You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
“Trump ending all trade” talks with Canada ?? What does it mean for America ??
don't a lot of US border states rely on Canada for electricity and oil?
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,704
Trump distracts the world from his new King powers with comments on Canada and Fed Chair Powell!!
HERE IS THE BIG STORY OF THE DAY…
When Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky used contradictory justifications to give Donald Trump two of his three Supreme Court picks in his first term, Democrats warned that the Kentucky Republican’s unapologetic violation of Senate norms would have tectonic consequences.
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.
Trump’s picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined fellow Republican-appointees in ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, even when—as in the case of Trump’s attempt to deprive some babies born on American soil of citizenship—they are intended to halt facially unconstitutional measures.
Barrett, writing for the majority, said such orders “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Shortly afterwards, the president said he would immediately exploit the ruling to move forward with an array of measures that had been blocked as likely illegal or unconstitutional.
Barrett was appointed in the final days of Trump’s first term. McConnell, then Senate majority leader, pushed her nomination through in the weeks after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died, and only days before Joe Biden was elected president.
Four years earlier, McConnell laid the groundwork for Gorsuch’s appointment by blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, future US Attorney General Merrick Garland, for eight months before the 2016 election.
The supermajority has in recent years moved to grant unprecedented powers to the president and lend judicial support to conservative policies, including eliminating the federal right to abortion, expanding gun rights and gutting Trump’s prosecution for allegedly attempting to hang on to power following his 2020 election defeat.
The dissenting justices in today’s ruling, all Democratic-appointees, warned that the high court is encouraging Trump to violate the Constitution and disregard the judiciary—except for the Supreme Court.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
HERE IS THE BIG STORY OF THE DAY…
When Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky used contradictory justifications to give Donald Trump two of his three Supreme Court picks in his first term, Democrats warned that the Kentucky Republican’s unapologetic violation of Senate norms would have tectonic consequences.
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.
Trump’s picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined fellow Republican-appointees in ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, even when—as in the case of Trump’s attempt to deprive some babies born on American soil of citizenship—they are intended to halt facially unconstitutional measures.
Barrett, writing for the majority, said such orders “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Shortly afterwards, the president said he would immediately exploit the ruling to move forward with an array of measures that had been blocked as likely illegal or unconstitutional.
Barrett was appointed in the final days of Trump’s first term. McConnell, then Senate majority leader, pushed her nomination through in the weeks after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died, and only days before Joe Biden was elected president.
Four years earlier, McConnell laid the groundwork for Gorsuch’s appointment by blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, future US Attorney General Merrick Garland, for eight months before the 2016 election.
The supermajority has in recent years moved to grant unprecedented powers to the president and lend judicial support to conservative policies, including eliminating the federal right to abortion, expanding gun rights and gutting Trump’s prosecution for allegedly attempting to hang on to power following his 2020 election defeat.
The dissenting justices in today’s ruling, all Democratic-appointees, warned that the high court is encouraging Trump to violate the Constitution and disregard the judiciary—except for the Supreme Court.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
And tourism. They are dying/pleading for visitorsdon't a lot of US border states rely on Canada for electricity and oil?
Doesn't that include the UK and France? And Israel...?“If Pakistan acquires an ICBM,” the report notes, “Washington will have no choice but to treat the country as a nuclear adversary – no other country with ICBMs that can target the United States is considered a friend.”
The US has (as I described in Trump I term) become a banana republic fascist dictatorship.
The non banana republic survived by the skin of its teeth for 4 years , then they EC majority voted to continue the path…
Today in Trump II with the Supreme Court it has become officially a banana republic fascist dictatorship.
Trump III (and more… if his aderall addiction somehow keeps him alive) becomes ever more certain.
Apt lyrics about Ireland, but the sentiment is oh so true today in the Us
The non banana republic survived by the skin of its teeth for 4 years , then they EC majority voted to continue the path…
Today in Trump II with the Supreme Court it has become officially a banana republic fascist dictatorship.
Trump III (and more… if his aderall addiction somehow keeps him alive) becomes ever more certain.
Apt lyrics about Ireland, but the sentiment is oh so true today in the Us
The fact that the ruling is correct is irrelevant :)Trump distracts the world from his new King powers with comments on Canada and Fed Chair Powell!!
HERE IS THE BIG STORY OF THE DAY…
When Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky used contradictory justifications to give Donald Trump two of his three Supreme Court picks in his first term, Democrats warned that the Kentucky Republican’s unapologetic violation of Senate norms would have tectonic consequences.
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.
Trump’s picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined fellow Republican-appointees in ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, even when—as in the case of Trump’s attempt to deprive some babies born on American soil of citizenship—they are intended to halt facially unconstitutional measures.
Barrett, writing for the majority, said such orders “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Shortly afterwards, the president said he would immediately exploit the ruling to move forward with an array of measures that had been blocked as likely illegal or unconstitutional.
Barrett was appointed in the final days of Trump’s first term. McConnell, then Senate majority leader, pushed her nomination through in the weeks after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died, and only days before Joe Biden was elected president.
Four years earlier, McConnell laid the groundwork for Gorsuch’s appointment by blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, future US Attorney General Merrick Garland, for eight months before the 2016 election.
The supermajority has in recent years moved to grant unprecedented powers to the president and lend judicial support to conservative policies, including eliminating the federal right to abortion, expanding gun rights and gutting Trump’s prosecution for allegedly attempting to hang on to power following his 2020 election defeat.
The dissenting justices in today’s ruling, all Democratic-appointees, warned that the high court is encouraging Trump to violate the Constitution and disregard the judiciary—except for the Supreme Court.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,704
“Correct”???The fact that the ruling is correct is irrelevant :)
And you are?!
It is AN EXTREME OPINION that goes against 249 yrs of American history, as evidenced by Trump salivating over going after more things that were considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL just a few months ago.
Question: Was Roe “correct” when it was agreed or is it “correct” now?
How exactly does it go against 249 years of American history? What does that even mean?“Correct”???
And you are?!
It is AN EXTREME OPINION that goes against 249 yrs of American history, as evidenced by Trump salivating over going after more things that were considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL just a few months ago.
Question: Was Roe “correct” when it was agreed or is it “correct” now?
Its probably best to read the opinions first and then find faults with the reasoning. What Trump may or may not salivate over isn't evidence that the reasoning and conclusions in the ruling are either faulty or wrong.
Read it first, then pick holes in the reasoning of the majority opinion. You are far too smart to be resorting to hyperbolic political jargon or basing your evidence on the supposed unconstitutional actions of an external entity.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,704
Sadly, I have zero desire to get into a back and forth with you, especially considering you’re coming across, as Ricky Gervais would say, as a smug **** with a punchable face!How exactly does it go against 249 years of American history? What does that even mean?
Its probably best to read the opinions first and then find faults with the reasoning. What Trump may or may not salivate over isn't evidence that the reasoning and conclusions in the ruling are either faulty or wrong.
Read it first, then pick holes in the reasoning of the majority opinion. You are far too smart to be resorting to hyperbolic political jargon or basing your evidence on the supposed unconstitutional actions of an external entity.
You know EXACTLY what I’m talking about and I literally could not care less about your version of events.
Last edited:
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
The face of extreme Far Right Christianity in the USA - disgusting
Lol. He is a funny chap that Ricky Gervais.Sadly, I have zero desire to get into a back and forth with you, especially considering g you’re coming across, as Ricky Gervais would say, as a smug **** with a punchable face!
You know EXACTLY what I’m talking about and I literally could not care less about your version of events.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Is that one on the right an Indecent Cock Entry?
This move might not be as bad as some fear. The court left a get out available which is that nationwide injunctions could be granted in response to a class action. Watch out for national rights organisations organising multi state class actions when challenging Trump overreach. DoJ lawyers will be hard pressed to deal with these cases. I guess Marc Elias, Norm Eisner and others are already making plans to deal with this appalling decision.Trump distracts the world from his new King powers with comments on Canada and Fed Chair Powell!!
HERE IS THE BIG STORY OF THE DAY…
When Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky used contradictory justifications to give Donald Trump two of his three Supreme Court picks in his first term, Democrats warned that the Kentucky Republican’s unapologetic violation of Senate norms would have tectonic consequences.
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.
Trump’s picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined fellow Republican-appointees in ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, even when—as in the case of Trump’s attempt to deprive some babies born on American soil of citizenship—they are intended to halt facially unconstitutional measures.
Barrett, writing for the majority, said such orders “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Shortly afterwards, the president said he would immediately exploit the ruling to move forward with an array of measures that had been blocked as likely illegal or unconstitutional.
Barrett was appointed in the final days of Trump’s first term. McConnell, then Senate majority leader, pushed her nomination through in the weeks after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died, and only days before Joe Biden was elected president.
Four years earlier, McConnell laid the groundwork for Gorsuch’s appointment by blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, future US Attorney General Merrick Garland, for eight months before the 2016 election.
The supermajority has in recent years moved to grant unprecedented powers to the president and lend judicial support to conservative policies, including eliminating the federal right to abortion, expanding gun rights and gutting Trump’s prosecution for allegedly attempting to hang on to power following his 2020 election defeat.
The dissenting justices in today’s ruling, all Democratic-appointees, warned that the high court is encouraging Trump to violate the Constitution and disregard the judiciary—except for the Supreme Court.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
SCOTUS has a habit of helping Trump in pursuit of cases which enhance the unitary president theory. That seems odd to me as that theory places the executive ahead of the judiciary and the congress contrary to the constitutional position of three equal parts of governance. It is a Federal Society theory.
So far the administration has lost just over 200 cases brought against it.
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,890
“Correct”???
And you are?!
It is AN EXTREME OPINION that goes against 249 yrs of American history, as evidenced by Trump salivating over going after more things that were considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL just a few months ago.
Question: Was Roe “correct” when it was agreed or is it “correct” now?
Personally, I was wondering what "facially unconstitutional" means ....
Blue_Lightsaber
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2022
- Messages
- 4,455
- Team supported
- Man City
Sadly, I have zero desire to get into a back and forth with you, especially considering g you’re coming across, as Ricky Gervais would say, as a smug **** with a punchable face!
You know EXACTLY what I’m talking about and I literally could not care less about your version of events.
Don't just don't.
You can't present logic and wisdom to the MAGA stupid and win.. because they just outsource thinking to fox news, and now twitter and soon to grok.
Instead just approach things scientifically.. and record what is verified.
From the first time knowledge was destroyed by burning of books at Alexandria, to now.. it was done with support of the stupid people who thought knowledge, wisdom and freedom to choose were a threat.
Conclusion: The most dangerous thing on Earth are stupid people.. you don't know when they'll go off but they are guaranteed to go off and you don't want them to take you down.
You have only 2 options.. realize you can't live with them so you either leave or you prepare for a violent confrontation because the system/ rights/ laws etc.. they're not going to help you.
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
Are they ( America) heading to a form of communism as in just one man rules absolute ?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Do not feed the creature.
"ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions"How exactly does it go against 249 years of American history? What does that even mean?
Its probably best to read the opinions first and then find faults with the reasoning. What Trump may or may not salivate over isn't evidence that the reasoning and conclusions in the ruling are either faulty or wrong.
Read it first, then pick holes in the reasoning of the majority opinion. You are far too smart to be resorting to hyperbolic political jargon or basing your evidence on the supposed unconstitutional actions of an external entity.
Maybe the clue is in the words "no longer".
Unconstitutional on the face of it.Personally, I was wondering what "facially unconstitutional" means ....
I think.
US legalese is facially impenetrable.