I’m worried about it because I am absolutely convinced that this is the administration’s strategy.
Go big. Ask for the ridiculous. Then:
(A) If you get it, you win
(B) if you get a lot of it, you’re ahead
(C) If you get blocked, slow walk, delegitimize
If SCOTUS doesn’t get that, that’s bad
Go big. Ask for the ridiculous. Then:
(A) If you get it, you win
(B) if you get a lot of it, you’re ahead
(C) If you get blocked, slow walk, delegitimize
If SCOTUS doesn’t get that, that’s bad
Reposted from
Evan Bernick, a finite mode with a resolute floof
The big thing I’m worried about:
(1) Administration makes sanctionably frivolous executive power claims
(2) SCOTUS doesn’t accept them but
(A) Signs off on power claims alarmingly close to them and/or
(B) Makes it virtually impossible to effectively prevent the exec from acting on them anyway
(1) Administration makes sanctionably frivolous executive power claims
(2) SCOTUS doesn’t accept them but
(A) Signs off on power claims alarmingly close to them and/or
(B) Makes it virtually impossible to effectively prevent the exec from acting on them anyway
Comments
Cause I am not sure of the legality of using religion to hope for the death of a SCOTI-guy?
I am trying hard to very legal and very cool
Gambler
Underdog
Thief
Teenager
Revolutionary
Day Trader
Cable TV wacher
Terminally Online
Meme Lord
Rapist
Racial Hierarchy-ist
Napoleon
Sex Pest
Thinking is 'rule based, been good for me, but better for some others', I am best positioned to thrive in chaos.
Chaos is a ladder.