381–390 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a refund even likely? Seems more likely the administration orders everyone to ignore the court.
Why does that seem more likely? They haven't done that yet.
i don't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refunds to business, but unless they have to refund to consumers it's free capital to importers
It is a return of their capital illegally acquired by the federal government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refunds to business, but unless they have to refund to consumers it's free capital to importers
It is a return of their capital illegally acquired by the federal government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling. Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that no…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If whoever runs in 2028 does not have a concrete plan for investigating & prosecuting every single person who worked under this admin from top to bottom, they are wasting everyone's time. We need to see hundreds of life-in-prison sentences by the end of 2029.
I feel very strongly that's what should happen, and equally strongly that there's zero chance a democratic president will actually do that in a meaningful way. Dems sometimes talk a big game when they're out of power but when they're in power they actually quite enjoy the expanded powers and reduced accountability that's come about. That plus their usual ineffectual bumbling will combine to mean they basically doing…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...
Going forward, the Dems are not likely to have power either, based on the projected safety of Repub Senate seats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding at least a little bit here. The Constitution created separation of powers, but what it did not do is explicitly block a particular branch from either abdicating their duty or simply delegating their power back to the executive. It's certainly an interesting situation that wasn't explicitly spelled out in the law. But as far as everything that's working, it's realistically all within th…
Worth mentioning, that goes the other way too... plenty of what should be executive power was delegated to congressional authority over the years as well. And it doesn't even begin to cover activist judicial practices. The lines have definitely blurred a lot, especially since the early 1900's. And that's just between the branches, let alone the growth of govt in general.
Examples? The activist judges thing I can see, but I'm not so sure I'm concerned of a body with more singular authority (the president) delegating to a body with more democratic accountability and representation (congress), nor can I easily find any examples of it.
The global damage has been done. It took too long and it looks like it will only be partially reversed. Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future.
> Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future. For sure. Question is what would be enough to regain trust? I don't really see it happening
States' Rights have been slaughtered by these false patriots.
I don't think tariffs should be imposed capriciously at the President's whim. But I do think tariffs are an appropriate policy tool that should be used to protect US companies against overseas competitors that get government subsidies or other unfair advantages: Low wages, safety regulations, worker protection, environmental rules, etc.
Trump's usage of tariffs is pretty damn dumb.