US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

[Commodore]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So what avenue does Trump take since he's required by law to appoint a Democrat who needs to be confirmed by a Republican Senate?

I think he can't appoint another Republican, but technically doesn't have to be a Democrat

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The original guidance was a joint statement from DoJ and DoE. DoJ would never issue statements on education policy. Is there a mechanism to challenge the withdrawal of the guidance on the basis that it has nothing to do with education policy so the reason for withdrawal is has no legitimacy?

The revised guidance is also a joint letter from the DoJ and DoE (that's why there are speculations about what Secretary DeVos thought of the matter) so no, there is no mechanism for challenging it.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Can you imagine how fucking frustrating it would be to have to babysit this asshole? You couldn't pay me enough.

 

Parenting Your Toddler President

The Terrible Seventies don’t have to be terrible! Try these six great tips.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/low_concept/2017/02/parenting_your_toddler_president.html

[The Anti-Targ]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The revised guidance is also a joint letter from the DoJ and DoE (that's why there are speculations about what Secretary DeVos thought of the matter) so no, there is no mechanism for challenging it.

That's irrelevant. Obviously guidance issued jointly by 2 or more govt departments has to be jointly withdrawn by the same. But if the policy rationale for withdrawing the guidance is due regard to state and local input into education policy, when this is clearly not an education policy issue, then the basis for withdrawal is not legitimate. And therefore if there are mechanisms to challenge illegitimate policy justification (such as judicial review) then it's open to such challenge.

What was the official policy rationale for the Obama guidance? Unless the policy rationale for withdrawing addresses the original policy rationale for issuing the guidance then the withdrawal has no standing.

A policy rationale for withdrawing the guidance could be that this administration's bathroom policy is that bathrooms are designed based on physical functionality not on gender identity, (male bathrooms have urinals, female bathrooms only have toilet cubicles). Therefore you use the bathroom for which you are anatomically suited, not to which you are psychologically aligned. That at least is a policy rationale which directly addresses the matter at hand.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

The landscape becomes more complicated when we discover that the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act was also attached to the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act as a rider. This third piece of the ACA puzzle encompasses major student-loan reforms, including the expansion of Pell grants as well as the implementation of President Barack Obama’s plan for eliminating private banks from the federal student aid program, effectively reducing student loan debt while also cutting the deficit by billions.

If the Republicans repeal rather than amend the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act via reconciliation, all those provisions will effectively be killed. The Medicare Part D doughnut hole will reopen, forcing seniors to pay for prescriptions out-of-pocket or to go without. Student loan reforms will disappear, magnifying student loan debt. The subsidies for insurance premiums will disappear too, as will full reimbursements to doctors for Medicare patients.

 

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/22/republicans-finally-show-their-hand-on-obamacare-repeal-could-be-worse-but-still-a-total-mess/

Republicans finally show their hand on Obamacare repeal: It could be worse but it’s still a total mess
Republicans unveil a "repeal and repair" plan that will make a decent system worse and should energize Democrats

[Dr. Pepper]

It's almost completely unbelievable that Jeff Sessions' first act as AG is to bully some of the most vulnerable children.  

[The Anti-Targ]

24 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's almost completely unbelievable that Jeff Sessions' first act as AG is to bully some of the most vulnerable children.  

Is it unbelievable though? What is unbelievable is that your system let him do it.

Edit: Also wondering when was the last time the rights of a minority have been taken away by the federal govt? State govts are doing it, or trying to do it, all the time, but the feds?

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

Is it unbelievable though? What is unbelievable is that your system let him do it.

True, not exactly unbelievable.  I mean to just express extreme shock.  It's hard to understand how a person can decide that harming children as a first order of business is ok.  

I'll never truly grasp exactly how horrible the average conservative is.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Edit: Also wondering when was the last time the rights of a minority have been taken away by the federal govt? State govts are doing it, or trying to do it, all the time, but the feds?

Patriot Act was the big one. That wasn't all that long ago. I'm sure there were more recent examples.

[The Anti-Targ]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Patriot Act was the big one. That wasn't all that long ago. I'm sure there were more recent examples.

But wasn't that a wholesale removal of rights, not specifically targeted as a single minority? If deemed truly necessary I have no problem with the govt removing or restricting rights for all people.

We have a transwoman working in my govt department. I assume she uses the women's bathroom, but I don't know for sure since I tend not to monitor people's bathroom activities, and she works on a different floor. We don't have any gender neutral bathrooms.  

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Trump has signed as many bills into effect as Obama has in his first few days. Per 538, Trump is right on pace with basically everyone else. And given that congress simply has to fund these things and that does not require anything more than a simple majority, there's no good indication that he won't get these DHS fundings if he wants them (as they require no new laws, merely budget). 

The 538 "analysis" entirely misses the point that the Trump administration is decidedly behind even formulating any major legislative initiative.  The idea is to capitalize on the honeymoon period by identifying a president's priorities and then beginning the legislative process - which in terms of effecting significant policy change can often take awhile.  For example, the Bush Tax Cuts and No Child Left Behind did not receive final passage until Summer 2001, but they were introduced by Bush in the first weeks of his presidency.

As to the bolded, not sure what you're getting at - passing a new budget IS a new law by definition, even CRs.  And while sure the GOP can use reconciliation in that case, the Dems only need to pick off three Republicans in the Senate.  I think he WOULD get the funding for the increases described in the DHS memos I quoted (not incidentally, I don't think increasing employment at those levels is very controversial), but he will encounter significant difficulties putting together a minimum winning coalition for any comprehensive immigration reform.

[Martell Spy]

Woman with dying husband confronts Tom Cotton: "What kind of insurance do you have?"

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/22/14704812/tom-cotton-town-hall-angry-obamacare-insurance

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

 

Parenting Your Toddler President

The Terrible Seventies don’t have to be terrible! Try these six great tips.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/low_concept/2017/02/parenting_your_toddler_president.html

Well, I guess the Republican Party has found a hill to fight on.

Now, I hope they are made to die upon it. I hope people come down on them like a ton of bricks over this. They deserve it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But wasn't that a wholesale removal of rights, not specifically targeted as a single minority? If deemed truly necessary I have no problem with the govt removing or restricting rights for all people.

We have a transwoman working in my govt department. I assume she uses the women's bathroom, but I don't know for sure since I tend not to monitor people's bathroom activities, and she works on a different floor. We don't have any gender neutral bathrooms.  

Ah yes, I missed the minority part. Yeah, I think you're right, this sort of federal removal of rights probably hasn't happened for decades. I can't think of an example anyway.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's irrelevant. Obviously guidance issued jointly by 2 or more govt departments has to be jointly withdrawn by the same. But if the policy rationale for withdrawing the guidance is due regard to state and local input into education policy, when this is clearly not an education policy issue, then the basis for withdrawal is not legitimate. And therefore if there are mechanisms to challenge illegitimate policy justification (such as judicial review) then it's open to such challenge.

What was the official policy rationale for the Obama guidance? Unless the policy rationale for withdrawing addresses the original policy rationale for issuing the guidance then the withdrawal has no standing.

A policy rationale for withdrawing the guidance could be that this administration's bathroom policy is that bathrooms are designed based on physical functionality not on gender identity, (male bathrooms have urinals, female bathrooms only have toilet cubicles). Therefore you use the bathroom for which you are anatomically suited, not to which you are psychologically aligned. That at least is a policy rationale which directly addresses the matter at hand.

I have not looked into this in detail, but I'm about 99% sure that the policy rationale is complete fluff. That is, the executive branch can withdraw any regulation it chooses without even stating a policy rationale and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Imposing a new regulation can be subject to judicial review, but I've never heard of the removal of one being subject to the same: it would take breathtaking judicial overreach to argue that the non-existence of a specific regulation is unconstitutional (although of course the Supreme Court can make a ruling that results in the same effects).

[Martell Spy]

From Bottles of Vodka to Buckets of Bones, Colbert Walks Us Through Republican Health Care

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/02/23/_watch_colbert_explore_republican_home_remedies.html

[DireWolfSpirit]

12 hours ago, S John said:

I am worried about the summer both for heat and mosquitoes.  There is a creek behind my house and the mosquitoes make my yard uninhabitable for about 50% of the year even if it wasn't so brutally hot as to make being outdoors miserable to begin with.  I've seen several of the blood-sucking little fuckers even over the cooler months.  

There was a period of 2 days in January where the temperature ventured below freezing in central Tx and other than those two day's it has pretty much been highs in the 70's and 80's since the temperature came down out of the 90's and 100's at the end of September.  And last year was also basically sans-winter as well.  It's going to be 87 degrees today, 88 tomorrow... in February.  I was outside a few minutes ago and trees are blooming and some of the wildflowers are starting to come up, pretty much a whole month early.  

I think about that sort of thing from time to time since it hasn't been cold enough down here in 2 years to properly wipe out the mosquitoes.  Wouldn't take much for a mosquito borne illness to really get out of hand.

Place some bat houses around your property or just research ways to attract bats to your property. Seriously bats are mosquito eating machines. I had a house on a Michigan river and the bats would mow down mosquito every dusk, I loved seeing them on sorties.

OT Trump just rescinded an EPA rule that was designed to protect streams and wetlands from polluting activity like fracking and mining.

[Martell Spy]

A Russian newspaper editor explains how Putin made Trump his puppet
“They consider him a stupid, unstrategic politician.”

http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/2/22/14697718/donald-trump-putin-russia-kremlin-hillary-clinton

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

I have not looked into this in detail, but I'm about 99% sure that the policy rationale is complete fluff. That is, the executive branch can withdraw any regulation it chooses without even stating a policy rationale and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Imposing a new regulation can be subject to judicial review, but I've never heard of the removal of one being subject to the same: it would take breathtaking judicial overreach to argue that the non-existence of a specific regulation is unconstitutional (although of course the Supreme Court can make a ruling that results in the same effects).

Removal of a regulation should be able to be judicially reviewed if said removal leads to infringement of rights. It's not unlike the supreme court ruling that gay marriage is constitutionally protected. A state cannot pass a law banning gay marriage. If, for instance the order of things was Obama passed a regulation saying gay marriage is legal in all states, people grumbled about it but never took it to the supreme court. Trump comes in, overturns the federal regulation legalising gay marriage, states start passing laws banning gay marriage, these laws are challenged and the supreme court rules that gay marriage is constitutionally protected. Thus the Supreme court, in effect overturns the revocation of the Obama regulation and reinstitutes it, only this time as a constitutional court ruling which can't be legislatively overturned. It requires the intermediate step of at least one state passing a law banning gay marriage which infringes on a person's rights, but the outcome is the court overriding the decision of the president to remove a regulation.

So removal of a regulation that affirms a constitutional right can be judicially overturned. But you are possibly right that said removal can't be directly challenged but must wait until a rights infringing law is passed at the state level.

It will be interesting to see what happens through the courts if a state passes a law that is the exact opposite of the Obama regulation.

Edit: Doing a bit of Googling it seems that judicial review of deregulation became a thing when Reagan went on his big deregulation crusade and a bunch of people didn't want certain regulations rescinded.

Of course the Obama admin DoJ/DoE edict was perhaps not a regulation in the strict sense. So maybe it's not subject to the same judicial examination as actual regulations.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

So it looks like Trump's new travel ban EO will be delayed again until next week. I'm curious if anyone in this administration realizes that constantly delaying it undercuts their argument that it was so necessary to do it immediately to keep Americans safe?