U.S. Politics: Courting Trump

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

He is not wrong.

No, he's actually pretty wrong. You can disagree with the court, but you don't do that via extralegal means. This is kind of a major cornerstone of the US legal system, actually.

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If you ignore all of the noise surrounding this order, there is an interesting issue at the heart of this: who has the final say on whether a visa is revoked or temporarily suspended for reasons of national security?

The courts have the final say, as they do in all matters of law and policy as to whether something is constitutional or not. This isn't up for debate.

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If the executive branch claims that it cannot be certain that all entrants from specific regions do not pose a threat, does that entitle it to bar them entirely or is it required to prove to the judicial branch that barring them does not violate the myriad of laws that prevent action against groups of citizens?

Depriving anyone of their constitutional rights requires exigent circumstances that are well-established. This isn't hard. And the default is 'it is not allowed to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights, especially in a broad, untargeted way'. 

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's an interesting question and if the judicial branch claims that it has the final say, it will effectively have used Trump's overreach to make a massive power grab for itself in which case the legislative branch may have to respond because the alternative is probably a Jacksonian standoff.

The judicial branch does have the final say. Again, this isn't up for debate. The judicial branch has always had the final say. If you don't understand that, you basically do not understand the entire US legal system. Now, you can choose to change that via amending the constitution, and that's an option - but the judicial branch has always had final say on whether or not a law is legal and constitutional; that is almost the entire point of that branch. 

[Fragile Bird]

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

He is not wrong. If you ignore all of the noise surrounding this order, there is an interesting issue at the heart of this: who has the final say on whether a visa is revoked or temporarily suspended for reasons of national security? If the executive branch claims that it cannot be certain that all entrants from specific regions do not pose a threat, does that entitle it to bar them entirely or is it required to prove to the judicial branch that barring them does not violate the myriad of laws that prevent action against groups of citizens? It's an interesting question and if the judicial branch claims that it has the final say, it will effectively have used Trump's overreach to make a massive power grab for itself in which case the legislative branch may have to respond because the alternative is probably a Jacksonian standoff.

I am speechless that you could say that.

There's nothing wrong with saying you disagree with a court decision. There is something very wrong with suggesting that there should be 'ramifications' for a court decision.

The court did not claim it had the final say. The only court that has the final say is the USSC, and their decisions can be effectively overridden by changing whatever was wrong with the law, or executive order, to conform to the constitution. What they did say is that they have the power to review decisions. That's what courts do. They asked for evidence and the government offered none.  You do know that there are ways even confidential information can be presented to a court, don't you?

 

[Kalbear]

Also, on the Chaffetz Astroturf thing  - keep in mind that Utah is deeply hating on Trump, and is as suspicious of Trump as they were Clinton. They want his ethics breaches investigated, and Chaffetz is the lead on the ethics committee. They simply want him to do what he said he'd do with respect to Clinton, and I think that this has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican and everything to do with being Utahn. 

[The guy from the Vale]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, on the Chaffetz Astroturf thing  - keep in mind that Utah is deeply hating on Trump, and is as suspicious of Trump as they were Clinton. They want his ethics breaches investigated, and Chaffetz is the lead on the ethics committee. They simply want him to do what he said he'd do with respect to Clinton, and I think that this has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican and everything to do with being Utahn. 

It should have everything to do with being American, or human. But oh well, partisanship... 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Altherion,

I wish everyone would adopt my naming covention for Andrew "the Genocide" Jackson.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

It should have everything to do with being American, or human. But oh well, partisanship... 

Oddly, Utah is one of the least partisan places around; they tend to be pretty staunchly Republican, but as this election shows they were pretty much the only set of Republicans who were willing to put ethics in front of partisanship. Chaffetz wasn't, of course, but the Utahn were.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

I wish everyone would adopt my naming covention for Andrew "the Genocide" Jackson.

Sounds too wrestlery

[Seli]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Daniel Abraham posted this link from someone stopped by the not-a-Muslim travel ban. Have you seen it?

I've come across it before. I can't imagine the JPL -or any other big companies that probably have faced similar incidents- being very happy at this breach of security/confidentiality.

 

ETA: A piece in the Atlantic exploring what is up in Utah

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/inside-the-utah-resistance/516303/

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

My point was that a deeper Democrat bench shouldn't be assumed to be something that would have prevented Trump winning.

The margins in the swing states were razor thin.  I think it's safe to assume that even a moderately more electable candidate wold've beaten Trump simply based on added turnout alone.

 

Quote

And also, of course, that Trump's win gets presented as being the fault of the Democrats for not stopping him, but the Republicans have their share of that too.

Sure.  But that fact is completely irrelevant when you are talking about what the democrats should do, what they did wrong, and what their election strategies should be.

Discussion of one does not imply exclusion of the other.  But the DNC has no control over what the GOP does, so it would be....  Odd...  To talk about that while discussing the DNC, don't you think?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

The judicial branch does have the final say. Again, this isn't up for debate. The judicial branch has always had the final say. If you don't understand that, you basically do not understand the entire US legal system. 

 

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

I am speechless that you could say that.

Thanks for clearing that up guys. I too sit here stunned at the suggestion that it is okay to threaten the judiciary with unspecified "ramifications" and to suggest they do not have the final say on what the law means.

The usual American norm to a judicial decision you don't like is to complain about the legal reasoning. Even complaining about "legislating from the bench" is within usual American political norms.

Threatening unspecified "ramifications" is something else.

[Altherion]

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, he's actually pretty wrong. You can disagree with the court, but you don't do that via extralegal means. This is kind of a major cornerstone of the US legal system, actually.

Of course. I don't see anywhere in the original post about anything extralegal. I believe the Congressman referred to the idea that the legislative and executive branches working together have the legal authority to overrule the judicial branch in a variety of ways. If the latter grabs too much power, they are fully justified in doing so. For example, it has happened in the past that Congress has narrowed the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

51 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The courts have the final say, as they do in all matters of law and policy as to whether something is constitutional or not. This isn't up for debate.

41 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am speechless that you could say that.

There's nothing wrong with saying you disagree with a court decision. There is something very wrong with suggesting that there should be 'ramifications' for a court decision.

The court did not claim it had the final say. The only court that has the final say is the USSC, and their decisions can be effectively overridden by changing whatever was wrong with the law, or executive order, to conform to the constitution. What they did say is that they have the power to review decisions. That's what courts do.

In fact, it is up for debate that this is what courts do. Judicial review as currently implemented is not specified in the Constitution. It's based entirely on the interpretation of John Marshall and thus the argument for its authority is completely circular: the Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to mean that it has the final say. A variety of both founders and later American titans have argued that this is not a good idea. For example, here is Thomas Jefferson:

Quote

You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare juristictionem,"  and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

For a later example, here is Abraham Lincoln:

Quote

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

The judicial branch has always had the final say. If you don't understand that, you basically do not understand the entire US legal system. Now, you can choose to change that via amending the constitution, and that's an option - but the judicial branch has always had final say on whether or not a law is legal and constitutional; that is almost the entire point of that branch.

The judicial branch has usually had the final say. I've already mentioned the limitations on jurisdiction above. In addition, the executive branch can refuse to enforce the decision of the court. As Lincoln says just above the portion I've quoted, the point of the judiciary is to resolve conflicts between litigants. Judicial review is something that it has seized for itself and has been allowed to keep as long as the other two branches believe it to be convenient. If the judges do indeed turn into tyrants (as both Jefferson and Lincoln feared), the executive and legislative branches have the means to legally retaliate.

[Zorral]

For the record -- both my hair stylist and I believed it was way too easy for little hands to win.

Why, asked our friends after it happened.

Because, responded my hair stylist, we talk to people who aren't only each other, which you don't do. And we travel around the country.  And we listen to other people talk who aren 't you.

Hair stylist called it way back from the gitgo he announced.  We did our best, but it wasn't enough to stop it.  Certainly where she lives. And certainly not with my relatives, etc.

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

Of course. I don't see anywhere in the original post about anything extralegal. I believe the Congressman referred to the idea that the legislative and executive branches working together have the legal authority to overrule the judicial branch in a variety of ways. If the latter grabs too much power, they are fully justified in doing so. For example, it has happened in the past that Congress has narrowed the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

The extralegal part comes from the threat to impose some kind of ramifications, which are, in fact, extralegal. What you mentioned is not remotely what the congressman was talking about. 

Just now, Altherion said:

In fact, it is up for debate that this is what courts do. Judicial review as currently implemented is not specified in the Constitution. It's based entirely on the interpretation of John Marshall and thus the argument for its authority is completely circular: the Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to mean that it has the final say. A variety of both founders and later American titans have argued that this is not a good idea. For example, here is Thomas Jefferson:

For a later example, here is Abraham Lincoln:

Yes, and both are 150 years old and are ignored by the literal mountains of precedent in our legal system. You'll note that Lincoln had to fight a civil war to get his point across; I agree that this is a possibility, and I also believe that to be a really shitty outcome. 

Just now, Altherion said:

 

The judicial branch has usually had the final say. I've already mentioned the limitations on jurisdiction above. In addition, the executive branch can refuse to enforce the decision of the court. As Lincoln says just above the portion I've quoted, the point of the judiciary is to resolve conflicts between litigants. Judicial review is something that it has seized for itself and has been allowed to keep as long as the other two branches believe it to be convenient. If the judges do indeed turn into tyrants (as both Jefferson and Lincoln feared), the executive and legislative branches have the means to legally retaliate.

If the executive branch refused to enforce the decision that would cause a constitutional crisis. When you have to bring up basis points that occurred literally 200 years ago as your goal for enforcing your position, chances are pretty good that you're not going to be on the right side of the current legal system. 

I mean, you can also say that nothing is stopping the military from seizing control and the only reason they do so is because they find it convenient to let the executive branch give them orders. That's equally true, has equal precedent, and is equally horrifying to the existent rule of law and systems that the US has in place. If you're claiming that because things like insurrection and impeachment and civil wars do happen that it is only 'usually' that justices have the rights I described, well, you're right but also not particularly useful to having a conversation. 

[IamMe90]

14 minutes ago, Altherion said:

snip

I like how you're worried about the judicial branch being "tyrants" instead of, you know, the head of the executive that's acting like a dictator in the making. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

snip

I think what you generally fail to understand here is that American political and legal norms have developed a certain way, despite what the original constitution might have meant.

Violation of those norms are likely to be seen as an overreach of power. And rightly so. Trump or his cronies simply can't turn these things over on a whim.

For instance, you can dispute that the courts are the final  arbitrators of what the law means. But, we have basically followed that norm for over 200 years and agreed to it. Messing with it, would be seen as a violation of an American political norm and would be seen as a major over reach by the executive branch.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

I wish everyone would adopt my naming covention for Andrew "the Genocide" Jackson.

 

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Sounds too wrestlery

I think a better moniker would be Andrew ''Trail of Tears" Jackson as that is where the genocide you are alluding to occurred, did it not?  Then just say it as the Trail of Tears is a known discrete event, while genocide could mean anything.  It's just too vague.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

I wish everyone would adopt my naming covention for Andrew "the Genocide" Jackson.

Alright, although it's kind of hard to do with adjectives. That is, what would you do with "Jacksonian"?

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The extralegal part comes from the threat to impose some kind of ramifications, which are, in fact, extralegal. What you mentioned is not remotely what the congressman was talking about.

Again, I have not heard the Congressman so I'm just going by what is in the post. The ramifications could certainly be limitation on the court's jurisdiction.

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, and both are 150 years old and are ignored by the literal mountains of precedent in our legal system. You'll note that Lincoln had to fight a civil war to get his point across; I agree that this is a possibility, and I also believe that to be a really shitty outcome.

If the executive branch refused to enforce the decision that would cause a constitutional crisis. When you have to bring up basis points that occurred literally 200 years ago as your goal for enforcing your position, chances are pretty good that you're not going to be on the right side of the current legal system.

I completely agree with you regarding the undesirability of such an outcome... but precedent doesn't mean much when it comes in completely different circumstances. Paradoxically, the President closest to Donald Trump is most likely Andrew "the Genocide" Jackson (despite the fact that the two are separated by nearly two centuries).

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I mean, you can also say that nothing is stopping the military from seizing control and the only reason they do so is because they find it convenient to let the executive branch give them orders. That's equally true, has equal precedent, and is equally horrifying to the existent rule of law and systems that the US has in place. If you're claiming that because things like insurrection and impeachment and civil wars do happen that it is only 'usually' that justices have the rights I described, well, you're right but also not particularly useful to having a conversation.

I don't think it has equal precedent: I can't think of a single instance in American history wherein the military seized control. Likewise, none of the Founders argued that the military should be able to seize control whereas you can read Jefferson's argument for refusal to enforce judicial rulings on the page I linked above and it has happened in the US without any negative repercussions for the executive branch.

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think what you generally fail to understand here is that American political and legal norms have developed a certain way, despite what the original constitution might have meant.

Violation of those norms are likely to be seen as an overreach of power. And rightly so. Trump or his cronies simply can't turn these things over on a whim.

For instance, you can dispute that the courts are the final arbitrates of what the law means. But, we have basically followed that norm for over 200 years and agreed to it. Messing with it, would be seen as a violation of an American political norm and would be seen as a major over reach by the executive branch.

There is no doubt that Trump's actions will be seen as executive overreach by some people -- they had already declared their opinions on these actions during the campaign based on Trump's promises. However, there is a substantial number of people who voted for him because of these promises. If the establishment manages to restrain Trump or if Trump betrays them of his own volition, all that will happen is that these people will become even more angry than they currently are... and the next demagogue is not guaranteed to be an aristocrat like Trump and thus have the latter's reasons for mostly preserving the status quo.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

There is no doubt that Trump's actions will be seen as executive overreach by some people -- they had already declared their opinions on these actions during the campaign based on Trump's promises. However, there is a substantial number of people who voted for him because of these promises. If the establishment manages to restrain Trump or if Trump betrays them of his own volition, all that will happen is that these people will become even more angry than they currently are... and the next demagogue is not guaranteed to be an aristocrat like Trump and thus have the latter's reasons for mostly preserving the status quo.

See I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. This isn't about Trump breaking some promise on some particular policy. It's about him breaking a rule that guides how American democracy is supposed to operate or has generally operated in the past. It's one thing for him to try to limit immigration. It's quite another for him to ignore the courts. And it has been well understood, by both sides, that presidents are not supposed to ignore courts or threaten them with unspecified "ramifications" through their supporters, when they don't like a court's decisions. This just isn't about Trump failing to implement a particular policy. It's about him ignoring the process of making laws or policy.

And despite what Trump's supporters may or may not think, his actions would be beyond the norms of American politics, and may even trouble some Trump supporters or nominal supporters. Even  some conservatives would have to see the threat Trump's actions would pose to American democracy. And if they were honest, would have to balk .And then of course, you have the people that disdain Trump to begin with, of which there are many, and who don't particularly care what Trump's most ardent supporters might think.

[Altherion]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

See I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. This isn't about Trump breaking some promise on some particular policy. It's about him breaking a rule that guides how American democracy is supposed to operate or has generally operated in the past. It's one thing for him to try to limit immigration. It's quite another for him to ignore the courts. And it has been well understood, by both sides, that presidents are not supposed to ignore courts or threaten them with unspecified "ramifications" through their supporters, when they don't like court's decisions. This just isn't about Trump failing to implement a particular policy. It's about him ignoring the process of making laws or policy

And if his supporters just causally dismiss that process, then we are in serious trouble. 

Of course we are in serious trouble -- that was obvious as early as last June (when it became clear that Trump won the Republican primary). Again, Trump's attitude towards the judiciary was pretty clear during the campaign and people voted for him anyway. The manner in which American democracy has generally operated in the recent past has screwed over a substantial number of Americans who are now quite angry. The greater part of Trump's appeal came precisely from the fact that he was breaking many of the conventions and promised much of the same should he be elected. If you look at the comments on Trump-friendly sites, many of his supporters don't just casually dismiss your vaunted process -- they welcome Trump's actions and encourage him to be even bolder.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

Of course we are in serious trouble -- that was obvious as early as last June (when it became clear that Trump won the Republican primary). Again, Trump's attitude towards the judiciary was pretty clear during the campaign and people voted for him anyway. The manner in which American democracy has generally operated in the recent past has screwed over a substantial number of Americans who are now quite angry. The greater part of Trump's appeal came precisely from the fact that he was breaking many of the conventions and promised much of the same should he be elected. If you look at the comments on Trump-friendly sites, many of his supporters don't just casually dismiss your vaunted process -- they welcome Trump's actions and encourage him to be even bolder.

Well it's nice to know that many of his supporters are authoritarians. My "vaunted process" has been understood, for awhile, as an important check on the exercise of arbitrary power in the US.

Whatever Trump supporters may support, there are plenty of people in this country that don't support him. And if Trump breaks "my vaunted process" I can't not help but think many of them would raise all hell about it. And they should. And even a few Republicans that do care democracy in our country might join in, having enough of Trump's antics.

And let me just add: People that voted for Trump because of economic reasons (unless they are rich or well off) were being foolish and naive. 

It would have made sense to vote for Trump if you wanted a tax cut. It was effing moronic to vote for Trump cause you were lookin for a proletarian hero.