Seriously, Washington National Cathedral has certainly positioned itself as the national church for national occasions, at least to the extent that can be done within the framework of separation of church and state. There is no doubt that those involved in planning it looked at the role Westminster Abbey plays in British public life and sought something similar.
Yeah, y'know, the more I think about it, the more this whole Washington National Cathedral thingamabob seems, mutatis mutandis, like Episcopalians pulling off the old RC trick of giving the Pope the attribute of "Infallibility", and then sitting back and allowing the untutored to think that means "Correct about everything all the time".
(I have never been to the WNC, but I have been to Grace, and will recollect that some of the historical iconography seemed rather on the, shall we say, patriotic side.)
(And, please, gin-heads, this is not meant as serious criticism.)
How many battalions does she have? She just gave him another opportunity to hammer a nail.
Into his own coffin, not hers?
He talked to Hannity of his “landslide” victory (it wasn’t) and projects that in his assertions. He seems to believe that he now has the right to do what he promised he would when speaking to his loyal supporters. The Constitution, the separation of powers, be damned. He projects a belief that he is a kind of king.
Of course the bishop doesn’t have any battalions. But how many battalions does he have? Put more succinctly, what power does he have in practice, regardless of his rhetorical assertions? We’re going to find out.
How many battalions does she have? She just gave him another opportunity to hammer a nail.
Into his own coffin, not hers?
He talked to Hannity of his “landslide” victory (it wasn’t) and projects that in his assertions. He seems to believe that he now has the right to do what he promised he would when speaking to his loyal supporters. The Constitution, the separation of powers, be damned. He projects a belief that he is a kind of king.
Of course the bishop doesn’t have any battalions. But how many battalions does he have? Put more succinctly, what power does he have in practice, regardless of his rhetorical assertions? We’re going to find out.
Indeed.
But his rhetoric got him back in power. And it will keep him and Vance there for 12 years at this rate.
I found this still small lone penitent voice speaking truth to power actually inspiring, as opposed to the bishop's worse than useless use of privilege.
How many battalions does she have? She just gave him another opportunity to hammer a nail.
Into his own coffin, not hers?
He talked to Hannity of his “landslide” victory (it wasn’t) and projects that in his assertions. He seems to believe that he now has the right to do what he promised he would when speaking to his loyal supporters. The Constitution, the separation of powers, be damned. He projects a belief that he is a kind of king.
Of course the bishop doesn’t have any battalions. But how many battalions does he have? Put more succinctly, what power does he have in practice, regardless of his rhetorical assertions? We’re going to find out.
As you say, time will tell.
If Trump fails to carry out all or some of his draconian threats, I wonder how his worshippers will react? Maybe the thought of their saviour letting them down hasn't occurred to them...yet...
Whether or not the Bishop's words were a worse than useless use of privilege, as @Martin54 alleges, at least she had the courage to say those words.
How many battalions does she have? She just gave him another opportunity to hammer a nail.
Into his own coffin, not hers?
He talked to Hannity of his “landslide” victory (it wasn’t) and projects that in his assertions. He seems to believe that he now has the right to do what he promised he would when speaking to his loyal supporters. The Constitution, the separation of powers, be damned. He projects a belief that he is a kind of king.
Of course the bishop doesn’t have any battalions. But how many battalions does he have? Put more succinctly, what power does he have in practice, regardless of his rhetorical assertions? We’re going to find out.
As you say, time will tell.
If Trump fails to carry out all or some of his draconian threats, I wonder how his worshippers will react? Maybe the thought of their saviour letting them down hasn't occurred to them...yet...
Whether or not the Bishop's words were a worse than useless use of privilege, as @Martin54 alleges, at least she had the courage to say those words.
I assert, not allege. The courage of theatre. Not confessional. Not inclusive. Not leading the way in silent service, writing in the dust, actually standing to be sacrificed with the oppressed, shaming those about to cast the first stone.
He won. Hands down. So did Jesus of course.
He doesn't have to carry out any draconian threat. His worshippers will never lose faith.
Worshippers rarely do regardless that their gods don't deliver do they? I didn't when my One-of-the-Two-Witnesses cult leader died. But he will anyway, and he is. Just like Reagan did, and above all Nixon before his absurd fall. Reagan was perfect, grade 'A' president, as a democrat acknowledged at his inauguration.
I thought you were talking about usefulness. Opinions will differ about comparative nobility. I think both were speaking the truth to power.
I suspect both women were only too aware about the impact of their statements on Donald Trump (i.e unlikely to change his opinions and therefore from that point of view useless.) When confronted, either directly or indirectly, he doubles down.
But the truth is the truth. January 6th was a mistake. Striking fear into the hearts of the vulnerable is a mistake. Both of them stood on a truth line. There’s nobility in that.
I thought you were talking about usefulness. Opinions will differ about comparative nobility. I think both were speaking the truth to power.
I suspect both women were only too aware about the impact of their statements on Donald Trump (i.e unlikely to change his opinions and therefore from that point of view useless.) When confronted, either directly or indirectly, he doubles down.
But the truth is the truth. January 6th was a mistake. Striking fear into the hearts of the vulnerable is a mistake. Both of them stood on a truth line. There’s nobility in that.
Yes but the bishop was speaking truth from protected privilege. And I like the British understatement of 'unlikely'. The truth is whatever we say it is the loudest. And liberal, enlightened, inclusive, care giving, harmless, fair, to equality of outcome truth is NEVER heard. Never. Never acted upon. Starting with the Church.
I didn't when my One-of-the-Two-Witnesses cult leader died.
What does this refer to?
Revelation 11
King James Version
11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
I believed that one of these was Herbert W. Armstrong.
I thought you were talking about usefulness. Opinions will differ about comparative nobility. I think both were speaking the truth to power.
I suspect both women were only too aware about the impact of their statements on Donald Trump (i.e unlikely to change his opinions and therefore from that point of view useless.) When confronted, either directly or indirectly, he doubles down.
But the truth is the truth. January 6th was a mistake. Striking fear into the hearts of the vulnerable is a mistake. Both of them stood on a truth line. There’s nobility in that.
Yes but the bishop was speaking truth from protected privilege. And I like the British understatement of 'unlikely'. The truth is whatever we say it is the loudest. And liberal, enlightened, inclusive, care giving, harmless, fair, to equality of outcome truth is NEVER heard. Never. Never acted upon. Starting with the Church.
I didn't when my One-of-the-Two-Witnesses cult leader died.
What does this refer to?
Revelation 11
King James Version
11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
I believed that one of these was Herbert W. Armstrong.
Bless.
Thanks. I don't think I knew that Armstrongites claimed that HWA was actually mentioned in the bible. Did Armstrong himself say that?
And did they have an identity for the other witness?
I thought you were talking about usefulness. Opinions will differ about comparative nobility. I think both were speaking the truth to power.
I suspect both women were only too aware about the impact of their statements on Donald Trump (i.e unlikely to change his opinions and therefore from that point of view useless.) When confronted, either directly or indirectly, he doubles down.
But the truth is the truth. January 6th was a mistake. Striking fear into the hearts of the vulnerable is a mistake. Both of them stood on a truth line. There’s nobility in that.
Yes but the bishop was speaking truth from protected privilege. And I like the British understatement of 'unlikely'. The truth is whatever we say it is the loudest. And liberal, enlightened, inclusive, care giving, harmless, fair, to equality of outcome truth is NEVER heard. Never. Never acted upon. Starting with the Church.
I didn't when my One-of-the-Two-Witnesses cult leader died.
What does this refer to?
Revelation 11
King James Version
11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
I believed that one of these was Herbert W. Armstrong.
Bless.
Thanks. I don't think I knew that Armstrongites claimed that HWA was actually mentioned in the bible. Did Armstrong himself say that?
And did they have an identity for the other witness?
He never claimed it. But we all knew he had to be one of them. May be his yet to be penitent son Garner Ted the other.
I thought you were talking about usefulness. Opinions will differ about comparative nobility. I think both were speaking the truth to power.
I suspect both women were only too aware about the impact of their statements on Donald Trump (i.e unlikely to change his opinions and therefore from that point of view useless.) When confronted, either directly or indirectly, he doubles down.
But the truth is the truth. January 6th was a mistake. Striking fear into the hearts of the vulnerable is a mistake. Both of them stood on a truth line. There’s nobility in that.
Yes but the bishop was speaking truth from protected privilege. And I like the British understatement of 'unlikely'. The truth is whatever we say it is the loudest. And liberal, enlightened, inclusive, care giving, harmless, fair, to equality of outcome truth is NEVER heard. Never. Never acted upon. Starting with the Church.
I didn't when my One-of-the-Two-Witnesses cult leader died.
What does this refer to?
Revelation 11
King James Version
11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
I believed that one of these was Herbert W. Armstrong.
Bless.
Thanks. I don't think I knew that Armstrongites claimed that HWA was actually mentioned in the bible. Did Armstrong himself say that?
And did they have an identity for the other witness?
He never claimed it. But we all knew he had to be one of them. May be his yet to be penitent son Garner Ted the other.
Was the belief widespread-but-still-optional, or was it something that would get you branded a heretic for doubting?
And, for the record, it's long past possible for Garner Ted to be penitent, since he's been gone from this world since 2003.
If Trump fails to carry out all or some of his draconian threats, I wonder how his worshippers will react? Maybe the thought of their saviour letting them down hasn't occurred to them...yet...
This term will probably be like the other T term. He promised to build the Big Beautiful Wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. Didn't happen. His maga-ites didn't care. I think a lot of them care about having a president who can do or say anything horrible thing he likes, and they want that same freedom for themselves.
I thought you were talking about usefulness. Opinions will differ about comparative nobility. I think both were speaking the truth to power.
I suspect both women were only too aware about the impact of their statements on Donald Trump (i.e unlikely to change his opinions and therefore from that point of view useless.) When confronted, either directly or indirectly, he doubles down.
But the truth is the truth. January 6th was a mistake. Striking fear into the hearts of the vulnerable is a mistake. Both of them stood on a truth line. There’s nobility in that.
Yes but the bishop was speaking truth from protected privilege. And I like the British understatement of 'unlikely'. The truth is whatever we say it is the loudest. And liberal, enlightened, inclusive, care giving, harmless, fair, to equality of outcome truth is NEVER heard. Never. Never acted upon. Starting with the Church.
I didn't when my One-of-the-Two-Witnesses cult leader died.
What does this refer to?
Revelation 11
King James Version
11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
I believed that one of these was Herbert W. Armstrong.
Bless.
Thanks. I don't think I knew that Armstrongites claimed that HWA was actually mentioned in the bible. Did Armstrong himself say that?
And did they have an identity for the other witness?
He never claimed it. But we all knew he had to be one of them. May be his yet to be penitent son Garner Ted the other.
Was the belief widespread-but-still-optional, or was it something that would get you branded a heretic for doubting?
And, for the record, it's long past possible for Garner Ted to be penitent, since he's been gone from this world since 2003.
Aye, 17 years after his father. It was widespread, and you'd never express doubt, but you could theoretically express alternatives. Although funnily enough, no one ever did.
HWA isn't alluded to in the Bible, but he certainly is in Niven & Pournelle's perfect Lucifer's Hammer.
If Trump fails to carry out all or some of his draconian threats, I wonder how his worshippers will react? Maybe the thought of their saviour letting them down hasn't occurred to them...yet...
This term will probably be like the other T term. He promised to build the Big Beautiful Wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. Didn't happen. His maga-ites didn't care. I think a lot of them care about having a president who can do or say anything horrible thing he likes, and they want that same freedom for themselves.
My head hurts and my eyes are leaking.
Yes, I take your point, and can do nothing except sympathise...
If Trump fails to carry out all or some of his draconian threats, I wonder how his worshippers will react? Maybe the thought of their saviour letting them down hasn't occurred to them...yet...
This term will probably be like the other T term. He promised to build the Big Beautiful Wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. Didn't happen. His maga-ites didn't care. I think a lot of them care about having a president who can do or say anything horrible thing he likes, and they want that same freedom for themselves.
Trump did implement a lot of his policies in his first term, like his Muslim ban or the family separating immigration crackdown. That said, Trump (or more likely his immediate circle of cronies) seems to be a lot more organized this time, with a better grasp of where the levers of power are located. To take one example, first term Trump complained a lot about wokeness. Second term Trump revokes LBJ's executive order prohibiting racial and gender discrimination by federal contractors, a level of detail that would have eluded first term Trump (or his handlers).
Groups have already filed suits against the president's Elon Musk-led "Department of Government Efficiency", his attempt to end birthright citizenship and his suspension of the asylum appointment program.
And a federal judge in Seattle, John Coughenour (a Reagan appointee) has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting implementation of the executive order ending birthright citizenship. The TRO, which remains in effect for 14 days, by which time the court will presumably consider a preliminary injunction, or until a higher court vacates it, is only four pages, so a quick and easy read. (The order does read as though it was submitted to the judge along with the motion, as reflects the possibility that the administration might not respond before the order was entered. That’s not unusual.)
The judge is reported as commenting at the hearing that “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear.” He also is reported as saying “this is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” And he told the administration’s lawyers, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
Hopefully, this judge's action, and those of others, will be the thin end of the wedge, so to speak, and that the evil God-Emperor will be thwarted time and time again.
Welp, the Grifter in Chief and family have entered the cryptocurrency racket with an offering that could make GiC billions of dollars. Brings up all sorts of ethical questions, but in reality, he expects to get a fast buck from thin air. NPR interview here.
And a federal judge in Seattle, John Coughenour (a Reagan appointee) has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting implementation of the executive order ending birthright citizenship. The TRO, which remains in effect for 14 days, by which time the court will presumably consider a preliminary injunction, or until a higher court vacates it, is only four pages, so a quick and easy read. (The order does read as though it was submitted to the judge along with the motion, as reflects the possibility that the administration might not respond before the order was entered. That’s not unusual.)
The judge is reported as commenting at the hearing that “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear.” He also is reported as saying “this is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” And he told the administration’s lawyers, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
(My emboldening)
That is very good news.
But in conjunction with the thoughts on better preparedness, I suspect that a number of his legal advisers expect to lose this one. The order relating to gender may be a tougher fight and will probably get to the Supreme Court. The intention is to assert everything and see what sticks. Regardless of the fear and hurt in the meantime.
And a federal judge in Seattle, John Coughenour (a Reagan appointee) has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting implementation of the executive order ending birthright citizenship. The TRO, which remains in effect for 14 days, by which time the court will presumably consider a preliminary injunction, or until a higher court vacates it, is only four pages, so a quick and easy read. (The order does read as though it was submitted to the judge along with the motion, as reflects the possibility that the administration might not respond before the order was entered. That’s not unusual.)
The judge is reported as commenting at the hearing that “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear.” He also is reported as saying “this is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” And he told the administration’s lawyers, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
(My emboldening)
That is very good news.
But in conjunction with the thoughts on better preparedness, I suspect that a number of his legal advisers expect to lose this one. The order relating to gender may be a tougher fight and will probably get to the Supreme Court. The intention is to assert everything and see what sticks. Regardless of the fear and hurt in the meantime.
I understand the 119 Congress is going to try to pass a law enshrining the EO.
And a federal judge in Seattle, John Coughenour (a Reagan appointee) has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting implementation of the executive order ending birthright citizenship. The TRO, which remains in effect for 14 days, by which time the court will presumably consider a preliminary injunction, or until a higher court vacates it, is only four pages, so a quick and easy read. (The order does read as though it was submitted to the judge along with the motion, as reflects the possibility that the administration might not respond before the order was entered. That’s not unusual.)
The judge is reported as commenting at the hearing that “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear.” He also is reported as saying “this is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” And he told the administration’s lawyers, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
(My emboldening)
That is very good news.
But in conjunction with the thoughts on better preparedness, I suspect that a number of his legal advisers expect to lose this one. The order relating to gender may be a tougher fight and will probably get to the Supreme Court. The intention is to assert everything and see what sticks. Regardless of the fear and hurt in the meantime.
I understand the 119 Congress is going to try to pass a law enshrining the EO.
Enshrining which EO?
A law “enshrining” the removal of birthright citizenship would be just as unconstitutional as the executive order. As @Barnabas62 says, the one regarding gender will be a tougher fight.
Congress has the power to overturn an executive order by passing legislation that invalidates it, and can also refuse to provide the funding necessary to carry out specific policy measures contained with the order or legitimize policy mechanisms. Let us hope in two years, Congress will look different.
I'd prefer to hear what American Shipmates think, given that they're the people who are experiencing Trumpianity at first hand.
Ah, some "own voices." I am terrified by the pure hate and spite these people seem to have for everybody who isn't them, and the power they apparently have to make their evil wishes come true. But also encouraged by signs of resistance, although we have yet to see how the horrendous SCOTUS will rule on the evil and sometimes unconstitutional things they are trying to impose on the citizenry. There are a lot of uncomfortable similarities between America 2025 and Germany 1933.
The faithful won't lose their trust in their saviour because anything he promised to do that doesn't happen will be because the undemocratic woke socialists prevent it.
The faithful won't lose their trust in their saviour because anything he promised to do that doesn't happen will be because the undemocratic woke socialists prevent it.
Yes. Cultish loyalty reinforced by toxic social media means they don’t need to look at the facts. They already KNOW the “toxicity” of the opposition.
Independent and thoughtful evaluation are out of fashion.
And a federal judge in Seattle, John Coughenour (a Reagan appointee) has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting implementation of the executive order ending birthright citizenship. The TRO, which remains in effect for 14 days, by which time the court will presumably consider a preliminary injunction, or until a higher court vacates it, is only four pages, so a quick and easy read. (The order does read as though it was submitted to the judge along with the motion, as reflects the possibility that the administration might not respond before the order was entered. That’s not unusual.)
The judge is reported as commenting at the hearing that “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear.” He also is reported as saying “this is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” And he told the administration’s lawyers, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
(My emboldening)
That is very good news.
But in conjunction with the thoughts on better preparedness, I suspect that a number of his legal advisers expect to lose this one. The order relating to gender may be a tougher fight and will probably get to the Supreme Court. The intention is to assert everything and see what sticks. Regardless of the fear and hurt in the meantime.
I understand the 119 Congress is going to try to pass a law enshrining the EO.
Enshrining which EO?
A law “enshrining” the removal of birthright citizenship would be just as unconstitutional as the executive order. As @Barnabas62 says, the one regarding gender will be a tougher fight.
Presumably in the House, there are legal advisers about the constitutionality of the wording of proposed laws? Rather like the judge said, any lawyer with any professional integrity would see immediately that the words on citizen revision must be unconstitutional.
But I’ve yet to see the details of the constitutional advice given by lawyers about the wording of the Executive Order relating to citizens by birth.
Why I think the two gender EO may be a lot more difficult to refute legally is that the Constitution came out of a gender binary era. Amendment 14 does on the surface represent a refutation but there’s more scope for argument re the wording.
He said he only wants well qualified legal immigrants. Not others. Our former government said that. As Musk hinted at, if you only allow well qualified people into your country they will take good jobs. The jobs that are low paid and hard work physically will have to be taken by Americans. That contradicts other things he has been saying. Once they realise what it actually means will the MAGA faithful object?
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore"
"Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me"
"I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
These words, on the Statue of Liberty, stand as a moral challenge both to the USA and UK.
Oh I know it’s a mixed picture. Mixed in with the truly needy are purely economic migrants looking for something better, as well as those with darker, more destructive, motivations.
But there are millions of truly needy and some of them choose illegal immigration in desperation, faced with bureaucratic safety processes, often deliberately long winded, to control numbers.
The truth is that our societies have become progressively less inclined to meet the genuine need, to distinguish rapidly and fairly between the truly needy and others. “Charity begins at home”. Demonising them all is frankly offensive and unfair.
Economic migration is itself often driven by abject need. You don't risk your life crossing seas, rivers or deserts because you can get a slightly bigger TV than you could at home.
American shipmate weighing in here agreeing with Lamb Chopped. There are no words bad enough.
I hear what you both say. There are no words...so I'll try to refrain from useless comments on a situation so dire for so many that I cannot picture it fully.
Mixed in with the truly needy are purely economic migrants looking for something better
Given how absolutely poverty stricken and hope-forsaken some parts of the world are I'd say there's a massive intersection between those two sets of people. I mean, how much does it matter if your life is in danger because you're the wrong religion compared with because you can't obtain life's necessities?
He also has said he wants to do away with FEMA all together and leave it up to the states to cover their own disaster. Now that is going to work just fine, considering states do not have the borrowing power of the federal government.
"Ease up on their ecological restrictions" is pure sanewashing. Trump's actual statement is that "all they have to do is turn the valve" and that water can flow across two or three different watersheds from Canada to California. He thinks that there is a "valve" somewhere like a faucet.
I watched some of those North Carolina interviews, presentations and press conferences. Trump is clearly on a high, supremely confident of his authority, certain of the accuracy of his views, much more open to press questioning than I remember last time. He reduces complexities to “I’m right, the Democrats were wrong. Bureaucrats get in the way.”
That level of self confidence is going to be dangerous when dealing with complex realities.
"Ease up on their ecological restrictions" is pure sanewashing. Trump's actual statement is that "all they have to do is turn the valve" and that water can flow across two or three different watersheds from Canada to California. He thinks that there is a "valve" somewhere like a faucet.
"Five current and former senior European officials briefed on the call said the conversation had gone very badly.
They added that Trump had been aggressive and confrontational following the Danish prime minister’s comments that the island was not for sale, despite her offer of more co-operation on military bases and mineral exploitation.
“It was horrendous,” said one of the people. Another added: “He was very firm. It was a cold shower. Before, it was hard to take it seriously. But I do think it is serious, and potentially very dangerous.”
Comments
Yeah, y'know, the more I think about it, the more this whole Washington National Cathedral thingamabob seems, mutatis mutandis, like Episcopalians pulling off the old RC trick of giving the Pope the attribute of "Infallibility", and then sitting back and allowing the untutored to think that means "Correct about everything all the time".
(I have never been to the WNC, but I have been to Grace, and will recollect that some of the historical iconography seemed rather on the, shall we say, patriotic side.)
(And, please, gin-heads, this is not meant as serious criticism.)
Into his own coffin, not hers?
He talked to Hannity of his “landslide” victory (it wasn’t) and projects that in his assertions. He seems to believe that he now has the right to do what he promised he would when speaking to his loyal supporters. The Constitution, the separation of powers, be damned. He projects a belief that he is a kind of king.
Of course the bishop doesn’t have any battalions. But how many battalions does he have? Put more succinctly, what power does he have in practice, regardless of his rhetorical assertions? We’re going to find out.
But his rhetoric got him back in power. And it will keep him and Vance there for 12 years at this rate.
I found this still small lone penitent voice speaking truth to power actually inspiring, as opposed to the bishop's worse than useless use of privilege.
As you say, time will tell.
If Trump fails to carry out all or some of his draconian threats, I wonder how his worshippers will react? Maybe the thought of their saviour letting them down hasn't occurred to them...yet...
Whether or not the Bishop's words were a worse than useless use of privilege, as @Martin54 alleges, at least she had the courage to say those words.
That's not the point. Her nobility stands.
I assert, not allege. The courage of theatre. Not confessional. Not inclusive. Not leading the way in silent service, writing in the dust, actually standing to be sacrificed with the oppressed, shaming those about to cast the first stone.
He won. Hands down. So did Jesus of course.
He doesn't have to carry out any draconian threat. His worshippers will never lose faith.
Worshippers rarely do regardless that their gods don't deliver do they? I didn't when my One-of-the-Two-Witnesses cult leader died. But he will anyway, and he is. Just like Reagan did, and above all Nixon before his absurd fall. Reagan was perfect, grade 'A' president, as a democrat acknowledged at his inauguration.
What does this refer to?
I thought you were talking about usefulness. Opinions will differ about comparative nobility. I think both were speaking the truth to power.
I suspect both women were only too aware about the impact of their statements on Donald Trump (i.e unlikely to change his opinions and therefore from that point of view useless.) When confronted, either directly or indirectly, he doubles down.
But the truth is the truth. January 6th was a mistake. Striking fear into the hearts of the vulnerable is a mistake. Both of them stood on a truth line. There’s nobility in that.
Yes but the bishop was speaking truth from protected privilege. And I like the British understatement of 'unlikely'. The truth is whatever we say it is the loudest. And liberal, enlightened, inclusive, care giving, harmless, fair, to equality of outcome truth is NEVER heard. Never. Never acted upon. Starting with the Church.
I believed that one of these was Herbert W. Armstrong.
Bless.
Thanks. I don't think I knew that Armstrongites claimed that HWA was actually mentioned in the bible. Did Armstrong himself say that?
And did they have an identity for the other witness?
He never claimed it. But we all knew he had to be one of them. May be his yet to be penitent son Garner Ted the other.
Was the belief widespread-but-still-optional, or was it something that would get you branded a heretic for doubting?
And, for the record, it's long past possible for Garner Ted to be penitent, since he's been gone from this world since 2003.
This term will probably be like the other T term. He promised to build the Big Beautiful Wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. Didn't happen. His maga-ites didn't care. I think a lot of them care about having a president who can do or say anything horrible thing he likes, and they want that same freedom for themselves.
My head hurts and my eyes are leaking.
Aye, 17 years after his father. It was widespread, and you'd never express doubt, but you could theoretically express alternatives. Although funnily enough, no one ever did.
HWA isn't alluded to in the Bible, but he certainly is in Niven & Pournelle's perfect Lucifer's Hammer.
Yes, I take your point, and can do nothing except sympathise...
Dafyd Hell Host
Trump did implement a lot of his policies in his first term, like his Muslim ban or the family separating immigration crackdown. That said, Trump (or more likely his immediate circle of cronies) seems to be a lot more organized this time, with a better grasp of where the levers of power are located. To take one example, first term Trump complained a lot about wokeness. Second term Trump revokes LBJ's executive order prohibiting racial and gender discrimination by federal contractors, a level of detail that would have eluded first term Trump (or his handlers).
The judge is reported as commenting at the hearing that “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear.” He also is reported as saying “this is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” And he told the administration’s lawyers, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”
About Trump?
Expletives fail me.
Prayer is what I’ve got left.
(My emboldening)
That is very good news.
But in conjunction with the thoughts on better preparedness, I suspect that a number of his legal advisers expect to lose this one. The order relating to gender may be a tougher fight and will probably get to the Supreme Court. The intention is to assert everything and see what sticks. Regardless of the fear and hurt in the meantime.
I understand the 119 Congress is going to try to pass a law enshrining the EO.
A law “enshrining” the removal of birthright citizenship would be just as unconstitutional as the executive order. As @Barnabas62 says, the one regarding gender will be a tougher fight.
Ah, some "own voices." I am terrified by the pure hate and spite these people seem to have for everybody who isn't them, and the power they apparently have to make their evil wishes come true. But also encouraged by signs of resistance, although we have yet to see how the horrendous SCOTUS will rule on the evil and sometimes unconstitutional things they are trying to impose on the citizenry. There are a lot of uncomfortable similarities between America 2025 and Germany 1933.
Yes. Cultish loyalty reinforced by toxic social media means they don’t need to look at the facts. They already KNOW the “toxicity” of the opposition.
Independent and thoughtful evaluation are out of fashion.
Presumably in the House, there are legal advisers about the constitutionality of the wording of proposed laws? Rather like the judge said, any lawyer with any professional integrity would see immediately that the words on citizen revision must be unconstitutional.
But I’ve yet to see the details of the constitutional advice given by lawyers about the wording of the Executive Order relating to citizens by birth.
Why I think the two gender EO may be a lot more difficult to refute legally is that the Constitution came out of a gender binary era. Amendment 14 does on the surface represent a refutation but there’s more scope for argument re the wording.
These words, on the Statue of Liberty, stand as a moral challenge both to the USA and UK.
Oh I know it’s a mixed picture. Mixed in with the truly needy are purely economic migrants looking for something better, as well as those with darker, more destructive, motivations.
But there are millions of truly needy and some of them choose illegal immigration in desperation, faced with bureaucratic safety processes, often deliberately long winded, to control numbers.
The truth is that our societies have become progressively less inclined to meet the genuine need, to distinguish rapidly and fairly between the truly needy and others. “Charity begins at home”. Demonising them all is frankly offensive and unfair.
I hear what you both say. There are no words...so I'll try to refrain from useless comments on a situation so dire for so many that I cannot picture it fully.
Given how absolutely poverty stricken and hope-forsaken some parts of the world are I'd say there's a massive intersection between those two sets of people. I mean, how much does it matter if your life is in danger because you're the wrong religion compared with because you can't obtain life's necessities?
He also has said he wants to do away with FEMA all together and leave it up to the states to cover their own disaster. Now that is going to work just fine, considering states do not have the borrowing power of the federal government.
What a guy!
"Ease up on their ecological restrictions" is pure sanewashing. Trump's actual statement is that "all they have to do is turn the valve" and that water can flow across two or three different watersheds from Canada to California. He thinks that there is a "valve" somewhere like a faucet.
That level of self confidence is going to be dangerous when dealing with complex realities.
You can get a taste of his analysis here:
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lgisb2t32o26
In other news he's had a rather hostile call with the Danish PM:
https://www.ft.com/content/ace02a6f-3307-43f8-aac3-16b6646b60f6
"Five current and former senior European officials briefed on the call said the conversation had gone very badly.
They added that Trump had been aggressive and confrontational following the Danish prime minister’s comments that the island was not for sale, despite her offer of more co-operation on military bases and mineral exploitation.
“It was horrendous,” said one of the people. Another added: “He was very firm. It was a cold shower. Before, it was hard to take it seriously. But I do think it is serious, and potentially very dangerous.”