That’s part of the problem. Perhaps we should have been calling him the “Piddler in Chief.”
When did “Schadenfreude” become synonymous with old man diaper porn? Please stop. Spoiler the TMI or something.
While I can understand that reaction, the fact is it’s not just Donald’s humiliation we’re, er, Feeling Sad about. It’s also the humiliation of his followers. They are so intent on claiming that he is The Most Manly Man and the Most Impressive Leader Ever-----and the contrast of that delusion with the reality of Donald is just so … sad for them. Really, really sad for them.
That’s what people are telling me. I don’t know.
I’m putting this in the Schadenfreude thread because they surely thought this was a given but it turned out to be a dud.
Pity it didn’t happen before Wussolini lost his tweety-voice.
Thank you for reviving the thread, I was missing my daily dose of Schadenfreude.
Me too! I love reading about schaudenfruede in the morning!
Here’s some lovely shadenfreude for y’all. Fun article, but really, the title and pull quote says it all:
Love that pull quote!
Pfft. The first sentence in that article says he’s writing a book. He most certainly is not - but I wonder what sucker is?
I’m guessing NOT his ‘Art of the Deal’ ghostwriter 
Unfortunately, they kinda punted on their decision by lamely ruling only on a narrow procedural question that didn’t at all address the merits. They ruled that the states (and two individuals) bringing the case didn’t have standing.
So if the states don’t have standing, who would?
Does this decision, even though it’s narrow, effectively leave the ACA alone now?
Heh. From the Vanity Fair link - " Meanwhile, Trump, who says he’s been “writing like crazy”—a surprise, given that (a) many of his past works were ghostwritten, and (b) his own literary inclinations are somewhat in doubt."
When you’re crazy, you write crazy. Not like crazy.
I envision a lot of incomprehensible scribbles on the back of Mar-A-Lardo napkins. “Joe Biden has wind mill cancer!!1! Put in book!!”
IANAL, but from what I’ve read, no one. AIUI, the ruling basically says you can’t go to court over a fine of $0 - there is no injury to you or any one else, so there is no standing to go before a judge.
So, the Republicans… in getting rid of the penalty… saved Obamacare?
Again?
At least it’s a relief, if not quite full-fledged shadenfreude, that the current Supreme Court has turned out not to be a simple rubber stamp for trumpism.
Maybe it’s that guy from here who does the scary accurate Trump parodies? (Smapti? I think?)
The below is my non-lawyer opinion based on reading the actual SC opinions.
The way I read it, the reason for denying “standing” was that the underlying argument — the idea that the state or any individual suffered damages caused by the law change, which eliminated the penalty for not buying insurance- was ridiculous. Ridiculous because the very idea that eliminating the penalty for not buying insurance would cause more people to buy insurance (which the states might have to partially subsidize) was completely counterintuitive and absurd. And stupid.
It didn’t seem like that much of a dodge to me, frankly — the reason for lawsuits is to redress an injury and the Supremes majority seemed to want to remind everyone that you can’t just ask the Supremes to declare something unconstitutional just so you can run around saying “this is unconstitutional”. They said as much in the ruling.
It seems like a handy precedent to set, one that might come in handy in the future. I’m not too bothered by their failure to rule on the constitutionality of the $0 mandate, that’s not a core liberal issue by any means- in fact, it was a piece of Republican performance art - let’s make an unconstitutional change to the law, then take it through the court system to get the whole thing thrown out. I’m glad they basically rejected the scheme instead of ruling on the $0 mandate.
Usually, I think that refusing to rule on standing is a bit of a cop-out, but I don’t agree in this case. I think they took an important stand against political theatre.
The minority opinion basically came down to “I don’t like this law yet I’ve had to vote not to kill it twice already, I’m done with “rescuing” it (rescuing it from destruction by frivolous lawsuit, I guess). The minority does think the law itself is unconstitutional because it damages red states by requiring them to spend some of their own money on poor people - which is an interpretation that wouldn’t bode well for Medicaid or public education,BTW.
Thomas voted with the majority but signed on to part of the Alito rant that masqueraded as a legal opinion - I assume he did this, at least in part, so his Q-crazed wife wouldn’t beat him up.
I think the majority shot down what was basically a political stunt, and set some precedent that might help shoot down similar stunts in the future.