Breaking: Trump announces end of fight to add citizenship question to census.
So, who’s he been talking to?
Why does this seem vaguely threatening?
It played better in the original German.
Isn’t this essentially the same thing as his Advisory Commission on Election Integrity?
A couple of years ago his administration tried to get voter information from each state, and in most cases the states refused to comply. I can’t imagine this would get any better traction. He’s simply performing for his base so he looks like a tough guy on stage, and in a year or so it will be completely forgotten.
On the other hand, he’s not going through the States this time.
Not a constitutional scholar, but the one emoluments case that has withstood the “standing” challenge to date is the one brought by Congress itself. Since Congress is constitutionally tasked with determining what is or is not an emolument, it has standing to bring a case.
That one is in the discovery process right now. Much to Trump’s dismay.
ISTR having been notified that disparate federal agencies simply do NOT share information about the folks they serve (if they did, filling out a single form [albeit likely a multi-page one] would suffice to get you signed up for every government activity that you might need to avail yourself of). On reflection, this might be indicative of bureaucrats jealousy guarding their fiefdoms, but I somehow formed the impression that such cross-referencing is actually forbidden by federal law.
Which doesn’t in itself rule out fiefdom-protecting as a strong motivator in getting the law(s) passed.
Of course, I COULD have just made the whole thing up in my head. Anybody know whether federal law permits this?
Donald Trump, may I take this opportunity to tell you to go fuck yourself? Also, ha-ha. I would say that I hate to kick you when you’re down, but I don’t at all! So fuck off, I hope the results of your failed attempt at fucking up the census have you real bummed out. Fuck off. Have a fuck off day! 
I thought one of the persons who filed suit was someone who owned a hotel or restaurant that competed with the one that Trump owns in Washington. Doesn’t that person have standing? Does anyone remember what happened to that case?
And the Emoluments Clause says that the president (and others) can’t “accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” So, hypothetically, what if President Obama had been knighted by the UK queen as “Baron of Locksley” while in office? That seems to be a clear violation of that clause but I’m not harmed in any real way by him having done so. So does that mean I wouldn’t have standing to sue?
I am so sorry. I am sure there is help for this condition. Have you considered drinking?
You know, if we just cut down all of the trees, there wouldn’t be a problem.
I try not to get stressed about this stuff, but I fucking hate Trump. Census, concentration camps, raping, harassment, corruption, lying, North Korea, trade wars, racism. It goes on and on. I hate him.
There’s also the special loathing that springs from having an odious moron in a position of power over us.
People don’t hate the village idiot, but they do tend to hate the self-important dim-bulb boss. It’s only human.
That’s the one under discussion by jsc1953 in Post #34336 that just got dismissed with prejudice by a 3-judge panel of the 4th Circuit on the basis of standing. As he points out, it was brought by the AGs of D.C. and Maryland (on behalf of the affected hotels).
No word yet if the Plaintiffs will ask for a review before the full court, which is their right. My understanding is that the 3 judges on the panel were the 3 most conservative judges on the 4th Circuit.
As for your question re standing to sue if President Obama had been knighted by the Queen of England, you’re probably correct. I don’t see how you personally would have standing. IANAL, however, and this is just a lay person’s notion.
You’re aware the Republicans sought to sue President Obama under the Emoluments Clause for having received the Nobel Peace Prize, right (Reuters)? This DOJ OLC Memo determined it was not an emolument, but I think Republicans sued him anyway. Jones v. Obama, 2010 WL 11509096, 3 (D. C.D.Cal. 2010) However, I can’t find any pleadings attached to that case. It was thrown out for lack of standing, AIUI.
I’ve run out of words to describe how much I hate, loathe, despise, detest, abhor, etc. Trump for all the reasons you list, but I will 100x the feelings for the Republicans who continue to turn a blind eye to his grotesque impulses in the interest of pursuing their goal of global kakistocracy.
I laughed when I saw the thread about how Republicans could induce Democrats to vote Republican. They can’t.
I’m so glad and grateful that you keep up with and understand this stuff. I rely on you for that.
Yep. If republicans can completely and fully reinvent themselves, and PROVE IT, I might vote for one. It takes a long, long time to build trust in someone that fucks you over again, and again and again.
A group that lies to you again, and again and again.
A group that only cares about themselves, and are so stupid as to ignore the future of just not me but the planet.
A group that is so self centered that they, themselves, don’t even care about their children and grandchildren.
I’m 58 years old. I’ll will probably be long dead before they can remove the stench they have created.
Why, yes. That sounds exactly like something those petulant little rats would do.
This little goody just pretty much finished me off.
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
Just to reiterate: written in 2003 so not tailored to the present.
I’d say the USA/Republicans are 14 for 14.
That’s kind of you to say and I hope I do you proud. No shortage of lawyers around here to set me straight if I get something wrong and I welcome it if they do.
The emoluments issue is of particular interest to me because I believe Trump should have been impeached on Day One due to his violation of it. (Well, that, and his shameless coordination with Russians to get elected.) The Emoluments Clause has never been tested to any great extent; there is little case law to establish precedent. Yet the spirit of the clause is so obviously of extreme importance and concern. If citizens can’t trust whether a president’s policies are based on the best interests of the American people or are instead meant to further his own personal enrichment, then that is largely the foundation for trust in government gone.
I think it’s obvious whose interests Trump is working to further in his foreign policy to date. Those who pay him the most – the Saudis and the Russians – always receive favorable treatment, even when it is at the expense and completely at cross purposes with the interests of our national security or traditional values. He is so dangerous. And he has already done so much damage.
:smack:
No kidding. It reads like the Republican Party platform.
Other news you may have missed today…