Fox News Lady Teaches Trump Idiot Stephen Miller About Weird 'Checks And Balances' Thing
this little fucker again
Gosh, things are not going so well for the Trump regime when the one cable channel they've not declared the enemy, Fox News, is starting to act kinda mean! We saw it this weekend, as Fox's Chris Wallace gave Reince Priebus hell over Donald Trump's Twitter declaration that the media is the "enemy of the American people." We saw it when Fox's Shep Smith lost his gay crackers over the very same thing. And now a Fox news lady, Martha MacCallum, is being mean to (allegedly!) Never-Nude Trump titty baby Stephen Miller, the autocratic little shit so obnoxious he caused Joe and Mika to turn on Trump.
MacCallum had the dead-eyed prick on to discuss the new-and-improved version of Trump's Muslim ban, which Miller explained will only contain "minor" and "technical" revisions from the original one, and will "fundamentally" do the same thing, which is ban Muslims, we guess. Establishment Clause? As if, Stephen Miller has never even heard of such a thing.
MILLER: [O]ne of the big differences that you’re going to see in the executive order is that it’s going to be responsive to the judicial ruling, which didn’t exist previously. And so these are mostly minor technical differences. Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you are going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court. And those will be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.
Um, yeah. Remember how none of these courts has actually ruled on the merits of the original order yet, but they've simply skimmed the thing and blocked it from being enforced, with their official American judicial stamp what says, "Looks like it's probably unconstitutional AF, now get out of our face?" Just wanted to make sure you remembered that detail.
So Martha MacCallum, who went to civics class, had to explain to Miller, who went to Duke (and yes, Duke alumni are embarrassed about that ) but apparently learned nothing, that if the changes are just "minor," then the courts PROBABLY are going to tell the regime to fuck off again, because were you assholes not listening to the 48 (48!) courts that told you to fuck off the first time?
MACCALLUM: I know you think the order was fine the way it was issued initially. But courts disagree. In fact, 48 courts took issue with it, and that’s why it is halted right now, as a result of that process that happens in this country.
It's the thing that happens in America! Judicial review! Balance of powers! Get some!
Now look, you might be disappointed because Martha MacCallum didn't scream in Trump's buttboy's face. But come on, it's Fox. This is more of a thing of, "Holy crap, even some Fox News idiots aren't going to put up with this shit." So ... well done, Martha MacCallum, we guess, for trying to do a Teachable Moment to this zit on the inner thigh of humanity.
As Tommy Christopher notes at ShareBlue, if Miller is right and they're simply "tweaking" the Muslim ban so that it comes out basically the same, the courts are probably going to laugh at it again, and then tell it to get the fuck right out of their courtroom. And then Trump will cry on Twitter that he will SEE YOU IN COURT, Stephen Miller will get on TV and demand that America respect Trump's authori-tah, Sean Spicer will yell at the press incoherently, President Steve Bannon AKA "The Brain" will mutter loudly about how his plans for world domination have been thwarted again, and so forth.
Then they'll have to write a new order, and then a new order after that, rinse, repeat, derp derp derp, good God, this shit is exhausting.
Wonkette is fully supported by readers like you, so if you feel sorry for us having to talk about Stephen Miller, throw us some Ameros, why don't you?
[ ShareBlue ]
somebody said KAC is only 47. i could confirm it but that would feel like i care. i'd rather be fucking shocked that anyone could be 47 and look that ... rough.
OK, here's the answer: not all of the Bill of Rights is intended to limit the Federal government.
In particular, the 2nd is there to defend the government, not restrict it. Says so right in the words that the right insists were just the authors rambling about how awesome guns are and not relevant. Gotta say this for the authors, though: they rambled with great efficiency. Very low word count.It wasn't "the left" that rendered the 2nd meaningless as a check on the government, it was the Founding Fathers.
The 10th is a disaster. I get a picture in my mind of one too many debates coming up for the Founders. Sheer exhaustion. One of them just saying "fuck it, we can't put everything in there" and writing a sloppy "etc." just to get to the pub before closing time.
The "...States respectively, or to the people" bit makes things very muddy. "The People" and "State" are often opposing sides. The Feds would have to defer either to the People or the State, not both. Some would say the Feds just need to stay out of those cases, but in practice that means always siding with the State against the People.And even if you take that interpretation, it is SO easy to get past. For one thing, even in the most clear-cut case to date, the criminalization of alcohol, all it took was an amendment to get past the 10th. Usually, it is much easier to just declare everything as interstate commerce. Economically, we do interstate commerce on pretty much every transaction. I was going to say "except a massage," but if the customer pays with a credit card or a check drawn on a bank that has branches in more than one state, that's interstate commerce too.And if they don't want to do that, the Feds can always just use economic coercion like they did with the 21 year old drinking age in the 1970's.
The 10th was rendered "meaningless" (actually more like "usually not applicable," because is still does come up) as a check on Federal power by a whole lot of people, not just "the left." I'm not about to do a massive study on it -or debate it- but I strongly suspect that most weakening of the 10th amendment (other than the slave thing) has been to allow somebody to sell something to the Feds rather than for either Left or Right reasons.