…and all the while we’ll be “paying less tax!”, so we’ll … actually come out ahead?!?
Is this how he bankrupted so many casinos?
Good thing that Trump is protecting the US from Canadian drugs.
A CBSA report shows that massive quantities of drugs and guns are pouring into Canada from the US, the largest drug and gun market in the world …
Outrage is performative, but action works. Grievances are being filed. I recently got a copy of the collective grievance letter sent on Friday from the AFGE to my employer’s Labor Employee Relations department (actually, two separate grievance letters - one regarding telework, and the other regarding full-time remote work), and we’ve been advised to also file our own individual grievance letters with our own direct supervisors. We’ve been told to expect a boilerplate grievance letter we can use, so I’m waiting for that.
Since people lose access to their work computers when they get let go, probationary employees have been advised to download all of their electronic personnel files, along with any emails in which someone said something good about them, as those kinds of things can help to counter claims that they were terminated for poor performance. I’m not a probie, but I felt compelled to do the same thing for myself this weekend just in case Elon and the Muskrats decide to also go after more long-in-the-tooth employees.
I mean, to Trump voters that’s a bonus, not a problem. They’ll think “She’s an illegal immigrant, a woman and a Muslim, so if she’s killed it’s better than she deserves.”
The Onion is going to go out of business, because they can’t make up shit that’s any crazier than reality:
But we’re going to celebrate it on April 20 July 29.
Whoa… all that sucking from the D.C. area is going to disrupt the weather more than climate change.
Well it’s like all the guns crossing the southern border. They deviously write “made in america” on the side of them, and then make them tachyonic, so a sub-luminal observer believes the guns are travelling into Mexico.
Some Trump voters yes, others, no.
According to the New York Times article, at least nine of the imprisoned asylum seekers are Christians from a country where Islam is the state religion. We do not know the religion of the woman in question, nor anything of what evidence may or may not exist concerning her immigration status.
When posting something in the “compendium of horrors,” I am thinking/hoping it would be broadly recognized as a bad feature of the current administration, not just by progressives.
Here’s a truly scary thought; I fear for the future
That’s not how it works. She’s from an Islamic country, therefore she’s Islamic and an enemy of humanity. And she’s not from America so she’s an illegal" and therefore an enemy of the US. And she’s a woman and therefore an enemy of God.
The actual facts are beside the point in Trumpland.
Trump has just signed an Executive Order declaring that the Supreme Court is irrelevant. Only the president or the attorney general can interpret the law. The mind just boggles.
From the article:
“President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.”
I know, he can write an Executive Order declaring the sky is green and that doesn’t automatically make it so, but if you haven’t figured out by now that this is a coup and the endgame is to bury the Constitution, you are worse than a fool.
Now let’s see if Roberts and Co. have anything to say about this, because we know that Congress won’t. And if Roberts does deliver a strongly worded objection, will it make any difference?
I would more or less consider that a strong bellwether moment.
If the Supremes go wrong on this - that’s it. Toast.
It would seem that the exclusive club of tin-pot backwater banana republic one party states has expanded it’s membership … and this one is nuclear armed and spoiling for a fight.
I read the executive order “fact sheet” and do not agree with your interpretation. It says that independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission are now under the thumb of the President. I am going by this link:
Or is there something in the executive order that Public Citizen missed?
If by some miracle the Supreme Court seriously stands up to Trump, stopping DJT from ruling by decree on the basis of phony emergencies, legal compliance will become a dramatic issue. So you are correct to be alert for that.
As for Roberts, last month he swore Trump in fully knowing that DJT is unqualified for office by the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Donald had campaigned on the idea of being a day one dictator. Also, the whole Supreme Court apparently believes their job is just to rule on cases, and maybe teach a law school summer class, rather than to, per their oath of office, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” While I agree that the Supreme Court should, in face of Trump’s threats to the constitutional order, do more to defend the Constitution than just decide cases, when I suggested that before the election, the legal professionals on this board were not on my side.:
I think that if Roberts had gone on TV and said that Trump could not run because he had violated his first term oath of office, that would have been better accepted by the country than if, after he was elected, the Supreme Court stops Trump from carrying out campaign promises. I hope I am wrong, but I think their chance to support and defend the Constitution ended about fourteen months ago.
IANA lawyer, American, or constitutional expert, so does “federal regulators or bureaucrats” incorporate and include the Supreme Court?
No, and this is not an attempt to sideline the Supreme Court.
The idea here is to centralize executive branch legal interpretations in the White House or the Justice Department, rather than in the different departments.
The effect will be to have legal interpretation under the thumb of political appointees rather than subject-matter expert lawyers in the various agencies. Which is bad enough in itself and certainly a move towards “unitary executive”-style tyranny, but it’s not “an executive order that can erase the Supreme Court” like @Toxgoddess 's post seemed to be saying.
The swearing-in was of course purely ceremonial. Roberts had no power to stop Trump from becoming president. But he heads an institution that does have the power to limit Trump’s abuses and whether the Supreme Court does so or not in the weeks ahead is vitally important to the future of the country. Specifically, whether they will support or overturn lower court injunctions against some of Trump’s illegal actions.
As I said elsewhere, the press failed in its obligation to prevent the tyranny of the executive branch under Trump, Congress is totally under his control, so the Supreme Court is the last and only hope of any kind of check on his otherwise unlimited power.
Ok thanks for that. But it does look bad.