Trump, June 2017: From [Covfefe] with Love

Ron Johnson says they shouldn't vote on the bill next week.

When did Missouri turn into Alabama

sometime around when st louis added a fourth ring of suburbs because minority groups started moving into the third ring

and the Dems will sing "I Started a Joke"

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius)

mike patton, d-ca

Is he calling himself T now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ibSvOWAMg

ladies love mnuchin...

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/gy_wedding3_dc_062517_4x3_992.jpg

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/gy_wedding4_dc_062517_12x5_1600.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-just-ended-a-long-tradition-of-celebrating-11244746.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NQE3tpAsU8

Yes, people who suffer from a chronic illness or pre-existing condition are exactly like drivers who get into a lot of car crashes, because people are always in complete control of how healthy they are, just like a driver is in control of their car.

lol at him talking about high risk pools like this innovative new idea that nobody wants to talk about. there's a reason nobody wants to talk about them.

lol sorry i had images off on my phone & didn't realize LBI had already posted that Seinfeld clip

Lawfare blogger and Comey BFF Ben Wittes just rolled out this teaser following a "tick tick tick" tweet:

3 things:
1) Not all ticks are related to Comey.
2) Fuse length remains uncertain.
3) Interesting preemptive defense of collusion happening.

— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) June 26, 2017

i want to smack that guy sometimes

a SCOTUS travel ban ruling is out

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

here's the money quote

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring
enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the
Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the
extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with
respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship
with a person or entity in the United States. We
leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place
with respect to respondents and those similarly situated,
as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12.

Thomas:

I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable. Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connec- tion to a person or entity in this country. See ante, at 11– 12. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed “simply to avoid §2(c)” of Execu- tive Order No. 13780, ante, at 11, 12. And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will pre- sumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now— unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

is it common practice to allow a contended law to take effect like this until it can be argued? i assume allowing the ban to take effect doesn't signal any kind of stance by the court one way or the other since it hasn't been deliberated.

I was wondering that, too. I would've assumed the lower courts' rulings would apply until and unless the SC overruled.

well, it's not a law, for one, and were it not blocked by the lower court injunctions then it would have been been in effect.

per curiam is a little head-turning

seems clear from thoma's little ditty that trump's got three votes in the bag

The prose is less butthurt than usual from Clarence T.

or ''Thomas, J.'' as he is oddly termed here. typo, or does he have another given name?

So travel ban is in effect until verdict reached by lower courts?

My English not so good today

only parts of it

the ban, not your English

Also mine English

can we get some legit good news this week, like can a hand come out of the sky and grab DJT, McConnell, and Ryan simultaneously a la The Stand?

even good news on the health care fiasco will probably just be good news "for now".......

Good news! Our lives are still finite. Although I'm sure the GOP is working on a plan to hook us all up to machines that will extend our misery indefinitely as we wither away into sinewy mummies over the course of centuries.

or ''Thomas, J.'' as he is oddly termed here. typo, or does he have another given name?

― ﴿→ ☺ (Doctor Casino), Monday, June 26, 2017 10:59 AM (fourteen minutes ago) Bookmark

they're all like that - J. is for Justice

well, it's not a law, for one, and were it not blocked by the lower court injunctions then it would have been been in effect.

per curiam is a little head-turning

― 龜, Monday, June 26, 2017 10:50 AM (twenty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So the SC couldn't block it as well until the fall when they actually hear it? Or is it just that they chose not to?

Wittes tweet is lame, but people seem to be focussing on his third tease: "Interesting preemptive defense of collusion happening." I haven't been paying attention, but I guess White House line as of the last few days has been, suspiciously, "collusion isn't illegal"?

yeah, Fox has been fucking that chicken too.

really odd recent trend of right-wing pundits saying Collusion Is Actually Fine 🤔🤔🤔 pic.twitter.com/ROvfV0Naqz

— Brendan Karet 🚮 (@bad_takes) June 25, 2017

So the SC couldn't block it as well until the fall when they actually hear it? Or is it just that they chose not to?

― evol j, Monday, June 26, 2017 11:15 AM (six minutes ago) Bookmark

they could have let the injunction continue or they could have stayed the injunction, or they could have half-assed it (which is what they did here)

gotcha thanks

White House line as of the last few days has been, suspiciously, "collusion isn't illegal"

Yet another "that makes me smart" defense would satisfy Trump diehards, who'd stay in his camp just because they believe in him enough to follow him off the end of a pier. But strong evidence proving collusion during the campaign would be heavily politically damaging, even if he succeeds in convincing the public that illegality of it is unclear. He's operating in a different environment under different rules than he is used to. But then, he has no real agenda other than being POTUS and tweeting a lot, so the Republican Congress might just try to ride it out by looking saddened and tut-tutting, but not impeaching him, and hoping the mid-terms aren't a bloodbath.

Hey, we're all just passengers on Spaceship Earth. What's wrong with trying to get along with our fellow passengers? And why didn't Obama put a stop to it? Sad!

J. is for Justice

oh, duh. thank you. was still working on my coffee during that post.

I dunno how I feel about this plan.

seems highly dubious. the simple fact of BCRA being as slapdash and destructive as it is indicates the GOP only cares about racking up wins. I also don't see the upside for Collins and Cassidy at this stage of the game -- working with Dems opens them up to the same attacks as simply voting the bill down, which is why I think in the end they'll do neither.

i have limitless confidence in any Dem plan failing

There is no plan for Senate Democrats that puts any power in their hands apart from the power to point vigorously at the worst provisions of McConnell's bill and say loudly over and over again "22 million losing coverage to finance massive tax cuts for the rich", on the chance that voters are listening and would grasp what the bill does. All else is effectively out of their hands.

like when you don't have both houses, whadya want, a Che Guevara uprising

Trump claims Obama "colluded" w/ Russia now.

just like when a 10 year old kid who doesn't understand a word you just said to him repeats it:

"I'm not 'exagemerating' you are!!!!"

go nucular, not nuclear

xp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaVWRetR4jg

apparently Trump's getting legal advice from

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/362060137/Pee-wee_Twitter_Profile.png