Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Instead of all eyes on American politics for once the first government coalition of Ireland's two main opposing parties is being reported by news organisations in a few different countries

Squirrel?

aloyisious

namloc1980 wrote: »

The majority opinion being written by Neil Gorsuch is extra sweet :pac:

In browsing F/B I saw a private group dedicated to examining judicial decisions when it comes to cases involving legislation is very upset at the Court ruling and Justice Gorsuch. The person speaking for the group just happens to be the wife of the Civil Rights section of a Trump Govt Dept. Unfortunately I cant find the PR statement now to provide a link or the name of the woman.

Edit: the woman is Carrier Severino, Chief Counsel And Policy Director, JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK. Husband Roger Thomas Severino is also a lawyer, serving as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Law Clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, 2007-08.

banie01

The joys of being a law student means reading judgements and writing case notes in a regular basis.

Gorusch is a noted literalist/teleological jurist and as such in any "normal" legal context this judgement should have been expected at least from him.

It is quite shocking that the judgement was subject to worries due to the outright politicisation of the legal process in the US.
The entire US Judicial appointment system is abhorrent IMO.

I look forward to reading the minority judgement to see what basis their opinion and precedent was based on.

Cody montana

banie01 wrote: »

The joys of being a law student means reading judgements and writing case notes in a regular basis.

Gorusch is a noted literalist/teleological jurist and as such in any "normal" legal context this judgement should have been expected at least from him.

It is quite shocking that the judgement was subject to worries due to the outright politicisation of the legal process in the US.
The entire US Judicial appointment system is abhorrent IMO.

I look forward to reading the minority judgement to see what basis their opinion and precedent was based on.

i wonder how roe v wade goes?

StringerBell

namloc1980 wrote: »

The majority opinion being written by Neil Gorsuch is extra sweet :pac:

Gorsuch, even being Trump's guy is not really Trump's guy so will be your typical conservative supreme court judge, now kavanagh on the other hand, that's a different story.

StringerBell

banie01 wrote: »

The joys of being a law student means reading judgements and writing case notes in a regular basis.

Gorusch is a noted literalist/teleological jurist and as such in any "normal" legal context this judgement should have been expected at least from him.

It is quite shocking that the judgement was subject to worries due to the outright politicisation of the legal process in the US.
The entire US Judicial appointment system is abhorrent IMO.

I look forward to reading the minority judgement to see what basis their opinion and precedent was based on.

The dissent centres on over reach really, claiming a worst case in memory (I believe) example of the supreme court legislating rather than adjudicating. Kavanagh added a great kicker, that the women's struggle etc was not the gays struggle or something to that effect.

Edit: I'll include some direct quotes

There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation,” Justice Alito wrote. “The document that the court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”

“A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall,” he wrote. “The court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous.”

He also made some, one might say hysterical predictions which Gorsuch responded to reaffirming the narrow scope of the judgement and then kavanagh chimed in with

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump's other appointment to the court, issued a separate dissent making a point about statutory interpretation. “Courts must follow ordinary meaning, not literal meaning,” he wrote, adding that the ordinary meaning of “because of sex” does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Seneca Falls was not Stonewall,” he wrote. “The women’s rights movement was not (and is not) the gay rights movement, although many people obviously support or participate in both

Harry Palmr

I see the USA is under a sustained DDoS attack, the USA's internal cyber security infrastructure is being overseen by no one since Trump decided to get rid of the position at a federal level.

ExMachina1000

duploelabs wrote: »

Squirrel?

What? I don't get it

Manic Moran

Gorsuch was known to be leaning in this direction even from oral argument. The interesting thing is that he's considered to be in Scalia's model, and commentators seem to agree that Scalia would have ruled the same way as well. Oftentimes the difference between a 'conservative' and a 'liberal' judgement isn't the political/moral leaning of the judge, but the method that the judge uses to analyse a problem. More often than not, both methods are valid, just one is the minority one. It's why we have multiple judges.

In this case, for example, both arguments are reasonable. On the face of it, the literal wording is "sex" not "sexual orientation", and some legislation such as California's protections specifically calls out both as two separate items. Given that legislation is normally read as 'no un-necessary words being added', it is a reasonable position looking at some of those statutes, to conclude that what is covered by the one is not covered by the other.

On the other hand, it is also possible to conclude that sexual orientation is inherently based on the idea of sex: One can't be oriented on any sex without sex entering the picture in the first place. Therefore, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation falls afoul of discrimination protections based on sex.

In this case, it would appear that more people went with the second route than the first. So, the second is to be deemed the correct one, even if both are reasonable. It looks like a lot of Republicans are fine with this. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/15/gorsuch-lgbt-republicans-321096

Interesting response from Trump as well. A little out of character.
"I've read the decision," the president said of the various opinions, which ran to 119 pages in all. "Some people were surprised, but they've ruled and we live with their decision. That's what it's all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful, very powerful decision, actually."

Overheal

“Live with the decision” will apply to Republicans and Roe v Wade now?

Manic Moran

If only.

Rulings aren't inviolate, one need look no further than Dredd Scott in order to approve of that fact. Of course, there was the minor matter of a civil war and a Constitutional amendment before it was accepted as a bad idea, and I don't think we're quite to that level with R v W yet. Then again, SCOTUS has reversed its own opinion some 300 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

I have never troubled myself to look into just what justifies a reversal. I probably should, one day.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Gorsuch was known to be leaning in this direction even from oral argument. The interesting thing is that he's considered to be in Scalia's model, and commentators seem to agree that Scalia would have ruled the same way as well. Oftentimes the difference between a 'conservative' and a 'liberal' judgement isn't the political/moral leaning of the judge, but the method that the judge uses to analyse a problem. More often than not, both methods are valid, just one is the minority one. It's why we have multiple judges.

In this case, for example, both arguments are reasonable. On the face of it, the literal wording is "sex" not "sexual orientation", and some legislation such as California's protections specifically calls out both as two separate items. Given that legislation is normally read as 'no un-necessary words being added', it is a reasonable position looking at some of those statutes, to conclude that what is covered by the one is not covered by the other.

On the other hand, it is also possible to conclude that sexual orientation is inherently based on the idea of sex: One can't be oriented on any sex without sex entering the picture in the first place. Therefore, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation falls afoul of discrimination protections based on sex.

In this case, it would appear that more people went with the second route than the first. So, the second is to be deemed the correct one, even if both are reasonable. It looks like a lot of Republicans are fine with this. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/15/gorsuch-lgbt-republicans-321096

Interesting response from Trump as well. A little out of character.
"I've read the decision," the president said of the various opinions, which ran to 119 pages in all. "Some people were surprised, but they've ruled and we live with their decision. That's what it's all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful, very powerful decision, actually."

I’ve always thought the definition of Conservatism included minimal government intrusion into people’s lives. The necessary intrusion would be to protect people from crime or discrimination.

That’s all this judgement does, it protects people against discrimination.

I don’t see why any conservative would think differently.

But there are many “conservatives” in the US who are actually theocratic, they want government to stay out of people’s lives as long as the obey the laws of the bible. I think Gorsuch and Scalia are/were actual conservatives and Kavanagh is a theocrat.

It’ll take more time to see though

Leroy42

It just strikes me as really weird that a person can be fired from the job solely on the grounds of something they do, completely legally, in their private lives, and some people including the government of the US, were arguing that it wasn't discrimination.

The fact that even 3 of the judges could find in favour of it says to me that there is something inherently wrong with a constitution that claims that all men are created equal, and that all people should be free to practice (or not) their religious beliefs, yet has seen such massive discrimination within it.

Brian?

Leroy42 wrote: »

It just strikes me as really weird that a person can be fired from the job solely on the grounds of something they do, completely legally, in their private lives, and some people including the government of the US, were arguing that it wasn't discrimination.

The fact that even 3 of the judges could find in favour of it says to me that there is something inherently wrong with a constitution that claims that all men are created equal, and that all people should be free to practice (or not) their religious beliefs, yet has seen such massive discrimination within it.

I don't think the 3 judges were ruling in favour of it. More that they felt it wasn't their place to rule because it was constitutional.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

It just strikes me as really weird that a person can be fired from the job solely on the grounds of something they do, completely legally, in their private lives, and some people including the government of the US, were arguing that it wasn't discrimination.

The fact that even 3 of the judges could find in favour of it says to me that there is something inherently wrong with a constitution that claims that all men are created equal, and that all people should be free to practice (or not) their religious beliefs, yet has seen such massive discrimination within it.

It comes down to a desire by the GOP to pander to their last remaining consistent support Group - The Religious Right.

They want to be able to discriminate based on their religious beliefs - Sexual orientation was just the start of where they wanted to go.

As someone else said , there is a strong element within the GOP and their supporters that are not "Conservative" , what they desire is a "Judeo-Christian Theocracy" where they can enforce their religious viewpoint on all aspects of daily life so they never have to see, hear or deal with anyone or anything that isn't exactly aligned with their worldview.

And to be honest , if they got that far , they'd drop the "Judeo" bit quickly enough , they are only including them for now on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" until they have outlawed the Muslim faith.

serfboard

Manic Moran wrote: »

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/15/gorsuch-lgbt-republicans-321096

That is a very good article, well worth reading. Some quotes:

Politico wrote:

the decision could take from Congress a divisive social issue — five months before the 2020 elections. Congress has repeatedly failed to address the issue.
...
“It’s the law of the land. And it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done. And probably negates Congress’s necessity for acting,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
....
Even those that disagreed with the court’s decision took far more issue with the process than the substance. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said no one should lose their job on the basis of sexual orientation but that he wished the “decision would have been reached by Congress rather than the court.”

“The court is legislating what they think is good policy. And that, to me though, that's really not their role. I mean I don't particularly care about their views on policy,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a former Supreme Court clerk. “The right answer is ‘over to Congress’ to do something about it.”

Sounds to me like a lot of Republican legislators are glad that the court did what they know to be right. They can still go back to their Christian voters, throw their hands up in the air and say "We did what you wanted - we appointed Conservative judges. But we can't control everything they do."

I see an awful lot of echoes of that here in Ireland, particularly around abortion (until the most recent referendum, that is).

Manic Moran wrote: »

"I've read the decision," the president said of the various opinions, which ran to 119 pages in all.

He has in his ar$e read the decision - unless by "read the decision" he means that he's read the one-line summary that some staffer prepared for him.

kowloon

serfboard wrote: »

his ar$e read the decision - unless by "read the decision" he means that he's read the one-line summary that some staffer prepared for him.

I'm thinking more of a puppet-show type arrangement.

Has there been any talk about the latest tensions in Korea?

Frank Bullitt

“If we stop testing right now we would have very few cases, if any.”

Lord have mercy on the people of America.

sydthebeat

Gintonious wrote: »

Lord have mercy on the people of America.

None as blind as those who refuse to see

Itssoeasy

Gintonious wrote: »

Lord have mercy on the people of America.

I heard the clip tonight and Jesus h Christ he can't really think that.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1273014513097375747

Another gem today.

aloyisious

Brian? wrote: »

I don't think the 3 judges were ruling in favour of it. More that they felt it wasn't their place to rule because it was constitutional.

That's the anomaly of their position on the U.S.S.C bench. The U.S.S.C has the task of ruling on whether legislation or actions by Govt is constitutional and the judges knew that before nomination and appointment, whether or not others may be unhappy with their decisions.

aloyisious

Don will have to extend his list of naming of terrorist groups as Antifa may have to be given a free pass when it comes to two drive-by fatal shooting murders of federal police officers as a result of an arrest in connection with both. A.G. Barr had the FBI checking the antifa angle as part of the overall investigation.

However the arrest yesterday in connection with the murders is of a serving caucasian U.S Air Force Sgt with links to a white supremacist group, the "Boogaloo Boys", three of whom were arrested at a George Floyd rally armed with molotov cocktail and bomb supplies in Las Vegas.

StringerBell

They have sued to stop the release of Boltons book, a week before its release which actually poses problems for the administration. They have had the copy to review since January and at this point the books have been printed and are in a warehouse waiting to be shipped. Administration claiming national security, Bolton saying things that are embarassing to Trump are not matters of national security and denies any classified information that could pose a threat.

Problem for Bolton is the review boards do hold huge sway when it comes to having books released, or held back as has been the claim of plenty of former security officials.

I expect the book to be released, but I would imagine at this point it will be delayed with more tax payer funded court cases by the Trump administration, between these and the golfing trips of him alone without even going into his staff and fellow grifters he must surely have run up the largest expenses bill to the taxpayer of any President for what could be viewed as "personal" matters.

StringerBell

I see Trump has also had a pr stunt today with what could best be described as thoughts and prayers America in executive order form.

It's actually worse than no order at all because it acknowledges a problem while doing **** all about it.

The cycle continues, another day, another load of Trump bull****

Oh! And I forgot, Florida Arizona and Texas all hit daily records again today for virus cases, each identifying well over 2000 cases, doesn't seem to be giving any pause for thought in the swiftness of the reopening, could bite him in the ass come election time.

EltonJohn69

StringerBell wrote: »

I see Trump has also had a pr stunt today with what could best be described as thoughts and prayers America in executive order form.

It's actually worse than no order at all because it acknowledges a problem while doing **** all about it.

The cycle continues, another day, another load of Trump bull****

Oh! And I forgot, Florida Arizona and Texas all hit daily records again today for virus cases, each identifying well over 2000 cases, doesn't seem to be giving any pause for thought in the swiftness of the reopening, could bite him in the ass come election time.

Cases go up... no election

StringerBell

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Cases go up... no election

Would take something more than that. For example, Trump doesn't have the ability to unilaterally postpone or cancel the elections.

Overheal

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Cases go up... no election

Yes that’s the way Republicans would like it, but there would be nothing more alarming to the public short of invasion or act of terror.

They’ve already previewed November with how they suppressed the vote in Georgia. I’m not far away from Atlanta and have been mulling going down to support others in line - I live in a very settled, white district, and my average voting time is under 10 minutes in and out the door. I could be there and back before someone in line got into the building.

Dillonb3

StringerBell wrote: »

They have sued to stop the release of Boltons book, a week before its release which actually poses problems for the administration. They have had the copy to review since January and at this point the books have been printed and are in a warehouse waiting to be shipped. Administration claiming national security, Bolton saying things that are embarassing to Trump are not matters of national security and denies any classified information that could pose a threat.

Problem for Bolton is the review boards do hold huge sway when it comes to having books released, or held back as has been the claim of plenty of former security officials.

I expect the book to be released, but I would imagine at this point it will be delayed with more tax payer funded court cases by the Trump administration, between these and the golfing trips of him alone without even going into his staff and fellow grifters he must surely have run up the largest expenses bill to the taxpayer of any President for what could be viewed as "personal" matters.

Some copies of the book have been distributed to members of the media. Colbert had one on his show last night after he announced he's interviewing him next Tuesday

sid waddell

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Cases go up... no election

Covid being widespread around election time is beneficial to Trump. Deny voting by mail, make voting a risk to health, use voter suppression techniques to force seven hour long queues to make voting a much, much higher risk to health in areas with a high black population/Democratic vote than it is in white/Republican areas, where voters will be able to walk in, vote and get out in five minutes.