POTUS is not an “officer of the United States”?? He is the top General! U.S. head of state. Chief executive of the federal government. Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If that is not an "officer" then what is?
What would it matter to them. Many do not think beyond today. Also , this kind of irrational and spiteful and opportunistic attack has been going on since the Reagan years with little to no accountability or consequences.
As I have said before, a sitting president is more powerful than an ex-president. It gives Biden these powers too. Trump apparently does not consider that. Personally, I wish that if granted, Biden would take these powers to get rid of members of the Supreme Court.
Of course, Biden shouldn't (and won't) use these powers against SCOTUS justices (or anybody). But it may make an even more impressive hypothetical than the ones already made to explain the absurdity of the claim.
Probably too late at this stage, and fraught with peril. The risk is that the next guy would do the same thing, expand the court from, say, 13 to 21, and so on. The only way to prevent that would be with a Constitutional Amendment. And that's gonna happen in seven, six, five, four, three, two, one ... millenia.
I'm not opposed to expanding the court per se, but it's tricky to get right.
I don't remember whose idea it was, but I like the plan where the Supreme Court isn't a separate set of Justices, but rather consists of all the members of the Appeals courts. Every term a random panel of judges is selected to act as the Supreme Court. That way the Court might never have the same liberal/conservative balance, and it would be harder to court-shop.
The idea of an impeachment without a high crime or misdemeanor is frivolous and should be met with a motion in the Senate to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing.
The goal of "impeaching" Secretary Mayorkas on zero material grounds is to destroy the (brand) value of impeachment. This is in service to the Donald, who wants to utterly devalue impeachment -- kinda like his properties when it comes tax time. His two well-founded impeachments will lose their sting with voters, he believes. Dems cannot let this happen -- call it out for what it is!
In fact, all Republicans do is try to implode the government in every way they can. This is a White nationalist agenda, discussed by Prof. Kathleen Belew in her book, Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America. The goal is to get rid of the USA, and create a sort of Confederacy. That is a White Nationalist Nation in its stead. So, so much for being patriots in the Republican party. I have never been duped by that idea.
I like the phrase (brand) value of impeachment. Destroying that already happened when the Republicans impeached Clinton over a consensually stained dress - certainly no high crime or misdemeanor.
Republicans only care about budget deficits when they are out of power. In 2017-2018, they controlled the government and they had a strong economy. Perfect time for them to “deal with the budget.” They cut taxes and blew the deficit up even more.
Me too. My property taxes alone are way over the SALT limit. Partly that's a problem of living where there is no income tax, so property and sales tax take up most of the tax revenue. Also living in a place that attracts high earners so the cost of housing has skyrocketed . Partly it is because of things like school levies and help for the homeless, which add to the property tax and which I willingly vote for.
So I guess a trumpite will say the ineffectiveness of the tax cut for me, retired for 15 years, is all my fault.
The "Republican" aka Fascist Party hasn't done a damn thing for their constituents. Will they ever realize that and hold them accountable? I keep using the word primitive, but I really think these voters are. They get whipped up in a hateful frenzy while their tax dollars get them nothing. It's maddening. Getting Trump out of our national discussion cant happen soon enough. TGIF everyone! ✌️💙
The tax dollars are getting them some investment and infrastructure in congressional districts where the Fascist Party House member and senator voted against it, but are now taking credit for.
You are correct. A friend/co-worker told me that she thought the traitor was a good president. I almost laughed out loud. When I asked her why she said that he wanted to get rid of Obama care. SMH
Minor correction/quibble - Although the Republicans want Mayorkas to behave as a Secretary of Homeland Defense, he's actually the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I probably should look up the DHS mandate, but I think a Defense Secretary would be defending the border, while the Secretary of Security should be making sure we (in the Homeland) are safe. Trump may insist that the migrants are poisoning "our" blood, but the vast majority of folks crossing the border aren't doing so to blow up federal buildings or storm the US Capitol.
The Republican reaction to the passing of the CR is so blatantly typical. Decisions are no longer made “for the good of the people” but instead, it’s about not losing votes. Sad.
Seems it takes a minimum of 4-6 weeks for the House to produce a budget bill or kick the can. Now they have two cans, and they're kicking them 6 weeks down the road, thus assuring that the only thing that happens in the House is can kicking and committees on political vendettas. You would think it wasn't an election year.
“If we keep extending the pain, creating more suffering, we will pay the price at the ballot box,” McHenry told reporters.
MTG is threatening another motion to vacate.
I’d love to see them shoot themselves in the foot like this, but the country can’t survive as it is now for many more months with the antics of these buffoons.
"...the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should tell a state supreme court how to interpret its own state election laws is radical and rather unprecedented".
Frankly, Jay, wasn't Bush v Gore and SCOTUS usurping the FL Supreme Court fall into that category? A partisan Court did it once, who can argue that they won't do it again?
"...Republican scare tactics around migrants are working."
This is what worries me. It's easy to stay in our favorite echo chambers and not hear how immigration issues are being perceived by voters. Or that mainstream media IS reporting about it, and often. Especially if you don't live in a border state or Chicago or the metro NYC area (as a former Long Islander with friends there, I think immigration might hurt Suozzi in the race for Santos seat).
That said, immigration (and being against) has been a huge part of the GOPs m.o. for every election for a decade at least, and Dems keep winning. But is this the year their lying, inaction, and far more aggressive messaging makes the difference? And what can the Dems and the Biden administration do to combat this? Because the GOP has been, and is, controlling the narrative
Immigration and seeking Asylum are two very different processes. Dems would do well to understand the difference. The Republican refrain is typically "if they want to immigrate, they should do it the right way". That statement conflates seeking asylum with immigration. The people crossing the border are seeking asylum and they ARE doing it correctly by presenting themselves to a US official and stating their intention. Immigration as spoken of by the magas is typically a process wherein a working professional in another country desires to move here and applies to the US government from their home as they continue working. The current iteration of the GOP ignores this distinction. It also completely ignores the responsibility that Americans inherited, through our government actions in countries in South and Central America, where in we destabilized democratically elected leaders in our zeal to stop communism. The result has been failed states and people seeking a better life elsewhere. Meanwhile, our low unemployment rate means that we've very much would benefit from hiring these obviously motivated people. But rather than doing that, the white supremacists would prefer to build a wall and force young women in America to bear more White children. Turns out, many more abortions have been provided to white people than any other demographic. FUBAR.
The GOP wants to eliminate the idea of asylum, putting us at odds with international law and moving even closer to Hungary and GOP darling Orban. Somebody will have to chisel "Better Not" in front of the Statue of Liberty's poem.
Agreed. To put that into perspective, though, the US always had a very poor track record on asylum and refugee status (not the same, but closely related). I don't think we even had asylum available as a human right until something like the 1990s
Before that, it was only a political tool. It was usually generously given to people from "enemy" nations (Russia, Cuba etc.) and begrudgingly to a few others when it became unavoidable (such as the Vietnamese boat people) but not to most people who were persecuted (including infamously many Jewish refugees from Germany).
And even after it was finally made generally available, it was undermined - many people from "undesirable" areas such as Haiti didn't get asylum and the right to permanently settle, but only what is called "Temporary Protected Status" which is a limbo state similar to DACA and has to be extended regularly by Congress.
Thank you for weighing in with your insight. For all the performative antics going on in Texas for years, no one with a soapbox seems interested in clearing up all the confusion. Frustrating.
Not quite. Asylum is one form of legal immigration. The statement "if they want to immigrate, they should do it the right way" is insidious for a different reason: the "right way" has been closed off for decades now for most people.
In fact, allowing these people to apply for legal immigration (and get it approved in a reasonable amount of time) would be one, and probably the only, way of solving the border issues.
yep, its legal until the appeal for asylum is denied but they stay anyway. But even then it is NOT "criminal." If one stays after a legal entry, including overstaying a visa, the violation is a CIVIL matter. The penalty is deportation, but not jail time.
So all these folks that cry "Criminals" about the vast majority of undocumenteds, who came in perfectly legally are just showing that they are unaware of the law and not interested in finding out what the law really says. The Hannitys and Carlsons are the law-givers to these folks.
No, that's not true. You are confusing applying for asylum with actually receiving asylum. Asylum is what you get after the application is approved. You can indeed sometimes stay while an immigration case (asylum or otherwise) is pending, but that's not universally true.
You are right that overstaying is (usually - there are exceptions) civil, but the penalties are much more than merely deportation (which of course is devastating in itself). And deportation usually does involve jail time, sometimes for years or even decades, despite not being criminal.
All this is highly simplified, of course. Reality is much more nuanced. For instance, sometimes people can avoid deportation (and the legal consequences of it) by voluntarily leaving. And sometimes voluntary departure carries consequences more severe than deportation. Again, it's complicated.
you are right about asylum being the end result, but that's not what I was trying to say. I meant you are legally here while you are waiting for asylum to be approved. If the immigration authorities don't LET you stay while awaiting, you aren't in the US, illegal or other.
I was using "jail time" to designate a criminal status. I can see that you might have to be in custody depending on the circumstances.
The reality of the whole thing IS nuanced. I have a friend who overstayed a visa years ago. He finally got caught in a sweep being done for other reasons. He hired a lawyer, was able to stay and work while the case went on, and is now legally able to stay because he has young America-born kids. He had a work permit for those years--not sure how he got it, but it was legit. They won't now let him renew it. So he'll be here legally without the legal ability to work, which presents a problem, of course. I suspect he'll work illegally, and hope nobody catches him. THAT would nix his ability to stay or ever come back because of the kids, but I think he'll take the risk. He's from a very war-torn country but really has no grounds for asylum. He wasn't particularly persecuted while there by government, gangs, etc.
The point I was trying to make is that those who entered legally in the first place aren't "criminals" as so many label them.
That's a very good point. I have now heard some people start calling them "illegal refugees" which of course is intended to tar refugees.
As an aside: one of the biggest differences between asylum and refugee is, at least today, that a refugee is approved *before* arriving in the USA (often from a refugee camp, where the Red Cross would arrange for resettling them in many countries in the world), while Asylum is for people who are in immediate need and arrive directly at the US border.
POTUS is not an “officer of the United States”?? He is the top General! U.S. head of state. Chief executive of the federal government. Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If that is not an "officer" then what is?
Ditto. My first thought regarding his argument was if he's not an officer, why do military members all salute him?
In fact, the other day TFG himself referred to when he'd taken the oath of OFFICE as president.
Has it occurred to the MAGAts, do you think, that if Trump is immune, other presidents they don't like will also be immune?
I'm pretty sure their goal is to never have another Democratic president
trump's goal is to never leave if he gets back in office
Human mortality would see to that sooner or later. Preferably sooner.
Preferably before Nov. Oh did I say that out loud?
Now that is funny! I agree!
He already, while still in office, talked about not just getting reelected, but having a *third* term.
I just can't wrap my head around us having to deal with him thru another election. So many red flags.
Boy did you hit the nail on the head
True. There IS one now, and will be for a year yet.
Careful what you ask for - you might get it...
What would it matter to them. Many do not think beyond today. Also , this kind of irrational and spiteful and opportunistic attack has been going on since the Reagan years with little to no accountability or consequences.
Except we are paying attention now.
I don't think they think that far.... assuming they think AT ALL.
The current president for instance.
As I have said before, a sitting president is more powerful than an ex-president. It gives Biden these powers too. Trump apparently does not consider that. Personally, I wish that if granted, Biden would take these powers to get rid of members of the Supreme Court.
Of course, Biden shouldn't (and won't) use these powers against SCOTUS justices (or anybody). But it may make an even more impressive hypothetical than the ones already made to explain the absurdity of the claim.
Of course he won't and shouldn't, but what he should do is expand the court.
Probably too late at this stage, and fraught with peril. The risk is that the next guy would do the same thing, expand the court from, say, 13 to 21, and so on. The only way to prevent that would be with a Constitutional Amendment. And that's gonna happen in seven, six, five, four, three, two, one ... millenia.
I'm not opposed to expanding the court per se, but it's tricky to get right.
I don't remember whose idea it was, but I like the plan where the Supreme Court isn't a separate set of Justices, but rather consists of all the members of the Appeals courts. Every term a random panel of judges is selected to act as the Supreme Court. That way the Court might never have the same liberal/conservative balance, and it would be harder to court-shop.
The idea of an impeachment without a high crime or misdemeanor is frivolous and should be met with a motion in the Senate to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing.
The goal of "impeaching" Secretary Mayorkas on zero material grounds is to destroy the (brand) value of impeachment. This is in service to the Donald, who wants to utterly devalue impeachment -- kinda like his properties when it comes tax time. His two well-founded impeachments will lose their sting with voters, he believes. Dems cannot let this happen -- call it out for what it is!
In fact, all Republicans do is try to implode the government in every way they can. This is a White nationalist agenda, discussed by Prof. Kathleen Belew in her book, Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America. The goal is to get rid of the USA, and create a sort of Confederacy. That is a White Nationalist Nation in its stead. So, so much for being patriots in the Republican party. I have never been duped by that idea.
I like the phrase (brand) value of impeachment. Destroying that already happened when the Republicans impeached Clinton over a consensually stained dress - certainly no high crime or misdemeanor.
Exactly!
Republicans only care about budget deficits when they are out of power. In 2017-2018, they controlled the government and they had a strong economy. Perfect time for them to “deal with the budget.” They cut taxes and blew the deficit up even more.
I think my monthly paycheck went up $1.79 with that tax cut.
My tax bill went up by $1000--lost deductible expenses. I'm 73, living on SS, small pension and some investment income
Me too. My property taxes alone are way over the SALT limit. Partly that's a problem of living where there is no income tax, so property and sales tax take up most of the tax revenue. Also living in a place that attracts high earners so the cost of housing has skyrocketed . Partly it is because of things like school levies and help for the homeless, which add to the property tax and which I willingly vote for.
So I guess a trumpite will say the ineffectiveness of the tax cut for me, retired for 15 years, is all my fault.
I have no idea what that is like.
I hope you saved it up for a bigly trip or something bigly nice (insert eyeroll here)
"Said GOP Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), “We keep doing the same stupid stuff.”
Like trying to attach non-starter crap to funding bills. But it's not really about passing funding is it?
The "Republican" aka Fascist Party hasn't done a damn thing for their constituents. Will they ever realize that and hold them accountable? I keep using the word primitive, but I really think these voters are. They get whipped up in a hateful frenzy while their tax dollars get them nothing. It's maddening. Getting Trump out of our national discussion cant happen soon enough. TGIF everyone! ✌️💙
The tax dollars are getting them some investment and infrastructure in congressional districts where the Fascist Party House member and senator voted against it, but are now taking credit for.
You are correct. A friend/co-worker told me that she thought the traitor was a good president. I almost laughed out loud. When I asked her why she said that he wanted to get rid of Obama care. SMH
🤦♀️🤦♀️ And WHY would getting ride of Obamacare be good thing in her opinion? It’s all so crazy. 🙄
I honestly have no idea but I told her that it was popular and that he had had control of the house and senate for 2 years.
Minor correction/quibble - Although the Republicans want Mayorkas to behave as a Secretary of Homeland Defense, he's actually the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I probably should look up the DHS mandate, but I think a Defense Secretary would be defending the border, while the Secretary of Security should be making sure we (in the Homeland) are safe. Trump may insist that the migrants are poisoning "our" blood, but the vast majority of folks crossing the border aren't doing so to blow up federal buildings or storm the US Capitol.
Thanks, I brain farted.
The Republican reaction to the passing of the CR is so blatantly typical. Decisions are no longer made “for the good of the people” but instead, it’s about not losing votes. Sad.
Seems it takes a minimum of 4-6 weeks for the House to produce a budget bill or kick the can. Now they have two cans, and they're kicking them 6 weeks down the road, thus assuring that the only thing that happens in the House is can kicking and committees on political vendettas. You would think it wasn't an election year.
My gut tells me the High Nine's Trumpetoons will keep the Bloated Yam on the ballot.
"As for Johnson, “We wish him great success,” McHenry said. “But he needs to widen the group of advisers he has"
Yeah, like the almost daily phone calls he makes to Trump asking for his orders.
Johnson can always blame his conversations with and close personal relationship to God for any of his actions.
Then he should subpoena God to testify before Congress.
“If we keep extending the pain, creating more suffering, we will pay the price at the ballot box,” McHenry told reporters.
MTG is threatening another motion to vacate.
I’d love to see them shoot themselves in the foot like this, but the country can’t survive as it is now for many more months with the antics of these buffoons.
"...the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should tell a state supreme court how to interpret its own state election laws is radical and rather unprecedented".
Frankly, Jay, wasn't Bush v Gore and SCOTUS usurping the FL Supreme Court fall into that category? A partisan Court did it once, who can argue that they won't do it again?
They hung it on the Electors Clause and Equal Protection, if I recall.
Exactly, and there's tRump Argument #5 on your list: The Electors Clause.
"...Republican scare tactics around migrants are working."
This is what worries me. It's easy to stay in our favorite echo chambers and not hear how immigration issues are being perceived by voters. Or that mainstream media IS reporting about it, and often. Especially if you don't live in a border state or Chicago or the metro NYC area (as a former Long Islander with friends there, I think immigration might hurt Suozzi in the race for Santos seat).
That said, immigration (and being against) has been a huge part of the GOPs m.o. for every election for a decade at least, and Dems keep winning. But is this the year their lying, inaction, and far more aggressive messaging makes the difference? And what can the Dems and the Biden administration do to combat this? Because the GOP has been, and is, controlling the narrative
Immigration and seeking Asylum are two very different processes. Dems would do well to understand the difference. The Republican refrain is typically "if they want to immigrate, they should do it the right way". That statement conflates seeking asylum with immigration. The people crossing the border are seeking asylum and they ARE doing it correctly by presenting themselves to a US official and stating their intention. Immigration as spoken of by the magas is typically a process wherein a working professional in another country desires to move here and applies to the US government from their home as they continue working. The current iteration of the GOP ignores this distinction. It also completely ignores the responsibility that Americans inherited, through our government actions in countries in South and Central America, where in we destabilized democratically elected leaders in our zeal to stop communism. The result has been failed states and people seeking a better life elsewhere. Meanwhile, our low unemployment rate means that we've very much would benefit from hiring these obviously motivated people. But rather than doing that, the white supremacists would prefer to build a wall and force young women in America to bear more White children. Turns out, many more abortions have been provided to white people than any other demographic. FUBAR.
The GOP wants to eliminate the idea of asylum, putting us at odds with international law and moving even closer to Hungary and GOP darling Orban. Somebody will have to chisel "Better Not" in front of the Statue of Liberty's poem.
Agreed. To put that into perspective, though, the US always had a very poor track record on asylum and refugee status (not the same, but closely related). I don't think we even had asylum available as a human right until something like the 1990s
Before that, it was only a political tool. It was usually generously given to people from "enemy" nations (Russia, Cuba etc.) and begrudgingly to a few others when it became unavoidable (such as the Vietnamese boat people) but not to most people who were persecuted (including infamously many Jewish refugees from Germany).
And even after it was finally made generally available, it was undermined - many people from "undesirable" areas such as Haiti didn't get asylum and the right to permanently settle, but only what is called "Temporary Protected Status" which is a limbo state similar to DACA and has to be extended regularly by Congress.
Thank you for weighing in with your insight. For all the performative antics going on in Texas for years, no one with a soapbox seems interested in clearing up all the confusion. Frustrating.
I find that disturbingly easy to believe. Murdoch did a number on a bunch of professed Christians.
Not quite. Asylum is one form of legal immigration. The statement "if they want to immigrate, they should do it the right way" is insidious for a different reason: the "right way" has been closed off for decades now for most people.
In fact, allowing these people to apply for legal immigration (and get it approved in a reasonable amount of time) would be one, and probably the only, way of solving the border issues.
yep, its legal until the appeal for asylum is denied but they stay anyway. But even then it is NOT "criminal." If one stays after a legal entry, including overstaying a visa, the violation is a CIVIL matter. The penalty is deportation, but not jail time.
So all these folks that cry "Criminals" about the vast majority of undocumenteds, who came in perfectly legally are just showing that they are unaware of the law and not interested in finding out what the law really says. The Hannitys and Carlsons are the law-givers to these folks.
No, that's not true. You are confusing applying for asylum with actually receiving asylum. Asylum is what you get after the application is approved. You can indeed sometimes stay while an immigration case (asylum or otherwise) is pending, but that's not universally true.
You are right that overstaying is (usually - there are exceptions) civil, but the penalties are much more than merely deportation (which of course is devastating in itself). And deportation usually does involve jail time, sometimes for years or even decades, despite not being criminal.
All this is highly simplified, of course. Reality is much more nuanced. For instance, sometimes people can avoid deportation (and the legal consequences of it) by voluntarily leaving. And sometimes voluntary departure carries consequences more severe than deportation. Again, it's complicated.
you are right about asylum being the end result, but that's not what I was trying to say. I meant you are legally here while you are waiting for asylum to be approved. If the immigration authorities don't LET you stay while awaiting, you aren't in the US, illegal or other.
I was using "jail time" to designate a criminal status. I can see that you might have to be in custody depending on the circumstances.
The reality of the whole thing IS nuanced. I have a friend who overstayed a visa years ago. He finally got caught in a sweep being done for other reasons. He hired a lawyer, was able to stay and work while the case went on, and is now legally able to stay because he has young America-born kids. He had a work permit for those years--not sure how he got it, but it was legit. They won't now let him renew it. So he'll be here legally without the legal ability to work, which presents a problem, of course. I suspect he'll work illegally, and hope nobody catches him. THAT would nix his ability to stay or ever come back because of the kids, but I think he'll take the risk. He's from a very war-torn country but really has no grounds for asylum. He wasn't particularly persecuted while there by government, gangs, etc.
The point I was trying to make is that those who entered legally in the first place aren't "criminals" as so many label them.
That's a very good point. I have now heard some people start calling them "illegal refugees" which of course is intended to tar refugees.
As an aside: one of the biggest differences between asylum and refugee is, at least today, that a refugee is approved *before* arriving in the USA (often from a refugee camp, where the Red Cross would arrange for resettling them in many countries in the world), while Asylum is for people who are in immediate need and arrive directly at the US border.
Thanks for another excellent summary.