Chrysippus

2/2 It will cost hundreds of millions, probably billions, when there is no money to feed school children but trillions available to increase the debt and give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

1/2 Says the guy who said he wouldn't get the country into a war.

It's way above his head, but 'the best offense is a good defense.'

This change requires Congressional approval. The EO has no legal force (if that matters).

6/6 If there is a difference between the application of the Führerprinzip by Trump and Hitler, I do not see it.

5/ In essence, it established a system of absolute, centralized authority with the Führer at the top, dictating policy and expecting unquestioning obedience from all levels of the government and society.

4/ The “principle” stipulated that the Führer's will was supreme and above all written laws, and that all government policies, decisions, and officials were to serve in the realization of his will.

3/ The Führerprinzip of Hitler has been replaced with the unitary presidency of Trump. The Führerprinzip is the core tenet of the unitary president that is being foisted on us by the black-robed supreme suckerfish. It was the core tenet of Nazi ideology.

2/ The Supreme Court's conservative majority is committed to enfranchising this erroneous, conceptual monstrosity. There is actual history that demonstrates the utterly destructive outcome of a unitary president. It is called the Führerprinzip.

1/ The conservatives believe deeply in the fiction of a unitary president. It is a fiction because it is found nowhere in the Constitution. It is their legal theory used to re-define the literal words of the Constitution and constitutional case law.

No way you can look at this picture and not see the dementia.

7/7 What kept Anne going was far beyond what words can describe.

We also do not know the future. Whatever keeps us going will be far beyond what words can describe.

May we hold to our ideals and choose to believe that people are "truly good at heart."

6/ The question is, if she had known what would happen, would she still have written, "in spite of everything [that] people are truly good at heart?"

5/ She wrote that entry not knowing that three days later her future would soon be taken from her. She had lived in hiding for 761 days. Part of reading her diary is our awareness that we know what happened to her, though, when she wrote her diary, she did not.

4/ "It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impossible. Yet I keep clinging to them, because I still believe, in spite of everything that people are truly good at heart."

3/ When I start to feel cynical, I catch myself by remembering Anne's final entries. This one in particular keeps me in touch with my soul.

2/ The last entry in her diary was August 1, 1944. The date of arrest was August 4, 1944 - 81 years ago today. She was 15 when she died. She would now be 96.

1/ I am currently reading a book about Anne Frank. I have read several, including, of course, her diary. One of the last entries in her diary was written just a few days before she and her family were arrested, sent to a concentration camp. All but her father were murdered.

2/ What gall! She was the very first to capitulate when she refused to do a recount and conceded quickly. She should be confronted with what she did, and made to explain her action to deprive us of the recount.

1/ I voted for Harris. She would have made a great president! Harris went on Colbert and said that the one thing she didn't expect was the "capitulation."

What people don't seem to get at all, is that the ICE are not meant solely for the undocumented immigrants. To the Trump Administration, they're just the test case victims, expendable, and vessels of xenophobia. ICE is meant for us!

7/7 If it goes to a rehearing, the entire case is literally reheard, not just the issues raised in the petition. And I think the criteria for rehearing have been met, such as it conflicts with controlling precedent or that the case is of exceptional importance.

6/ Newsom should immediately petition for a rehearing en banc. He should do all he can to force the appellate court to take a position consistent with the plain language of the statute, which specifically requires the governor to consent.

5/ Governor Newsom argued that his consent was required for federalization under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The lawsuit cites a federal law (10 U.S.C. § 12406) which states that orders to deploy the National Guard "shall be issued through the governors of the States."

4/ "It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president’s order."

3/ "In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard." ...

2/ "The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom." ...

1/ Headline from PBS:

“Trump allowed to keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles by Appeals Court”

"An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids."

5/ Governor Newsom argued that his consent was required for federalization under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The lawsuit cites a federal law (10 U.S.C. § 12406) which states that orders to deploy the National Guard "shall be issued through the governors of the States".

4/ "It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president’s order."

3/ "In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard." ...

2/ The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom." ...