Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Vaktathi wrote: The stuff where people block transit gets everyone irked very quickly and isn't usually what most protestors are out to do. Again, looking at the people in Portland doing things like blocking MAX trains and the like, few people were sympathetic and it was largely the same type of people looking for an excuse to be jerkwads just for its own sake, and that's where a majority of the police intervention occurred, often accompanied by clapping from everyone else.
There's a time and place for protests like that, but they need to be big, organized, and known events, and such worked during the civil rights protests of the 50's and 60's, but small groups of people deciding to just block a commuter rail line with people trying to get home from work as a spur-of-the-moment thing just pisses people off.
I think it would be fun to unleash pro wrestlers with folding chairs on the protestors who block traffic. It would be an entertaining spectacle.
cuda1179 wrote: So, I heard about this on the radio on my drive home. There is a rumor that Trump will be enforcing a little known part of legal immigration law. Most legal immigrants need a sponsor here in the US. When they sponsor an immigrant they vow to be financially responsible for them, however this provision has never really been enforced. If it does get enforced it means that if an immigrant cant pay for parking tickets, runs up a hospital bill, has to pay fines he can't afford, or defaults on his credit card the sponsor is financially liable, just like he said he would be.
That's how it is here, mostly to make sure people think twice about marying the waitress at the resort during a trip south.
It doesn't really destroy the fabric of society, as far as policy, but it doesn't seem to do much more than put new divorcees in even more economic trouble, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: I think it would be fun to unleash pro wrestlers with folding chairs on the protestors who block traffic. It would be an entertaining spectacle.
You would finally get to see pro wrestlers in a fight, so, true!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/05 05:37:43
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Well now that Trump has been overruled for trying to remove the ban on his E.O, I wonder if they will be trying to find more loopholes and court battles, or whether the administration will see it as a lost cause?
Whether Trump is in the right or wrong, his administration is clearing up a lot of vague loopholes between White House E.O etc vs State lawyers. However I may be wrong in worrying, but the Judges court ruling in Seattle could be detrimental down the line. This could mean the White House has limited powers to impose law whereas, conversely a State could become overpowered by not liking it and overruling the White House. Now this may be an exaggeration, but it could start a trend of States frustrating reforms and laws for future Presidents and their administrations down the line.
Amendment: It seems this argument isn't quite over with a deadline of Monday to provide better arguments for both sides.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/05 09:56:40
Sentinel1 wrote: This could mean the White House has limited powers to impose law whereas, conversely a State could become overpowered by not liking it and overruling the White House.
There should always be a limit to one person imposing laws. Always. All the court has the power to do is to interpret and implement the law as it exists. This is not a state overruling the White House, but a court saying the law breached the constitution. This is holding the president to account and forcing him to follow the law.
CNN wrote an interesting article on the real danger of Trump and the way he is pulling apart the mechanisms that are there to hold his power in check.
On Saturday morning, President Donald Trump may have unleashed his most bone-chilling tweet -- at least to those who believe the United States should not become a Trump-led dictatorship. And I don't make that comment simply to be provocative or without giving it a great deal of thought. Our democracy is far more fragile than some might grasp and Trump is engaging in a concerned effort to undermine the workings of it.
Here is Trump's truly jaw-dropping tweet from Saturday morning: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"
Why is this so concerning? It's OK to argue about whether the judge should or shouldn't have issued this order. But Trump is apparently attempting to delegitimize our federal judiciary by calling Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush-appointed judge, a "so-called" judge while arguing that his decision is "ridiculous."
Let's be blunt, because the stakes demand it: An independent federal judiciary is our last, best hope at preventing Trump from violating the US Constitution and illegally grabbing power. And Trump has to understand that, hence his attempt to undermine it.
The President truly appears to be leading a master class in transforming the United States into a dictatorship. Trump -- and it's fair to assume it is by design -- has sought to undermine anyone or anything that tries to counter him.
First, Trump has made the media -- which is a watchdog of our presidents -- a focus of his attacks, calling them "dishonest," claiming they peddle "fake news" and even recently labeling them "the opposition party." The practical result is that when the media calls out Trump's lies and presents objective facts to counter him, his followers will likely dismiss the media reports and instead side with Trump.
Then Trump went after our intelligence agencies because he didn't agree with their views on Russia's involvement in our recent election. Trump lashed out, calling these agencies, charged with gathering information for our national security, "disgraceful" and accusing them of leaking information, comparing it to "something that Nazi Germany would have done."
Trump has clearly begun the process of destroying their credibility so if they come forward in the future to oppose his views or offer facts to undermine his position, he will tell his followers they also aren't to be believed.
And now Trump, who attacked a judge during his campaign, citing his Mexican heritage, has turned on our judiciary again. But this time it's far more disturbing given Trump is not a candidate, but president of the United States. The rationale must be assumed to be the same, namely that Trump wants to delegitimize the judiciary so that court decisions Trump disagrees with will be viewed by his followers as at the least horribly partisan, or at worst invalid.
It's frightening to think where this could lead. For example, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the historic case of Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in our public schools was unconstitutional, it took then-President Dwight Eisenhower to implement that decision.
Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus had refused to follow the Court's decision and instead surrounded an all-white high school in his state with National Guard troops to prevent its integration. Eisenhower responded by federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to enforce the Supreme Court's seminal decision and allow black students to attend the school.
Would Trump do the same if he had passionately disagreed with the Court's decision or would he simply ignore it while attacking the legitimacy of our judiciary, sparking a constitutional crisis? And would certain Trump-supporting federal agency heads, or even federal officers, refuse to follow court orders (or at least do it very slowly) because Trump has convinced them the federal judiciary's decisions cannot be trusted?
There's no doubt Trump supporters are very loyal to him personally. Keep in mind that Trump infamously bragged that he could even shoot a person on Fifth Avenue in New York and his supporters would still be on his side. And according to a CNN/ORC poll, while Trump has only a 44% approval rating overall, 90% of Republicans think he's doing a good job.
The Founding Fathers enshrined a separation of powers in our Constitution so that there would be inherent checks and balances to avoid a situation where a president could become a king. After all, the Founders had just risked life and limb rebelling against the King of England.
Trump's concerted attacks to delegitimize our media, our intelligence community and now our federal judiciary would have no doubt alarmed them. And it should be terrifying to every American who truly believes in our Constitution and in the promise of America.
I found this after seeing an advert for the NYT on Facebook and seeing the comments attacking them for lieing, printing fiction etc. We have reached a point where people are dismissing anything they don't agree with as a lie and people agree with them. It used to be that people would try and find alternative information or ad different narrative, but now we have reached a point where people, mainly hard right wing, will dismiss even verifiable facts as a lie. Trump managed to do this with the inauguration crowds, which is relatively minor, but also very much verifiable. Think what he would do with something he really wants hidden that is based on conflicting accounts and slowly appearing facts.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Sentinel1 wrote: Well now that Trump has been overruled for trying to remove the ban on his E.O, I wonder if they will be trying to find more loopholes and court battles, or whether the administration will see it as a lost cause?
Whether Trump is in the right or wrong, his administration is clearing up a lot of vague loopholes between White House E.O etc vs State lawyers. However I may be wrong in worrying, but the Judges court ruling in Seattle could be detrimental down the line. This could mean the White House has limited powers to impose law whereas, conversely a State could become overpowered by not liking it and overruling the White House. Now this may be an exaggeration, but it could start a trend of States frustrating reforms and laws for future Presidents and their administrations down the line.
Amendment: It seems this argument isn't quite over with a deadline of Monday to provide better arguments for both sides.
There's no final verdict yet. The latest rejection was Trumps people applying for the temporal restraining order to be lifted but being denied.
As I understand things, the EO is technically still in effect, but it has been temporarily suspended by the district court and will be so until the case against the EO can be properly adjudicated.
I don't think any of this is new per say. I'm sure cases like this has come up before. I believe more than a few of Obamas EO's got struck down or had to be changed, for example.
It's just that the White House administrations usually have done more research and have been more careful in writing their EO's so that they are not as susceptible to be challenged by States.
.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/05 11:05:25
Why, oh why, oh why am I posting on this thread again.... I could just not, and my "Threads subscribed to by Compel" list would just be so much less stressful...
Oh well....
I did read the "so-called Judge" tweet and, yeah, once again, I found myself feeling really, well, rather concerned. In the UK at least, using the term "So-called" is really kinda a big deal when it's said by politicians, and the media.
Specifically, the "so-called Islamic State." And like the article said, this is a very precisely, carefully chosen term. The idea is a specific term used to demonstrate their lack of legitimacy.
To then use this phrase against ones own Government structures. It's well, not good...
Steve steveson wrote: [Let's be blunt, because the stakes demand it: An independent federal judiciary is our last, best hope at preventing Trump from violating the US Constitution and illegally grabbing power. And Trump has to understand that, hence his attempt to undermine it.
I don't think Trump has to understand it at all (he is frankly too dim witted at this point for me to believe he understands anything). All Trump has to do is continue being a far right mouthpiece. His understanding is irrelevant. The Right has been trying to bring down the courts or convert them into an ideological body since Roe v. Wade, and will continue to do so because they see no value in an independent court system.
Just to be clear, that's CNNs words, not mine. The quote makes it look like mine. I don't disagree with them in broad terms, but they are not my words.
Compel wrote: Why, oh why, oh why am I posting on this thread again.... I could just not, and my "Threads subscribed to by Compel" list would just be so much less stressful...
Oh well....
I did read the "so-called Judge" tweet and, yeah, once again, I found myself feeling really, well, rather concerned. In the UK at least, using the term "So-called" is really kinda a big deal when it's said by politicians, and the media.
Specifically, the "so-called Islamic State." And like the article said, this is a very precisely, carefully chosen term. The idea is a specific term used to demonstrate their lack of legitimacy.
To then use this phrase against ones own Government structures. It's well, not good...
At all.
Ish. Yes, you are correct that in the U.K. a politician talking about a "so called judge" would be calling their legitimacy in to question, which would be huge. The Islamic state thing is really a more correct use of the term. "So called" because they don't really have a name. Isis is not really a cohesive group or even ideology. More a loose collection of fighters who believe in a caliphate and brining it about by force. Many do not call themselves Isis, and those that do haven't joined anything, just said "I fight for Isis".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/05 17:06:08
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Kilkrazy wrote: It is being reported that there are Trump supporters demonstrating against the suspension of the travel ban.
Relapse said something about pro wrestlers and folding chairs. I wouldn't mind replacing those by a pack of rabid pit-bulls and badgers with this crowd.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
I thought the SCotUS Justices couldn't be replaced, thus FDR's plan to "pack the court" with extra judges, to shift the balance.
In theory, Trump could do the same but as you say, Trump couldn't get away with that today. FDR would barely have gotten away with his plan if it had came down to it and he, at at that moment, was magnitudes more popular than Trump is now.
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
I thought the SCotUS Justices couldn't be replaced, thus FDR's plan to "pack the court" with extra judges, to shift the balance.
In theory, Trump could do the same but as you say, Trump couldn't get away with that today. FDR would barely have gotten away with his plan if it had came down to it and he, at at that moment, was magnitudes more popular than Trump is now.
Probably. That's the dangerous bit. He is forming a cult of personality around him. He may not be able to do anything, but there nothing you can be 100% sure of. At the moment we are reliant on the GOP smacking him down if he goes to far. Will they do that if hey think it will loose them votes?
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
I thought the SCotUS Justices couldn't be replaced, thus FDR's plan to "pack the court" with extra judges, to shift the balance.
In theory, Trump could do the same but as you say, Trump couldn't get away with that today. FDR would barely have gotten away with his plan if it had came down to it and he, at at that moment, was magnitudes more popular than Trump is now.
Probably. That's the dangerous bit. He is forming a cult of personality around him. He may not be able to do anything, but there nothing you can be 100% sure of. At the moment we are reliant on the GOP smacking him down if he goes to far. Will they do that if hey think it will loose them votes?
You got a point there. Much of the normal political realities have shown not to apply to Trump.
d-usa wrote: One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
The SCOTUS ruling itself cannot, however if the executive branch continues, subsequent actions brought before courts based on those rulings can result in cessation orders or contempt charges, things that carry the backing of law enforcement agencies.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is being reported that there are Trump supporters demonstrating against the suspension of the travel ban.
Relapse said something about pro wrestlers and folding chairs. I wouldn't mind replacing those by a pack of rabid pit-bulls and badgers with this crowd.
I was thinking it would be glorious if the next time protestors blocked traffic, these guys could come running in with a blast of pyrotechnics and thundering music to clean house.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
d-usa wrote: One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
The SCOTUS ruling itself cannot, however if the executive branch continues, subsequent actions brought before courts based on those rulings can result in cessation orders or contempt charges, things that carry the backing of law enforcement agencies.
Cessation orders could also be ignored as well, and contempt charges would probably be something of a constitutional crisis when the SCOTUS can throw the sitting POTUS in jail. It's certainly unknown territory because presidents haven't given cause to explore the issue. They know the role of the court and respect the checks and balances of or system.
Being held in Contempt of SCOTUS is a pretty rare thing in general it appears:
d-usa wrote: the SCOTUS can throw the sitting POTUS in jail.
That's a thing that can happen? I would really like to see this right now .
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.
Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.
I assume it's not even that. They can say whatever they wish in a personal capacity, they just have limits on what they can say in the capacity as a representative of that organisation, like many other organisations?
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
d-usa wrote: I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.
Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.
It's a silly rule. Why do we as a society need to shut up pastors and preachers and priests, using tax exemption as a carrot and the lack of it as a stick. It's so hostile to freedom of speech.
For my part, they should just pay taxes like any other business, whether they promote politics or not. But I know that will never happen.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/05 21:56:05
d-usa wrote: I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.
Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.
What part of the 1st requires you to pay taxes?
I can see the angle you are coming from. I think the way you are wording it is dangerous though.
A similar point of view could be with the US Military. My freedom of speech is curtailed. When I enlisted, I gave away a number of my rights, not the least of which, those protected by the first. That was a contract I signed though, between me and the government.
Does that same contract exist between religious organizations and the government? Does one such thing even exist? Should it? I didn't give up my rights for tax breaks. Sure I get them, on occasion (I have to be in a region where getting shot at is not unexpected), but the reason for the restriction to my rights has more to do with the nature of my service then anything else. The mission cannot be completed at times if I didn't have restrictions placed on my free speech, for example.
You can't put the same litmus test up against religious organizations, IMO. Nor does the Constitution provide said right. Article 1, Section 8 is what gives the government the power to curtail the rights of the military. Where does it do that for religious orgs?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/05 22:06:28
d-usa wrote: One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
The SCOTUS ruling itself cannot, however if the executive branch continues, subsequent actions brought before courts based on those rulings can result in cessation orders or contempt charges, things that carry the backing of law enforcement agencies.
I thought the issue was that the law enforcement agencies themselves were contemptuous of the court.
.
