• 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

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.
 
Jarnhamar said:
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.
Click to expand...
The ad wasn't for the 9 SCOTUS members - how many of those 9 actually watch enough tv to suggest that they'd even see the ad run even 1 time?
 
Czech_pivo said:
The ad wasn't for the 9 SCOTUS members - how many of those 9 actually watch enough tv to suggest that they'd even see the ad run even 1 time?
Click to expand...
I believe it’s a Constitutional pre-requisite to watch Wheel of Fortune after appointment.
 
Czech_pivo said:
The ad wasn't for the 9 SCOTUS members - how many of those 9 actually watch enough tv to suggest that they'd even see the ad run even 1 time?
Click to expand...
One of the reasons we discussed here IIRC was to show the SCOTUS how ridiculous the tariffs were. Or along those lines.
 
Jarnhamar said:
One of the reasons we discussed here IIRC was to show the SCOTUS how ridiculous the tariffs were. Or along those lines.
Click to expand...
Show the average American vs SCOTUS are not the same things. I struggle to come up with places where the 2 groups would even co-mingle. Maybe, maybe at an Alabama University football game and even that MIGHT have the potential for have 3-4 SCOTUS members at most attend - and they would be a in private box and would have virtually no shoulder rubbing with the 'common folk' in the stands.
 
Jarnhamar said:
One of the reasons we discussed here IIRC was to show the SCOTUS how ridiculous the tariffs were. Or along those lines.
Click to expand...
If that was the discussion, it was delusional. I can guess that at least some of the court members are aware. I suppose that none will allow it to enter their legal reasoning unless points raised in the ad are officially raised by the lawyers arguing the case. And the decision will be strictly about the case at hand. They are not prone to wading into turf wars between the executive and legislative branch, which this dispute fundamentally is.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Show the average American vs SCOTUS are not the same things. I struggle to come up with places where the 2 groups would even co-mingle. Maybe, maybe at an Alabama University football game and even that MIGHT have the potential for have 3-4 SCOTUS members at most attend - and they would be a in private box and would have virtually no shoulder rubbing with the 'common folk' in the stands.
Click to expand...
Okay. Well showing the average American cost us over $500,000 an hour. Nice little envelope of cash for US media companies, like Fox News.
 
Altair said:
So theater then.

Fundamentally, nothing is going to change.

Ahhh well, on to the mid terms.
Click to expand...
No, not theatre. The properly restrained and limited consideration of the specific facts of a specific case in order to determine specific points of law around the division of powers. Legal decisions are rarely sweeping, because the justiciable legal question on which the parties have standing to dispute are typically pretty narrow. Major impacts on policy can come from quite narrow questions of law.
 
Jarnhamar said:
So basically the Anti-Tariff ad that Ford ran on US stations cost Canadian Ontario 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.
Click to expand...

FTFY

I think the target audience were voters and Republican pols in Republican states that have a lot of trade with us. The president was the one who thought the Supreme Court justices watch as much TV as he does.

Cloud Cover said:
I believe it’s a Constitutional pre-requisite to watch Wheel of Fortune after appointment.
Click to expand...
dapaterson said:
That's for the Federal Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court Justices are required to watch Hell's Kitchen.
Click to expand...

I thought they had to watch Matlock?

HavokFour said:
The FBI is finally realizing what a lot of people said would happen, is very much happening and has been for some time.

FBI urges ICE to ID themselves as criminals impersonate officers
Click to expand...

What are the odds that goon squad will take that advice? I’m guessing those Meal Team 6 goons can’t even spell “badge”.

….

Re: Mamdani and how both Republicans and lefty progressives are wrapping themselves around the axle saying how he is the future of the Dems:

It was pointed out by someone I read today that he barely got 50% in heavily Democratic New York City. Bill DeBlasio (remember him?) got 73% and 67% and he was a train wreck. I don’t think people should be reading too much into his victory other than he’s not as popular as some are trying to make him out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top