[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.

Pretty sure they do take age into account...
Not that I don't agree with you.

Wink_and_the_Gun wrote:
JC wrote:

Roger Stone is sentenced to 40 months in prison. Original suggestion from the justice department was 84-108 months (7-9 years)

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Stone’s crimes demanded a significant time behind bars, but she said the seven to nine years originally recommended by the Justice Department were excessive.

Excessive? I beg to differ.

Not long enough, more like it... but the asses will still bray that it’s unfair! Witch hunt! Etc...

They're literally tweeting about what a miscarriage of justice it is that Stone is seeing jail time while Hillary and McCabe are free.

fangblackbone wrote:

Pretty sure they do take age into account...
Not that I don't agree with you.

I'm pretty sure age is one of the factors that is used to determine the offense level.

Older people should know better so get stiffer sentences right?

farley3k wrote:

Older people should know better so get stiffer sentences right?

Only if they throw a football through a tireswing

thrawn82 wrote:
farley3k wrote:

Older people should know better so get stiffer sentences right?

Only if they throw a football through a tireswing

/thread

farley3k wrote:

We Calculated How Much We Pay Trump to Play Golf. It Turns Out, He's America's 10th Highest Paid Athlete

According to the Government Accountability Office, during a one-month period in 2017, Americans paid $13 million for four trips to Trump properties for golf outings, including $60,000 for rooms and space at the Palm Beach resort. This includes thousands of dollars for lodging and feeding Secret Service agents paid directly to the resort owned by Trump. Using GAO data detailing the costs of Donald Trump’s travel, we can estimate that taxpayers pay about $600,000 per round of golf. The Washington Posts estimates that we pay $3.4 million for each presidential visit to the “Southern White House.”

Since 2016, federal government departments have spent about $130 million for Trump to hit the links. That doesn’t include another $13.8 million incurred in local security costs that the federal government reimbursed to the city of Palm Beach through spring 2019. If you extrapolate those costs to today’s date, the total local and federal costs for Trump’s athletic endeavors total $152 million or roughly $50.6 million per year for Trump to play golf. In the three years since Trump became president, no billionaire team owner, no sports organization, no company has paid a human being more to play golf.

Using Forbes’ list of highest-paid athletes, Trump ties for 10th among America’s best-paid athletes and 17th in the world. Trump’s “salary” is the same as Los Angeles Angels superstar Mike Trout’s, whose 12-year, $426.5 million deal was the richest contract in the history of team sports.

That’s really stretching the word athlete to an extreme meaning.

Scoop: New White House personnel chief tells Cabinet liaisons to target Never Trumpers

Axios wrote:

Johnny McEntee called in White House liaisons from cabinet agencies for an introductory meeting Thursday, in which he asked them to identify political appointees across the U.S. government who are believed to be anti-Trump, three sources familiar with the meeting tell Axios.

Behind the scenes: McEntee, a 29-year-old former body man to Trump who was fired in 2018 by then-Chief of Staff John Kelly but recently rehired — and promoted to head the presidential personnel office — foreshadowed sweeping personnel changes across government.

-- But McEntee suggested the most dramatic changes may have to wait until after the November election.

-- Trump has empowered McEntee — whom he considers an absolute loyalist — to purge the “bad people” and “Deep State.”

-- McEntee told staff that those identified as anti-Trump will no longer get promotions by shifting them around agencies.

Trump angry after House briefed on 2020 Russia election meddling on his behalf

NBC News wrote:

President Donald Trump pushed aside his acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, because he was angry about a briefing to lawmakers that said Russia is interfering in the 2020 election to aid his re-election, current and former intelligence officials briefed on the matter told NBC News.

At issue was an election briefing to House members last week by Shelby Pierson, the DNI's election security czar. The news was first reported by The New York Times.

The fast-moving developments have caused serious concern among intelligence officials.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence "is nearing a meltdown," one former official said after news broke about Maguire being forced out over the Russia briefing.

Current and former officials previously confirmed to NBC News that Maguire, who was under consideration to be permanent DNI, will not get that job and will soon leave his post.

The top lieutenant at the ODNI, CIA officer Andrew Hallman, is also leaving, a former official said, a departure that "is very distressing to intelligence professionals."

"It is clear that the recent decisions by the president have caused a lot of consternation in the intelligence community," another former official said. "I'm not aware of any kind of planned response, but a lot of people are concerned about the role of the oversight committees going forward in this situation."

Nothing to see here, comrade. Just some totally normal political purges.

The obvious move after impeachment acquittal giving him carte blanche for corrupt acts is to institute a Rohm Purge.

Yeah, I should have checked the authenticity.

Funny, but a fake tweet

5 second google search with this text "is the dow joans tweet real"

Yeah. Way too coherent and hints at a sense of humor that we know he does not possess.

White House Confirms It's Purging Disloyal Employees 'From the Bowels of the Federal Government'

Government Executive wrote:

The White House this week confirmed it is combing through federal agencies to identify employees not sufficiently loyal to President Trump to facilitate their ouster, sparking concerns the administration could run afoul of long-established civil service laws.

The administration is examining employees throughout the government to find anyone taking action officials decide represents an effort to undermine Trump, White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said on Fox News Monday. Gidley did not specifically mention career employees, who are statutorily protected against political retaliation, but did note the “millions” of individuals agencies employ. By contrast, there are only about 4,000 political appointees in government.

“It’s not a secret that we want people in positions that work with this president, not against him, and too often we have people in this government—I mean the federal government is massive, with millions of people—and there are a lot people out there taking action against this president and when we find them we will take appropriate action,” Gidley said.

His comments followed reports in Axios that the administration maintains “deep state” hit lists of employees to fire and the president has tasked the head of the Presidential Personnel Office, Johnny McEntee, to purge “bad people” who are not loyal to him. The latter report mentioned only political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at will, but Gidley’s comments this week appeared to go further.

“Time and time again we see in the media reports from people in the bowels of the federal government working against this president,” he said.

Gidley added that unelected federal workers were pushing “their own selfish political agenda” rather than advancing and executing Trump’s.

“The president's been pretty clear about the fact he wants people in this administration who want to forward his agenda,” Gidley said. “Donald Trump was the only one elected. He was the only one that the American people voted for. They didn't vote for someone at any of these other agencies, any of these other departments.

And speaking of Trump's purges, the guy who's going to lead it is channeling Bush's Coalition Provisional Authority by throwing highly partisan young people with no real experience at the task. In McEntee's case, a 23-year-old he worked with at Trump's 2020 campaign.

A new senior leader at the White House personnel office: A college senior

Politico wrote:

The White House has hired a college senior to be one of the top officials in its powerful Presidential Personnel Office, according to three administration officials familiar with the matter.

James Bacon, 23, is acting as one of the right-hand men to new PPO director John McEntee, according to the officials. Bacon, a senior at George Washington University pursuing a bachelor’s degree, comes from the Department of Transportation, where he briefly worked in the policy shop. Prior to that role, while still taking classes, he worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he was a White House liaison, according to two other officials. At HUD, he distinguished himself as Secretary Ben Carson’s confidential assistant, according to two other administration officials.

Bacon worked for McEntee on the Trump campaign’s earliest days and also did some work on the advance team. He later did operations on the Trump transition. Bacon would have graduated on time if he had not taken time off from school to work on the campaign, an official said.

Bacon will be PPO’s director of operations overseeing paperwork and will assist on vetting. The role was previously filled by Katja Bullock, who is in her late 70s and was a veteran of the office in both Bush administrations, as well as the Reagan administration.

The White House has not yet sent around any formal internal notice of Bacon’s new role. A White House spokesman declined to comment.

And speaking of Trump getting help with his purges, it looks like the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been handing him lists of people who her group deems disloyal or unsuitable for months. (Ironically Trump has just called for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from any case involving him--SCOTUS is going to three cases involving his taxes and financial records in March--because they were too partisan.)

Among Those Pressing Trump to Weed Out Disloyalty: Clarence Thomas’s Wife

NYT wrote:

For the past 18 months, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, and other conservatives have plied the White House with memos and suggestions about which people to fire — and who should replace them.

President Trump has generally treated Ms. Thomas’s suggestions coolly, passing them off to advisers, according to people familiar with Ms. Thomas’s efforts. But since the end of the Senate impeachment trial, the president has become more distrustful of the people filling the ranks of government and has been giving those recommendations a closer look.

The memos from Ms. Thomas were first reported by Axios.

Among Ms. Thomas’s top targets have been officials at the National Security Council, the former head of the White House personnel office, Sean Doocey, and other top White House aides. Another target was Jessie K. Liu, who recently left her job as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for a job in the Treasury Department that was later withdrawn by the White House.

Ms. Thomas, a politically active conservative who for nearly seven years has led a group called Groundswell, also successfully lobbied for a role for Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the former attorney general of Virginia who is now the acting deputy secretary of homeland security.

...

Some administration aides have long been suspicious that people like Ms. Thomas and Ms. Dunlop are less interested in pro-Trump purity than in appointments for their own networks of friends. White House officials have privately questioned Ms. Thomas’s lobbying on personnel, and have said Mr. Trump — who is facing several decisions before the Supreme Court personally and in terms of administration policy — has made clear he is conscious of whom she is married to.

Still, in the last year, as Mr. Trump has grown more mistrustful of his government, the sway held by Ms. Thomas and her group has increased. Administration officials have routinely sent aides to attend weekly Groundswell meetings held at the offices of Judicial Watch, another conservative group led by a vocal defender of the president, Tom Fitton.

That should definitely be impeachable. We can impeach supreme court justices right?
Unf*cking believable!

fangblackbone wrote:

That should definitely be impeachable. We can impeach supreme court justices right?
Unf*cking believable!

We can pack the courts. But that would be considered extreme by the center.

So probably what we'll have to do is wait for 66% of American states to turn blue and only then can we turn the courts around.

DSGamer wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

That should definitely be impeachable. We can impeach supreme court justices right?
Unf*cking believable!

We can pack the courts. But that would be considered extreme by the center.

So probably what we'll have to do is wait for 66% of American states to turn blue and only then can we turn the courts around.

FDR pulled America out of the Great Depression, secured the largest popular vote in history in 1936 (as well as the best showing in the electoral college since Monroe ran unopposed in 1820), and yet his attempt to pack the Supreme Court in early '37 went down in spectacular flames.

Based on the primary turnouts we're looking at numbers that are slightly above 2016 and nowhere near 2008, so whichever Democrat wins (if they win) isn't going to be walking into the White House with an FDR-level popular vote and electoral college win and resulting mandate.

OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

That should definitely be impeachable. We can impeach supreme court justices right?
Unf*cking believable!

We can pack the courts. But that would be considered extreme by the center.

So probably what we'll have to do is wait for 66% of American states to turn blue and only then can we turn the courts around.

FDR pulled America out of the Great Depression, secured the largest popular vote in history in 1936 (as well as the best showing in the electoral college since Monroe ran unopposed in 1820), and yet his attempt to pack the Supreme Court in early '37 went down in spectacular flames.

Well there were flames, but that doesn't sound right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_sw...

tl;dr for what OG left out: the Supreme Court maybe not have been motivated by FDR's proposed court-packing, but shortly after court packing was proposed the Supreme Court became much more friendly to the New Deal and changed the way it ruled so significantly the constitutional nature of the United States itself was transformed.

edit: digging deeper there were costs, but I'd still say it's misleading to say it went down in flames.

Based on the primary turnouts we're looking at numbers that are slightly above 2016 and nowhere near 2008, so whichever Democrat wins (if they win) isn't going to be walking into the White House with an FDR-level popular vote and electoral college win and resulting mandate.

based on 2008 being two years before 2010, you get while the getting is good. If Presidential parties are going to keep getting wiped out in midterms, do whatever you can while you've got power short of damaging the next Presidential election, because you won't have it for long.

An exception might be that the Democratic electorate might now be in as much a state of perpetual panic as the Republican one is and therefore will show up for midterms, so Destiny really is the Democratic Demographic, in which case slow and steady might not be as bad of a strategy.

Except that the Republicans can prevent Demographic Destiny faster than it can come about. If we pick slow and steady, we will become a one party State with gerry mandering and voter disenfranchisement. What will it matter if 75% of the country are Democrats, but half of their votes don't count? It will be tyranny of the minority and this Supreme Court will gleefully support it.


I open a can of cat food for dinner as my wife and I try to stretch our “Trumpcare”, formerly “Social Security” dollars a little further.

We muse about what life was like before the great glacial meltdown washed away all arable farmland. We settle in to watch the 2050 presidential debates.

Charlie Kirk is promising to “Make America Great Again” by finishing what Trump started.

Meanwhile Pete Buttigieg, having finally broken through in his 6th presidential bid, is promising an incremental approach to restoring the rule of law.

We consume our cat food, looking forward hopefully to the demographic changes that will finally allow the majority to govern. Maybe we can increase our cat food rations.

Mixolyde wrote:

Except that the Republicans can prevent Demographic Destiny faster than it can come about. If we pick slow and steady, we will become a one party State with gerry mandering and voter disenfranchisement. What will it matter if 75% of the country are Democrats, but half of their votes don't count? It will be tyranny of the minority and this Supreme Court will gleefully support it.

Oh I know, it's like Republicans are the Connor family with how they keep successfully fighting fate off for another day, but I was playing Devilcrat's Advocate and looking for weaknesses in my own argument.

edit: on second thought, not problematic or even problematic adjacent, but eh. Also, maybe *too* depressing.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

tl;dr for what OG left out: the Supreme Court maybe not have been motivated by FDR's proposed court-packing, but shortly after court packing was proposed the Supreme Court became much more friendly to the New Deal and changed the way it ruled so significantly the constitutional nature of the United States itself was transformed.

A single Justice changed their mind and did so before FDR threatened to pack the courts.

Smithsonian Magazine wrote:

This set of decisions came about because one justice, Owen Roberts, switched his vote. Ever since, historians have argued about why he did so. We know that he changed his mind on the validity of minimum wage laws for women before Roosevelt delivered his court-packing message, so FDR’s proposal could not have been the proximate cause. Since there is no archival evidence to account for his abrupt change on the minimum wage cases, scholars have been reduced to speculation. Perhaps, during a visit to Roberts’ country retreat in Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Hughes had warned his younger colleague that the court was placing itself in jeopardy. Perhaps Roberts was impressed by the dimensions of FDR’s landslide, which indicated that the president, not the court’s majority, spoke for the nation. Perhaps he was affected by the biting criticism from within the legal community.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: digging deeper there were costs, but I'd still say it's misleading to say it went down in flames.

Democrats held supermajorities in both the House and the Senate in 1936. The House refused to touch FDR's reform bill.

The Senate Judiciary Committee published one hell of a negative report--signed by 10 Senators, seven of which were prominent Democrats--on FDR's bill calling it "a direct violation of the spirit of the American Constitution," "an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country," and "a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle," said it would "subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights," and ended with "it is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be present to the free representatives of the free people of America."

The result was FDR's reform bill was overwhelmingly voted back into committee and the Senate floor explicitly told the Judiciary Committee to neuter the bill, which it did.

Having the party you represent control both chambers of Congress after you won the election in a landslide and getting your pet legislation--that you spent six months championing--smacked down is "going down in flames."

Not to mention all the political capital FDR burned during his attempt, so much so that his entire domestic policy and other planned political reforms ground to a halt.

The Great Depression, the New Deal, and the American Legal Order, by Michael E. Parrish wrote:

The protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat at the hands of Chief Justice Hughes and the administration's Congressional opponents. 89 Roosevelt lost more in the wake of this setback than a few judicial appointments. He lost as well the initiative on domestic policy to the Congress. Having punctured the myth of FDR's political infallibility, members of the House and Senate became more critical of new proposals from the White House and carefully scrutinized existing New Deal programs that had stirred controversy, especially the National Labor Relations Act.

The economic recession of 1937-38 and Roosevelt's attempt to restructure the executive branch dealt other blows to presidential prestige and leadership. After taking credit for the economic upturn before the election, the President had to absorb the blame for the "Roosevelt recession," which had been triggered in part by his own desire to trim federal expenditures and balance the budget. Congress also scuttled his bold plans to reorganize the executive branch, which rested upon the recommendations of a blue-ribbon committee on administrative management headed by the renowned Louis Brownlow. The original bill called for the enlargement of the White House staff, creation of the Executive Office of the President to include the Bureau of the Budget, and a far-reaching consolidation of existing bureaus, agencies, and commissions into twelve super departments, all under the President's control. Even independent regulatory commissions such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission would have been regrouped under the authority of these executive departments.90

Congressional critics denounced the reorganization plan as another presidential power grab. Working in tandem with frightened bureaucrats who hoped to protect their own fiefdoms from the White House, they easily defeated the proposal's most important features. Roosevelt received his Bureau of the Budget and a larger staff, but Congress retained the upper hand on executive reorganization by means of the controversial legislative veto. Although the final statute permitted the President to regroup certain agencies and functions as he saw fit, the legislative veto provided that his orders might be nullified within sixty days by a concurrent resolution of the Congress. 91

Roosevelt's political fortunes reached another nadir in the 1938 elections, when several conservative Democrats won reelection despite FDR's effort to "purge" them during bitter primary campaigns. Defeated on judicial reform and executive reorganization, Roosevelt now confronted a well-organized and aggressive conservative coalition in Congress, which resisted most presidential initiatives on domestic policy and harried many New Dealers with accusations of subversion and un-American activities. 92 The New Deal had been derailed and presidential power checked at home by the time German troops marched into Austria and Czechoslovakia. Only in the sphere of foreign policy, a traditional prerogative of the executive, did presidential power remain on the offensive after 1938.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

based on 2008 being two years before 2010, you get while the getting is good. If Presidential parties are going to keep getting wiped out in midterms, do whatever you can while you've got power short of damaging the next Presidential election, because you won't have it for long.

I meant that Bernie, despite all his talk about motivating hordes of new and young voters, isn't coming anywhere close to putting up Obama's 2008 numbers. And that means, should he get the nomination, he's not going to walk into the Oval Office with a resounding mandate from voters like FDR had in 1936 (not to mention his considerable political skills). Neither he nor any Democrat who might win is going to have the political juice to causally stuff SCOTUS while simultaneously trying to enact other massive reforms or introduce major new programs and policies.

No Democrat will be able to do anything about the supreme court without removing McConnell. We all know that. I would not put it past Mitch to stall and block a nominee from a Democrat for the entire 4 years if those circumstances come about.

fangblackbone wrote:

No Democrat will be able to do anything about the supreme court without removing McConnell. We all know that. I would not put it past Mitch to stall and block a nominee from a Democrat for the entire 4 years if those circumstances come about.

I expect this.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

tl;dr for what OG left out: the Supreme Court maybe not have been motivated by FDR's proposed court-packing, but shortly after court packing was proposed the Supreme Court became much more friendly to the New Deal and changed the way it ruled so significantly the constitutional nature of the United States itself was transformed.

A single Justice changed their mind and did so before FDR threatened to pack the courts.

Smithsonian Magazine wrote:

This set of decisions came about because one justice, Owen Roberts, switched his vote. Ever since, historians have argued about why he did so. We know that he changed his mind on the validity of minimum wage laws for women before Roosevelt delivered his court-packing message, so FDR’s proposal could not have been the proximate cause. Since there is no archival evidence to account for his abrupt change on the minimum wage cases, scholars have been reduced to speculation. Perhaps, during a visit to Roberts’ country retreat in Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Hughes had warned his younger colleague that the court was placing itself in jeopardy. Perhaps Roberts was impressed by the dimensions of FDR’s landslide, which indicated that the president, not the court’s majority, spoke for the nation. Perhaps he was affected by the biting criticism from within the legal community.

Uh, yes OG, all that was in my comment even before the edit, if you had bothered to read it.

edit: heck, it's even in the first line of my post that you quoted.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: digging deeper there were costs, but I'd still say it's misleading to say it went down in flames.

Democrats held supermajorities in both the House and the Senate in 1936. The House refused to touch FDR's reform bill.

The Senate Judiciary Committee published one hell of a negative report--signed by 10 Senators, seven of which were prominent Democrats--on FDR's bill calling it "a direct violation of the spirit of the American Constitution," "an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country," and "a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle," said it would "subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights," and ended with "it is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be present to the free representatives of the free people of America."

The result was FDR's reform bill was overwhelmingly voted back into committee and the Senate floor explicitly told the Judiciary Committee to neuter the bill, which it did.

Having the party you represent control both chambers of Congress after you won the election in a landslide and getting your pet legislation--that you spent six months championing--smacked down is "going down in flames."

Are you kidding? Attempting to get the Supreme Court to start ruling in favor of your legislation and reject the judicial philosophy that had been hobbling your side for years is going down in flames? That's ridiculous.

The error here is the Supreme Court at the time was already moving towards rejecting the established judicial philosophy and ready to embrace a new one that fundamentally transformed the Constitutional nature of the US. That's not a mistake in choosing the action, that's a mistake in not reading that the court was going to give you what you wanted anyway.

You think the conservatives on the current Supreme Court are going to be moved like that? Seriously? If anything, they're going to become *more* entrenched. It's the whole reason they were groomed and picked. John Roberts is your last, best hope that a Republican Supreme Court doesn't undercut not just a Democratic Congress, but even a Democratic President working through the Federal agencies.

Considering what Roberts did to the ACA and the Democratic Party by upholding the Individual Mandate but striking down the (edit) Medicaid expansion requirement, hey, you can trust him if you want. I think he's just *really* good at getting what he wants.

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I feel like a liberal Roberts opinion is like the fisherman letting out some more line. He's not letting the fish go, he's letting the fish tire itself out and keep his line from breaking.

OG_slinger wrote:

Not to mention all the political capital FDR burned during his attempt, so much so that his entire domestic policy and other planned political reforms ground to a halt.

The Great Depression, the New Deal, and the American Legal Order, by Michael E. Parrish wrote:

The protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat at the hands of Chief Justice Hughes and the administration's Congressional opponents. 89 Roosevelt lost more in the wake of this setback than a few judicial appointments. He lost as well the initiative on domestic policy to the Congress. Having punctured the myth of FDR's political infallibility, members of the House and Senate became more critical of new proposals from the White House and carefully scrutinized existing New Deal programs that had stirred controversy, especially the National Labor Relations Act.

The economic recession of 1937-38 and Roosevelt's attempt to restructure the executive branch dealt other blows to presidential prestige and leadership. After taking credit for the economic upturn before the election, the President had to absorb the blame for the "Roosevelt recession," which had been triggered in part by his own desire to trim federal expenditures and balance the budget. Congress also scuttled his bold plans to reorganize the executive branch, which rested upon the recommendations of a blue-ribbon committee on administrative management headed by the renowned Louis Brownlow. The original bill called for the enlargement of the White House staff, creation of the Executive Office of the President to include the Bureau of the Budget, and a far-reaching consolidation of existing bureaus, agencies, and commissions into twelve super departments, all under the President's control. Even independent regulatory commissions such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission would have been regrouped under the authority of these executive departments.90

Congressional critics denounced the reorganization plan as another presidential power grab. Working in tandem with frightened bureaucrats who hoped to protect their own fiefdoms from the White House, they easily defeated the proposal's most important features. Roosevelt received his Bureau of the Budget and a larger staff, but Congress retained the upper hand on executive reorganization by means of the controversial legislative veto. Although the final statute permitted the President to regroup certain agencies and functions as he saw fit, the legislative veto provided that his orders might be nullified within sixty days by a concurrent resolution of the Congress. 91

Roosevelt's political fortunes reached another nadir in the 1938 elections, when several conservative Democrats won reelection despite FDR's effort to "purge" them during bitter primary campaigns. Defeated on judicial reform and executive reorganization, Roosevelt now confronted a well-organized and aggressive conservative coalition in Congress, which resisted most presidential initiatives on domestic policy and harried many New Dealers with accusations of subversion and un-American activities. 92 The New Deal had been derailed and presidential power checked at home by the time German troops marched into Austria and Czechoslovakia. Only in the sphere of foreign policy, a traditional prerogative of the executive, did presidential power remain on the offensive after 1938.

emphasis mine

even granting the end of that last paragraph for the sake of argument, do you even read the things you post? Even the piece *you* posted lists several other, major causes for FDR's lost political capital.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

based on 2008 being two years before 2010, you get while the getting is good. If Presidential parties are going to keep getting wiped out in midterms, do whatever you can while you've got power short of damaging the next Presidential election, because you won't have it for long.

I meant that Bernie, despite all his talk about motivating hordes of new and young voters, isn't coming anywhere close to putting up Obama's 2008 numbers. And that means, should he get the nomination, he's not going to walk into the Oval Office with a resounding mandate from voters like FDR had in 1936 (not to mention his considerable political skills). Neither he nor any Democrat who might win is going to have the political juice to causally stuff SCOTUS while simultaneously trying to enact other massive reforms or introduce major new programs and policies.

Making an argument that something is a bad use of your sufficient political capital is different from the argument that you won't have the sufficient political capital in the first place. If you meant to make the latter but you wrote the former and you're not just silently trying to move the goalposts here, then for the sake of argument, sure, let's grant that for now.

If we're talking about wasting political capital, though, the lesson from 2008-2010 is USE IT OR LOSE IT.

DSGamer wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

No Democrat will be able to do anything about the supreme court without removing McConnell. We all know that. I would not put it past Mitch to stall and block a nominee from a Democrat for the entire 4 years if those circumstances come about.

I expect this.

100%. Merrick Garland was a test. They got away with a whole year. Next they'll try something about it's only midterms and we need to listen to the people to try to get their base scared to vote.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Uh, yes OG, all that was in my comment even before the edit, if you had bothered to read it.

edit: heck, it's even in the first line of my post that you quoted.

What you left from your comment was that "the Supreme Court became much more friendly to the New Deal" was really one Justice changing their mind and he actually changed it *before* court packing was proposed.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Are you kidding? Attempting to get the Supreme Court to start ruling in favor of your legislation and reject the judicial philosophy that had been hobbling your side for years is going down in flames? That's ridiculous.

Having your own party jam a stake in the heart of the pet legislation you've spent half a year personally promoting is going down in flames. FDR even held a gigantic three-day party at the Jefferson Island Club in June 1937 and had the Navy shuttle 400 Congressional Democrats to and from the party so he could try to personally sell them on his legislation. He was all in on it.

If the Democratically-controlled Senate in back in 2010 held off from bringing the ACA to the floor for a vote, released a committee report railing against it, and then, weeks of contentious political infighting later, voted to return it to committee to be drowned in a shallow pool of water everyone would have said Obama went down in flames. Doubly so if he had invited all of them to a long weekend at Camp David for food, booze, entertainment, and some good old fashioned political haggling and they still didn't vote for him.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

The error here is the Supreme Court at the time was already moving towards rejecting the established judicial philosophy and ready to embrace a new one that fundamentally transformed the Constitutional nature of the US. That's not a mistake in choosing the action, that's a mistake in not reading that the court was going to give you what you wanted anyway.

You think the conservatives on the current Supreme Court are going to be moved like that? Seriously? If anything, they're going to become *more* entrenched. It's the whole reason they were groomed and picked. John Roberts is your last, best hope that a Republican Supreme Court doesn't undercut not just a Democratic Congress, but even a Democratic President working through the Federal agencies.

Considering what Roberts did to the ACA and the Democratic Party by upholding the Individual Mandate but striking down the (edit) Medicaid expansion requirement, hey, you can trust him if you want. I think he's just *really* good at getting what he wants.

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I feel like a liberal Roberts opinion is like the fisherman letting out some more line. He's not letting the fish go, he's letting the fish tire itself out and keep his line from breaking.

Except that FDR clearly didn't think SCOTUS was going to become supportive of his efforts otherwise he wouldn't have decided to pack the courts. Hindsight's 20/20 I suppose.

And you're pushing the collective Supreme Court notion again. SCOTUS as a whole didn't become more friendly to FDR. A single justice did.

So it doesn't have to be conservatives on the current court that change their collective minds, it just has to be one, like Roberts.

But history has already told us how people will react to a blatantly partisan stuffing of the Supreme Court. And that was back in the days before Fox News, conservative talk radio, well-funded think tanks, and social media.

Any attempt by a Democratic president to stuff the Supreme Court today would be met with quite the sh*t storm. Hell, I remember reading a tale of a Senator who was inspired to vote against stuffing the courts because one of his constituents mailed him a bullet and told him he'd get another if he rubber stamped FDR's plan. Today's response would be hordes of overweight AR-15 toting idiots in camo and Ray-Bans who call themselves the Wolverines or some goddamn stupid militia name.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

even granting the end of that last paragraph for the sake of argument, do you even read the things you post? Even the piece *you* posted lists several other, major causes for FDR's lost political capital.

I can read quite well, cheeze. Like this sentence you've seemingly ignored:

The Great Depression, the New Deal, and the American Legal Order, by Michael E. Parrish wrote:

Having punctured the myth of FDR's political infallibility, members of the House and Senate became more critical of new proposals from the White House and carefully scrutinized existing New Deal programs that had stirred controversy, especially the National Labor Relations Act.

He wasted a metric asston of political capital on a failed attempt to stuff the courts and that hurt him elsewhere.

His attempt to reform the Executive Branch died precisely because of his failed attempt to stuff the courts. He had been working on that reform since early '36. He actually released the report and its recommendations to Congress a few weeks before he announced his plan to stuff the courts. Predictably, the reaction to his partisan court stuffing tainted his executive reform bill, which had to wait until 1939 to be signed into law (and even then it only contained two of the recommendations made in the Brownlow Committee report).

Roosevelt submitted the Brownlow Committee's report to Congress and on January 12, 1937, sought legislative approval to implement the Committee's recommendations.[5][15] The bill immediately sparked concern that it delegated far too much power to the president.[8][11] Additionally, members of Congress were unhappy that the bill would further diminish the patronage system, abolish the position of Comptroller General (a position then held by a Republican), and disrupt congressional committee oversight of and relationships with executive branch agencies.[6][15] However, the bill's prospects for passage appeared relatively good. On February 5, Roosevelt submitted the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, to allow Associate Justices to the Supreme Court to be appointed for every sitting member over the age of 70-and-one-half years of age, up to a maximum of six.[16]

The "court-packing" scheme led to widespread accusations that Roosevelt was attempting to impose a dictatorship, and the reorganization bill was quickly seen in the same light, which led to congressional efforts to weaken the reorganization plan. In the Senate, Burton K. Wheeler proposed an amendment to the bill for a two-chamber legislative veto of any reorganization plan and a 60-day waiting period before any reorganization plan was effective.[17] The Senate defeated the highly contentious motion by four votes.[17] Attempts were made in the House to adopt the Wheeler plan. The effort came close to success several times, which led the administration to agree to exempt a large number of independent agencies from the bill in an effort to win members' favor.[17] However, the House, already upset over the extension of presidential influence and the reduction of its own authority, now saw the legislation as part of a Roosevelt power grab and tabled the bill.

His attempted court stuffing hindered his response to the Recession of 1937-38 and certainly hit his poll numbers and the public's opinion about what he was doing and how successful he was doing it. And conservative Democrats began working against him because they saw what he did and didn't like it and the smelled blood in the water. That's what losing political capital is all about.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Making an argument that something is a bad use of your sufficient political capital is different from the argument that you won't have the sufficient political capital in the first place. If you meant to make the latter but you wrote the former and you're not just silently trying to move the goalposts here, then for the sake of argument, sure, let's grant that for now.

If we're talking about wasting political capital, though, the lesson from 2008-2010 is USE IT OR LOSE IT.

Trying to stuff SCOTUS again would be a monumentally stupid use of any president's political capital no matter how good it would feel to "stick it to the conservatives" (who, by the way, would simply return the favor when they got the White House and 60 Senators again).

Trying to stuff SCOTUS again when you're trying to champion a massive restructuring of the entire healthcare system (a restructuring that only has the barest of majority support and that's super tentative because no one really knows what it means) would be outright political death.

Trying to stuff the restructuring of the entire healthcare system in two years because you're afraid you're going to lose the House would also be moronic because that's how you write sh*tty legislation that gets struck down in court challenges.

Any attempt by any president to push anything remotely resembling M4A is going to burn all of their political capital. FDR had lots of it to burn in 1937. A Democratic president who's only going to be sitting in the Oval Office because a lot of people held their nose and voted for them isn't going to a lot of capital to burn. And they'll probably have even less because we all know Trump's going to claim he was robbed and the election wasn't 100% legitimate.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Uh, yes OG, all that was in my comment even before the edit, if you had bothered to read it.

edit: heck, it's even in the first line of my post that you quoted.

What you left from your comment was that "the Supreme Court became much more friendly to the New Deal" was really one Justice changing their mind and he actually changed it *before* court packing was proposed.

Just one justice?

On the Hughes Court, Roberts was a swing vote positioned between the conservative Four Horsemen and the liberal Three Musketeers. Along with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Roberts's vote often decided whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation would be upheld. His decision to uphold the constitutionality of a state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish has been called "the switch in time that saved nine." That term references the decision's possible role in the defeat of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have expanded the Supreme Court and thus allowed Roosevelt to appoint Justices more sympathetic to his policies. Roberts's motivation for upholding the constitutionality of the New Deal and his role in the defeat of the bill remains a matter of debate.

emphasis mine

The Four Horsemen:

The Four Horsemen would ride in a car to and from the court together to coordinate positions and arguments. They were vehemently opposed to the New Deal policies for unemployment and economic recovery, and they invalidated state laws regulating labor and business relations.[4] The Four's votes kept Congress and the states from regulating the economy.[4] These actions led many observers to the conclusion that the court was likely to be obstructive to all legislative efforts to cope with the depression, and to remain wedded to the precedents of the Lochner era.[1] Some academics argued that the court's aversion to "regulated capitalism" confronted the country with "the question not how governmental functions shall be shared, but whether in substance we shall govern at all."[5]
.
The result of these dynamics was a steady drift of the court towards a crisis; the 1935 term was labeled by Stone "one of the most disastrous in [the court's] history."[6] New Dealers decried the court's actions as "economic dictatorship" and some communities even hanged the justices in effigy.[5]

Yes, the court became much more friendly--that one justice was the swing vote! This isn't horseshoes or handgrenades, OG: close doesn't count. "just one vote" changes a hostile 4-5 court into a friendly 5-4 court.

Here, try this OG: just think about, like, Merrick Garland. The Republicans kept him off the court, and instead we got Neil Gorsuch.

If someone came up to you said "it's really just a change of one justice's mind for another's" how would you react?

Having your own party jam a stake in the heart of the pet legislation you've spent half a year personally promoting is going down in flames. FDR even held a gigantic three-day party at the Jefferson Island Club in June 1937 and had the Navy shuttle 400 Congressional Democrats to and from the party so he could try to personally sell them on his legislation. He was all in on it.

Having the supreme court change from knocking down your legislation to upholding it is not going down in flames. It's spending your political capital on something that's worth it.

"pet legislation"? Do you realize that legislation was trying to make possible basically the New Deal itself?

Look, maybe the problem is that what I perceive as willful ignorance is just that the importance of that switch is not being recognized here. The US federal government is a lot different than most democracies. We don't have a "peace order and good government" clause. That power stayed with the states. The change in the law when that supreme court started ruling in favor of the New Deal is the basis for *so much* of what the Federal government does these days:

In 1935 the Supreme Court of the United States, in Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States, invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress's power under the commerce clause. This was a unanimous decision that rendered the National Industrial Recovery Act, a main component of President Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional. Again in 1936, in Carter v. Carter Coal Company,[11] the Supreme Court struck down a key element of the New Deal's regulation of the mining industry, on the grounds that mining was not "commerce." In the preceding decades, the Court had struck down a laundry list of Progressive legislation – minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of the New Deal legislation that had come before it. After winning re-election in 1936, Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, wherein the President could appoint an additional Justice for each sitting Justice over age 70. Given the age of the current Justices, this allowed a Supreme Court size of up to 15 Justices. Roosevelt claimed that this was intended to lessen the load on the older Justices, rather than being an attempt to achieve a majority that would cease to strike his New Deal acts. (LINK)

want to know how important that was?

National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. The case represented a major expansion in the Court's interpretation of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and effectively spelled the end to the Court's striking down of New Deal economic legislation. (LINK)
The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large, 216-room motel in Atlanta, Georgia. In direct violation of the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned racial discrimination in public places, largely based on Congress's control of interstate commerce, the motel refused to rent rooms to African-American patrons. The owner, Moreton Rolleston, filed suit in federal court, arguing that the requirements of the Act exceeded the authority granted to Congress over interstate commerce. (LINK)
Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Every major post-1970 environment law relies on this Constitutional power—the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8—to restrict air and water pollution and protect endangered species. (LINK)

Labor Unions, Civil Rights Law, Environmental Protection, you can keep looking up how much of what the Federal government does is based on that change in interpreting the commerce clause.

So yeah, that's *not* going down in flames. That's getting the supreme court to keep from burning down everything you're trying to do and as time goes on making your Party's platform possible. Heck, keeping the court from burning the country down and turning it into something out of a Ken Levine game.

Jesus, you two.

IMAGE(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OGC.ea01b5e186301b637de15295d30f7e92&pid=Api&rurl=https%3a%2f%2f1.bp.blogspot.com%2f-LZSgW9FXY6E%2fVicdWHSK-uI%2fAAAAAAAAtZg%2fV9swkaf4bRo%2fs400%2ftumblr_nry4vlx83E1tap2dlo1_250.gif&ehk=1FjOAMOoYUblHyk4LjzPzR9sXOkbkSmOVPrmYgG3nak%3d)

DSGamer wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

That should definitely be impeachable. We can impeach supreme court justices right?
Unf*cking believable!

We can pack the courts. But that would be considered extreme by the center.

So probably what we'll have to do is wait for 66% of American states to turn blue and only then can we turn the courts around.

Buttigieg is the one suggesting we do exactly that.