said. "The notion that the courts cannot stop the executive from doing what he wants, the notion that the executive may have the option of defying the courts, that is completely beyond even what the most extreme right-wing conservative theory in favor of broad executive power has ever argued.

"Now, look, there is a very broad view of executive power, sometimes it's called the unitary executive theory, which holds essentially that the president is all-powerful within the executive branch. But even proponents of that theory do not say that the president is free to disregard an order of the court. If that were to happen, that is a line in the sand that has not been crossed."

ALSO READ: 'A tax on Americans': Ex-Trump official warns he's playing with fire on economic policy

Honig also predicted that, were Trump to cross this line, the United States Supreme Court would slap him down hard even though Trump himself had appointed three justices currently serving on it.

"This Supreme Court has generally taken a broad view of executive power but I also think it's a mistake to say, 'Oh... they ruled in favor of Trump on immunity, they're going to do whatever he said.' They have rejected Donald Trump at many key junctures," he said.

"They rejected his election fraud claims. They rejected some of his efforts to stop prosecutors from taking steps against him. They rejected his efforts to resist a subpoena. So I think this Supreme Court will not tolerate if the executive branch crosses that line of defying the courts."

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-gets-to-make-the-decisions-jim-jordan-argues-trump-can-ignore-judges/ar-AA1yHcld?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

'He gets to make the decisions!' Jim Jordan argues Trump can ignore judges

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) argued on CNN Sunday that the Constitution gives President Trump the power to make the decisions he feels are best for the country, checks and balances from Congress and the courts be damned.

Inside Politics host Manu Raju asked Jordan about a Reagan-appointed federal judge who argued "the president is going too far" on policy changes like rescinding birthright citizenship.

"I'm talking about, there's a pattern where judges are saying they're going too far on these issues," Raju pressed after Jordan argued it was "just one judge" who blocked Trump's order to end birthright citizenship.

"All I know is, again, Article Two, Section One, the very first sentence, 'The executive power shall be vested in a president,'" Jordan said, citing the Constitution. "I think it's important, 'a president of the United States of America,' not in bureaucrats, not in career people — in the president. The guy who put his name on the ballot."

Jordan continued, "This is a fundamental difference we have with the left. The left thinks, 'Oh, it's the career experts who make the decisions.' That's not how our country works. It's the guy who puts his name on the ballot, gets elected by 'We the people.' He gets to make the decisions, or she gets to make the decisions. That's how — we don't want the Faucis of the world and all the people in the bureaucracy making the decisions. We want the guy who puts their name on the ballot and gets elected by the American people."

"But, you guys are elected, too, you know, co-equal branch of the government," Raju said, stopping short of discussing the system of checks and balances that prevents any one branch of government from wielding all the power.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
Spoiler

 cnn.com
Analysis: As Trump team overhauls government, a constitutional crisis looms | CNN Politics
Joan Biskupic
8–10 minutes

CNN  —

Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk and others in the Trump administration are openly challenging the centuries-old power of the nation’s judiciary, foreshadowing a possible constitutional breakdown of American government.

It’s not simply that the new administration has flouted a raft of federal statutes and prompted a flood of legal challenges. It’s that some of Donald Trump’s top advisers have cast doubt on whether rulings on those lawsuits would even constrain the president.

There are signs that some judges’ orders have been disregarded. On Monday, a federal judge in Rhode Island found that the administration has violated the “plain text” of his earlier order unfreezing billions of dollars in federal aid. The judge directed funding to be reinstated to environmental, health and other programs that had been cut off.

In a separate case Monday, in Washington, DC, federal employees told a judge that the administration had failed to reinstate USAID workers who were put on leave.

In fighting the cases, the Justice Department says the president should have the authority to decide how to run the government and that the judges are overreaching.

Chief Justice John Roberts may have presaged the turn of events six weeks ago as he warned at the end of December that “elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”

A commitment to the rule of law and judicial authority is engrained in the American way of life, tracing to the 1789 creation of the three-tiered federal bench.

Historically, the executive branch, even after vigorously fighting a case, has abided by a Supreme Court resolution. One notable example occurred in 1974, when President Richard Nixon initially refused to relinquish Oval Office tape recordings during the Watergate investigation but complied when the Supreme Court ruled against him.

Defiance so breaches the American norm that two episodes stand out, both in the 1800s, involving President Andrew Jackson’s refusal to enforce the Cherokee cases and President Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

“It just doesn’t happen,” Columbia University constitutional law professor Gillian Metzger said on Monday. “But it just doesn’t happen because there is a very deep-seated norm of law-following and commitment to the rule of law. … If we get to the point when we have the executive branch of the government refusing to follow orders of the court, we really are in ‘constitutional crises’-land and the president at that point is violating the ‘take care’ duty.”

Among the specific duties under Article II of the Constitution, the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Even as their standing has ebbed and flowed, federal judges have benefitted from institutional respect over the centuries. Yet Trump’s early weeks in office have suddenly raised the prospect of the disobedience of court orders and an unfolding constitutional collapse.

Many of Trump’s executive orders arguably violate federal laws, for example, involving the severing of congressionally mandated funds and groundless firings of top officials. As the multitude of executive orders have faced early court scrutiny, Trump’s top advisers have questioned whether judges can block any of his agenda.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vance said in a post on X. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

Vance has previously hinted at his disregard for high court rulings, declaring in a 2021 podcast that Trump could respond to adverse decisions “like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

Scholars say that commonly invoked line, attributed to Jackson of Chief Justice John Marshall after the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling, is likely apocryphal.

“The quote is not really fitting here,” added University of Chicago law professor Alison LaCroix, who is also a legal historian. “There was no order issued to the President Jackson. It was issued to Georgia,” which had asserted authority over members of the Cherokee Nation living there. (The Supreme Court ruled that federal jurisdiction was exclusive, so Georgia lacked the authority to control the Cherokees. But Jackson, who had pressed for “Indian removal,” refused to enforce the order and instead sent troops to forcibly remove the Cherokees, in what became known as “The Trail of Tears.”)
Calling balls and strikes

More pertinent to today’s controversy, LaCroix referred to the notion of judges as “umpires,” a concept she said existed in legal history well before Roberts famously used the metaphor in his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings.

“What we see the administration doing now is essentially saying there is no umpire,” LaCroix said, “and the entire playing field exists at the whim of the executive branch. And they don’t have to pay attention to what the other players are doing or the officials. And that is just antithetical to the Constitution in its text, but also in precedent.”

Vance is a graduate of Yale Law School, as is his wife, Usha, who served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Roberts during the 2017 to 2018 session. Both Vances would have been exposed to the entrenched academic understanding of judicial supremacy.

“At least throughout the 20th century, the settled understanding has been that it is the obligation of the president and any other official to accede to Supreme Court rulings,” said Harvard law professor Richard Fallon, who specializes in constitutional law and role of federal courts. “If the president wants to disobey, that would be a profoundly consequential step that would challenge our understanding of what the rule of law requires.”

It is often said, adapting Alexander Hamilton, that unlike the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary lacks the power of “the sword” or “the purse.” But the Third Branch has garnered sufficient public regard and moral authority to command adherence to its rulings since its late 18th century creation.

The touchstone for its power as the final arbiter of the law is the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the court’s power to review acts of Congress and strike down those deemed unconstitutional.

In the instances when people have refused to follow court orders, judges have held them in contempt or assessed fines. President Dwight Eisenhower, in a dramatic move to enforce the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, sent federal troops to Little Rock when Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus defied a court-ordered desegregation plan and tried to prevent nine Black students from entering Central High School.

In these early weeks of Trump’s second term, federal district court judges – the first rung of the US judiciary – have begun impeding his efforts to transform the federal workforce, freeze government funding and overhaul the country’s immigration policy.

On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily restricted Musk’s government efficiency team from accessing the Treasury Department payment system that covers Social Security benefits and federal employees’ salaries, among other payments.

Musk responded by calling the judge “corrupt” and saying he “needs to be impeached.”

 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
Spoiler

Analysis: Musk charges on with new targets in sight and Trump’s blessing | CNN Politics
Stephen Collinson
10–13 minutes

CNN  —

The vast and opaque power of Elon Musk is only growing as he seeks new targets for his federal government shredding machine.

The head of President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is closing in on his latest victim — an independent government agency set up to shield Americans from the Wall Street excesses that caused the Great Recession.

Employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were abruptly told Sunday afternoon that the watchdog’s Washington, DC, headquarters will be closed this week and they should work remotely, a day after Trump’s budget chief, Russell Vought, took over as acting director and told staff to stop fighting financial abuse.

“CFPB RIP,” Musk wrote on X on Friday.

The agency, which has long been in GOP sights, seems to be following a similar path to doom as the US Agency for International Development, which has saved millions of lives around the world and promoted democracy for decades, but that Musk has eviscerated. On Sunday, Trump called USAID “crazy” and “a big scam.”

Trump’s untrimmed use of executive power to throttle agencies enshrined in the law, dismiss staff and halt spending already approved by Congress is raising alarms that he’s openly defying the Constitution, seizing power that the presidency does not have.

But the role of Musk, with his unelected power, is unprecedented. The richest man in the world is firing or suspending government workers, destroying US soft global power, and accessing data and private information about potentially millions of Americans — all with zero accountability.

Multiple courts have now stepped in to temporarily halt Trump and Musk’s plans. But everything is trending toward one of the most significant showdowns over the scope of presidential power in modern history, which is destined for a Supreme Court whose conservative majority has an expansive view of executive authority.

Plenty of people have predicted that Musk and Trump are headed for a breakup given their volatile personalities and need to be the alpha dog in every room. But Trump is showing no public sign of tiring of the Tesla pioneer, who is acting as the lead agent in the president’s revenge and disruption agenda. The president even shrugged off a Time Magazine cover that showed Musk behind the Oval Office desk.

“I’ve had a great help with Elon Musk, who’s been terrific,” Trump said in a Super Bowl interview that aired on Fox on Sunday. As to whether he trusted Musk, Trump replied: “Trust Elon? Oh, he’s not gaining anything. In fact, I wonder how he can devote the time to it. He’s so into it.”

Their alliance might be more enduring than many expect.

In many ways, Trump and Musk have complementary goals. Each has shown in their business careers that they abhor rules and regulations that constrain their actions. The political activity of the president and the tech visionary also shows disdain for checks and balances. Musk has recently been agitating on behalf of far-right parties in Europe, for example, mirroring Trump’s contempt for the will of voters in 2020.

And ahead of midterm elections in 2026, Republicans have every incentive to keep on the good side of the X owner, who threw many millions of dollars into electing Trump and fellow Republicans last year.

So far, Trump’s political blitzkrieg — featuring endless TV appearances, a blizzard of executive orders and an appearance at the NFL’s big day Sunday — seems to be working.

A new CBS News poll Sunday showed 53% of adults approve of his handling of the presidency — a figure higher than his typical ratings during his first term. Some 70% of poll respondents say what the president has done so far are “the same things he promised in the campaign.” Pursuing what he calls a “commonsense” agenda, Trump has launched a hardline immigration purge, banned transgender athletes from women’s sports and targeted federal bureaucrats. Many of these issues resonated with Trump’s loyal base and a wider cohort of swing voters in last year’s election.

But there are several warning signs for Trump. The CBS poll found that two-thirds of Americans don’t believe the new administration is focusing enough on lowering prices — perhaps the most important issue in the election. And only 28% believe his policies will bring costs down. The president’s tariff policy, cemented by his promise to announce 25% duties on steel and aluminum imports on Monday, risks reigniting inflation and hiking the costs of goods and services.

And while it is a perennially popular position for outsider politicians to attack the federal government, Trump could eventually pay a price if his dismantling of agencies begins to infringe on the services and benefits many Americans derive from Washington.

Newly inaugurated presidents almost always overreach. And Trump’s pulverizing of the federal government risks alienating many more moderate voters — even if Democrats are still struggling to find a message that would counter him.

They have tried to goad Trump by referring to “President Musk,” but many of their attempts to push back against the White House’s assault on Washington institutions have put them in the position of defending the federal government that many voters distrust.

The president’s solid public support for Musk explains why top Trump officials, Cabinet secretaries and senior Republicans in Congress fanned out across Sunday morning news shows to defend Musk, even though his dominance is eclipsing their power.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CNN’s Dana Bash that she’d back Trump and Musk closing the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which falls under her authority, even though its role is mandated by law. “I would say, yes, get rid of FEMA the way it exists today,” Noem said on “State of the Union,” adding that the funds normally used for FEMA should just be sent to state and local authorities after disasters.

This would represent a significant political risk for Trump, who suggested “getting rid of FEMA” when touring North Carolina flood damage last month. In many previous disasters, including hurricanes or wildfires, local officials have sometimes struggled without the expertise or scale of FEMA. And natural disasters have the potential to backfire on presidents politically if they are mismanaged.

Noem also insisted she had no problem with Musk burrowing deep into the DHS, which she insisted needed to be downsized. Her interview included a remarkable exchange, underscoring the SpaceX boss’ immense power.

Noem was asked whether she was OK with Musk — a private citizen who is not confirmed by Congress — accessing private data about disaster victims, as reported by The Washington Post. “The president has authorized him to have access to that,” Noem said. “And you feel comfortable with that?” Bash asked. Noem replied: “Absolutely … We can’t trust our government anymore.”

“But you are the government now,” said Bash.

“Yes, that’s what I’m saying, is that the American people now are saying that we have had our personal information shared and out there in the public,” Noem said.

Bash added: “Elon Musk has access to it. You just said he does.” To which Noem replied: “Yes, but Elon Musk is part of the administration that is helping us identify where we can find savings and what we can do.”

National security adviser Mike Waltz, a former member of Congress who has supported USAID in the past, justified Musk’s move in shuttering many of the agency’s programs, which critics say will offer US adversaries such as Russia and China a chance to fill the vacuum in the developing world.

He told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the mission of USAID was worthy when it “is aligned with US objectives, and US objectives meet the president’s objectives as a commander in chief.” He added: “But that is not the case. Many of these senior aid officials have their own agenda, have gone in their own direction.”

Waltz pointed out that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had issued a waiver for USAID programs that focus on lifesaving nutrition and medicines. But many aid workers around the world have told CNN there is huge confusion what is included, and programs and projects everywhere are shutting down.

Another agency that could soon be feeling the presence of Musk is the Pentagon. The issue of the SpaceX chief’s billions of dollars in federal contracts raises particular red flags here, although the second Trump administration seems utterly unconcerned with ethics issues and conflicts of interest involving Musk or any other senior official.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox Business that “we welcome Elon Musk and DOGE coming into our department to help us identify additional ways in which we can streamline processes, fast-track acquisitions, cut waste, cut tail, to put it to tooth.”

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, meanwhile, told Manu Raju on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that Trump was doing exactly what he was elected to do. “No one wants to defend the waste, fraud and abuse, so they attack the guy who’s exposing all the waste, fraud and ridiculous things we’re spending money on,” the Ohio Republican said of Musk. And referring to Trump, Jordan added: “Frankly, 77 million people knew he was going to do this, and they voted for him on Election Day because of this.”

Yet even presidents do not acquire the power to ignore laws passed by Congress and the constitutional reality that lawmakers have the power of the purse. So, while Trump is riding high now as Musk trains his wrecking ball on new targets in Washington, a massive and historic constitutional battle may lie ahead.

 

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Since I wanna flee this Trump shit hole, the closest thing to New Orleans culture wise, I can find as an ex-pat is the Island of Malta. 

The Golden Visa requirements just about wipes me out financially (I structured some annuity income for my retirement, but that won’t cut it with these guys. Lump sum contributions or fuck off ), so I’m trying to mooch off some rich relatives so I can retire there.

Posted
On 2/6/2025 at 11:42 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Ackshually, I think what should happen is offending parties, like school districts in the case of Brown, are sued in the local district before a friendly or at least law-abiding judge and you get ongoing supervision from a Barefoot Sanders or Billy Wayne Justice and Texas prisons.  Or Janis Jack with the foster-care system.

But, that assumes a non-feckless 5th Circuit.  Then again, if it is a Supreme Court order, the 5th can't really disobey it.

Can't? What physically prevents them? Why can't they disobey but write that they are really obeying? Why can't they write an opinion that, because <insert whatever the fuck>, now the 5th is supreme over its territory. Why can't they put their fingers in their ears and yell "I don't hear you" while disobeying?

"Can't" isn't a word (yes, one word, that's what a contraction is) I would use about a dictator and the cunts that bend the knee, except when talking about things he lacks resources to do physically do, like colonizing Pluto or making OU not suck.

Posted

Even Sam Alt-Man chat GPT knows

Trump was fully within his legal authority to create the Office of Domestic Economic Growth (DOGE) by repurposing the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which was originally established by Obama in 2014 to improve government transparency and track financial inefficiencies. Using existing executive reorganization powers and laws like the DATA Act (2014) and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009), Trump expanded USDS’s scope to investigate fraud, waste, and potential money laundering within government spending. Since DOGE is not a new agency but an extension of an existing framework, claims that it is illegal hold no weight—especially considering that it operates under Obama-era transparency initiatives.

The intense pushback against DOGE suggests it is uncovering financial corruption that some do not want exposed. Investigations have already revealed billions in missing aid, fraudulent nonprofits, and suspicious foreign fund transfers, all within public financial records. If there was truly nothing to find, there would be no need for outrage—but instead, critics are scrambling to shut it down. At its core, DOGE is simply following the money, and the louder the opposition gets, the clearer it becomes that something is being hidden.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Even Sam Alt-Man chat GPT knows

Trump was fully within his legal authority to create the Office of Domestic Economic Growth (DOGE) by repurposing the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which was originally established by Obama in 2014 to improve government transparency and track financial inefficiencies. Using existing executive reorganization powers and laws like the DATA Act (2014) and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009), Trump expanded USDS’s scope to investigate fraud, waste, and potential money laundering within government spending. Since DOGE is not a new agency but an extension of an existing framework, claims that it is illegal hold no weight—especially considering that it operates under Obama-era transparency initiatives.

The intense pushback against DOGE suggests it is uncovering financial corruption that some do not want exposed. Investigations have already revealed billions in missing aid, fraudulent nonprofits, and suspicious foreign fund transfers, all within public financial records. If there was truly nothing to find, there would be no need for outrage—but instead, critics are scrambling to shut it down. At its core, DOGE is simply following the money, and the louder the opposition gets, the clearer it becomes that something is being hidden.

Aren’t you the one that got all your info from zerohedge?

  • Haha 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Even Sam Alt-Man chat GPT knows

Trump was fully within his legal authority to create the Office of Domestic Economic Growth (DOGE) by repurposing the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which was originally established by Obama in 2014 to improve government transparency and track financial inefficiencies. Using existing executive reorganization powers and laws like the DATA Act (2014) and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009), Trump expanded USDS’s scope to investigate fraud, waste, and potential money laundering within government spending. Since DOGE is not a new agency but an extension of an existing framework, claims that it is illegal hold no weight—especially considering that it operates under Obama-era transparency initiatives.

The intense pushback against DOGE suggests it is uncovering financial corruption that some do not want exposed. Investigations have already revealed billions in missing aid, fraudulent nonprofits, and suspicious foreign fund transfers, all within public financial records. If there was truly nothing to find, there would be no need for outrage—but instead, critics are scrambling to shut it down. At its core, DOGE is simply following the money, and the louder the opposition gets, the clearer it becomes that something is being hidden.

The thread is about ignoring SCOTUS decisions. Today’s ruling by a federal judge states the administration is not complying with its earlier order. 
 

Any on topic comment?

  • Haha 2
Posted
29 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Even Sam Alt-Man chat GPT knows

Trump was fully within his legal authority to create the Office of Domestic Economic Growth (DOGE) by repurposing the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which was originally established by Obama in 2014 to improve government transparency and track financial inefficiencies. Using existing executive reorganization powers and laws like the DATA Act (2014) and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009), Trump expanded USDS’s scope to investigate fraud, waste, and potential money laundering within government spending. Since DOGE is not a new agency but an extension of an existing framework, claims that it is illegal hold no weight—especially considering that it operates under Obama-era transparency initiatives.

The intense pushback against DOGE suggests it is uncovering financial corruption that some do not want exposed. Investigations have already revealed billions in missing aid, fraudulent nonprofits, and suspicious foreign fund transfers, all within public financial records. If there was truly nothing to find, there would be no need for outrage—but instead, critics are scrambling to shut it down. At its core, DOGE is simply following the money, and the louder the opposition gets, the clearer it becomes that something is being hidden.

Walk me through the benefits of getting rid of the CFPB. Beyond the "it's making people mad so it must be good" argument that you're apparently trying to run with.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Even Sam Alt-Man chat GPT knows

Trump was fully within his legal authority to create the Office of Domestic Economic Growth (DOGE) by repurposing the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which was originally established by Obama in 2014 to improve government transparency and track financial inefficiencies. Using existing executive reorganization powers and laws like the DATA Act (2014) and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009), Trump expanded USDS’s scope to investigate fraud, waste, and potential money laundering within government spending. Since DOGE is not a new agency but an extension of an existing framework, claims that it is illegal hold no weight—especially considering that it operates under Obama-era transparency initiatives.

The intense pushback against DOGE suggests it is uncovering financial corruption that some do not want exposed. Investigations have already revealed billions in missing aid, fraudulent nonprofits, and suspicious foreign fund transfers, all within public financial records. If there was truly nothing to find, there would be no need for outrage—but instead, critics are scrambling to shut it down. At its core, DOGE is simply following the money, and the louder the opposition gets, the clearer it becomes that something is being hidden.

 

You are a seriously a dumb rotten jizz for brains cuckold with street walker dick breath.

How do you even manage to wipe your own ass? Nevermind, don't try and answer that question.

  • Like 1
Posted
Even Sam Alt-Man chat GPT knows
Trump was fully within his legal authority to create the Office of Domestic Economic Growth (DOGE) by repurposing the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which was originally established by Obama in 2014 to improve government transparency and track financial inefficiencies. Using existing executive reorganization powers and laws like the DATA Act (2014) and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009), Trump expanded USDS’s scope to investigate fraud, waste, and potential money laundering within government spending. Since DOGE is not a new agency but an extension of an existing framework, claims that it is illegal hold no weight—especially considering that it operates under Obama-era transparency initiatives.
The intense pushback against DOGE suggests it is uncovering financial corruption that some do not want exposed. Investigations have already revealed billions in missing aid, fraudulent nonprofits, and suspicious foreign fund transfers, all within public financial records. If there was truly nothing to find, there would be no need for outrage—but instead, critics are scrambling to shut it down. At its core, DOGE is simply following the money, and the louder the opposition gets, the clearer it becomes that something is being hidden.

giphy.gif
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Even Sam Alt-Man chat GPT knows

Trump was fully within his legal authority to create the Office of Domestic Economic Growth (DOGE) by repurposing the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which was originally established by Obama in 2014 to improve government transparency and track financial inefficiencies. Using existing executive reorganization powers and laws like the DATA Act (2014) and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009), Trump expanded USDS’s scope to investigate fraud, waste, and potential money laundering within government spending. Since DOGE is not a new agency but an extension of an existing framework, claims that it is illegal hold no weight—especially considering that it operates under Obama-era transparency initiatives.

The intense pushback against DOGE suggests it is uncovering financial corruption that some do not want exposed. Investigations have already revealed billions in missing aid, fraudulent nonprofits, and suspicious foreign fund transfers, all within public financial records. If there was truly nothing to find, there would be no need for outrage—but instead, critics are scrambling to shut it down. At its core, DOGE is simply following the money, and the louder the opposition gets, the clearer it becomes that something is being hidden.

You seem very much the kind of person that AI can replace.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...