Post New

Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” he vowed in a June rally

To be fair, I'm sure he has "concepts of a plan".

Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” he vowed in a June rally - Bill

----------------

What fun you guys can have starting Thursday. Every last thing that Trump said he would do on Day 1, if not done by Thursday, is now a lie. Start drawing up a list and I bet you can find 50 or 100 such lies. BTW, pointing these out will have about much effect as calling him a Nazi or even worst, a "racist".

That aside, concerning these lies he told about day one, do you think are still worth doing anyway. I do.

What fun you guys can have starting Thursday. Every last thing that Trump said he would do on Day 1, if not done by Thursday, is now a lie. Start drawing up a list and I bet you can find 50 or 100 such lies. BTW, pointing these out will have about much effect as calling him a Nazi or even worst, a "racist".


Hey, come on, now- you have to give them *something*.

After all, there's no more Party of Law and order after he pardon a record number of criminals. There's no more "Respect for the rule of law" when he issues loads of blanket pardons for his corrupt family and people like St. Fauci.

They've got nothing but their bitterness and anger. And you and I are here for it!

Trump is reaching out to YOU and Club 401K.

The people who were content to egg this on and see Russians and Ukrainians die and suffer cause you don't like "PUTIN!"

Trump is trying to win you over.

Every last thing that Trump said he would do on Day 1, if not done by Thursday, is now a lie.

Ummm...yeah.

That's what a lie is: saying you're going to do something and then not doing it.

There is not an "alternative lies" definition like alternative facts.

Yet.

Pete

Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” he vowed in a June rally

MAGA does not care. Only the stupidest of the MAGA would actually believe Trump's lies. No, as we see here every day, it's about hate. The MAGAs love Trump for the hate he spreads and encourages.

The Sheeple will always have their echo chamber, Fool-esque badges and doppel-fueled rec counts, though.

What fun you guys can have starting Thursday. Every last thing that Trump said he would do on Day 1, if not done by Thursday, is now a lie.

He said he would stop the war before he even got back into office- hardly a “little thing”.

But let’s be generous and give him another 60 days.

Yes, we will be ready to call out everything he does wrong- every lie, every grift, every promise broken.

But remember. He may be a clown with a flamethrowe…… but he’s still a clown.


Gallows humor to be sure- but he’s still a clown and deserves our derisive laughter.

Dopey:The Sheeple will always have their echo chamber, Fool-esque badges and doppel-fueled rec counts, though.

Poor Dopey. Pee green with envy, his jealousy drip drip drips from every word he types.

drip drip drip drip drip

Chin up dopey.

Splash goes the dunk tank.

What fun you guys can have starting Thursday. Every last thing that Trump said he would do on Day 1, if not done by Thursday, is now a lie.

What I find strange is that he doesn't appear to have learned from (or care about) one of the biggest lessons from his first term. In the federal government, if you try to go fast, you end up damaging your own policies.

Trump seems to really enjoy issuing executive orders, because they are instantaneous and unrestrained exercises of the Presidential power. The problem, though, is that you can't really change federal policy by Executive Order. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress has prohibited changing federal policy without formal rule-making. That involves the government assessing the pros and cons of those changes, and undergoing a period of notice and comment, so that the federal government is fully informed about what the public thinks of potential changes before doing them. A lot of Trump's first term actions ended up getting overturned on APA grounds because he didn't want to bother with this step.

Executive Orders are not themselves subject to the APA - the President is allowed to say anything to the agencies that he wants. But the agencies won't be able to do any of these things unless and until they go through APA review. And because the EO's are out there, they damage the agencies efforts to actually follow the APA - since the policy has already been set without complying with the APA, it makes whatever they do afterwards vulnerable to legal challenge.

Dopey:The Sheeple will always have their echo chamber

Wow, talk about no self-awareness. You have your head so deeply buried in the right wing media's fundament that you can't even hear echos of the truth and you constantly invert reality.

Executive Orders are not themselves subject to the APA - the President is allowed to say anything to the agencies that he wants. But the agencies won't be able to do any of these things unless and until they go through APA review. And because the EO's are out there, they damage the agencies efforts to actually follow the APA - since the policy has already been set without complying with the APA, it makes whatever they do afterwards vulnerable to legal challenge

That's the way it is supposed to work. But with an executive branch stuffed with boot-licking sycophants, a right wing activist SC, House and Senate in the hands of a debased Republican Party and in abject fear of Magalini, I think it may be hard to stop the abuses of power. At least in the short term. And I Trump can do enough damage to our democratic institutions, I have to wonder if our Republic can recover.

yes, the real threat is longterm damage (e.g., scotus) to the country whether a predictable a path to MAGA grift or not.
the only sure thing is that trump will not pursue anything that dampens his own avenue for corruption, which pretty much seems unlimited.
(along these lines, i look forward to seeing anyone brave enough to report what happens to the dozens of trump properties that had significant payments due and were in danger of default...will campaign contributions have fixed them all?)

we are long past caring whether MAGA is too stupid to understand pledges\promises. MAGA will shrug it off if trump (and thus main\rightwing media) ignores it, or cheer if he declares that famous gop rally cry 'mission accomplished'.

That's the way it is supposed to work. But with an executive branch stuffed with boot-licking sycophants, a right wing activist SC, House and Senate in the hands of a debased Republican Party and in abject fear of Magalini, I think it may be hard to stop the abuses of power.

I don't think so. APA stuff is pretty basic. When government changes the way it does things in areas subject to the APA, they have to do it through formal rule-making, provide advance notice and an opportunity for comment. Federal government 101.

These issues are decided by the lower federal courts, and don't involve the types of legal issues that would ever make it up to SCOTUS. And in fact, SCOTUS is probably more sympathetic to the APA these days, because it represents Congressional control over agencies - exactly the sort of thing they've been talking up in their latest decisions.

All he has to do is cut off funding for Ukraine. He does that, Ukraine is hobbled, and will have to accept some very unfavorable terms from Russia to a cease fire.

Which is why I read that they were hurrying-up a last aid package before that new administration could take office.

Executive Orders are not themselves subject to the APA - the President is allowed to say anything to the agencies that he wants. But the agencies won't be able to do any of these things unless and until they go through APA review.

It's probably too early to conclude this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say "let the incompetence begin". He won't be very effective if he didn't learn (about nit-picky things, like law) his lesson last time.

I don't think so. APA stuff is pretty basic.

I can't convince 1poorlady of that. She lived through the Marcos era (Philippines), and so thinks the Felon is going to pursue a similar route (probably not a military coup, but issuing orders to sycophants who will following them regardless of legality).

I can't convince 1poorlady of that. She lived through the Marcos era (Philippines), and so thinks the Felon is going to pursue a similar route (probably not a military coup, but issuing orders to sycophants who will following them regardless of legality).

He can't follow a similar route unless he does what Marcos did, which is to dissolve the judiciary. An independent judiciary makes an end run around the APA near-impossible. Merely having appointed a fair number of federal judges isn't enough; the precedent is pretty unambiguous at this point (the APA has been litigated for decades), and federal judges with lifetime appointments can only bend - not break - those precedents.

and so thinks the Felon is going to pursue a similar route

I see no reason to think that 1poorlady is wrong. She's seen an autocrat up close. We can think that won't happen here in 'Murica, so we can be blind to the signs that she notices.

I'm not saying that it will happen or is happening right now. But I can't rule it out, either.

--Peter

He can't follow a similar route unless he does what Marcos did, which is to dissolve the judiciary.

News flash. You don't need to dissolve the judiciary. You just need to make them compliant to the autocrat. And it doesn't matter if the front line judges stick with the long established precedents. The USSC can break the precedent. My feeling is that Trump is very close to a compliant USSC. One more appointment is likely to do the trick. Right now, both Roberts and Coney Barrett seem to be willing to stand up to Trump from time to time. Replacing either of them might be good enough. Replacing any of the remaining more liberal justices would almost certainly do the trick.

--Peter

News flash. You don't need to dissolve the judiciary. You just need to make them compliant to the autocrat. And it doesn't matter if the front line judges stick with the long established precedents. The USSC can break the precedent.

Yes, you need to dissolve the existing judiciary, because an independent judiciary will not be "compliant" enough. To rule like Marcos, Trump can't have a judiciary that just "leans" towards supporting his Administration's interpretations on open questions of law. He needs one that's willing to essentially hold that "even though X violates the Constitution, Trump should be allowed to do X." I don't think any of the existing Justices would do that now. The older ones certainly have no reason to do anything that Trump wants that they don't also want, and the younger ones will be on the court long after Trump is gone.

Dictators can't have a situation where there's an independent judiciary with judges that don't depend on him for their position - because those people can say "no" to the dictator.

I don't think any of the existing Justices would do that now.

All I can say is that you have way more faith in the Justices than I do at this point.

--Peter

All I can say is that you have way more faith in the Justices than I do at this point.

I wouldn't call it "faith," rather than "jealously guarding their own power." In our current system, those Justices are incredibly important and incredibly powerful. They like being important and powerful. Allowing Trump to become a dictator makes them unimportant and powerless. So rulings that say that the President still has to obey the Constitution and follow the laws that Congress has adopted - and that the SCOTUS is the body that determines whether those conditions have been met - are in their naked self-interest.

Unlike elected officials in Congress, the Justices don't face the voters. Trump doesn't have that hold over them. They will be there long after he's gone, and he can't throw them out. Nor can MAGA writ large. So even if Trump, and MAGA, want to completely rewrite US domestic policy, it is entirely within SCOTUS' self-interest to require them to follow the rules while they do it.

Some of the Justices share Trump's belief that the power of the President under the Constitution are much more expansive than previously understood. They'll vote with him when they think he's right. But none of them would share a dictator's belief that the President can, say, dissolve Congress or choose to ignore the Legislature altogether.

I should add that I'm looking at things in a couple of different categories.

For things that Trump doesn't really care about, but is doing to appease the masses (birthright citizenship, immigration emergency, CA water, for example), he is fine with the courts ruling against him. He might even be happy to have the courts to rule against him, as it allows him to keep the masses riled up. ("I tried to do X, Y, and Z for you, but the crooked courts ruled against me.")

On things that really matter - like his personal liberty or finances - he has gotten an awful lot of compliance from the courts. The USSC has already made law when they carved out their immunity decision. By doing so, they threw multiple criminal cases against him back almost to square one. And he again used those rulings to rile up the masses and get them to put him back in office, which freed him from any consequences in the one case that did go to trial and criminal conviction. Immunity also frees him to be more dictator-like while in office, most likely following his well-trod path in business: get others to commit the crimes for you, now without worry of conspiracy charges.

--Peter

But none of them would share a dictator's belief that the President can, say, dissolve Congress or choose to ignore the Legislature altogether.

Why would a dictator want to dissolve Congress when that Congress is, for the most part, complying with his wishes? A clever dictator would realize that having a mostly compliant Congress is far more useful to him. It gives him a veneer of legitimacy.

The legislatures such a dictator would want to ignore or dissolve are the state legislatures who are not kowtowing to his wishes. They become the "enemy" that your ignorant base can be pointed at to conduct verbal and potentially physical attacks.

--Peter

On things that really matter - like his personal liberty or finances - he has gotten an awful lot of compliance from the courts. The USSC has already made law when they carved out their immunity decision.

That was an important case, but it was one case. He lost nearly all of the cases he brought during the 2020 election. The only other major win on his personal matters that made it to SCOTUS was the Insurrection Clause case, which was a real long shot to begin with and which was unanimous in his favor.

If Trump is "fine with the courts ruling against him" on actions he takes that don't involve his personal finances or position, he wouldn't be a dictator in the mold of Marcos. Arguably, not a dictator at all - if almost all domestic policy is outside of his control, that's not really dictatorial powers.

I wouldn't call it "faith," rather than "jealously guarding their own power."

Is that a distinction without much of a difference? You are counting on (or having faith) that the Justices with jealously guard their own power. I hope so, too. I try to count on this (or have faith that they will do this), but I'm not that certain that all of them do...

Pete

Is that a distinction without much of a difference?

I dunno - when people say they have "faith" in someone, in context that usually means they believe they'll do the right thing. Not a cynical expectation that they will act to further their own self-interest.

Judges with lifetime appointments face different incentives than elected politicians. That doesn't mean they're pure or virtuous or even decent - just that the nature of their office is fundamentally different than, say, a Congressbeing. Every House member and 2/3 of the Senate will have to run for re-election again while Trump is President - they can't assume they'll outlast his time in office. Every SCOTUS member (save the oldest, perhaps) will have many more years after Trump is done with his Presidency.

Every SCOTUS member (save the oldest, perhaps) will have many more years after Trump is done with his Presidency.

The more cynical among us might see that lifetime tenure as a lifetime opportunity to grift without consequence. Or pander to a populist to remain popular yourself. Why do the hard work of actually trying to maintain power when you get all the trappings of a respected position and can do whatever you want and still have power? At that point, the only thing worth fiercely defending is your own cushy position, and the best way to do that is to stay out of difficult places and remain popular.

--Peter

Why do the hard work of actually trying to maintain power when you get all the trappings of a respected position and can do whatever you want and still have power?

Because you don't get those things if you don't try to maintain power. You don't rise to the pinnacle of the American legal field if you're not ambitious and driven and have a strong desire to get to make these decisions.
You want to be the one who makes these calls. You want to be in the room where it happens, to coin a phrase.

If you let Donald Trump become a dictator, you don't have any power any more. You don't have a respected position any more. You're just a figurehead, making about the same salary as a fourth year lawyer in a BigLaw firm. Right now, even the President of the United States has to listen to what the Court says - and they do. Every President loses several cases before the Court, and has to abide by their rulings. That goes away if you give up the power of the Court.

They will be there long after he's gone, and he can't throw them out. Nor can MAGA writ large.

Uhm.... J6 ring a bell?

Can SCOTUS work from secret locations and conference by Zoom?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.