JD Vance: Hey!
The guys on top generally get an exception, not having rules and laws apply to you is a core part of the conservative worldview. I mean, just look at how Trump behaves, how he’s a criminal who got immunity from the Supreme Court while ranting all the time about criminals.
“Rules for thee, but not for me.”
Then you need to write more clearly.
The setup was clipped. He was trying to connect with someone threatening to jump off of a bridge.
I was pretty clear. Can’t help you there.
Regardless, your statement about the Supreme Court has always been true. NOW is not a special case.
Still not my point.
Then what is your point? You used “currently” twice but you are not referring to the NOW Supreme Court? Your original statement said nothing about Trump but we are to infer that’s who you were talking about? Your original post talked about checks on Supreme Court ruling but we should have know you were really talking about checks on Trump’s actions as if those are the same thing? Oh and what exactly did you prove?
I’ll tell you what. I’ll agree with you IF over the next four year, the Supreme Court uphold Trump’s actions equivalent to:
Stealing citizen’s gold and making it illegal to own then jacking up the value of it.
Weaponizing the Interstate Commerce Clause to violate personal freedoms
And the biggy all-time abuse of power upheld by any Supreme Court …
Imprisoning American citizens, not for any crime, but based on ethnicity.
Trump does that and I’ll say yes, this SCOTUS is the worst at letting the President flagrantly violate the law and Gyrate was right.
My original statement was to Smapti, who has been insisting in multiple threads that “things won’t be that bad and everyone is overreacting”, and the post I was responding to and quoted referred specifically to Trump. So - again - I have been clear, and you didn’t have to “infer” anything. You merely had to read what I wrote. Oh, and at no point did I claim this was the Worst SCOTUS Ever, so I won’t be “right” in the scenario you’d laid out.
But you’ve built such a lovely strawman. I particularly like the hat.
You didn’t ask me but I’ll attempt an answer.
All politics ultimately come down to who has power and is willing to use it.
If Trump does something that is illegal, will Congress act by impeaching him and removing him from office? With a Republican majority in both halves of Congress, I feel the answer is they will not.
Similarly, I feel the Republican majority in the Supreme Court will not issue a ruling against Trump.
Project 2025 is all about removing officials from the federal bureaucracy that are not loyal to the Republican party.
So Trump can issue an executive order declaring that the federal government can review birth certificates and suspend any that it feels are questionable. Congress and the Supreme Court will whistle and look over their shoulders while he does so. The federal bureaucracy will follow Trump’s orders.
Some states governments will be happy with Trump’s actions. Others will strongly oppose them. But as I noted, politics is about who has more power. And states do not have more power than the federal government. Trump will, without any awareness of the irony, cite the precedent of Eisenhower and Faubus.
Much as it rankles to be perceived as conceding that Mike Pence may NOT have been the worst possible choice for “person-one-heartbeat-away-from-the-Presidency,” Vance is scarier. I fear the Freedumb Caucus could find themselves in a position to manipulate conditions such that the guy is successfully placed behind the Resolute Desk, ready and willing to competently and systematically implement Project 2025.
And even if the states that oppose him can limit the damage he does in those states, all the Republican-run states will still be screwing over millions of people. A patchwork quilt of civil rights violations is still pretty bad.
a.k.a. The Good Old Days
Yeah, I was thinking that when I wrote it. So there’s precedent!
I normally disagree with you on politics but you nailed this 100%. How many years (decades) did the Pubs de facto run the government because they played the hard-core politics and the Dems were the nice ones playing by the rules. As soon as Hakeem Jefferies started playing politics with the SotH elections (mostly by sitting back and letting the Republicans implode) you could tell things were different. No wonder so many Pubs have retire since then.
I think the Supreme Court, in order to appear unbiased, will throw it back on the states. Blue states will not comply and red states will find out through experience that it is a bad idea that only hurts them. Hilarity ensues.
According to Trump they will. But also the Trump federal government will be able to tell them what to do. He’ll end up trying to tell the Blue states what to do while letting the Red states live in Federalism. Hilarity ensues.
Well sure but for his supporters and the FreedumbCaucus, federalism and even individual liberty is not about the state or individual being free to do what they see as best, but about them being free to do What Is The Righteous Thing. “Whether they want/like or not”. So they will only get angrier that not everyone went along.
I agree. While I didn’t agree with Pence’s principles, I at least felt like he had principles that he was living by. With Vance, I don’t see any principles guiding him. He just does whatever benefits him without questioning whether it’s right or wrong.
The only thing I see which distinguishes Vance from Trump is Vance appears to be a little smarter. I think Vance is aware that in order to hold the power which benefits him personally, he needs the country to continue to exist. So Vance would put some effort into keeping the United States functioning (even though he’d be willing to throw out things like democracy and rights).
I don’t see that with Trump. He might destroy the country because he’s too dumb not to.
Even if the Supreme Court rules that he doesn’t have the power to impose his rules on the individual states, there are several precedents for the Feds using the power of the purse strings to get states to go along. Both the national 55 mph speed limit and the drinking age of 21 were largely implemented by the Feds offering money to those states that met the new standards, and withholding those funds from the states that held back.
So, create a new Federal Standard for birth certificates, that can exclude anyone born who can’t prove their parents are both citizens, and then create an incentive to comply. Like, earmark new hospital funding or something related to giving birth for only those states that comply.
Back in the 60s and 70s, Canada had a “Baby Bonus” that paid mothers some money every month for each kid they had. Create this kind of direct funding, but only for states that enforce the new rules. You’ll have lots of new mothers demanding their states comply so that they will be eligible for the bonus.
Remember - if there is no birth certificate then there is no proof of parentage, which makes the child a foundling and therefore a US citizen by default. This is not a course of action Trump or Republicans would pursue.
And then California says, “we’re no longer going to give money into the federal government. We’re going to use it in state.”