all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 22 points 10 months ago (1 child)

I'm sure he will get right on that. Because if he doesn't what the courts going do?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    While the intricacies of administrative law and the terms and conditions on federal grants may seem abstract to some,

    Hah. She's talking about Trump.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago
    [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Or else what?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Tump administration: fuck you, make me!

  • source
  • 14 comments in c/politics@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 13 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I'm amused that judge's still think they have ANY power with regards to this authoritarian cesspool occupying the White House.

    That cesspool only follows laws that coincide with it's goals and claiming "See; the law is on our side" which gives them legitimacy.

    And then turn around and shout "Extremist leftist judges" when they rule against them. Which further enrages their base against any and all logic or counterpoints.

    We need to stand up, every time, call this out all the time and fight. Always fight.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Like how they told them they couldn't deploy federal troops in Los Angeles then the administration pulled them all out?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    He had deployed them, and when the judge said no, he (the judge) also commented: "Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one" (With regards to checks and balances)

    Then, the White House did not "pull them out" the judge gave their leash back to the state governor. And luckily, the troops listened.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    Obama would have been lynched if he even suggested doing something like that. Unconscionable.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Trump: no.

    America: ok

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Blue states could just stop sending the money that mostly red states rely on

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    There's not really a way to do that. People pay the fed tax money directly, the states don't do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I'm always amused when people don't understand the difference between an impossibility and something that just wasn't being done before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    The linked article also says that they aren't sure how CA would hold back taxes.

    That they're considering it an option anyway is interesting, though. Maybe they have a way they just haven't shared yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • 4 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    So should we just frame this as defunding the police and hope the start sending money again?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Or else what?

  • source