Jump to content

U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Just to jump back to the topic of whether or not Trump might be displaying some signs of Alzheimer's or dementia, I came across a solid video on the topic from David Pakman tonight...

 

I thought this was a pretty measured take and more than a bit convincing.

Eh, as a psychology professor I am massively unconvinced by this. The clip when he is 42 is way too small a sample of behavior to be able to say that his speech has changed more than the average since then, and the idea that his mood swings, irritability, lack of restraint, and fear of walking on slopes is any change from when he is younger is completely unsupported by what they say except for a subject comment about looking at YouTube videos. In everything I've read about Trump's life, there is little indication to me that he wasn't just as irritable and unrestrained when he was younger as he is now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

As was noted in comments elsewhere, breaking up the court, even if legally possible, still leaves the individual judges in federal office. Hence, same judgments, different courts.

 

Also, from comments elsewhere, what most conservatives fail to grasp in their rants about 'liberal judges' is that judges rule on points of law ('is this legal') not political bias.  Law 'trumps' bias. 

Oh you sweet, adorable summer child....

It's pretty clear that sections of the judicial are lashing back at trump for whatever reasons, and that some of the justifications for these rulings are shaky at best and mostly unprecedented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Oh you sweet, adorable summer child....

It's pretty clear that sections of the judicial are lashing back at trump for whatever reasons, and that some of the justifications for these rulings are shaky at best and mostly unprecedented.

care to expand on that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chief Justice Roberts doesn't appear to care for the Justice Department's logic in this case:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/27/1656715/--Oh-come-on-Supreme-Court-justices-incredulous-at-Justice-Department-immigration-argument?detail=facebook

From the article:

“Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” the chief justice said, adding that he had not been caught.

The form that people seeking American citizenship must complete, he added, asks whether the applicant had ever committed a criminal offense, however minor, even if there was no arrest.

“If I answer that question no, 20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all’?” Chief Justice Roberts asked.

Robert A. Parker, a Justice Department lawyer, said the offense had to be disclosed. Chief Justice Roberts seemed shocked. “Oh, come on,” he said.

...

Roberts added that it might not be a constitutional problem, but “it is certainly a problem of prosecutorial abuse.” Given the wide range of questions on the naturalization form, he observed,  the government’s position would mean that government officials would have “the opportunity to denaturalize anyone they want, because everybody is going to have a situation where they didn’t put in something like that.” “And then the government can decide,” Roberts warned, “we are going to denaturalize you for reasons other than what might appear on your naturalization form, or we’re not.” For Roberts, giving that “extraordinary power, which essentially is unlimited power,” to the government would be “troublesome.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Eh, as a psychology professor I am massively unconvinced by this. The clip when he is 42 is way too small a sample of behavior to be able to say that his speech has changed more than the average since then, and the idea that his mood swings, irritability, lack of restraint, and fear of walking on slopes is any change from when he is younger is completely unsupported by what they say except for a subject comment about looking at YouTube videos. In everything I've read about Trump's life, there is little indication to me that he wasn't just as irritable and unrestrained when he was younger as he is now. 

I would certainly defer to anyone with a psych background for sure. Just as a quick anecdotal aside, I watched a lot of Trump video during the run-up to the election. I was struck by how differently he came across in much of the older stuff. One in particular was an Oprah interview he did (I believe it was in the early 90's) where he came across as very measured and almost understated. I'm not 100% sure on the timeline, but I'm fairly sure we started to see this aggressive, brash, over the top Trump right around the time The Apprentice TV show started to gain steam. I think this was the same time period where he got involved in that feud with Rosie O'Donnell. So I have to imagine that much of this personality mask projection we see now was basically formed from that Apprentice persona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Chief Justice Roberts doesn't appear to care for the Justice Department's logic in this case:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/27/1656715/--Oh-come-on-Supreme-Court-justices-incredulous-at-Justice-Department-immigration-argument?detail=facebook

From the article:

 

 

This'll be a good early test of Gorsch. Roberts and Kennedy sound clearly opposed to DOJ here, but I don't know if Alito and Thomas are (they might be though). If there is that split in the conservative side, the question is where does Gorsch go? Is he all-the-way-gone conservative or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, r'hllor's reformed lobster said:

care to expand on that? 

Sure.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/why-courts-shouldnt-try-to-read-trumps-mind-214921

Quote

The courts tarred Trump with the brush of bigotry by citing statements that were not connected with the executive order at issue, but rather showed his general state of mind toward Muslims. Such introspection is precisely what Souter advised against in McCreary County v. ACLU: a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” Generally in courts, “evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that, on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” Absent evidence that the policy at question in fact was actually motivated by this anti-Muslim animus—and no, Giuliani’s nebulous comments do not count—the court’s opinion amounts to a psychological profile of a perplexing man who has taken contradictory policies on virtually every issue in public discourse.

https://lawfareblog.com/revolt-judges-what-happens-when-judiciary-doesnt-trust-presidents-oath

 

Quote

Moreover, Bybee makes a persuasive case that the the 1972 decision of Kleindienst v. Mandel—in which the Supreme Court held that courts should not look behind a facially valid purpose on the part of the political branches with respect to visa issuance policies—deserves, at a minimum, more attention than these district courts (and the 9th Circuit panel) are now giving it. Whether it truly controls, as he argues, may be a closer question given some other Supreme Court cases, but the ease with which the courts are waving it away suggests at a minimum that a large number of judges are getting well out ahead of settled law.

Quote

Our point here is not that the district judges are clearly wrong. It’s merely that they are not clearly right—on a whole lot of points. And in the face of real legal uncertainty as to the propriety of their actions, they are being astonishingly aggressive. It is not, after all, a normal thing for a single district judge to enjoin the President of the United States nationally from enforcing an action that the President contends is a national security necessity, much less an action taken pursuant to a broad grant of power by the legislature in an area where strong deference to the political branches is a powerful norm. And it really isn’t a normal thing for multiple district judges to do so in quick succession—and, moreover, to do so in the face of substantial uncertainty as to the actual parameters of the constitutional and statutory law they are invoking and powerful arguments that they are exceeding their own authority.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

ah, cool, gotcha. thought you were referring specifically to the sancturary city thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fez said:

This'll be a good early test of Gorsch. Roberts and Kennedy sound clearly opposed to DOJ here, but I don't know if Alito and Thomas are (they might be though). If there is that split in the conservative side, the question is where does Gorsch go? Is he all-the-way-gone conservative or not?

How would Gorsuch voting in favor of the position taken by the Obama/Trump administrations demonstrate that he is an "all-the-way-gone conservative"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2017 at 9:54 AM, Mexal said:

Well, the official autopsy will be coming tomorrow though that doesn't really make a difference. The republicans did an autopsy report and then ignored every single thing in it yet still won. But ignoring that, everything I've heard from Dem leadership, about building a message, connecting with working class, fighting in all elections, building excitement and grassroots campaigns, seems to be in line with what they need to do. You can't completely change the policies that are consistent with their values, especially when ~3 million more people voted for you then the guy who won but they can and will tailor their message to focus more on economic populism which is what appeals to white, working class voters. Ellison and Perez are a pretty good team for this at a national level. 2018 will be a big test.

 

well this is a good start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the source dubious, yet it seems like something Trump would do:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/donald-trump-pull-feds-out-k-12-education/

Can other posters here confirm this?  Could this executive order be defeated by the courts?

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to start pulling the federal government out of K-12 education, following through on a campaign promise to return school control to state and local officials.

The order, dubbed the “Education Federalism Executive Order,” will launch a 300-day review of Obama-era regulations and guidance for school districts and directs Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to modify or repeal measures she deems an overreach by the federal government.

“For too long the government has imposed its will on state and local governments. The result has been education that spends more and achieves far, far, far less,” Mr. Trump said. “My administration has been working to reverse this federal power grab and give power back to families, cities [and] states — give power back to localities.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I find the source dubious, yet it seems like something Trump would do:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/donald-trump-pull-feds-out-k-12-education/

Can other posters here confirm this?  Could this executive order be defeated by the courts?

 

 

Meh.  From the text of the order it is more signaling than anything - demonstrating to a certain constituency that he wants to review common core standards (which, on its face, is entirely reasonable).  There's very little Devos can do - she's limited by the ESSA, which is repeatedly mentioned in the order in a "oh yeah, we gotta abide by this" way.  As many EOs are, it's more a statement of intentions than having any real affect on policy.  

On the courts discussion - the Obama chickens are coming home to roost with Trump.  This is the new SOP - if you're a political activist and you don't like something, you go judge shopping.  That's what the GOP did with basically all aspects of the ACA, the DREAM Act, and even his attempt to extend overtime pay.  What's good for the goose...

I will say anyone claiming judges are basing their decisions on the "law" are entirely naive.  The judges aren't in some hyperbaric chamber that come out to make purely legal decisions.  Judges are liberal, moderate, conservative, and everything in between.  Political activists and interest groups know which ones to target accordingly to impose an injunction.  Is this how our system is supposed to work?  No, and it's a real concern  that a single judge increasingly grinds policy to a halt.  But that's the ass backwards world we live in these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tempra said:

How would Gorsuch voting in favor of the position taken by the Obama/Trump administrations demonstrate that he is an "all-the-way-gone conservative"?

The Obama administration was wrong too. The federal argument is a massive authoritarian power grab, enabling them to strip citizenship of anyone naturalized at any time if they feel like it. There's a reason there's already at least 6 votes against them at SCOTUS; with only a possibility that the two most conservative members will support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fez said:

The Obama administration was wrong too. The federal argument is a massive authoritarian power grab, enabling them to strip citizenship of anyone naturalized at any time if they feel like it. There's a reason there's already at least 6 votes against them at SCOTUS; with only a possibility that the two most conservative members will support it.

The Obama/Trump administrations may very well be wrong but i don't see how this case is a bellwether on Gorsuch.  Was the district judge that denaturalized Maslenjak an "all-the-way-gone conservative"? The circuit judges that unanimously affirmed the district court's order? The other circuit judges that didn't grant an en banc review of the panel's opinion? The line attorneys that sought denaturalization? The appellate lawyers? The SG's office that defended the denaturalization at SCOTUS? All these actions occurred under Democratic and Republican administrations and appointees.

Legal decisions, particularly ones that make it to the Supreme Court, are generally very complex and cannot easily be boiled down to liberal vs conservative positions (with maybe a handful of exceptions like abortion).  Even if you could, I am not sure how citizenship stripping would fall on the conservative side, which often eschews expansive powers of the federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tempra said:

The Obama/Trump administrations may very well be wrong but i don't see how this case is a bellwether on Gorsuch.  Was the district judge that denaturalized Maslenjak an "all-the-way-gone conservative"? The circuit judges that unanimously affirmed the district court's order? The other circuit judges that didn't grant an en banc review of the panel's opinion? The line attorneys that sought denaturalization? The appellate lawyers? The SG's office that defended the denaturalization at SCOTUS? All these actions occurred under Democratic and Republican administrations and appointees.

Legal decisions, particularly ones that make it to the Supreme Court, are generally very complex and cannot easily be boiled down to liberal vs conservative positions (with maybe a handful of exceptions like abortion).  Even if you could, I am not sure how citizenship stripping would fall on the conservative side, which often eschews expansive powers of the federal government.

Yep. Either extremely conservative or simply doing their job (Federal lawyers don't get to decide the positions they have to argue). Or, in the case of the other circuit judges, likely overworked and unwilling to get involved on something they didn't deem important enough; en banc reviews are extremely rare.

And you're wrong; the legal decisions that SCOTUS reviews that are extremely complex and don't have neat partisan splits are almost always unanimous rulings; and last term 54% of their rulings were unanimous. But when that's not the case, the splits are almost always the same, following the same partisan lines. When Scalia was alive it was 5-4 in either direction depending on Kennedy, or 6-3 if Roberts also went left (and rarely 5-4 with Roberts going left); and sometimes 8-1 when Thomas was being difficult. When there were 7-2 decisions it was almost always a compromise ruling that Roberts crafted, and it'd almost always be some combo of Thomas, Alito, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor who'd be objecting (aka the two most liberal and two most conservative judges; and those most likely to objec to a compromise, depending on what it was)

In general, the only time things got weird was 4th amendment cases, where sometimes you'd get things like Scalia and Breyer switching places. And one time there was a 5-4 decision where Thomas sided with the liberals; but that was a very esoteric case about maritime law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The AHCA is Still Dead. Again.

What is dead may never die. 

Except for this one time of course. Damn those Iron Islanders really need to get their shit together, or they'll never have the healthcare they want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...