President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
It's either legal or not. Remember the claim here is of a "constitutional crisis" because Trump is purportedly refusing to comply to an order. If bullshit theater is legal, that's it.You should always start from the idea that anyone in power will do everything he can to achieve it's preferred outcomes, you can't treat that approach as something "morally wrong" lol. Now if what
LOL. Lying to a federal court is unlawful. The fact that you can't prove the person is lying doesn't make the lying lawful.
My argument is more broad, it's about an order should only be given if it is 100% clear to everyone exactly what needs to happen for it to be fulfilled, and that has to be 100% within the power of the ordered entity.Ordering to "do your best effort for" is absurd, insane. Any provision should be crystal clear executable and verifiable ex post in a perfect manner. Imagine you OR
What was the point of the SCOTUS order if the gov doesn’t have to do anything to comply?
The gov said - as you argue - the court can’t tell us to do this. SCOTUS disagreed. How is doing absolutely nothing after that complying.
What makes you think that the president has the unilateral authority to interpret words in statutes in whatever way he sees fit, however tenuous that interpretation might be. That isn't how it works in this country.
I don't think he has unilateral authority, i am asking where is the lawsuit challenging that interpretation.
Courts afaik though have given wide latitude to the executive to decide when an emergency exists or not, when a law requires an emergency to exist to be triggered.
That's a very stupid choice but it was very stupid to delegate special powers to potus during emergencies to begin with: the process to determine when an emergency exists should never reside in the same hands that can benefit from that emergency, that's very basic division of power 101.
So congress should never have delegated anything to POTUS that requires an emergency to happen without keeping the power to declare such an emergency to itself. Especially if it's about a power that the constitution expressively reserves to congress (like setting tariffs).
The IEEA is blatantly ******ed as a law, yet financial markets worldwide are rattled because of it's use, and unfortunately for now it looks like courts aren't challenging Trump power to completly invent a fentanyl emergency from Canada to justify tariffs on car parts from Canada, which sounds like a simpson episode.
Now i understand "invasion" in the AEA is yet another can of worms, a little different from the "emergency" needed to trigger the IEEA, still the concept is very similar: who decides if there is an emergency? who decides if there is an invasion? looks like for courts the answer is "potus".
SCOTUS didn't order anything. SCOTUS clarified and corrected the district court order, and sent it back to the district court . It told the district judge that ordering to "effectuate the return" was improper, but that it could order to facilitate.
It also told the district judge to keep in mind international diplomacy is exclusively a matter of the executive
LOL. Lying to a federal court is unlawful. The fact that you can't prove the person is lying doesn't make the lying lawful.
What would the lie be? Trump can officially make that request and other people can "unofficially" clafiry to Bukele that's just for show for the court.
Bukele can then officially refuse.
If the lawyer from the government doesn't disclose the "side talk", or isn't even informed about that (why should be be), what would be the lie?
What would the lie be? Trump can officially make that request and other people can "unofficially" clafiry to Bukele that's just for show for the court.
Bukele can then officially refuse.
If the lawyer from the government doesn't disclose the "side talk", or isn't even informed about that (why should be be), what would be the lie?
You don't often argue in bad faith. But you are doing so now, which means I am done with this conversation.
I don't rate bad faith as Luciom's main problem. He believes in terrible things, but that's different than arguing in bad faith.
It's either legal or not. Remember the claim here is of a "constitutional crisis" because Trump is purportedly refusing to comply to an order. If bullshit theater is legal, that's it.You should always start from the idea that anyone in power will do everything he can to achieve it's preferred outcomes, you can't treat that approach as something "morally wrong" lol. Now if what
Basically if we were to summarize your views on the US courts, it is that they are the absolute arbiter of law and people who don't do what they say should be executed. This is going by earlier posts you have made about courts. However, going by your latest argument, Trumpists and "conservatives" are actually exempt. This is because they can pretend not to understand what the courts say and nobody can prove that they are lying about it.
We can probably add these two arguments together and find that the executions are for everyone else.
It would seem your version of checks and balances have been replaced by the government's boot, as long as it worn by the correct party.
It's at least consistent with "everyone we don't like is Hamas".
Basically if we were to summarize your views on the US courts, it is that they are the absolute arbiter of law and people who don't do what they say should be executed. This is going by earlier posts you have made about courts. However, going by your latest argument, Trumpists and "conservatives" are actually exempt. This is because they can pretend not to understand what the c
Uh? I would love to see the IEEA struck for unconstitutionality under non delegation (it is simply completly unconstitutional to delegate tariff setting to the executive in any form , final approval must always stay with congress no exceptions), and the AEA defined more properly in the "invasion and incursion" applicability.
I have said that under originalism invasion doesn't mean what people think it means today.
Otoh courts should order only non ambiguous actions in general, and actions the ordered entity can perform without third party involvement
I don't rate bad faith as Luciom's main problem. He believes in terrible things, but that's different than arguing in bad faith.
Agree that it's not his main problem, but it's a major problem.
Not sure why someone would need a criminal record *in the USA* to be a member of a gang that has it's basis in a foreign country, nor why a criminal record anywhere would be necessary to be part of a gang.
You can certainly be a mafioso even with no criminal record, why should it be different for gangs?
I wasn't doing a math proof you ****ing freak, just pointing out something obvious to anyone who knows anything and has any common sense.
You don't often argue in bad faith. But you are doing so now, which means I am done with this conversation.
"Bad faith" can be a little slippery to define. He's a midwit who constantly moves goalposts. He may not recognize when he's doing it though.
Sure, but the dissembling that he was doing in my most recent back and forth with him can only have been bad faith, no matter how you define the term.
Basically if we were to summarize your views on the US courts, it is that they are the absolute arbiter of law and people who don't do what they say should be executed. This is going by earlier posts you have made about courts. However, going by your latest argument, Trumpists and "conservatives" are actually exempt. This is because they can pretend not to understand what the c
What a nice resume .
Uh? I would love to see the IEEA struck for unconstitutionality under non delegation (it is simply completly unconstitutional to delegate tariff setting to the executive in any form , final approval must always stay with congress no exceptions), and the AEA defined more properly in the "invasion and incursion" applicability.I have said that under originalism invasion doesn't me
Your missing his entire point of course trying to divert it to an inconsequential little point of what you hold in general .
Ok but the law that suspends due process for aliens during a war or invasion was used 3 times before and wasn't considered unconstitutional. And that doesn't require the guy to be a member of MS13
Is this serious ?
You believe the U.S. is in war time or being invaded ?
For the purpose of the narrative, in the context of a deportation proceeding that allows the gvmnt do kick anyone they want outside of the country, i think the *only thing that matters is if the AEA can be used through the provision of "invasion" being ongoing or not".If it can , Trump can send away to El Salvador or anywhere else as many non citizens as he wants including thos
You don’t say o0.
Yeah we know ….
Take that to Congress which wrote the AEA and never repealed it, and to courts that in the centuries that passed never treated that law as unconstitutional.
Of course it is …
But you can’t see the problem with it cause u don’t believe in democracy , u believe in fascism and autocracy -> let me help you out :
It's either legal or not. Remember the claim here is of a "constitutional crisis" because Trump is purportedly refusing to comply to an order. If bullshit theater is legal, that's it.You should always start from the idea that anyone in power will do everything he can to achieve it's preferred outcomes, you can't treat that approach as something "morally wrong" lol. Now if what
If it extends to your pov , yes it’s morally wrong , not democratic …
And lastly all your « it’s not illegal , not being judged , no court said it’s illegal , etc …
Who cares ? It’s unimportant!
Why ?
Simple ->
We don't have to rely on this incident to prove that Trump is willing to defy court orders.
After all this , reread tamedeuce post about you .
Basically if we were to summarize your views on the US courts, it is that they are the absolute arbiter of law and people who don't do what they say should be executed. This is going by earlier posts you have made about courts. However, going by your latest argument, Trumpists and "conservatives" are actually exempt. This is because they can pretend not to understand what the c
Obviously is correct .
Anyone leaning left from your pov are morally bankrupt and evil , even if they aren’t leftish since you are a right extremist .
And only extremist can’t see the see the forest for the tree .
Bloomberg: Trump Presses China to Make Tariff Offer to Calm Trade War
President Donald Trump called on China to reach out to him in order to kick off negotiations aimed at resolving the escalating trade fight between the world’s two largest economies.
“The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday, reading what she said was a statement Trump dictated.
“There’s no difference between China and any other country except they are much larger, and China wants what we have, what every country wants, what we have — the American consumer — or to put another way, they need our money,” the statement continued.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...
Trump panicking while China isn't budging. The sentence I bolded is hysterical. They need our IOUs.
lol
Is George Conway angling for a job as a prison guard? Let's not pretend these Lincoln Project monsters/grifters are any more morally upstanding than the average MAGA person. Conway especially is a piece of **** -- pretending like Trump is Hitler AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS MARRIED TO TRUMP'S VERSION OF JOSEPH GOEBBELS.
And that's why he divorced her.
Ok but the law that suspends due process for aliens during a war or invasion was used 3 times before and wasn't considered unconstitutional. And that doesn't require the guy to be a member of MS13
In case you didn't hear, we aren't in a war or being invaded.
