• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump announced that he's taking declaring a national emergency off the table.

So while I had offered in these pages that Emmet Flood would likely be telling Trump that he at best has a 40% shot at pulling off a National Emergency claim without losing in dramatic fashion in the courts, Flood might have even come in at less than a 40% chance and at least some of Trump's political operatives have informed him of the Lose-Lose situation he is setting himself up for going the National Emergency route. In other words if he wins in the courts he loses and if he loses in the courts he loses. That IMO is why he is backing off the National Emergency option.

However backing off of National Emergency does not improve his chances through the Senate. McConnell is at some point likely to have to release his Senate minions and either allow them a procedural vote to bring the House Bills designed to reopen government to the floor or McConnell will allow them to the floor himself. I suspect once we get to that point not only will those Bills pass the Senate but will pass with enough juice to override a Trump veto.

The end result for Trump is not good either way, Senate vote and Congressional override or National Emergency failure. He will have unhooked his supporters in the Senate from him while simultaneously having lost every Tom, Dick and Larry moderate in the country. Polling on his approval is showing that his support is eroding but not as fast as the undecideds are simply turning away from him.

Lindsay Graham, in his absurd intent to straddle these issues has lost it completely. He talks about the National Emergency option and "build the wall" is if Trump both wins in the court and poof, up goes a Wall just like that. As absurd as the National Emergency option is the idea that a Wall gets built in anything less than years is laughably absurd.

I suspect Graham will be one of the GOP casualties at the end of all of this. His "straddles" have become absurdly obvious and tiresome. Collins is probably killing her political career in Maine for the same reasons.
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
Just 90 minutes ago, Trump announced that he no longer plans to declare a national emergency (for now)

"Now what would happen? I'll be sued and it will be brought to the 9th Circuit, and maybe even though the wording is unambiguous, just like with the travel ban, it'll be appealed to the 9th Circuit and we'll probably lose there too, and then hopefully we'll win in the Supreme Court. So, I'd rather not do it because this is something that Congress should easily do. So what we're not looking to do right now is national emergency. What we want to do and have an absolute right to do it, in many ways it's the easy way out. But this is up to Congress and it should be up to Congress they should do it."
Click to expand...

His rationale is somewhat reasonable, but if he truly believed he's win in the SCOTUS, it doesn't make sense, from a goal achievement POV, not to declare the emergency and win the SCOTUS. Similarly odd is the abruptness of his about-face as goes declaring the emergency. I mean, really. The man's been unmitigatedly impetuously vitriolic in bickering for his wall in exchange for an end to the gov't shutdown, threatening, for the past week or so, to declare an emergency, and then, out of the blue, he backs down.


Blue:
Uh, no, in no way is declaring an emergency an easy way out. It just looks like it is. Indeed, if he takes that tack, he locks himself onto a course from which there is no deviation. His only options will then be to terminate the emergency or hope the SCOTUS (1) agrees to hear the case and (2) then rules in his favor, which, despite his confidence that it would, is not assured.[SUP]1[/SUP]


Red:
Is that remark his tacitly prodding McConnell and Pelosi to pass something and get it on his desk so he can sign it? I can't say, but I know that he's got to be aware that the shutdown isn't going well for him, particularly in the wake of the country having handed Dems a 40-seat majority in the House, (unseating at least 20 GOP incumbents, 10 in "blue" districts) and the GOP picking up only three seats out of nine it should have won (Dem seats in red states) in the midterms.


Note:
  1. (In light of the "Trump may be a Russian asset" news we've just gotten, it's even less assured, no matter who's on the bench.

    Too, I don't know about you, but I am still wondering about that "state-owned company" case on which the SCOTUS recently reinstated the $50K/day fine. Why all the secrecy around that case and its parties? The firm being a Russian one that funnels/-ed money to Trump would explain it. That's not the only viable explanation, but it's one that dovetails with the "Trump's a spy" line.
 
Saladin4 said:
No doubt he is being told (by some Republicans) it will be tied up in courts and set a bad precedent for future IE: Democratic Presidents.....to use on a whim
Click to expand...

I suspect that is the main reason why he would not do it. Time has a way of passing and allowing the worm to turn. And while I harbor no delusions that Trump cares a tinkers damn about what a future president might do, there are plenty of people who do care. No doubt, Republicans in Congress have told him just what fire he is playing with.
 
Rexedgar said:
Anytime after the shutdown becomes the longest in US history...........
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that most of us would look at that record setting and see it as evidence of Trumps incompetence and intransigence on the issue. Trump would look at the record and say its reason why he must act and declare the emergency. Its just amazing.

Of course, it makes perfect sense that a known long time Russian asset would want to close parts of the American government and hurt it and the American people.
 
HumblePi said:
Just 90 minutes ago, Trump announced that he no longer plans to declare a national emergency (for now)

"Now what would happen? I'll be sued and it will be brought to the 9th Circuit, and maybe even though the wording is unambiguous, just like with the travel ban, it'll be appealed to the 9th Circuit and we'll probably lose there too, and then hopefully we'll win in the Supreme Court. So, I'd rather not do it because this is something that Congress should easily do. So what we're not looking to do right now is national emergency. What we want to do and have an absolute right to do it, in many ways it's the easy way out. But this is up to Congress and it should be up to Congress they should do it."
Click to expand...

Good for Trump. Bad circuit court judges have done great damage to America. It is too bad the badly biased judges are so entrenched.
 
marke said:
Good for Trump. Bad circuit court judges have done great damage to America. It is too bad the badly biased judges are so entrenched.
Click to expand...

You are carrying Trump's water by trying to diminish the integrity of our federal judges. That's all party of Putin's plan.
 
HumblePi said:
You are carrying Trump's water by trying to diminish the integrity of our federal judges. That's all party of Putin's plan.
Click to expand...

I don't care what Putin or Trump or biased democrats think, leftist liberal judges have done very bad things to this country.
 
CriticalThought said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

When Lois Lerner violated the Constitutional rights of American conservatives under Obama, the democrats claimed no violation of rights or governmental wrongdoing took place. When the 9th circuit overturned a lower court order in the AFP case at the urging of California democrats, the biased democrats claimed no violation of rights took place. The 9th circuit has a history of leftist liberal democrat bias but democrats typically do not believe democrats are biased, oppressive and corrupt. Those evil attributes, to them, pertain only to republicans. The 9th circuit is a democrat body of biased jurists who unlawfully pervert justice in favor of the crooked democrat party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom