Donald Trump

Trump Calls the Congressional GOP's Bluff

From Iran to Obamacare to DACA, the president is acting on what Republicans have long promised, in a way that rightly devolves power to the legislative branch.

|

I didn't sign up for this. ||| CNN
CNN

In September 2015, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said, while voting against then-President Barack Obama's agreement with Iran to trade sanctions relief for inspections of Tehran's nuclear program, "This isn't just a bad deal—it's a disastrous deal and it enables Iran to become far more dangerous….We have to judge this deal on the long-term national security interests of the United States. Does it make the region and the world more safe, secure, and stable? In my judgment, clearly it does not."

Two years later, Royce was singing a much different tune: "As flawed as the deal is, I believe we must now enforce the hell out of it."

What changed? Royce will tell you that "the toothpaste is out of the tube" in terms of Iran receiving its previously locked assets, but I would gently suggest an alternative theory: Donald Trump became president and sought to actually deliver (at least in part) on the promise that a then-unanimous GOP caucus felt perfectly safe to issue back when a Democrat slept in the White House. What's more, the president did so in such a way that explicitly kicks the issue back to Congress.

This has become something of a pattern. Trump, who campaigned as the guy who would actually go through with the things Republicans had half-heartedly promised for decades (Move the Israel embassy to Jerusalem! Get those illegals to self-deport! Withdraw from gutless international institutions! Threaten North Korea with extinction!), has in recent weeks repeatedly used such actions as a way to call the Beltway GOP's own bluff.

Take Trump's elimination of the Obama administration's cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies to health insurance companies. It was congressional Republicans who filed the lawsuit against Obama's constitutionally adventurous attempt to appropriate money without the legislative branch's consent, but once it became clear that Trump was serious (if belatedly so) about following that logic to its conclusion, suddenly the Mitch McConnells of the world began squawking about federal relief for insurance companies. The president's response to Congress: Don't like it? Fix it!

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have since come up with a bipartisan plan, and the president's response so far has been mixed, but the pattern still holds: Congressional Republicans demand X of Obama, freak out when Trump threatens to deliver X after campaigning on X, then he kicks the issue back to Congress, where it in fact belongs. The eventual policy result may disappoint, and there's a crudeness to the president's negotiating style, but the process reflects a healthier respect for separation of powers than Trump is generally given credit for.

Do we have another example to make this an official Rule of Three? Sure: the Obama administration's 2012 Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals program, better known as DACA.

There's always a Hannity interview. ||| Fox News
Fox News

In September 2014, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) slammed DACA as "blatantly unconstitutional." By September 2017, he was urging President Trump not to scrap it. "I actually don't think he should do that," Ryan said. "I believe that this is something that Congress has to fix."

And in fact, Trump has not scrapped DACA—yet. He has given Congress until March to fix it. If Republicans and Democrats were to somehow come together and codify DACA into legislation (probably with a big pile of immigration-enforcement measures), the thing would be much more constitutionally sound. Again, the results may well end up bad, and there's something unseemly about using the fate of children as a negotiating ploy, but President Trump is devolving authority to the legislative branch in the service of calling Republicans' bluff.

The bad news is that many of the GOP's underlying ideas, or at least the policies they claimed to care about, are not sound. One wonders, when watching Republicans flinch in the face of their politics veering dangerously close to policy, whether it's nothing more than the instinctual recoil of Dr. Frankenstein encountering his own monster.

NEXT: Roy Moore Says Kneeling for the Anthem Is Illegal, and He's Totally Wrong

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Again, the results may well end up bad, and there’s something unseemly about using the fate of children as a negotiating ploy, but President Trump is devolving authority to the legislative branch in the service of calling Republicans’ bluff.

    It’s a good thing. Man, these are some confusing times to be alive though.

    1. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h.. Go this site and start your work..

      Good luck….. http://www.webcash20.com

  2. One thing that also seems to have a huge difference is Trump’s statements and Trump’s actions. A lot of his actions are not things I agree with, from a Libertarian standpoint he has still been pretty iffy. But in some ways the actual actions he has taken seems to be encouraging actual proper procedure. So, time to keep watching this fucking oddity.

  3. How dare Trump not do his own job and the job of Congress, the Senate, and the Judiciary not to mention the media! The nerve!

    That does seem to be the consensus, and it’s a pretty terrible idea. It seems the United States can’t get much more lazy.

  4. Trump trying to fulfill all the GOP promises he adopted in the campaign and not appreciating that politics is actually about finding out how best not to do that. Looks like OCD to me, which I guess we can just add to the list of pathologies.

    1. Trump trying to fulfill all the GOP promises he adopted in the campaign and not appreciating that politics is actually about finding out how best not to do that. Looks like OCD to me, which I guess we can just add to the list of pathologies.

      Doing the right thing the right way is a “pathology”?

      Hell, most (yes, not all) of his EO’s seem to be shutting down Obama’s EOs.

      1. Doing the right thing the right way is a “pathology”?

        To Tony, everyone is pathological unless they agree with him.

  5. “From Iran deal to Obamacare subsidies to DACA, the president is acting on what Republicans have long promised, in a way that rightly devolves power to the legislative branch”

    Sometimes, some of you bubble people almost seem reachable.

    If these things rightly belong to the legislative branch, it’s because they’re supposed to be democratic. Trump seems to be delivering to his constituency rather than inflicting things on the American people against their will.

    You could add Trump announcing pulling out of the Paris climate accord, as well. All of these things were inflicted on the American people by Obama despite their unpopularity–specifically because they were so unpopular.

    Trump seems like he’s gearing up to run as someone who keeps his promises, and people in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, who don’t necessarily enjoy watching NFL players wipe their asses with the flag, are likely to notice.

    1. I can’t help but wonder if he even wants to run again though.

      1. Why?

        You think he doesn’t like the spotlight?

        You think he doesn’t like power?

        You think he has less of a chance of winning in swing states this time despite having a record, now, when the Democrats have nothing to offer middle America but a slew of unpopular policies and criticism of his tweets?

        1. If Democrats run a Mitt Romney we’ll probably get more Trump, I can say that.

          1. Romney would beat Trump by 20 points as a Democrat.

            My fear is the Dems run Dopey Bernie.

            1. And Hillary was sure to be President. You were pretty sure about that weren’t you. How does it feel to belong to a regional fringe movement?

            2. Why do you fear a Bernie candidacy?

              1. Two words: Bread lines

                1. Bread lines made only worse by the deodorant lines.

        2. Just little indications that it is tiring to him. Little things I have heard. I certainly wouldn’t blame him. Seems like a shit job.

      2. I dunno, my guess is he’ll keep doing it until he thinks of something more fun.

      3. It was, I’m sure, a ton of fun beating Hillary, who wouldn’t want to do that again?

    2. The legislative branch ALREADY did what they were supposed to do om the “dreamers” and that was to reject what 0blama did with DACA.
      That is what makes the issue even more unconstitutional – he use an EO to override what Congress voted on and only Trump can undo it.
      Congress can’t re-reject the same law and make an addendum that “we really mean it this time”.
      DACA has always been an act completely unconstitutionally done by the executive and can only be undone by the executive.
      “Putting it in Congress’s hands” is not how it gets undone – they already undid it before it was there.

  6. GOP two years ago- THE IRAN DEAL IS TERRIBLE! IT ENSURES IRAN GETS NUKES IN 20 YEARS WHEN IT ENDS!

    GOP now- 20 YEARS IS A LONG TIME

    They have done nothing but lie about the Iran deal just to lather up their idiot supporters.

    1. Yes, they have. And that is why they have Trump.

      MEANWHILE, the guy who is investigating Trump’s Russia “ties” covered up significant bribery issues involving Russia back in 2009, just in time for Obama and Hillary to sell them 1/5 of our uranium.

      Why is Mueller still employed as independent counsel? He’s done definitely more than Trump’s people did.

      1. No one sold them 1/5 of “our” uranium.

        It’s called capitalism. A Russian company bought a US company.

        We still have Facebook though.

        1. Yeah taking bribes from Russia while Secretary of State is just capitalism. You never fail to amuse you nasty little retard.

          1. No one took a bribe, you idiot.

            1. Yes the Russians gave all that money to the Clinton Foundation out of kindness. Now that is funny.

              1. Hillary doesn’t care about the beneficiaries of any charity, idiot.

                You must think she is some type of Robin Hood. I didn’t know you had a high opinion of her charitable giving.

                1. Yeah, the Clinton Foundation was a charity and not a money laundering operation. You just get funnier

                  1. Whereas, you remain a fucking moron.

            2. No one took a bribe, you idiot.

              Yeah. Clinton just gave abnormally profitable speeches and the “charitable foundation” got a large donation because they weren’t simply funneling money.

              1. a $145 Million dollar non-bribe

        2. When even the NY Times questions it, there was almost certainly pay-for-play involved. And it certainly involved Russians and a campaign, just not Trump’s.

          “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

          “The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

          “The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

          “But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

          “At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

          1. “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

            Nice hedge by the NYT.

  7. Trump blows his nose on the flag.
    He wipes his ass with the United States Constitution.

    “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”

    1. 1) Ok what’s the problem. Are you a flag-idolater?
      2) Perhaps because Obama stocked the White House bathrooms with constitution toilet paper. And crowed about his push for recycling. Trump seems to obnoxiously violate the Constitution at least 25% less than the previous three presidents. And that’s some trick because Trump is obnoxious in most that he does.

  8. I’m beginning to see that Trump is a manager who’s strength has been his ability to delegate. He hires department heads and lets them run their show, albeit with constructive (?) criticism on twitter. If they fuck up ( private jets, etc.) he fires their ass. He can’t fire congress but his instinct is to let them run their show or feel his wrath if they refuse. Aside from people like Welch, he won’t get any credit for making these malingering assholes earn their pay. But it’s a evolutionary change in the federal swamp. Crude, maybe but interesting to watch.

  9. In what way is this crude?

    “Here is what you asked for and what I promised. Have a nice day. “

    1. Trump isn’t following the elaborate set of courtly manners that beltway creatures have created to keep out outsiders.

    2. I find the twitter thing kinda crude because I’m old school or maybe just old. But that’s his style. Trump’s foreign policy sucks and is not what he promised. Trumps WOD and Dept. of Justice in general suck and are not what I hoped they might be, but probably my mistake. Trump’s immigration and trade policies suck, but he’s keeping promises. But on regulation and making the Stupid Party keep their promises I’m frankly impressed. Trump isn’t really a Democrat or a Republican. He’s everyman who has no underlying set of political principles. He’s a businessman who hires people to get shit done. If they fail he exposes their incompetency. I’m just enjoying the show.

      1. Yes. His twitter is crude but his actions aren’t. I suppose it is indeed rude to “speak truth to power” the way he calls out congress.

        His nominations have been largely spot on and I think it is truly remarkable that he has not nominated a bunch of yes men.

        DOJ excepted.

        Political sophistication typically means corruption and back stabbing. I am not sure why we would want that.

  10. No Matt, there is nothing unseemly about following the law. And refusing to ignore the law isn’t holding anyone hostage. Congress writes the law in this country. And if the law sends these people home because Congress wants it that way, that is how a Republic is supposed to work.

    1. There’s no honor if you’re just saying that you should only use proper procedure for things one disagrees with.

      1. Following the law and the will of the voters as expressed by their elected respresentatives is plenty honorable. And that is all that is happening here. The only way it’s not is if you think immigration control is illegitimate, which I don’t.

        1. No, I was agreeing with you. It seems like the point being made above is it’s “unseemly” because it’s something they disagree with. You can’t argue that procedure should be followed only when one disagrees.

    2. Congress writes the law in this country.

      LOL

      1. It was an aspirational statement. Congress is supposed to write the laws.

        1. And bureaucrats that treat EOs and department regulations as anything other than internal directives but prosecute, fine, and imprison private people for ‘violating’ them are rank traitors to their oath. Scum.

  11. Let’s not be spilling all the beans now! Next you’ll be pointing out that the GOP’s anti-abortion plank that relies on nominating conservative justices to SCOTUS in the hopes of over-turning Roe v. Wade has the dirty little secret of that clause in the Constitution that allows Congress to set the jurisdiction of the Court and that if they wanted to they could just pass an anti-abortion law and say it’s non-reviewable by the Court.

    1. Or that overturning Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal. They never mention that either

      1. It would in many states. That is probably why they do not mention it.

        1. It would not in any state. The legislatures would have to put the bans back on the books. Overturning Roe would just allow them to do that but would not by itself make abortion illegal. You should have paid more attention in civics class

    2. Since SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is a protected 14th Amendment right Congress could not in fact pass such a law.

      And if SCOTUS were by some bizarre planetary alignment to overturn Roe, both states and federal government could still sanction abortion; it simply would not have SCOTUS imprimatur as Constitutionally mandated.

      This became the strategy of the left: go to the federal courts on faux Constitutional grounds because they could not get “uniform results” at the state level. Of course they couldn’t: states were then free to pass their own laws. Something about federalism, as I recall

  12. #MAGA

    We really dodged a bullet when Hitlery and GayJay lost.

  13. Drumpf has done just one thing different on DACA than Obama.

    He has set a six month limit on the compassion aspect in case Congress does not act. If it is illegal for them to be here and the only remedy is deportation, then letting them remain one day or 700 or 7000 is still illegal

    1. It is not illegal for the President to not deport them while Congress decides whether to change the law. You need to spend more time paying attention and less time thinking up clever terms like Dumpf b

  14. Is reason going to praise this as a “voluntary private-sector solution”?

    1. “The gentrifiers and alt-right agents are afraid of a diverse movement building.”

      I can’t be certain. But I would be very surprised if the alt-right are the gentrifying forces here.

      1. Blaney played down the role of white activists. “It’s racist to imply that Latino members of the community can’t think for themselves and are brainwashed by a group of white people. It’s ludicrous and insulting to all they’re doing.” She said all those targeted by Defend Boyle Heights were gentrifiers or enablers.

        I also agree with this. It’s very patronizing.

        1. you’re racist if you believe minorities are able to navigate public life.

    2. So gentrification is people buying houses they can afford in places they’d like to be? That is some scary racist shit.

      1. One thing that is undersold is how much of the danger of gentrification could be averted by people buying property. These people aren’t just taking homes from legal owners or some shit, we can all agree that would be horrible if it was some eminent domain issue. What is more common is that people are only rentors, even if they lived there for 30 years, which means the actual owner can still sell the home.

        1. How can we enforce rent control if there are no renters?

          1. I can’t imagine a greater dystopia than everyone being home owners.

            1. Yes, that is what got us in trouble in 2007. Too many people who should not have been given loans were backed by Freddie and Fannie. Hard to lose with other people’s money.

    1. What kind of sick authoritarian would try to stop her?

      1. I see…inside the womb it’s a parasite, outside the womb it’s an American and how dare this administration break up American families!!!!

        1. Would you say this is one of your biggest issues abortion?

          1. I’d say it’s as important as marijuana reform which I’ve also commented on (in order to support legalization, in case you’re interested).

            1. If Reason decided, on “libertarian” grounds, to call for enforcing the ban on dope, I’d comment more on that topic, to balance out Reason’s wrongness.

              1. Do you feel that it is an inherently libertarian based argument for why you are pro-life, or is it a moral argument distinct from you libertarian beliefs?

                1. I hope the question was understood, rereading it sounds like I’m trying to define you as unlibertarian or something. I just didn’t know how else to phrase it.

                  1. To be fair, I think I’ve explained my stance that it is wrong (and unconstitutional) to make a living human being an outlaw, or otherwise subject that human being to killing, without due process of law.

                    1. Ergo, babies in the womb (or the lab) are living human beings, not convicted of any capital crime, thus cannot be killed or their deliberate purposeful killing authorized.

                    2. Don’t take my word for it, listen to the freakout whenever some prolife group proposes to amend their state’s due-process clause to define “person” to mean any living human being. The opponents at once realize that this means forbidding abortion.

                    3. Then there is proportional response.

                      First I will set aside complications were there is plausible specific risk to the mother that are life threatening. I have friends that have experienced things like pre-eclampsia, so I am not discounting the reality. Another factor would be when in the term the condition develops based on the viability of the baby to be delivered pre-term. That keeps being pushed further back and scientists are working on artificial wombs (uterine replicators is the term used by my favorite SF author Lois McMaster Bujold).

                      So considering a pregnancy that would (without medical intervention to terminate the fetus) result in both the woman and child healthy. Is the avoidance of a few, or all ten months, of some misery proportional to the life of the child.

                      Both extremes hold to absolutes. “Women’s Rights”, “Don’t Kill Babies”. I don’t want to stomp on either. Perhaps looking at this as a proportionate response problem can lend more clarity, help us move beyond shouted slogans, and help us discover solutions based on reality, human morality, and our increasing technological capabilities.

                    4. Ok, who else thinks Lily Bulero is Eddie? Abortion is his number one issue, he likes classical music, and, most importantly, he loves replying to his own comments.

                    5. How radical a theocrat are you on this? Do you believe that birth control devices like the IUD and hormonal contraceptives should be outlawed because they might eject a zygote by not letting it implant? (Even though that’s not really true). Do you believe that a 12-week old fetus with the EEG of a slug has priority over the rights of a born person because it has human DNA?
                      Do you believe that if your child has kidney disease that you should be forced to donate all or part of a kidney because the child will die without it? Do you believe that a woman or girl should be forced to risk health or fertility for the sake of that 12-week old fetus? Who should make the decision about whether or not a girl or woman’s life or health is at risk? Should an abortion for health reasons be put on hold risking life or health until some court decides it’s needed? Should someone be forced to bear an encephalatic child to term when the deadly condition was discovered after some XX number of weeks?

                      I’m a person with a scientific bent. I don’t believe that something parasitic with the EEG of a slug or even the functionality of a frog should be considered more important than a born person even if it has human DNA. The primacy of human DNA over the liberty of a born person is a religious belief, and enforcing your religion on others who do not share your religion is theocracy.

                    6. “To be fair, I think I’ve explained my stance that it is wrong (and unconstitutional) to make a living human being an outlaw, or otherwise subject that human being to killing, without due process of law.”

                      Dead right. But dead wrong since you make the assumption that a fetus of say, ten weeks, is a living human being. Unless you care to provide some proof of that, you’re relying upon a conceit. Define “human being”. Define “living”. Then consider the arguments against your definitions. Then you might have a case. Or at least a basis for reasonable discussion. But simply invoking the constitution doesn’t get you there, not by the longest shot.

                2. I consider it a violation of the NA/PRP (Non-Aggression/Proportionate Response Principal). The Non-Aggression Principal is incomplete, it leads to idiocy like the “beheading the child picking flowers from my lawn scenario.” I think the promulgators of the NAP as the be all, end all of libertarianism fell asleep too soon.

                  First there is the question of if the gestation of the fetus can be considered aggression when it it a foreseeable consequence of voluntary action (in most cases) of the alleged aggressee. To assign the fetus as aggressor one must cede independent moral agency to the fetus. Some might claim the fetus as human or potential human from conception, but the actuality of sentience must lie further along the development path.

                  1. Did you switch names right in the middle or is this two people?

                    1. No, I never used “Phos,” and now they won’t let me use “Eddie.”

                3. Libertarianism doesn’t define the beginning of personhood.

                  It defines how we treat people.

      2. They offered her expedited deportation so she can get an abortion in Mexico.

        That seems to be the simple solution.

    2. One less DACA kid.

    3. Anchor baby aweigh !

  15. Speaking of getting shit done, I just saw where DeVos has hired Hans Bader away from CEI to work at the Department of Education. This goes along with her earlier hiring Adam Kissel away from FIRE – a few more of those and the Koch brothers will be running the government. Man, that’s gotta piss off the libs.

    1. Often seems like they fear DeVos the most. They protested her right near my work on Friday.

  16. Just to avoid confusion, I’ll switch from Lily Bulero to my more familiar name…

    1. Hey, I wanted to use “Eddie” but someone else (who isn’t Eddie) appropriated it already.

      1. Well, there were several “tells,” but you missed one…linking to a Youtube site which wants to “reclaim the song” Lilibulero.

  17. All you people who think Drumpf has a plan are idiots. He’s not some political genius, he’s just a reality star that his a one time resonant chord with enough people in gerrymandered districts to win an election. Now they want their money back for the most part.

    1. By “gerrymandered districts,” you mean states, right?

      1. of course people have been gerrymandering for years in preparation to elect Trump. its been a conspiracy in the works for decades.

        1. Like Illinois 4th and North Carolina 12th CD?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

  18. If Trump warmed up to free market ideas and moderated his antics and temper, he could be a half way decent president.

    Nationalism is a thing. People like their countries and cultures. Open borders and force fed “diversity” – no one likes that here.

  19. When dealing with weight loss, you may find it to be frustrating and slow to produce results. It can be downright maddening to work so hard and not be rewarded for our efforts. Follow the tips in this article to loss weight and avoid feeling frustrated by slow results.

    Make your diet a life change and you will keep off the weight. The new fad diet on the market may promise the world, but if it’s not a diet that you can sustain for the long term it won’t work for you. Use diets as a jumping off point to learn to eat well, but make sure it consists of foods that you will eat for the rest of your life. Visit this page for more Phen375 Reviews

  20. Trump on some issues very maddening but forcing these things back on congress is a step in the right direction. Also his judicial appointments are very appealing to Libertarian minded people, while his threats on freedom of the press are frightening. Fortunately if he acted on them the judicial appointments would very likely stop him.

    A daily roller coaster from freedom to oppression every time he speaks.

    1. The biggest check on Trump thus far has been his own appointments.

      I think that speaks to his integrity when making appointments.

    2. I am not sure Trump is threatening the freedom of the press –I suspect he is doing to them exactly what he’s doing to Congress–making them live by the precepts they’ve demanded.

      The press frequently talks about the consequences of free speech and how people should not be exempted from those consequences—-if the people in question are not leftists, of course. As with racism, fake news is defined, by the press, as something only the right can be guilty of.

      It is very clear to any paying attention that the press operates with one set of rules for themselves, and a very different set for those they consider political opponents.

      Trump just wants them playing by the same rules they demand everyone else play by–particularly the ones that delineate freedom of the press

  21. I love it. Congress sputtering and stammering about all this. The President tosses to them what should be legislated, not created out of thin air by an executive order. What they were once against, they are now “For”. The only problem is their voters back home. Vote for BIG Loot to the insurance companies…..they’re exposed. Vote for DACA, they’re exposed. Vote against tax reduction, they’re exposed. They would much rather be naming post offices than tackling tough legislation.

    1. They already voted on DACA. It was called the Dream Act and they voted NO.
      0blama completely overruled what the constitution says is Congress’s authority to regulate.
      He would have been impeached in a more sane time for doing that.

  22. “rightly devolves power to the legislative branch”?

    What? That means Congress will have to take responsibility for what is happening rather than sitting on the sidelines, harrumphing, and second-guessing? Oh, the humanity!

  23. Bouncing it back to Congress forces those lying dirtbags to show what they ACTUALLY believe. That will allow the voters to assess and judge them appropriately (or at least have a chance to do so).

  24. This phenomenon is amusing. The kinyun issues an illegal EO to use fed funds to subsidise private insurance. Kinyuncare is imploding…. they didn’t pass it fast enough to find out what was in it, and its demise was built in.
    Trump trumps the kinyun’s EO, thus making the problem it “solves” blatantly obvious. Washington’s ill ustrious Senatrix comes up with an idea to use other funds for a fix for the problem the kinyun illegally solved. OK, fine. Ball back to Congress where it never should have left.

    But another Washington politician has joined forces with those of other states to initiate a lawsuit to stop Trump’s legal EO from trumping the kinyun’s illegal one…. Bob Ferguson, AtG of Washington, announced this.
    I wonder if he’s read Art 3 Par 2 Section 2 of the Constitution he swore to uphold when he ascended his throne. If he has, he’d know that ONLY the Supreme Court on original jurisdiction can hear that case. Same story with the Washington/Minnesota suit against a Trump EO on undocumented foreign nationals entering the US from certain nations, identified by his immediate predecessor as “dangerous”. Ferguson is clueless, and agenda driven. Laws don’t matter, the results HE wants do. Nothing else. My guess: he’s got his beady little eyes set on nationial office of some sort. Perish THAT thought….. a scoundrel if ever one held office anywhere.

  25. This phenomenon is amusing. The kinyun issues an illegal EO to use fed funds to subsidise private insurance. Kinyuncare is imploding…. they didn’t pass it fast enough to find out what was in it, and its demise was built in.
    Trump trumps the kinyun’s EO, thus making the problem it “solves” blatantly obvious. Washington’s ill ustrious Senatrix comes up with an idea to use other funds for a fix for the problem the kinyun illegally solved. OK, fine. Ball back to Congress where it never should have left.

    But another Washington politician has joined forces with those of other states to initiate a lawsuit to stop Trump’s legal EO from trumping the kinyun’s illegal one…. Bob Ferguson, AtG of Washington, announced this.
    I wonder if he’s read Art 3 Par 2 Section 2 of the Constitution he swore to uphold when he ascended his throne. If he has, he’d know that ONLY the Supreme Court on original jurisdiction can hear that case. Same story with the Washington/Minnesota suit against a Trump EO on undocumented foreign nationals entering the US from certain nations, identified by his immediate predecessor as “dangerous”. Ferguson is clueless, and agenda driven. Laws don’t matter, the results HE wants do. Nothing else. My guess: he’s got his beady little eyes set on nationial office of some sort. Perish THAT thought….. a scoundrel if ever one held office anywhere.

  26. This phenomenon is amusing. The kinyun issues an illegal EO to use fed funds to subsidise private insurance. Kinyuncare is imploding…. they didn’t pass it fast enough to find out what was in it, and its demise was built in.
    Trump trumps the kinyun’s EO, thus making the problem it “solves” blatantly obvious. Washington’s ill ustrious Senatrix comes up with an idea to use other funds for a fix for the problem the kinyun illegally solved. OK, fine. Ball back to Congress where it never should have left.

    But another Washington politician has joined forces with those of other states to initiate a lawsuit to stop Trump’s legal EO from trumping the kinyun’s illegal one…. Bob Ferguson, AtG of Washington, announced this.
    I wonder if he’s read Art 3 Par 2 Section 2 of the Constitution he swore to uphold when he ascended his throne. If he has, he’d know that ONLY the Supreme Court on original jurisdiction can hear that case. Same story with the Washington/Minnesota suit against a Trump EO on undocumented foreign nationals entering the US from certain nations, identified by his immediate predecessor as “dangerous”. Ferguson is clueless, and agenda driven. Laws don’t matter, the results HE wants do. Nothing else. My guess: he’s got his beady little eyes set on nationial office of some sort. Perish THAT thought….. a scoundrel if ever one held office anywhere.

  27. This phenomenon is amusing. The kinyun issues an illegal EO to use fed funds to subsidise private insurance. Kinyuncare is imploding…. they didn’t pass it fast enough to find out what was in it, and its demise was built in.
    Trump trumps the kinyun’s EO, thus making the problem it “solves” blatantly obvious. Washington’s ill ustrious Senatrix comes up with an idea to use other funds for a fix for the problem the kinyun illegally solved. OK, fine. Ball back to Congress where it never should have left.

    But another Washington politician has joined forces with those of other states to initiate a lawsuit to stop Trump’s legal EO from trumping the kinyun’s illegal one…. Bob Ferguson, AtG of Washington, announced this.
    I wonder if he’s read Art 3 Par 2 Section 2 of the Constitution he swore to uphold when he ascended his throne. If he has, he’d know that ONLY the Supreme Court on original jurisdiction can hear that case. Same story with the Washington/Minnesota suit against a Trump EO on undocumented foreign nationals entering the US from certain nations, identified by his immediate predecessor as “dangerous”. Ferguson is clueless, and agenda driven. Laws don’t matter, the results HE wants do. Nothing else. My guess: he’s got his beady little eyes set on nationial office of some sort. Perish THAT thought….. a scoundrel if ever one held office anywhere.

  28. It was worth repeating, Tionico

  29. Gee the results may be bad and many of the GOP ideas are unsound but the minority president either through laziness or ignorance is returning power to the legislative branch where it belongs. This is the argument that follows the reasoning yes, the mother and child died from the botched delivery but, at least, we didn’t let a midwife deliver the baby. Does it matter who does what if the ultimate result is a disaster? Congress can’t be bullied into performing. They refused even to hold hearings on President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court- now they are supposed to reconcile the Freedom caucus which won’t be satisfied until the government is drowned in the bathtub and all power rests in the states, the professional lobbyists who support their campaigns and want some government regulation but not too much and the demands of their constituents who want to keep Obamacare. The President hasn’t decided what he wants- supporting one side one day and another the next. This isn’t power sharing but anarchy and real people will suffer from those bad decisions, no matter how libertarian the process by which were reached may have been.

  30. Gee the results may be bad and many of the GOP ideas are unsound but the minority president either through laziness or ignorance is returning power to the legislative branch where it belongs. This is the argument that follows the reasoning yes, the mother and child died from the botched delivery but, at least, we didn’t let a midwife deliver the baby. Does it matter who does what if the ultimate result is a disaster? Congress can’t be bullied into performing. They refused even to hold hearings on President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court- now they are supposed to reconcile the Freedom caucus which won’t be satisfied until the government is drowned in the bathtub and all power rests in the states, the professional lobbyists who support their campaigns and want some government regulation but not too much and the demands of their constituents who want to keep Obamacare. The President hasn’t decided what he wants- supporting one side one day and another the next. This isn’t power sharing but anarchy and real people will suffer from those bad decisions, no matter how libertarian the process by which were reached may have been.

  31. Gee the results may be bad and many of the GOP ideas are unsound but the minority president either through laziness or ignorance is returning power to the legislative branch where it belongs. This is the argument that follows the reasoning yes, the mother and child died from the botched delivery but, at least, we didn’t let a midwife deliver the baby. Does it matter who does what if the ultimate result is a disaster? Congress can’t be bullied into performing. They refused even to hold hearings on President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court- now they are supposed to reconcile the Freedom caucus which won’t be satisfied until the government is drowned in the bathtub and all power rests in the states, the professional lobbyists who support their campaigns and want some government regulation but not too much and the demands of their constituents who want to keep Obamacare. The President hasn’t decided what he wants- supporting one side one day and another the next. This isn’t power sharing but anarchy and real people will suffer from those bad decisions, no matter how libertarian the process by which were reached may have been.

  32. Gee the results may be bad and many of the GOP ideas are unsound but the minority president either through laziness or ignorance is returning power to the legislative branch where it belongs. This is the argument that follows the reasoning yes, the mother and child died from the botched delivery but, at least, we didn’t let a midwife deliver the baby. Does it matter who does what if the ultimate result is a disaster? Congress can’t be bullied into performing. They refused even to hold hearings on President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court- now they are supposed to reconcile the Freedom caucus which won’t be satisfied until the government is drowned in the bathtub and all power rests in the states, the professional lobbyists who support their campaigns and want some government regulation but not too much and the demands of their constituents who want to keep Obamacare. The President hasn’t decided what he wants- supporting one side one day and another the next. This isn’t power sharing but anarchy and real people will suffer from those bad decisions, no matter how libertarian the process by which were reached may have been.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.