Supreme Court approves of Trump as neo-Hitler?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,601
46,253
136
Nationwide injunctions aren't inherently a bad thing, considering the federal government exists in all jurisdictions. If it's doing something clearly unconstitutional, it should be stopped from doing it instead of having to fight it in about hundred federal districts.

That the court decided this was the case to deal with them is totally shameless aid to Trump's unconstitutional acts. Not a peep on any of the bullshit that has been emanating from the Northern District of TX for years.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,638
13,741
136
That the court decided this was the case to deal with them is totally shameless aid to Trump's unconstitutional acts. Not a peep on any of the bullshit that has been emanating from the Northern District of TX for years.
Because the court is filled with partisans who like what Republicans do while things Democrats do need to be carefully questioned, slow walked, and watered down or rejected because of [reasons].
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,851
30,620
136
I get so pissed everytime I hear a legal analyst say that it’s ok because in a yesr scotus will rule Trump’s EO is unconstitutional. That the court ruled to block injunctions without addressing the merits of the case gives away the courts game. Fuck these traitors, it’s time to expand the court to the point where fucking with it is meaningless. There is judicial independence and then there is the judiciary choosing to go along with the executive to deny the most basic right of citizenship which is what the court did here. As some of these conservative justices have said the role of a judge is to call balls and strikes, instead the conservative members of the bench seem more intent on rewriting the rule book themselves. IMO this has crossed the line to be impeachable behavior.
 

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,258
2,343
136
It's annoying as fuck because the court basically ruled that he can circumvent the Constitution and get away with it legally. And it wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans packed the court while they are in power just to screw over the Democrats and America on their way out in a year and a half. The only light at the end of the tunnel I can see is that Trump is a lazy piece of shit, so he may be content to ride out his time gilding the white house instead of working his last two years as his mind slowly leaves him delirious with McDonalds poisoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic and pmv
Jul 27, 2020
28,123
19,176
146
working his last two years
That's the part no one is sure of, considering all that is happening. He could be 95 and still be running things. Or he could become bedridden and hidden from public view with JD Vance coming out on his behalf and going, "So Trump said this and he ordered this..." and then they figure out how to keep his brain alive outside his body and then it's gonna be the US of Trump forever.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,039
136
Generally speaking, as a would be dictator, you want to consolidate power while you are popular and not at 40% and dropping.

I'd have thought, as a would-be dictator, you want to consolidate power constantly, whatever the situation, as long as you are actually in power at that moment.

I mean, the Nazis had passed the peak of their electoral popularity when Hitler was maneuvered into absolute power.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
Someone pointed out that repubs have used these types of injunctions to insulate themselves from national mandates (vaccine, masks, etc) so this ruling may indicate they don't feel the need for that sort of legal obstacle anymore, meaning they don't intend to be out of power. Ever.
Maybe, but it is just as likely that Roberts' et al just plan to revisit the ruling any time the Oval Office changes sides and redo it per the rules of Calvinball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,851
30,620
136
Maybe, but it is just as likely that Roberts' et al just plan to revisit the ruling any time the Oval Office changes sides and redo it per the rules of Calvinball.
This, they didn’t have deep concerns about this or at least enough to act on them until Trump and then they picked the case about denying citizenship as the one to change the rules of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo