3 ms·

The mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later. Court cases do not "gum up the works" effectiv

by dh2022 1y ago

The mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later. Court cases do not "gum up the works" effectively. The two items you mentioned (detaining ICE agents and not sending federal tax money to Washington DC) are against federal law. States can do these things only if states refuse to obey federal laws. This would work only if states would secede from the Union.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later When they take the initiative. That's the point. The current political environment strongly favours taking the initiative over reacting. > The two items you mentioned (detaining ICE agents and not sending federal tax money to Washington DC) are against federal law Yes. So are the things Trump has been doing. As you say, one can "do things first and deal with push back from the courts later." That's what the GOP is doing. I'm saying Democrats need to do the same (or concede the game). We can remake the judiciary to have more teeth later, when everyone is in compromise mode or one side has won.
- dh2022 1y ago
  I finally understand what you mean. So Democrats should not send tax money to Washington and arrest ICE agents for whatever reason. And then deal with the courts later. I think I finally understand your point. It will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster It wouldn't. It would provoke Trump into an overreaction. But war takes two to tango, and Democrats aren't--and shouldn't be--ready for civil war. (If Trump spent the next three years fighting Gavin Newsom for jailing his ICE agents, that's a win. It means he has less time to do something else.)
    - dh2022 1y ago
      And how can the states arrest ICE agents without using force? You think ICE agents will just willingly walk into custody? The minute states use force against any US Federal agents the US Federal Government will use its military force. BTW - this also works in the following scenario: Trump's federal court finds Gavin Newsom guilty of something and US Federal Marshals to take him into custody. If Gavin tries to use California's forces to protect him against Marshals then US Federal Government will use military force to detain Gavin.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > how can the states arrest ICE agents without using force? You think ICE agents will just willingly walk into custody? If ICE start shooting at cops, we've won the battle. > minute states use force against any US Federal agents the US Federal Government will use its military force Sure, that's the overreaction. Nobody is ordering police to shoot back. > this also works in the following scenario: Trump's federal court finds Gavin Newsom guilty of something and US Federal Marshals to take him into custody Sure. I'd guess he wins the Presidency if Trump does this. Ordering state officers to detain ICE agents for breaking state law isn't criminal. Newsom's trial would become the media sensation of the next few years. Not whatever nonsense Trump conjurs up on a daily basis to earn media.
        dh2022 1y ago
        Thanks for responding to my messages. I really do not think that if "ICE start shooting at cops we have won the battle" I do not think Gavin wins the presidency if Trump puts him in custody. In both of these situations I think the follow up is civil war. (which makes me wish we could separate from the deplorables peacefully. Unfortunately we cannot)
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > really do not think that if "ICE start shooting at cops we have won the battle" It wouldn't be ICE shooting at cops, it would be an ICE agent (or group of agents) shooting a cop attempting to detain them. (The easiest reason for the arrest would be enforcing California's new mask law.) The optics--shooting a cop--are bad. The precedent--violently resisting arrest--is bad. The entire situation is so dumb that I'm doubtful even the goons they're hiring at ICE would think it's a good idea. > do not think Gavin wins the presidency if Trump puts him in custody The track record of any elected being put in jail by their opponent, internationally and across history, is a massive jump in popularity. > In both of these situations I think the follow up is civil war The only real move if this is the path we're going down is a Governor trying to seize nuclear weapons. I don't think we are there. Not even close.

by dh2022 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later When they take the initiative. That's the point. The current political environment strongly favours taking the initiative over reacting. > The two items you mentioned (detaining ICE agents and not sending federal tax money to Washington DC) are against federal law Yes. So are the things Trump has been doing. As you say, one can "do things first and deal with push back from the courts later." That's what the GOP is doing. I'm saying Democrats need to do the same (or concede the game). We can remake the judiciary to have more teeth later, when everyone is in compromise mode or one side has won.

dh2022 1y ago
I finally understand what you mean. So Democrats should not send tax money to Washington and arrest ICE agents for whatever reason. And then deal with the courts later. I think I finally understand your point. It will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster It wouldn't. It would provoke Trump into an overreaction. But war takes two to tango, and Democrats aren't--and shouldn't be--ready for civil war. (If Trump spent the next three years fighting Gavin Newsom for jailing his ICE agents, that's a win. It means he has less time to do something else.)
  - dh2022 1y ago
    And how can the states arrest ICE agents without using force? You think ICE agents will just willingly walk into custody? The minute states use force against any US Federal agents the US Federal Government will use its military force. BTW - this also works in the following scenario: Trump's federal court finds Gavin Newsom guilty of something and US Federal Marshals to take him into custody. If Gavin tries to use California's forces to protect him against Marshals then US Federal Government will use military force to detain Gavin.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > how can the states arrest ICE agents without using force? You think ICE agents will just willingly walk into custody? If ICE start shooting at cops, we've won the battle. > minute states use force against any US Federal agents the US Federal Government will use its military force Sure, that's the overreaction. Nobody is ordering police to shoot back. > this also works in the following scenario: Trump's federal court finds Gavin Newsom guilty of something and US Federal Marshals to take him into custody Sure. I'd guess he wins the Presidency if Trump does this. Ordering state officers to detain ICE agents for breaking state law isn't criminal. Newsom's trial would become the media sensation of the next few years. Not whatever nonsense Trump conjurs up on a daily basis to earn media.
      - dh2022 1y ago
        Thanks for responding to my messages. I really do not think that if "ICE start shooting at cops we have won the battle" I do not think Gavin wins the presidency if Trump puts him in custody. In both of these situations I think the follow up is civil war. (which makes me wish we could separate from the deplorables peacefully. Unfortunately we cannot)
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > really do not think that if "ICE start shooting at cops we have won the battle" It wouldn't be ICE shooting at cops, it would be an ICE agent (or group of agents) shooting a cop attempting to detain them. (The easiest reason for the arrest would be enforcing California's new mask law.) The optics--shooting a cop--are bad. The precedent--violently resisting arrest--is bad. The entire situation is so dumb that I'm doubtful even the goons they're hiring at ICE would think it's a good idea. > do not think Gavin wins the presidency if Trump puts him in custody The track record of any elected being put in jail by their opponent, internationally and across history, is a massive jump in popularity. > In both of these situations I think the follow up is civil war The only real move if this is the path we're going down is a Governor trying to seize nuclear weapons. I don't think we are there. Not even close.