POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

no, you're just dumber than you think if you really think this is normal lame duck legislation.

Politics is a no-holds barred brawl. Anyone who doesn't realize that is being naive. That's why moves like gerrymandering or this lame duck legislation occurs. People can sit there and pretend like only one team does it. People have a right to be naive.

I have yet to hear one logical explanation as to why the legislation proposed in Michigan and Wisconsin is illegal or unconstitutional. Same as in North Carolina.

Personally, I think it's short-sighted on Republican's part to make these moves, and probably not politically smart. Why give D's something to run against in the next legislative races in Wisconsin? Also, as I said yesterday, the power stripped from the governor doesn't just address the power of a Democratic governor, it applies to a Republican governor too. But the Republican legislature in Wisconsin being short-sighted, or buying short-term political gain for long-term political loss isn't illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

When all I get is name-calling, I tend to think I struck a little closer to home than people like to admit.

It’s funny, I knew you were going to address my post rather than actually have to respond to something intelligent.

 

[rufus]

I have yet to hear one logical explanation as to why the legislation proposed in Michigan and Wisconsin is illegal or unconstitutional. Same as in North Carolina.

Who's claiming it is? But it ain't right.

And since you made the claim that its just politics as usual, and, you know, both sides, its up to you to offer some examples of Democrats engaging in the exact same practices.

We'll be here waiting.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Who's claiming it is? But it ain't right.

And since you made the claim that its just politics as usual, and, you know, both sides, its up to you to offer some examples of Democrats engaging in the exact same practices.

We'll be here waiting.

You want me to give you examples of lame duck legislation??

 

[rufus]

Personally, I think it's short-sighted on Republican's part to make these moves, and probably not politically smart. Why give D's something to run against in the next legislative races in Wisconsin? Also, as I said yesterday, the power stripped from the governor doesn't just address the power of a Democratic governor, it applies to a Republican governor too. But the Republican legislature in Wisconsin being short-sighted, or buying short-term political gain for long-term political loss isn't illegal or unconstitutional.

If and when they get a Republican governor again, they'll just pass legislation to give him those powers back.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

It’s funny, I knew you were going to address my post rather than actually have to respond to something intelligent.

I'm not sure, but I think you may have just insulted yourself.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

If and when they get a Republican governor again, they'll just pass legislation to give him those powers back.

Yep. They might.

So hey, I have an idea. How about the D's win the Wisconsin legislature and they can decide what powers they want the governor to have. To winners go the spoils.

 

[rufus]

You want me to give you examples of lame duck legislation??

No, I want you to give me examples of lame duck legislation that intends to do what this does, namely, the losing party, in this case examples from you, the Democrats, using their political authority to weaken the statutory powers of the winning party, in this case, Republicans.

 

[rufus]

Yep. They might.

So hey, I have an idea. How about the D's win the Wisconsin legislature and they can decide what powers they want the governor to have. To winners go the spoils.

Maybe they will, once they gerrymander the districts back in their favor.

 

[state of hockey]

You want me to give you examples of lame duck legislation??

Stop stalling.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I'm not sure, but I think you may have just insulted yourself.

No, I insulted you while acknowledging my post was just chatter.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

No, I want you to give me examples of lame duck legislation that intends to do what this does, namely, the losing party, in this case examples from you, the Democrats, using their political authority to weaken the statutory powers of the winning party, in this case, Republicans.

Wait, you think the Wisconsin legislation is using political authority to "weaken the statutory powers of the winning party?" How exactly does it do that?

It weakens the statutory powers of the office of governor. Whoever holds that seat.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Is this just a deliberately obtuse post, or do you really not get this?

Some of you here, along with a bunch of halfwits in Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere don't get that this is lame duck legislation?? Lame duck legislation occurs literally every single time there is a change in power from one party to the other at either the state or federal level. The outgoing party knows "it's now or never" and the incoming party screams "foul" (although admittedly not with the shrillness of some of the D's in Wisconsin).

There is nothing illegal about it. There is nothing evil about it. It's no different than if they had passed the legislation last February. Personally I wouldn't pass a bunch of legislation like Wisconsin's since it's shortsighted -- there will almost certainly come a time when the Wisconsin legislature is controlled by the D's and the Governor is an R, but that's really their problem.

So my question would be about the constitutionality of the laws passed when stripping these government officials of their powers and transferring them to the legislature. Were the powers stripped provided to these office holders by their respective states' constitutions, or subsequent legislation?

Regardless of the legal outcome of this, it's severely short-sighted and very foolish. Talk about giving ammo to the opposition come next election cycle!

You want me to give you examples of lame duck legislation??

Obamacare. Regardless of whether or not a person views it as good legislation, it was passed a few short days before the Republicans took control of Congress in 2011.

I’m not sure I buy the pence indictment thing. Where is this rumor coming from?

/r/deepstate?

I won't hold my breath until reputable news orgs start to report this, or more likely the actual indictment is submitted. However, to you point of Hair Furor being clean while all others are dirty, it's more like the leader of a mafia gang insulating himself from prosecution by leaving no recordable trace, having those around him commit things to paper so that if anybody goes down, it's them and not him. Comey said that the most striking impression he took from his first 1:1 conversation with Trump is that the Hair Furor operated like a Mafioso.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Wait, you think the Wisconsin legislation is using political authority to "weaken the statutory powers of the winning party?" How exactly does it do that?

It weakens the statutory powers of the office of governor. Whoever holds that seat.

What drugs are u on? You need to share.

 

[mookie1995]

What drugs are u on? You need to share.

Sharing is caring

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Barr is officially the nominee. Can he shut this witch hunt down fast enough??

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

So my question would be about the constitutionality of the laws passed when stripping these government officials of their powers and transferring them to the legislature. Were the powers stripped provided to these office holders by their respective states' constitutions, or subsequent legislation?

Regardless of the legal outcome of this, it's severely short-sighted and very foolish. Talk about giving ammo to the opposition come next election cycle!



Obamacare. Regardless of whether or not a person views it as good legislation, it was passed a few short days before the Republicans took control of Congress in 2011.

I assume that if the legislature tries to eliminate a constitutional power of the governor, that's going to get shot down in the courts. As I recall, that's part of the claim about what happened in North Carolina a couple of years ago, but I don't think that's been decided yet, but I don't know for sure.

What you see everyone saying is "it's undemocratic" what these legislatures are doing, which is just another way of saying "it's not fair."

With respect to lame duck legislation, iirc correctly after Obama took a beating in the mid-terms in 2010, the outgoing Democratic congress passed a bunch of legislation that they knew would never get passed once the Republicans took office. I think their ban on the executive branch using the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military was part of what they did away with, which is fine with me because it was a stupid practice by the executive anyway. But I'm not 100% certain I have the dates right on that.

 

[aparch]

Yep. They might.

So hey, I have an idea. How about the D's win the Wisconsin legislature and they can decide what powers they want the governor to have. To winners go the spoils.

How about the GOP quit being partisan hacks and start putting the state or country ahead of profits or personal gain?

I want my legislature to legislate. Not spend months undoing what the last group did.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Obamacare. Regardless of whether or not a person views it as good legislation, it was passed a few short days before the Republicans took control of Congress in 2011.

Obamacare was coming down the pumpkin path literally from the day Obama was elected in 2008. It wasn't passed by a bunch of "I'm taking my ball and going home" crybabies who lost an election. And if memory serves wasn't it actually passed in 2010, before the 2010 midterms? If Scott Walker had managed to suppress a few more votes to win another term last month, this legislation would never have been mentioned, let alone considered.

What I'm waiting to see from anyone -- what we're all waiting here to see -- is similar legislation passed by democratic legislators in a state where the incoming governor is a republican replacing a democratic governor. Deep blue Massachusetts has a republican governor. Do the democrats in their state legislature spend all their time passing laws stripping him of power?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

How about the GOP quit being partisan hacks and start putting the state or country ahead of profits or personal gain?

I want my legislature to legislate. Not spend months undoing what the last group did.

The GOP isn’t interested in governing. They only care about enriching the... already rich