ChiGoose

They got the border under control by ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing workers off farms. And you are saying that's not a solution, but also I was wrong for saying that's not a solution? ...what do you think actually happened to shut down the border?

Do you believe ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing farmworkers away from the fields is a solution?

I was working under the incorrect assumption that people actually meant what they said when they said they wanted people to come here legally. Shutting down the border while allowing that to happen would require additional funding for immigration courts, which requires a passing a law. If you just want to shut the whole thing down, legal immigrants be damned, then no I guess you don't. Seems like a dumb idea, but I was absolutely wrong in believing that MAGA meant what they said. Won't do it again.

Courts routinely stay rulings when there's an appeal. I think it's fine to have your own opinion instead of waiting to be told what to think but YMMV. I'll admit it. I did not think that the people who said they only wanted to go after criminals would view going after non-criminals, revoking legal status for people who did things the right way to come here, locking up and deporting citizens, chasing workers off of farms, and going after kids with cancer as a solution. I thought that the people who were so adamant that they wanted people to come here legally actually meant it instead of using it as a shield to hide their desire to stop anyone who doesn't meet their definition of "American" from entering. If the goal was just lawlessness, terror, and going after brown people, then yeah, you don't need Congress. Gotta love the idiocy of asking a question to avoid answering a question and then being a weirdo when your obvious distraction tactic failed. Still scared of admitting Dear Leader may have broken the law, huh?

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.