US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Dax777 said:
The fact that the ruling is correct is irrelevant :)
Click to expand...

It is neither correct nor incorrect. It is simply an interpretation at this moment in time. It does weaken the federal courts in favour of the executive and legislature and (assuming my interpretation is correct) allow individual States to block actions via a federal court they disagree with, be it abortion or citizenship or whatever, but that will only apply to the State bringing the action.

This move will allow States to become even more distinctive than they are now - culturally, economically etc - which in turn will further weaken the cohesion that keeps the US together.

I suspect though, that the Supreme Court will ‘magically’ decide this decision is wrong at a future date, specifically when it finds itself on the other side of the political fence from the Executive. Being seen to be so openly partisan inevitably weakens the Supreme Court in the long run.
 
BobKowalski said:
...

I suspect though, that the Supreme Court will ‘magically’ decide this decision is wrong at a future date, specifically when it finds itself on the other side of the political fence from the Executive. Being seen to be so openly partisan inevitably weakens the Supreme Court in the long run.
Click to expand...
It still needs 2 of the 6 Trump justices to be bothered about the long run.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
On Friday, in the high court’s usual end-of-term reveal, one of those consequences arrived. The court’s six-member GOP-appointed supermajority curtailed one of the few powers federal judges have to restrain Trump’s effort to consolidate power in a fashion unseen in the nation’s 249-year history.
worship.”
Click to expand...
Meh.

From what I've read, the Supreme Court's decision has dealt a major blow to jurisdiction shopping.

Object to exercise of executive power? - file a motion in a jurisdiction favorable to your opinion - that will block it.

Both Republicans and Democrats have both objected to and used this means to thwart executive orders not to their liking.

FWIW - jurisdiction shopping is ridiculous - some other avenue must prevail if the will of the people is to be heard.

The Supreme Court left open the possibility that class action suits could stop unfavorable exercise of executive power - I'm not sure that this is the right path to challenge executive power - but I'm 100% certain that filing an objection in a district lead by a judge favorable to your opinion - leads only to outcomes against the will of the majority of Americans.
===
TLDR - this ruling makes sense.
===
Were as the SC's decision not to rule directly on the issue of Birth Right Citizenship - is in fact alarming.
 
could all turn out ok really - get rid of those you don't want and there may be just enough imports to go around as long as those you allow to remain don't mind paying 3 times what you once were for it

 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Meh.

From what I've read, the Supreme Court's decision has dealt a major blow to jurisdiction shopping.

Object to exercise of executive power? - file a motion in a jurisdiction favorable to your opinion - that will block it.

Both Republicans and Democrats have both objected to and used this means to thwart executive orders not to their liking.

FWIW - jurisdiction shopping is ridiculous - some other avenue must prevail if the will of the people is to be heard.

The Supreme Court left open the possibility that class action suits could stop unfavorable exercise of executive power - I'm not sure that this is the right path to challenge executive power - but I'm 100% certain that filing an objection in a district lead by a judge favorable to your opinion - leads only to outcomes against the will of the majority of Americans.
===
TLDR - this ruling makes sense.
===
Were as the SC's decision not to rule directly on the issue of Birth Right Citizenship - is in fact alarming.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, especially in an era of highly politicized judicial nominations and approvals.

There is always an appeal of Federal decisions when the Executive Branch feels like they want to press to test, and that first hurdle (Federal Judge) is not some ambulance chasing lawyer, but a Federal Judge with a lifetime appointment!

They are the first step in the delicate balance of co-equal powers, and they lay out the legal arguments upon which decisions (theirs in this case) are being made.

From there, the Appeals Process can highlight BOTH the for and against, as it moves up to the Appeals Court, and everyone picks their side of the opinion.

When it all comes down to it, EVERY LEGAL DECISION is an opinion based on case law, and there are nearly always two sides to it. This is just the first opportunity for A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVT to say “Wait, I’m not sure you’re on solid legal footing with your Executive Order, let’s review the issue.” And, that’s only if they overturn it, which doesn’t happen very often anyway.

In case no-one has noticed, CONGRESS HAS STOPPED PASSING LAWS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO DO IT, SO THE PRESIDENT IS USURPING (OR GOING AROUND) THE PROCESS WITH MORE EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAN EVER IN HISTORY. He has become the “law maker,” which is removing the OTHER CO-EQUAL BRANCH of government from the process!

Unitary President, indeed!!!
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Meh.

From what I've read, the Supreme Court's decision has dealt a major blow to jurisdiction shopping.

Object to exercise of executive power? - file a motion in a jurisdiction favorable to your opinion - that will block it.

Both Republicans and Democrats have both objected to and used this means to thwart executive orders not to their liking.

FWIW - jurisdiction shopping is ridiculous - some other avenue must prevail if the will of the people is to be heard.

The Supreme Court left open the possibility that class action suits could stop unfavorable exercise of executive power - I'm not sure that this is the right path to challenge executive power - but I'm 100% certain that filing an objection in a district lead by a judge favorable to your opinion - leads only to outcomes against the will of the majority of Americans.
===
TLDR - this ruling makes sense.
===
Were as the SC's decision not to rule directly on the issue of Birth Right Citizenship - is in fact alarming.
Click to expand...

Interesting take, however I would say that Government by Fiat should always be tested. Having laws and rules decided on a whim is no way to run a country. That’s banana republic territory.

The ruling does allow individual States to block rulings and potentially have them upheld, but only with respect to that State which can only lead to even greater cultural and economic disparities between States and weaken the cohesion of the US as a whole.

It was a judgement of Solomon moment, but this time they cut the baby in half.

The decision not to rule on the issue of Birth Right Citizenship seems to be the SC ducking the issue, but does it potentially lead to a situation where birth right citizenship is applicable in one state but not another? Will there be a time when you don’t have one size fits all American citizenship, but say Californian citizenship?
 
The funeral has taken place for the murdered Governor of Minnesota, Melissa Hortman, and her husband. Long lines of people waiting quietly to pay their respects.

Meanwhile the guy who killed them had his second court appearance today where his lawyer complained that the lights in his cell are never turned off and he doesn't have a pillow.
I'd gladly give the c*** a pillow.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
You've all heard about these types of internment camps before. It was in a history book about WWII.

Click to expand...

Cruelty…and boasting and laughing about it…is Homan and Noem’s stock in trade. They appear to have no bounds until told to stop, and even then we have already seen them parse “facilitation” of returning a falsely deported individual to a foreign detention center…and both country’s leader literally laughing about it in the Oval Office.

WE are the boiling frog and Trump and his sycophants in power have their hands on the burner controls!

History will not look kindly on 2025, but we have to get to 2026 before 2025 is even resigned to history!!!
 
AliBobbyJ said:
The funeral has taken place for the murdered Governor of Minnesota, Melissa Hortman, and her husband. Long lines of people waiting quietly to pay their respects.

Meanwhile the guy who killed them had his second court appearance today where his lawyer complained that the lights in his cell are never turned off and he doesn't have a pillow.
I'd gladly give the c*** a pillow.
Click to expand...
I’m not for prisoner abuse, so give him a pillow. And, we all know that lights and sound are the tools of torture, so turn off the lights.

However, when he’s found guilty, line him up against the wall and end the fucker!
 
ChicagoBlue said:
I have to disagree, especially in an era of highly politicized judicial nominations and approvals.

There is always an appeal of Federal decisions when the Executive Branch feels like they want to press to test, and that first hurdle (Federal Judge) is not some ambulance chasing lawyer, but a Federal Judge with a lifetime appointment!

They are the first step in the delicate balance of co-equal powers, and they lay out the legal arguments upon which decisions (theirs in this case) are being made.

From there, the Appeals Process can highlight BOTH the for and against, as it moves up to the Appeals Court, and everyone picks their side of the opinion.

When it all comes down to it, EVERY LEGAL DECISION is an opinion based on case law, and there are nearly always two sides to it. This is just the first opportunity for A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVT to say “Wait, I’m not sure you’re on solid legal footing with your Executive Order, let’s review the issue.” And, that’s only if they overturn it, which doesn’t happen very often anyway.

In case no-one has noticed, CONGRESS HAS STOPPED PASSING LAWS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO DO IT, SO THE PRESIDENT IS USURPING (OR GOING AROUND) THE PROCESS WITH MORE EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAN EVER IN HISTORY. He has become the “law maker,” which is removing the OTHER CO-EQUAL BRANCH of government from the process!

Unitary President, indeed!!!
Click to expand...
Have you watched the PBS take on this ruling? You'll need to watch it up to time 9.42 to get the complete take.


For the record:
Brooks is a traditional (RE non-MAGA) Republican and Capehart is a left-leaning pundit, and associate editor of the Washington Post. But both agree on this point.
 
Last edited:
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Have you watched the PBS take on this ruling? You'll need to watch it up to time 9.42 to get the complete take.


For the record:
Brooks is a traditional (RE non-MAGA) Republican and Capehart is a left-leaning pundit, and associate editor of the Washington Post. But both agree on this point.
Click to expand...

Watched it and, it might surprise you, am a big fan of Brooks, as one of the great minds of 21st century conservatism.

However, I feel like they skipped over the main point, and my main point, in that LEGISLATION is the way forward. Thereafter, we can have constitutional arguments, if necessary, and they help not only make our democratic republic stronger, but help create a stronger, more vibrant legal system.

We might not like the vagaries of the process, but it’s the process that has stood the test of time, albeit only 249 years!

There’s nothing new with venue shopping, but ironically it has become even more craven under Republicans, as they seek to CREATE ISSUES, just so they can get to the issue to “their” right wing SCOTUS and reshape the Republic in their own image! We have seen it time and again in recent years, not the least of which led to the overturn of Roe…something newly minted Supremes said was “settled law” during their questioning for nomination!! SCOTUS Justices as liars to get on the bench…this is where we are with this group…and that’s before Kennedy taking a dive, Thomas’s total corruption, Alito’s side hustles, or Scalia’s hunting trips, etc, etc, etc… Conversely, the worst accusation ever thrown at Breyer was his “beigeness” and RBG’s big fault was she outstayed her ability to be replaced by a Democratic President (kinda!!!) and turned the Court over to the Federalist Society’s far right candidates.

Again, Congress should create the laws, and SCOTUS should ensure they’re legal, based on the tenets of the Constitution, as the Executive Branch carries out the management of the country laws while respecting those laws. THAT is the system!

None of that precludes a President from setting an agenda, or using the bully pulpit to move the country towards wanting that agenda, but then it’s up to the PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES to pass the laws that help put that agenda into practice…if they can!

My biggest (legal) problem right now is that Trump is trying to reset legal precedents with Executive Orders, because he’s in such a rush to radically change the country for the ideologues behind the scenes, and then daring Democrats to make SCOTUS decide the issue…with no laws being written by anyone to change anything!

We are on the precipice of Authoritarian Power, if we are not there already. In just the first 100 days of his second term, Trump signed 142 executive orders, surpassing historical records for that period, including Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 99 executive orders in his first 100 days, during which he changed the entire landscape of the U.S….for the better, but most people’s belief.

Trump is not only writing these EOs, but he is making them about hugely consequential issues, and in the absence of any Congressional action and a right wing stranglehold on power in this country, THE ONLY POSSIBLE CHECK ON THAT POWER is through Federal Judges.

While I agree that a single Federal Judge might not hold a view held by the vast majority of the country, neither might a President! Therefore, we have a process where power is checked, both for the Judiciary (one co-equal branch) and the Presidency (one co-equal branch). That means SCOTUS makes a decision…and if the people or the parties don’t like the SCOTUS decision, CONGRESS WRITES NEW LAWS!!!

For me, I think it is VITALLY IMPORTANT that we have given Federal Judges the ability to put a simple stay on an EO or legal challenge to a law. It is an integral step on the oath to ensure unchecked power does not exist versus the slight inconvenience that a proposed action be reviewed, upto and including SCOTUS, to ensure such unchecked power does not irreparably change the Republic.

I’ll take minor inconvenience over accepting a monarchical approach to the balance of powers…under Republican or Democratic Administrations…especially given the breakneck speed of change and literal “shock and awe” tactics being used to try to fundamentally change the underpinnings of American life.

P.S. Scott Galloway and David Brooks recently appeared together on Scott Galloway’s podcast, “The Prof G Pod,” in an episode titled “What Happened to American Conservatism?” released on May 1, 2025. In this episode, they discussed topics including the decline of true conservatism, failures of elite institutions, moral decay in American politics, and the crisis facing men and boys.

It is worth your time, if you haven’t seen/heard it.

 
Last edited:
TinFoilHat said:
Again the DNC are thinking more about protecting their own fiefdoms over listening to voters. The rich diners don't like the idea of a pesky lefty becoming mayor and throwing millions of dollars in to stop him.
Click to expand...

Didn't the pesky lefty win the DNC nomination? If they didn't like the idea of him being mayor they could have just preselected someone else.
 
moomba said:
Didn't the pesky lefty win the DNC nomination? If they didn't like the idea of him being mayor they could have just preselected someone else.
Click to expand...
NY voters are a pesky bunch. They actually care what the Mayor says and does!

They’ve elected Righties like Giuliani and Bloomberg to multiple terms (2 & 3, respectively), so they vote how they feel about what’s going on RIGHT NOW!

Well, RIGHT NOW, they’ve got a supposed Democrat who, to avoid prison time, has given himself to Trump! That led to Cuomo thinking his fall from grace as Governor could somehow be resurrected by being sucked into the vacuum the Left created with Adams.

Sadly for him, his reputation preceded him and NY is ready to embrace the person who talked to voters, is listening to them not the Democratic Machine, and us willing to express a vision they like…today!

Ergo, Cuomo is contemplating adding his name to the Independent slate of candidates, where Adams has chosen to run, in the hope that MONEY will win out in the coming election!

Wall Street money has no desire to see a Moslem Bernie running their city, and will latch onto the “Socialist” meme like shit on a blanket…because they’re hoping most Americans are too ill-informed to understand what a Social Democrat actually is, and they might be right!

The politics of division and fear of other are the stock in trade in America today, which is why we find ourselves in so many bad places, doing bad things, for people who appear too distracted and ill-informed to lift a finger on their own behalf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top