One can only cringe when looking back at 2025 which is clearly helping shape the table for the 2026 bingo card. I'm no Nostradamus, but there is little doubt the self immolation by trump et al will continue at a record breaking pace.
Here's three that are 100% mortal locks:
* The hard core will cheer; the numbers of hard core will dwindle as they die off or come to grips with the fact he doesn't give two farts about them.
* Take this one to the bank: trump wins every club championship he plays in (at each of his golf courses).
* Presidential pardons will continue to be sold to the highest bidder, especially those who have been so unfairly punished over grift and con jobs (also known as; deception, fraud, and swindling, often for personal enrichment).
Sorry guys, I see this as wishful Trump-hate thinking disguised as prognostication. Wishful in the sense of hoping for failure of national policies as a means to ensure that Trump also fails. I'm watching Mamdani's inauguration as New York's mayor. I've already heard AOC and Bernie give their view of the future and now Mamdani is presenting his manifesto. If this leftward trend continues, I promise you will wish you had Trump.
I predict 2026 will be a great year economically - hopefully becoming obvious in time to sway the mid-term elections.
The Supreme Court will finally confirm that the Executive Branch has more immigration authority than local judges. They have already confirmed the President is the Commander in
Chief and can deploy regular military forces to maintain order and protect law enforcement officers who are arresting and detaining lawbreakers.
The Maryland Man will finally be deported.
The Supreme Court might place some limitations on birthright citizenship
"The Supreme Court will finally confirm that the Executive Branch has more immigration authority than local judges. They have already confirmed the President is the Commander in Chief and can deploy regular military forces to maintain order and protect law enforcement officers who are arresting and detaining lawbreakers."
Folks, I think Curtis has gotten trapped in the Upside Down:
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a ruling by a federal judge in Chicago that bars the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois. In a three-page unsigned order, the justices turned down the government’s request to put the temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge April Perry on Oct. 9 on hold while litigation continues in the lower courts. “At this preliminary stage,” the court said, “the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.” It was the second loss for the Trump administration before the court in only four days."[1]
I'm happy to join the search party to find him and get him out.
The President can use active-duty military just as Eisenhower did to maintain order and enforce the law. He will just have to piss off Pritzker more than he already has. A small price to pay for a lawful society.
From Shipwreckedcrew: "The object of Presidential action must be “insurrection”, “domestic violence,” “unlawful combination” or “conspiracy” that opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States. The judgment in that regard is exclusively conferred on the President by the language of the statute — “The President … shall take measures as he considers necessary….”
Shipley's column goes into detail about the reasoning behind the Supremes' order. If you can't read it, I will try to cut and paste enough to answer your questions.
The President can use the active-duty military (and the National Guard should the active-duty military be unavailable) only in manners consistent with the law (the Posse Comitatus Act) and the laws that carve-out exceptions from that law (such as the Insurrection Act).
The President cannot federalize the National Guard as "One Weird Trick" (such as skipping the requirements of the Insurrection Act) to get around the existing law, just because he's the Commander in Chief.
So, we're back to our original Insurrection Act discussion, and my point that the President is *required* to meet those conditions before federalizing the National Guard is stronger than ever.
As a follow up, I found it very interesting that the Supremes gave a rare nod to "originalism" in reaching their decision in this case. I had never considered that there was any real difference in the chain of command once the Guard was federalized but "regular forces" included active-duty military when the law governing National Guard in federal service was written. According to Shipley:
"On the merits, I think the Supreme Court is correct in what “regular forces” means in the context of this statute. The origins of the statute’s language go back to the Militia Act of 1792, authorizing the President to call militia “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” Those are the same three justifications for invoking the modern version of that statute — Sec. 12406.
The problem is that the statute is an anachronism of a bygone era. It is reflective of a period in the history of the U.S. that predates a large active-duty military, and the existence of numerous federal civilian law enforcement agencies.
The Continental Army under George Washington was disbanded following the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and only a small Regular Army was maintained up until the War of 1812. During the war, the Regular Army grew to approximately 30,000 but was supplemented by approximately 120,000 state militia. Following the war the Regular Army shrunk back to 6000-7000, where it stood at the start of the First Seminole War in 1817."
OK. That's why I rely on Shipley as I quoted above regarding the President having authority, by statute, to determine what opposes or obstructs the laws of the USA. He does not have to nationalize the Guard, He can do what Eisenhower did and send in active military.
I’m looking for Matt’s Patriots prediction?
Wrong site. We were Racket News first, but you’re welcome to hang out with us.
Happy new year
But I am a New Englander. Window Maye definitely be open for some more Patriots rings.
First they have to keep their players out of jail.
One can only cringe when looking back at 2025 which is clearly helping shape the table for the 2026 bingo card. I'm no Nostradamus, but there is little doubt the self immolation by trump et al will continue at a record breaking pace.
Here's three that are 100% mortal locks:
* The hard core will cheer; the numbers of hard core will dwindle as they die off or come to grips with the fact he doesn't give two farts about them.
* Take this one to the bank: trump wins every club championship he plays in (at each of his golf courses).
* Presidential pardons will continue to be sold to the highest bidder, especially those who have been so unfairly punished over grift and con jobs (also known as; deception, fraud, and swindling, often for personal enrichment).
Happy 2026, only three more years of trump.
Sorry guys, I see this as wishful Trump-hate thinking disguised as prognostication. Wishful in the sense of hoping for failure of national policies as a means to ensure that Trump also fails. I'm watching Mamdani's inauguration as New York's mayor. I've already heard AOC and Bernie give their view of the future and now Mamdani is presenting his manifesto. If this leftward trend continues, I promise you will wish you had Trump.
I predict 2026 will be a great year economically - hopefully becoming obvious in time to sway the mid-term elections.
The Supreme Court will finally confirm that the Executive Branch has more immigration authority than local judges. They have already confirmed the President is the Commander in
Chief and can deploy regular military forces to maintain order and protect law enforcement officers who are arresting and detaining lawbreakers.
The Maryland Man will finally be deported.
The Supreme Court might place some limitations on birthright citizenship
"The Supreme Court will finally confirm that the Executive Branch has more immigration authority than local judges. They have already confirmed the President is the Commander in Chief and can deploy regular military forces to maintain order and protect law enforcement officers who are arresting and detaining lawbreakers."
Folks, I think Curtis has gotten trapped in the Upside Down:
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a ruling by a federal judge in Chicago that bars the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois. In a three-page unsigned order, the justices turned down the government’s request to put the temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge April Perry on Oct. 9 on hold while litigation continues in the lower courts. “At this preliminary stage,” the court said, “the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.” It was the second loss for the Trump administration before the court in only four days."[1]
I'm happy to join the search party to find him and get him out.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-rejects-trumps-effort-to-deploy-national-guard-in-illinois/
The President can use active-duty military just as Eisenhower did to maintain order and enforce the law. He will just have to piss off Pritzker more than he already has. A small price to pay for a lawful society.
From Shipwreckedcrew: "The object of Presidential action must be “insurrection”, “domestic violence,” “unlawful combination” or “conspiracy” that opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States. The judgment in that regard is exclusively conferred on the President by the language of the statute — “The President … shall take measures as he considers necessary….”
https://open.substack.com/pub/shipwreckedcrew/p/the-supreme-court-tells-pres-trump?r=d2084&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Shipley's column goes into detail about the reasoning behind the Supremes' order. If you can't read it, I will try to cut and paste enough to answer your questions.
The President can use the active-duty military (and the National Guard should the active-duty military be unavailable) only in manners consistent with the law (the Posse Comitatus Act) and the laws that carve-out exceptions from that law (such as the Insurrection Act).
The President cannot federalize the National Guard as "One Weird Trick" (such as skipping the requirements of the Insurrection Act) to get around the existing law, just because he's the Commander in Chief.
So, we're back to our original Insurrection Act discussion, and my point that the President is *required* to meet those conditions before federalizing the National Guard is stronger than ever.
As a follow up, I found it very interesting that the Supremes gave a rare nod to "originalism" in reaching their decision in this case. I had never considered that there was any real difference in the chain of command once the Guard was federalized but "regular forces" included active-duty military when the law governing National Guard in federal service was written. According to Shipley:
"On the merits, I think the Supreme Court is correct in what “regular forces” means in the context of this statute. The origins of the statute’s language go back to the Militia Act of 1792, authorizing the President to call militia “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” Those are the same three justifications for invoking the modern version of that statute — Sec. 12406.
The problem is that the statute is an anachronism of a bygone era. It is reflective of a period in the history of the U.S. that predates a large active-duty military, and the existence of numerous federal civilian law enforcement agencies.
The Continental Army under George Washington was disbanded following the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and only a small Regular Army was maintained up until the War of 1812. During the war, the Regular Army grew to approximately 30,000 but was supplemented by approximately 120,000 state militia. Following the war the Regular Army shrunk back to 6000-7000, where it stood at the start of the First Seminole War in 1817."
OK. That's why I rely on Shipley as I quoted above regarding the President having authority, by statute, to determine what opposes or obstructs the laws of the USA. He does not have to nationalize the Guard, He can do what Eisenhower did and send in active military.
JFK used them too.
David's first spot filled.
Annoying.
🥲