Yeah. Doesn’t seem like the type of guy to restore some semblance of law and order among the gestapo.

I’m shocked mouth pieces for Israel like Josh Gottheimer and Ritchie Torres backed down.

Which is why the Constitution gives the exclusive power to initiate war to the Congress. They’re supposed to have skin in the game and fear for reelection if they enter into an unpopular war. It’s not just that they didn’t trust the office most inclined to go to war to make the decision, they wanted to spread responsibility across the branch most responsive to public opinion so they couldn’t dodge responsibility.

a single Mark 48 torpedo, a sophisticated munition specifically designed to sink ships

As opposed to the torpedos not designed to sink ships?

It’s “you are” now in my side. Chalk it up to the mysteries of federation!

It’s still “your” on my side, but I can believe an edit didn’t propagate correctly.

I’m torn between up voting for the sentiment and down voting for the misspelled “you’re”.

This probably isn’t the hill to die on, but liberal states need to become comfortable with the idea that the Supreme Court’s rulings are advisory when they step out of bounds like this. The belief that we need to preserve the Court’s legitimacy because one day they’ll swing back to protecting people’s rights is a pleasant fantasy. They’re political agents and will be inserting themselves arbitrarily to advance their political causes for the next 30 years.

How did that case even get there? If it was filled in state court it was presumably being considered under state law. And even if that was incorrect and it was a case of federal law, it should have been transferred to a lower court first. Otherwise they don’t really have any reason to intervene or even jurisdiction in determining what state law is.

In the model of Venezuela as long as the actual top leader isn’t in charge anymore, it’s regime change.

The audacity to even ask him that question.

I think that’s just shotgun argumentation. Say all the reasons something’s wrong so that if one doesn’t move someone the other might. The problem in the “think of the process” argument is when it becomes the primary argument because it assumes the “don’t kill people” one isn’t important.

If it’s both “war is wrong” and “presidents siezing war powers is wrong” and Congress gives its approval, then that doesn’t take away her other criticism. She spends a lot more space taking about why the war is wrong than the process issue, but the process issue is also important because without taking back war powers statements of moral opposition mean nothing.

Dude. I’m willing to tell a foreign power my governing regime is horrific and we’d welcome invasion right now. There were Venezuelans asking for invasion, Iraqis asking for invasion, Afghanis asking for invasion. Do you think all those other countries didn’t have both bad regimes and opposition who wanted them gone? How’d that work out for us?

Were you perchance born yesterday?

LOL, ok Cheney. I’m sure this regime change war is different. All those other times we attacked “one of the most horrific regimes in the world” where the good people just needed a little boost to overthrow them it didn’t work out that way because… reasons. This time it’s going to be quick an easy and we’ll definitely be the good guys!

Removed by mod

“They will greet us as liberators.”

They’re cowards and/or bought by Israel. The Democratic leadership conveniently delayed a vote against military action until next week. Speculation is that either they get so much AIPAC money they’ll do whatever Israel wants or they think this will be such a big shit show for Trump they want to just let it happen for political benefit.

Also, realistically, Republicans are weak-willed morons. There will be a few days of uncomfortable confusion, but they’ll be cheerleading this by next week.

This is actually one of the few shitty things the Trump voters didn’t vote for. Trump campaigned as anti-war. Just recently Americans polled at 70% opposition to military action. Even Republicans have a majority against it (53-35).

That only makes sense if he’s planning on an occupation. That’s insane.

Oh I’m sorry, I thought your complaint was that no one was criticizing anything under his control that happened during his time in office. But it seems like you were just jerking off and now want to make an entirely different argument.