Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 06/06/25

1881882883885887

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,689 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    It’s a good reminder of just how much religion dominates US politics- a greater bunch of hypocrites you couldn’t get - thankfully in ireland we’ve cut the umbilical cord to the Catholic Church in the main- American churches are simply money generating machines servicing a need to maintain certain “values” as the citizens see fit, usually discriminating against ethnicities and the marginalised of society - people pay good sums of dollars weekly to be a part of their “church” - it’s no different to a political lobby group. It’s got nothing to do with “God” and everything to do with keeping certain parts of society at arms length



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,765 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    And lest we forget, the SCOTUS is majority RCC. 7-2



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭Field east


    I cannot get my head around on what grounds three of the seven judges abstained. Was the decision to be made not clear . The three involved knew exactly of the outcome because the all knew who was going to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’. So all three effectively voted to support what Trump wanted.
    what had they to gain by abstaining



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,269 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    1000012181.jpg

    1) denial means it is absolutely true

    2) would you define "sleazebag" perhaps as someone who lurks around teen models as a grown ass man, or who says if he wasn't related to his daughter he would date her, or when asked what he has most in common with his daughter the answer was "sex", or someone who cheated on all of his wives, or someone who has sex with a pornstar while his 3rd wife was at home with his newborn?

    Or how about ALL of them?

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,287 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Actually it's 6 out of 9.

    It would appear that US Catholics are pretty mainstream on social issues. The real hardcore and oppressive approach to issues like abortion and gay marriage comes more from (Protestant) Evangelicals. Sure there is a strong conservative Catholic wing (think of J D Vance), but there is a liberal mainstream in US Catholicism (think of Pope Leo XIV),which is very active on issues such as opposing the brutal activities of ICE, the gutting of Medicare and Medicais, stc



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,765 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    I strongly doubt Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Coney Barratt are mainstream in their views, and Kavanaugh's lurching to the right on a regular basis now. Gorsuch is a bit hard to read.

    Maybe Soto-Mayor is more mainstream. Most don't realize Thomas is a right-wing Catholic as it gets.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    Pardon my ignorance but how do Supreme Court judges get appointed, if there’s a vacancy can the sitting president just appoint anyone he likes?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,926 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Sitting President nominates someone, then they go through Senate confirmation hearings and a vote. So the President selects, the Senate votes/approves. I assume they at least have to be a judge in an existing court, not just anyone at all.

    It's why Mitch McConnell was able to stop Obama in the last few months of his Presidency when a vacancy came up after the death of a SC judge (Scalia I think); Obama nominated a judge but McConnell as Leader of the Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings, saying it was too close to the end of Obama's presidency. But then in the last few months of Trump's first term and even closer to the election, McConnell helped ram through Trump's nominee.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,287 ✭✭✭Economics101


    What you are saying is that the Supreme Court Catholics are not representative of US Catholicism in general. Agreed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭RickBlaine


    I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have been appalled if they knew of McConnell's antics around Obama's nomination. Utterly despicable and hypocritical.

    It was also one of the earliest signs that the GOP is willing to openly break all norms and conventions if it suits them politically. It was a shocking and controversial move back in 2016, but now 9 years later such norms are being broken on a weekly basis.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,089 ✭✭✭yagan


    The founding fathers owned slaves so not sure how Obama would have fared with them.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Sortof. The ruling applies with that specific plaintiff on that particular type of request for relief so, yes, as of today, it only affects those individuals which have asked. It does not prohibit other forms of collective relief such as class or third party, it just means the appropriate requests must be made. It's worth noting that one of the concurring opinions confirmed the rights, for example, of a state to request an injunction to prevent enforcement against the residents of its state whilst also cautioning the lower federal courts that there are rules in place already to determine when such a broad third party relief is appropriate, and to not go about making all state claims on everything into broad collective relief or else we'll end up in the same place as before, just through a different route.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I wouldn't be so sure of that. A few may well have still been around when it took over a year and a half to replace Trimble.

    Long Supreme Court vacancies used to be more common | Pew Research Center

    image.png image.png

    The McConnell antics certainly set back common convention to an earlier time, but were no means unprecedented or contrary to the way the country used to work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,689 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    In fairness Norms are there for the breaking- especially if they’re not doing society any good - what MAGA are doing is establishing new norms and conventions that suit mainly white Right Wing America- we’ve seen the recently established norm of inclusivity of LGBGT+ somewhat eroded - we’ve also seen the norm of laisse faire to poor working class but non criminal immigrants also eroded - replaced with the norm of intolerance.

    It’s a good lesson on how norms can change very quickly in society given just a few set of circumstances. Norms in Ireland took decades to erode and it was a slow journey for tolerance to take hold- but we’re already seen cracks in parts of society and quite a right wing element remerging - sites like boards.ie are very important right now in allowing reasoned debate and discussion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,926 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    It's why pointing out hypocrisy by the GOP is pointless; they dont care. McConnell knew stonewalling the confirmation hearings due to being close to the election had absolutely no true justification or basis in precedent. He also knew the time would come when the same thing happened for a GOP President (likely didn't know it'd happen so soon and while he was still Senate Leader). Either way, it didn't matter. He didnt care about any kind of hypocrisy or precedent. Whatever suited him and the GOP, that's all that mattered.

    Trump, McConnell et al don't care how much you can show how hypocritical they are. As fun as it is to do, they simply do not care. Regardless what they said yesterday, they'll do whatever they need to benefit themselves tomorrow.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,094 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I was a bit surprised to see that the SCOTUS decision came on the day it shut down it's current law term, bringing any legal motions likely to be presented to SCOTUS to a close. The other obvious effect of the SCOTUS ruling is that it is likely to give Trump the idea that he can use the power to issue E.O's liberally without SCOTUS reining him in.

    In line with the latest ruling, there is it's previous ruling on the extent to which the term "Presidential Official Duties" can be stretched by Trump. SCOTUS declined to lay down the parameters outside which Trump [or any other president for that sake] cannot step.

    Ref the jurisdictional reach of the rulings and/or orders that the different courts [below SCOTUS], that's something outside my ken so I wont comment on how one court can issue orders that will set aside orders of other courts except to state the obvious; an appeals courts can plainly set aside a bad or malicious order of a different court, as appeals against bad or malicious orders is plainly why the appeals courts were created.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,897 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Lads

    They're setting up a fùcking concentration camp (they'll deny that's what it is) for 5000 people in Florida!

    20250628_213831.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 322 ✭✭pad406


    I know the whole concept of people's rights are rapidly disappearing in the US but this is just cruel. I'd imagine even convicted criminals would be entitled to some form of basic humane accommodation at a higher level that this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Perfect time to set it up with hurricane season! They really are treating them like second class citizens humans. They really ain't far off ratting on their neighbours and having non citizens wear an identifying badge or armband.

    Alligator Alcatraz…..Speaking of Alcatraz, did Trump ever follow through reopening it in California…. speaking of California, has he followed up with tariffing non American movies?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,932 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    https://apnews.com/article/florida-alligator-alcatraz-immigration-detention-trump-desantis-0597dd71a0cfcbc819b82929c03466cd

    This does indeed look like a recipe for a disgusting, inhuman disaster, lots of protests going on apparently but the detention centre is being assembled.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Think they mentioned a passenger reporting her uber driver to ICE on CNN a few nights back.

    That is the America we love.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,361 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    It's why pointing out hypocrisy by the GOP is pointless; they dont care.

    Just keep calling them nazis. Not even important ones. Not even worthy of the capital N. Not even the 'just following orders' ones.

    Those people are just so braindead and bereft of their own minds that they agree with whatever tf is said by 'daddy'



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,153 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    It'll be some disaster if this bill passes.

    The Building Trades Union are firmly against it.

    20250629_001405.jpg

    And Elon Musk has also come out against it which is significant moreso in how that might influence Senators Moreno than me caring what he says. He enabled this clown, he shouldn't be praised for pushing back on him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,034 ✭✭✭threeball


    All the whinging is a bit late now. They all knew what they voted for. I'd imagine millions of tradesmen and their families voted for him but just assumed he fcuk someone else over and not them. These guys work alongside undocumented Latinos every day and heard what he said about them and happily voted for him.

    To paraphrase full metal jacket, America is a giant shít sandwich and everyone's gonna have to take a bite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,026 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    LOL…Alligator Alcatraz.

    That sounds like the greatest grindhouse B movie ever made. A 42nd street, missed opportunity, treasure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    It's just getting so hard to have any sympathy for Americans these days.

    Those tradesmen thought as they were working for themselves, maybe a wee small business, that the pro business candidate was ideal for them (ignoring his first term and his 4 bankruptcies). I'm baffled by the excuse trotted out 'it's not what I voted for'…. yeah it's exactly what you voted for! Now is the time to own it!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,858 ✭✭✭pgmcpq


    And when a “split circuit” occurs the SC makes the final decision. But in this case there is no “split”. No court has questioned birthright citizenship. In this case the SC has stepped in to curtail the power of lower court . As a practical matter you would then have to apply for an injunction in every circuit- or even every district to stop the implementation of an executive order. So once again another check and balance has been trashed.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Or they can be done by class or third party.

    Your argument fails on implementation grounds. There have been such injunctions declared with increasing frequency. One every four days on average since Trump took over. Conservatives tend to pick judges in smaller districts, liberals pick them in larger districts (but all have the same legal effect). To enact a policy, a government needs to win each and every court case which comes up. If the first attempt to gain an injunction, they try again in the next circuit. To stall a government policy, the plaintiffs just need to win in one place.

    So to try your theory, at what point is a decision rated to have no split? When two federal districts have ruled? Five? What if after your threshold of (say) five is reached, a sixth court rules otherwise? Suddenly it’s not split any more, is there the same force? And what is the statute or regulation which may indicate the answer to this question? And is not the lack of a split a likely result of forum shopping to begin with?

    This is not the first time in US legal history that the US government has done something with national effect which is (or is going to be) found to be unconstitutional, and national injunctions until this century have not been the way of doing things. The system has not been changed, and the outcome is binary. There isn’t something more unconstitutional than something else, they are or they are not.

    What will happen next is that there will be a new tack taken. Instead of individual plaintiffs seeking national relief, there will be a new series of suits tailored for collective relief. Is the standard for that a bit higher? Sure. But as you point out, there is little doubt of the end result so it seems likely that that standard in this case will be met.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,034 ✭✭✭threeball


    6 bankruptcies. He rolled 2 in to 1 twice as they were at similar times but different businesses.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,689 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    “I'd imagine millions of tradesmen and their families voted for him but just assumed he fcuk someone else over and not them.”

    I’m pretty sure that’s exactly why they voted for him - they dumped the traditional values of respect for fellow man and honest work for chasing the dollar and promised riches from a snake oil salesman .



Advertisement