Comparing private conduct with government conduct in a First Amendment discussion? Nothing relegates you to children's table quicker.

We have 3 branches of government. No agency should be able to operate outside the executive and/or legislative branch. Civics101

Civics 101. A small number of agencies have been created by Congress, legislation signed by the Executive, to operate outside the political whims of the Executive. That legislation provides a process within which Executive can operate. The Buffoon is saying, "F*k that s*t, I'll do whatever I want." So here we are with idiots defending such stupid.

Btw, this appeal is not about the merits of what the Buffoon can or can't do. It's about whether a TRO (effective for 14 days) can be stayed. Forever the answer has been no. Petulant child that he is, no for two weeks is too much for the Buffoon.

Seriously, a f*g "focus group" of 11 gd people and you idiots spent 14 hours arguing it. I mean for the lawd's sake do math, 11 divided by the Buffoons popular vote is so minuscule its not even a blip on any f*g radar. Give me something less anecdotal and more empirical. Thanks.

Yes, you did.

What did I miss?

... watch the primary source you are eagerly opining about. ...

What part of what I've written did you not get.

I tend to agree with that most of the time. However, when our allies are crapping on western values ...

So "western" values are yours? Did I miss something?

... either watch the 19 minute speech or don't. ...

As I explained, in the context of my position I have no need to.

Btw, we already agreed to disagree so why up in arms? Chit not workin out?

#68

I'll go back to what I said earlier, no, you don't get what I'm saying about foreign diplomacy. The particular words are irrelevant in the grand dance. It's the perception, the reaction.

Did you watch the speech?

No, I'm reacting to your characterizations and a wide variety of new reports.

No. Criticize foreign peers because they are chatting[sic] upon traditional western values like free speech and free expression.

So those peers have different values than you. Yet you seem to think you're values are more important to them than theirs. Again, you don't think that's arrogant, disrespectful, undiplomatic?

Btw, the foreign constituencies support their values not yours. So what should a local foreign politician should do? Fall in line with the Buffoon or follow their constituents wishes?

I understand what you are saying.

I don't think you do.

At the same time I remember the Obama apology tour ...

Sorry, don't remember it.

This is something I feel needed to be said publicly.

What criticize foreign peers because they think different than you? You don't think that's arrogant, disrespectful, undiplomatic?

We can agree to disagree ...

Not a problem.

Apparently, calling out Western countries for their retreat from free speech and criminalizing disfavored speech all while bringing receipts is fascist.

Another rookie making a mistake. I take it you have never studied i.e. taken courses in diplomacy especially foreign diplomacy. It's a grand dance of respect. You should never criticize your foreign peer in public especially in their presence. You do that in private, vehemently and emphatically if necessary. Should the need arise to do it publicly you do it carefully, nuanced and respectful.

Buffoon and company are utterly incapable of any of that. Thus the foreign negative reactions seen today. Do it privately you get to have a public schmooze fest over your diplomatic accomplishments.

Excuse me. The kind feared in Shakespeare's scene.

... until they need one.

Then they want a really good one. The kind that can take down the Buffoon's stupid. The kind from Shakespeare's scene.

How many military divisions does the bar command? None? Anyway...

Strange that your response to the ABA commenting on legal issues, dead in the middle of their wheelhouse, is military divisions.

I bet you think the way to "improve the country is kill all the lawyers." Although that Shakespearean scene doesn't mean what you think it does.

Who has standing in this case?

What case? This is the ABA pointing out the effects of the Buffoon's stupid.

Btw, the ABA is not the "legal profession's U.S. governing body." It's basically a trade association. The only thing is governs is its members. I dropped mine in the nineties when I got tired of reading journal articles about dei issues instead of legal issues. Lawyers are governed by their state bar associations not the ABA.

Ohhh if only you all understood ...

Oh, if only you and whomever Dan Huff is understood that provision of the FRCP hasn't prevented a FDC from entering an injunction.

The Buffoon's appealed many injunctions against his stupid but I have never seen this argument raised, never. I'm thinking it's because it's stupid. But here we are.

Once upon a time I represented a seller (Australian) against a manufacturer (Houston). The seller's principal routinely traveled internationally with various tools and equipment. He was often questioned about those items by various customs officials. He admittedly paid small "gratuities" to such officials to get on down the road.

At trial I convinced the judge to exclude that evidence because in those circumstances it's just a fact of life in international business.

That said, I don't get where the Buffoon in going with this.

Complacent?

Or cowardly?

Or complicit?

It's because the Buffoon lacks class. In foreign affairs it's called diplomacy, the grand dance countries go through in their relations. Domestically it's called compromise, that person has a point.

The Buffoon can indulge neither. He has no class.

The Buffoon's "instructions" die with him. No doubt the country would retaliate but it wouldn't be because of his "instructions."

A case of the Buffoon's alligator mouth overloading his hummingbird a*s? We'll see.

#72

No s**t.

You people still haven't learned. The average person doesn't ...

Have a f*****g clue about how governance works. Congress appropriates money. It's distributed to agency's with delegated authority to spend the appropriation. Sometimes part of the appropriation is "abused."

That's not a reason to cancel the appropriation.

Simpleton's notwithstanding.

#63

A raging child slinging profanities. And you think that's whats up. No, thanks.

From what I understand, POTUS, has the authority to ...

To an extent, true. Statutory authority exists for the Buffoon to try to not spend, or at least express dissatisfaction with Congressional spending priorities, apportioned funds. Seems the statutes require the Buffoon to disclose certain specific information to Congress within x days - clock ticking.

~ Fox News pundit, Judge Napalitano, who sometimes expresses reasonable opinions.

Censoring the media.

You really should read the articles before p*****g in the wind. Rotating office space in the Pentagon is not censorship. As the article states: "The moves are largely symbolic as outlets are not losing access to Pentagon briefings, but are in keeping with the Trump administration's plans to mix the access of traditional news outlets with a cohort of non-traditional news outlets, including podcasters, bloggers and TikTokers."

I've disliked the Buffoon since before some of you knew he exists but pick your battles. This is nothing.