Trumps Presidency 2025

[chasfh]

19 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

 

LOL, YOU APPOINTED THESE PEOPLE SIR!

Which is why he didn't characterize them as an embarrassment to himself, because you can't embarrass the embarrassless. 

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Good. Let him burn as many bridges as he can. It won't be the last decision this court has to make that affects him, but he's too stupid to think strategically - which is something to be thankful for.

Honestly, I don't think that makes a difference either way, because he can destroy the country with or without strategy.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[buddha]

I guess we'll have to switch the narrative on the whole "supreme court is in the bag for trump" thing now...

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

what's interesting here is that logically, he is making the exact argument that would also defeat Citizen's United. Congress has the power to change corporate law and basically eliminate current corporate structure as a legal entity in the US and every US corporation as currently constituted with it, but the court ruled Congress does not have the power to regulate a subset of that entity's existence - i.e. political contributions. Exact same argument. Verrrrry interesteenk!

Edited 14 hours ago by gehringer_2

[TJ Rollercoaster]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

I guess we'll have to switch the narrative on the whole "supreme court is in the bag for trump" thing now...

Until they gut the Voting Rights Act

[Edman85]

42 minutes ago, buddha said:

I guess we'll have to switch the narrative on the whole "supreme court is in the bag for trump" thing now...

Except Trump vs. USA is what is allowing him to do whatever the hell he wants without criminal consequences...

[buddha]

31 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

what's interesting here is that logically, he is making the exact argument that would also defeat Citizen's United. Congress has the power to change corporate law and basically eliminate current corporate structure as a legal entity in the US and every US corporation as currently constituted with it, but the court ruled Congress does not have the power to regulate a subset of that entity's existence - i.e. political contributions. Exact same argument. Verrrrry interesteenk!

in citizens united the court built on a previous ruling that money = speech in the context of political contributions, so congress (or the states) couldnt regulate citizens' political speech by telling them what amounts they could contribute to their favored political candidate.  in the same way that congress cant pass a law that says G2 cant stand outside and tell everyone how much he loves president trump.  not that it would ever need to pass such a law.

i dislike citizens united very much, but i dont think this ruling has anything to do with it.  but as usual, i could be wrong.

this is a major questions doctrine/ieepa/taxing power/statutory interpretation question.  the early commentary is interesting in that it talks about the roberts court's take on restricting congress' ability to delegate its powers to the executive, which would be a wonderful thing if congress would actually go back to doing its job.

sarah isgur has a comment on it in the times from back in december that people are pointing to as prescient, if youre interested.

[buddha]

Just now, Edman85 said:

Except Trump vs. USA is what is allowing him to do whatever the hell he wants without criminal consequences...

so he paid for that case but not this one?  

i know trump is dumb with money, but it seems like a poor and limited investment.  maybe roberts wanted to shake him down for more payments?  like its an NIL thing?  more cash or i'm transferring to the second district appellate court.

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

but i dont think this ruling has anything to do with it. ...

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that if you accept this logical construct of Trump's on tariffs (basically that the power of creation/destruction implies the power of complete regulation) I don't see how you can avoid the logical connection to how that would apply to CU. Granted that the law defies logic often enough.

[buddha]

44 minutes ago, TJ Rollercoaster said:

Until they gut the Voting Rights Act

They might.  

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, buddha said:

sarah isgur has a comment on it in the times from back in december that people are pointing to as prescient, if youre interested.

Conservatives used to accuse Liberals of being 'Ivy Tower'. but it seems it's now  Conservative that pine for idealistic constructs that have no relation or possibility of implementation in the real world.

Independent administrative agencies insulated from executive branch politics are a perfectly practical solution to technological regulation. The Federal Society's complaint that they don't conform to their idealizations of government structure is windmill tilting of the highest order.

And she's dead wrong about campaign finance reform.

Edited 13 hours ago by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

Movie recommendation. Nuremberg on Netflix. It may be under a paywall, but worth it. Russell Crowe and Rami Malek. Malek plays a psychiatrist who attempts to get inside the minds of those charged in the Nuremberg Trials. Particularly Goering, played by Russell Crowe.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29567915/

It actually makes it a bit easier to comprehend the hive mind behind the Nazi Regime.  

 

    

[CMRivdogs]

We need to claw back every cent they've spent on themselves

 

[buddha]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Conservatives used to accuse Liberals of being 'Ivy Tower'. but it seems it's now  Conservative that pine for idealistic constructs that have no relation or possibility of implementation in the real world.

Independent administrative agencies insulated from executive branch politics are a perfectly practical solution to technological regulation. The Federal Society's complaint that they don't conform to their idealizations of government structure is windmill tilting of the highest order.

And she's dead wrong about campaign finance reform.

"insulated from executive branch politics".  when has that ever been the case?

the administrative agencies are a part of the executive branch and have been beholden to that branch since time immemorial.

again, the difference is now you have an extremely bad actor as the executive for the first time since nixon.  since congress has ceded its power to the executive, it takes one bad actor to bring down the house of cards.

[CMRivdogs]

28 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Movie recommendation. Nuremberg on Netflix. It may be under a paywall, but worth it. Russell Crowe and Rami Malek. Malek plays a psychiatrist who attempts to get inside the minds of those charged in the Nuremberg Trials. Particularly Goering, played by Russell Crowe.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29567915/

It actually makes it a bit easier to comprehend the hive mind behind the Nazi Regime.  

 

    

Goering's testimony sounds very fresh to today's Republican Party..

[gehringer_2]

28 minutes ago, buddha said:

since congress has ceded its power to the executive, it takes one bad actor to bring down the house of cards.

It isn't even so much that Congress has ceded its power, it's that Congress had been an active enabler. A Congress properly outraged at having been told bald-faced lies at confirmation hearings or at any of the Trump cabinet outrages of the day could have removed any one of these turkey's - including Trump himself of course. The tariff case never reaches the SCOTUS if the House doesn't suspend the 'emergency clock'. Trump hasn't had power ceded to him, he's been actively aided and abetted.  

Edited 10 hours ago by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

33 minutes ago, buddha said:

"insulated from executive branch politics".  when has that ever been the case

then what are Isgur and the Federalists complaining about that there is such a pressing need for a more imperial 'Unitary' executive unimpeded by anything beyond his own fiat? It's their complaint.

Edited 10 hours ago by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

 

[romad1]

Ugh...these theocrats are giving the kleptocrats all the freedom to do whatever

https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/u-s-ambassador-mike-huckabee-says-israel-is-entitled-to-entire-middle-east-it-would-be-fine-if-they-took-it-all/

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

It isn't even so much that Congress has ceded its power, it's that Congress had been an active enabler. A Congress properly outraged at having been told bald-faced lies at confirmation hearings or at any of the Trump cabinet outrages of the day could have removed any one of these turkey's - including Trump himself of course. The tariff case never reaches the SCOTUS if the House doesn't suspend the 'emergency clock'. Trump hasn't had power ceded to him, he's been actively aided and abetted.  

the executive branch via the administrative state has had power ceded to it by congress for decades.  part of that is via necessity as government has grown so much larger and entered every corner of american life (the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy), and part of it is from political necessity as members of congress figure it is much easier to let the executive take the blame for anything that goes wrong, and they can glom on to anything that goes right.

 

[gehringer_2]

43 minutes ago, buddha said:

the executive branch via the administrative state has had power ceded to it by congress for decades.  part of that is via necessity as government has grown so much larger and entered every corner of american life (the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy), and part of it is from political necessity as members of congress figure it is much easier to let the executive take the blame for anything that goes wrong, and they can glom on to anything that goes right.

 

IDK, Congress passes a law to implement policy, creating and funding some kind of agency within the Exec to operate it. That isn't ceded power, that's just the way it has to work unless you want Congress creating it's own parallel bureaucracies. It's not really in the agency structure that Congress has abdicated, it's in allowing the exec free use of the military under non-emergency conditions without grant of any authority and its acquiescence to the proliferation of executive orders for the last couple of decades. Those abdications are real enough. Those are the problem, but that's not what the conservatives are trying to address with Unitary Executive theory.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by gehringer_2

[buddha]

21 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

IDK, Congress passes a law to implement policy, creating and funding some kind of agency within the Exec to operate it. That isn't ceded power, that's just the way it has to work unless you want Congress creating it's own parallel bureaucracies. It's not really in the agency structure that Congress has abdicated, it's in allowing the exec free use of the military under non-emergency conditions without grant of any authority and its acquiescence to the proliferation of executive orders for the last couple of decades. Those abdications are real enough. Those are the problem, but that's not what the conservatives are trying to address with Unitary Executive theory.

 

congress cedes power within the laws that it writes creating and funding those agencies.  and then it procedes to cede more power when it does nothing when the executive overreaches that power.  the democrats do nothing when biden tried to do it, and the republicans certainly do nothing when trump does.

and its nice to see you and justice gorsuch on the same page, even though you'll be oblivious that youre reading from the same book. 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

and its nice to see you and justice gorsuch on the same page, even though you'll be oblivious that youre reading from the same book. 

LOL - I've agreed with Gorsuch before, but agreeing with Gorsuch is really just a matter of random chance since his judicial philosophy doesn't correspond to any known consistency but his own.

If you want to take a serious shot at the Constitutional issue in the US, the root of the problem (which BTW has nothing to do with the current issues with Trump) is that we  claim to have a democratic representative government but in practice it cannot be controlled by the majority vote any more. At their core, all the of tensions between Presidential and Congressional power stem from that reality, that an elected US Congress does not adequately represent the will of the American public, with the result  that a popularly elected President too often faces a minority controlled legislature, and that gridlock paralyzes government, to the point that all manner of dislocations to the system result because the imperative to govern remains despite the institutional gridlock. The asymmetry of the states, which produce the Senate imbalance, compounded by ossified and distorted rules of procedure, plus the modern addition of data processing power that allows surgical Gerrymanders, have turned the Founder's "great experiment" in democracy into a deflated soufflé.

But we are so steeped in our myths of Constitutional inerrancy that we don't even come close to talking about fixing any of it. We have a fundamentally broken system, but are clinging to it like a drunk to his last bottle.

Edited 5 hours ago by gehringer_2