Rise of Fascism in the United States [SPLIT]

[NotHardUp1]

I'm not sure how long it will take before Americans (not just the people who voted for him) realize that they have given the keys to absolute power to an insane man who is determined to use the government to punish the people who have opposed him.

He just cannot get past his small hands.

His name-calling of Senator Warren as "Pocahontas" from the rostrum of the House was undiluted pettiness, confirming is sole objective is vendetta.

And his executive direction (he still doesn't know the President is not the CEO), to repeal the CHIPs Act is naked evidence of his overt attempts to undo anything possible that Clinton, Obama, or Biden have left as legacies. He imagines himself as the 2nd male lion who kills the cubs of the first.

And if anyone knows anything about sloppy seconds, it's Donald Trump.

 

[NotHardUp1]

And we will still even have a couple of gaslighters on JUB who will say that it is a shame but if the Dems and the left hadn't asked for it, the Trump Regime wouldn't have to beat the country up.

Not sure who those would be, but their response in Congress tonight should have been stronger. Green shouting that Trump had no mandate, and being ejected, was too little. They should have orchestrated a series of rebuttals. They didn't have to know his exact words (if he didn't stick to the published speech) in order to know which items would come up. They didn't. Sitting like tombstones doesn't play well while your opponent, president or not, is still on the campaign trail in front of you, assaulting verbally your fellow senators, assaulting Biden, and upending world trade. Depending on the televised response afterwards, which few will watch, is too litte.

PLUS, his illegal actions are too great, and he knows he can delay cases getting to the Supreme Court for so long that he'll already have done the damage.

Vendetta. His goal will always be vendetta. He dresses it up because his handlers have ambitions, but his only goal is to vindicate himself from prior defeats.

The Democrats bragged that their women would wear pink. Only a few of them did. So, no caucus even on such a simple protest. The party is bordering on defunct. They'll suffer from Hakim Jeffries' whimpered "we can't DO anything" for a long, long time.

 

[KaraBulut]

And his executive direction (he still doesn't know the President is not the CEO), to repeal the CHIPs Act is naked evidence of his overt attempts to undo anything possible that Clinton, Obama, or Biden have left as legacies. He imagines himself as the 2nd male lion who kills the cubs of the first.

One of Trump's patterns is that he likes to "repeal" things and then recreate the same thing to take credit for it. The best example if NAFTA. He ran on repealing NAFTA, then signed the USMCA which was the same agreement with some updates and modernizations. And of course, now he's complaining about how awful USMCA is and he's violating the agreement that he insisted upon by imposing tariffs on Mexico and Canada.

If I could hope for anything to come out of Trump's EOs is legislative or judicial responses that get rid of the abuse of EOs. It's become the norm for Presidents to try to "command" or use EOs as substitutions for Congressional legislation, partially because of a growth of Executive encroachment on Legislative power but largely because Congress has become increasingly complacent and slow to act upon issues.

In the past, Presidents at least tried to come up with legislative figleafs to justify an executive order. Trump's EOs read like a Biblical decree from a King, lacking any foundation in law or justification in Constitutional power allocated to the Executive.

 

[rareboy]

Another set-back for Trump seizing the power of the purse.

The SC rejects the White House attempt to seize 2 billion in USAID funding.

But way too close. This should have been a unanimous decision and tells me that one day the SC will basically nullify Congress.

MSN

 

[Norri]

I wouldn’t have expected a unanimous decision with this court with anything concerning Trump but 5-4 is disappointing. I was hoping for 6-3, Kavanaugh won’t be of much help in future cases.

 

[KaraBulut]

I wouldn’t have expected a unanimous decision with this court with anything concerning Trump but 5-4 is disappointing. I was hoping for 6-3, Kavanaugh won’t be of much help in future cases.

There was a time when a decision like this would have been 9-0 (or 8-1 because of Uncle Thomas).

Most things that Biden is accused of doing or not doing are campaign propaganda but his failure to address the Federalist Society's buyout of the Federal Court system was a big mistake.

 

[rareboy]

[Quote Post: Removed]

Not even remotely on topic for this thread. Please stop trying to derail threads.

Anyway...in the real world, pushback from ACLU.

And given how some of Trump's other efforts to personally dictate on DEI are failing in the courts...this one will be a slam dunk.

 

[NotHardUp1]

One of Trump's patterns is that he likes to "repeal" things and then recreate the same thing to take credit for it. The best example if NAFTA. He ran on repealing NAFTA, then signed the USMCA which was the same agreement with some updates and modernizations. And of course, now he's complaining about how awful USMCA is and he's violating the agreement that he insisted upon by imposing tariffs on Mexico and Canada.

If I could hope for anything to come out of Trump's EOs is legislative or judicial responses that get rid of the abuse of EOs. It's become the norm for Presidents to try to "command" or use EOs as substitutions for Congressional legislation, partially because of a growth of Executive encroachment on Legislative power but largely because Congress has become increasingly complacent and slow to act upon issues.

In the past, Presidents at least tried to come up with legislative figleafs to justify an executive order. Trump's EOs read like a Biblical decree from a King, lacking any foundation in law or justification in Constitutional power allocated to the Executive.

The carte blanche use of "emergency" executive powers is an easy case for the SCOTUS to judge. If they allow the measures that he has willy nilly declared emergencies, then they are willfully undercutting the legislative branch.

As I said before, we are mirroring the decline of the Roman state. The Senate became feeble, and allowed the Caesars as tribunes to rise too far, becoming emperors.

We have similar lazy Senators now. The bobbleheads behind Trump during his harangue were pathetic.

 

[KaraBulut]

The carte blanche use of "emergency" executive powers is an easy case for the SCOTUS to judge. If they allow the measures that he has willy nilly declared emergencies, then they are willfully undercutting the legislative branch.

As I said before, we are mirroring the decline of the Roman state. The Senate became feeble, and allowed the Caesars as tribunes to rise too far, becoming emperors.

We have similar lazy Senators now. The bobbleheads behind Trump during his harangue were pathetic.

It's another one of the post-Nixon reforms that wasn't strong enough to prevent Presidential abuse. Congress can terminate a Presidential declared emergency but the termination requires the President to sign the termination bill passed by both houses of Congress.

It would have been better to require Congress to agree to extensions after 30 days, instead of requiring a vote to end the state of emergency.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's hard to blame the decline on Senators. The decline is in the electorate, since we're the ones that are sending inept and incompetent people like Marsha Blackburn and Tommy Tuberville to the Senate.

One of the justifications for unlimited Senate incumbency was the time that it takes for a Senator to learn how government works and to accumulate enough tenure to chair committees, etc. Watching the Senate fail to impeach Trump the last time and to rubber stamp so many unqualified nominees this time has just convinced me even more that term limits on consecutive terms is what it will take.

 

[NotHardUp1]

It's another one of the post-Nixon reforms that wasn't strong enough to prevent Presidential abuse. Congress can terminate a Presidential declared emergency but the termination requires the President to sign the termination bill passed by both houses of Congress.

FFS

 

[rareboy]

It's another one of the post-Nixon reforms that wasn't strong enough to prevent Presidential abuse. Congress can terminate a Presidential declared emergency but the termination requires the President to sign the termination bill passed by both houses of Congress.

It would have been better to require Congress to agree to extensions after 30 days, instead of requiring a vote to end the state of emergency.

National Emergencies Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's hard to blame the decline on Senators. The decline is in the electorate, since we're the ones that are sending inept and incompetent people like Marsha Blackburn and Tommy Tuberville to the Senate.

One of the justifications for unlimited Senate incumbency was the time that it takes for a Senator to learn how government works and to accumulate enough tenure to chair committees, etc. Watching the Senate fail to impeach Trump the last time and to rubber stamp so many unqualified nominees this time has just convinced me even more that term limits on consecutive terms is what it will take.

We can trace a lot of the decline to Mark Burnett and the creation of artificially scripted 'reality' television for softening up the brains of American voters.

This lust for 'drama' and slavering over manufactured celebrities shifted an entire generations understanding of politics.

And maybe it actually started back in the days of McCarthy where theatre replaced due diligence and truth and when Kennedys became media stars and not just public servants.

But there has been an inexorable shift in US politics from public service to public spectacle and in this way, it may be very much like the fall of the Republic in Rome and then later the early decline of the first generations of imperial Rome.

 

[KaraBulut]

We can trace a lot of the decline to Mark Burnett and the creation of artificially scripted 'reality' television for softening up the brains of American voters.

And maybe it actually started back in the days of McCarthy where theatre replaced due diligence and truth and when Kennedys became media stars and not just public servants.

These things that you mention have one thing in common: television.

And what television started, social media is accelerating.

 

[rareboy]

And John Roberts and Uncle Thomas are laughing.

 

[Norri]

Under the SCOTUS decision McDonnell v US the above is not enough to charge bribery. The Roberts Court has been chipping away at government corruption for a while now and Trump pocketing the 5 mil in and of itself proves nothing.

I can smell the smoke and see the fire but all John Roberts sees is smoke.

 

[Norri]

And another thing concerning the current court, in his decent from yesterday’s decision Sam Alito wrote “Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably loose forever) 2 billion dollars of taxpayer dollars.”

I heard that line again on tv today and I have a couple of beefs here. First it wasn’t a single district court judge the SCOTUS gave it their stamp of approval and that’s why the payments must be made. Also Alito never complained when district court Texas judges made sweeping nationwide rulings such as banning abortion via pills but then he agreed with that one.

But my larger beef is with his concern with the amount of money being spent, this isn’t a policy discussion this is about the law and in my understanding of the law the amount of money should have no bearing on how the law is applied. If it’s legal at 2 million dollars it should be legal at 2 billion unless there is a legal reason and I don’t see one here.

I suppose this is my real beef the current court created out of whole cloth it’s “Major question doctrine” which says if the money involved is significant then different, more strict, rules apply and again that sounds like a policy position not a legal one.

The court should be content staying in its legal lane and check their policy preferences at the court door.

 

[KaraBulut]

Under the SCOTUS decision McDonnell v US the above is not enough to charge bribery. The Roberts Court has been chipping away at government corruption for a while now and Trump pocketing the 5 mil in and of itself proves nothing.

I can smell the smoke and see the fire but all John Roberts sees is smoke.

Exactly.

All a donor has to do is say, "It's a gift and I don't expect anything in return" and it's perfectly legal under that SCOTUS decision.

 

[KaraBulut]

And another thing concerning the current court, in his decent from yesterday’s decision Sam Alito wrote “Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably loose forever) 2 billion dollars of taxpayer dollars.”

You meant, "dissent".

The answer is, "Yes, when the Congress of the United States directs the government to spend 2 billion dollars of taxpayer money".

It's a no-brainer for a Federal judge to enforce the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which says that a President can't delay or permanently cancel federal funding once approved by Congress.

Alito is being disingenuous. He made no similar statement when Federal judges like Aileen Cannon or Matthew Kaczmarek tried to impose similar orders.

 

[Norri]

Alito is being disingenuous. He made no similar statement when Federal judges like Aileen Cannon or Matthew Kaczmarek tried to impose similar orders.

No he did not, and as much it pains me to admit it Clarance Thomas did complain about district court judges making national rules and that was from a case where he favored the outcome.

Maybe Thomas is the ideological one and Alito is the political one.

And yes I did mean dissent.

 

[KaraBulut]

No he did not, and as much it pains me to admit it Clarance Thomas did complain about district court judges making national rules and that was from a case where he favored the outcome.

Maybe Thomas is the ideological one and Alito is the political one.

And yes I did mean dissent.

Clarence Thomas is occasionally correct, like a stopped clock that displays the correct time twice a day.

Fun Fact: each Supreme Court justice oversees a particular group of Federal District Courts. This dates back to the days when the Supreme Court justices traveled around to Courts across the colonies to hear cases in person. Guess who oversees the 5th and 11th Circuits where Cannon and Kaczmarek are Federal Judges?

 

[rareboy]

Just some advice.