This is the logic behind the Republicans' more aggressive procedural moves in the Senate, and in that context I think it's correct. Things like judicial appointments are a zero sum game, so people really will do anything to win. There is or at least should be more room for compromise on things like immigration and climate change.Johnny Bear said:And additionally, it's laughable to think that if and when a socialist democrat lune becomes POTUS they would be less inclined to declare "national emergencies" to attempt to do things like violating the 2nd Amendment and/or force economic disaster over so called man made climate change because Trump didn't declare a national emergency over border security. The end always justifies the means to those people and precedent means little to nothing to them.syme said:
Obama declared 9 emergencies in his first 6 years. There's been 53 "states of emergency" since 1976.
Exactly what precedent is Trump setting?
There have been 58 emergencies declared since 1976, but they cover a rather narrow range of issues. Most are related to the financial assets of drug cartels and terrorists. Trump is setting a significant precedent by expanding the scope to immigration in this way. Does he have the authority? I think he does. I also think he will make it easier for future presidents to further expand it in ways that would have been hard to do otherwise.