• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

We don't defer. Our courts have determined that Trudeau's use of the Emergency Act against the Ottawa protest did not meet the Act's test as to constituting an emergency.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
We don't defer. Our courts have determined that Trudeau's use of the Emergency Act against the Ottawa protest did not meet the Act's test as to constituting an emergency.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS is going to rule agaisnt Trump here while leaving open the door to do the exact same thing via other means.

The equivalent of a security guard saying you cannot enter by this door, while 3 other doors remain wide open.

I knew they were going to twist themselves in knots to give trump what he wanted.
 
My employer had been before the USSC in the 2000’s on several IP matters. In my experience, long before the hearing each of the justices will have their own teams of clerks review a mountain of documentation, factums and other items and then brief the individual justice that they work for.
The top clerk will isolate the most persuasive elements and work with the justice to draft a preliminary opinion. So before a hearing even starts there could already be 9 draft opinions.
Having that in mind, they will then hear arguments and verbally beat up the litigants in court, essentially testing their own theories of a case.

After that, a whole other process takes place between the judges to determine who is in the affirming camp and who is in dissent.

Which opinions stand and which opinions will remain in the infamous draft folder. They will also determine who will write final opinions and who will write dissenting opinions. Sometimes there is only 1 of each, and very rarely there can be 4,5 or 6 opinions and sometimes even 9 opinions each partly affirming and dissenting, but one way or the other they affirm or deny whatever is under appeal. Or they send the matter back down the chain for a re-hearing.

It can be messy and hopefully with this tariff matter they do not come up with a tangled weave that takes the legal mind on a roller coaster, like this dogs breakfast
IMG_1528.jpeg
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
We don't defer. Our courts have determined that Trudeau's use of the Emergency Act against the Ottawa protest did not meet the Act's test as to constituting an emergency.
Click to expand...
We don't actually have a real executive branch. Deference or lack thereof appropriate for us is irrelevant in the US.
 
Altair said:
The SCOTUS is going to rule agaisnt Trump here while leaving open the door to do the exact same thing via other means.

The equivalent of a security guard saying you cannot enter by this door, while 3 other doors remain wide open.

I knew they were going to twist themselves in knots to give trump what he wanted.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about that. Watch ACB and Kavanaugh. Robert’s is nodding his head with them.

I’d really like to know what Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy think about all of this retarded mess that Trump has caused.
 
Last edited:
mariomike said:
Gotta love da Post.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1985903551160238574
Click to expand...

Calling out Trump in his speech.

Bold Strategy Cotton GIF by MOODMAN


It's going to be an entertaining next few years for sure! 🍿🍿
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
We don't defer. Our courts have determined that Trudeau's use of the Emergency Act against the Ottawa protest did not meet the Act's test as to constituting an emergency.
Click to expand...
The Emergencies Act has specific statutory preconditions for “public order emergency”, which derive partly from the CSIS Act definition of “threat to the security of Canada”. In this particular cases there was a compelling body of evidence that the threshold was not met due to this statutory precondition. Deference is generally found where there’s a fair bit of ambiguity; in that case, at least according to the courts so far, that degree of ambiguity didn’t exist due tot he availability of informed opinion from CSIS itself on the presence or absence of that degree of threat.
 
Cloud Cover said:
I’m not so sure about that. Watch ACB and Kavanaugh. Robert’s is nodding his head with them.

I’d really like to know what Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy think about all of this retarded mess that Trump has caused.
Click to expand...
Listen, if they strike at the ability of the president to declare an emergency, I will be pleasantly surprised, and subsequently happy.

If they don't, this is going to be a very narrow ruling against the use of IEEPA while leaving every other tariff option in his hands and not those of Congress.

They repay the tariffs collected they redefine the IEEPA tariffs to something else, and nothing changes for the next 3 years.
 
Well if anyone wants to see a blood bath...

Election Results

enr.elections.virginia.gov enr.elections.virginia.gov

Democrats take Governor, Lt Gov, and AG, as well as 32 of the 47 districts.
Even more surprising/appalling is that Jay Jones the AG elected talked about shooting a Republican candidate, and neither the DNC nor the Democratic candidates (who won) for Gov and LtGov would comment about it.
 
Altair said:
Listen, if they strike at the ability of the president to declare an emergency, I will be pleasantly surprised, and subsequently happy.

If they don't, this is going to be a very narrow ruling against the use of IEEPA while leaving every other tariff option in his hands and not those of Congress.

They repay the tariffs collected they redefine the IEEPA tariffs to something else, and nothing changes for the next 3 years.
Click to expand...
They absolutely will not be making a sweeping pronouncement because they are not being asked to by the serious people in the hearings. It’s limited to the context of cases before the court and the specific instances raised by the appellants. It’s very clear the authority already exists. The authority is being misapplied. I’m not sure there is a judicial rather than a congressional remedy for that. And that might be the result here- punt.
 
Altair said:
If they don't, this is going to be a very narrow ruling against the use of IEEPA while leaving every other tariff option in his hands and not those of Congress.
Click to expand...
I don't think they have any choice. This is an appeal related to a particular area of a single statute. It is not in response to a general challenge to the authority of the Office of the President. Depending on how the judgment is worded, it could have carry-over impacts on the interpretation of other statutes, but those challenges would have to be fought on their own (or Congress changing the legislation, but that's not going to happen in the short term).
 
lenaitch said:
I don't think they have any choice. This is an appeal related to a particular area of a single statute. It is not in response to a general challenge to the authority of the Office of the President. Depending on how the judgment is worded, it could have carry-over impacts on the interpretation of other statutes, but those challenges would have to be fought on their own (or Congress changing the legislation, but that's not going to happen in the short term).
Click to expand...
Cloud Cover said:
They absolutely will not be making a sweeping pronouncement because they are not being asked to by the serious people in the hearings. It’s limited to the context of cases before the court and the specific instances raised by the appellants. It’s very clear the authority already exists. The authority is being misapplied. I’m not sure there is a judicial rather than a congressional remedy for that. And that might be the result here- punt.
Click to expand...
So theater then.

Fundamentally, nothing is going to change.

Ahhh well, on to the mid terms.
 
KevinB said:
Even more surprising/appalling is that Jay Jones the AG elected talked about shooting a Republican candidate, and neither the DNC nor the Democratic candidates (who won) for Gov and LtGov would comment about it.
Click to expand...
I read plenty of commentary by (mostly Trump-favouring or neutral) people who seemed to think that Jones or Mamdani or that guy with the Totenkopf tattoo were too far out of bounds, and they deluded themselves into believing or at least hoping that Republicans would make gains in states that voted Harris (NY, NJ, VA, CA). The evidence of Trump himself should have better informed them: people are willing to overlook any character flaws or intemperate remarks or social media posts. "Grabbed them by the pussy" was supposed to be disqualifying; look where all the people who objected to it are sitting now. Few of the people arguing that the point of opposing Trump is to be better have much basis from which to argue now. It's about what it always was: who sits at the trough.
 
So basically the Anti-Tariff ad that Ford ran on US stations cost Canadian taxpayers $520,833 per hour to run (for 6 days) and in the end Trump stopped trade negotiations, and SCOTUS wasn't moved by the ads to do anything about tariffs. Nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top