Not necessarily, I think the courts were already making noise about the original thing:

The settlement is also expected to stave off a concern raised by the judge overseeing his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, who has ordered Trump and the DOJ to justify by next week why the case should be able to proceed. In a ruling last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams questioned whether Trump and the defendants – the Treasury Department and IRS – are “sufficiently adverse” for the case to proceed.

“Moreover, although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction. Indeed, President Trump’s own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation,” she wrote.

I think the judge might have been about to start the process to throw it all out, which is why Trump (and his Justice Dept cronies) came up with this “settlement” idea

The silver lining here is that even Donald Trump has his limits. He seems to acknowledge that ordering the Treasury to pay him $10B directly might go too far. Or “sort of looks bad”, as he put it.

Of course, forming a commission to hand out 1.7B to his friends is just as bad. The Courts will probably strike that down, too, and he will whine about it.

If the Democratic brand is so toxic that candidates in certain states are better off running without it, that sounds like a problem with the party itself.

I wonder if that’s the real reason why that “2024 autopsy” is not getting released: it shows that the Democrats are toxic to most average voters. (And not because they are “not progressive enough…”)

Why couldn’t the Democrats actually put Don Osborne on the ballot, then? Or even “None of the Above”?

It seems silly to have to recruit someone to run, just to win an election and immediately quit.

It’s so weird how independants are treated here. When you think about it, the only real justification for having parties in the US is ballot access. A candidate that is not attached to any party needs to satisfy all the conditions themselves, while a candidate that works through a party has the party available to help them with that. (And in many states, I bet it has been arranged that Democrats and Republicans have ballot access “automatically” with far less process.)

Yet, here we have a candidate who is so popular in his state that he doesn’t need a party for ballot access. And instead of just changing the rules to say “Let’s endorse this guy, even though he’s an independent”, Democrats need to go through these motions to have a sham primary, and run a candidate who everyone knows will just back out if they win.

Even in this case, where most everyone agrees that backing the Independant is best for the Democrats, they still need to award a participation trophy to someone on their team.

It doesn’t matter. If he stays in power past Jan 2029, he won’t need an election (or any popularity polls) to do it.

They are in a position where they can pass legislation that will obligate the President to do something different. But I won’t hold my breath…

Wasn’t there also that bit about “the Disciple that Jesus loved”?

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Many governors are former mayors.

Pretty much the easiest question for a sitting leader to just bullshit through

Right, but he was never a leader. He’s a boss. And the type of boss who expects people to just do what he says, without any questions. Simply asking a question is a sign of disloyalty!

Not true! MAGA has had other important (to them) accomplishments, like harassing brown people and protecting pedophiles.

If it’s coupled with DC Statehood, why not?

Did you see her picture, though? I don’t think she is “his type”. Totally the wrong demographic

Yet, that guy you are replying to is not wrong

Congressman

Has

Impotent

Penis,

Rages;

Others

Yawn

You win the Internet

Well, yeah, it is a lifetime appointment. It, quite literally, takes an Act of Congress to be fired from it. So they can hold to the job as long as they want.

No, my point is that not all Conservative judges are the same. And, if you take the Constitution seriously, the President has a right to pick someone, and the Senate has a right to advise him on who they find acceptable, and their consent is a requirement. So this the way it was supposed to have worked all along.

Remember that Anthony Kennedy is a conservative, and he was nominated to the Court by Reagan. Yet, once the Court started to lurch to the Right he ended up being the swing vote. Regardless, though, he retired while Republicans could fully control his replacement.

You could argue Kennedy was a compromise choice, because the Senate was in control of Democrats at the time, and they had already rejected Robert Bork for the job. If Chuck could force a similar outcome, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

I get it, but I think this time even Chuck will be on board. He can even call it the “McConnell Rule” if he wants. Politicians always love blaming the other side.

The only way a Democratic Senate would approve a new Trump justice would be if Democrats went to him and said “I know you won’t nominate a Liberal, here is a list of Conservatives we would back” and Trump picked one of them. Yes, even Fetterman would support that.

And before you start hating on Chuck over supporting any Conservative judge, remember that there are a pile of Conservative judges who are pissed off over this Administration also. Forcing Trump to appoint a centrist may make the difference between Trump being able to successfully ratfuck the next Presidential election, or not.

I’m looking forward to the Atlantic proving, in a court of law, that Kash Patel is a drunken fraud.