Trump's Wall in Wonderland

Image result for pictures of the mad hatter

Image result for pictures of trump saying we'll build a wall

 

It's so easy  to think without facts.

When ideas are reflexive acts.

But unlike the Mad Hatter

For whom facts didn't matter

We'll pay a reality tax.

 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I bet all the fiscal conservatives like Chef will cough up the $4 billion for the wall through their taxes. Their fearless leader won't. Neither will Mexico.

    But maybe either (a) this is like any other federal plan [like transit in Chicago] where a couple of hundred million is blown on consultants and engineering with nothing being built, or (b) there isn't any intention to pay the contractors.

  • Trump has had an interesting week. He is acting as if he has the power of a king, relying on no one else to pass laws, impose taxes and adopt budgets. Even a Republican Congress will go along with this for only so long. Eventually he will hit the end of his constitutional tether. How will he react then?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    The first question is whether Congress has any guts. I figure that the Tea Party House goes along, because it won't get any better for its members. The Senate is a more interesting question, given that if it takes 60 votes to move the issue, 48 Dems can block it, and even if it is a majority issue, whether 3 Republicans will vote for garbage. There hasn't been indicated a filibuster of cabinet appointment, but only the Defense ones have been confirmed, and some, like EPA and Labor are certainly going to get opposition.

    The last question is obviously by a Twitter storm, republished by most media. Then what, who knows?

  • Another tether is administered by the courts. The New York Times is reporting that the executive order on immigration and refugees is already before the Eastern District of New York in a habeas corpus action brought on behalf of two Iraq nationals being detained at Kennedy airport under Trump's order. They were in flight when the order was signed.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I had seen a banner to that effect. I'm not sure how that particular case turns out, but if one is relying on the courts, consider all the vacancies and who now gets to nominate the federal judges. Apparently the 60 vote rule no longer applies to lower court judges, but I wonder if the one Senator block does.

  • In reply to jack:

    The case before the federal court in New York is not over yet, but the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the deportation of passengers at JFK. In issuing the temporary injunction the court made a formal finding, as required for such an order, that there is "a strong likelihood of success" for the plaintiffs' claims that the order violated Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection. Similar orders were issued in Virginia and Seattle and passengers detained a O'Hare were released.

    The courts and the ancient writ of habeas corpus may still protect us from the abuses of overzealous executives.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    It will be interesting to see how this goes. The two countervailing thoughts I had were that for once a politician did what he said he would do and the president has a lot of power re immigration, like, as mentioned here before, Roosevelt sending the boats with the Jews back.

    The other issue I deduced from a report is that while I suppose "extreme vetting from certain countries" is constitutional, there was an exception for "religious minorities," which is a clear First Amendment violation. Those being excluded being Muslims or any inquiry into that would be a clear pattern or practice violation.

  • The plaintiffs are also relying on 8 USC 1152(a)(1)(A): "no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

    A presidential decree cannot overrule a statute.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Another interesting headline related to this point in today's Tribune (apparently from the Washington Post) "Trump asked for a 'Muslim ban,' Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it 'legally'."

    1. Obviously the source of the tweet that it was legal, but Rudy just provided the evidence for the judge to find it is a pretext.

    2. Interesting that the 2 biggest backers in the campaign, Rudy and Christie, turned down government jobs when offered to them. Since it wasn't patronage, I wonder what their real motivation was.

Leave a comment