US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Rockstar]

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

On a lighter note (for me). John Cleese writes to Trump:

This old joke has been updated I see:

Here's the version from 2012 with a picture of the queen even:
https://www.michaelyon-online.com/a-...-the-queen.htm

[Oberon]

Typical Liberal, inciting violence!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

No, all the western european citizens are buying guns to shoot down the rightists, the article is just written to cover that up.
"It has begun."

Germany is preparing for World War III when it will liberate the world from fascism.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Germany is preparing for World War III when it will liberate the world from fascism.

You say the nicest things...

[Rockstar]

PUPPIES!

[Buddahaid]

YOU are not interested in puppies I fear.

On the serious note, I'm not against all that has transpired since Trump came into office, and I'll admit I think the media is screwing itself trying hard to find fault in any way, but at the same time, it's not all rubbish. I don't believe I've experienced such a divided country since Vietnam!

Interestingly, while Hollywood entertainers seem to be condemning Trump as a whole if headlines count for anything, blockbuster movies that get made are largely good against evil, us against them, right against wrong, justice against injustice, or, rogue dark heroes breaking the law to fight evil, wrong, and injustice. This idea is continually reinforced in everything all forms of media produce! Is it any wonder this is how politics play out? I think, and hope, there is much more common ground than areas of dispute if one looks beyond the hyperbola.

[Rockstar]

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Each day when I enter Subsim and GT I see this thread grow by 3-6 page each day and 2-4 page during the evening.

It has somehow taken me by surprise that US-politics was such a hot stuff.

How was the debate after Obama had won the Presidential election in 2008 Was it at same level ?

Markus

Much calmer and less hysterics.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

slow news day so far, so let's deal with this.



I don't agree. (surprise, surprise ).

Better to fire her right away, before most are even aware of the story. First, it plays to his base, but more importantly it becomes a one day story.

If he had left her in place, you would have endless stories about democrats and journalists discussing what she should do. She might have continued issuing statements, giving interviews, etc. You would then have stories on the other side about would should be done about her. It then becomes a multi-day story.

The main problem there is that Trump's own AG pick, Sessions, was very likely to have been approved and passed on the day following the firing; once Trump acted and fired Yates, he stirred up even more opposition, needlessly, and here we are, four days later and no confirmation and there appears there will be an even longer wait: the mutiny of GOP Senators over the nomination of Betsy DeVos to Trump's cabinet means the GOP will have to hold off Sessions' final confirmation because the GOP desperately needs his vote in the Senate to even have a chance of confirming DeVos:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...racker/510527/

Strategically, if Trump had just ignored Yates, Sessions could have taken the AG office the next day and Yates would have faded by the next news cycle; instead, Trump gave his opponents further ammo and gave a greater coalescence to the Left, creating greater possible future headaches further down the line, including giving the Left one more talking point in the arguments leading up to the 2018 Mid-Terms...

So, if Trump had ignored Yates, Sessions would have coasted into the AG slot and it would, indeed, have been a one-day story; instead, Trump acted predictably, and foolishly, and turned a "footnote story" into a rallying point. The logic and benefit of doing nothing was so simple it is surprising none of his advisers pointed out to Trump; or perhaps, they did and Trump the Truculent again thought he knew more than anyone else and again shot himself in the keister...

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Again I don't agree. There is no similarity.

Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor was on the face of it illegal and Richardson had no choice but to refuse.

This is a totally different issue, the immigration ban is legal, both on a Constitutional and statutory basis (whether it is a smart play is another issue). Yates stand was purely political and had no basis in law.

The legality and/or Constitutionality of the ban was not affirmatively adjudicated and, given the several injunctions issued on the matter since the ban was initiated, including the most recent nationwide injunction issued by a Federal Judge appointed to his bench by GW Bush, the matter was never really very clear in the first place, so Yates' reluctance to enforce the ban will be seen as being not beyond the pale and really perfectly reasonable and gives further fodder for Trump's opponents; whether Yates was correct or not still has to be adjudicated in the courts of law and the US is above all, a nation built on respect for the law, not the whims of whoever sits in the Oval Office, of any party...

And as far as Nixon's actions are concerned, he, too, held that his demand to fire Cox was lawful and Constitutional and, IIRC, he and his cronies tried very hard to make a legal and Constitutional case for the firing demand, but then as now, the courts, not the President or Congress, decides what is or is not properly Constitutional and that fact can be found in, of all places, The Constitution...



<O>

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vienna

the courts, not the President or Congress, decides what is or is not properly Constitutional and that fact can be found in, of all places, The Constitution...

Could you please show me where? It's been my understanding that it was up in the air until John Marshall managed to appropriate that in Marbury vs Madison. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see the Constitution being very specific on that.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Could you please show me where? It's been my understanding that it was up in the air until John Marshall managed to appropriate that in Marbury vs Madison. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see the Constitution being very specific on that.

Steve, you are right (not in the political sense); it is not explicitly there in the Constitution, I spoke too broadly, and I stand corrected and I apologize for any confusion; you are additionally correct about Marbury: it did define and coalesce the primacy of the judiciary in matters of Constitutionality:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.


So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.


Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbur...on#cite_ref-33

By the above, neither the POTUS nor Congress are the final arbiters of Constitutionality and neither is any action taken by them automatically legal or Constitutional until the courts, ultimately the SCOTUS, have adjudicated the action. Trump's ban was not automatically legal and/or Constitutional and was properly questioned by the Acting-AG in her role as head of the Justice Department; doing so was just part of her job; neither the AG or any other Cabinet member is required by law or the Constitution to merely be 'rubber stamps' for the POTUS, and have been viewed as advisers and counsel to the President and are expected to give honest opinions, even if POTUS may not like what they are hearing; above all else, loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law supersede any sort of loyalty to whoever sits in the Oval Office...

Again, Steve, sorry for the confusion...



<O>

[vienna]

This is what happens when you give guy a new toy and he doesn't read the manual:

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/03/...cutive-orders/





<O>

[Castout]

Originally Posted by vienna

This is what happens when you give guy a new toy and he doesn't read the manual:

That sounds like being a human. None of us came with manuals so we are all messed up.

[vienna]

The thing about that is the President of the US, in his official duties and obligations, has a lot less leeway when it comes to being human; "oops" just doesn't cut it when it comes to governance and the rule of law; there is just too much at stake to not cross all the "t's" and not dot all the "i's"; from the conduct of Trump in regards to executive orders, it would appear neither he nor his staff nor his much vaunted advisors have given any effort to even a cursory review of what is entailed in the conduct of the POTUS and the obligation and responsibilities other prior Presidents apparently took much more seriously; if sloppy, half-baked, cockeyed work is what you seek, then Trump will not fail to satisfy...



<O>