Trump Presidency

[ACamp1900]

Assuming they do it,... How many years before court packing somehow blows up in the left’s face and they have a collective fit over it?? Five years??

 

[IrishLax]

Assuming they do it,... How many years before court packing somehow blows up in the left’s face and they have a collective fit over it?? Five years??

2024, probably.

But really, it's comical to me to watch the right complain here. When Republicans stonewalled judges for multiple years under Obama, and then cried about "tradition" of not nominating someone in an election year. Lindsey Graham said "use my words against me" that if we ended up in this exact situation Republicans would do the honorable thing and not nominate someone. Well, they're holding you to that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Democrats started the whole mess in Obama's first term, and Mitch McConnell said he was going to make them pay. He has. But when you go scorched earth like McConnell did, don't feign shock and concern when the other party wants to do the same thing back to you. If you don't want them to add justices -- which is their constitutional right -- then maybe sit down and work out a deal. If you don't have guts or competency to do that don't cry if they pay you back... "elections have consequences", remember?

 

[ACamp1900]

But when you go scorched earth don't feign shock and concern when the other party wants to do the same thing back to you.

Which to me applies more to the left over the last ten years, MM was responding to them, not the other way round... but whatever. Ideally we really need to get ride of the parties, it’s beyond toxic

 

[NorthDakota]

The constitution doesn't stipulate 9 justices and has had varying numbers over the years. There's a strong argument to be made that the court should have a LOT more than 9 justices, and that appointments should not be lifetime.

The courts haven't been "non-political" since, at minimum, Obama's first term. And realistically it was long before that.

No one said it stipulates nine justices. Are you comfortable with expansions every time a new political party obtains the white house and senate? Do you not support even a modest check on a unified legislative and executive?

"Ah shit we have some landmark legislation we want to pass. It's pretty edgy. I suppose we better add like 4 more justices to make sure they don't shoot it down." <---- thats what adding justices does.

Whether we have 9 or 5 or 15, does not matter. The point is to have a stable number. Would you have had a problem if Donald had added 4 ustices in 2017 to make sure his shit was always going to go through? Does that not raise some issues of legitimacy?

 

[Irish YJ]

Again, I'm not making a point for the merits of it but it's not a lie.

I wish the point the administration would make is how difficult this is due to the lack of collective agreement on response.

Anybody that says this is a Trump issue and is denying any and all Presidents would've had similar issues due to State rights and their clear want to handle their responses independently isn't being honest.

I mean, Gov. Cuomo is a great example. At the end of March, New York contained 30% of all cases. Trump wanted to lockdown the Tri-state area and Cuomo threatened law suit. 1. It probably would've helped. 2. A national lockdown would've been met with angry states that didn't feel they needed them. 3. So, also lawsuits.

This.

I'd just add, or stress that every single state, and city to an extent is responsible for their own guidelines. Dems states still have highest deaths/mil, and what Rep states are in the top 10 are there because of large cities that are largely Dem run.

Michigan, which had some of the strictest lock downs, is still number 11, and even has the benefit of geography (largely surrounded by water).

Then you also have comps like UK, which is likely closest in culture and everything else to the US. They are very close to US stats. And they also had the benefit of being an island. Spain, who had some of the earliest and hardest lock downs, while also having a lot of geo advantages, has worse stats.

No, Governor Cuomo is not a "great example". He is widely regarded by everyone who is being intellectually honest on both sides as having made major mistakes. He also had to unfortunate situation of being a guinea pig, so it's not realistic to expect him to have gotten everything right initially because virtually no one did.

Saying people would've had "similar issues" at the start is fine. Because people didn't really know what to expect, how the virus behaves, etc.

Pretending other presidents would've had the continued and extended period of abject failure that we've seen since is ridiculous. You had Trump actively ignoring CDC guidelines and setting a terrible example for Americans. That has nothing to do with "states rights" and everything to do with people taking cues from their leader. You cannot expect Americans to take it seriously when their leader doesn't take it seriously. He also rage tweeted misinformation on a daily basis and contradicted his own public health officials. He scrapped national testing and tracing initiatives that have proven effective in other countries. You can write literal paragraphs about his own personal failures in leadership that have nothing to do with "states rights" or anyone else but himself.

I think the point is, plug in Biden, or Obama, and reality is we're not any different. Several Euros did everything "right" that you're saying Trump did wrong, and they struggled, and are still struggling. UK is still climbing again, and Spain is just now starting two get a handle on their second round.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">New - Pelosi and Raskin to introduce bill creating a commission to review President’s health and fitness for office. This is what she was referring to when she referred to 25th Amendment. She’s having a press conference tomorrow <a href="https://t.co/nCXxzyfG16">pic.twitter.com/nCXxzyfG16</a></p>— Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1314294069514907652?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is super duper ooper dumb. Can't wait less than a month? This is why half the country will continue to hate the other half. And folks call Trump divisive lol.

The constitution doesn't stipulate 9 justices and has had varying numbers over the years. There's a strong argument to be made that the court should have a LOT more than 9 justices, and that appointments should not be lifetime.

The courts haven't been "non-political" since, at minimum, Obama's first term. And realistically it was long before that.

You're being intellectually dishonest here. It's been 9 since the 1800s. FDR tried this shit IIRC to get around norms. We all know why they want to do it. And we all know what will happen if they do. Any "strong" argument is based on "we didn't get our way" mentality, looking to change the rules/norms to grab power. It's nothing more than an attempt to continue to legislate from the court, instead of demanding legislature do their jobs.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">New - Pelosi and Raskin to introduce bill creating a commission to review President’s health and fitness for office. This is what she was referring to when she referred to 25th Amendment. She’s having a press conference tomorrow <a href="https://t.co/nCXxzyfG16">pic.twitter.com/nCXxzyfG16</a></p>— Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1314294069514907652?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'd be more interested in seeing full health reports for Trump, Pelosi, and Biden. Stack those three up together on a chart for America and see where the red flags are.

 

[TorontoGold]

I'd be more interested in seeing full health reports for Trump, Pelosi, and Biden. Stack those three up together on a chart for America and see where the red flags are.

Yeah 100%, always weird there isn't some sort of combine for politicians. I read a story awhile ago that pharmacists around DC have been filling out prescriptions for dementia and other serious illnesses.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yeah 100%, always weird there isn't some sort of combine for politicians. I read a story awhile ago that pharmacists around DC have been filling out prescriptions for dementia and other serious illnesses.

Add the Shart King to that lineup.

 

[TorontoGold]

Add the Shart King to that lineup.

....not sure who that is, but yeah get them all to write the wonderlic and baseline health stats.

 

[Irish YJ]

....not sure who that is, but yeah get them all to write the wonderlic and baseline health stats.

<iframe width="600" height="380" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/afxQkPQtI54" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="600" height="380" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_5hN6KwlFwM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yeah 100%, always weird there isn't some sort of combine for politicians. I read a story awhile ago that pharmacists around DC have been filling out prescriptions for dementia and other serious illnesses.

Uh yeah, especially for those moochers who have been sitting in DC for DECADES.

 

[ACamp1900]

Uh yeah, especially for those moochers who have been sitting in DC for DECADES.

Meanwhile we all worry about the SCOTUS

 

[Irish YJ]

Meanwhile we all worry about the SCOTUS

I'm confident that the conservatives justices would win any physical, or drinking contest, over their liberal counterparts. Push up contests. Hot dog eating. Keg stands. You name it.

 

[NorthDakota]

I'm confident that the conservatives justices would win any physical, or drinking contest, over their liberal counterparts. Push up contests. Hot dog eating. Keg stands. You name it.

When sotomayor came to visit us she was not moving too well...wonder who kicks it first, her or Breyer

 

[Irish YJ]

When sotomayor came to visit us she was not moving too well...wonder who kicks it first, her or Breyer

Pretty sure Breyer is older by at least a decade, than anyone else now that RBG is gone. There really should be an age limit, of like 80, for SCOTUS. I don't care what party nominates.

I'd also like to see some requirements around health, or simply "ability to perform" in general for all branches.

 

[SonofOahu]

I mean, who doesn't? Amirite?

Hey, YO!

I think a disinterested party might read this post and conclude there is some projection going on..

Of course there is... I love sticking it to you Trumpanzees on here. Y'all bitches are soft like charmin.

Peace, Kobe.

 

[SonofOahu]

No one said it stipulates nine justices. Are you comfortable with expansions every time a new political party obtains the white house and senate? Do you not support even a modest check on a unified legislative and executive?

"Ah shit we have some landmark legislation we want to pass. It's pretty edgy. I suppose we better add like 4 more justices to make sure they don't shoot it down." <---- thats what adding justices does.

Whether we have 9 or 5 or 15, does not matter. The point is to have a stable number. Would you have had a problem if Donald had added 4 ustices in 2017 to make sure his shit was always going to go through? Does that not raise some issues of legitimacy?

It reeeeally pains me to say it, but dude is right. This could get ridiculous, really quickly.

Although I do believe an expansion is not necessarily a bad thing, I think the lifetime appointment is the real issue. A one-time term of 10 or 12 years should be applied. It's not like there isn't a deep bench of judges ready and willing to step up.

Hell, why not take the human factor out of it and make AI and analytics a part of the judiciary process?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Did people forget the reason Harry Reid nuked the filibuster was because the GOP pulled out all the stops on not confirming Obama’s judicial appointees? They also had legislation ready to go that decreased the number of judges on the DC Circuit court of appeal [so consider me unmoved by this "new found" packing the courts issue (see also below)]. It’s not like Dems create all their problems. They react to what GOP is doing as well. I WOULD love for someone to prove to me that Dems started this whole mess lol. Each step taken is increasingly partisan and egregious. Our system has been exposed for what it is under Trump.... its simply an honor system and no one is accountable to anyone for all the talk of separation of powers. And when persons without honor hold power, the system is broken.


As an aside:
As of today, the Trump Admin put forth 10 nominees that were determined to be unqualified for LIFETIME positions. Since 1989 they have had 21 appointees determined to be not qualified. Of these, 3 were Clinton's and the rest have been GWB and Trump. 4 of Trumps were withdrawn due to being UNANIMUOUSLY UNQUALIFIED.

https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration
As of October 1, 2020, the ABA had offered ratings for 258 of President Trump's nominees. The ABA rated 10 of those individuals not qualified for the nomination. Four of those nominees were unanimously rated not qualified: Steven Grasz, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit; John O'Connor, a nominee to the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma; Brett Talley, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; and Sarah Pitlyk, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The following nominees were rated not qualified by a majority or a substantial majority:

Charles B. Goodwin, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma;
Holly Lou Teeter, a nominee to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas;
Jonathan Kobes, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit;
Justin Walker, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky; and
Lawrence VanDyke, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a nominee to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The table below lists all 22 announced nominees rated not qualified since 1989:

If I was a person of Congress, I'd fight like hell to stop someone who was unqualified by their peers from getting a lifetime position in a position of great responsibility. Appointing these people to lifetime positions is a travesty of justice and honor.

 

[NorthDakota]

Did people forget the reason Harry Reid nuked the filibuster was because the GOP pulled out all the stops on not confirming Obama’s judicial appointees? They also had legislation ready to go that decreased the number of judges on the DC Circuit court of appeal [so consider me unmoved by this "new found" packing the courts issue (see also below)]. It’s not like Dems create all their problems. They react to what GOP is doing as well. I WOULD love for someone to prove to me that Dems started this whole mess lol. Each step taken is increasingly partisan and egregious. Our system has been exposed for what it is under Trump.... its simply an honor system and no one is accountable to anyone for all the talk of separation of powers. And when persons without honor hold power, the system is broken.


As an aside:
As of today, the Trump Admin put forth 10 nominees that were determined to be unqualified for LIFETIME positions. Since 1989 they have had 21 appointees determined to be not qualified. Of these, 3 were Clinton's and the rest have been GWB and Trump. 4 of Trumps were withdrawn due to being UNANIMUOUSLY UNQUALIFIED.


If I was a person of Congress, I'd fight like hell to stop someone who was unqualified by their peers from getting a lifetime position in a position of great responsibility. Appointing these people to lifetime positions is a travesty of justice and honor.

1. There may be some older examples, but it certainly predates anything Mitch McConnell did. I know one way to get conservative politicians and legal minds very angry very quickly is to bring up the names Robert Bork, and Miguel Estrada, the latter of whom was not confirmed because of his skin color.

2. No one cares what the ABA thinks anymore. They showed their colors during the Kavanaugh nomination

 

[Rogue219]

California is "losing water" to "tiny little fish".

WTF is Trump talking about?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

1. There may be some older examples, but it certainly predates anything Mitch McConnell did. I know one way to get conservative politicians and legal minds very angry very quickly is to bring up the names Robert Bork, and Miguel Estrada, the latter of whom was not confirmed because of his skin color.

2. No one cares what the ABA thinks anymore. They showed their colors during the Kavanaugh nomination

Yeah Brett Kavanaugh was part of the Starr team and was Karl Rove's homey that ran around the country for two years trying to find anything he could on BIll Clinton. Brett Kavanaugh was a GOP ratfucker before he was a judge appointed by Bush.

 

[NorthDakota]

Yeah Brett Kavanaugh was part of the Starr team and was Karl Rove's homey that ran around the country for two years trying to find anything he could on BIll Clinton. Brett Kavanaugh was a GOP ratfucker before he was a judge appointed by Bush.

What does any of that have to do with anything?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

What does any of that have to do with anything?

Republicans went after Bill Clinton and impeached for purely political reasons. Brett Kavannaugh is political ratfucker by trade who was sent out to dig up dirt on BC for purely political purposes and is now a SCOTUS.

I can understand anger towards his appointment and why he is not deserving of that seat purely based on his ratfuckery history against Dems. How is a biased political operative ratfucker qualified to sit on the highest seat in the land?

It matters for many reasons but serves as an example about how everyone is tit for tatting and blaming the other side for taking it a step further or several steps further. No one started it but they continue every day.

 

[NorthDakota]

Republicans went after Bill Clinton and impeached for purely political reasons. Brett Kavannaugh is political ratfucker by trade who was sent out to dig up dirt on BC for purely political purposes and is now a SCOTUS.

I can understand anger towards his appointment and why he is not deserving of that seat purely based on his ratfuckery history against Dems. How is a biased political operative ratfucker qualified to sit on the highest seat in the land?

It matters for many reasons but serves as an example about how everyone is tit for tatting and blaming the other side for taking it a step further or several steps further. No one started it but they continue every day.

We weren't discussing anger towards his nomination. We were discussing how the ABA was a joke for trying to pull his "well qualified" ranking. The ABA was well aware that Brett Kavanaugh worked on the Starr investigation and for the Bush White House. So if they knew that, determined he was qualified anyway, how would you justify pulling that ranking later?

Now apparently your vocabulary has either expanded to include the word "ratfucker" and its a shiny new toy for you or perhaps some weird decline has left you with only one word to be used as an insult.

I'm not sure why being politically active earlier in his career would be disqualifying, unless he was like a communist or something. I dont see an issue with an active member of a mainstream political party being nominated.

Pretty amusing how much you hate the guy though, gotta admit.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Republicans went after Bill Clinton and impeached for purely political reasons. Brett Kavannaugh is political ratfucker by trade who was sent out to dig up dirt on BC for purely political purposes and is now a SCOTUS.

I can understand anger towards his appointment and why he is not deserving of that seat purely based on his ratfuckery history against Dems. How is a biased political operative ratfucker qualified to sit on the highest seat in the land?

It matters for many reasons but serves as an example about how everyone is tit for tatting and blaming the other side for taking it a step further or several steps further. No one started it but they continue every day.

So many things wrong here, Cack. There was a lot more to the Clinton impeachment than just purely political reasons. He lied under oath. Perjury. There wasn't even any question of whether he did so. Not even his biggest supporters claimed he didn't. They just claimed it shouldn't have been prosecuted.

The constant "ratfuckery" adds nothing of value to the conversation. This sort of stuff makes it hard to have reasonable, adult conversations about politics. It soon becomes little more than playground insults and name-calling.

Political hatchet jobs and dirt digging are, unfortunately, part of the game in politics. Don't go all righteous outrage when one side does it, but see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when your side does it. Getting angry, losing your objectivity, and descending into a fit of name calling, insults, and a skewed, narrow, one-sided view of it all is a bad idea.

 

[Legacy]

I don't know that Trump has a mental or physical disorder that prevents him from carrying out his duties as President. Whether he is fulfilling that obligation is worth debating and may influence our vote.

However, many feel that he has a narcissistic personality disorder and that when his perception of himself is threatened, someone can exhibit narcissistic rage lashing out at anyone they feel threatened by or is critical of them.

 

[Bishop2b5]

If I was a person of Congress, I'd fight like hell to stop someone who was unqualified by their peers from getting a lifetime position in a position of great responsibility. Appointing these people to lifetime positions is a travesty of justice and honor.

Judges and justices who refuse to follow The Constitution are, by definition, unqualified, yet Dem presidents keep nominating them and you're OK with that. Get rid of the activist judges and justices who "reinterpret" The Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean and to support whatever radical agenda is popular at the moment, and then get back to me about unqualified appointees to the bench.

 

[NorthDakota]

Judges and justices who refuse to follow The Constitution are, by definition, unqualified, yet Dem presidents keep nominating them and you're OK with that. Get rid of the activist judges and justices who "reinterpret" The Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean and to support whatever radical agenda is popular at the moment, and then get back to me about unqualified appointees to the bench.

To be fair, the Constitution means whatever I say it means

 

[yankeehater]

California is "losing water" to "tiny little fish".

WTF is Trump talking about?

He is talking about the Delta Smelt. California cut off water to the farmers in the central valley to save the fish. I love how people think Trump is ignorant yet he knows more about things than any reporter asking the questions. Like when he brought up healight technology and the reporters laughed that Trump said you can put UV light inside a person. Uh....yes just ask Cedar Sinai.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/22/delta-smelt-fish-trump-california-aoe

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

So many things wrong here, Cack. There was a lot more to the Clinton impeachment than just purely political reasons. He lied under oath. Perjury. There wasn't even any question of whether he did so. Not even his biggest supporters claimed he didn't. They just claimed it shouldn't have been prosecuted.

The constant "ratfuckery" adds nothing of value to the conversation. This sort of stuff makes it hard to have reasonable, adult conversations about politics. It soon becomes little more than playground insults and name-calling.

Political hatchet jobs and dirt digging are, unfortunately, part of the game in politics. Don't go all righteous outrage when one side does it, but see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when your side does it. Getting angry, losing your objectivity, and descending into a fit of name calling, insults, and a skewed, narrow, one-sided view of it all is a bad idea.

Respectfully, a ratfucker is a political operative and dirty trickster. There is even a wiki page for it. It is a common term. I am using it in that manner. That is what BK was on the Starr team. His reward was a judge position.

BK was digging up stuff on abc well before the perjury and Lewenski crap too so the whole talking down to me on that is irrelevant and unnecessary. I know what he was impeached for but that was only because they couldn’t find what they were looking for initially.