jas007

Trump must know it's a ridiculous agreement on its face. What's his real motive? Sign a paper, any paper, so long as Zelenskyy also signs, and then begin the real negotiations with Russia?

I will say this: it is possible that the court narrowly addresses the issue of the applicability of the Alien Enemies Act with respect to Trump's deportation efforts. If so, they won't reach the issue of his conduct of US foreign policy. So yes, the court could do that, but then what? That sounds to me like the easy way out of a bad situation. Normal judicial restraint, to be sure, but I think they would want to settle the issue for the sake of the country. The political system is broken. Leaving the matter alone as a "political question" would be too bad for the country.

Biden never attempted to do anything much, except fund the war for Ukraine. At least Trump tried, I guess. Still, it seems silly. Make a deal with Zelenskyy that he should know full well Russia will never accept. Maybe that's the point. Appear to do something, even if that something doesn't change anything.

So the Neocons got to Trump and now the war continues with US support? And with a deal that is unacceptable to Russia? All paid for by US taxpayers, once again. That's too bad. Unless it's all part of some larger negotiating tactic, it sure doesn't sound to me like "ending the war in 24 hours." What happened to "stop the killing"? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Go back and read again. And keep in mind that you have to look at the context and the constitutional structure. Even the US Supreme Court has recognized the president's role in conducting US foreign policy. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936). It's well settled law at this point. Of course, if you think you can make an argument that the power to conduct U.S foreign policy should rest with any random federal district court judge, I'll wait.

Changing your tune all of a sudden? First you made it seem as though "the people" had spoken and the constitution was clear. Now you change your tune. And for what it's worth, "the people" elected Donald Trump and that very same Donald Trump has a constitutional duty to conduct US foreign policy. And that's exactly what he's trying to do. I'm willing to wait for a final court ruling. Maybe you should consider doing that as well, before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.

You need to make some effort to understand the factors a court will typically weigh in determining whether a temporary injunction is appropriate. And if such an order is issued, why such an order is not a decision on the merits. The issues are not the same. So, look it all up, try to understand, and try again.

It's happening all over the developed world. Either people can't afford kids or they don't want them for whatever reason. Sooner or later, that's not good. As for Russia? Kill enough young men in a war and the problem is obvious. But from what I see here in Wongamat Beach, which always seems to have a lot of Russians on vacation, they like kids. Most of the women seem to have kids and everyone is having a good time.

You really don't get it, do you? He's the President. He was elected by "the people." He's doing his job. It's not a hard concept to understand. He may be right. He may be wrong. But he's doing his job. Yes, there is a constitution. Yes, there are courts. And when this issue is finally adjudicated in the courts, I'm fairly comfortable in stating that the US Supreme Court will allow the duky elected President some leeway in conducting US foreign policy. The alternative would be chaos. Neuter the US President's ability to conduct foreign policy? Really? Is it strictly a matter of foreign policy? No. But you can't say there are no foreign policy issues. And that's the problem. Where will the court draw the line? You can bet they'll have a decision and that decision will not be to allow chaos. In any event, what's your solution? I have yet to hear that from you, other than some nonsense abbot "the people" and the "constitution." "The people" spoke when they elected President Trump, and, under the constitution, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling. Let's see what happens. Take a step back. Look at the big picture. Do you think the president should have no say in matters of foreign policy? Leave it all to any number of federal judges? Imagine the President getting a phone call in the middle of the night about a pressing issue. What's he supposed to do? Canvas all federal judges? Consult "the people"? Or is he supposed to do something then and there? Where do you draw the line? Write us a decision that addresses the issues. I'll wait. And always remember, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If the court says the Alien Enemies Act does not apply, do you really think the Trump team won't take a different approach?

Leonard Cohen

Terry Reid Anyone who hasn't heard this album, Superlungs, should take the time to listen. Some good stuff.

I can remember when this album came out. This isn't the song that sticks in my mind, but that's OK. Late 60S, early 70s. Like yesterday.

Kamala Harris? Someone's idea of a joke for Trump's 100th day in office? The woman wasn't even allowed to hold a news conference without cue cards, and even that she screwed up. Just imagine what a tragedy that would havre been. President of the United States. Someone who was seemingly incapable of even conversing with the press.

Cheap shot. You're responding to a reply I made to someone else. Try again. I'm not "playing games." Just trying to shed some light on the situation for the mentally challenged. "Get Trump." Really? is that your mindset? Leave it alone for now. And come back later after you realize that "Get trump" is not a winning strategy. The issues are bigger than that. I can wait.

Ok. Think what you want. There's a foreign policy angle, at least according to Trump, and you'd be hard pressed to say that's a fantasy. Trump is the President. Remember? He's trying to do his job. Or is he not entitled to do just that? He sees foreign invaders. He sees alien enemies. And there's a law on the books. I don't claim to be Perry Mason, and I don't know how this will turn out. But I'm comfortable in saying this: the US Supreme Court will resolve the issue, and you can bet that they won't obliterate the ability of the US President to conduct foreign policy. If the court is doing its job, they'll take a step back and look at the big picture. And the big picture is not "Get Trump." The big picture will be focused on question of whether a US President can conduct foreign policy, or whether that policy can be neutered any time someone finds a federal judge who has a political agenda. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. Why not let this run its course? See if I'm not right. Maybe I'm naive, but I think the court will do the right thing.

As I said, the matter is not settled. What part of that do you not understand? I'm sure the ruling says whatever it says. So what? That's not the last word. People who do not understand how the judicial system functions should probably go do something else. Watch a movie. Play a video game.

Off the top of my head, my guess is that you don't understand the nature of a temporary injunction or why such an order would be issued. And yes, what the court did was not out of line with what anyone would expect, including me. Go do your homework and come back when you understand why that is so. You keep getting in over your head on topics you don't really understand.

Once again, Trump is the President and he seems to think so. And it's Trump that has the constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy. So, what's the outcome? "Sorry Trump, these pekoe are just picking vegetables or delivering meals." "You no longer have a say in foreign policy matters." I don't tho that's the outcome. Like it or not , the issue is not clear cut. It may be a domestic issue, but it's hard to deny that there's not a foreign policy element. I think the court will take a step back, consider the big picture, and conclude that Trump has acted within the scope of his constitutional authority. He's the President.

I think a good place to start would be to buy one. A real short wave radio. You don'e need any kind of license to buy and listen to one, and they're kind of neat. You can listen to broadcasts from all over the world. I remember back in 1964. I wasn't very old, but my mom was visiting my grandparents, and my grandfather had a short wave radio. He worked on radars back in WWII and had all sorts of electronic equipment. Anyway, I was up early one morning and I was playing with the short wave radio. And that's when I heard about the big earthquake in Alaska. Before it was on any kind of news channel, I knew all about it, thanks to the short wave. I've been meaning to buy a portable short wave radio, but I need to do my research first.

Of course, but, as I've said, the world doesn't seem to work that way.

I understand, that will be the argument. But in Trump's mind and in reality, it can be considered to have a foreign policy connection. Millions of military age men, all invaded the country. Mostly men. Not women and children seeking legitimate asylum. And so Trump sees it as a foreign policy issue with real foreign enemies. Maybe there's no official "war" and no official foreign enemies, but in Trump's mind, it's a de facto war. Will the court finally decide that Trump is out of line and that it's all simply a domestic imigration issue and not a matter of foreign policy? I don't think so. It may be a little of both, but on balance, I think Trump gets a pass.

Right now, Finland is not a focus for Russia. And for what it's worth, Finland probably knows better than to allow missiles to be installed on its territory. Like it or not, they're probably neutral territory.

Of course, pretty much every territorial nation state on Planet Earth was established by way of force. You might be able to find one or two that weren't, but that's not the way the world works.

I wasn't aware that I quoted any article about anything. As for what's a "done deal"? It's a done deal until it isn't. You realize that, right? As for my "panties" being in a bunch? Actually, I don't spend much time thinking about any of this. It's something I can't control, and for me personally, it doesn't much matter. I'm just making casual observations. What I do know is that the Supreme Court, if they take the case, will likely be thinking about the bigger picture. Something more than "Get Trump." Does the President have a duty to conduct foreign policy? What kind of latitude does he have? Or can he be second guessed by federal judges, wherever they may be? My guess: the President gets a pass. He's doing his job. On balance, that's the constitutional setup.