POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Barr is officially the nominee. Can he shut this witch hunt down fast enough??

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

So my question would be about the constitutionality of the laws passed when stripping these government officials of their powers and transferring them to the legislature. Were the powers stripped provided to these office holders by their respective states' constitutions, or subsequent legislation?

Regardless of the legal outcome of this, it's severely short-sighted and very foolish. Talk about giving ammo to the opposition come next election cycle!



Obamacare. Regardless of whether or not a person views it as good legislation, it was passed a few short days before the Republicans took control of Congress in 2011.

I assume that if the legislature tries to eliminate a constitutional power of the governor, that's going to get shot down in the courts. As I recall, that's part of the claim about what happened in North Carolina a couple of years ago, but I don't think that's been decided yet, but I don't know for sure.

What you see everyone saying is "it's undemocratic" what these legislatures are doing, which is just another way of saying "it's not fair."

With respect to lame duck legislation, iirc correctly after Obama took a beating in the mid-terms in 2010, the outgoing Democratic congress passed a bunch of legislation that they knew would never get passed once the Republicans took office. I think their ban on the executive branch using the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military was part of what they did away with, which is fine with me because it was a stupid practice by the executive anyway. But I'm not 100% certain I have the dates right on that.

[aparch]

Yep. They might.

So hey, I have an idea. How about the D's win the Wisconsin legislature and they can decide what powers they want the governor to have. To winners go the spoils.

How about the GOP quit being partisan hacks and start putting the state or country ahead of profits or personal gain?

I want my legislature to legislate. Not spend months undoing what the last group did.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Obamacare. Regardless of whether or not a person views it as good legislation, it was passed a few short days before the Republicans took control of Congress in 2011.

Obamacare was coming down the pumpkin path literally from the day Obama was elected in 2008. It wasn't passed by a bunch of "I'm taking my ball and going home" crybabies who lost an election. And if memory serves wasn't it actually passed in 2010, before the 2010 midterms? If Scott Walker had managed to suppress a few more votes to win another term last month, this legislation would never have been mentioned, let alone considered.

What I'm waiting to see from anyone -- what we're all waiting here to see -- is similar legislation passed by democratic legislators in a state where the incoming governor is a republican replacing a democratic governor. Deep blue Massachusetts has a republican governor. Do the democrats in their state legislature spend all their time passing laws stripping him of power?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

How about the GOP quit being partisan hacks and start putting the state or country ahead of profits or personal gain?

I want my legislature to legislate. Not spend months undoing what the last group did.

The GOP isn’t interested in governing. They only care about enriching the... already rich

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I have yet to hear one logical explanation as to why the legislation proposed in Michigan and Wisconsin is illegal or unconstitutional. Same as in North Carolina.

who said it was?

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I have yet to hear one logical explanation as to why the legislation proposed in Michigan and Wisconsin is illegal or unconstitutional. Same as in North Carolina.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...on/2224333002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.ff7349e0071f

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Also, what's your defense of the Michigan GOP being Indian givers?

The original version of the minimum wage bill sought to incrementally increase the minimum wage from $9.25 an hour to $12 an hour by 2022. The minimum wage for tipped workers would increase from $3.52 an hour to $12 an hour by 2024.

The gutted version put forth by the legislature, meanwhile, would increase the minimum wage to $12 by 2030 and bring tipped wages to only $4 by 2030.

The chicken sh**s approved the original Bill's just to prevent it going to a referendum for voters to approve.

This isn't "lame duck" legislation. This is an outright "fu** you," from the GOP.

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Is this just a deliberately obtuse post, or do you really not get this?

Some of you here, along with a bunch of halfwits in Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere don't get that this is lame duck legislation?? Lame duck legislation occurs literally every single time there is a change in power from one party to the other at either the state or federal level. The outgoing party knows "it's now or never" and the incoming party screams "foul" (although admittedly not with the shrillness of some of the D's in Wisconsin).

There is nothing illegal about it. There is nothing evil about it. It's no different than if they had passed the legislation last February. Personally I wouldn't pass a bunch of legislation like Wisconsin's since it's shortsighted -- there will almost certainly come a time when the Wisconsin legislature is controlled by the D's and the Governor is an R, but that's really their problem.

You want me to give you examples of lame duck legislation??

Obamacare was coming down the pumpkin path literally from the day Obama was elected in 2008. It wasn't passed by a bunch of "I'm taking my ball and going home" crybabies who lost an election. And if memory serves wasn't it actually passed in 2010, before the 2010 midterms? If Scott Walker had managed to suppress a few more votes to win another term last month, this legislation would never have been mentioned, let alone considered.

You're right, I was confusing it with other legislation. It was signed into law on March 23, 2010.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

When all I get is name-calling, I tend to think I struck a little closer to home than people like to admit.

Yes, all you got is name calling (so long as you ignore everything except name calling).

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Also, what's your defense of the Michigan GOP being Indian givers?



The chicken sh**s approved the original Bill's just to prevent it going to a referendum for voters to approve.

This isn't "lame duck" legislation. This is an outright "fu** you," from the GOP.

Democracy.

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

You’re the one who is obtuse if you think stripping these powers is usual lame duck activity.

They are trying to modify ballot proposals that we, the majority of the voters, voted for as written. In Michigan, They are also trying to strip campaign finance oversight powers from the SecState-elect, and that bill is sponsored by a guy who has been investigated and fined for violations multiple times.

So yeah, nitwit, you can pretty much get the fark outta here with that "both-sides" bullsh*t.

Yes, I remember all those democrats burning the government down when they lost in 1994 and 2010. Oh wait, they didn't happen.

Take that weak arse BSABSVR bullshiat outta here, meat.

If this is just business as usual, you should have no problem finding examples of Democrats weakening the powers of an office they just lost in an election. If you think that is ok, sorry, you're a POS.

This one drank the GOP Kool-Aid.

You may have just passed Drew as the dumbest poster on USCHO

Yes, all you got is name calling (so long as you ignore everything except name calling).

There wasn't a ton of substance in those initial responses.

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Also, what's your defense of the Michigan GOP being Indian givers?



The chicken sh**s approved the original Bill's just to prevent it going to a referendum for voters to approve.

This isn't "lame duck" legislation. This is an outright "fu** you," from the GOP.

Michigan Goopers are fuked for two reasons. 1) Its entirely possible the state Supreme Court will rule against them. Its closely divided with one swing justice who approved the anti-gerrymandering referendum and who is now persona non grata amongst the state GOP. 2) Regardless what hasn't changed is an independent commission will draw the lines after 2020, which most likely means the end of the GOP's majorities in the state legislature.

North Carolina has a similar issue. State supreme court is 5-2 Dems. They will most likely find the lines to be unconstitutional sorta like Pennsylvania did and then draw the lines themselves. That means NC Goopers are also in deep doo-doo.

Problem in Wisconsin is that the Dems need to retain and then pick up one more seat over the next couple of years to grab court majority. If they lose one of those they're out of luck since GOP is a cult.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

There wasn't a ton of substance in those initial responses.

There seems to be a lot of implying that there aren't, in fact, examples of Democrats using lame duck sessions to weaken offices that they just lost. Instead of refuting that (because you can't...or weren't confident that you could), you deluded yourself into thinking two things. One, that there was nothing but name calling in the responses. And two, that people were suggesting Democrats have never passed any sort of lame duck legislation.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

There wasn't a ton of substance in those initial responses.

I love it when idiot posters so readily reveal their idiocy. In 4 of the 7 posts you quoted, the posters clearly offered a very substantive -- if brief -- argument against your "both sides are bad" garbage. And we're still waiting by the way. Find us some examples of democrats losing the governor's office to a republican and then the democratic legislature in that state looking to strip power from the incoming governor before he or she takes office.