Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

abff

“Originalist” is just a handy excuse for refusing to do something you don’t want to do. It has absolutely no objective justification.

Mind you, a country that allows children to be taught creationism as an alternative to evolution is not exactly embracing the 21st century.

Quin_Dub

banie01 wrote: »

The sheer audacity of "Conservative" politicians and judiciary in the US in treating the constitution as an inviolable document that must be interpreted in line with the drafters intentions is staggering!

No Constitution is perfect, they are all products of their era and the very best constitutions are written with an explicit recognition that needs will change, society will change and that while the constitution will always be primary, there must be a means to recognise and adapt the document to new societal mores.

The rush to hold the teleological reading of the constitution as prime, in a society 250yrs removed from its drafting is frankly insulting to the citizenry.
That a document which has been amended 14 times since any of the authors were alive, must now be held inviolate?

It is a foundation, a framework and sometimes you alter or extend your home and discover problems with your foundations.
Society is much the same.

All constitutions, but in particular the US!
Need to be viewed as living and evolving, one cannot hold society today to the legal norms of 250 yrs ago.
Even in Ireland, we understand that.
Why are so many influential Yanks of the opinion that the constitution is a religious fatwa?
Rather than a societal foundation...

It bothers me, it irks me and that many Americans are so poorly informed as to what it is other than the bill of rights, which ironically are all amendments to the original, a recognition by the authors they missed something
Is a sad reflection on the level of discourse and critical assessment in mainstream US politics.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the "Originalist" viewpoint in it's true sense - That if you don't like a law , you change it, don't "re-interpret" it , but the issue is that the GOP have married their originalist viewpoint with a rabid refusal to even countenance making any changes to the current constitution.

Either you allow "interpretation" or you allow Constitutional amendments to enable the law to move with the times.

They can't have it both ways , but that's what they are fighting tooth and nail for every day.

briany

robinph wrote: »

Once the judges are appointed there is nothing that a president has to offer them. She has no reason to do anything for Trump and has has nothing that can be offered to her in return for her judgement going one way or the other.

You would think that justices of the US Supreme Court are a bit above hang sangwich politics and the quid pro quo which goes with that. If Trump is thinking about going through the courts to remain President in the event that a loss by conventional means looks likely, then a majority of justices would still have to present a learned opinion that what Trump aimed to do was valid. It would be pretty embarrassing for justices if they were to support Trump in their conclusion, but their conclusion was one that could be dismantled by a pre-law student. It would undermine the very legitimacy of the USA's highest court, and that would be quite dangerous.

In short, it is the sworn solemn duty of every Supreme Court justice to uphold the law. As such serious people, I don't think they would want to be complicit in helping Trump to usurp an election in the event that he looked to lose well. A rerun of Florida 2000 could be a different story, though.

Overheal

briany wrote: »

You would think that justices of the US Supreme Court are a bit above hang sangwich politics and the quid pro quo which goes with that. If Trump is thinking about going through the courts to remain President in the event that a loss by conventional means looks likely, then a majority of justices would still have to present a learned opinion that what Trump aimed to do was valid. It would be pretty embarrassing for justices if they were to support Trump in their conclusion, but their conclusion was one that could be dismantled by a pre-law student. It would undermine the very legitimacy of the USA's highest court, and that would be quite dangerous.

In short, it is the sworn solemn duty of every Supreme Court justice to uphold the law. As such serious people, I don't think they would want to be complicit in helping Trump to usurp an election in the event that he looked to lose well. A rerun of Florida 2000 could be a different story, though.

I mean, Kavanaugh's decision was a shambles.

He cited a source for his argument that letting votes be counted after election day would be too damaging to election integrity - problem is, that source argued the exact opposite position, that those votes SHOULD be counted.

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/justice-kavanaugh-caught-cherry-picking-line-from-a-law-review-article-that-contradicted-his-conclusion/?utm_source=mostpopular

https://twitter.com/MarshallCohen/status/1320933212005294081?s=20

But most glaring error critics identified in Kavanaugh’s opinion concerned his “Trumpian” justification for why “most states” do not accept mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Kavanaugh a cherry-picked quote which–in the context of the whole law review article–ultimately contradicted his actual point.

“Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter,” he wrote.

Kavanaugh then quoted from a law review article titled “How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting” by New York University Law Professor Richard Pildes to bolster his point.

“The States are aware of the risks described by Professor Pildes: ‘[L]ate-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result. If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode,’” Kavanaugh wrote. “The ‘longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.’”

A closer reading of Pildes’s article, or even the heading under which the cited paragraph appears, shows that Pildes unequivocally concluded that all states should make sure they count valid ballots received after Election Day.

“States that require absentees to be received by election night or shortly after should move this date back,” Pildes wrote. “Moreover, if a significant number of votes come in after a receipt deadline that has not been changed and that is much tighter than in other states, ex post litigation challenging that deadline is easy to imagine. This is exactly what we do not want to face for a risk that can be mitigated in advance.”

Larbre34

I've worked Irish elections for 20 years. We don't accept postal ballots that arrive after election day. If they're not there by the time the ballot boxes close at the end of the nominated election day, they don't get counted. Its a nonsense to have any system that allows postal ballots to drag in for days after. Its an election, not a Joe Duffy text poll.

banie01

Kavanaugh has just illustrated and highlighted to the entirety of the US why Judicial appointments should not be the gift of a political process.

A 1st yr law student would blush at his attempt to cite a contrary opinion in support of his BS.
Elevation to the senior judiciary, both there and here should be on the basis of merit and actual competence.
The highest court should be populated by jurists and scholars of merit, who command the respect of their peers.

Not stuffed with conservative zealots in an effort to keep power in the hands of a cabalistic minority.
The current state of play in the US senate and SC is the result of a long, long history of deference to "The South" and even it's successor upon their readmission to the Union.

eire4

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've worked Irish elections for 20 years. We don't accept postal ballots that arrive after election day. If they're not there by the time the ballot boxes close at the end of the nominated election day, they don't get counted. Its a nonsense to have any system that allows postal ballots to drag in for days after. Its an election, not a Joe Duffy text poll.

That would be a legitimate argument in normal times. But these are not normal times given the pandemic. Never mind the fact that the US government is deliberately slowing down the post to try and suppress the postal voting.

L1011

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've worked Irish elections for 20 years. We don't accept postal ballots that arrive after election day. If they're not there by the time the ballot boxes close at the end of the nominated election day, they don't get counted. Its a nonsense to have any system that allows postal ballots to drag in for days after. Its an election, not a Joe Duffy text poll.

If An Post had been specifically interfered with, and we had more than a handful of postal votes, I suspect the rules would be different

Overheal

What really is the lead time for An Post mail, anyway? Is it going to take a week to get Mary Cormack's ballot from the coast of Kerry to a ballot box or even the Aran Islands? We can only be talking about a handful of days to get ballots, yes?

CelticRambler

Overheal wrote: »

What really is the lead time for An Post mail, anyway? Is it going to take a week to get Mary Cormack's ballot from the coast of Kerry to a ballot box or even the Aran Islands? We can only be talking about a handful of days to get ballots, yes?

Quoting from memory, but I believe the recent (unresolved) interference with the USPS sorting and delivery services (compounded by the removal of postboxes and Covid-related staff shortages) means that there is a backlog resulting in delays of between two weeks and a month. Remember that this applies in both directions - the delivery of the postal ballot to the voter, and their vote being carried back to the polling station.

Edit: just re-read your post, and realised that you were probably arguing that Ireland is small enough for any half-decent postal service to get a letter from Kerry to Dublin quickly enough to be counted on the night.

Gbear

L1011 wrote: »

If An Post had been specifically interfered with, and we had more than a handful of postal votes, I suspect the rules would be different

This is key to how the Republicans have attacked voting.

It's never "ban all Democrats from voting".

They're always circumspect enough and have enough deniability or apparent credibility in their position that they can go onto news programs or push talking points online about how they're really just trying to protect elections.

You absolutely have to take the totality of their actions.

Maybe one could argue for strict ID laws required for voting, but if you require that and, for example,

Close places like the DMV down in Democrat-voting areas

Discriminate on IDs based on what sort of person is likely to have them (like allowing gun licenses but not college IDs)

Don't make any effort to provide those IDs, gating them behind fees or application processes that are likely to disadvantage voters more likely to vote Democrat

Have no justification for pushing IDs because there's no evidence of voting fraud

Then it's voter disenfranchisement and anti-democratic.

It works just the same for disenfranchisement on the basis of prior criminal convictions, and by dismantling the voting infrastructure.
Bonus points for another layer of discrimination in that a sizeable proportion of those disenfranchised by criminal conviction are also disproportionately targeted by the drug war.

I sometimes wonder if people who argue in favour of this are being dishonest, or they really can't see the wood for the trees. Do they ever take a step back and ask themselves why they're trying to argue in favour or preventing people from voting? Or does the strategy or the Republicans (and those like them around the world), give them enough thought-terminating arguments so that they just don't get that far?

Overheal

CelticRambler wrote: »

Edit: just re-read your post, and realised that you were probably arguing that Ireland is small enough for any half-decent postal service to get a letter from Kerry to Dublin quickly enough to be counted on the night.

Exactly - IDK what the furthest jump is from Dublin but to Ennis like last time I did it, eh, 15 years ago, it was a 3 hour drive.

Maybe not that night, but certainly within 3 days, accounting for all sorts of Moore's Law.


EDIT: sorry this is not the topic, I just was really curious how the mail ballots were processed there.

Larbre34

L1011 wrote: »

If An Post had been specifically interfered with, and we had more than a handful of postal votes, I suspect the rules would be different

Probably. More likely there would have been a massive and very high profile investigation to address it too.

I see former USAG Eric Holder on twitter referencing the Wisconsin situation, telling everyone to abandon the mail-in ballot and to use physical drop boxes or early voting stations wherever at all possible.

I suspect Joe Biden's very high donation coffers are currently filling the petrol tanks of volunteer drivers all over battleground states.

The Phantom Jipper

Phoebas wrote: »

Biden was referring to Trump and stumbled over his name.
Not great.
I've done similar with family members including my own kids (for clarity - I haven't mistaken them for former Presidents).

Trump, being Trump of course, thinks this is worthy of him bringing up on Twitter in the dying days of an election campaign with 225k people dead from Covid and an economy in tatters with no end in sight.

Not to dredge this topic up again as it's a couple of days old but Biden didn't even confuse Trump with George Bush as has been claimed. He has talking to George Lopez, the actor, at the time and used his name when responding to a question from him. Desperate stuff from Trump fans clinging to the senility line even after Trump lost both of the debates.

banie01

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Not to dredge this topic up again as it's a couple of days old but Biden didn't even confuse Trump with George Bush as has been claimed. He has talking to George Lopez, the actor, at the time and used his name when responding to a question from him. Desperate stuff from Trump fans clinging to the senility line even after Trump lost both of the debates.

Not only did Trump lose the debates but, of the 2?
Trump is far more prone to gaffes and lapses that could be labelled as such a cognitive decline.
A huge problem is that there is no balance or fairness doctrine in US political reporting.
As such, those that subscribe to either camp can go the entirety of an election cycle only hearing about the opposing party's policy, politicians, and gaffes lensed through the window of their own bias.

Those who watch FoxNews etc see Trump slamming Biden repeatedly and assume it's true because it's "news".
Similar albeit not so stark an issue with MSNBC and Trump, altho unfortunately he doesn't take much spin.

The debates and Biden's actually appearing as competent and capable in comparison to Trump lifted a veil.
The Trumpist's saw them both on stage at the same time and it wasn't "Sleepy Joe" that looked shot.

Hence the drug accusations and other nonsense from the Trump camp.

The lack of formally required balance and the overt politicization and weaponization of news networks has played a huge role in the decline of political discourse and standards in the US.
This isn't a "Free speech" issue, it's an electoral and political integrity issue IMO.

robinph

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've worked Irish elections for 20 years. We don't accept postal ballots that arrive after election day. If they're not there by the time the ballot boxes close at the end of the nominated election day, they don't get counted. Its a nonsense to have any system that allows postal ballots to drag in for days after. Its an election, not a Joe Duffy text poll.

It's the same with the UK postal votes, but if you stick something in the post box on one day, it's going to arrive at the counting center the next. Only exception might be if your voting in Shetland whilst posting the vote from Cornwall.

EltonJohn69

Michael Moore reckons Trump has one more Supreme Court appointment left in him, going to happen list Election Day. Going to be know as the Trump Supreme court for decades.

gmisk

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Michael Moore reckons Trump has one more Supreme Court appointment left in him, going to happen list Election Day. Going to be know as the Trump Supreme court for decades.

How so? There isn't an open spot unless someone resigns, retires or passes away no?

Timberrrrrrrr

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Michael Moore reckons Trump has one more Supreme Court appointment left in him, going to happen list Election Day. Going to be know as the Trump Supreme court for decades.

Is someone retiring that we don't know about?

dogbert27

No memes please.

L1011

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is someone retiring that we don't know about?

'Encouraging' Thomas to retire has already been mentioned. Most likely to die during a potential 8 year term for Biden-and-or-Harris.

Thomas dying and Kavanaugh being impeached and both being replaced with their polar opposites is something the Republicans would be terrified of.

There's a potential numbers problem after the election, though.

Martha McSally is likely to lose her seat to a Democrat, who will take it immediately - not in January. This is because she is an appointee not an elected Senator.

Kelly Loeffer's seat has become more and more tenuous to hold on to, and again would be taken immediately.

This would change the numbers to 51-49 and with some likely de-seated and extremely pissed off Republicans blaming Trump for their fall from grace, it wouldn't be hard to see nobody getting through. Leaving an empty seat for January and a Democrat senate.

EltonJohn69

Yeap the plan is for Thomas to step aside and cement the Trump Supreme Court

duploelabs

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Yeap the plan is for Thomas to step aside and cement the Trump Supreme Court

Why would Thomas step aside?

L1011

duploelabs wrote: »

Why would Thomas step aside?

On the basis that the likelyhood of him dying in the next 8 years is quite high and his replacement would not be a conservative originalist. Appeal to his beliefs rather than personal interest, basically.

However, that alone isn't likely to convince him.

gmisk

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Yeap the plan is for Thomas to step aside and cement the Trump Supreme Court

If the Republicans do that they really can't complain if the Democrats pull some similar antics if they win.

VinLieger

gmisk wrote: »

If the Republicans do that they really can't complain if the Democrats pull some similar antics if they win.

Of course they can and will

gmisk

VinLieger wrote: »

Of course they can and will

Your probably right.
The lindsey graham position about sums them up...

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914774433/use-my-words-against-me-lindsey-graham-s-shifting-position-on-court-vacancies

robinph

L1011 wrote: »

On the basis that the likelyhood of him dying in the next 8 years is quite high and his replacement would not be a conservative originalist. Appeal to his beliefs rather than personal interest, basically.

However, that alone isn't likely to convince him.

You'd have to be pretty indoctrinated into the cult to give up your lifetime appointment on the basis that after your dead someone new will come along and do something that you don't particularly care for. Does the belief in the original interpretation of the constitution include that if anything is changed in the constitution after you're dead then heaven will cease to exist and the 72 virgins will disappear or something?

Wanting to spend your retirement hanging out with the grandkids should be a bigger motivation to someone with any braincells between their ears to retire early, than caring what people do with your job after you've gone.

aloyisious

It looks like the closer election-voting day get's, the more worried members of Trumps administration seem get about him losing to Biden. The list of "misleading" statements from the White House grew yesterday with it's Office of Science and Technology Policy issuing a press release on the 5 achievements of Trump's administration from his first term, with "Ending the Covid-19 pandemic" as it's No 1 achievement coming so soon after his White House C.O.S. Mark Meadows admitted to the U.S that, in reality, Covid-19 is here to stay.

That O.S.T.P "achievement" claim is so patently wrong it didn't even come from the White House's own appointed contact to the media. I cant see many voters, even the committed ones within his fan base. giving it much credence.

Nody

robinph wrote: »

You'd have to be pretty indoctrinated into the cult to give up your lifetime appointment on the basis that after your dead someone new will come along and do something that you don't particularly care for. Does the belief in the original interpretation of the constitution include that if anything is changed in the constitution after you're dead then heaven will cease to exist and the 72 virgins will disappear or something?

Wanting to spend your retirement hanging out with the grandkids should be a bigger motivation to someone with any braincells between their ears to retire early, than caring what people do with your job after you've gone.

I'd frame it rather as a "you get to pick your legacy by deciding who'll replace you". That way it's about his legacy as a judge which would play to his pride and still get the same goal accomplished.