ChiGoose

The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right. It's fairly straightforwardly illegal by the current understanding of IEEPA. Even to the extent that Leonard Leo and the Kochs are suing because the tariffs are illegal. It's fine to have an opinion that Dear Leader might be wrong in one specific thing. He's probably not going to come for you. But I agree that Alito, and likely Thomas, would find some way to change the meaning of the text in favor of the administration since "originalist" jurisprudence is basically just Calvinball at this point.

Unable to answer a simple question as it may lead to cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Dear Leader may have broken the law, the MAGA is observed resorting to its tried and true tactic of whataboutism: distracting from the question at hand to redirect the conversation to something completely unrelated, hoping that nobody will notice its cowardice.

Any of the “law and order” MAGA types willing to admit that the tariffs are illegal? Or is that whole “law and order” thing more of pick and choose sorta deal? Trump’s plans to impose 50% tariffs on Brazil Highlights Illegal and Harmful nature of his policy Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs, ruling them illegal

“Propaganda […] often operates through inflammatory speech, stirring hostility and manipulating emotions, and displacing reasoned public debate with fear and division.”

I mean, if you’re comparing the McCabe prosecution to the Smith ones (which you did), you absolutely were.

Frankly, I would question someone if they came to me arguing that Apples = Oranges.

Smith secured indictments and the prosecutions were shut down not because of legal shortcomings but because of politics. The prosecutions of McCabe couldn’t even get indictments. They were just a stunt for the ignorant. But if boots need to be licked, good to know you’ve got it covered.

I imagine this will be about as successful as the prosecution of Andrew McCabe. But the usual crowd will eat it up for sure

Making Grok less woke resulted in it going full on Nazi and fantasizing about rape? A bit on the nose, but MAGA never has been much for subtlety.

That's a good thought exercise. Imagine Congress passed a law that nobody was allowed to own a gun unless they were a registered member of a state-regulated militia. All gunowners who did not meet this standard were to turn over their guns which would then be melted down. The NRA (and others) would sue, saying that this law violated the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. They would also likely ask the court to enjoin the enforcement of this law until the constitutionality was resolved. I think it's more than reasonable for the court to grant that injunction. Confiscating and destroying people's property would cause harm that wouldn't be easily reversed should the law later be found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, preventing the enforcement of the law until the constitutional issue is resolved makes a lot of sense. Same in the case you provided: there is a suit alleging a provision of the law is unconstitutional (violating the prohibition of bills of attainder as opposed to 2nd Amendment violation) so the court is preventing enforcement of that specific provision until it can address the constitutional issue. Seems incredibly reasonable to me. Not a deep state thing, just a logical way to work through the issue.

The allegation is that a section of the bill is written to specifically target Planned Parenthood in violation of the Constitution's prohibition of bills of attainder. You can read the filing here.

Wrong (but nobody is surprised at this). They claim that the provisions are constructed as a bill of attainder.

What is the claim being made by the plaintiffs in the case? “Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

This coming from the guy who believes that laws supersede the Constitution…

Hey, quick question for you: do laws supersede the constitution or does the constitution supersede laws?

MAGA actually understand the law and Constitution challenge (impossible)

Personally, I wonder how much of what stability the market has shown is due to investors not believing we’d be stupid enough to keep doing this.

Really not beating the allegations, huh?

It’s a temporary injunction lasting just 14 days while the court determines if the law is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Without weighing in on the merits of the claim, there are two important things that make sense here unless you’re in the cult: 1. The Constitution prevails over laws 2. Temporarily pausing the enforcement of a provision of a law for two weeks to determine if the provision is unconstitutional makes more sense than allowing enforcement that causes permanent harm even if the provision is later determined to be unconstitutional. Or, you know, hurr durr deep state or whatever.

We have always been at war with Eastasia

Anyone pushing a third party without first dismantling the First Past the Post system is either unserious or a grifter.

Looks like the GOP bill raises costs for most Americans by much more than the tax cuts. If the bill isn’t for seniors (who will be kicked out of nursing homes), and it’s not for people who use electricity (it will raise electricity bills), and it’s not for the fiscal hawks (it will add trillions to the debt), and it’s not for rural Americans (who will lose access to hospitals), and it’s not for 80% of Americans (whose rising costs will far outpace the tax cuts) then who is it for?

A recent National Rural Health Association report estimates rural hospitals would lose 21% of their Medicaid funding which they claim is nearly $70 billion over ten years. That could mean more hospital closures, reduced care access, and economic pain in towns that rely on hospitals as major employers. Looks like the bill is going to harm rural hospitals, forcing them to cut staff or even close. “If we lose any of our health care infrastructure, as a result of these cuts, you’re going to take our biggest problem and you’re going to make it significantly larger once again,” Shakespear said. Shakespear says another major concern is that the bill adds a work requirement for Medicaid eligibility.” “Many rural workers don’t receive regular paychecks, according to Shakespear, that means they’ll need special waivers.” “Matt McCullough is with the Utah Hospital Association and said the waiver programs create more barriers, making it harder to access Medicaid.” If the bill isn’t for seniors (who will be kicked out of nursing homes), and it’s not for people who use electricity (it will raise electricity bills), and it’s not for the fiscal hawks (it will add trillions to the debt), and it’s not for rural Americans, then who is it for?

Bad news for the fiscal hawks: the bill adds trillions to the national debt. If the bill isn’t for seniors (who will be kicked out of nursing homes), and it’s not for people who use electricity (it will raise electricity bills), and it’s not for the fiscal hawks, then who is it for?

Sure hope no GOPers use electricity since their bill is going to raise electricity costs across the board. President Donald Trump and Republicans are itching to kill tax credits that lower the cost to build wind and solar, which are now largely cheaper than fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. More wind and solar on the electricity grid helps keep utility bills lower, and Biden-era tax credits were set to rapidly ramp up the amount of those cheaper, renewable projects being built.  When combined with the electric vehicle consumer tax credit likely being cut, annual electricity and transportation costs in every state in the continental United States will be higher than they would have if the tax credits stayed intact, analysis from think tank Energy Innovation found. Bad news for red states: ”Annual household energy costs could rise $845 per year in Oklahoma by 2035, and $777 per year in Texas. That’s because these states would be set to deploy a massive amount of wind and solar if Biden-era energy tax credits were left in place. If that goes away, states will have to lean on natural gas to generate power.” “Blue states that are deliberately putting more clean energy onto their grids would still see prices rise over the coming decade, albeit far less, Orvis said. They are more immune to price shocks because they won’t be as heavily reliant on gas and coal.” If the bill is bad for seniors in nursing homes, and bad for anyone who uses electricity (especially in some GOP states), it makes you wonder why they are so intent on passing this turd…