Trump administration 2024-2028

[FJAG]

They aren't ignoring the courts; they're challenging the courts. An unanswered question is how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent. If Congress didn't intend the contingency fund to be used for covering a shortfall during a routine (for Congress) budget dispute in the legislature, a court may not have the power to order it so.

A separate observation: too much ridiculous behaviour from a few ideologically-motivated judges, and all judges will look equally ridiculous. The profession's reputational integrity is only as strong as its weakest members'. Judges, regulate thyselves.

Legislatures and courts are not opposing members of debating societies. Legislatures make laws. Courts are there to adjudicate between parties one of whom might be the executive acting in a way that they think is in accordance with the law. It's important to note that legislatures do not appear in court, its either private parties or government executives who are administering the law who generally appear in court to argue how the law is to be interpreted.

Sometimes courts say that the executive is not following the law. Sometimes the courts go so far as to say the law itself is unconstitutional. Once the court rules, the debate is done and the decision stands unless or until overturned on appeal. In the meantime, the ruling stands and must be obeyed unless that court or a higher court stays the ruling pending appeal.

If the nation's highest court does find the executive is acting outside the law then the only remedy that the executive has is to convince the legislature to change the law in a way that it likes. When a law is found unconstitutional then again, the legislature has the right to change the law in a way that is constitutional, and, in an extreme case, change the constitution (or in our case use a notwithstanding provision)

There is no "unanswered question" about "how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent." A court's very purpose is to interpret the law as written and to fill in the blanks where the law is vague. There is a vast body of law on statutory interpretation to assist the courts in this process. The power of the courts are derived from Article III of the US Constitution as augmented by the very laws passed by Congress.

Just a quick comment on "ridiculous behaviour from a few Ideologically-motivated judges." That cuts both ways. I personally find it amusing how some people think that only judges with an ideology opposed to theirs are the ridiculous ones. The profession is not: "only as strong as its weakest members." Quite the opposite, here and even in the US, the profession is strong despite its weakest members. It's the parties with the weakest arguments that try to demean or tear down those who decide against them.

 

[brihard]

And “sandwich guy” acquitted.

Jury acquits D.C. 'sandwich guy' charged with chucking a sub at a federal agent

Sean Dunn faced a single misdemeanor after federal grand jurors refused to indict him on the felony charge sought by prosecutors.

www.nbcnews.com

The Feds refused to allow him to peacefully surrender himself to the police and went in with a tactical team and film crew instead.

Dramatic video shows feds re-arresting Subway sandwich slinger after he pelted officer with hero in DC

Sean Charles Dunn, 37, was cuffed by an armed team of at least a half-dozen US Marshals in a Wednesday night raid, per footage shared by the White House.

nypost.com

The DOJ then failed to indict him for a raft of felonies, only getting him indicted on a single misdemeanour. I guess it’s not as easy to indict a ham sandwich as they say it is.

The whole thing was an utter farce. Give the guy a ticket for drunk and disorderly or something appropriately minor like that. The administration tried to make an example of him and just got humiliated both by grand then trial juries. The criminal trial was almost certainly a case of jury nullification of a BS charge.

The guy was being a drunken buffoon. Handle it as such.

And now some dumb dumb federal agent gets to spend the rest of his career being the guy who took the stand to rather dubiously and exaggeratedly describe how the sandwich ‘exploded’ on him. And it had onions.

 

[RangerRay]

I guess this is what happens when you replace career DA’s with hacks and toady ambulance chasers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The whole thing was an utter farce. Give the guy a ticket for drunk and disorderly or something appropriately minor like that. The administration tried to make an example of him and just got humiliated both by grand then trial juries. The criminal trial was almost certainly a case of jury nullification of a BS charge.

The guy was being a drunken buffoon. Handle it as such.

And now some dumb dumb federal agent gets to spend the rest of his career being the guy who took the stand to rather dubiously and exaggeratedly describe how the sandwich ‘exploded’ on him. And it had onions.

His callsign is now; "The Onionator"

 

[RangerRay]

To be clear, I’m anti-throwing-sandwiches-at-police. I just think the Feds humiliated themselves humiliated themselves trying to portray him as some kind of radical terrorist and how public they were in trying to charge him as such.

If they just kicked him loose with a ticket, we would never have heard of this incident.

 

[brihard]

To be clear, I’m anti-throwing-sandwiches-at-police. I just think the Feds humiliated themselves humiliated themselves trying to portray him as some kind of radical terrorist and how public they were in trying to charge him as such.

If they just kicked him loose with a ticket, we would never have heard of this incident.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[lenaitch]

When your interior design preferences run to third world dictator chic or New Orleans whorehouse.

Part of me is a little surprised he hasn't fashioned himself a gaudy uniform. He is CIC after all and seems to love lots of bling.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is no "unanswered question" about "how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent." A court's very purpose is to interpret the law as written and to fill in the blanks where the law is vague. There is a vast body of law on statutory interpretation to assist the courts in this process. The power of the courts are derived from Article III of the US Constitution as augmented by the very laws passed by Congress.

As with most of what I write about American politics, I pass along American opinions about their own country and government. Most of those opinions are informed. Americans in America, some of whom work or have worked as lawyers or otherwise adjacent to legal matters of governance, hold the opinion that what courts can tell the administration to do in this particular matter is open to challenge. They don't believe the court can interpret what constitutes legitimate use of the contingency funds, and more strongly don't believe a court could require an administration to spend funds not yet formally appropriated if any judicial decision were to go that far.

Just a quick comment on "ridiculous behaviour from a few Ideologically-motivated judges." That cuts both ways.

It surely does. It manifests mostly against whatever party controls the WH. Today, that is Republicans.

I personally find it amusing how some people think that only judges with an ideology opposed to theirs are the ridiculous ones. The profession is not: "only as strong as its weakest members." Quite the opposite, here and even in the US, the profession is strong despite its weakest members. It's the parties with the weakest arguments that try to demean or tear down those who decide against them.

Whether or not the profession among its practitioners is strong is not my point. I wrote about its reputation. Degrade its reputation enough, and it loses popular support. This is a matter of critical importance: courts have very little power to enforce their decisions, ultimately depending on the polity to deliver the message to politicians (the executive branch in particular) that they better respect the courts, or else. If people see enough of what looks like partisan legal warfare, read opinions describing it as such, and then subsequently do indeed see the decisions slapped down by higher courts, sometimes in very strong terms, the collective reputation of all courts suffers.

 

[QV]

Part of me is a little surprised he hasn't fashioned himself a gaudy uniform. He is CIC after all and seems to love lots of bling.

Maybe he gets a uniform like our GG. And a whole bunch of new medals too.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Surely they have nothing to worry about identifying themselves if they arent breaking the law?

Surely there are no threats to people going about their lawful business, like people campaigning for president, or spouses of senior politicians quietly at home, or politicians practicing for a baseball game, or activists giving talks, or politicians holding meetings? So no-one needs to mitigate risks posed by people whose minds have been broken by political setbacks and deranged by passive and active incitements that their bugbears ought to smarten up or someone might do something - personally? Is that about it?

Last night on TV: footage of Canadian police officers, at least one wearing an improvised mask. Not the first one I've seen, either. What is the point of some Canadian police masking themselves?

 

[PrairieFella]

Surely there are no threats to people going about their lawful business, like people campaigning for president, or spouses of senior politicians quietly at home, or politicians practicing for a baseball game, or activists giving talks, or politicians holding meetings? So no-one needs to mitigate risks posed by people whose minds have been broken by political setbacks and deranged by passive and active incitements that their bugbears ought to smarten up or someone might do something - personally? Is that about it?

Cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Cops piss off actual criminals on thr daily with badges out. ICE should have no problem with their names out while they ziptie kids and mothers in their underwear. Not exactly cold-blooded killers.

Last night on TV: footage of Canadian police officers, at least one wearing an improvised mask. Not the first one I've seen, either. What is the point of some Canadian police masking themselves?

Im 100% certain if he was asked to identify himself he would instead of the ICE go-to of just responding with tear gas and mace. Theyre not even in the same reality and you seem to always reach for the most ludicrous excuses to hand-wave the lawlessness of ICE. "Ive seen a couple Canadian cops with a mask on a couple times, that excuses American no-knock raids against migrants with no ID, no badge, no accountability."

 

[Brad Sallows]

Cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Cops piss off actual criminals on thr daily with badges out. ICE should have no problem with their names out while they ziptie kids and mothers in their underwear. Not exactly cold-blooded killers.

The immigrants aren't the risk. The risk is zealous anti-immigration activists and people who have generally absorbed rhetoric, from senior American politicians up to and including the former president, that the Trump administration and those who serve its interests are somewhere in the enemies-of-democracy/authoritarian/tyrant/fascist region.

Im 100% certain if he was asked to identify himself he would instead of the ICE go-to of just responding with tear gas and mace. Theyre not even in the same reality and you seem to always reach for the most ludicrous excuses to hand-wave the lawlessness of ICE. "Ive seen a couple Canadian cops with a mask on a couple times, that excuses American no-knock raids against migrants with no ID, no badge, no accountability."

Maybe. Point is, there are reasons for concealing identity. Bad or even illegal behaviour on the part of some does not remove the right to mitigate for all. All that's left is to argue about whether the risk is great enough. And, as we know, actual shots have been fired.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The immigrants aren't the risk. The risk is zealous anti-immigration activists and people who have generally absorbed rhetoric, from senior American politicians up to and including the former president, that the Trump administration and those who serve its interests are somewhere in the enemies-of-democracy/authoritarian/tyrant/fascist region.

Wrong, its the predatory farmers, small businesses, restaurants, hotels, gated community residents who are the problem for continuously fostering an environment that provides a constant source of income/revenue/opportunity for these illegal immigrants (because its NOT immigrants that are a risk).

The problem also lies with a significant number of those 42 million Americans on SNAP benefits who are not willing to get off their butts and perform some of the work that the illegal immigrants are doing in order to shrink the volume of unfilled job openings that exist within the US.

 

[Genetk44]

Part of me is a little surprised he hasn't fashioned himself a gaudy uniform. He is CIC after all and seems to love lots of bling.

Plenty of time yet…just wait for it