If the courts are sane and just, this is already decided against Trump . If they are not, they are already decided for him. (Given the option, he would run straight to the Supreme Court and put the matter into the hand of his carefully selected stooges. We will need Roberts to side with the 4 sane justices to get a good ruling against Trump and his power grab.)
Donnie foolishly, consistently, and recklessly paints himself into a corner. His judgment is faulty and dangerous.
Keep digging, dipshit…
But there’s an INVASION I tells ya! With drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs!
Judgment? Where? His existence is faulty and dangerous, but there’s no judgement.
I’m Vladimir Putin and I approve this message.
Not yet, anyway.
Not for nothing, but it’s particularly galling that the Shitgibbon’s defense in all of these cases will be paid for with taxpayer money. We have to pay to keep a despot from perverting the Constitution.
As was so eloquently put in another thread: fuck. Just fuck.
Much like the Muslim ban, the right-wing lackeys at the supreme court decided that it did n’t matter all previous Trump statements, the ban didn’t have anything to do with religion it was all national security.
Trump spoke from his s-hole platform today! For a minute t thought I was laughing at Roger “can’t get no respect” Dangerfield!
Win-Win for Dems. Either this will be struck down for the obvious, bogus, bad faith abuse of power that it is, or it will be upheld and Democratic Presidents can do what they want.
Sums it up pretty well…
If there was a real and genuine “emergency” along our southern border with Mexico, why does he not ask Congress to authorize the use of military force to stem the invasion into our country?
BTW, that was a rhetorical question, meant to point out the fact that Mexico is NOT our enemy!!!
LOL. You’re doing it wrong…
Or … Republican judges will have no problem ruling this is fine while ruling against a Democrat that does the same thing because hypocrisy is a feature not a bug in modern conservatism.
How much longer? Two years of this shit? My liver won’t make it.
Well, I don’t understand the focus on whether the declaration is valid or not from the standpoint of the courts. Won’t the Supreme Court simply rule that the law states that Congress may negate the declaration by majority votes (and, in practice, veto-proof votes) if Congress makes the assessment that the action is unwarranted? And that the law provides that it is Congress alone that will make this assessment? Case closed. Declaration upheld.