If Trump is not behaving as an authoritarian

[bomberfox]

I agree that the far left and the far right do have much in common.

Nah we really dont.

 

[bomberfox]

Correct. This will be one of the many reasons why the GQP will face big punishment in 2027.

The GQP is aware of what will happen when the Democrats retake congress.

Im not holding out hope.

 

[bomberfox]

There are 100 million or so armed, peaceful citizens in this country. Yes, I'm aware you fear they are dangerous to the formation of a tyrannical state. That danger is a feature though.



Your opinion. Most people don't need a car capable of being driven 120 mph to go to Starbucks. My opinion. Neither your nor my business.




You want the state to be kind and gentle in their use of violence, when they are protecting you from violence. The biggest problem with this bedtime story you tell yourself, is that there likely won't even be a representative of the state there, should you need protection from violence.

But they will assist somewhat in policing up your remains, and even have somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50% chance of catching your assailant. Not that it would do you much good at that point.

That armed society just elected a tyrannical government and the guy that tried to rob us of representation through violence so you can put that shit to rest lol…

 

[Econ4every1]

The SCOTUS unanimously overruled the cabal of state judges on the grounds they didn’t have authority to meddle in the election. By extension the rabid partisan judge's decision was rendered moot.

In Trump v. Anderson, in essence, the liberal justices agreed with the outcome (Trump stays on the ballot) but expressed concern that the majority's reasoning went too far and potentially weakened a vital constitutional safeguard of liberal democracy by limiting how Section 3 could be enforced in the future. Basically, the Liberals agreed that the CO SC overstepped, and should not have leaped to the question of if Trump should or should not have been on the ballot, but instead focused on the weakly defined aspects of the question of what constitutes insurrection as a legal matter.

To which I agree. Clearly, our system was and still is not prepared to answer this question as a legal manner and SCOTUS ensured that it remains a purely political decision (read: populist, directly democratic and not based on the principles of a republic), not a legal one because the court explicitly said states cannot unilaterally enforce Section 3 for federal offices. This immediately takes the issue out of the hands of state courts and election officials, which were the primary battlegrounds for these disqualification challenges. The majority opinion strongly implied that only Congress, through specific implementing legislation, has the power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders. This effectively makes it a political question because the legislature, while created to create law does not directly decide matters of existing law as Congress lacks the judicial standards necessary. SCOTUS in its decision to require congressional action suggests an unwillingness to establish judicially manageable standards for determining what constitutes "engaging in insurrection" in the context of a federal officeholder, or to apply such standards itself.

Which basically makes one of the most important issues of our time purely a partisan political issue decided by congressional majority vote and public opinion. Something that is likely only to be ok, until Dems do it, and we'll see R's do a 180 degree reversal, it will be like it never happened.

In short, I will, as an American respect the SCOTUS authority to issue this decision (purely in a technical sense), but I will oppose it ideologically and look forward to a day when future courts rectify this awful decision.

 

[Econ4every1]

Where are the lawsuits filed against Trump to back up your imagined claims? Has he been found guilty of violating the Constitution based on your indictments?

Perhaps you haven't been following along the last year or so, but SCOTUS has ensured that the President cannot be held accountable for his actions if they are determined to be in the scope of his duty as President. However, it's almost impossible to even investigate actions that might fall outside his official duties, because you'd need evidence before, looking for evidence as the President has the presumption of working in good faith. Unless the president implicates himself in no uncertain terms, he can do almost anything he wants as long as he paints it with the veneer of "official acts", what-the-hell-ever that means, because of course, this SCOUTS doesn't define any of these terms.

As far as violating the Constitution, well, that's tricky. I mean most of you know what violating the Constitution looks like when we see it and we've seen lower courts, states, Congress and even Presidents be rebuked for laws or actions taken as unconstitutional. In most of those cases the issues weren't well defined and it has fallen to the the courts and ultimately SCOTUS to rule on what the Congress meant hen it said [fill in wording of whatever law here]. However, the current administration is engaging in obvious violations of the Constitution in my opinion with the justification that they are just "challenging the law" (like the fake elector scheme), resulting in SCOTUS engaging in some of the most obvious legislation from the bench this nation has ever seen. Something R's were apoplectic about under recent democratic administrations, but like in so many other things, have turned a blind eye, or gaslit the rest of us as if we aren't seeing the blatant and brutal hypocrisy of the highest echelons of the political and legal order of the political right.

In the past, restraining orders were the way the judicial branch could ensure that POTUS couldn't get over-enthusiastic with his sharpie and reel off some real doozies. But in steps SCOTUS which turns that upside down and makes a rule that only though class action (and the rigid standards that come with meeting the definition of what constitutes a class) can a person sue to regain their rights. That or sue as an individual against a political machine that can abuse it's financial resources to keep questions pending for months or years, and in those cases, even if POTUS loses, in many cases, they would already have won. Potentially leaving some people capable of "winning" back their rights while at the same time others remain stripped of them (WTAF?).

I mean, imagine if you will, liberal President signs and order that commercial sale and ownership of commercial ammunition in this country be banned starting immediately, citing the fact that the Constitution says that people have the right to bear arms, but it does not explicitly state that people have the right to purchase ammunition, rather, arguing that if we take an originalist view, most people at the time the 2A was drafted, people made their own ammunition.

Now, I'm not making this argument, I'm just using recent precedent against those that lean right. Until recently, a law or EO like this would have, without any doubt be blocked from taking affect by one of the regional federal courts given the significant damage it would do to businesses in this country that sell munitions, but also to all the individuals that own ammunition that would be expected to turn over their ammunition or be considered lawbreakers. Now, under recent rulings, until a class can be established and legal machinations take place, an EO, or a law passed by Congress is in full affect until resolved. Now given the current lean of the court, that would likely be weeks to months, but a liberal court could drag it's feet, and it could take multiple months or even years, and even if liberals eventually lose, immeasurable damage can be done, meaning that (in this case) Dems who wish to ban firearms (those that exist anyway) would have won a pyrrhic victory, even if they lose the ruling in the long run.

TRO's generally only last two weeks by design and require a high bar to maintain, but now, there is no such safety net and the day will come when some liberals take great pleasure in exercising these rules that R's are abusing without any forethought in the same bad faith way that they are being abused now.

 

[Athanasius68]

Perhaps you haven't been following along the last year or so, but SCOTUS has ensured that the President cannot be held accountable for his actions if they are determined to be in the scope of his duty as President. However, it's almost impossible to even investigate actions that might fall outside his official duties, because you'd need evidence before, looking for evidence as the President has the presumption of working in good faith. Unless the president implicates himself in no uncertain terms, he can do almost anything he wants as long as he paints it with the veneer of "official acts", what-the-hell-ever that means, because of course, this SCOUTS doesn't define any of these terms.

As far as violating the Constitution, well, that's tricky. I mean most of you know what violating the Constitution looks like when we see it and we've seen lower courts, states, Congress and even Presidents be rebuked for laws or actions taken as unconstitutional. In most of those cases the issues weren't well defined and it has fallen to the the courts and ultimately SCOTUS to rule on what the Congress meant hen it said [fill in wording of whatever law here]. However, the current administration is engaging in obvious violations of the Constitution in my opinion with the justification that they are just "challenging the law" (like the fake elector scheme), resulting in SCOTUS engaging in some of the most obvious legislation from the bench this nation has ever seen. Something R's were apoplectic about under recent democratic administrations, but like in so many other things, have turned a blind eye, or gaslit the rest of us as if we aren't seeing the blatant and brutal hypocrisy of the highest echelons of the political and legal order of the political right.

In the past, restraining orders were the way the judicial branch could ensure that POTUS couldn't get over-enthusiastic with his sharpie and reel off some real doozies. But in steps SCOTUS which turns that upside down and makes a rule that only though class action (and the rigid standards that come with meeting the definition of what constitutes a class) can a person sue to regain their rights. That or sue as an individual against a political machine that can abuse it's financial resources to keep questions pending for months or years, and in those cases, even if POTUS loses, in many cases, they would already have won. Potentially leaving some people capable of "winning" back their rights while at the same time others remain stripped of them (WTAF?).

I mean, imagine if you will, liberal President signs and order that commercial sale and ownership of commercial ammunition in this country be banned starting immediately, citing the fact that the Constitution says that people have the right to bear arms, but it does not explicitly state that people have the right to purchase ammunition, rather, arguing that if we take an originalist view, most people at the time the 2A was drafted, people made their own ammunition.

Now, I'm not making this argument, I'm just using recent precedent against those that lean right. Until recently, a law or EO like this would have, without any doubt be blocked from taking affect by one of the regional federal courts given the significant damage it would do to businesses in this country that sell munitions, but also to all the individuals that own ammunition that would be expected to turn over their ammunition or be considered lawbreakers. Now, under recent rulings, until a class can be established and legal machinations take place, an EO, or a law passed by Congress is in full affect until resolved. Now given the current lean of the court, that would likely be weeks to months, but a liberal court could drag it's feet, and it could take multiple months or even years, and even if liberals eventually lose, immeasurable damage can be done, meaning that (in this case) Dems who wish to ban firearms (those that exist anyway) would have won a pyrrhic victory, even if they lose the ruling in the long run.

TRO's generally only last two weeks by design and require a high bar to maintain, but now, there is no such safety net and the day will come when some liberals take great pleasure in exercising these rules that R's are abusing without any forethought in the same bad faith way that they are being abused now.

An EO is not a law. Its a directive from the president to the Executive branch (over which the president has authority) as to how an existing law will be enforced.
So if there is no law banning certain ammunition, the president cannot do so himself.

 

[rahl]

An EO is not a law. Its a directive from the president to the Executive branch (over which the president has authority) as to how an existing law will be enforced.
So if there is no law banning certain ammunition, the president cannot do so himself.

Just like he can’t amend the 14th amendment by withholding citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

 

[The Brad Dad]

An EO is not a law. Its a directive from the president to the Executive branch (over which the president has authority) as to how an existing law will be enforced.
So if there is no law banning certain ammunition, the president cannot do so himself.

You were right prior to this admin. But Trump and his SC have created an unfettered monster with the executive now.

 

[Econ4every1]

An EO is not a law. Its a directive from the president to the Executive branch (over which the president has authority) as to how an existing law will be enforced.

Agreed, and thank you for pointing that out. I didn't mean to insinuate that EO's were laws. That said, how is my hypothetical not in keeping with your standard?

I mean, birthright citizenship is clearly defined in the Constitution. There's no wiggle room, there is no room for interpretation. Stating that it doesn't apply under certain circumstances isn't interpreting the law, it's violating it under the guise of interpretation as would my example of banning ammunition, an idea that I regret, has been tossed around.

So let's see let's create the justification for the hypothetical I gave above and phrase it as if the President is creating the justification for the EO I gave in a speech.....

My fellow Americans. The Second Amendment to our Constitution grants the right to bear arms. However, a careful review, reflecting the historical context of its drafting, reveals no explicit right to commercially purchase ammunition. At the time the Second Amendment was adopted, citizens typically made their own ammunition, a practice of self-reliance consistent with the direct exercise of bearing arms.

Therefore, as the chief executive responsible for interpreting and enforcing the laws of this nation, and above all, for safeguarding the lives of our citizens, I am directing the Executive Branch to enforce the Second Amendment in a manner consistent with this original understanding.

This Executive Order clarifies that the commercial sale and ownership of commercially made ammunition falls outside the scope of the constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

This is not creating new law, but rather interpreting the existing constitutional text and empowering federal agencies, under the President's direct authority, to implement this interpretation to enhance public safety and reduce the tragic consequences of readily available commercial ammunition. My administration will ensure that federal resources are aligned with this directive, and that our enforcement efforts reflect this necessary clarification of the Second Amendment's scope.

BOOM!

See how easy that was? Is it complete and utter BS?? OF COURSE!!! People can, and will disagree on this, including myself, because I see how it would lead to quite literally interpreting any existing rule in almost any way possible, while using this administrations justification of exercising the limits of presidential power.

Anyone who believes that the President can modify the 14th amendment the way he has, has zero ground to stand on apposing the example I just gave. Z-E-R-O.

So if there is no law banning certain ammunition, the president cannot do so himself.

And there's no law allowing the President to change what constitutes birthright citizenship, but here we are!

Oh, and I almost forgot, even if your right about my hypothetical rule (and I think you are), what would stop the President from creating this rule and sending federal law enforcement into the country to enforce it? NOTHING! The political Right has complained about TROs and now there all but gone thanks to SCOTUS, the last guardrail against exactly what I've just created. So even if the President eventually lost his fight to enforce this ruling, imagine if it took a year to put into place?

Damage done.

 

[rhinefire]

Nice try attempting to separate Republicans from those who support Trump.
How do you tell difference? By looking back at how Republicans felt and behaved in the 60s and 70s and 80s with Reagan as president? The world has changed.

Of course House reps are afraid of Trump. Given the GOP House razor thin margins, Trump is going to use every bit of influence he can to keep all reps in line. What should he do? Tell the dissenting Reps "Oh, that's OK. Do you don't have to agree with me on this huge and momentous piece of critical legislation. We'll just wait until next year."?
Remember, the first job as a House Rep is to get re-elected,

Don't lost that Reagan T-shirt. It could be worth a lot at your next garage sale.

Ignorance is like a cheap steak, damn near impossible to cut through.
"Nice try attempting to separate Republicans from those who support Trump." Does the name John McCain ring a bell to you?
"Of course House reps are afraid of Trump." Now just why do you suppose that is?! Have you forgotten the Reps under Nixon? Even the Dems shoved Biden to the closet. All conservatives are cowards both in and out of politics.

 

[Athanasius68]

Just like he can’t amend the 14th amendment by withholding citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

Don't need to go that far. Congress, which has power over citizenship and naturalization issues, has codified birthright citizenship.

 

[Athanasius68]

You were right prior to this admin. But Trump and his SC have created an unfettered monster with the executive now.

No. They haven't.

 

[The Brad Dad]

No. They haven't.

Sure they have. It’s literally what their ruling allows. And Trump has been using it. He should have been impeached and removed for emoluments violations alone.

 

[Athanasius68]

Agreed, and thank you for pointing that out. I didn't mean to insinuate that EO's were laws. That said, how is my hypothetical not in keeping with your standard?

I mean, birthright citizenship is clearly defined in the Constitution. There's no wiggle room, there is no room for interpretation. Stating that it doesn't apply under certain circumstances isn't interpreting the law, it's violating it under the guise of interpretation as would my example of banning ammunition, an idea that I regret, has been tossed around.

So let's see let's create the justification for the hypothetical I gave above and phrase it as if the President is creating the justification for the EO I gave in a speech.....

My fellow Americans. The Second Amendment to our Constitution grants the right to bear arms. However, a careful review, reflecting the historical context of its drafting, reveals no explicit right to commercially purchase ammunition. At the time the Second Amendment was adopted, citizens typically made their own ammunition, a practice of self-reliance consistent with the direct exercise of bearing arms.

Therefore, as the chief executive responsible for interpreting and enforcing the laws of this nation, and above all, for safeguarding the lives of our citizens, I am directing the Executive Branch to enforce the Second Amendment in a manner consistent with this original understanding.

This Executive Order clarifies that the commercial sale and ownership of commercially made ammunition falls outside the scope of the constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

This is not creating new law, but rather interpreting the existing constitutional text and empowering federal agencies, under the President's direct authority, to implement this interpretation to enhance public safety and reduce the tragic consequences of readily available commercial ammunition. My administration will ensure that federal resources are aligned with this directive, and that our enforcement efforts reflect this necessary clarification of the Second Amendment's scope.

BOOM!

See how easy that was? Is it complete and utter BS?? OF COURSE!!! People can, and will disagree on this, including myself, because I see how it would lead to quite literally interpreting any existing rule in almost any way possible, while using this administrations justification of exercising the limits of presidential power.

Anyone who believes that the President can modify the 14th amendment the way he has, has zero ground to stand on apposing the example I just gave. Z-E-R-O.



And there's no law allowing the President to change what constitutes birthright citizenship, but here we are!

Oh, and I almost forgot, even if your right about my hypothetical rule (and I think you are), what would stop the President from creating this rule and sending federal law enforcement into the country to enforce it? NOTHING! The political Right has complained about TROs and now there all but gone thanks to SCOTUS, the last guardrail against exactly what I've just created. So even if the President eventually lost his fight to enforce this ruling, imagine if it took a year to put into place?

Damage done.

1. Still not simple. The president doesn't just get to ban ammunition. Congress could do that, the president signs it, and then the president enforces that law as he understands it.

2. A couple months ago, a district judge issued a ruling that froze the entire immigration apparatus of the USA.
SCOTUS eventually shot it down. But imagine the delay if a lone judge can stop the entire Executive branch.
It works both ways.

 

[rahl]

Don't need to go that far. Congress, which has power over citizenship and naturalization issues, has codified birthright citizenship.

Nope. The 14th explicitly states a home born non Us soil is a citizen, except children of diplomats who have immunity.

 

[Econ4every1]

1. Still not simple. The president doesn't just get to ban ammunition. Congress could do that, the president signs it, and then the president enforces that law as he understands it.

And tell us, what exactly do you think could be done if the President did exactly as I said?

2. A couple months ago, a district judge issued a ruling that froze the entire immigration apparatus of the USA.

Annnd you haven't been paying attention, because SCOTUS, just ensured, that won't happen again.

For what it's worth, I know it's hard to keep up with this administration.

But imagine the delay if a lone judge can stop the entire Executive branch.
It works both ways.

We don't have to imagine, In the United States, the statutory authority for issuing injunctions, which includes TROs as a form of temporary injunctive relief, can be traced back to the Judiciary Act of 1793. They were further clarified by the Clayton Act of 1914.

I don't think that TRO's have been that bad, especially since their reach is brief unless the opposition can provide compelling evidence of clear irreversible harm within a very limited window.

But yes, let's let POTUS interpret what he thinks federal law means, and frankly it can be anything, use the enforcement mechanism of the executive branch to carry out his interpretation of the law enshrined in EO's and off you go.

And there is now ZERO mechanisms to stop the president as the Executive has virtually all of the enforcement mechanisms at his disposal.

 

[jaypatriot]

Ignorance is like a cheap steak, damn near impossible to cut through.
"Nice try attempting to separate Republicans from those who support Trump." Does the name John McCain ring a bell to you?
"Of course House reps are afraid of Trump." Now just why do you suppose that is?! Have you forgotten the Reps under Nixon? Even the Dems shoved Biden to the closet. All conservatives are cowards both in and out of politics.

You call them cowards. I call them the winners of the biggest prize in the world.
Should they abdicate because they didn't play the game the way you would have liked them to do?
They didn't have to cover up their leader's senility or shove in a DEI hire at the last minute and hope for a Hail Mary victory. And they didn't have to lie about Trump's son and a laptop full of incriminating evidence against his father.
They won the top prize fair and square.

 

[jaypatriot]

And tell us, what exactly do you think could be done if the President did exactly as I said?




Annnd you haven't been paying attention, because SCOTUS, just ensured, that won't happen again.

For what it's worth, I know it's hard to keep up with this administration.



We don't have to imagine, In the United States, the statutory authority for issuing injunctions, which includes TROs as a form of temporary injunctive relief, can be traced back to the Judiciary Act of 1793. They were further clarified by the Clayton Act of 1914.

I don't think that TRO's have been that bad, especially since their reach is brief unless the opposition can provide compelling evidence of clear irreversible harm within a very limited window.

But yes, let's let POTUS interpret what he thinks federal law means, and frankly it can be anything, use the enforcement mechanism of the executive branch to carry out his interpretation of the law enshrined in EO's and off you go.

And there is now ZERO mechanisms to stop the president as the Executive has virtually all of the enforcement mechanisms at his disposal.

You're saying the Supreme Court is not strong enough to stop him?

 

[Econ4every1]

You're saying the Supreme Court is not strong enough to stop him?

Seriously?

The President has already flaunted orders of the court. But what is it that you think the courts can do if the President decides to ignore the courts?

Really depends on all the other people around him react. It's a good thing the President didn't choose people based almost entirely on their loyalty to him. It's also good that the Republican Senate only approved the nominations of the most qualified people. /sarcasm off.

 

[upsideguy]

A spike delivered with an arm the consistency of cooked spaghetti is easily dealt with. Nice try at claiming the Colorado state judge's Orange Man Bad attempt at election meddling is somehow definitive.

Here is the definitive court ruling.

"Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected former president Donald Trump's presidential eligibility on the basis of his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack, adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The case was known as Anderson v. Griswold in the Colorado state courts."

Trump v. Anderson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The SCOTUS unanimously overruled the cabal of state judges on the grounds they didn’t have authority to meddle in the election. By extension the rabid partisan judge's decision was rendered moot.


Nothing but a desperate attempt to salvage an overturned lawfare case.

Now you presume to speak for the All Mighty. Democrats love to smear Trump supporters as cult members but you insist on claiming to be an oracle. Absurd.

My expectations of the Orange Man Bad lynch mob are low based on demagoguery like "political porn " and absurd projections like "second coming".

In the future please make an effort to deliver your so-called spike directly. I despise wading through literally 100's of pages of vapidity that only deserves a red set response.

I agree the SCOTUS overruled Colorado's decision to withhold Trump from the ballot. I understand that. What YOU fail to understand it is moot. My point was the Colorado court determined the Trump participated in insurrection. That was a finding of the court. The SCOTUS does not make that go away. See concept of collateral estoppel.... the fact findings of a lower court are not set when a verdict is set aside. They become established facts that can be cited in future cases. Here is one court finding that is now established fact: TRUMP was FOUND BY A COURT OF LAW TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN INSURRECTION. It is a fact. Your rants of questionable rationality to not make that go away.

Again, you are off on your conspiracy rants about a 'cabal of judges'. You have no clue about the case and why it was determined the way it was. The judges came from various political influences. They are liberal and conservative, but they are attorneys and judges first. Trump had his day in court.... he tried to make the case that the House investigation was political rather than argue that he did not participate in the insurrection. He lost on the former point, which established that he had participated in insurrection. The judge somewhat admonished Trump's attorney for not even challenging the assertion that he was involved in the insurrection. I gave you entire opinion in my previous post. Read it if you dare step into the world of fact...

You, who seems to wallow in political porn (political smut that feeds your fantasies, which is well in your post), may not realize the ball was spiked, but it was. It apparently flew right passed you... and you are scrambling to catch up.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You're saying the Supreme Court is not strong enough to stop him?

I made the point somewhere, maybe way earlier in this thread, not sure - that our government at the highest levels is not run so much by laws as it is run by norms. POTUS has traditionally been a self-policing position; you obey court orders, you don't attack the press, you don't use the DOJ for your own purposes, you sacrifice personal gain because you don't want to appear corrupt, etc. Your job is to uphold the Constitution, not challenge it. POTUS is the top cop, and the leader of the armed forces.

The opportunity to abuse power has always been there, because there isn't a whole lot of case law defining what the POTUS can and cannot do. Full impeachment in both houses is a tough bar to reach, and along with the 23rd, are the only ways to get rid of a rogue president. No president has ever been removed from office. The ban on holding office after participating in an insurrection seems clear enough, but there was no previous case law available for guidance, so the SC punted.

That's the subject of the thread - being an authoritarian president in this country effectively puts him out of reach of removal, as long as his party sticks with him. He's already don't some pretty crazy stuff and still hasn't lost his congresspeople. They have to save their own skins.

 

[jaypatriot]

I made the point somewhere, maybe way earlier in this thread, not sure - that our government at the highest levels is not run so much by laws as it is run by norms. POTUS has traditionally been a self-policing position; you obey court orders, you don't attack the press, you don't use the DOJ for your own purposes, you sacrifice personal gain because you don't want to appear corrupt, etc. Your job is to uphold the Constitution, not challenge it. POTUS is the top cop, and the leader of the armed forces.

The opportunity to abuse power has always been there, because there isn't a whole lot of case law defining what the POTUS can and cannot do. Full impeachment in both houses is a tough bar to reach, and along with the 23rd, are the only ways to get rid of a rogue president. No president has ever been removed from office. The ban on holding office after participating in an insurrection seems clear enough, but there was no previous case law available for guidance, so the SC punted.

That's the subject of the thread - being an authoritarian president in this country effectively puts him out of reach of removal, as long as his party sticks with him. He's already don't some pretty crazy stuff and still hasn't lost his congresspeople. They have to save their own skins.

The party will stick with him until they can't. Just like with Nixon. The party finally had to see him go because Nixon could not be saved.
It could happen to Trump.

 

[jaypatriot]

Seriously?

The President has already flaunted orders of the court. But what is it that you think the courts can do if the President decides to ignore the courts?

Really depends on all the other people around him react. It's a good thing the President didn't choose people based almost entirely on their loyalty to him. It's also good that the Republican Senate only approved the nominations of the most qualified people. /sarcasm off.

Your sarcasm does not have enough truth in it for me to agree with you.

 

[Athanasius68]

And tell us, what exactly do you think could be done if the President did exactly as I said?




Annnd you haven't been paying attention, because SCOTUS, just ensured, that won't happen again.

For what it's worth, I know it's hard to keep up with this administration.



We don't have to imagine, In the United States, the statutory authority for issuing injunctions, which includes TROs as a form of temporary injunctive relief, can be traced back to the Judiciary Act of 1793. They were further clarified by the Clayton Act of 1914.

I don't think that TRO's have been that bad, especially since their reach is brief unless the opposition can provide compelling evidence of clear irreversible harm within a very limited window.

But yes, let's let POTUS interpret what he thinks federal law means, and frankly it can be anything, use the enforcement mechanism of the executive branch to carry out his interpretation of the law enshrined in EO's and off you go.

And there is now ZERO mechanisms to stop the president as the Executive has virtually all of the enforcement mechanisms at his disposal.

1. Go to court
2. There becomes a local injunction, given that this is where the actual case is being adjudicated.
3. POTUS always has to interpret what the law means when enforcing the law

 

[rhinefire]

You call them cowards. I call them the winners of the biggest prize in the world.
Should they abdicate because they didn't play the game the way you would have liked them to do?
They didn't have to cover up their leader's senility or shove in a DEI hire at the last minute and hope for a Hail Mary victory. And they didn't have to lie about Trump's son and a laptop full of incriminating evidence against his father.
They won the top prize fair and square.

Should they abdicate because they didn't play the game the way you would have liked them to do?
No, the Cabinet members should abdicate because they are not qualified for the positions they hold.

They didn't have to cover up their leader's senility or shove in a DEI hire at the last minute and hope for a Hail Mary victory. And they didn't have to lie about Trump's son and a laptop full of incriminating evidence against his father.
They are covering up Trump's senility despite daily examples of his brain rotting. Trump's sons don't have laptops as they require typing skills

They won the top prize fair and square.
Much like Biden did yet years later Trump can't bring himself to accept he was beaten whining every week he was cheated. And whatever happened to Trumps promises of curing all ills on day one? WHOOPS!!