Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 9/28/2025 at 8:17 PM, Gatorubet said:

Not that I think it will matter, but Trump not being smart enough to stay within a lane that would make his unilateral usurping of Congressional tariff power more palatable to Roberts and company is at least some good news.   

He has no strategy and he has no nuance. He just has a variety of sledgehammers at his disposal that he picks up and uses with his mood changes.  But the way he is using those sledgehammers actually supports the legal position that he doesn’t have the power to do everything that he’s doing.

At some point the conservative Supremes might get a clue that he’s destroying the country more than they will allow for partisan dipshittery, which might mean a key vote or two in the future as things get worse prior to the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of his tariff debacle.

See again, not that it will probably matter, but I’m looking for any faint sign of hope.  imagine if some smart Autocrat was in charge instead of that dip shit.

What is this, year five of the Supreme Court going full regard 100% of the time?  And you and twice still hold out hope?  Cute.

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

What is this, year five of the Supreme Court going full regard 100% of the time?  And you and twice still hold out hope?  Cute.

I think there is a chance that the Supreme Court may decide an issue that is good for the future of the GOP and so-called conservatives, while not being what Trump wants.   It is also possible that the court will protect its own power and authority if it is in conflict with TFG and a serious threat.  Note, I am not saying they will protect the people of the United States and our system of government, but they just might protect themselves.

Sometimes things are as simple as you say, and sometimes they are normally as simple as you say, with the occasional nuance.   No matter the parties involved, it’s usually a good idea to put money on people protecting their own self-interest.  

I understand that GOP politicians are too cowardly to oppose Trump’s grabbing powers that belong to other branches of government.   That does not mean they wholeheartedly agree with that, they just know they are dead if they oppose it.   But unlike Congress, the nine robes are appointed for life.  I remain hopeful that GOP members of Congress who are too cowardly to oppose Trump may back channel to Scotus that they would not mind installing some governors on TFG’s total takeover of government.    SCOTUS can survive Trump for a while by being his toadies, but that will be a short-lived relationship until he decides he no longer needs them.  They know this. That was the whole conundrum of Marbury v Madison.   How can the Supreme Court exert power and influence when they have no means to enforce their rulings absent the acquiescence of the ruled?

If me saying it “probably won’t matter”, and saying my opinion is only a “faint hope” ruffles your jimmies as overly optimistic, that just shows what a shitty simulation we are all in right now.

 

   

Edited by Gatorubet
Posted

Or the current court, especially the MAGA judges are content to sit back, earn $300k (in salary) plus whatever other grifts they can pull down for life.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I bet all a guy would have to do is lie on a form and collect a few hundred thousand in soybean subsidy money.  I'm going to look into it when the time comes.

Hell, we had an entire thread on this site about taking PPP loans during COVID with no intention of ever paying them back.

Cuban notes gif

Posted
17 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Or the current court, especially the MAGA judges are content to sit back, earn $300k (in salary) plus whatever other grifts they can pull down for life.   

They did manage not to immediately acquiesce to Trump firing that Fed lady on the Trumped up mortgage fraud charges.  I figured there would be some sort of shadow docket approval, but the lady keeps her job until they hear the case sometime in 2026.   At least I thought I heard that on my drive home yesterday.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

They did manage not to immediately acquiesce to Trump firing that Fed lady on the Trumped up mortgage fraud charges.  I figured there would be some sort of shadow docket approval, but the lady keeps her job until they hear the case sometime in 2026.   At least I thought I heard that on my drive home yesterday.

Probably just need some time to change all their US equity positions from long to short - then they'll go ahead and give Trump the thumbs up.

  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Probably just need some time to change all their US equity positions from long to short - then they'll go ahead and give Trump the thumbs up.

Given their string of bs endorsements of his other firings, this one actually surprised me.  Trump wanted to clean house at the Fed if he could.   You know that Fed Chairthing Laura Loomer would drastically cut interest rates.

  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...