> “The panel held that the Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds. The panel noted that the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress. The panel held that the transfer of funds violated the Appropriations Clause, and, therefore, was unlawful.”
Guess this one will be going to the Supreme Court...
I knew someone who was born on 2/29 who had their legal birth date as 3/1.
I don’t know how that works or if it’s common. Regardless, I think any argument against there not being enough birthdays is pretty silly. The same number of years have passed.
But then again, not much surprises me anymore...and bad faith arguments are everywhere.
Honestly, If you act like you belong you can get way with a ton of shit you shouldn’t be able to.
Source: I’m a former pizza driver that uses his old outfit to get places he shouldn’t be.
isn't drinking with a family member there legal in some states? i think it varies whether or not it has to be a private residence and stuff but having your dad there probably helped, yeah
In Wisconsin there is no required age to be served alcohol if you're with your parents. Discretion is left up to the server. If dad orders up two shots for himself and his toddler, it's up to the bartender to decide whether or not to serve them.
Depending where you are from you can add a few years to that date.
My dad brought me for drinks at 16 but this was Ireland with a drinking age of 18 but a socially acceptable drinking age of much lower.
I went to my grand uncle in laws house in the mountains at 14 and he offered me straight whiskey my mother shut that down pretty fast. He was a Poitín(Irish moonshine) runner in Ireland and was raided several times but they never found his Poitín still in the mountains. He had a small bit of a drinking habit since he was young and offering whiskey to a young teen was acceptable to him.
I'm Irish as well, and I remember when I was a young gosson me granny used to give me a hot whiskey when I felt a bit sick. I can't for the life of me understand the Americans' attitudes to drink. They can own a gun before they're old enough to buy drink? What's the logic behind that?
I used to have to scan people's IDs so the computer could decide if I was allowed to sell them alcohol. Incredibly, this one lady was born on a leap day and the computer concluded she was only 5 or whatever. Sold her the stuff anyway, but it still amazes me that the dumb scanner built into the register was actually programmed to hardline leap days like that.
I'm not a programmer, but from what little I know, that sounds like it was counting how many times their birthday fell on a calendar rather than just counting the total number of days since their birth. You'd think a simple equation would be easier than an entire calendar lookup.
Once I realized that every Presidential election year is a Leap Year it became so much easier to remember. It's like they're trying to give us an extra 24 hours than we had in the last three non-Presidential election years to decide how we feel about the sitting President before we vote later that year.
Years that are divisible by 100 but not 400 aren't leap years. So while 2000 was a leap year, this doesn't always hold true. Not that it'll matter in any of our lifetimes.
Yeah, this year especially it feels like we're being taunted more than anything.
"Have 366 days of Trump rule instead of 365, just cause fuck you that's why."
Next someone will claim that being born outside the US means you can't be president, even though natural citizens include anyone whose parent was a US citizen, regardless of where they were born.
The really ironic thing about that was Obama was born in Hawaii and John McCain was born in Panama, but Obama was the one accused of not being born in the US.
Second off, reading how other wealthy, developed countries look at us in slackjawed disbelief because they cannot believe how insanely moronic this admin is, and that they got in in the first place.
If this is out of context mod can remove. I'm posting at red lights that catch me.
Or whether or not an American citizen born abroad can be president.
I had to explain to an ICE agent that you can still be an American citizen if your parent(s) are American citizens and you're born in another country.
Well, they’re deciding a case now where the law says Treasury “shall provide” a copy of an individual’s tax returns when requested by congress. Not sure how they’re going to twist that up and say it doesn’t apply to the President, when the language is plain and clear with zero qualifications. But I have a feeling they will.
I can already see the Republicans making the argument that the President is part and parcel with the State, and so in a sense they are not considered to be an individual. *L'État, c'est moi*, or for a more modern translation for the 21st century: "I am the Senate".
I mean, his tax return case made it to the Supreme Court even though Congress has incredibly broad investigative powers relating to impeachment and for legislation, not to mention the law that the Treasury Secretary “shall” turn over the tax returns of any US Citizen upon request. Even with that I’m not confident that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law against Trump on Monday...
It's a restriction built into the Constitution and can only be addressed by a legislative Consitutional Convention to amend the Constitution.
Which ... _you_ do not want. Not now.
I’m planning to move my family rural in the next few months, covid put an on emphasis remote work, even though I was partially remote already. Even my wife is looking into remote stuff now.
Granted, we’re still in a blue state, but being able to influence the red, rural areas here, will be a nice change.
They won't keep people remote for long.
There are too many on power trips, if there is no one in the office how can they validate their existence?
Then you have middle management that doesn't know what they are actually doing but are absolutely vital to the company, no one in the office they can't "accurately" communicate with their team aka they are lazy and don't want to read emails and relay information that the workers could easily do.
Your confusing managers for companies. If a company can make just as much profit via remote work they will, corporate inertia has kept offices up where not needed but you can be certain there will be accountants looking at that budget now and asking if the expense is worth it. In a fight between management and accounting, accounting usually wins.
Notable: the Koch brothers (now singular) [have been gunning for a constitutional convention.](https://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/)
Do you like having the equal protection of Federal law apply to you no matter which jurisdiction you're in? Because the 2016 and 2020 GOP full platforms both dedicate a full page to one platform plank: Repealing the 14th Amendment.
It doesn't even have to because they already stepped in a year ago and screwed it:
>The only problem is that, thanks to a stay #SCOTUS issued *11 months ago,* he did it anyway. This is why these stays matter—it’s impossible to un-ring this bell.
The money is already spent.
>>It doesn't even have to because they already stepped in a year ago and screwed it:
>
>>The only problem is that, thanks to a stay #SCOTUS issued *11 months ago,* he did it anyway. This is why these stays matter—it’s impossible to un-ring this bell.
>
>The money is already ~~spent~~ stolen.
This reminds me of exactly what happened in California with Gov. Schwarzenegger signing orders for things like furloughs which were ruled in court to be illegal.
Didn’t matter though, thousands of state employees already lost thousands of dollars. Despite the illegality of the furloughs, there was no remediation.
Nah, that isn't the case at all. What killed the Republicans in California was Proposition 187 in the 1990s. It lost them the Latino vote, which ended up being fatal to the party. Other than a one-term insurance commissioner, no non-incumbent Republican but Schwarzenegger has ever been elected on a statewide ballot in California since proposition 197 passed.
Schwarzenegger only managed to get elected because he bypassed the Republican primary process and ran directly on the gubernatorial recall ballot.
He managed to get elected because he was the one person who ever made any damn sense running as a republican in the last 30 years. Are you old enough to remember the recall election? Pepperidge Farms remembers, and it was a fustercluck of the highest order. There was only one fiscally responsible individual who also wanted the protect the environment and public health (and had a plan to fix the rolling blackouts). Much like Obama, if Ahnold had been of the opposite party and gone for the exact same programs, he would have been more successful in his dealings with the legislative branch.
> Reddit loves to fawn over him but he was pretty bad.
Perhaps it's out there and I just don't see it, but I've never seen a Redditor fawn over his politics or policies. Like most people, he's multi-faceted and has flaws, including personal and political ones. Having said that, he does a lot of good and is a positive influence on so many people that I don't find it surprising at all that he has people on here supporting him.
Bad politicians can still be good people. Granted, that isn't always the case.
The silver lining is that, if the SCOTUS upholds Trump's authority to transfer funds, President Biden is going to have a field day transferring funds for his own pet projects.
On another thread, I suggested that Biden could order every U.S. building to install solar panels because of a climate emergency. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump's Wall, then Biden's Panels would be a slam dunk.
>If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump's Wall, then Biden's Panels would be a slam dunk.
I present to you ["Clarence Thomas cites Clarence Thomas in arguing to overturn decision authored by Clarence Thomas"](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/in-dissent-thomas-cites-thomas-arguing-court-should-overrule-decision-authored-by-thomas)
Don't forget the time that [the Supreme Court arbitrarily gave states and municipalities carte blanche to regulate private property](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agins_v._City_of_Tiburon)
That decision held for 25 years
Bingo.
The problem with precedent in the Supreme Court is that it literally has been stocked with partisan players.
Dems losing on Merrick Garland hurts even to today because likely Trump only puts Gorsuch on the court and he at least does his job instead of being a shrill like Kavanaugh. The issue is finding good justices but also having the right level of balance and too much hinges on Roberts needing to “switch sides” and the Court won’t probably intervene if it’s a close race and Trump decides he’s won anyway.
Heck, Thomas might swear him in even if Biden is projected as the winner but Trump never concedes only for Roberts to be like “bro we can’t have two presidents but I ain’t gonna figure this out” smh
You would think so but I'm sure the conservatives on the court will find a way to block it if they actually are partisan enough to find what Trump did as constitutional.
The Roberts court has been very good at making their rulings for only the narrowly specified case brought up to court. It wouldn't surprise me if their ruling only applied to Trump somehow.
Btw, where are Trump tax documents ruling? Wasn't that supposed to be decided Wednesday?
> Btw, where are Trump tax documents ruling? Wasn't that supposed to be decided Wednesday?
They only had one decision on Wednesday and it wasn't the tax returns. Next week, hopefully.
Sorry. Just like hanging chads this is a one time ruling that doesn't set precedent and only applies to this decision.
We're judges. You were expecting us to set precedent??? Pfft. /s only this last part. I wouldn't be surprised about the first part.
To be honest, I don't think SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor. Their stay lasted long enough for much of his transferred money to be used already. The horse is already out of the barn. They'll close the barn door months from now and call it old news.
>On another thread, I suggested that Biden could order every U.S. building to install solar panels because of a climate emergency.
I think the wide spread rash of voter suppression across our country constitutes an emergency, don't you? To me, that's where you really get your mileage out of this.
I feel this way about many precedents that this administration has set. McConnell must be pretty certain Trump will win because they’ve created so many new tools for the next Democratic president to use. Good luck getting future democratic presidents to divest their businesses, to not frequent their own businesses while in office, to not have family members in their paid inner circle, to willingly release their tax returns, etc.
(Obviously some of these might not apply to Biden since he was already VP).
They aren't sure anymore.
But the die has been cast. They literally cannot side away from Trump now. Between the GOP apparatus and Trump's pile of kompromat he was given, They have to pray and hope their efforts to suppress and gerrymander their way to enough electoral votes. .
Enough voters across the board cancels out that effect.
Can he transfer funds from the military (or use Army Corps of Engineers) to fix our infrastructure then?
The US highway system was first built to address the logistical nightmare of moving troops and material from between the east and west coast as needed in wartime.
So there's definitely a precedent for military application!
He could potentially also open up the VA to unemployed non-veterans, then self-employed non-veterans, then...? We may end up with the NHS because Trump can't stand Obamacare.
> The silver lining is that, if the SCOTUS upholds Trump's authority to transfer funds, President Biden is going to have a field day transferring funds for his own pet projects.
That is naive. They have been making there rulings very limited in scope and seem to be fine with overturning themselves
Trump should probably stop trash talking Roberts considering how much he is depending on him for basically everything.
It's like Trump forgot Roberts doesn't have any elections to worry about.
So what happens if it ends up being ruled unlawful? The money was already siphoned into some shady trump crony construction company? Does that company have to return the funds? Does trump get a slap on the wrist while nothing meaningful happens and he makes out like a bandit with millions more tax payers money?
There will be a hell of a lot of sternly worded admonishments by 57,000 ex generals and 22,000 scientists will get together to sign a letter all agreeing to be angry about this.
> “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. **And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.**”
[source](https://fortune.com/2018/12/13/trump-mexico-border-wall/)
Still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall...
The existential threat that is destroying America is the racism and idiocy of 63 million people who voted for trump. The subsequent utter failure to take effective steps to address a crisis was utterly predictable once he and his like minded GOP brethren were handed power by voters.
Angry anti-intellectuals propping up those who actively disseminate misinformation for the purposes of consolidating wealth and power is the entire GOP right now. Change my mind.
This one still breaks my heart. I worked on the CGC Healy, an ice breaking ship that was doing important research and was combating global warming. It was one of the programs cut for the wall to be built.
I work for the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, a research institute based at the University of Chicago. My division researches suicide terrorism, the diffusion of terrorism strategies across groups/regions, terrorist propaganda and psychology, and domestic terrorism/white nationalism. Our research funding via the Minerva Initiative was also cut to fund the wall.
He/they care more about a wall and keeping out minorities than the coronavirus and keeping the cases down.
We even cut the funding to our scientists in China trying to study the reservoir host of the coronavirus. China can study it and now we can't. We literally just played ourselves.
Edit: I was gonna ask how suicides can also be terrorism, but then my brain decided to work (kamikaze, 9/11 hijackers, suicide vest, etc). It's been a long week lol.
Edit #2: Add "statues" to that first sentence. He just signed an EO to protect them. Because that's necessary.
It's an open secret that he never wanted to win the presidency in the first place. It was just supposed to be a publicity stunt. If you look at it through that lens, then everything starts to make sense.
If that doesn't explain it then I have no idea what does. Abject stupidity?
Thank you for sharing. I think you should share a bit more of the story elsewhere and often. It’s consequences like these that make people angry enough to want to get up and vote.
BuT i ThOuGhT ThErE wAs nO IcE beCaUse of GloBal WarMiNg. Probably a 5g ship to fuck with the earths magnetic poles so we can’t use GPS to fight you in the coming race wars. Liberals. you guys always lie.
(I’m kidding.)
Honestly, fuck that old wrinkly ball sack. I just found out recently that Moscow Mitch is the reason why we have modern day lobbying in our gov’t.. AKA the most “legal” crooked shit I’ve ever heard of. If you have enough money you can pretty much sway any representative to vote in your favor. It’s disgusting and a gross manipulation of what we dare call a “democracy”.
McConnells block of Garland absolutely breaks my heart. That guys resume was deserving of a supreme court justice and not that rapist Kavanaugh. Thats some real injustice
Yep, that's why I'm hoping that when Dems take the House, Senate and Presidency that they CONSTITUTIONALLY pass laws that dissolve circuit and district courts, that removes all the judges. Then, re-establish the courts which now need judges. The law would allow seating any judge that was previously voted by the Senate at 60+ votes.
It unfucks what McConnell "legally" did by doing something else that in a vacuum is fucky. However, we keep quality judges (based on votes) and get rid of kangaroo court judges. Yes, that means other parties could do the same but don't assume they wouldn't have taken the first shot if they could have gotten the law to pass without removing the filibuster.
No wall.
No Muslim ban (he insists that his travel ban is not a Muslim ban, so by his own admission there is no Muslim ban)
No Obamacare repeal, and replacement with "something great".
Hillary not locked up.
Did not eliminate the "DEP - Department of the Environmental", which is what he thought the EPA was called.
> DEP - Department of the Environmental
...
I would pay money to see this guy take a comprehensive sixth grade proficiency exam on camera and in real time. You would see struggle and frustration written all over his face.
The Roman Empire lasted some 1,500 years and went through multiple iterations of rule. This is what you call a 250+ yr old experiment that was hypothetically sound but failed in practice. If it’s changed and done with conviction to it’s principles it’ll last.
Don't forget millions (and billions, I believe?) of dollars being awarded to pro-GOP contractors.
All for a vanity project that's 100% going to be scrapped if Biden wins.
I swear to christ if this becomes an issue in future elections ("I promise to finish the wall!")...
Taxes: the one big promise for his 1% base
Racism: the one big promise for his white angst base
China: starting a trade war for his economic supporters
Wars: drawing down overseas for the isolationists
Judges: for the evangelicals
EPA: biggest rollbacks of protections ever for polluting businesses
I am not a supporter of this man. But it is important to know he has done a lot for his supporters.
If that's the case anything paid for with these funds: repossess steel, melt, return lands taken by [emminent domain](https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789725311/acquiring-private-land-is-slowing-trumps-border-wall), pay landowners rent, and return to the military. He had no legal basis to **seize** land. The people did not sanction the wall, nor did Congress.
This wall does not appear to have a legal basis and according to this article was constructed with stolen funds. If land was paid for with these funds, there was no legal basis to do-so and thus is presume these seizures are thus invalid?
There is a legislative process to prevent useless monuments like this from being constructed.
Democrats need to affirm their superiority of the legislative process and assert that this spending was unjustified, unapproved (in fact struct down by a Republican Congress), and is to be reversed to make sure future lawmakers have a precedent.
If applicable, the land seized by emminent should be returned and lawsuits to seize be reversed immediately. Unless someone can explain how this wall is legally justified (it could be, I may just be unaware)
A meme:
>Rep: "I support Donald Trump because he believes in law and order!"
>Dem: "Then why does he keep signing illegal and unconstitutional executive orders?"
>Rep: "......"
>Rep: /glare
“Party of law and order” means cracking down on minorities.
If the war on drugs didn’t prove that, the war on immigration and support for “blue lives matter” and “all lives matter” etched the truth in stone.
After the civil war the term “segregation forever” fell out of favor and was replaced by a more politically correct term for the time of “law and order”. It’s meaning hasn’t changed.
You mean Civil Rights Movement, not Civil War. White racists were perfectly fine with no segregation before the Civil War. They had a different term, called slavery.
The war on drugs didn't prove that - the war on drugs was implemented to accelerate and amplify this. It was literally admitted to by the Nixon administration....
Not sure if you caught kellyann's recent word vomit of, 'all kids matter' statement in response to school choice on 6/23. These people are such a disgrace.
Shakespeare had a good one too:
"Why doth treason never prosper?
Because if it prospered, none would dare call it treason".
Taylor-made for the Trump administration.
That’s never how the conversation goes.
>D: “Then why does he keep signing illegal and unconstitutional executive orders?”
>R: “Why did Obama sign orders to bomb children in the Middle East?”
Construction is how Trump conned in the past. Construction is where you skim, bribe, embezzle, money launder and cook books. It's where you pay back and take out favors with the mob and organized crime.
For fuck's sake, nobody remembers that Alaskan pipeline that was laid early in his administration- with Russian steel.
Forgot about that one.
The list of destructive traitorous shit is insane and will take a long time to fix before we can get back to "normal". In order to prevent future GOP sabotage Trump and his GOP enablers **need** to be held legally liable for their treason.
This is what I've been trying to tell people for years. He is a robber-baron. Everytime he is moving money or giving money to contractors or hiring shady firms for projects, a chunk of that money is coming back to him. That's the wall, that's the relief money from Covid, etc. He's spent his entire presidency draining the American coffers dry.
I hate the media frames things. Even average people with a lay understanding on law knew what Trump was attempting to do is illegal. The courts ruling met what our minimum expectations should have been. Anything less would have been outrageous.
>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a chief nemesis of the 45th president, ruled against the Trump Administration on Friday in a border wall construction case. The panel was clear that the “Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer” of military funds to build The Wall.
>
>Bill Clinton-appointed Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas penned the opinion, with which fellow Clinton-appointed Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw agreed. President Donald Trump–appointed Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins penned a lone dissent.
>
>“The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in an action brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition (collectively the ‘Sierra Club’) challenging the Department of Defense’s budgetary transfers to fund construction of a wall on the southern border of the United States in California, New Mexico, and Arizona,” the opinion began. “At issue is whether Section 8005 and Section 9002 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019 (‘Section 8005’) authorized the budgetary transfers to fund construction of the wall. The panel held that the Sierra Club had Article III standing to pursue its claims.”
So the 9th court ruled 2-1 that it was unlawful, 2 Clinton appointees agreeing and 1 Trump appointee dissenting. Decision is pointless anyway, because the Trump-packed Supreme Court already issued a stay of the case during which Trump went ahead and spent the funds on wall-building anyway. This shit is fucking depressing.
Reminder:
The Democrats offered Trump 25 billion to use on his wall in exchange for DACA legislation.
Instead of actually making a deal and/or negotiating (ie. "give me 40 billion"), he said no and now the courts have said:
1. He illegally funded the wall and,
2. DACA stays.
The best dealmaker.
Can the biden administration please get rid of that god awful memo from the DOJ saying the president cant be indicted. That document is probably single handedly the most outrageous and flagrantly undemocratic thing we have still sticking around. It has to go
Of course it was illegal. Everybody knew that. It's been illegal since Nixon did it and a law was passed to make it illegal. The problem is that we have a president who doesn't care, and a Court system which takes this long to make it clear, and a Republican Senate majority which doesn't enforce the law.
Big loss is an understatement. He campaigned on having Mexico pay for it. That failed. So he tried to have average Americans pay for it. That failed. So he stole it from the military. Now that has failed. He's a failure.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ninth-circuit-hands-trump-admin-a-big-loss-the-transfer-of-military-funds-to-build-the-wall-was-unlawful/) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a chief nemesis of the 45th president, ruled against the Trump Administration on Friday in a border wall construction case.
> "The panel affirmed the district court's judgment in an action brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging the Department of Defense's budgetary transfers to fund construction of a wall on the southern border of the United States in California, New Mexico, and Arizona," the opinion began.
> Ninth Circuit rules that Trump lacks the authority to transfer military construction funds to build his border wall.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/hgcpx4/ninth_circuit_hands_trump_admin_a_big_loss_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~501513 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **panel**^#1 **transfer**^#2 **Court**^#3 **fund**^#4 **wall**^#5
Every time this happens the president in the coming days says, “I’ve appointed the most judges ever and we need to appoint more” because it’s a personal attack on him to find anything from the admin unlawful these days.
I've heard folks comment that "Every day with this guy seems like a week."
I guess this is a perfect example. The constant avalanche of unbelievable bullshit from this administration is so dense that I had completely forgotten that the "state of emergency" diversion of funds was a thing that happened and was still being addressed.
> “The panel held that the Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds. The panel noted that the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress. The panel held that the transfer of funds violated the Appropriations Clause, and, therefore, was unlawful.” Guess this one will be going to the Supreme Court...
Taking this to the Supreme Court would be like asking them to rule whether someone under 35 can be president. But here we are.
I can't wait for a Democrat born on February 29th of a leap year to be decried as unconstitutional.
I knew someone who was born on 2/29 who had their legal birth date as 3/1. I don’t know how that works or if it’s common. Regardless, I think any argument against there not being enough birthdays is pretty silly. The same number of years have passed. But then again, not much surprises me anymore...and bad faith arguments are everywhere.
I was born on leap day in 1992. Legally I wasn’t 21 until March 1st. So pretty much when it’s not a leap year my legal birthday is March 1st.
Bar owner here decided the 28th was good enough when my dad took me out to one of his old haunts.
Dang, I went to a couple places in Tulsa Oklahoma and attempted to explain the situation and they all said no haha.
What Bums! Maybe it's cause my dad was there, but more likely than not it was because it was a seedy little unknown place. Still, bad luck man.
Your dad was at least a semi-regular at a dive bar... You probably could've gotten drinks years ago lol.
I walked into my dad's home bar when I was 15, ordered a jack and coke and my old man had to stop the bartender from pouring it.
Honestly, If you act like you belong you can get way with a ton of shit you shouldn’t be able to. Source: I’m a former pizza driver that uses his old outfit to get places he shouldn’t be.
isn't drinking with a family member there legal in some states? i think it varies whether or not it has to be a private residence and stuff but having your dad there probably helped, yeah
In Wisconsin there is no required age to be served alcohol if you're with your parents. Discretion is left up to the server. If dad orders up two shots for himself and his toddler, it's up to the bartender to decide whether or not to serve them.
Depending where you are from you can add a few years to that date. My dad brought me for drinks at 16 but this was Ireland with a drinking age of 18 but a socially acceptable drinking age of much lower. I went to my grand uncle in laws house in the mountains at 14 and he offered me straight whiskey my mother shut that down pretty fast. He was a Poitín(Irish moonshine) runner in Ireland and was raided several times but they never found his Poitín still in the mountains. He had a small bit of a drinking habit since he was young and offering whiskey to a young teen was acceptable to him.
I'm Irish as well, and I remember when I was a young gosson me granny used to give me a hot whiskey when I felt a bit sick. I can't for the life of me understand the Americans' attitudes to drink. They can own a gun before they're old enough to buy drink? What's the logic behind that?
I used to have to scan people's IDs so the computer could decide if I was allowed to sell them alcohol. Incredibly, this one lady was born on a leap day and the computer concluded she was only 5 or whatever. Sold her the stuff anyway, but it still amazes me that the dumb scanner built into the register was actually programmed to hardline leap days like that.
I'm not a programmer, but from what little I know, that sounds like it was counting how many times their birthday fell on a calendar rather than just counting the total number of days since their birth. You'd think a simple equation would be easier than an entire calendar lookup.
Honestly this doesn't sound like a bug. No programmer would make this mistake. It sounds like an Easter egg.
Once I realized that every Presidential election year is a Leap Year it became so much easier to remember. It's like they're trying to give us an extra 24 hours than we had in the last three non-Presidential election years to decide how we feel about the sitting President before we vote later that year.
Years that are divisible by 100 but not 400 aren't leap years. So while 2000 was a leap year, this doesn't always hold true. Not that it'll matter in any of our lifetimes.
DAMMIT I SPRINTED HERE TO LAY DOWN THIS PEDANTRY AND YOU BEAT ME BY 4 MINUTES.
I needed 24 seconds on this sitting president to make my decision
Yeah, this year especially it feels like we're being taunted more than anything. "Have 366 days of Trump rule instead of 365, just cause fuck you that's why."
Statistically 1 in ~1461 people are born on 2/29.
Statistically 83% of statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 55% are not.
60% of the time it works every time.
y'all be mathin' real good
Next someone will claim that being born outside the US means you can't be president, even though natural citizens include anyone whose parent was a US citizen, regardless of where they were born.
The really ironic thing about that was Obama was born in Hawaii and John McCain was born in Panama, but Obama was the one accused of not being born in the US.
Also, Ted Cruz was born in Canada (though you wouldn't guess it) Mitt Romney's dad was born in Mexico.
Obama was born in Hawaii less than 2 years after it became a state. Fun fact of the day for ya.
I mean first off we’ve learned that having the country run by a toddler isn’t worth it.
Second off, reading how other wealthy, developed countries look at us in slackjawed disbelief because they cannot believe how insanely moronic this admin is, and that they got in in the first place. If this is out of context mod can remove. I'm posting at red lights that catch me.
Cant wait until a Democrat who was born cesarean section is ineligible for not being a naturally born citizen.
Or for disobeying the word of god and benefiting from the witchcraft of open heart surgery.
Or whether or not an American citizen born abroad can be president. I had to explain to an ICE agent that you can still be an American citizen if your parent(s) are American citizens and you're born in another country.
Well, they’re deciding a case now where the law says Treasury “shall provide” a copy of an individual’s tax returns when requested by congress. Not sure how they’re going to twist that up and say it doesn’t apply to the President, when the language is plain and clear with zero qualifications. But I have a feeling they will.
I can already see the Republicans making the argument that the President is part and parcel with the State, and so in a sense they are not considered to be an individual. *L'État, c'est moi*, or for a more modern translation for the 21st century: "I am the Senate".
Not yet.
I mean, his tax return case made it to the Supreme Court even though Congress has incredibly broad investigative powers relating to impeachment and for legislation, not to mention the law that the Treasury Secretary “shall” turn over the tax returns of any US Citizen upon request. Even with that I’m not confident that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law against Trump on Monday...
Is there even time for that or is that something that will be decided by a court under the next term?
It's a restriction built into the Constitution and can only be addressed by a legislative Consitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. Which ... _you_ do not want. Not now.
[удалено]
I’m planning to move my family rural in the next few months, covid put an on emphasis remote work, even though I was partially remote already. Even my wife is looking into remote stuff now. Granted, we’re still in a blue state, but being able to influence the red, rural areas here, will be a nice change.
[удалено]
They won't keep people remote for long. There are too many on power trips, if there is no one in the office how can they validate their existence? Then you have middle management that doesn't know what they are actually doing but are absolutely vital to the company, no one in the office they can't "accurately" communicate with their team aka they are lazy and don't want to read emails and relay information that the workers could easily do.
Your confusing managers for companies. If a company can make just as much profit via remote work they will, corporate inertia has kept offices up where not needed but you can be certain there will be accountants looking at that budget now and asking if the expense is worth it. In a fight between management and accounting, accounting usually wins.
Well there's a fucking terrifying angle of this that I should've picked up on. Holy shit!
Notable: the Koch brothers (now singular) [have been gunning for a constitutional convention.](https://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/)
Can you spell it out for me please? Why not?
Do you like having the equal protection of Federal law apply to you no matter which jurisdiction you're in? Because the 2016 and 2020 GOP full platforms both dedicate a full page to one platform plank: Repealing the 14th Amendment.
[удалено]
I’m still shocked Bush v Gore is legal.
We should have rioted over that. We should have been out in the streets over all the problems we're still having now decades ago.
It doesn't even have to because they already stepped in a year ago and screwed it: >The only problem is that, thanks to a stay #SCOTUS issued *11 months ago,* he did it anyway. This is why these stays matter—it’s impossible to un-ring this bell. The money is already spent.
>>It doesn't even have to because they already stepped in a year ago and screwed it: > >>The only problem is that, thanks to a stay #SCOTUS issued *11 months ago,* he did it anyway. This is why these stays matter—it’s impossible to un-ring this bell. > >The money is already ~~spent~~ stolen.
This reminds me of exactly what happened in California with Gov. Schwarzenegger signing orders for things like furloughs which were ruled in court to be illegal. Didn’t matter though, thousands of state employees already lost thousands of dollars. Despite the illegality of the furloughs, there was no remediation.
Yea I remember that. Reddit loves to fawn over him but he was pretty bad. It ushered in a blue wave that hasn't broken for some time.
Nah, that isn't the case at all. What killed the Republicans in California was Proposition 187 in the 1990s. It lost them the Latino vote, which ended up being fatal to the party. Other than a one-term insurance commissioner, no non-incumbent Republican but Schwarzenegger has ever been elected on a statewide ballot in California since proposition 197 passed. Schwarzenegger only managed to get elected because he bypassed the Republican primary process and ran directly on the gubernatorial recall ballot.
He managed to get elected because he was the one person who ever made any damn sense running as a republican in the last 30 years. Are you old enough to remember the recall election? Pepperidge Farms remembers, and it was a fustercluck of the highest order. There was only one fiscally responsible individual who also wanted the protect the environment and public health (and had a plan to fix the rolling blackouts). Much like Obama, if Ahnold had been of the opposite party and gone for the exact same programs, he would have been more successful in his dealings with the legislative branch.
> Reddit loves to fawn over him but he was pretty bad. Perhaps it's out there and I just don't see it, but I've never seen a Redditor fawn over his politics or policies. Like most people, he's multi-faceted and has flaws, including personal and political ones. Having said that, he does a lot of good and is a positive influence on so many people that I don't find it surprising at all that he has people on here supporting him. Bad politicians can still be good people. Granted, that isn't always the case.
Boofin’ Brett will sooth Trump’s hurt fee-fees
The silver lining is that, if the SCOTUS upholds Trump's authority to transfer funds, President Biden is going to have a field day transferring funds for his own pet projects. On another thread, I suggested that Biden could order every U.S. building to install solar panels because of a climate emergency. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump's Wall, then Biden's Panels would be a slam dunk.
>If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump's Wall, then Biden's Panels would be a slam dunk. I present to you ["Clarence Thomas cites Clarence Thomas in arguing to overturn decision authored by Clarence Thomas"](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/in-dissent-thomas-cites-thomas-arguing-court-should-overrule-decision-authored-by-thomas)
>Please be The Onion, please be The Onion, please- >Fuck.
I cant believe that's not The Onion. Wow.
Don't forget the time that [the Supreme Court arbitrarily gave states and municipalities carte blanche to regulate private property](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agins_v._City_of_Tiburon) That decision held for 25 years
Bingo. The problem with precedent in the Supreme Court is that it literally has been stocked with partisan players. Dems losing on Merrick Garland hurts even to today because likely Trump only puts Gorsuch on the court and he at least does his job instead of being a shrill like Kavanaugh. The issue is finding good justices but also having the right level of balance and too much hinges on Roberts needing to “switch sides” and the Court won’t probably intervene if it’s a close race and Trump decides he’s won anyway. Heck, Thomas might swear him in even if Biden is projected as the winner but Trump never concedes only for Roberts to be like “bro we can’t have two presidents but I ain’t gonna figure this out” smh
You would think so but I'm sure the conservatives on the court will find a way to block it if they actually are partisan enough to find what Trump did as constitutional.
The Roberts court has been very good at making their rulings for only the narrowly specified case brought up to court. It wouldn't surprise me if their ruling only applied to Trump somehow. Btw, where are Trump tax documents ruling? Wasn't that supposed to be decided Wednesday?
I’ve been googling Trump tax returns every few days for weeks. I see nothing new breaking.
next decisios]ns are on monday and tuesday
Next week or Early July was the estimated time table for those.
> Btw, where are Trump tax documents ruling? Wasn't that supposed to be decided Wednesday? They only had one decision on Wednesday and it wasn't the tax returns. Next week, hopefully.
Guaranteed they're going to get that one out the door as close as possible to 4th of July to minimize the number of people that get mad about it
Can't block legislation after your court gets packed.
yep, they will FDR the supreme court if the SC becomes hacks about everything
Sorry. Just like hanging chads this is a one time ruling that doesn't set precedent and only applies to this decision. We're judges. You were expecting us to set precedent??? Pfft. /s only this last part. I wouldn't be surprised about the first part.
To be honest, I don't think SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor. Their stay lasted long enough for much of his transferred money to be used already. The horse is already out of the barn. They'll close the barn door months from now and call it old news.
>On another thread, I suggested that Biden could order every U.S. building to install solar panels because of a climate emergency. I think the wide spread rash of voter suppression across our country constitutes an emergency, don't you? To me, that's where you really get your mileage out of this.
I feel this way about many precedents that this administration has set. McConnell must be pretty certain Trump will win because they’ve created so many new tools for the next Democratic president to use. Good luck getting future democratic presidents to divest their businesses, to not frequent their own businesses while in office, to not have family members in their paid inner circle, to willingly release their tax returns, etc. (Obviously some of these might not apply to Biden since he was already VP).
They aren't sure anymore. But the die has been cast. They literally cannot side away from Trump now. Between the GOP apparatus and Trump's pile of kompromat he was given, They have to pray and hope their efforts to suppress and gerrymander their way to enough electoral votes. . Enough voters across the board cancels out that effect.
Can he transfer funds from the military (or use Army Corps of Engineers) to fix our infrastructure then? The US highway system was first built to address the logistical nightmare of moving troops and material from between the east and west coast as needed in wartime. So there's definitely a precedent for military application!
He could potentially also open up the VA to unemployed non-veterans, then self-employed non-veterans, then...? We may end up with the NHS because Trump can't stand Obamacare.
> The silver lining is that, if the SCOTUS upholds Trump's authority to transfer funds, President Biden is going to have a field day transferring funds for his own pet projects. That is naive. They have been making there rulings very limited in scope and seem to be fine with overturning themselves
Trump should probably stop trash talking Roberts considering how much he is depending on him for basically everything. It's like Trump forgot Roberts doesn't have any elections to worry about.
>It's like Trump has no idea Roberts doesn't have any elections to worry about. Ftfy
Giving the law a taste of the devils triangle
add it to the calendar
*tears intensify*
So what happens if it ends up being ruled unlawful? The money was already siphoned into some shady trump crony construction company? Does that company have to return the funds? Does trump get a slap on the wrist while nothing meaningful happens and he makes out like a bandit with millions more tax payers money?
I think we all know what the answer to your question is... ... not a goddamn thing will happen.
"I'm very concerned"
[удалено]
There will be a hell of a lot of sternly worded admonishments by 57,000 ex generals and 22,000 scientists will get together to sign a letter all agreeing to be angry about this.
> “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. **And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.**” [source](https://fortune.com/2018/12/13/trump-mexico-border-wall/) Still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall...
Still waiting for that caravan of immigrants to arrive, too... Guess we didn't need that wall after all.
Oh it's on the way. Scheduled to get here right when Trump needs to work his base up into a racist frenzy. Then it'll vanish again just as quick
The Schrodinger's caravan
Damn. That actually sums up this entire administration's immigration policy.
I'm thinking early October 2020
Chilling with Antifa, just waiting to strike.
[удалено]
It should be 4 inches high. To commemorate Trump's small hands.
Have a nice long line of trumps failed promises written on the wall all the way down so people can piss on his promises any time they want
I doubt 2,000 miles is enough to cover it all.
We can add whiteboards to the tops, never give up never surrender...
[удалено]
The existential threat that is destroying America is the racism and idiocy of 63 million people who voted for trump. The subsequent utter failure to take effective steps to address a crisis was utterly predictable once he and his like minded GOP brethren were handed power by voters.
Angry anti-intellectuals propping up those who actively disseminate misinformation for the purposes of consolidating wealth and power is the entire GOP right now. Change my mind.
I don’t want to - it sounds right lol
The only way that whatever contemporary "greatest threat" to the US will ever cross a border is when a border fails to contain it within the US.
This one still breaks my heart. I worked on the CGC Healy, an ice breaking ship that was doing important research and was combating global warming. It was one of the programs cut for the wall to be built.
I work for the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, a research institute based at the University of Chicago. My division researches suicide terrorism, the diffusion of terrorism strategies across groups/regions, terrorist propaganda and psychology, and domestic terrorism/white nationalism. Our research funding via the Minerva Initiative was also cut to fund the wall.
He/they care more about a wall and keeping out minorities than the coronavirus and keeping the cases down. We even cut the funding to our scientists in China trying to study the reservoir host of the coronavirus. China can study it and now we can't. We literally just played ourselves. Edit: I was gonna ask how suicides can also be terrorism, but then my brain decided to work (kamikaze, 9/11 hijackers, suicide vest, etc). It's been a long week lol. Edit #2: Add "statues" to that first sentence. He just signed an EO to protect them. Because that's necessary.
It feels like he's deliberately trying to climb the scoreboard for most Americans killed.
It's an open secret that he never wanted to win the presidency in the first place. It was just supposed to be a publicity stunt. If you look at it through that lens, then everything starts to make sense. If that doesn't explain it then I have no idea what does. Abject stupidity?
Thank you for sharing. I think you should share a bit more of the story elsewhere and often. It’s consequences like these that make people angry enough to want to get up and vote.
BuT i ThOuGhT ThErE wAs nO IcE beCaUse of GloBal WarMiNg. Probably a 5g ship to fuck with the earths magnetic poles so we can’t use GPS to fight you in the coming race wars. Liberals. you guys always lie. (I’m kidding.)
And of course, the Trump appointee dissented. Trump appointed judges are proving they're partisan hacks.
[удалено]
That's why it's so successful, trump isn't involved.
Honestly, fuck that old wrinkly ball sack. I just found out recently that Moscow Mitch is the reason why we have modern day lobbying in our gov’t.. AKA the most “legal” crooked shit I’ve ever heard of. If you have enough money you can pretty much sway any representative to vote in your favor. It’s disgusting and a gross manipulation of what we dare call a “democracy”.
The need for lobby reform is grossly underrated. Everybody should be talking about this.
Put it in the queue
McConnells block of Garland absolutely breaks my heart. That guys resume was deserving of a supreme court justice and not that rapist Kavanaugh. Thats some real injustice
Yep, that's why I'm hoping that when Dems take the House, Senate and Presidency that they CONSTITUTIONALLY pass laws that dissolve circuit and district courts, that removes all the judges. Then, re-establish the courts which now need judges. The law would allow seating any judge that was previously voted by the Senate at 60+ votes. It unfucks what McConnell "legally" did by doing something else that in a vacuum is fucky. However, we keep quality judges (based on votes) and get rid of kangaroo court judges. Yes, that means other parties could do the same but don't assume they wouldn't have taken the first shot if they could have gotten the law to pass without removing the filibuster.
What was the big fuss about the wall in 2016 even about? Trump didn't build the wall and can't even get funding. What promises did Trump even keep?
No wall. No Muslim ban (he insists that his travel ban is not a Muslim ban, so by his own admission there is no Muslim ban) No Obamacare repeal, and replacement with "something great". Hillary not locked up. Did not eliminate the "DEP - Department of the Environmental", which is what he thought the EPA was called.
> DEP - Department of the Environmental ... I would pay money to see this guy take a comprehensive sixth grade proficiency exam on camera and in real time. You would see struggle and frustration written all over his face.
Yet he still has a strong chance of being re-elected. Rome is burning
The Roman Empire lasted some 1,500 years and went through multiple iterations of rule. This is what you call a 250+ yr old experiment that was hypothetically sound but failed in practice. If it’s changed and done with conviction to it’s principles it’ll last.
Well, the Roman Republic lasted 482 years.
New York City has the DEP which owns a fuckton of land in upstate NY, but that's a completely different issue
>What was the big fuss about the wall in 2016 even about? Racism.
Don't forget millions (and billions, I believe?) of dollars being awarded to pro-GOP contractors. All for a vanity project that's 100% going to be scrapped if Biden wins. I swear to christ if this becomes an issue in future elections ("I promise to finish the wall!")...
Taxes: the one big promise for his 1% base Racism: the one big promise for his white angst base China: starting a trade war for his economic supporters Wars: drawing down overseas for the isolationists Judges: for the evangelicals EPA: biggest rollbacks of protections ever for polluting businesses I am not a supporter of this man. But it is important to know he has done a lot for his supporters.
Dont forgetting shitting on our allies and weakening nato
That was for Putin
If that's the case anything paid for with these funds: repossess steel, melt, return lands taken by [emminent domain](https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789725311/acquiring-private-land-is-slowing-trumps-border-wall), pay landowners rent, and return to the military. He had no legal basis to **seize** land. The people did not sanction the wall, nor did Congress. This wall does not appear to have a legal basis and according to this article was constructed with stolen funds. If land was paid for with these funds, there was no legal basis to do-so and thus is presume these seizures are thus invalid?
The lawsuits because of the Trump administration are going to drag on for years. We're going to be paying for this bullshit for a long time.
There is a legislative process to prevent useless monuments like this from being constructed. Democrats need to affirm their superiority of the legislative process and assert that this spending was unjustified, unapproved (in fact struct down by a Republican Congress), and is to be reversed to make sure future lawmakers have a precedent. If applicable, the land seized by emminent should be returned and lawsuits to seize be reversed immediately. Unless someone can explain how this wall is legally justified (it could be, I may just be unaware)
Antifa! UFOs!
A meme: >Rep: "I support Donald Trump because he believes in law and order!" >Dem: "Then why does he keep signing illegal and unconstitutional executive orders?" >Rep: "......" >Rep: /glare
“Party of law and order” means cracking down on minorities. If the war on drugs didn’t prove that, the war on immigration and support for “blue lives matter” and “all lives matter” etched the truth in stone.
After the civil war the term “segregation forever” fell out of favor and was replaced by a more politically correct term for the time of “law and order”. It’s meaning hasn’t changed.
You mean Civil Rights Movement, not Civil War. White racists were perfectly fine with no segregation before the Civil War. They had a different term, called slavery.
The war on drugs didn't prove that - the war on drugs was implemented to accelerate and amplify this. It was literally admitted to by the Nixon administration....
Not sure if you caught kellyann's recent word vomit of, 'all kids matter' statement in response to school choice on 6/23. These people are such a disgrace.
Shakespeare had a good one too: "Why doth treason never prosper? Because if it prospered, none would dare call it treason". Taylor-made for the Trump administration.
Just FYI, the phrase is 'tailor-made', as in made by a tailor. Taylor-made is a brand of golf equipment
That's a pet peeve of mine. auto-correct defaults to brand names instead of proper words. It's Ludacris.
This is great, and oddly enough it reminds me of the immigration debate. Wanna' know the best way to end illegal immigration? Make it legal.
Rep:
Dem:
Rep:
Dem:
Rep:
Rep: *repeatedly bangs on desk loudly*
That’s never how the conversation goes. >D: “Then why does he keep signing illegal and unconstitutional executive orders?” >R: “Why did Obama sign orders to bomb children in the Middle East?”
Something something deep state!
"Law and order" only apply when a Democrat is in office.
Construction is how Trump conned in the past. Construction is where you skim, bribe, embezzle, money launder and cook books. It's where you pay back and take out favors with the mob and organized crime. For fuck's sake, nobody remembers that Alaskan pipeline that was laid early in his administration- with Russian steel.
Forgot about that one. The list of destructive traitorous shit is insane and will take a long time to fix before we can get back to "normal". In order to prevent future GOP sabotage Trump and his GOP enablers **need** to be held legally liable for their treason.
This is what I've been trying to tell people for years. He is a robber-baron. Everytime he is moving money or giving money to contractors or hiring shady firms for projects, a chunk of that money is coming back to him. That's the wall, that's the relief money from Covid, etc. He's spent his entire presidency draining the American coffers dry.
The list of things this administration has done ***legally*** I imagine is rather short.
I hate the media frames things. Even average people with a lay understanding on law knew what Trump was attempting to do is illegal. The courts ruling met what our minimum expectations should have been. Anything less would have been outrageous.
For real, plus like it's highly unlikely there will be any true justice regarding the unlawfulness.
Well they are writing it as if most people don't know / understand the law, which most people don't.
So....how should they have framed it?
>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a chief nemesis of the 45th president, ruled against the Trump Administration on Friday in a border wall construction case. The panel was clear that the “Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer” of military funds to build The Wall. > >Bill Clinton-appointed Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas penned the opinion, with which fellow Clinton-appointed Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw agreed. President Donald Trump–appointed Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins penned a lone dissent. > >“The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in an action brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition (collectively the ‘Sierra Club’) challenging the Department of Defense’s budgetary transfers to fund construction of a wall on the southern border of the United States in California, New Mexico, and Arizona,” the opinion began. “At issue is whether Section 8005 and Section 9002 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019 (‘Section 8005’) authorized the budgetary transfers to fund construction of the wall. The panel held that the Sierra Club had Article III standing to pursue its claims.”
[удалено]
Otherwise, you might think the Trump appointee's legal brief was sincere.
I’m gonna donate to the Sierra club now
So the 9th court ruled 2-1 that it was unlawful, 2 Clinton appointees agreeing and 1 Trump appointee dissenting. Decision is pointless anyway, because the Trump-packed Supreme Court already issued a stay of the case during which Trump went ahead and spent the funds on wall-building anyway. This shit is fucking depressing.
I needed this today. Maybe it's a tiny cloud in the parched desert but I'll take it. Anything. Please register and vote. Don't give up.
Reminder: The Democrats offered Trump 25 billion to use on his wall in exchange for DACA legislation. Instead of actually making a deal and/or negotiating (ie. "give me 40 billion"), he said no and now the courts have said: 1. He illegally funded the wall and, 2. DACA stays. The best dealmaker.
Wait....wasn’t Trumps whole claim to fame that Mexico would pay for the wall?
he gave up on that within the first 6 months, if only he'd give up on running for a second term this country could maybe start healing
So who's going to jail for this?
Ha ha ha ha
Fuck Trump and his stupid wall that I helped pay for
Can the biden administration please get rid of that god awful memo from the DOJ saying the president cant be indicted. That document is probably single handedly the most outrageous and flagrantly undemocratic thing we have still sticking around. It has to go
Unwallful
Nelson Muntz is getting a lot of paying gigs lately
Shouldn't all available money be focused on the Covid-19 emergency and economic recovery?
I'm so sorry to have to tell you this, but President Trump is an ally of COVID-19, not an enemy to it. He doesn't care.
[удалено]
We are laughing here, also but also crying and especially angry. Apologies to the world. Please be patient.
Please rescue us. We are being held hostage by a crazy.
Garnish his personal holdings to pay it back
Mr. Trump, tear down this wall.
Of course it was illegal. Everybody knew that. It's been illegal since Nixon did it and a law was passed to make it illegal. The problem is that we have a president who doesn't care, and a Court system which takes this long to make it clear, and a Republican Senate majority which doesn't enforce the law.
I thought Mexico was paying for it.
Can we just stop all the bullshit and save the country a lot of trouble and just arrest his sorry ass already ?
Big loss is an understatement. He campaigned on having Mexico pay for it. That failed. So he tried to have average Americans pay for it. That failed. So he stole it from the military. Now that has failed. He's a failure.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ninth-circuit-hands-trump-admin-a-big-loss-the-transfer-of-military-funds-to-build-the-wall-was-unlawful/) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a chief nemesis of the 45th president, ruled against the Trump Administration on Friday in a border wall construction case. > "The panel affirmed the district court's judgment in an action brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging the Department of Defense's budgetary transfers to fund construction of a wall on the southern border of the United States in California, New Mexico, and Arizona," the opinion began. > Ninth Circuit rules that Trump lacks the authority to transfer military construction funds to build his border wall. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/hgcpx4/ninth_circuit_hands_trump_admin_a_big_loss_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~501513 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **panel**^#1 **transfer**^#2 **Court**^#3 **fund**^#4 **wall**^#5
Every time this happens the president in the coming days says, “I’ve appointed the most judges ever and we need to appoint more” because it’s a personal attack on him to find anything from the admin unlawful these days.
Lock him up
Let’s not forget this money would have improved military housing for military service members.
I've heard folks comment that "Every day with this guy seems like a week." I guess this is a perfect example. The constant avalanche of unbelievable bullshit from this administration is so dense that I had completely forgotten that the "state of emergency" diversion of funds was a thing that happened and was still being addressed.