Follow TV Tropes
> x6 Yup.
> Again, this ties back into the discussion of if the checks and balances are holding. You can argue that they do as a whole, but this is an example of it failing to stop bad things from happening, as he can now just circumvent the law by getting others to do it and then just pandering them. Essentially, CBP willing, he can effectively change how the law works as long as he is President.
Edit: Hell of a pagetopper. I'm good with it. 8.5/10
Edited by AzurePaladin on Apr 13th 2019 at 10:03:28 AM
And yeah, the White House is denying it happened to begin with, and even CNN points out that a "Just Joking" Justification is probably enough to prevent any actual impact.
CNN is absolutely a scum sucking untrustworthy “both sides” source. They keep hiring former Trump stooges as talking heads and they gave him constant coverage during the 2016 primary. I trust their legal analysis as much as I trust Alan Dershowitz.
@ M84: Ah, sorry about that, must have missed it. Or I thought it was just the first part.
This, stochastic terrorism is the name of the game for the Right and Trump in particular. I have no doubt that he is trying to create the kind of environment where Omar and other Muslims are murdered.
There's some news, Democrats unite to condemn Trump tweet linking Ilhan Omar and 9/11.
The name more or less says it all, Democrats have called Trump out for his dangerous hatemongering. It's not really surprising but it's a good symbol all the same.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 13th 2019 at 4:59:53 AM
I'm going to be honest, and say that just condemning Trump's beliefs is not enough. This has happened before with Trump, and he has not backed off from his behavior one bit. Sending people like him a very strongly worded letter just does not work.
Obviously not, but no one has said that it is.
The option is not "condemn Trump or "actually do something substantive", we can do both. And someone who won't do the former probably won't' do the latter.
As this juncture, there isn't much they can do beyond condemning him.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 13th 2019 at 5:57:43 AM
Peter Buttigieg has officially announced he's running for President by the way
Another runner at the already crowded start line
Edited by Ultimatum on Apr 14th 2019 at 11:15:10 AM
So when do the primaries start, again?
the dates are all here
Edited by Ultimatum on Apr 14th 2019 at 11:23:21 AM
I will never get over just how damn long America elections are, once you count the primaries. Hardly any time for actual governing.
USA election campaign seasons are long, brutal slogs. Especially if you're campaigning for POTUS — so much flying all over the USA...
As someone who hates flying, just the thought of having to do that much flying for over a year makes me cringe.
Edited by M84 on Apr 14th 2019 at 10:23:42 PM
If I were in charge of the two major parties that would be my one rule change - no declaring of presidential candidacy until after the first of January in an election year.
Of course, all that would do is lengthen the shadow primary where you know who is running but they just won't say, so I don't know if that would be better or worse plus I've no idea how you could enforce it other than regulating how the candidates fundraise. I mean it's clear the DNC are in over their heads on this one but that is no criticism - any political party would be in trying to manage a selection process with 20 or so candidates (plus Joe) and counting.
I mean, so far the only worrying thing is that while I know that the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, and McConnell runs the damn thing as if he were king, it still doesn't help that five Democrat senators (Gillibrand, Booker, Harris, Warren, Klobuchar) plus Sanders are all off concentrating on other things. And given that the most lasting damage Trump / McConnell will do is in installing judges via the Senate...
Edited by singularityshot on Apr 14th 2019 at 11:17:03 AM
They can't do anything to stop McConnell from installing judges. He's already nuked debate time down to a few hours so he can turn them out faster, and with a majority it doesn't matter how many opposition senators are present because he'll always pass the threshold.
Its a minor quibble really - McConnell is king so the judges will be confirmed. I just hope that someone is keeping score so we know what the "par" value is for a first term president in McConnell's new age of Senate efficiency.
At least it is a good thing that with all the senators that are running no state has both of their senators seeking high office.
Yeah. There is no way to stop McConnell from carrying out his judicial coup. We can't "win" this one. It was won in 2016, when Americans voted to allow it to succeed.
Having to watch his victory lap is awful, and the consequences will be with us for decades. From the moment Republicans won their Executive/Legislative trifecta, this was always going to suck. The 2016 election was a devastating blow in many areas.
There are some areas we can resist them in, and some we have very successfully. There are battles to be won for damage control. But judicial appointments are 100% party-line and occur entirely between the Republican-controlled White House and Republican-controlled Senate, with no input from the House.
There's basically nothing we can do about this right now, other than impotently watch the future get harder with each passing confirmation. Maybe take some notes on the particularly odious confirmations like Kavanaugh, who we may be able to do something about in a future administration the second they slip up.
And remember, each and every one: elections have consequences. Vote. Always vote.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Apr 15th 2019 at 8:05:53 AM
Back in the (1930s) day, a Conservative court dominance ended when several judges belatedly realized that continuing to rule against New Deal legislation would result in a court packing attempt or worse and decided to begin upholding the laws. So that would be a tack to take.
What are the odds of that happening today? And perhaps more to the point, what is necessary, legally speaking, for that to happen?
Edited by HailMuffins on Apr 15th 2019 at 12:48:28 PM
Impossible without a Democrat president and majority in Congress.
There's nothing in the Constitution about the number of justices on the Supreme Court, so the only rules about it are laws passed by Congress. So any party that controls both houses of Congress (enough to overcome a filibuster) and the presidency can set the size of the SCOTUS to whatever they want.
Should it get to that point, what's more likely to happen is a complete revamp of the system: eg, instead of seven justices serving lifetime appointments with a president appointing a new justice every time an old one leaves office at random intervals, now there are nine justices serving fixed 18-year terms, staggered so that a president appoints two justices during their term (once every two years).
You'd also need to have rules for filling vacancies created by life events - retirement, for instance, or untimely demise - that don't undercut the duration of time that specific seat was meant to be served. This way, the schedule of appointments can't be thrown off after a few generations of life happening to Justices.
And, of course, a rule barring Congress from delaying judicial nominations.
I feel like a succession list by the justice in question that had a life event might be an interesting way to do it.
Russia's Rusal to invest $200 million into a Kentucky aluminum plant.
Redacted Mueller report to be released on Thursday.
Yeah, you'd have to go way more in depth than I did to cover all the edge cases and various unlikely-but-possible scenarios that might crop up. But those are basically details, the thrust of the suggestion is to replace the crapshoot "some presidents don't appoint any SCOTUS seats, some appoint four or five" with a more consistent system.
Edited by NativeJovian on Apr 15th 2019 at 3:38:14 PM
And Trump on Twitter - Before Nancy, who has lost all control of Congress and is getting nothing done, decides to defend her leader, Rep. Omar, she should look at the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and ungrateful U.S. HATE statements Omar has made," Trump tweeted. "She is out of control, except for her control of Nancy!"
Community Showcase More