[Discussion] Hope to Remember The Trump Administration Thread as being 'transparent and honest'

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits, and the many many indictments.

I've been thinking a lot about the struggle between the two sides: reactionary vs liberal.

There is a lot of talk about how the Left needs to be careful so as not to radicalize/anger/irritate the Right (respect "norms", etc).

It seems like we have a situation where both sides are NOT engaging in good faith. One side is increasingly willing to do (almost) anything to win (win here meaning holding on to power as a majority minority). The other side, perhaps because of its love of dialogue, is retreating.

I don't use this word lightly, but it feels like the right term to describe the Left's mindset is one of appeasement.

At some point the little guy has to stand up to the powerful and push back. Hard.

thrawn82 wrote:

That's exactly what I mean. When one side makes themselves stronger and advances their cause by destroying the rules and norms that should keep them in check, helping them tear down the system faster "to give them some of their own medicine" isn't fighting them, it's helping them.

Let’s not confuse, ‘tear down the system’ with ‘tear down their system,’ which is exactly what got us here. In the end, the justices on these courts that untlimately rule on these voter and gerrymandering laws passed will take forever to wind through and the damage has been done.

I still don't see how throwing out lifetime appointments because we disagree with their politics helps us in the long term.

Why stop with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? AIito was appointed by Bush the younger and he also failed to win the popular vote, we should probably get rid of him too. and Clerence thomas, well he was appointed by HW Bush, and he was vice president when Reagan committed the Iran Contra treason, so that tainted nominee should go too.

thrawn82 wrote:

I still don't see how throwing out lifetime appointments because we disagree with their politics helps us in the long term.

Why stop with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch? AIito was appointed by Bush the younger and he also failed to win the popular vote, we should probably get rid of him too. and Clerence thomas, well he was appointed by HW Bush, and he was vice president when Reagan committed the Iran Contra treason, so that tainted nominee should go too.

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I fundamentally disagree with yanking justices from the bench because they were Republican appointees. Secondly, I don’t think that happens without literal shots fired at some point...

but, the Republicans have proven and shown to the public what we knew all along - that our two party republic wasn’t sustainable forever (or even a government based in deomcracy) - that the idea of, one voice, one vote meant something.

We are nothing more than a country driven by special interests looking for a few more dollars. We have mistaken opulence with comfort, and most of our middle class has a ton of debt to show for their dream. We have been convinced that we’re smarter than a government managing our money so we’ve been given terrible 401ks and stripped of pensions and retirement safety nets. I could go on and on.

thrawn82 wrote:

I still don't see how throwing out lifetime appointments because we disagree with their politics helps us in the long term.

Because those politics are antithetical to large swaths of the population? Because the decisions made by those same appointments actively hurt tons of people in the long term? Because those appointments inherently shouldn't be solely political, or even largely political? Because lifetime appointments to any position with power is a poor idea based on how humans tend to react to power? Because making a mistake doesn't mean you should have to live with that mistake forever? Because some things, some ideas, are too important to leave in the hands of 7 people?

I thin we have to wait for Mueller's report before anything drastic can be done in regards to Trumps SC selections. The key its just how convincing Mueller's report is when it comes to actual collusion and affecting the outcome.

I think it has to be over the top before the public is going to be down with impeaching judges. I think it could be that drastic, but it is way too early.

The goal has to be a full court press by Democrats to stall by flipping Collins and Murkowski, and forcing the red state Senators, like my Claire McCaskill, to hold the line. This will stall the nomination until after midterms, at least. But flipping the GOP senators and getting Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia to all hold the line is not going to be easy. It may be a pipe dream.

But I expect the Democrats to try. If they rollover, we may just be done for.

BlackSheep wrote:

We are nothing more than a country driven by special interests looking for a few more dollars. We have mistaken opulence with comfort, and most of our middle class has a ton of debt to show for their dream. We have been convinced that we’re smarter than a government managing our money so we’ve been given terrible 401ks and stripped of pensions and retirement safety nets. I could go on and on.

Yep. Clinton and Obama appeased the right by embracing and enacting a Neoliberal agenda that essentially gave up on issues ranging from unions to pensions to the social safety net. We accelerated the imprisonment of black kids, ruined millions of lives, all to appease the right.

And it wasn't enough for them. It wasn't enough for them. They take and they take and they take and they take. Eventually you have to decide that they're not bargaining in good faith. They have no intent on stopping until we've reached Feudalism. So why not fight for what you actually believe in? Why not fight for the country you'd like to live in instead of a shade of the one you'll put up with while people on the margins continue to fall behind or worse?

We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them PAY for what they've done!

So, the question that no-one seems to be asking is - why is the process for selecting SC justices so broken?

The fact that justices are appointed by the party in power is bonkers. Like, there's your recipe for corruption right there, particularly when coupled with lifetime appointments.

I don't have a better idea (I mean, aside from limited terms: 10-15 years seems reasonable, and gets around the outsized leverage of being able to appoint a justice to sit for the next 30-40 years), but there has to be something better than this. How do other countries manage the appointment of judges to the highest court?

Isn't it pretty much the same process, but there's more of them? So any one appointment won't cause a huge ideological shift.

Stele wrote:
We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them PAY for what they've done!

Hey, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your little quest. Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale!

There are definitely too few justices. I know the idea behind lifetime appointments was to shelter judges from political influence. It's really important that they cannot be removed (short of doing something really horrible like going on a murder spree) because that is what allows judges to interpret the laws and actions of the other two branches without having to fear being removed for coming out against them. That aspect of the judiciary is really REALLY important, which i guess is why i have such a strong gut aversion to arbitrarily throwing out judges we don't like.

The real problem is with this new crop of so called "originalist" judges that have come up through The Federalist Society, who don't actually have any respect for laws or jurist prudence or stare decisis except where they can be used as a tool to further a particular conservative agenda.

But the remedy is to call those people out for what they are, and to not elect representatives who want to install those people into judgeships.

Jonman wrote:

So, the question that no-one seems to be asking is - why is the process for selecting SC justices so broken?

Remember that the United States wasn't supposed to have political parties. They just kind of naturally happened anyway, but the Founding Fathers designed things without them in mind. Needing 60 votes in the Senate was also another way to make sure that the Supreme Court Justices would theoretically be "compromise" candidates whom everyone agreed would make for a fair and impartial court.

Of course, now that McConnell has helped ruin it, the court is fair and balanced instead.

thrawn82 wrote:

There are definitely too few justices. I know the idea behind lifetime appointments was to shelter judges from political influence.

WTF? This is so backwards.

Lifetime appointments entrench political influence for decades, with no recourse for sh*t like McConnell's blatent disregard for decency.

Stengah wrote:

Isn't it pretty much the same process, but there's more of them? So any one appointment won't cause a huge ideological shift.

That, and it's usually not a lifetime appointment, it's a 10-20 year appointment that is frequently non-extendable. The intention is for it to be long enough for them to be stable features, but not so long that a winner gets to pick someone that will be on the court for 40 years. Non-extendable so that you don't have to worry about them thinking about doing political favors for whatever party they think will be around in a couple years when their current term expires.

(Important to note that a limited term opens up another avenue of corruption "my job will be up in a few years, can I make any decisions that will open up a multi-million dollar 'consulting' position?" We have that problem already, obviously, and we don't really have a good way to solve it. One way is largish pensions, possibly coupled with work restrictions.)

Jonman wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

There are definitely too few justices. I know the idea behind lifetime appointments was to shelter judges from political influence.

WTF? This is so backwards.

Lifetime appointments entrench political influence for decades, with no recourse for sh*t like McConnell's blatent disregard for decency.

The important part isn't so much the lifetime part, i suspect when they wrote that bit in no one ever expected a 55 year old to get one. It's the not being removable part that is super important. Non removable and a non-renewable term limit would serve the same purpose.

Jonman wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

There are definitely too few justices. I know the idea behind lifetime appointments was to shelter judges from political influence.

WTF? This is so backwards.

Lifetime appointments entrench political influence for decades, with no recourse for sh*t like McConnell's blatent disregard for decency.

It moves the political influence around. Lifetime appointments mean that the judges are sheltered from motivation to do their own political dealings. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't have to think "crap my term expires in 2019, if I roll back abortion just a teensy bit will McConnell let me stay?"

It does vastly up the anty for the people doing the nominating and confirming, but the idea was that those participants are already doing political stuff all the time, and the checks and balances on them would already be sufficient.

Fair to point out that the participants involved are the participants whose roles have changed the most since the founding fathers, however I don't personally see how the original setup would have protected us from this stuff. I suppose in a pure Electoral College situation (rather than the Frankenstein oddity we have) it is less likely Trump would have been chosen, but that's not by any means certain. I'm not sure how having the Senate chosen by State Legislature would effect this either, one way or the other.

thrawn82 wrote:

I am going to lean into the Open Arguments stance on this one: It is a really bad precedent to set to impeach justices for anything other than actual gross misconduct, no matter how odious or controversial or treacherous the person who nominated them is. If the justice them-self hasn't done anything wrong, you are just throwing them out for political reasons and once you start that you might as well scrap the whole system.

To borrow a legal metaphor if Trump is found guilty of collusion then the judges he appointed are literally fruits of the poisonous tree. Those judgeships are things he stole from the American public (and our future). And when you are convicted of stealing you don't get to keep what you stole.

Gremlin wrote:

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers at center of 40-day standoff

The Hammonds distanced themselves from the violent occupiers and didn't endorse the action.

The Hammonds were in jail because they had clashed with the BLM and the manager of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge since the mid-80s. That's when they first started making death threats to BLM employees because, just like the Bundy's, they felt they could graze their cattle on public land however they wanted and without consequence.

In the late 90s, the Hammonds escalated to damaging federal lands. First they set a fire on their property allegedly to clear out brush on their property that jumped over to federal lands. They were warned that they needed permits to burn and that they needed to coordinate with the BLM to prevent just such a thing from happening.

In 2001 they were seen by hunters illegally slaughtering a herd of deer on federal land. An hour later a large fire just so happened to erupt where they were that destroyed the evidence of their poaching and burned 150 acres. A teenaged relative of the Hammonds testified that he was given a box of matches and told to "light up the whole country on fire."

In 2006 the Hammonds again set fires on their land that spread to federal lands. This time, however, they set multiple fires at the very edge of their property in the middle of the night (during a burn ban) because they wanted to create a firebreak to prevent a wildfire from spreading to their property. They didn't think they needed to inform the BLM firefighters who were camping nearby that they were sending a wall of fire their way. The next day Dwight Hammond was seen walking down a road on BLM lands casually setting more fires and then fleeing from firefighters. When confronted about this and the previous night's fire Steven Hammond threatened BLM employees, saying he'd frame them for the fires he and his father had set.

So while Trump is attacking black athletes for not standing for the Pledge and painting all Hispanics as rapists and drug dealers, he's now pardoning white anti-government extremists. He's sending a very clear signal to every white boy with a pair of camos and an AR-15 that he has their militia backs covered. Jesus.

EDIT: I almost forgot that the Hammonds were also suspected of multiple incidents of abuse against their grandson/nephew, Dusty, who helped set the 2001 fire. Dusty testified that he did so because he was afraid of the Hammonds.

When he was caught with alcohol his punishment was to be taken 10 miles from the Hammond ranch, beaten, and forced to walk home. When he was caught with tobacco he was again driven ten miles from the ranch, forced to eat two cans of Skol, and made to walk home. And when it was discovered that Dusty had carved initials on his chest the Hammonds used a belt sander to remove them. A belt sander.

But it was "unjust" that the Hammonds had to spend five years in jail...

thrawn82 wrote:
Jonman wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

There are definitely too few justices. I know the idea behind lifetime appointments was to shelter judges from political influence.

WTF? This is so backwards.

Lifetime appointments entrench political influence for decades, with no recourse for sh*t like McConnell's blatent disregard for decency.

The important part isn't so much the lifetime part, i suspect when they wrote that bit in no one ever expected a 55 year old to get one. It's the not being removable part that is super important.

It's that no one expected them to rule on almost anything they rule on that's controversial these days. The power of the Federal government was *much* smaller than it is now, and the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states.

Think of how few issues of the issues that make the Supreme Court important would even wind up in that court back then.

Yonder wrote:
Jonman wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

There are definitely too few justices. I know the idea behind lifetime appointments was to shelter judges from political influence.

WTF? This is so backwards.

Lifetime appointments entrench political influence for decades, with no recourse for sh*t like McConnell's blatent disregard for decency.

It moves the political influence around. Lifetime appointments mean that the judges are sheltered from motivation to do their own political dealings. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't have to think "crap my term expires in 2019, if I roll back abortion just a teensy bit will McConnell let me stay?"

There's rumors that Kennedy picked his replacement. So that norm may broken anyway.

Geoff Bennett - NBC wrote:

Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp

OG_slinger wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I am going to lean into the Open Arguments stance on this one: It is a really bad precedent to set to impeach justices for anything other than actual gross misconduct, no matter how odious or controversial or treacherous the person who nominated them is. If the justice them-self hasn't done anything wrong, you are just throwing them out for political reasons and once you start that you might as well scrap the whole system.

To borrow a legal metaphor if Trump is found guilty of collusion then the judges he appointed are literally fruits of the poisonous tree. Those judgeships are things he stole from the American public (and our future). And when you are convicted of stealing you don't get to keep what you stole.

I agree with this. But it really depends on what we get from Mueller. It has to be more than just collusion. Even if Russian trolls convinced Bernie supporters to stay home and Republicans that Democrats are preparing concentration camps for conservatives, those voters still had the freedom to make their choices. Taking way the judges is probably a step too far.

Now, if we find out voting rolls were stripped of Democrats, and machines were tampered with, it becomes easier to rationalize impeaching those judges.

Regardless, the Democrats just need to keep the key Senators from confirming until after midterms and the new Senators are in place. That's not an easy ask, and might gee impossible. But if we expect the Democratic Party to do anything, we, as voters, need to support them by getting the vote out and taking both houses, not matter how hard it will be.

Jayhawker wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I am going to lean into the Open Arguments stance on this one: It is a really bad precedent to set to impeach justices for anything other than actual gross misconduct, no matter how odious or controversial or treacherous the person who nominated them is. If the justice them-self hasn't done anything wrong, you are just throwing them out for political reasons and once you start that you might as well scrap the whole system.

To borrow a legal metaphor if Trump is found guilty of collusion then the judges he appointed are literally fruits of the poisonous tree. Those judgeships are things he stole from the American public (and our future). And when you are convicted of stealing you don't get to keep what you stole.

I agree with this. But it really depends on what we get from Mueller. It has to be more than just collusion. Even if Russian trolls convinced Bernie supporters to stay home and Republicans that Democrats are preparing concentration camps for conservatives, those voters still had the freedom to make their choices. Taking way the judges is probably a step too far.

Now, if we find out voting rolls were stripped of Democrats, and machines were tampered with, it becomes easier to rationalize impeaching those judges.

Regardless, the Democrats just need to keep the key Senators from confirming until after midterms and the new Senators are in place. That's not an easy ask, and might gee impossible. But if we expect the Democratic Party to do anything, we, as voters, need to support them by getting the vote out and taking both houses, not matter how hard it will be.

I agree with one caveat. Willingness to collude is bad enough, IMO. On the part of Americans.

Life expectancy was a lot lower then, too. A lifetime appointment was probably expected to be maybe 10-20 years before you keeled over.

Jayhawker wrote:

I thin we have to wait for Mueller's report before anything drastic can be done in regards to Trumps SC selections. The key its just how convincing Mueller's report is when it comes to actual collusion and affecting the outcome.

I think it has to be over the top before the public is going to be down with impeaching judges. I think it could be that drastic, but it is way too early.

The goal has to be a full court press by Democrats to stall by flipping Collins and Murkowski, and forcing the red state Senators, like my Claire McCaskill, to hold the line. This will stall the nomination until after midterms, at least. But flipping the GOP senators and getting Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia to all hold the line is not going to be easy. It may be a pipe dream.

But I expect the Democrats to try. If they rollover, we may just be done for.

I want to believe, I really do, but: "Why Mueller’s findings in the Trump-Russia probe may never see the light of day"

Nimcosi wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I thin we have to wait for Mueller's report before anything drastic can be done in regards to Trumps SC selections. The key its just how convincing Mueller's report is when it comes to actual collusion and affecting the outcome.

I think it has to be over the top before the public is going to be down with impeaching judges. I think it could be that drastic, but it is way too early.

The goal has to be a full court press by Democrats to stall by flipping Collins and Murkowski, and forcing the red state Senators, like my Claire McCaskill, to hold the line. This will stall the nomination until after midterms, at least. But flipping the GOP senators and getting Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia to all hold the line is not going to be easy. It may be a pipe dream.

But I expect the Democrats to try. If they rollover, we may just be done for.

I want to believe, I really do, but: "Why Mueller’s findings in the Trump-Russia probe may never see the light of day"

I think a lot has changed since then, and I never bought into the argument they made when I read that before. Regardless, if the report gets quashed, I predict it gets leaked out. Rosentstein seems willing to play ball and release the report from everything I have seen. I think he is like Mueller, in that, yes, he's a Republican, but I don't think he has any interest in using his position to further the party. I think he just wants the truth to come out.

Again, it all depends on what is in the report. My hunch is that the insiders already know that it is going be a bloodbath for Trump and his circle. What we are seeing now is just everyone figuring out the best way to release the information so that it is taken seriously. And with the SC nomination and midterms coming, it is damn near impossible to pull it off because everything is political.

Jayhawker wrote:

And with the SC nomination and midterms coming, it is damn near impossible to pull it off because everything is political.

Mueller and the Democrats should get some pointers from Comey...

Pence is giddy about the opportunity to make his Handmaid's Tale fanfic reality for American women.

Stengah wrote:

Isn't it pretty much the same process, but there's more of them? So any one appointment won't cause a huge ideological shift.

Pretty much the same process, with the same number of judges on the court.

Jayhawker wrote:
Nimcosi wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I thin we have to wait for Mueller's report before anything drastic can be done in regards to Trumps SC selections. The key its just how convincing Mueller's report is when it comes to actual collusion and affecting the outcome.

I think it has to be over the top before the public is going to be down with impeaching judges. I think it could be that drastic, but it is way too early.

The goal has to be a full court press by Democrats to stall by flipping Collins and Murkowski, and forcing the red state Senators, like my Claire McCaskill, to hold the line. This will stall the nomination until after midterms, at least. But flipping the GOP senators and getting Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia to all hold the line is not going to be easy. It may be a pipe dream.

But I expect the Democrats to try. If they rollover, we may just be done for.

I want to believe, I really do, but: "Why Mueller’s findings in the Trump-Russia probe may never see the light of day"

I think a lot has changed since then, and I never bought into the argument they made when I read that before. Regardless, if the report gets quashed, I predict it gets leaked out. Rosentstein seems willing to play ball and release the report from everything I have seen. I think he is like Mueller, in that, yes, he's a Republican, but I don't think he has any interest in using his position to further the party. I think he just wants the truth to come out.

Again, it all depends on what is in the report. My hunch is that the insiders already know that it is going be a bloodbath for Trump and his circle. What we are seeing now is just everyone figuring out the best way to release the information so that it is taken seriously. And with the SC nomination and midterms coming, it is damn near impossible to pull it off because everything is political.

I feel like we need a different word for the kind of Republican Mueller, Rosenstein, and people like my father (showing my bias here) who are fiscally conservative but still care about honesty and loyal to country over party. They are not the frothing anti-lgbt anti-woman religious right that seem to be dominating national republicans and i feel bad giving them the same label.

Soon they'll be called Democrats.