I heard Obama hangs the toilet paper the wrong way. And he hates kittens.
Do the majority of Republicans support Trump though? At least in the sense that they approve of his actions, or are they just going along with him out of self-interest? Because I get the impression they’re pretty reluctant, and really just going through the motions.
He doesn’t have the support of the House majority, for one. We know he’d have the Democrats against him. He’d also have a good number of Republicans as well. So this kind of thing would probably have people going, “Nope, not gonna happen dude.”
I imagine a lot of his supporters in Congress would try to waive it away as some kind of mental breakdown, at most.
Yeah. The ridiculous accusation is that he paid off Stormy Daniels. But now we have the fucking signed check. And we’ll soon have the financial documents about him inflating the value of his property to get a loan (against the law.) If you think that everything that has come out so far is just hysterics, I suggest you read a real newspaper.
Basically, what the republicans say is that they would never tolerate anyone doing anything like that.
Then they will spend all their efforts in justifying why he is not doing anything like that, and that any claims to the contrary are just hysterical fear mongering.
“No, locking up journalists isn’t ‘suspending the constitution’, it is just protecting the american public from the enemy that is the press.”
The time for getting away with “They do it toooo!!!” without specifying exactly what “they” did that compares to what Trump has done is long past. Without further elaboration, your argument is rejected.
I don’t think it that likely that the Trump administration ends with him beaten to death by senators with broken up pieces of senate furniture. But hey the way things are going I wouldn’t bet against it.
What’s your point other than justifying your hatred for Obama? Or do you prefer the current situation that the NLRB is about to be empty due to the Orange Turd?
That kind of false equivalence is why I’m not 100% sure that Trump couldn’t get away with suspending the constitution.
There is a massive objective difference between a president using his constitutional power to make a recess appointment (even if the SCOTUS subsequently decided, pretending to be in session means the senate is not in recess) and (to pick a random example from innumerable ones) a president declaring a fake emergency to fund a personal boondoggle that congress has explicitly turned down funding for.
If the GOP can make that comparison, then they could just as well say “Oh yeah, whats so bad about suspending the constitution? Other presidents like your precious Obama have done unconstitutional stuff too!”
I don’t personally think Trump is going to suspend the constitution, and I hope he wouldn’t get away with it, if were he to. But he (and his GOP enablers) have clearly moved America closer to the point were a president could do so, and get away it.
The problem is that the massive objective difference isn’t what you think it is.
Obama acted un-Constitutionally in the case mentioned, but the Democrats supported him in it. No one in their right minds thinks that therefore the Democrats would have supported Obama if he had suspended the Constitution. Trump is not acting un-Constitutionally in declaring a national emergency - Presidents, including Obama, do that all the time. Republicans are, for the most part, supporting Trump. But that doesn’t support the notion that the Republicans would support Trump if he suspended the Constitution any more than Democratic support for Obama means that they would support Obama if he suspended the Constitution.
Democrats are IMO making a mistake, not in spouting this kind of nonsense, but in AFAICT really believing it. It is often a mistake to actually believe in the stuff the party throws to the masses to get them riled up. Because then the moderates tend to recognize that, in this instance at least, the sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome are nuttier than the Trump supporters.
‘We supported Obama when he acted un-Constitutionally, but that doesn’t prove we would support suspending the Constitution. You support Trump when he acts in accordance with the Constitution, and that proves you would.’
No, it doesn’t. And that sort of thing is not a good look for you. YMMV, but it shouldn’t.
He declared that the Senate was in recess when it was not (that’s actually quite a bit closer to the OP’s “disband Congress” than anything President Trump has done) so that he could use his recess appointment power to appoint people that did not have the consent of the Senate.
Egad. You can’t compare what Obama did to Orange Julius Caesar. Here’s how the Obama case went down.
Obama: Here’s my nomination to fill the vacancy in the NLRB.
GOP: Fuck you! You want someone sympathetic to unions and we’re all paid off by our big corporate donors. No appointments for you!
Obama: I see. Well, next time you go on recess I’ll appoint my man.
GOP: We’ll sue!
Obama: Fine by me.
Recess comes and Obama makes the appointment.
Supreme Court: The Senate is in recess when it says it is. It isn’t up to the president or us to tell them otherwise. Appointment is invalid.
Obama: Well, I disagree but I’ll abide by the ruling.
GOP: Neener neener neener! No appointments for you! Our corporate masters will bestow great wealth upon us!
The system worked as intended. Obama was within his rights to test the Senate on its phony pro forma sessions and lost. He accepted the loss. Contrast that with the current situation, where his successor simply refuses to accept that Congress refuses to fund his monument to racism.
And now President Trump is “testing” Congress on it, and if the courts rule against him, he’ll presumably abide by the ruling, like he has other times the courts have ruled against him. How is this time different in your eyes than either Obama’s DACA-because-he-couldn’t-get-the-DREAM-Act-through-Congress or his unconstitutional NLRB appointments?
I’ve got a question for you that I would really like answered: leaving aside the whole “they do it too!” handwaving going on, is Trump doing anything legally questionable, or not?
The difference is that Mr. Obama respects the rule of law. DACA was not unconstitutional, he merely provided guidelines on which laws were going to be enforced. The NLRB case was well worth a test, everyone knows that the pro forma sessions are a sham but unfortunately the Supremes didn’t see where they could intervene on the side of truth, justice, and the American Way. Donald’s Monument To Racism will never be built, there are far too many hurdles (environmental impact statements, eminent domain cases) to allow it to be started before he’s in prison.
This comparison is so unbelievable spurious, it beggars belief. The NLRB case wasn’t just incomparable to the travesties of the Trump administration, it was the constitution working exactly as intended. The executive branch has an explicit constitutional endowed right to make recces appointments. The legislative branch decided to use a blatant loophole to get around that, whereby they pretend to be in session when they are not, to prevent recess appointments. The executive branch calls bullshit on the loophole, and makes a recess appointment (when the senate was NOT in actually session, they were just saying they were), The matter gets to the SCOTUS, who actually side with the senate. The executive branch respects the decision of the SCOTUS, and the appointments don’t stand. Thats not unconstitutional, that is EXACTLY how the constitution is meant to work.
Because all national emergency declarations are the same, nothing unconstitutional about them: 9/11 in 2001, or the Gulf War in 1991, or the president not getting his way in 2019. All the same, nothing but dumb libs complaining. Same goes for the sky falling on our heads crisis of 2020, perfectly constitutional use of the presidential powers to abolish the constitution and declare himself president for life. None of the dumb libs complained when Obama declared an emergency over H1N1, no right to complain now.