Archangel1313

joined 2 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Did any of these people even try and explain to him how tariffs actually work...or was that a step too far?

[–] [email protected] 71 points 4 days ago (14 children)

Who's going to stop him? At this point, it seems pretty obvious he can just do whatever he wants. The Constitution is dead, right along with the Judiciary's authority to challenge him.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago (3 children)

He's the Jeffrey Combs of superhero movies.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

An endorsement from Netanyahu should be automatically disqualifying.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

And Harvard tuition fees go, "Brrrrrrrrrr!"

[–] [email protected] 60 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Man, it is getting harder and harder to spot satire these days.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Considering this word really applies most to people like Joe Rogan, I find this whole thing pretty ironic.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why would they need to "smuggle" him back into the country? He's an innocent man, wrongfully incarcerated in a foreign prison. What the fuck is wrong with these assholes?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Just get a tissue sample for the DNA. Bring them back once Capitalism is over.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That process still needs to happen. You can't just assume what the final outcome is going to be, and just proceed as if it can't be challenged. That defeats the entire purpose of judicial review.

If there is even the slightest possibility that the order given, is in conflict with the Constitution...then allowing it to proceed at all, is also a violation of the Constitution. Putting that order on pause, until the review process can be completed...all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary...is the only logical option.

Or do you think it's fine to keep breaking the law for potentially months, until the Supreme Court can confirm what even the lowest courts were able to determine was illegal?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why would they give him back? The US is paying them to keep these people. That was the deal. Giving him back means they don't get paid.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Seriously. That option needs to be removed from the Charter. I haven't heard one instance where it was used in a positive way. It's always to do something that violates someone else's rights.

view more: ‹ prev next ›