Donald Trump

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Does anyone know if impeachment affect past appointments? Can they be reviewed if ulterior motives are noted in legal action?

POTUS proposes individuals for specific roles and the Senate vote to their suitability so the causal link isn't there.


Given the republican majority it'll have to be a enourmous event or a drip drip of dropped **** which erodes his support before any appetite to impeach crystallises. Given Trump delivered a decisive victory to Republicans and Americans love winners especially those who act as a lightening conductor.

So Trump/the Republican party could appoint a series of Judges and similar across the board with dubious (to some, not to all, I haste, but certainly to me) beliefs that unless they retire/die we/the US populace are stuck with?

I think it's 9 judges in total (8 at the moment) Obama tried to get a judge appointed after Scalia died, but kept getting blocked by the repugs, trump will have an easy time getting his new man in. So in answer to your question, he could only appoint a series/group of judges his liking if they all resigned en masse

but yes he can fill vacancies with (youthful) candidates of his choosing who will be there until they die or retire so in reality he is changing the US of A for 30-40 years

One day America will get the hang of democracy. Hopefully.

bendertherobot

I've been a fan of the US system of 'secretaries of state' until recently. It does make a bit more sense, it preserves, in theory, the ability of a constituent to approach their senator or congressman knowing that they are not fettered (as in the UK) with being a Minister or Prime Minister. Ditto a First Minister or member of the devolved Cabinet. It's always been partisan but I can see some benefits to that 'experience' being utilised. But, recently, you can see just how it can go wrong when the party lines are utterly stacked against you.

The Court though. I mean, what a potential mess that is and has been. You hope that the judiciary is fiercely independent but you can see how that might go wrong. Our less than opaque system even with its allegations of white male bias still works fairly well.

rick_chasey

bendertherobot wrote:

I've been a fan of the US system of 'secretaries of state' until recently. It does make a bit more sense, it preserves, in theory, the ability of a constituent to approach their senator or congressman knowing that they are not fettered (as in the UK) with being a Minister or Prime Minister. Ditto a First Minister or member of the devolved Cabinet. It's always been partisan but I can see some benefits to that 'experience' being utilised. But, recently, you can see just how it can go wrong when the party lines are utterly stacked against you.

The Court though. I mean, what a potential mess that is and has been. You hope that the judiciary is fiercely independent but you can see how that might go wrong. Our less than opaque system even with its allegations of white male bias still works fairly well.

Back to my point a while ago about the different parts of the political gov't grinding into gear - this is what we're seeing.

On the specific issue of the travel ban - even judges put in by George Bush voted against lifting the suspension, so I can't see Trump winning.

As I think I said before, as much as American politicians and judges love to be partisan and political, they hold the integrity of the constitution above all else - including Trump's nomination, however tea-party his politics are.

rick_chasey

“[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context

bianchimoon

The Supreme court judges won't bow to Trump on this issue, apart from it being unconstitutional, they know if they do, he'll do it all again and again for every law he wants to change.

bendertherobot

This Flynn thing is potentially huge

pinno

bendertherobot wrote:

This Flynn thing is potentially huge

What's the Flynn thing BTR? I have been out of the news loop and pedalling in mind numbing cold weather/putting the Pro Race lot to rights.
Oh and BTW, the Espresso is ace, the Le Col bibs are pants (no, not a joke; pants.). Okay for 5deg+.

rjsterry

Secret talks with Russia.

rick_chasey

Flynn is accused of offering a reduction in Russian sanctions in return for Russian interference in the election.



Flynn's head will be offered up and that'll be it.

Garry H

Where's McCarthy when you need him...

oblongomaculatus

It's been said that one in five corporate executives are psychopaths, including many well known CEO's. I think when Trump finally realises that democracy isn't everyone doing what he says, he will completely lose it, and will be removed from the White House strapped to a trolley, wearing a mask to stop him biting people. You might think I'm exaggerating, but think about all the hissy fits he's had on twitter already, whenever he's been even mildly contradicted. Either he'll not get his way with some major policy, or it will be cumulative, as each little thing makes him madder and madder, until he blows.

Matthewfalle

Does Trump's statement that he's got a grand new homeland security plan that will be announced next week mean that he plans to jam up the courts with the last anti travel EO whilst trying to get a slightly variant form through - same basic thing but phrased slightly differently to appear as though it's far more tolerant/moderate?

He'll then say that look, I've listened to the people, here's what you wanted - aren't I a lovely President listening to you all.....

bendertherobot

What's the betting on including other countries where the attackers HAVE come from? It doesn't get round the constitution but it gets round that argument.

Matthewfalle

As a further aside, reports today that Russia is thinking of sending Snowden back to the US to face trial.

Trump has tweeted that he feels that Snowden is a (and I quote) "traitor" and should "be executed".

If all this does happen, where does that place Trump in the gallery of infamy?

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

As a further aside, reports today that Russia is thinking of sending Snowden back to the US to face trial.

Trump has tweeted that he feels that Snowden is a (and I quote) "traitor" and should "be executed".

If all this does happen, where does that place Trump in the gallery of infamy?

It won't.

narbs

Matthewfalle wrote:

Does Trump's statement that he's got a grand new homeland security plan that will be announced next week mean that he plans to jam up the courts with the last anti travel EO whilst trying to get a slightly variant form through - same basic thing but phrased slightly differently to appear as though it's far more tolerant/moderate?

He'll then say that look, I've listened to the people, here's what you wanted - aren't I a lovely President listening to you all.....

The excellent David Allen Green wrote a very good piece in the FT yesterday about the judicial reversal, thinking that the EO was rejected not because it was unconstitutional or discriminatory, just that it was lazy and sloppy.

His point, worryingly, being that if the administration puts a bit of thought and legal expertise into drafting future EOs, who knows what they can enact.

bendertherobot

narbs wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Does Trump's statement that he's got a grand new homeland security plan that will be announced next week mean that he plans to jam up the courts with the last anti travel EO whilst trying to get a slightly variant form through - same basic thing but phrased slightly differently to appear as though it's far more tolerant/moderate?

He'll then say that look, I've listened to the people, here's what you wanted - aren't I a lovely President listening to you all.....

The excellent David Allen Green wrote a very good piece in the FT yesterday about the judicial reversal, thinking that the EO was rejected not because it was unconstitutional or discriminatory, just that it was lazy and sloppy.

His point, worryingly, being that if the administration puts a bit of thought and legal expertise into drafting future EOs, who knows what they can enact.

Yeah, I've been superficially listening to some of the legal argument and it does seem very unlike ours. More 'evidence' based (or lack of) than rules etc. It's a bit worrying.

Matthewfalle

narbs wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Does Trump's statement that he's got a grand new homeland security plan that will be announced next week mean that he plans to jam up the courts with the last anti travel EO whilst trying to get a slightly variant form through - same basic thing but phrased slightly differently to appear as though it's far more tolerant/moderate?

He'll then say that look, I've listened to the people, here's what you wanted - aren't I a lovely President listening to you all.....

The excellent David Allen Green wrote a very good piece in the FT yesterday about the judicial reversal, thinking that the EO was rejected not because it was unconstitutional or discriminatory, just that it was lazy and sloppy.

His point, worryingly, being that if the administration puts a bit of thought and legal expertise into drafting future EOs, who knows what they can enact.

Hmmmm - the worrying thing being that a new unprepared administration could be throwing these EOs around, getting them rejected and realising why (almost testing the water, so to speak).

Then, having learnt their lesson, get someone who has progressed from using crayons to scrawl their vitriolic racist diatribe on toilet paper to use a pen and draft a legal document that can't be argued against.....

pblakeney

I witnessed a rise in what can only be described as dangerous right wing posts on my American friends Facebook over the past year. I am now seeing similar posts in the UK. I am going to be having a cull on "friends". Worrying times ahead.

bendertherobot

It's given them legitimacy, if they thought they ever needed it. I'm pretty much the black sheep of my family (brother excluded) as they pretty much all agree that Trump's ban is a great idea and that was what Brexit will give us.

cooldad

PBlakeney wrote:

I witnessed a rise in what can only be described as dangerous right wing posts on my American friends Facebook over the past year. I am now seeing similar posts in the UK. I am going to be having a cull on "friends". Worrying times ahead.

A mate and I have a game on FB. Anyone posting anything from Britain First is immediately banned.

Either they are closet nazis or really stupid, neither of which you need as friends.

Matthewfalle

cooldad wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I witnessed a rise in what can only be described as dangerous right wing posts on my American friends Facebook over the past year. I am now seeing similar posts in the UK. I am going to be having a cull on "friends". Worrying times ahead.

A mate and I have a game on FB. Anyone posting anything from Britain First is immediately banned.

Either they are closet nazis or really stupid, neither of which you need as friends.

Why is it a game and why are you proud of it? It's common sense, sheer common sense.

The people are obviously idiots so they deleted without even having to think about it. I also cull UKIP and Trump likers as they are also obviously buffoons.

bendertherobot

Britain First Spain Battalion is a giggle. I mean, it's satire, right?

pblakeney

bendertherobot wrote:

It's given them legitimacy, if they thought they ever needed it. I'm pretty much the black sheep of my family (brother excluded) as they pretty much all agree that Trump's ban is a great idea and that was what Brexit will give us.

Already culled at that level.
What is worrying is the amount of similar stuff being shared by the more "normal" ones. :shock:

bendertherobot

https://twitter.com/MoElleithee/status/ ... 8474476544

Anyone scared yet?

bianchimoon

bendertherobot wrote:

https://twitter.com/MoElleithee/status/831181528474476544

Anyone scared yet?

he's at mar el lago to promote/raise the world profile of the place, something they all said he was absolutely not allowed to do before he was sworn in. Now the government is going to rent space at Trump tower off him as well. He'll rename 'America soon to Trumperica. I did think that the republican party would cast him adrift and he would be impeached before the end of his term, but the more I think about it, it won't happen, it would be seen as a failure of democracy. America will avoid that at all costs. Best the US can hope for is he gets through four years without starting a war, although a war would likely have consequences on his businesses throughout the world, that could be the sticking point for him?

bendertherobot

bendertherobot wrote:

This Flynn thing is potentially huge

Gone. The end of that incident? Or the start of the house of cards.

bendertherobot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzqR_6k ... e=youtu.be

Lengthy but John Oliver is on top form this week.

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

This Flynn thing is potentially huge

Gone. The end of that incident? Or the start of the house of cards.

Doubt it will be the end, but I can't help thinking he has gone in the hope of protecting others.

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzqR_6kG-Mk&feature=youtu.be

Lengthy but John Oliver is on top form this week.

Been pulled - we have to wait a while in this country until it is no longer relevant (or get Sky Atlantic).

However, the handshake segment was magnificent.