Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[Ghostse]

Here’s some Obamacare sperging.

View attachment 615685

View attachment 615687

View attachment 615688

View attachment 615691

View attachment 615689

But now let me tell you how venue shopping and judicial activism are AOK when it keeps programs I like, like DACA, going.

Or when fag marriage is defeated in a popular referedum, but the legislature passes it anyway.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

Since the Supreme Court is 7-2 conservative, how likely would Obamacare gets removed?

It's 5-4 and entirely on Kavanaugh.

Please do not accept this as any form of criticism, but these statements betray a kind of fundamental misunderstanding of how the court works in reality. Decisions on cases are not the dipolar switch we are used to thinking of in terms of verdicts that are a zero-sum game. One party wins and the other, by definition, loses.

There is no requirement that justices must pick from only two options. Cases can be decided without a majority agreeing on *anything*. As a perfect example, take Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Each justice wrote an opinion. No 5 of them agreed on anything relevant. It's what's known as a plurality opinion. What does that mean in the real world? Your guess is equally as good as any constitutional law scholar.

The reason the Supreme Court exists is really for only one purpose: to decide cases while only actually resolving any legal issues or questions by the wildest of coincidences. Since Roe v. Wade was decided, the USSC (please note proper abbreviation, and not that fucking well autistic "SCrOTUS" crap) has heard various other cases dealing with abortion rights (a "right" that was found precisely *nowhere* in the Constitution prior to, or since 1973) and have accomplished nothing except to make the exact nature of said right increasingly more confused and nonsensical.

Which means, after ALL this, that even if the USSC were to hear a case on something as complicated as the Affordable Care Act, expect the resulting opinion to be infinitely more complicated and far less useful than the law itself. Because on top of everything else that makes the Court completely out of fucking control, there's the supreme irritation that the justices themselves frequently turn out to be far less politically reliable than they were expected to be upon appointment. Except the ass-licking liberals. Of course. They always manage to remain as fucking illogically catatonic as ever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey (The full text should be linked there somewhere. It needs to be read to really appreciate its majesty.)

 

[Cool kitties club]

I'm not holding my breath either as the majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but people have become sheep to the point where there's no point in fighting against that. I just think there's nothing left that can be done except prepare for shit to hit the fan and ride it out.

It’s interesting to see the hoops that are jumped though to make things constitutional. Like with the commerce clause and the ACA.

 

[Chiang Kai-shek]

I know browsing the comment section is cheating, but dear lord the comments for WAPO’s “fact checking” are cancerous.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

Okay, fuck me, this is breaking news right now!! Autists at Reddiot have uncovered shocking new evidence that (Gasp!) the Clinton Foundation is really just an influence peddling slush fund for the Clintons!

Oh, the humanity!! A true gay horror!

Thank Jehovah, cooler heads full of sterner stuff are prevailing over the near-anarchy, and nobody has been allowed to go into mild shock; she remains the candidate that truly represents the cares and the wants and the needs of the middle class, having briefly experienced them for a couple of months in 1966. Which, by an odd coincidence, remains the last time she appeared more lifelike than the corpse of Eva Peron.

 

[Ineedahero]

Okay, fuck me, this is breaking news right now!! Autists at Reddiot have uncovered shocking new evidence that (Gasp!) the Clinton Foundation is really just an influence peddling slush fund for the Clintons!

Oh, the humanity!! A true gay horror!

Thank Jehovah, cooler heads full of sterner stuff are prevailing over the near-anarchy, and nobody has been allowed to go into mild shock; she remains the candidate that truly represents the cares and the wants and the needs of the middle class, having briefly experienced them for a couple of months in 1966. Which, by an odd coincidence, remains the last time she appeared more lifelike than the corpse of Eva Peron.

Could you link to the thread?

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

Could you link to the thread?

Sorry! There's literally hundreds. Here are the choice ones:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/a5y6ad/republicans_examine_accusations_of_pay_to_play_at/

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/a62it9/hearing_on_the_clinton_foundation/

https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBe...losive_testimony_clinton_foundation_operated/

https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/a5en2o/three_clinton_foundation_whistleblowers_to/

 

[Poiseon]

I was going to post this as a separate news article, but the whole thing is nothing but Trump, Trump, Trump. Has Trump even talked about Canada, outside of his disdain for NAFTA?


Dolgert: Here's why Canada should get nuclear weapons

Oh my God. Just, wow. I was taken to this exact post when I clicked on the thread. Maybe a glitch, (Totally your fault Null) but maybe it's destiny. This is, hands down, the funniest thing I've ever read in my entire life. This is funnier to me than anything Chris Chan has ever done, than Ross screaming on his YouTube Channel about Metokur, funnier than that time a feminist face-planted on the concrete in front of her school to protest rape culture. Whomever this Canadian guy is, he deserves an award for just how amazing this tirade of his is. It's dumb, even thinking for an instant America would bother invading Canada. Even dumber that Canada, regardless of nukes or not, could actually fend off an invasion of any kind. This is beautiful and I'm following this thread now. Sorry for this post from last year being quoted so late in thread, but it is just too perfect.

 

[not william stenchever]

I think Canada should work on being a nation worthy of some degree of respect in international politics again before they start violating international treaties to build nukes. Despite never passing up an opportunity to try to shit on Trump, Trudeau still had to act like our m.ilk fed gimp and hand the US that Huawei executive, for example. But what can you do you when your biggest trade partner by volume is the US?

 

[Godzilla@1989]

New article from The New Republic. Pretty spergy on some level.

https://newrepublic.com/article/152644/trump-undoing-much-obamas-legacy

Since reentering politics several years ago, Donald Trump has defined himself in opposition to a single figure: Barack Obama. He was the leading proponent of birtherism in 2011 and continued to promote the conspiracy theory publicly until 2015. (He reportedly has remained a birther in private.) Some believe Trump only decided to run for president because Obama made fun of him once. In declaring his candidacy, Trump described Obama as a “negative force” who was “not a leader.” And his campaign platform, such as it was, centered on undoing Obama’s legacy: He pledged to reverse Obama’s immigration policies, repeal Obamacare, and, in the words of running mate Mike Pence, undo “every single Obama executive order.”

He has governed as promised. “Trump is obsessed with Obama,” New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrotelast year, noting that “much of what Trump has accomplished—and it hasn’t been much—has been to undo Obama’s accomplishments, like pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate agreement and reversing an Obama-era rule that helped prevent guns from being purchased by certain mentally ill people.” He concluded, “For Trump, the mark of being a successful president is the degree to which he can expunge Obama’s presidency.”

Two years into Trump’s presidency, however, it’s clear that he aspires to undo more than just the Obama era. Some of his most high-profile actions have sought to reverse decades of progress—by Democratic and Republican administrations alike—in protecting the environment, workers’ rights, and public health. If Trump succeeds, his own legacy won’t be defined by his erasure of Obama’s accomplishments so much as the destruction of the modern regulatory state as we know it.

Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, last week announced a plan to rewrite the Clean Water Rule, a 2015 regulation which ensured that small bodies of water like wetlands and streams would be protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. But the new rule, if implemented, would do much more than just reverse an Obama-era protection. “This would be taking a sledgehammer to the Clean Water Act and rolling things back to a place we haven’t been since it was passed,” Blan Holman of the Southern Environmental Law Center told the Los Angeles Times.

Vetoed by President Richard Nixon but overridden by Congress, the Clean Water Act originally only gave federal protection to traditional “navigable” waters—i.e., water that can be navigated by boat. But the bodies of water covered by the law were expanded several times over the years. George H. W. Bush implemented a policy that broadened federal protection for more wetlands, and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton strengthened Clean Water Act protections even further.

The EPA’s new rule would effectively erase many of those developments, giving federal protections only to permanent bodies of water, and only to wetlands directly adjacent to very large bodies of water. In some states, that means more than 70 percent of wetlands would lose their safeguards, according to the BBC.

The Clean Water Rule isn’t the Trump administration’s only attempt to revert America to a less enlightened era that long predates Obama. In April, the White House proposed dramatically weakening the Endangered Species Act, the immensely successful wildlife protection law signed by Nixon in 1973. Trump’s move represented “the most sweeping set of changes in decades,” the New York Times reported, eliminating “longstanding language” about how to most effectively protect plants and animals facing extinction.

The administration is also proposing to effectively gut the National Environmental Policy Act. Another bedrock environmental protection law signed by Nixon, it ensures that environmentally important land isn’t bulldozed solely in the name of economic development. “The Trump administration is taking a sledgehammer to the review process that allows scientists and the public to have a say on federal projects that harm clean air, water and wildlife,” said Paulo Lopes of the Center for Biological Diversity. “This is the beginning of the largest rollback in the history of the National Environmental Policy Act....”

And earlier this year, Trump’s EPA loosened a Clinton-era rule intended to limit toxic air pollution from major industrial polluters.

But environmental policy isn’t the only area where Trump’s deregulatory efforts extend beyond the Obama era. In November, the Federal Communications Commission repealed a Nixon-era rule prohibiting a single company from owning a newspaper and television and radio stations in the same town. That rule was “developed and implemented by Republicans,” according to Politico, to prevent the monopolization of local news markets by a single company. Last year, the Department of Labor proposed a new rule to replace Obama-era regulations on tipped wages. If the rule takes effect, tipped workers would no longer own their tips, “a custom that dates to the 1974 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act,” TheWashington Post noted.

The White House is also proposing to “streamline” nuclear safety regulations that have been in place since 2001 and eliminate pet food safety inspection requirementsthat have been in place since 1988.

Trump has not succeeded in rewriting or repealing any of these rules yet; it’s a time-consuming process. First, the public is invited to comment on the proposal. Those comments are then taken into consideration in drafting the final proposal, which, inevitably, faces lawsuits. Some of these proposals may be rejected by the courts; many of Trump’s proposals to weaken Obama-era environmental regulations already have been. But some, surely, will survive.

Shortly after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, his chief strategist at the time, Steve Bannon, famously said that the new president sought the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” That effort is fully underway, as Trump keeps agencies chronically understaffed and unable to adequately enforce the regulations they’re charged with implementing.

What’s really happening, though, is more sinister: the weaponization of the administrative state. The industry interests and ideologues Trump has selected to lead major government agencies have both the will and the knowledge not only to gut existing regulations, but create new and lasting ones that undo protections that have stood for decades.

“The regulation industry is one business I will absolutely put an end to on day one,” Trump promised in the weeks before being elected president. At the time, it was assumed he was referring to Obama’s legacy. But his words should have been taken more literally. He had a much more ambitious goal, it turns out—a deregulatory crusade that likely will guide his next two years in office. Expunging that legacy will take at least as long, but its harm to human well-being in the meantime can never be undone.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

Couldn't even make it through the second sentence without just outright lying.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

Couldn't even make it through the second sentence without just outright lying.

It says a lot about how far journalism as come to now.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

It’s interesting to see the hoops that are jumped though to make things constitutional. Like with the commerce clause and the ACA.

What the hell's so goddamned complicated? Just read Wickard v. Fillburn (1936). Once you accept that growing corn on your own property, solely for your own consumption, in fact constitutes "interstate commerce," despite the fact that neither corn, nor money, nor you or your farm ever actually crossed a state border, then everything else makes perfect fucking sense. Welcome to the wild and wooly world of the US Supreme Court. Where neither PCP, nor birth asphyxiation, nor chronic traumatic encephalopathy can possibly begin to explain the depths of autism plumbed there.

 

[Vorhtbame]

It's dumb, even thinking for an instant America would bother invading Canada. Even dumber that Canada, regardless of nukes or not, could actually fend off an invasion of any kind.

I think the guy who wrote it had too much beer and got to watchin' Canadian Bacon, eh?

Or maybe he thought Canadian Idiot was propaganda instead of gentle fun-poking at Green Day.

What the hell's so goddamned complicated? Just read Wickard v. Fillburn (1936). Once you accept that growing corn on your own property, solely for your own consumption, in fact constitutes "interstate commerce," despite the fact that neither corn, nor money, nor you or your farm ever actually crossed a state border, then everything else makes perfect fucking sense. Welcome to the wild and wooly world of the US Supreme Court. Where neither PCP, nor birth asphyxiation, nor chronic traumatic encephalopathy can possibly begin to explain the depths of autism plumbed there.

The argument there was essentially, "But if you grow your own cattle feed, then someone else from out of state can't sell it to you, and that's a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Can't you see there's a radical hostile takeover of the economy by the federal government spearheaded by actual fascist sympathizers depression on?"

It wasn't until U.S. v. Lopez that that argument stopped holding water. Yes, the case about handguns in schools.

 

[AprilRains]

Welcome to the wild and wooly world of the US Supreme Court. Where neither PCP, nor birth asphyxiation, nor chronic traumatic encephalopathy can possibly begin to explain the depths of autism plumbed there.

USSC lolcow thread when?

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

USSC lolcow thread when?

Once President Beto appoints Ocasio-Cortez as a Justice.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

“Voting for policies and reforms are racist and sexist! Vote for VAGINA! Fuck white men!”

 

[wellthathappened]

Does this mean Amy Siskind would support Herman Cain? He's even blacker than Obama.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

Also, cuck who got canned by Trump last year is sucking Democrat cock!

 

[Rebis]

Stacey Abrams wasn’t held up? Wtf?