|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I haven't followed this one much at all, other than hearing what a particular bank attorney I married has to say about it, but didn't it survive a Supreme Court challenge just last month?
And isn't the idea of doing blatantly unconstitutional stuff just to muck up the works until it gets overturned basically the Republicans strategy for the last twenty years ? I mean, how many unconstitutional laws on just civil rights and abortion have been passed by the fucking republicans? I really haven't counted since my bingo card got completely filled, all 25 squares, during the Reagan administration.
I'm thinking you're not someone to complain about that shit.
|
I don't think your post is fair to SEC Chick. It's not like she was defending everything Republicans have done since 1980.
It seems to me that there's a big difference between a President who is told that there are constitutional problems with what s/he wants to do and presses ahead *but* also respects the courts when they say no man, and a President (like Trump) who undermines judicial review and the rule of law. (SEC Chick has been pretty clear in her repugnance for Trump.)
Still don't understand how the federal government has the authority to do anything about evictions on this scale.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
