President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Frank Bullitt

I love that he is as mad as he is.

Christy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also "see you in court" I'm confused as to where this ruling came from Donald.

I feel it is unfair of you to misquote him. It removes some of the message.

The real message is SEE YOU IN COURT.

As Homer Simpson says he must be right, he took the time to capitalise each letter.

MightyMandarin

Donald saying 'SEE YOU IN COURT' has such a 'bake him away toys' ring to it.

It's like when Cyril from Rugged Island jeers at Dougal and Ted and has to be reminded that they lost by Dick Byrne.

rossie1977

The issue now however is that if a major terrorist attack happens on us soil Trump will immediately blame the courts and many on the right will call to give Trump ultimate power

robindch

rossie1977 wrote: »

The issue now however is that if a major terrorist attack happens on us soil Trump will immediately blame the courts and many on the right will call to give Trump ultimate power

DJT will demand, by himself and for himself, a significant increase in executive power and if the GOP are running the senate/congress what he does so, then he'll likely get it. For once in his life, size won't matter - even relatively small attack will give him the justification he wants. And he'll ramp up sanctions too, thereby providing ammunition to the terrorists who will become more powerful and deadly. And so on.

But given that he's currently banning citizens of seven countries from entry into the US because he's scared they are terrorists, when those seven countries haven't exported a single terrorist between them in 15 years, one wonders whether he's going to simply announce that there was a terrorist attack and carry on anyway. Bowling Green seems like a nice place to stage a fake attack.

BTW, wasn't it one of DJT's friends who used terrorist attacks to consolidate his grip on power, once he'd assumed it?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/11/22/finally-we-know-about-moscow-bombings/

Zaph

Surely all the checks and balances in the US constitution will prevent Trump from getting the complete executive power he wants? Isn't that the whole point of having the three separate branches of government there?

Christy42

Zaph wrote: »

Surely all the checks and balances in the US constitution will prevent Trump from getting the complete executive power he wants? Isn't that the whole point of having the three separate branches of government there?

How far has anyone actually tried to push it before?

Hexen

Zaph wrote: »

Surely all the checks and balances in the US constitution will prevent Trump from getting the complete executive power he wants? Isn't that the whole point of having the three separate branches of government there?

Courts are doing their job. I guess we'll see how this escalates. Some feared a constitutional crisis but that seems premature.

foxtrot101

“To the contrary, while counseling deference to the national security determinations of the political branches,” the court said, “the Supreme Court has made clear that the Government’s authority and expertise in [such] matters do not automatically trump the Court’s own obligation to secure the protection that the Constitution grants to individuals, even in times of war.”

Interesting turn of phrase by the court.

Billy86

astradave wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

All capitalised.. someone took the news badly anyways

It really is sad that you can pick up Trumps mood from the tone of his posts in the same way you can from an angry 12 year old troll on here.

Donald...they just saw you in court. It was unanimous, so the supreme Court won't be any different.

Peregrinus

Billy86 wrote: »

It really is sad that you can pick up Trumps mood from the tone of his posts in the same way you can from an angry 12 year old troll on here.

Well, in fairness, picking up Trump's mood is made easier by the fact that he has only one mood - overtired angry toddler on a sugar rush.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/829844030737547265
Nail. On. The. Head.

I suspect most of the normal non Bannon style loons in his team and the main Republican voices wouldn't be to upset either to see it die.

Mr.Micro

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Really stupid thing to do if that's what happened. Best thing Trump could do right now is quit Twitter and lay low because they're digging a hole and giving the media fire. His tweet about her clothing yesterday was another dumb move.

Edit: The media are savages, it's on every site as a headline. What a stupid thing to do, she should know they're sniffing for blood given how brazen herself and Trump have been towards them. Wonder what kind of disciplinary action she'll get as it's cut and dry.

He just can't detach from trivial stuff. How many people has he fired or mistreated? Yet when a company drops his daughter's fashion line he gets involved. An absolute immature and using his position to do so. Has he got no advisors or is he just a loose cannon.? What next? The American people must be sitting back with their mouths open in horror?

MadYaker

It's been pretty chaotic so far and the travel ban was bad but he hasn't managed to do anything really awful yet. What genuinely frightens me is that there is going to be some sort of terrorist attack on US soil and then Trump will try and use that as an excuse to convince the Senate/Congress to majorly expand his executive abilities to consolidate power.

Overheal

Christy42 wrote: »

How far has anyone actually tried to push it before?

Pretty far, in fairness. But it's hard to tell, I mean it largely depends on the response of the other 2 branches. Both branches can and have shut down just about anything. With Obama much the same thing: like people worried about him taking guns away. One, he can't. Two, he wouldn't and didn't. But for another thing, the congress and the judiciary shot him down on multiple things. Here, Trump has the same problem with a lack of support for several of his initiatives, the recent case being both the ban and the Ivanka fiasco, the GOP ran oversight committee already has been very open and critical of what happened.

https://twitter.com/AlexNBCNews/status/829774343009927170

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/829772531854872576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kellyanne-conway-s-ivanka-trump-fashion-line-plug-legal-n718831

Peregrinus

Christy42 wrote: »

How far has anyone actually tried to push it before?

Executive Orders - at least, the controversial ones - are often issued by a President to effect something if he thinks he won't be able to get legislation through Congress to effect it. Unsurprisingly, Congressmen - or those from the opposition party, anyway - will usually consider those Orders to be overreach, pushing it too far, etc.

They used to be fairly infrequent, but there was a huge growth under Franklin D. Roosevelt, who used them to implement measures, first of all, to tackle the Great Depression and, secondly, to fight the Second World War. There was a good deal of grumbling about this at the time, but he did have Congress behind him, so relatively few were challenged, and I think none were struck down.

(Though some of them certainly would be struck down if made, and challenged, today - e.g. an Executive Order directing the internment of citizens of Japanese ancestry.)

In 1952 Harry Truman issued an Executive Order taking into public control a wide range of privately-owned steel mills (in anticipation of a steelworkers' strike, during the Korean War). The Supreme Court struck that one down.

Other orders have been challenged from time to time since them, but either they have been upheld when the challenge made its way to the Supreme Court (e.g. Ronald Reagan's Order nullifying holds on Iranian assets and removing claims against Iran from the US courts, following resolution of the Iran Hostage Crisis) or, before the case got to the Supreme Court, the order was revoked, either by the President who made it or by his successor.

So, actually striking down an Executive Order in the Supreme Court is comparatively rare. But it has happened before.

Calina

White House Chief Information Security Officer has left his role too.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/white-house-chief-information-security-officer-departs/

Nody

Calina wrote: »

White House Chief Information Security Officer has left his role too.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/white-house-chief-information-security-officer-departs/

More like fired by the sound of it but Obama appointed so by definition Trump has to get rid of them all so he can get someone who has bribed contributed to his election campaign in there instead.

BabyCheeses

rossie1977 wrote: »

The issue now however is that if a major terrorist attack happens on us soil Trump will immediately blame the courts and many on the right will call to give Trump ultimate power

It will probably be someone from a country that wasn't even banned. I'm sure he will still think his Muslim ban would have stopped it like the attack in Quebec and bowling green.

Christy42

The court's decision and Trump's desire to take this to a higher court ups the pressure on the Republicans.

As it stands this motion will not do better than 4-4 which won't overturn the decision. To have any hope of coming into play he needs his pick in the court (and that does not even guarantee it ). The Democrats can stone wall his pick until this case is finished without cost. In fact it will help them with their base.

Thus the only way to get a 9th judge into the supreme court is to go nuclear which everyone will know is an attempt to force in this ban.


In other good news Trump has finally seen sense and started going with the one China policy

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-immigration/index.html

It seems to be Tillerson who managed to make him see sense.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

As it stands this motion will not do better than 4-4 which won't overturn the decision.

No way he gets 4 votes - the appeals court was one Obama appointee, one Carter and one Dubya.

When a judge appointed by Dubya makes it unanimous, Trump's got nothing.

Trump's rumoured pick for Solicitor General has quit rather than defend this one in the SC: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318870-potential-solicitor-general-pick-withdraws-name

New favourite to take the role is Kelly Ann Conway's husband (!!)

RobertKK

The 9th circuit court is the most liberal court in the US. Last year it had 86% of its rulings overturned which helps get that court the nickname of the 9th circus court.

demfad

Looks like the Kelly Anne Conway comments on Ivanka was a smoke bomb to divert from this that broke yesterday:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/flynn-is-said-to-have-talked-to-russians-about-sanctions-before-trump-took-office.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.c93636b206fe

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.”

Checkpoint newsletter
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
Sign up
On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak.

"'Mature recollection' is better Flynn, try 'mature recollection'".....says a voice from Cockups past.

If Trump does not get rid of him this may be a step to far for congress in his blatant pro-Russian stance.
If he does get rid of him, he is letting loose a crack pot who knows all the inner secrets....

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who used them to implement measures, first of all, to tackle the Great Depression and, secondly, to fight the Second World War. There was a good deal of grumbling about this at the time, but he did have Congress behind him, so relatively few were challenged, and I think none were struck down.

(Though some of them certainly would be struck down if made, and challenged, today - e.g. an Executive Order directing the internment of citizens of Japanese ancestry.)

That's an interesting comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a mention when the current case hits the SC.
What's your basis for asserting that it would "certainly be struck down today" under equivalent circumstances?
At the time it was enforced, AFAIK no Japanese-Americans had done anything to sabotage the US or its war effort against Japan, so it could not be proven that they posed a threat. On the other hand, we don't know what would have happened if the internment had not taken place. So we don't know for sure whether it had the desired effect or not.
All we know is that no sabotage took place afterwards.

Peregrinus

RobertKK wrote: »

The 9th circuit court is the most liberal court in the US. Last year it had 86% of its rulings overturned which helps get that court the nickname of the 9th circus court.

Last year, eh? Funnily enough, people have being saying this every year since 2013. Isn't it odd how the reversal rate of the 9th circuit remains exactly the same, year on year?

Even in 2013, the claim was untrue. The basis for the claim is that, in 2012, 86% of the appeals from the 9th circuit which were heard by the Supreme Court resulting in the ruling being reversed. That's not 86% of its rulings; it's 86% of those of its rulings which were appealed to the Supreme Court, and which the Supreme Court agreed to hear. That would be a tiny, tiny fraction of its rulings. The ninth circuit, which is the nation's largest, deals with twelve or thirteen thousand cases a year. In a typical year, the Supreme Court will hear appeals on 15 to 20 of them, and 12 to 16 will be overturned. That's about one-tenth of 1%, not 86%. Still, if you will uncritically accept what circulates in the right-wing twittersphere . . .

Even if you just express reversal rates as a percentage of cases reviewed, which is what the 86% figure relates to, the ninth circuit does not have the highest reversal rate; that distinction belongs to the federal circuit.

Bazzo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No way he gets 4 votes - the appeals court was one Obama appointee, one Carter and one Dubya.

When a judge appointed by Dubya makes it unanimous, Trump's got nothing.

Trump's rumoured pick for Solicitor General has quit rather than defend this one in the SC: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318870-potential-solicitor-general-pick-withdraws-name

New favourite to take the role is Kelly Ann Conway's husband (!!)

The judge who suspended the ban in the first place was also a Dubya appointee.

demfad

Definition of kleptocracy:

: government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind.

https://therealdeal.com/2011/06/17/vornado-realty-trust-seeks-piece-of-kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue/

Steven Roth bails Kushner out (for 420 million) of his height of boom 1.8 billion purchase of 666 Fifth avenue (most expensive building in the world) with a 1.2 billion loan cutoff approaching.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160420/BLOGS02/160429992/why-vornados-steven-roth-was-at-donald-trumps-victory-speech-last-night

Steven Roth bails Trump out of his 'White elephant' Trump city to avert disaster. Roth has a controlling holding of 30% in 2 of the 3 properties that Trump actually owns. Trump still owes 500 million on these properties.


Guess who, like Trump and Kushner is in huge debt to China.


And wait for it.....

http://www.curbed.com/2017/1/17/14301754/trump-infrastructure-nyc-lefrak-vornado



Oh Look!

Guess who Trump awards the 1.1 TRILLION $$ contract to for his great infrastructure project?....You guessed it...Steven Roth.

Don't question the fact that Roth has no intrastructure construction experience, only luxury high rise condos....and if you question why no transportation planners, policy analysts, urban designers, social workers seem to be on Roths list of contractors...well youre missing the point?

Harika

Bazzo wrote: »

The judge who suspended the ban in the first place was also a Dubya appointee.

And the 9th district court ruled "unanimous" what will make it really hard to convince five supreme judges to overturn the district court judgement. (With a 4:4) the district court ruling stays in power.

Water John

Will the new AG run with DT or maybe like Tillerson, reign him back?

RobertKK

Peregrinus wrote: »

Last year, eh? Funnily enough, people have being saying this every year since 2013. Isn't it odd how the reversal rate of the 9th circuit remains exactly the same, year on year?

Even in 2013, the claim was untrue. The basis for the claim is that, in 2012, 86% of the appeals from the 9th circuit which were heard by the Supreme Court resulting in the ruling being reversed. That's not 86% of its rulings; it's 86% of those of its rulings which were appealed to the Supreme Court, and which the Supreme Court agreed to hear. That would be a tiny, tiny fraction of its rulings. The ninth circuit, which is the nation's largest, deals with twelve or thirteen thousand cases a year. In a typical year, the Supreme Court will hear appeals on 15 to 20 of them, and 12 to 16 will be overturned. That's about one-tenth of 1%, not 86%. Still, if you will uncritically accept what circulates in the right-wing twittersphere . . .

Even if you just express reversal rates as a percentage of cases reviewed, which is what the 86% figure relates to, the ninth circuit does not have the highest reversal rate; that distinction belongs to the federal circuit.

Just saying what I heard said by one person on fake news, CNN.
I know all cases the court hears do not end up in the Supreme Court which is what I was referring to, even if not explicitly.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

I couldn't find more recent data but it has the second worse rating with the Federal court having a worse rating than the 9th circuit.

Between 1999 and 2008 when it went to the Supreme Court:
103 reversed
33 vacated
35 affirmed

Maybe they get more cases given they get more wrong outcomes?