All the Democrats achieved by resisting the bully's border demands was some virtue signaling. They gave in on the substance.

Lawsuits may stop the bully from using a "state of emergency" to get more money for the wall, but even if that happens, the bully has already won a victory. If he does the same thing twice a year, he will get most of what he wants by the 2020 election.

This demonstrates the error of negotiating by making sticking to the status quo your demand. Your adversary can easily suggest making a "compromise" where you give up a part of what it wants. Each time this happens, you lose.

If you have made a deal, and your adversary demands to change it, you should respond by demanding a change in the opposite direction. Say something like this:

The previous spending levels do not represent what we stand for. They are a compromise: we made concessions to get that agreement.

If now you tear up that compromise and demand more, we do the same. In response to your demand for A, B and C, we now demand X, Y and Z.

After that, the natural way to meet each other "half way" is to stick with the status quo.

George Monbiot: "My generation trashed the planet. So I salute the children striking back."

His point about moving from denial to despair is generally applicable to increasing problems backed by a political lobby in favor of the bad practice. For instance, massive surveillance.

Amazon made 11 billion dollars in profit and paid no federal income tax.

The migrants who took over a ship and made it go to Malta had been rescued at sea from a boat. When they saw they were being taken back to Libya, they started to fight using whatever weapons they could improvise, until the ship's crew turned the ship north.

I understand the fears of the crew, but also the desperation of the migrants. Ultimately the crew was never in real danger.

The Republican Party may cancel primaries so that there can be no challenge to the bully.

Will they cancel the general election next?