Trump's budget: political cannibalism

[KingOrfeo]

The judge's ruling is outrageous. It will be overturned. No judge has the authority to assume the role of the Executive or deny an Executive the lawful execution of his constitutional authority.

He does if he decides it's unlawful.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Trump hasn't been in office long enough to corrupt anything except the bowel movements of the left.

He arrived in Washington pre-corrupted, and his office does not appear to have improved his moral character one iota.

 

[Rightguide]

He does if he decides it's unlawful.

Trump can ignore his radicalism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah, gut the Dept. of Education. That will surely bring all those 3$ or 70 cents an hour jobs lost to China and Sri Lanka back to America. Nothing like an illiterate workforce or populous to stop them asking embarrassing questions.

What makes you think we would be illiterate without the Department of Education?

They don't do shit except lower standards and suck up huge amounts of funding.

I'm willing to rephrase to, if the US isn't safe by now it never will be.

Making the US "safe" is not the mission or goal of the military.

Keep grasping though lol

 

[BotanyBoy]

He arrived in Washington pre-corrupted, and his office does not appear to have improved his moral character one iota.

LOL he's not any more corrupt than the rest of DC and you're a damn liar for saying otherwise.

The number of pols/officials who give a fuck about something beyond (R) vs.(D) fuck fuck games can be counted on one hand and they are all considered "unelectable" lunatics.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Trump can ignore his radicalism.

Trump cannot ignore his ruling.

 

[Christobal]

Trump cannot ignore his ruling.

This is true. Courts will get involved. Then we will be told that a state government cannot overrule the federal government.

And before you say this happens all the times remember the Feds CHOOSE not to enforce the law. Marijuana laws anyone?

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is true. Courts will get involved. Then we will be told that a state government cannot overrule the federal government.

It's a federal judge's ruling.

 

[Christobal]

It's a federal judge's ruling.

A federal judge with federal oversight. No one judge gets to create the law. It keeps moving up the legal food chain. Supreme court. We can hope there will be 9 judges at the time.

 

[KingOrfeo]

A federal judge with federal oversight. No one judge gets to create the law. It keeps moving up the legal food chain. Supreme court. We can hope there will be 9 judges at the time.

Trump certainly has expressed his attention to take it there.

 

[OldJourno]

Trump certainly has expressed his attention to take it there.

Just wait until some hot spot develops and Trump announces he'll send in the troops. Someone somewhere will object and sue and a judge will issue an injunction.
Just what the Founders had in mind.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just wait until some hot spot develops and Trump announces he'll send in the troops. Someone somewhere will object and sue and a judge will issue an injunction.
Just what the Founders had in mind.

When you put it that way, yes, it is just what the Founders had in mind. They feared executive tyranny even more than they feared democracy.

 

[OldJourno]

When you put it that way, yes, it is just what the Founders had in mind. They feared executive tyranny even more than they feared democracy.

Because the judicial wing is above tyranny.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because the judicial wing is above tyranny.

Federalist #78 (Alexander Hamilton):

Second. As to the tenure by which the judges are to hold their places; this chiefly concerns their duration in office; the provisions for their support; the precautions for their responsibility.

According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

-- Alexander Hamiton

 

[OldJourno]

Here's a real-life scenario for ya.
In Arizona some lawyer sued on behalf of someone, claiming that the state wasn't spending enough money on a certain aspect of education. I'm vague because I forgot the specifics.
A good judge, in my view, would throw the suit out because the state legislature decides how much funding education will get. If it's not enough in the eyes of the voters, new legislators will be elected to replace them.
A bad judge would side with the lawyer and the special interest, thereby declaring himself above the legislature and, in essence, ruling that the voters are stupid for electing those legislators in the first place.

Why do I think you would side with the bad judge?

 

[colddiesel]

It is cannibalism in the sense that the burden falls largely on Trump's own base of white working class rural voters.

So? Perhaps a little more hardship might get the whiners off their asses to seek work elsewhere. In 2009/10 I had to obtain through my company some 300 skilled immigrants to support the then mining boom in Australia. We advertized in the US rust belt - total waste of time despite the fact that we were offering 2 times to 3 times what their skill set could earn in the USA (if they had a job). We did however have significant success(110 placements) from Texas, the SW and on the West coast. A lot of Trump voters in the old industrial areas are economic trash that needs to be cleared out to where the opportunities are. The old jobs ain't coming back.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So?

A lot of Trump voters in the old industrial areas are economic trash that needs to be cleared out to where the opportunities are. The old jobs ain't coming back.

KO is convinced that Trump supporters are all inner city people of color and hipster millennials desperate for government aid. He seems to think the GOP meant to elect Democrats and that they did not elect their GOP officials to do what the GOP said the GOP would do because what they REALLY want is socialism.

That is to say KO lives in a total fucking fantasy land where all that red on the 2016 election map = communism.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I would argue with your basic premise that the US military is about world peace. It's about US defence. Not that means they don't need a hard look at what they spend money on.

You know, that's one of the fundamental questions of our times:
Do we want the United States military to function as the "World's Policeman"?
Or Do we want the United States military mission to be "America first...and last"?

There are good arguments for both positions. The US persued a middle-of-the-road approach under Clinton (remember Kosovo?), the swung hard towards intervention during the Bush regime ("because they tried to kill my daddy!"), and when the American public got sick of the bone grinding war of attrition, we had a much smaller footprint under President Obama.

With Trump, we now have a Commander in Chief who seems eager to put troops in harms way. He green-lighted a sketchy ill-formed SEAL mission in his first weeks of office that cost the lives of a highly trained American SEAL and an 8 year old American citizen. He immediately deflected blame for the failed mission onto a nebulous group of "generals", but didn't hesitate to use the SEAL's widow as political theater during his State Of The Union address.

I think personally the US military is in somewhat uncharted territory right now: we have a bellicose leader who seems eager to start conflicts, mostly to appease his base. There is no doubt in my mind that we will see a ground-based war during Trump's administration.

 

[KingOrfeo]

KO is convinced that Trump supporters are all inner city people of color and hipster millennials desperate for government aid.

No, they're rural whites desperate for government aid and they thought they heard Trump promise to provide it in the form of doing something to bring their old jobs back.

 

[RobDownSouth]

KO is convinced that Trump supporters are all inner city people of color and hipster millennials desperate for government aid. He seems to think the GOP meant to elect Democrats and that they did not elect their GOP officials to do what the GOP said the GOP would do because what they REALLY want is socialism.

That is to say KO lives in a total fucking fantasy land where all that red on the 2016 election map = communism.

Much easier to assign a position to someone and criticize them for "their" position, amiright?

#AscriptionAgain

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here's a real-life scenario for ya.
In Arizona some lawyer sued on behalf of someone, claiming that the state wasn't spending enough money on a certain aspect of education. I'm vague because I forgot the specifics.
A good judge, in my view, would throw the suit out because the state legislature decides how much funding education will get. If it's not enough in the eyes of the voters, new legislators will be elected to replace them.
A bad judge would side with the lawyer and the special interest, thereby declaring himself above the legislature and, in essence, ruling that the voters are stupid for electing those legislators in the first place.

Why do I think you would side with the bad judge?

The first thing a good judge would do would be to determine whether he has the jurisdiction to hear this case and the legal authority to grant the remedy sought. If he concludes he does, then he would be a bad judge to simply throw out the case, and that decision probably would be reversed on appeal. The difference has nothing to do with which party he favors, if either.

 

[Rightguide]

The first thing a good judge would do would be to determine whether he has the jurisdiction to hear this case and the legal authority to grant the remedy sought. If he concludes he does, then he would be a bad judge to simply throw out the case, and that decision probably would be reversed on appeal. The difference has nothing to do with which party he favors, if either.

So, he can "imagine" he has the authority to usurp the legislature like Judge Chuang "imagines" he can assume the Presidency while canceling the Constitution and the actions of the Congress, right?

 

[Rightguide]

When you put it that way, yes, it is just what the Founders had in mind. They feared executive tyranny even more than they feared democracy.

Here's what Jefferson "had in mind" when it comes to the Judiciary:

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction]. . . . A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820)

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)

 

[KingOrfeo]

So, he can "imagine" he has the authority to usurp the legislature . . .

No, but he might well find a sound legal reason why he has he authority to grant the remedy sought.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here's what Jefferson "had in mind" when it comes to the Judiciary:

Jefferson, as an agrarianist and small-d democrat, was rather an odd man out among the FFs. In any case, he had no influence on the Constitution, he was in France at the time of the CC.