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

TheRepentent

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The supermarkets would be empty of fruit & vegetables within the week.

*checks username
Yeah I know why you're worried

Arizona and Wisconsin certify for Biden and the usual noise from trump about going to court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/30/arizona-wisconsin-certify-votes-trump-may-challenge-outcome/6462445002/

aloyisious

DubInMeath wrote: »

Arizona and Wisconsin certify for Biden and the usual noise from trump about going to court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/30/arizona-wisconsin-certify-votes-trump-may-challenge-outcome/6462445002/

The kicker for those funding the US$ 3 million recount asked for by Trump is that it gave Biden extra votes.

aloyisious

This is not for the pleasure of rubbing Trump fans nose in it, I'd like feedback on the correctness of what I posted earlier about the census case taken to the USSC by Trump, seeing as I'm relying on media reports. I used the AFAIK/understand for a reason.

If he wins it, will it really mean the reduction of congressional seats in some of the states? Won't this will have an effect on the party he's linked to, which will diminish it's effectual control of things in Washington.

astrofool

aloyisious wrote: »

This is not for the pleasure of rubbing Trump fans nose in it, I'd like feedback on the correctness of what I posted earlier about the census case taken to the USSC by Trump, seeing as I'm relying on media reports. I used the AFAIK/understand for a reason.

If he wins it, will it really mean the reduction of congressional seats in some of the states? Won't this will have an effect on the party he's linked to, which will diminish it's effectual control of things in Washington.

I think the idea is that the administration can set the wording, and then use the data accordingly, given what's happened in the election, you could very easily see them shout not to include Californian, and then include Texas immigrant numbers, they would explain, with a straight face, that this is OK because the California numbers are being faked or manipulated, or something to that effect to justify their desired outcome.

dogbert27

Sean Hannity advising that Trump should pardon himself and his family. So is that an admission that he believes Trump and the family or guilty of something?!

HalloweenJack

Nope, any pardon or attempted pardon by/for Trump will be sold as a pre-emptive strike against the deep state/Democrats/Washington/etc. who will be out for revenge against Trump and his family because they couldn't impeach and/or need to shut him up about the electoral fraud/etc. It will be cheered on as 'beating them at their own game'.

Trump fans will lap it up and the distrust between them and official bodies will continue to grow.

And if a pardon isn't possible, it's just more evidence of the system being out to get Trump.

VinLieger

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Nope, any pardon or attempted pardon by/for Trump will be sold as a pre-emptive strike against the deep state/Democrats/Washington/etc. who will be out for revenge against Trump and his family because they couldn't impeach and/or need to shut him up about the electoral fraud/etc. It will be cheered on as 'beating them at their own game'.

Trump fans will lap it up and the distrust between them and official bodies will continue to grow.

And if a pardon isn't possible, it's just more evidence of the system being out to get Trump.

The entire Trump org is still going to be picked clean by the State of NY and the president can only pardon federal crimes not state crimes so they will face justice for some of what they did at least.

HalloweenJack

Hopefully but all this pardon talk serves to distract and push the debate in another direction.

It could also be pure desperation. While a pardon may only serve for federal crimes, it wouldn't surprise me if they then tried to insist that it covers all the courts in the US.

Roanmore

dogbert27 wrote: »

Sean Hannity advising that Trump should pardon himself and his family. So is that an admission that he believes Trump and the family or guilty of something?!

Do you have to be found guilty of a crime first or can there be pre-emptive pardons? And if so do they only cover certain crimes?

Igotadose

Roanmore wrote: »

Do you have to be found guilty of a crime first or can there be pre-emptive pardons? And if so do they only cover certain crimes?

They can be preemptive: See Gerald Ford's preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon

Quin_Dub

aloyisious wrote: »

This is not for the pleasure of rubbing Trump fans nose in it, I'd like feedback on the correctness of what I posted earlier about the census case taken to the USSC by Trump, seeing as I'm relying on media reports. I used the AFAIK/understand for a reason.

If he wins it, will it really mean the reduction of congressional seats in some of the states? Won't this will have an effect on the party he's linked to, which will diminish it's effectual control of things in Washington.

The total number of seats wouldn't change - They'd still have 435 seats in the house , but the % distribution would change.

Given that most people live in Urban areas (mostly Democrat voters) it would move seats out of the cities and into the rural areas as the re-district - Given the GOP a potentially significant bump..

So , some States would see an overall decrease in seats , possibly including Texas and Florida BUT far more consequentially in terms of overall control , seats would move out of the Cities and out into the Countryside as they redraw districts left right and centre.

For example a city/suburban district loses a few thousand people so they have to change the size of the district to bring it to the required population value. The GOP control the State house so they draw one of those bizarrely shaped districts that now loops in a swathe of extra-urban/Rural areas that are more likely to vote GOP.

gimli2112

The fact the President is allowed to pardon criminal activty because he is friends with said criminals or they have given him money is in itself a rather questionable practice.
It's hard to escape the feeling that if Americans just asked themselves "should we be really doing this?" around several such issues it might be a far better place.

Igotadose

gimli2112 wrote: »

The fact the President is allowed to pardon criminal activty because he is friends with said criminals or they have given him money is in itself a rather questionable practice.
It's hard to escape the feeling that if Americans just asked themselves "should we be really doing this?" around several such issues it might be a far better place.

FWIW, I can see the President proposing them and Congress (Senate perhaps) voting on the Pardons. Still keeps them political but opens the process up somewhat.

Quin_Dub

gimli2112 wrote: »

The fact the President is allowed to pardon criminal activty because he is friends with said criminals or they have given him money is in itself a rather questionable practice.
It's hard to escape the feeling that if Americans just asked themselves "should we be really doing this?" around several such issues it might be a far better place.

A lot of it comes back to the "framers" actually liking the idea of a King , just not the English King.

They constructed the Office of President to be a Monarchy of sorted but with their famous "checks and balances" to temper it. But the Pardon thing is straight out of an absolute monarchy.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

A lot of it comes back to the "framers" actually liking the idea of a King , just not the English King.

They constructed the Office of President to be a Monarchy of sorted but with their famous "checks and balances" to temper it. But the Pardon thing is straight out of an absolute monarchy.

Eh. You do need a way to pardon someone from a federal conviction that's proven to be unjustified. Including death sentences, which can be Federal and are merrily being carried out at an unprecedented pace by this Administration: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-death-penalty/

Quin_Dub

Igotadose wrote: »

Eh. You do need a way to pardon someone from a federal conviction that's proven to be unjustified. Including death sentences, which can be Federal and are merrily being carried out at an unprecedented pace by this Administration: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-death-penalty/

Oh absolutely agree - The concept of a pardon is perfectly fine and as you say is needed to address miscarriages of justice.

However , a single person being allowed to hand them out purely as political favours is totally unacceptable.

There should be an independent review body that makes a recommendation and then the "Presidential pardon" bit is merely the official confirmation of the decision.

banie01

Igotadose wrote: »

Eh. You do need a way to pardon someone from a federal conviction that's proven to be unjustified. Including death sentences, which can be Federal and are merrily being carried out at an unprecedented pace by this Administration: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-death-penalty/

Thats a different issue though really.
Injustice, wrongful conviction and miscarriage of justice certainly do need a commutation/pardon power.
It allows swift rectification and release when evidence is available that exonerates or mitigates.

Rather than await appellant court dates, it should be possible to present the evidence to an appropriately qualified body who will review and recommend a pardon be issued by the president.

All pardons should follow such a review process and there should be a process for refusal or indeed revocation.
Pre-emptive pardons are by the very nature abhorrent.

Pardon implies forgiveness for a crime, where one refuses to acknowledge criminality?
No pardon should issue!

The American penchant for those with Pardon issuing them as a gift or boon of office is a corrupt and unjust practice.

Comparing the use and need for the pardon power as it is currently used?
To its actual implementation in US politics, is an affront to equity.

MICKEYG

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Oh absolutely agree - The concept of a pardon is perfectly fine and as you say is needed to address miscarriages of justice.

However , a single person being allowed to hand them out purely as political favours is totally unacceptable.

There should be an independent review body that makes a recommendation and then the "Presidential pardon" bit is merely the official confirmation of the decision.

I would have to strongly disagree with this. Who defines a miscarriage of justice?
I would be OK with more money being spent on groups like "The Innocence Project" and better systems for appealing convictions but all handled through an independent legal system.
People should not be allowed to override a court decision because they say it is a miscarriage of justice. That in itself could be a miscarriage of justice, and in my view has a greater chance of being one.

Quin_Dub

MICKEYG wrote: »

I would have to strongly disagree with this. Who defines a miscarriage of justice?
I would be OK with more money being spent on groups like "The Innocence Project" and better systems for appealing convictions but all handled through an independent legal system.
People should not be allowed to override a court decision because they say it is a miscarriage of justice. That in itself could be a miscarriage of justice, and in my view has a greater chance of being one.

Completely agree - That's where the Independent review body come in.

A Pardon should not be within the sole control of a single individual nor within the control of a single political party that just happen to be in power at that time.

I would see groups like the Innocence Project being the ones bringing cases to the attention of the review body who would then do their thing and if they support the argument then it goes to the President for their signature.

check_six

Surely the current setup for pardons has to change if the president is busy going around pardoning people who were conspiring in a criminal fashion on his behalf? What could the justification for that possibly be?

aloyisious

check_six wrote: »

Surely the current setup for pardons has to change if the president is busy going around pardoning people who were conspiring in a criminal fashion on his behalf? What could the justification for that possibly be?

Zero justification if the system will be used to give a nod and a wink to one's staffers and friends that it'll be Ok to engage in illegal activities as they'll be given a pardon by himself towards the end of his time in office.

VinLieger

check_six wrote: »

Surely the current setup for pardons has to change if the president is busy going around pardoning people who were conspiring in a criminal fashion on his behalf? What could the justification for that possibly be?

Since its written into the constitution its going to be virtually impossible to change it, i think it needs 66% of congress and the senate or 66% of state legislatures to propose such an amendment and then 75% of state legislatures to then agree to it.


Thanks to the polarised nature of the US this is now a virtual impossibility.

hotmail.com

check_six wrote: »

Surely the current setup for pardons has to change if the president is busy going around pardoning people who were conspiring in a criminal fashion on his behalf? What could the justification for that possibly be?

No signs Biden is going to try to abolish the privilege.

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

No signs Biden is going to try to abolish the privilege.

He can't, it is part of the constitution.

hotmail.com

Leroy42 wrote: »

He can't, it is part of the constitution.

It can be amended.

He could also begin a conversation on the issue, commit to not using it and begin a precedent.

It's not completely hopeless. If you find these pardons wrong, then surely it's correct that they come to an end.

When we know, Biden will do the same type of thing when he gets in.

pixelburp

"Amending the constitution" is scarcely a simple, easy task in America. Especially when the so-called "originalists" have started making waves in the political sphere. Very hard to make changes to a document that has achieved "sacred text" levels of worship.

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The total number of seats wouldn't change - They'd still have 435 seats in the house , but the % distribution would change.

Given that most people live in Urban areas (mostly Democrat voters) it would move seats out of the cities and into the rural areas as the re-district - Given the GOP a potentially significant bump..

So , some States would see an overall decrease in seats , possibly including Texas and Florida BUT far more consequentially in terms of overall control , seats would move out of the Cities and out into the Countryside as they redraw districts left right and centre.

For example a city/suburban district loses a few thousand people so they have to change the size of the district to bring it to the required population value. The GOP control the State house so they draw one of those bizarrely shaped districts that now loops in a swathe of extra-urban/Rural areas that are more likely to vote GOP.

So a one-off legalized form of gerrymandering could be given the OK to suit a party/operative to offset the electoral losses they/he suffered due to an inadequate use of office, slipped in under the guise of a census [almost like a boundary referendum vote of the people] despite the U.S.S.C blocking the office-holders earlier attempt to use the census for that as unconstitutional.

I'm reading media reports that the U.S.S.C may take weeks to provide a decision on the matter, "YES or NO" on the the president having the constitutional power to issue his order or "Its not for us to decide at this time, we'll consider it later in 2021" kicking the can of worms down the road past the date the census report has to be sent to congress by Trump's admin which would mean Trump's order would be dead in the water and left for the Biden presidency to cancel officially. That might be a satisfactory exit route for the USSC, the GOP and the Dems to walk away honour satisfied, leaving the boundaries in situ and Trump as ineffectual.

aloyisious

pixelburp wrote: »

"Amending the constitution" is scarcely a simple, easy task in America. Especially when the so-called "originalists" have started making waves in the political sphere. Very hard to make changes to a document that has achieved "sacred text" levels of worship.

I find the "originalists" theory of the constitution being not open for interpretation silly in the extreme and an attempt to rewrite the history of the U.S, like the latest member's statement from years ago that the U.S.S.C cannot hear or make rulings on matters constitutional brought to their table for decision by U.S citizens.

banie01

pixelburp wrote: »

"Amending the constitution" is scarcely a simple, easy task in America. Especially when the so-called "originalists" have started making waves in the political sphere. Very hard to make changes to a document that has achieved "sacred text" levels of worship.

It is a really odd fascination that they have such faith in the infallibility of the framers, the same framers who wrote "All men are created equal" in their declaration of independence yet allowed slavery and compromised to keep it until overtaken by civil war!

The same framers who partook in the 3/5 compromise, despite all men being created equal.

Constitutions should be treated as living documents that can be amended by society to better meet their needs as society evolves.

Constitutional originalists are a dangerous legal fundamentalism and like all fundamentalism should be addressed head on and rebutted.

Unfortunately WASP America now sees fatuous legal adherence to the "founders" as their path to maintaining power.

Even at the time of its inception, the constitution wasn't perfect.
It was amended near immediately, just logical thought would show the framers were happy to address issues as they arose and adapt the constitution to reflect society better.

The reverence afforded a legal document that wasn't all that brilliant in the 1st place, it smacks of a need to have their own Magna Carta!
The American need for history is IMO playing a huge part in their societal issues currently.
The framers must be right.
We make law in a building full of statues and busts of law-givers Marius, Cincinnatus, Lycurgus, Solon, Moses, Hammurabi...
We must me right!

It's the youngsters that are wrong