Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

BonnieSituation · 27-06-2018 11:37pm

EdgeCase wrote: »

It’s a pity the judge couldn’t hold off retiring until after November.

He's Reagan Republican. I'm sure a word might have been had in his ear about when he should go if he had been hinting he was contemplating it.

That being said he's 81 and owes nobody anything at this stage given his ridiculous career so he can go when he likes.

aloyisious · 28-06-2018 12:00am

There's a story in the Irish Times about a move by US steel users and Pro-trade republicans in congress going to the US Court of International Trade to have the 1962 statute [section 232] that Mr Trump used to impose steel tariffs ruled unconstitutional. Those opposing the tariffs include US automakers who claim it would increase the cost of cars to US buyers.

The article also covers how President Trump has bowed to business interests within his administration and backed away from imposing new restrictions on Chinese investment in the US, as it might damage the US economy by chasing away foreign businessmen, and this has upset China hawks in the White House. I don't know the source/s of the info in the story or if it is a syndicated report from abroad.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/backlash-to-trump-tariffs-as-us-users-of-steel-mount-court-challenge-1.3546085

Christy42 · 28-06-2018 6:56am

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is precisely the situation which was warned about when the Democrats attempted to block Gorsuch. There is no telling how hard to the right the next nominee shall be, and I don't see how the Ds can stop it. I don't see any percentage in Congress waiting until after the elections. They can do what they want now, and the court seat is going to be far longer term than the next election cycle.

The Democrats couldn't stop it in any case. Had they let Goruch through then Republicans would change the rules now to get their choice in before the mid terms.

There would be too much pressure to get them in before the mid terms for them not to.

They can indeed do what they want now. Largely because they are hypocrites.

Hande hoche! · 28-06-2018 7:43am

Both parties deserve a good chunk of blame for getting the ball rolling on the "nuclear option" with regard appointees. Chuck Schumer has expressed considerable regret in the past for switches.

Captain Obvious · 28-06-2018 9:07am

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is precisely the situation which was warned about when the Democrats attempted to block Gorsuch. There is no telling how hard to the right the next nominee shall be, and I don't see how the Ds can stop it. I don't see any percentage in Congress waiting until after the elections. They can do what they want now, and the court seat is going to be far longer term than the next election cycle.

Nothing to do with the Democrats. It's just pure hypocrisy from the GOP.

pixelburp · 28-06-2018 9:09am

Just to be super naive for a second; seems like there's an opportunity here for the GOP to insinuate some semblance of centrism by trying to get a more moderate judge appointed. With the fear and noise over an extreme right-winger parachuted in, which would surely only increase division and push middleground voters away from the GOP in November, would the smarter play be to throw a sop to those moderates, instead of doubling down on the hard-cases? Seems like it'd make the Democrats sound a little hollower if Republicans could point to a uncontroversial appointee, instead of some Gilead wannabe.

Sure, that's possibly what might happen in less partisan times, or a less political binary country, but you never know ...

Captain Obvious · 28-06-2018 9:11am

pixelburp wrote: »

Just to be super naive for a second; seems like there's an opportunity here for the GOP to insinuate some semblance of centrism by trying to get a more moderate judge appointed. With the fear and noise over an extreme right-winger parachuted in, which would surely only increase division and push middleground voters away from the GOP in November, would the smarter play be to throw a sop to those moderates, instead of doubling down on the hard-cases? Seems like it'd make the Democrats seem a little hollower if Republicans could point to a uncontroversial appointee, instead of some Gilead wannabe.

They won't. There's about 40 of them retiring after their term is up because they know the party is fecked. They'll use their swan song to bring in someone who might overturn something like Roe v Wade. Tipping the Supreme Court is their only chance of a legacy.

pixelburp · 28-06-2018 9:29am

Captain Obvious wrote: »

They won't. There's about 40 of them retiring after their term is up because they know the party is fecked. They'll use their swan song to bring in someone who might overturn something like Roe v Wade. Tipping the Supreme Court is their only chance of a legacy.

Well I did say it was being naive and have no belief they'll act with any degree of centrism, just to this keyboard expert it seems like the smart play, shoring up any wavering voters who might find the 2018 GOP becoming a tad too god-bothering through some faux piety (so to speak).

StringerBell · 28-06-2018 9:56am

No hope of them doing anything but getting in a hardliner jmo, they know how to press their advantage fully when they have it. This appointment will have farther reaching results than any of the next 2 or 3 election cycles potentially.

They will not waste their opportunity to stack the deck in their favour in future. This is the one thing the Trump guys are doing very well.

josip · 28-06-2018 10:08am

pixelburp wrote: »

Well I did say it was being naive and have no belief they'll act with any degree of centrism, just to this keyboard expert it seems like the smart play, shoring up any wavering voters who might find the 2018 GOP becoming a tad too god-bothering through some faux piety (so to speak).

It might be a smart play but only if your audience is smart enough to appreciate it.

The US I feel is unfortunately no longer the land of the free or brave.
The majority of the people have surrendered any independent thought to biased media reporting and are overly accepting of populist, easy messages.

Trump to me is the modern equivalent of Honorius and Arcadius.

aloyisious · 28-06-2018 10:21am

Re the US International Trade Court hearing a case put to it by US steel users, US car makers and GOP members of Congress,
there's this. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-27/trump-s-authority-to-set-steel-tariffs-challenged-by-
trade-group.

Funnily enough, the search also came up with this link from March this year.
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/SlipOpinions/Slip_op18/18-37.pdf

Inside that earlier US court of Int Trade case report [through US Dept of Commerce] there's these two excerpts referring to
threats to National Security.

1. Proclamation No. 9705 was issued on March 8, 2018. Invoking Commerce’s Steel
Report and the authority granted by 19 U.S.C. § 1862 to enact trade measures to counter importrelated
threats to national security, the proclamation imposed a 25 percent ad valorem tariff on
steel imports from every country except Canada and Mexico, effective March 23, 2018.
Proclamation No. 9705, 83 Fed. Reg. at 11,625 and 11,627. The original proclamation also provided that: Any country with which we
have a security relationship is welcome to discuss with the United States alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of
the national security caused by imports from that country. Should the United States and any such country arrive at a satisfactory
alternative means to address the threat to the national security such that I determine that imports from that country no longer
threaten to impair the national security, I may remove or modify the restriction on steel articles imports from that country and, if
necessary, make any corresponding adjustments to the tariff as it applies to other countries as our national security interests require.

2. In response to the Secretary of Commerce’s report, however, the Secretary of Defense indicated an absence of any
steel-related threat to national military supply chains: “[T]he U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only
represent about three percent of U.S. production. Therefore, [the U.S. Department of Defense(“DoD”)] does not believe that
the findings in the reports impact the ability of DoD programs to acquire the steel or aluminum necessary to meet national defense requirements.” Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction,
ECF No. 16, at Ex. D. The Secretary of Defense further indicated his “concern[] about the negative impact on our key allies
regarding the recommended options within the reports . . .among these reports’ alternatives, targeted tariffs are more preferable
than a global quota or global tariff.”

From reading those and looking at the latest hearing before the US CIT, it seem's it's the Admin's opinion that imports are bad
for US home steel production industry, running down it's chance of getting a bigger bite of the cherry, and the Admin using
national security as a cloak even though US steel users are plainly not happy at either cost or standard of the US home steel
products and is happy to get what it need's from abroad. Two separate sections of US steel industry having a disagreement and
Don deciding to impose tariffs to inhibit US steel users from getting a better deal.

I'm unsure if the earlier [March] imposition of tariffs still exists and the latest set of tariffs is on top of that, or if the earlier [March] set of tariffs was set aside. If not then it's a double set of tariffs imposed on steel imports against US steel users.

everlast75 · 28-06-2018 11:11am

Re next Supreme Court nominee, Trump is on the record (for what that is worth) as saying that he would appoint a SC judge who would oppose Roe Vs Wade.

josip · 28-06-2018 11:29am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

He's Reagan Republican. I'm sure a word might have been had in his ear about when he should go if he had been hinting he was contemplating it.

That being said he's 81 and owes nobody anything at this stage given his ridiculous career so he can go when he likes.

This epitomises where the US is at the moment.
He is a Supreme Court judge with decades of experience, and a liberal viewpoint despite being a Republican nomination.
Yet when the time comes to retire, it looks like he chooses now to retire so that the Republicans can freely choose his successor, rather than wait until after November at which time they may not have the same level of control.
By retiring now, Trump will replace him with a judge who will try to undo any liberal decisions he has voted through in the past 30 years.
But that is still preferable to allowing the Democrats any say in his successor.
Republican first, US Supreme Court judge second.

Christy42 · 28-06-2018 11:30am

everlast75 wrote: »

Re next Supreme Court nominee, Trump is on the record (for what that is worth) as saying that he would appoint a SC judge who would oppose Roe Vs Wade.

That could be a reason to go more moderate. Another poster mentioned it as an idea but there is a serious risk that a judge who might overturn that would drive democrats to the voting booth. Similarly for gay marriage.

Trump will likely go for one that will oppose Roe vs Wade because it will be less likely to make his base get annoyed but he seems not to care about abortion in general so I would not count on it. More headaches for him might convince him to go slightly less right wing when it is an issue he cares nothing about.

Really conservatives should be more thankful for McConnell than they have been. He has played a blinder to get conservatives onto the bench.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2018 11:36am

What is also worth noting is that two other judges are elderly. Breyer is 79 and Ginsberg is 85. Both are considered to be liberal and are Democrats.

Captain Obvious · 28-06-2018 11:38am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is also worth noting is that two other judges are elderly. Breyer is 79 and Ginsberg is 85. Both are considered to be liberal and are Democrats.

Judges shouldn't be allowed be members of political parties.

Zubeneschamali · 28-06-2018 11:40am

Christy42 wrote: »

That could be a reason to go more moderate. Another poster mentioned it as an idea but there is a serious risk that a judge who might overturn that would drive democrats to the voting booth. Similarly for gay marriage.

This is how losers think, i.e. the Democrats. Reach across the aisle, bipartisan traditions, consensus, consult the opposing party when drafting legislation.

The Republicans regard the whole scene as street warfare, smash and grab what you can while you can. They block Obamas nomination for the Supreme Court in defiance of all tradition and steal that seat for their side, and then demand that Trumps nominee gets due respect.

Trump will nominate an absolute lunatic and the Republicans will push him through before the elections.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2018 11:43am

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Judges shouldn't be allowed be members of political parties.

Indeed. But that's the way it is.

Christy42 · 28-06-2018 11:47am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

That could be a reason to go more moderate. Another poster mentioned it as an idea but there is a serious risk that a judge who might overturn that would drive democrats to the voting booth. Similarly for gay marriage.

This is how losers think, i.e. the Democrats. Reach across the aisle, bipartisan traditions, consensus, consult the opposing party when drafting legislation.

The Republicans regard the whole scene as street warfare, smash and grab what you can while you can. The block Obamas nomination for the Supreme Court in defiance of all tradition and steal that seat for their side, and then demand that Trumps nominee gets due respect.

Trump will nominate an absolute lunatic and the Republicans will push him through before the elections.

Very possible. I can only hope the Democrats turn Roe vs Wade into a reason to hit the ballot box to protect what rights can be protected.

Leroy42 · 28-06-2018 12:01pm

There is a saying that better to be a lucky general...

And in this case, along with the previous SCOTUS appointment, Trump is very lucky. There is simply no way that the GOP will pass up this chance. Trump has been crowing about his SCOTUS appointment since day 1, and it is on the top of the list of any supporter.

To think they wouldn't want to double down on that is incredible They also need to make sure they don't give the voters a say, why would they possibly wait until after the mid-terms. If they lose they face the prospect of, at best, losing the ability to put in whomever they choose. But since they already have that why wait.

Trump may not care about abortion as such, but he cares about what his base thinks, and his base think that the SCOTUS is a lefty liberal bastion which is forcing gay marriage and abortions and forcing people to make cakes for gay people and stopping Trump for protecting the country from Muslims.

Manic Moran · 28-06-2018 12:11pm

josip wrote: »

This epitomises where the US is at the moment.
He is a Supreme Court judge with decades of experience, and a liberal viewpoint despite being a Republican nomination.

No, he is still considered a conservative, just one who (bless him) is very good at not letting his viewpoints be disctated by dogma, so he has also become known as the swing vote with not infrequent opinions which benefit the liberal position.

But that is still preferable to allowing the Democrats any say in his successor.
Republican first, US Supreme Court judge second.

The irony is that this is precisely how Kennedy ended up getting appointed in the first place. Solid opposition to Bork by the Democrats has resulted in ‘borked’ becoming an adjective and Senate hearings for Supreme Court justices becoming shams as nominees now know to shut the hell up about their opinions.

Then, of course, there is the Democrats going nuclear in 2013, when it suited them. What I would -hope- for is that after this nomination folks will say “OK, we’ve made our point, I think, we’ll change the rules back’, but of course there is bigger-all chance of the Senate doing it. Even though it is probably in the Republican interest to do it, given that there is no guarantee they’ll be in charge when the next vacancy comes up. They don’t seem to think long term.

Remember I said a few pages back “a pox on both their houses?” Another perfect example as to why. Both sides are guilty. Both sides have very short memories which only work when it suits them.

Christy42 · 28-06-2018 12:24pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

josip wrote: »

This epitomises where the US is at the moment.
He is a Supreme Court judge with decades of experience, and a liberal viewpoint despite being a Republican nomination.

No, he is still considered a conservative, just one who (bless him) is very good at not letting his viewpoints be disctated by dogma, so he has also become known as the swing vote with not infrequent opinions which benefit the liberal position.

But that is still preferable to allowing the Democrats any say in his successor.
Republican first, US Supreme Court judge second.

The irony is that this is precisely how Kennedy ended up getting appointed in the first place. Solid opposition to Bork by the Democrats has resulted in ‘borked’ becoming an adjective and Senate hearings for Supreme Court justices becoming shams as nominees now know to shut the hell up about their opinions.

Then, of course, there is the Democrats going nuclear in 2013, when it suited them. What I would -hope- for is that after this nomination folks will say “OK, we’ve made our point, I think, we’ll change the rules back’, but of course there is bigger-all chance of the Senate doing it. Even though it is probably in the Republican interest to do it, given that there is no guarantee they’ll be in charge when the next vacancy comes up. They don’t seem to think long term.

Remember I said a few pages back “a pox on both their houses?” Another perfect example as to why. Both sides are guilty. Both sides have very short memories which only work when it suits them.

While I have only read about that nomination the issue with Bork seems entirely separate. Democrats thought he was too extreme in his views and attacked his constitutional stance. The Republicans just refused to consider anyone.
Reagan still got his pick but he just had to pick one that was more acceptable to both sides.

Granted I don't get how they are members of parties and how they obviously disagree so heavily with what the constitution says. How can anyone put much merit in their judgements if, given any particular issue they have heard, just under half of supreme court judges disagree with the call.

Leroy42 · 28-06-2018 12:56pm

I think what this SCOTUS appointment, whomever it will be (and it will be a conservative) should let everyone know in the US that elections have serious consequences.

Sure it was all great fun, shouting lock her up, laughing at disabled reporters, calling the media the enemy, making Mexicans enemy No.1. So what if this guy had no experience and had never shown any social conscience. So what he he treated women badly, was clearly racist. Was it important that he had apparently little grasp of facts, or indeed any ideology apart from blaming everyone else.

Well, this shows that they do matter, and they can have very serious impacts. Not just on those Mexicans and Muslims, but this could very well lead to serious restrictions on gay marriage, on abortions. It could ramp up the freedom to own guns and so continue the disaster that that brings.

The voters in the US need to wake up and understand that this stuff is serious business, not some TV show. The mid-terms gives them that chance. Many Trump supporters used the line "HC, I just couldn't vote for her" line to excuse themselves from having to admit they accepted the racism etc. Well HC isn't running, and far from Trump being a newcomer, everyone is well aware of Trump and the GOP enabling of him.

There are of course those that will welcome restrictions on gay marriage, restrictions on abortions. But is that really what the US majority wants? To go backwards?

markodaly · 28-06-2018 1:03pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course Obama suffered the same, the difference being that his party did not control the votes.

Obama had a super majority.

markodaly · 28-06-2018 1:04pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It makes for an interesting tactical decision for both Trump/GOP and the Democrats..

Do the GOP delay the selection and hearings for the SCOTUS seat until after the mid-terms so they can use it to get votes or do they push to get it done ASAP.

The inverse applies to the Dems , do they fight really hard to delay and fillibuster the hell out of a vote in hopes that they win the majority in November and then force a moderate choice on Trump or do they just let it happen so that it's no longer an electoral tool for the GOP?

The Dems cannot filibuster this as its a SCOTUS appointment. GOP have the majority.

everlast75 · 28-06-2018 1:09pm

Christy42 wrote: »

While I have only read about that nomination the issue with Bork seems entirely separate. Democrats thought he was too extreme in his views and attacked his constitutional stance. The Republicans just refused to consider anyone.
Reagan still got his pick but he just had to pick one that was more acceptable to both sides.

Granted I don't get how they are members of parties and how they obviously disagree so heavily with what the constitution says. How can anyone put much merit in their judgements if, given any particular issue they have heard, just under half of supreme court judges disagree with the call.

Yep. Garland was called a consensus vote by certain GOP members who had the vote to appoint or not.

McConnell point blank refused ANYONE.. not just Garland.

That's the difference.

Manic - both parties act like a holes (as politicians do), I agree, but if you cannot see scale in terms of magnitude, but moreover the erosion of women's rights, gay rights and the increase of racism under this president which would and did not happen on Democrats watch then I don't know what to say to you.

Ps - i haven't had one reply by any trump supporter or defender in here (there must be some surely) challenging me on my assessment of the man. I can only conclude, as Leroy said in a different way, that they approve of a racist in order to own the libs.

markodaly · 28-06-2018 1:13pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think what this SCOTUS appointment, whomever it will be (and it will be a conservative) should let everyone know in the US that elections have serious consequences.

Sure it was all great fun, shouting lock her up, laughing at disabled reporters, calling the media the enemy, making Mexicans enemy No.1. So what if this guy had no experience and had never shown any social conscience. So what he he treated women badly, was clearly racist. Was it important that he had apparently little grasp of facts, or indeed any ideology apart from blaming everyone else.

Well, this shows that they do matter, and they can have very serious impacts. Not just on those Mexicans and Muslims, but this could very well lead to serious restrictions on gay marriage, on abortions. It could ramp up the freedom to own guns and so continue the disaster that that brings.

The voters in the US need to wake up and understand that this stuff is serious business, not some TV show. The mid-terms gives them that chance. Many Trump supporters used the line "HC, I just couldn't vote for her" line to excuse themselves from having to admit they accepted the racism etc. Well HC isn't running, and far from Trump being a newcomer, everyone is well aware of Trump and the GOP enabling of him.

There are of course those that will welcome restrictions on gay marriage, restrictions on abortions. But is that really what the US majority wants? To go backwards?

Maybe not backward, but when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and 33 out of 50 governorships, perhaps for once stop blaming a caricature of the American population and blame the Democrats for falling out of favor with the American people.

The Republicans are winning, while the Democrats are not. It is that simple. These people are not appointed nor anointed. They are elected.

everlast75 · 28-06-2018 1:23pm

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe not backward, but when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and 33 out of 50 governorships, perhaps for once stop blaming a caricature of the American population and blame the Democrats for falling out of favor with the American people.

The Republicans are winning, while the Democrats are not. It is that simple. These people are not appointed nor anointed. They are elected.

Nothing to do with the spouting of racist, hyperbolic populist lies which appeal to a certain portion of the electorate, reinforced and propagated by a powerful tv network company that bangs out propaganda 24/7?

Okay then

WinnyThePoo · 28-06-2018 1:31pm

markodaly wrote: »

Obama had a super majority.

That's not true whatsoever.

Leroy42 · 28-06-2018 1:42pm

markodaly wrote: »

Obama had a super majority.

For his whole admin? Don't think so.

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe not backward, but when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and 33 out of 50 governorships, perhaps for once stop blaming a caricature of the American population and blame the Democrats for falling out of favor with the American people.

The Republicans are winning, while the Democrats are not. It is that simple. These people are not appointed nor anointed. They are elected.

So the majority of the US clearly agrees with this agenda. I was trying to be nice and give the benefit of the doubt to all those that voted for Trump. But clearly they are happy being racist, backward thinking controlling zealots.

Fine, but they should admit that and stop pretending they are anything else was the point I was making. Is the US, for so many years seen as a leading nation in the world, turning back in on itself, afraid of change, driven by religious ideology and based on controlling those that don't agree with you?

This constant need to blame the Dems. "Oh, I only voted for Trump because of HC", its the same line. There is simply no comparison between how Trump has behaved and been enabled by the GOP and anything the DNC have done. Voters need to take responsibility, it is too easy to simply be lazy and blame someone else. This is their country, and they are letting it be taken over simply because the other side are what? If the dems are failing to get the message across, failing to connect with the voters, maybe thats because the voters don't like the message. Maybe they don't want to hear about access to healthcare, cutting back school gun massacres etc.

Land of the brave and home of the free?

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Comments