Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
Wait, if they can do that, can they just pass something that says "in the event of budget disagreement, funding levels will continue an existing levels". Just do that, and this never happens again.
Or does that fall into "binding future Congress" territory?
There have been attempts to do this in the recent past, although they never make it out of committee. They've usually been opposed by both sides for various reasons, such as that it would remove pressure on Congress to pass an actual budget.
This bill seems like a response to the fact federal workers are starting to protest. No party should take a unified stance on it. The bill is an attempt to confuse and manipulate federal workers to go against whoever goes against this bill.
What does the judiciary shutting down mean exactly?
No new hires, no new travel, probably furloughing all the maintenance staff and maybe assistants/secretaries, bailiffs, judges, and reporters are working without paychecks, &c. I'd imagine docket clerk's/PACER people are considered essential but no clue. I don't think this has ever happened before.
Not sure how it would impact new civil or criminal filings.
Democrats would never pull an emergency act to push funding for a pet project. Like even if Trump did it, that Trump did it would make the idea DOA to any one sane ever.
Not for pet projects, but I could see a Democratic president calling a national emergency to combat climate change (you know, an actual national emergency), and that's probably just as horrific to Republicans.
If Trump declares this a national emergency and the courts uphold his action, then the floodgates are open. Any pet issue for any president can be an emergency and the president can do anything.
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
He does have a point that a move like this will likely make shutdowns more common.
But it’s not the employees who should be punished if the government shuts down.
If the government cannot pass a budget, there should be an immediate election, for legislative and executive branch
Everyone should be up for election too
I like this idea on a personal, visceral level. On a pragmatic level, it's a bad idea cause we're not set up logistically for it, our elections system is compromised as fuck, and I just don't trust the public to hold the right chucklefucks responsible.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Huh...I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the argument he's making there.
He does have a point that a move like this will likely make shutdowns more common.
But it’s not the employees who should be punished if the government shuts down.
If the government cannot pass a budget, there should be an immediate election, for legislative and executive branch
Everyone should be up for election too
I feel like that's ripe for backfiring. Wait until poll numbers for the opposing party are unfavorable and then hold up government until special elections occur.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
I mean, we can make it so that Government Shutdowns don't happen and this sort of hostage-taking showmanship can't be attempted again
Can you do that outside of a Constitutional amendment?
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
If Trump declares this a national emergency and the courts uphold his action, then the floodgates are open. Any pet issue for any [Republican] president can be an emergency and the [Republican] president can do anything.
FTFY. Let's be real, the courts as they stand right now are going to be very asymmetrical on how they rule this sort of issue.
If Trump declares this a national emergency and the courts uphold his action, then the floodgates are open. Any pet issue for any [Republican] president can be an emergency and the [Republican] president can do anything.
FTFY. Let's be real, the courts as they stand right now are going to be very asymmetrical on how they rule this sort of issue.
Emergency powers are not in the Constitution and are granted by an act from 1976.
This can be revised or repealed. And new laws can be put in place. Just put it on the list if the Dems take back the legislative and the executive branches.
President Trump on Friday threw cold water on the idea of immediately declaring a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, reversing days of signals that he might soon declare the emergency amid a protracted standoff with Democrats over a partial shutdown of the federal government.
"What we're not looking to do right now is national emergency," he said Friday afternoon, surrounded by law enforcement officials at a White House roundtable. “I’m not going to do it so fast.”
The president has defiantly said for days he might declare a national emergency to expedite construction of the wall — and his administration has asked agencies to begin preparations.
Democrats would never pull an emergency act to push funding for a pet project. Like even if Trump did it, that Trump did it would make the idea DOA to any one sane ever.
Not for pet projects, but I could see a Democratic president calling a national emergency to combat climate change (you know, an actual national emergency), and that's probably just as horrific to Republicans.
Or gun violence
Or Nazis and AR15s
Or a huge whites only gun club super PAC colluding with a foreign government to install a president to make themselves and the gun indistry filthy fucking rich
Democrats would never pull an emergency act to push funding for a pet project. Like even if Trump did it, that Trump did it would make the idea DOA to any one sane ever.
Not for pet projects, but I could see a Democratic president calling a national emergency to combat climate change (you know, an actual national emergency), and that's probably just as horrific to Republicans.
Or gun violence
Or Nazis and AR15s
Or a huge whites only gun club super PAC colluding with a foreign government to install a president to make themselves and the gun indistry filthy fucking rich
Or the whole Russian/Saudi/etc collusion with the Republican party thing.
TSA call ins are one thing, what about air traffic control?
This is where the Executive has an additional option - order military ATCs to take over civilian operations. The problem here is that military ATCs do not do the same thing as civilian ATCs. Best case scenario - air travel slows down even more. Worst case - a military ATC puts two planes together.
Multiple Republicans in the conservative group have privately raised their concerns with the Trump administration, fearing it would lead to a years-long legal standoff that Democrats could win while setting a dangerous precedent for the presidency, according to more than a dozen lawmakers and GOP aides. They want Trump to hold out for a deal with Democrats, regardless of how long the partial government shutdown drags on.
Also, according to Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash, the back pay bill that just passed is not just for this shut down, but a rules change for any and all future shutdowns.
Justin Amash is a House Rep, member of the Freedom Caucus, and just voted that federal employees should totally not get paychecks whenever the President throws a temper tantrum.
I mean, we can make it so that Government Shutdowns don't happen and this sort of hostage-taking showmanship can't be attempted again
Can you do that outside of a Constitutional amendment?
Yes...ish.
Congress sets the budget or doesn't causing a funding gap. Congress passed the law that causes shutdowns to happen during a funding gap.
Congress can change what happens when a budget isn't passed so gaps don't happen (such as continuing previous budget), or how funding gaps impact operation (such as returning to the Carter-era handling where operations continue while departments have money on hand so shutdowns aren't all at once)
The -ish comes in because a future Congress can say bother that noise and undo it and plunge us into another shutdown anyway.
Like, Christ, what they are supposed to do? Let people starve?
I think you're reading into it too much. Reading that article, a natural question that arises is the funding for prisoners food and care. That sentence answers it.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Like, Christ, what they are supposed to do? Let people starve?
Yeah how dare those people get food and medical care while they are wards of the state? Like jesus I know they are prisoners but they are fucking human beings too?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
TSA call ins are one thing, what about air traffic control?
They'll start calling out eventually too. The TSA are the first who are going to disappear because they're among the lowest paid federal employees being forced to work.
Like, Christ, what they are supposed to do? Let people starve?
I feel safe in saying that for about 20% of America, that answer is "If the guards aren't being paid, yes."
Personally, after the children separation at the border, I kinda want updates of "the Trump administration has not used this as an excuse to commit human rights abuses on the Federal Prison population... yet."
A more cunning journalist would have masked that editorializing with a vague source
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
This is what collapsing central government looks like.
Someone in the previous thread mentioned Utah's senators and was wondering how they were reacting to the shutdown, given that Utah is very Republican but also not a huge fan of Trump.
Edit: I should also mention that one of the few blue areas in Utah is home to an IRS center that is very important to the local economy, so there technically *should* be a lot of pressure on them to work to end the shutdown.....but nah gotta make sure people can use Pueblo/Fremont/Ute rock art for target practice!
Posts
There have been attempts to do this in the recent past, although they never make it out of committee. They've usually been opposed by both sides for various reasons, such as that it would remove pressure on Congress to pass an actual budget.
It was all worth it for this post.
No new hires, no new travel, probably furloughing all the maintenance staff and maybe assistants/secretaries, bailiffs, judges, and reporters are working without paychecks, &c. I'd imagine docket clerk's/PACER people are considered essential but no clue. I don't think this has ever happened before.
Not sure how it would impact new civil or criminal filings.
Not for pet projects, but I could see a Democratic president calling a national emergency to combat climate change (you know, an actual national emergency), and that's probably just as horrific to Republicans.
No one will do anything to hold them accountable for the lies.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
If the government cannot pass a budget, there should be an immediate election, for legislative and executive branch
Everyone should be up for election too
I like this idea on a personal, visceral level. On a pragmatic level, it's a bad idea cause we're not set up logistically for it, our elections system is compromised as fuck, and I just don't trust the public to hold the right chucklefucks responsible.
I feel like that's ripe for backfiring. Wait until poll numbers for the opposing party are unfavorable and then hold up government until special elections occur.
Can you do that outside of a Constitutional amendment?
Miami International is shutting down one of its concourses after 1PM this Sat/Sun/Mon due to TSA call ins.
FTFY. Let's be real, the courts as they stand right now are going to be very asymmetrical on how they rule this sort of issue.
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
Emergency powers are not in the Constitution and are granted by an act from 1976.
This can be revised or repealed. And new laws can be put in place. Just put it on the list if the Dems take back the legislative and the executive branches.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-prepares-to-break-for-weekend-all-but-ensuring-longest-shutdown-in-us-history/2019/01/11/7f6e88c8-15bb-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html
I can't tell if this is "Everyone told me this is a bad idea so I guess I can't do it, waaaaaah." Or if it's just meaningless bullshit like usual.
Ethan Brown is the lead editor of The Appeal.
Like, Christ, what they are supposed to do? Let people starve?
Or gun violence
Or Nazis and AR15s
Or a huge whites only gun club super PAC colluding with a foreign government to install a president to make themselves and the gun indistry filthy fucking rich
Or the whole Russian/Saudi/etc collusion with the Republican party thing.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
This is where the Executive has an additional option - order military ATCs to take over civilian operations. The problem here is that military ATCs do not do the same thing as civilian ATCs. Best case scenario - air travel slows down even more. Worst case - a military ATC puts two planes together.
Yes...ish.
Congress sets the budget or doesn't causing a funding gap. Congress passed the law that causes shutdowns to happen during a funding gap.
Congress can change what happens when a budget isn't passed so gaps don't happen (such as continuing previous budget), or how funding gaps impact operation (such as returning to the Carter-era handling where operations continue while departments have money on hand so shutdowns aren't all at once)
The -ish comes in because a future Congress can say bother that noise and undo it and plunge us into another shutdown anyway.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Clearly it is being suggested to let them out of prison until the shutdown is over. ;p
Yeah how dare those people get food and medical care while they are wards of the state? Like jesus I know they are prisoners but they are fucking human beings too?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think on the Federal level.
Unless you count all those at the southern border.
They'll start calling out eventually too. The TSA are the first who are going to disappear because they're among the lowest paid federal employees being forced to work.
looks like they gave them a new name under the umbrella of group homes
But still all those people should be getting food, shelter, and medical care. And the ones at the border too.
HUD isn't paying rent so people who are paying their portion are going to start getting evicted.
I feel safe in saying that for about 20% of America, that answer is "If the guards aren't being paid, yes."
Personally, after the children separation at the border, I kinda want updates of "the Trump administration has not used this as an excuse to commit human rights abuses on the Federal Prison population... yet."
It's crazy that we are now politicizing "Should we feed and care for prisoners". Like holy shit what the fuck has happend?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's the Republican Party.
They would.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Well, the answer is that they're busy trying to make sure that rural Utahans get to continue fucking over monuments and parks because, clearly, that's more important than funding the park rangers that would protect...
Ohhhhhh now I get it you crafty bastards /sarcasm
Edit: I should also mention that one of the few blue areas in Utah is home to an IRS center that is very important to the local economy, so there technically *should* be a lot of pressure on them to work to end the shutdown.....but nah gotta make sure people can use Pueblo/Fremont/Ute rock art for target practice!
But what about those working without pay? Or the contractors who won't get paid? Great vacation there, Kevin.