Post-shutdown negotiations look brutal for Trump

[Mycroft]

So wait.....you calling it a win if the courts don't throw it out on face value? You should probably see a chiropractor after that stretch.

Even if they didn't throw it out, then you have to deal with the million and one eminent domain lawsuits that are gonna happen when he tries to simply take the land from rightful owners in the name of a made up emergency.

And then, even if he managed to thread that needle, the cost of paying off all those lawsuits is gonna balloon the cost of his beloved wall well beyond the predicted 40 to 50 billion that was already tossed out there.

Hardly a win, but hey, get it how you live it I guess.

I don't think those "million and one eminent domain lawsuits" will be anything more than a minor speed bump.

You really should get up to speed on what declaring a national emergency really means.

 

[Mycroft]

Even the administration itself expects the Courts to intervene. We will have to see the EC itself to know who will have standing. I would expect Border Property Holders at least.

Plus it will be difficult for Trump to make the case that his National Emergency isn't simply another Trumpian effort to circumvent process and claiming the Congress can just use "process" to beat a bare faced effort to avoid process won't fly. Trump would be trying to convert the simple majority required in the House and the 3:5 vote required in the Senate FOR Appropriations to the 2:3 vote required to overturn an Executive claim of National Emergency. SC Justices are just not that stupid. In this latter instance the Congress itself would have standing...any Congressman, any Senator.

Trump will end up caught on the horns of the same dilemma. His inability to gain funding via Legislative process is not a National Emergency.

Your characterization of Trump's motives are nothing more than opinion. You have absolutely no facts to support your contention that Trump is trying to "circumvent process". Heck, he's spent an enormous amount of time TRYING to use the legislative process.

But you are right...the Supremes aren't stupid. They won't let spin and nonsense affect their decision. They will rule according to law...and the law is on Trump's side.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It's like with healthcare. The GOP had ten years to come up with a plan. When they finally had the Congressional majority, lo and behold no plan.

Now Trumpy says it's wall time and lo and behold, again no plan. nothing at all. Just "hundreds of miles" BS.

Bunch of incompetents.

 

[jnug]

Your characterization of Trump's motives are nothing more than opinion. You have absolutely no facts to support your contention that Trump is trying to "circumvent process". Heck, he's spent an enormous amount of time TRYING to use the legislative process.

But you are right...the Supremes aren't stupid. They won't let spin and nonsense affect their decision. They will rule according to law...and the law is on Trump's side.

I absolutely have facts to back it...Trumps own words and own actions will hang him.
Trump will end up caught on the horns of the same dilemma. His inability to gain funding via Legislative process is not a National Emergency. If he was going to go National Emergency, he should have done it immediately two years ago or he should have done it at least five weeks ago as opposed to telling the world he "could go National Emergency but PREFERRED a legislative process. His preference does not amount to a National Emergency and no matter how the statutes are written, nobody can change the meaning of the term National Emergency. Trump can claim it. He will fail IMO.

And for the record, OPINIONS are the foundation of Court Findings. So opinions matter. Lawyers make points, some factual some not. Judges and Justices make decisions and support them with opinions.

So lets see, our ex-border unauthorized immigrant issues at the Southern Border have been in decline since before Trump came to office. Yet he did not declare a National Emergency in 2017. It has continued in decline and is now down to ex-borders from three small countries and as late as 35 days ago, Trump forced a Shutdown as opposed to declaring a National Emergency. Suddenly 21 days from the end of the Shutdown, now finally its a National Emergency! Too transparent. Won't fly.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

I don't think those "million and one eminent domain lawsuits" will be anything more than a minor speed bump.

You really should get up to speed on what declaring a national emergency really means.

Way to be on record for not giving a **** about the ownership rights of the people he would have to steal the land from to make it happen.

 

[Mycroft]

Way to be on record for not giving a **** about the ownership rights of the people he would have to steal the land from to make it happen.

This has nothing to do with what I think.

This is about the law.

Take your SJW whining and crying, elevate your volume...and direct it at the night sky.

 

[Mycroft]

I absolutely have facts to back it...

Well then, trot out your fact. I'd like to see them.

(the nonsense I snipped from your post are not facts. They are opinions.)

 

[bullseyelqcs]

This has nothing to do with what I think.

This is about the law.

Take your SJW whining and crying, elevate your volume...and direct it at the night sky.

Sure, the laws says he can attempt to just take the land, but that isn't going to stop the people who own it from trying to get recompensed. And they WILL get paid, bet on it. When it becomes plainly obvious that the "emergency" wasn't actually an emergency and he could and should have properly negotiated a price with them.

 

[Mycroft]

Sure, the laws says he can attempt to just take the land, but that isn't going to stop the people who own it from trying to get recompensed. And they WILL get paid, bet on it. When it becomes plainly obvious that the "emergency" wasn't actually an emergency and he could and should have properly negotiated a price with them.

Of course they'll get paid. Who has said they won't?

 

[jnug]

Well then, trot out your fact. I'd like to see them.

(the nonsense I snipped from your post are not facts. They are opinions.)

I already did. Again, Trump's own words and actions will be his undoing in the courts. I can't help you if you have not kept up with Trump's feeble Legislative efforts regarding this Wall since taking office or kept up with his official statements that GOP and Administration Legislative efforts were his preference. A failed effort to circumvent a rudimentary Appropriations process for new funding is not a National Emergency and Trump's continued pursuit of his Wall while circumventing the Appropriations process and then of all things trying to extort the funds while claiming it as his preference simply flies in the face of a National Emergency claim. It was and is a bare faced effort to circumvent the Appropriations process and I just don't see Judges or Justices seeing it any other way.

As I have stated several times in these threads, his Legislative effort had it succeeded would have thrown Article 1 right off the cliff edge and I just do not see the Court accepting the concept that a President should be able to throw Article 1 off the cliff edge as a means to gain money for something he could not achieve through Appropriation. He is turning now to National Emergency not because there is a National Emergency but because he did not gain funding through subversion of process followed by Extortion. That much is painfully obvious and no statute changes that. I see the Court coming to the defense of Article 1 and I don't care what any damn statute says when compared to defending Article 1 and I would be much surprised if the SC did not see it the same way.

In fact Trump's likely best chance to extricate himself now will be something coming out of the Legislature that gives him an exit ramp while not actually giving him whatever the hell he has been trying to describe as a physical barrier.

 

[Mycroft]

I already did. Again, Trump's own words and actions will be his undoing in the courts. I can't help you if you have not kept up with Trump's feeble Legislative efforts regarding this Wall since taking office or kept up with his official statements that GOP and Administration Legislative efforts were his preference. A failed effort to circumvent a rudimentary Appropriations process for new funding is not a National Emergency and Trump's continued pursuit of his Wall while circumventing the Appropriations process and then of all things trying to extort the funds while claiming it as his preference simply flies in the face of a National Emergency claim. It was and is a bare faced effort to circumvent the Appropriations process and I just don't see Judges or Justices seeing it any other way.

As I have stated several times in these threads, his Legislative effort had it succeeded would have thrown Article 1 right off the cliff edge and I just do not see the Court accepting the concept that a President should be able to throw Article 1 off the cliff edge as a means to gain money for something he could not achieve through Appropriation. He is turning now to National Emergency not because there is a National Emergency but because he did not gain funding through subversion of process followed by Extortion. That much is painfully obvious and no statute changes that. I see the Court coming to the defense of Article 1 and I don't care what any damn statute says when compared to defending Article 1 and I would be much surprised if the SC did not see it the same way.

In fact Trump's likely best chance to extricate himself now will be something coming out of the Legislature that gives him an exit ramp while not actually giving him whatever the hell he has been trying to describe as a physical barrier.

Now you are just repeating yourself.

You are dismissed.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Now you are just repeating yourself.

You are dismissed.

He ate you alive. You're just too oblivious and indoctrinated to realize it.

 

[Rich2018]

...lawyers make points, some factual some not. Judges and Justices make decisions and support them with opinions....

Are you saying that judges interpret law ?

Are you going as far to say that the US Supreme Court actually interprets the Constitution ?


(even though the US Constitution is in English)

 

[Rich2018]

...that article lists many other laws that would be changed...that might affect Trump's ability to deal with the national emergency on our southern border. There might be others, as well.

Are you saying that the Emergency Powers Act affords the president with the power to seize land ?


In his case, seize land and build a wall...even when Congress has repeatedly voted against it.


Would that mean that emergency powers can be used to circumvent to wishes of Congress ?

Would that mean that any president is entitled to declare an "emergency" on day 1 of his/her presidency and keep the emergency going until a new president is elected ?

If so, I don' think the US Supreme Court would agree with you. They would interpret the Constitution differently.


I assume you agree that the US Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution ?

 

[Mycroft]

Are you saying that the Emergency Powers Act affords the president with the power to seize land ?


In his case, seize land and build a wall...even when Congress has repeatedly voted against it.


Would that mean that emergency powers can be used to circumvent to wishes of Congress ?

Would that mean that any president is entitled to declare an "emergency" on day 1 of his/her presidency and keep the emergency going until a new president is elected ?

If so, I don' think the US Supreme Court would agree with you. They would interpret the Constitution differently.


I assume you agree that the US Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution ?

Instead of asking me wild and stupid questions, read the link I provided. I quoted the part that refers to landowners...hint: It says nothing about "the power to seize land". And nothing was said about circumventing the wishes of Congress. (Your nonsense just gets wilder and stupider from there.)

btw, the National Emergencies Act is a law...it's not the Constitution.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I don't think Trump is afraid to test the courts.

He hasn't been afraid so far. Of course, he gets his ass handed to him as often as not, but perhaps that just means he's a slow learner.

The fact is the emergency powers act he intends to invoke was never meant to be a means for the president to advance his agenda without a cooperating Congress. It was about moving quickly when there is no time to consult with the legislature. Well, Trump has consulted with Congress, and they said "No." Ergo, no crisis, ergo no presidential power to invoke the act.

I predict Trump will get bitch slapped by his own USSC, even with all those conservatives on it.

 

[Mycroft]

He hasn't been afraid so far. Of course, he gets his ass handed to him as often as not, but perhaps that just means he's a slow learner.

Nonsense. He's up against liberal courts.

The fact is the emergency powers act he intends to invoke was never meant to be a means for the president to advance his agenda without a cooperating Congress.

More nonsense. There is nothing in the Act that denies the President the right to invoke the act...as long as he gives a justification to Congress. You can be sure that Trump will do that.

Heck, Obama used the Act to make war on Libya...without so much as asking Congress about it first. Obama was within his rights as President to do that, too.

It was about moving quickly when there is no time to consult with the legislature. Well, Trump has consulted with Congress, and they said "No." Ergo, no crisis, ergo no presidential power to invoke the act.

Again...nonsense. There is nothing in the Act that says the President must consult with and abide by Congress before trying to declare a national emergency.

But hey...if you disagree with me, show me were, in that law, it says so.

I predict Trump will get bitch slapped by his own USSC, even with all those conservatives on it.

shrug...

Everyone has predictions. When it comes to Trump, most of those predictions turn out to be wrong.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Nonsense. He's up against liberal courts.

Is Judge Dabney Friedrich a liberal judge? Did Trump appoint this judge? Did this judge rule against Trump?

Is Judge Timothy Kelly a liberal judge? Did Trump appoint this judge? Did this judge rule against Trump?

Chief Justice Roberts has already bitch slapped Trump once. Think he'll do it again? Or do you think he's learned his lesson?

 

[bongsaway]

Post-shutdown negotiations look brutal for Trump

It seems that under no circumstances will Democrats agree to fund a physical wall unless the DACA/Dreamer issue is settled permanently, not a temporary reprieve such as the GOP tried to pass last week. No one in Congress has the wherewithal to support another government shutdown. There is a good chance that any new bill may hinge on semantics … where any reference to a "border wall" is nonexistent and instead "border fence" is the accepted terminology. I would imagine such border fencing (of the style already in use) would be okayed for repair patches and in select places where the CBP says it is critical. I do not foresee any additional hundreds of miles of new border fencing being erected. I believe Trumps White House advisors and lawyers have already explained to Trump that court challenges to any declared "national emergency" would be a certainty and any final disposition remains an uncertain ruling. I have no doubts that Trumps anti-immigration handlers such as Miller, Bannon, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. will prod Trump to go ahead with a "national emergency" declaration anyway. They desperately need a border win before 2020.

Related: Shutdown debacle leaves Trump with stark choices

Should the president declare HIS national emergency, beside nailing shut the GOP coffin he's also adding a hundred pounds of TNT and pushing the plunger. With that said who knows what his fragile ego is capable of doing? I think he's basically lost the support of his senators and if he does try the national emergency I think the senate will have the votes to veto it. My guess, we'll have a compromise both sides will claim they got what they wanted and move on, put it to rest, if his base allows.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't see DACA as an equal trade at this point. The only way I could feel okay about wall funding is by getting our top priority in return for their top priority, which is a comprehensive bill codifying voter rights, including:

• automatic registration
• banning registration purges
• an end to gerrymandering
• an end to voter id laws
• the right for college students to vote regardless of the state they're in
• returning voting rights to all ex-felons
• moving voting day to Saturday and Sunday
• extension of early voting time
• a mandated minimum number of voting stations based on population

And just for good measure, make that a Constitutional amendment so that future Congresses are less able to screw with it. If all of that happened, I could get on board with a wall.

In other words, you want the voting fraud protection act.

 

[btthegreat]

Trump indeed is in a tough spot. How can you deal with people who are despicable liars and political hacks? You can't.
Unless the Democrats who actually still posses their souls stand up to Pelosi and Schumer, the Dems will allow any amount of suffering to the American people and will screw over the dreamers before they let Trump fulfill his campaign promises.
This is about 2020 and if America needs to be torn apart by the Dems in order to get Trump out of office, they will do it.

You can't think like a rational and fair-minded adult who accepts that negotiation means giving and getting in order to compromise.
Dems will not compromise on 2020, which is what this is all about.

And we have far too much TDS going on in the country for Democrat and independent voters to grow a spine and say, "Hey, Dems, we need protection and you were all for border fencing and a whole lot more of it, before Trump got elected. You're lying through your caps! Walls are not immoral and we know this.".

In fact, their base if lurching left along with their leaders.

Here's the deal. We took the House back because voters did not want Trump to bulldoze his priorities through two friendly republican bodies. They wanted a check on republican power. Pelosi's win represents the will of 2018 voters, just as surely as Trump represented the will of 2016 voters. Next time you want compromise with Dems either pick a republican nominee who is not as divisive, and who does not antagonize, lie and break promises, or alternately make sure you get your allies to show up at midterms. You are not owed a wall and you are not owed a House that lays down and begs for a tummy rub from Trump.

 

[btthegreat]

So how much does he want for the 230 miles? $5.7B? That's almost $25M/mile. Too costly.

Wait till you see that actual cost. This estimate is just a down payment to get the ball rolling. Nobody thinks he can buy this and build this for that cost.