Jump to content

UPDATE: Trump signs funding bill and declares national emergency, promptly admits he didn't actually need to declare a national emergency


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

Trump Declares National Emergency to Build Border Wall https://nyti.ms/2V2h1dT

Quote

The declaration will enable Mr. Trump to divert $3.6 billion budgeted for military construction projects to the border wall, White House officials said. Mr. Trump will also use more traditional presidential budgetary discretion to tap $2.5 billion from counternarcotics programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund.

Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Is anyone watching his “speech”? I can’t watch it where I am but everyone on Twitter is saying he’s coming across as very unhinged, even by his usual standards.

Yeah it'd be almost funny if it wasn't so concerning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

This is going to be a kinda fun court case to follow, at least until SCOTUS rules in favor of the president.

 

 

 

I have no idea how SCOTUS would vote. Roberts can be an interesting wild card. Everyone here was convinced the ACA was fucked in 2012, and I don't know if anyone expected him to rule as he did on the recent abortion case. It's overall a conservative record but it's less conservative than when he started IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I have no idea how SCOTUS would vote. Roberts can be an interesting wild card. Everyone here was convinced the ACA was fucked in 2012, and I don't know if anyone expected him to rule as he did on the recent abortion case. It's overall a conservative record but it's less conservative than when he started IIRC.

 

 

Most likely in favor of Trump if the Muslim ban is any indication.

 

There are two points that would probably decide the thing.....

 

 

1. They decided the Muslim ban by accepting the pretextual justification from the Trump administration while ignoring substantial past comments on the grounds that as long as the order itself had a legally defensible effect it was ok. On its face, this sounds a hell of a lot like the judgement they are going to have to make here.

 

2. However, since there seems to be legitimate worry on the Right about what this precedent would mean longterm, SCOTUS may find some technicality to rule that the "take the pres at his word and respect his authoritah" applied to one but not the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...