• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Seems we are at the ignoring the courts phase of this administration.
They aren't ignoring the courts; they're challenging the courts. An unanswered question is how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent. If Congress didn't intend the contingency fund to be used for covering a shortfall during a routine (for Congress) budget dispute in the legislature, a court may not have the power to order it so.

A separate observation: too much ridiculous behaviour from a few ideologically-motivated judges, and all judges will look equally ridiculous. The profession's reputational integrity is only as strong as its weakest members'. Judges, regulate thyselves.
 
Some more on the latest TACO with Beijing.


It has been a week—which means Donald Trump has already moved on to new outrages—but one of his decisions from his recent trip to Asia is going to stick. After meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping, Trump announced he would pull back from the trade war he launched shortly after taking office in January.

In doing so, Trump walked away from a worthwhile goal: pushing back against China’s decades-long assault on global manufacturing. Thanks to massive subsidies, Chinese industries now dominate world trade. Chinese factories produce one-third of all globally traded goods—more than the U.S., Germany, and Japan combined—while hollowing out manufacturing jobs at home and abroad.

Put simply, China doesn’t play fair. Its state-backed companies flood markets with cheap products to undercut competition. Presidents from George W. Bush to Joe Biden have tried to counter this with targeted tariffs. Trump initially implemented a broader but still rational tariff strategy, which Biden even kept in place. But in his return to office, Trump escalated that strategy into a chaotic trade war driven by personal impulse, not policy. He forgot that China had a powerful weapon of its own—and was more than willing to use it.





China controls the global control of rare earth minerals—critical components for high-tech manufacturing (worth noting, the US possesses plenty of these minerals, but mining restrictions and regulations have prevented access good or bad). Most importantly, it produces 98 percent of the world’s rare earth magnets, essential for everything from missiles to smartphones. On September 9, China imposed restrictions on rare earth exports, sending shockwaves through the tech industry. Trump’s trade representative, Jamieson Greer, put it bluntly: “This will give China control over basically the entire global economy and the technology supply chain.”

Outmaneuvered, the Trump administration quickly agreed to a deal that included:

  • A 50% reduction in U.S. tariffs on certain Chinese products
  • A drop in overall tariffs on Chinese goods, from 57% to 47%
  • A one-year pause on export controls for high-tech U.S. products like semiconductor equipment, which to this point had been restricted due to the AI race. This gives China a win, and a leg up in the race.
  • A similar pause on port fees for Chinese-built, owned, or flagged cargo ships
And what did the U.S. get in return? China agreed to suspend retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products and buy 12 million metric tons of soybeans- EXACTLY what they were purchasing BEFORE. It also agreed to resume sales of rare earth metals and magnets.

The rare earth issue may have forced Trump’s retreat, but let’s be clear: long before that, his 125% tariffs on Chinese imports were already hurting Americans. Consumers paid higher prices for clothing, furniture, toys, electronics, and more. There is still no evidence that even a single American manufacturing job was created as a result. Meanwhile, China continues to dominate the booming market for solar panels and wind turbines, and it’s rapidly closing the gap with the U.S. in artificial intelligence and information technology.

So how did Trump respond to China’s growing strength? He canceled federal programs that supported renewable energy production in the U.S. He even proposed cutting a program that helps build domestic semiconductor manufacturing—the very technology that powers AI and keeps America competitive.

When it comes to China, Trump is missing intelligence in more ways than one. He doesn’t even understand who pays the price for his tariffs. Just weeks ago, Goldman Sachs released a report showing who actually bears the cost: American consumers pay 55%, U.S. companies pay 22%, and exporters in China and elsewhere pay just 18%.

Trump and his allies keep insisting that America is “winning.” If that’s true, then why are we the ones retreating?
 
Assuming not everyone who works for ICE is a goon, it's reasonable for the ones worried about being doxxed and harassed or threatened to tell the FBI to go pound sand and tell all applicable LEOs to do their job and go after people impersonating officers.
Surely they have nothing to worry about identifying themselves if they arent breaking the law?
 
And “sandwich guy” acquitted.


The Feds refused to allow him to peacefully surrender himself to the police and went in with a tactical team and film crew instead.


The DOJ then failed to indict him for a raft of felonies, only getting him indicted on a single misdemeanour. I guess it’s not as easy to indict a ham sandwich as they say it is.
 
They aren't ignoring the courts; they're challenging the courts. An unanswered question is how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent. If Congress didn't intend the contingency fund to be used for covering a shortfall during a routine (for Congress) budget dispute in the legislature, a court may not have the power to order it so.

A separate observation: too much ridiculous behaviour from a few ideologically-motivated judges, and all judges will look equally ridiculous. The profession's reputational integrity is only as strong as its weakest members'. Judges, regulate thyselves.

Legislatures and courts are not opposing members of debating societies. Legislatures make laws. Courts are there to adjudicate between parties one of whom might be the executive acting in a way that they think is in accordance with the law. It's important to note that legislatures do not appear in court, its either private parties or government executives who are administering the law who generally appear in court to argue how the law is to be interpreted.

Sometimes courts say that the executive is not following the law. Sometimes the courts go so far as to say the law itself is unconstitutional. Once the court rules, the debate is done and the decision stands unless or until overturned on appeal. In the meantime, the ruling stands and must be obeyed unless that court or a higher court stays the ruling pending appeal.

If the nation's highest court does find the executive is acting outside the law then the only remedy that the executive has is to convince the legislature to change the law in a way that it likes. When a law is found unconstitutional then again, the legislature has the right to change the law in a way that is constitutional, and, in an extreme case, change the constitution (or in our case use a notwithstanding provision)

There is no "unanswered question" about "how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent." A court's very purpose is to interpret the law as written and to fill in the blanks where the law is vague. There is a vast body of law on statutory interpretation to assist the courts in this process. The power of the courts are derived from Article III of the US Constitution as augmented by the very laws passed by Congress.

Just a quick comment on "ridiculous behaviour from a few Ideologically-motivated judges." That cuts both ways. I personally find it amusing how some people think that only judges with an ideology opposed to theirs are the ridiculous ones. The profession is not: "only as strong as its weakest members." Quite the opposite, here and even in the US, the profession is strong despite its weakest members. It's the parties with the weakest arguments that try to demean or tear down those who decide against them.

🍻
 
And “sandwich guy” acquitted.


The Feds refused to allow him to peacefully surrender himself to the police and went in with a tactical team and film crew instead.


The DOJ then failed to indict him for a raft of felonies, only getting him indicted on a single misdemeanour. I guess it’s not as easy to indict a ham sandwich as they say it is.
The whole thing was an utter farce. Give the guy a ticket for drunk and disorderly or something appropriately minor like that. The administration tried to make an example of him and just got humiliated both by grand then trial juries. The criminal trial was almost certainly a case of jury nullification of a BS charge.

The guy was being a drunken buffoon. Handle it as such.

And now some dumb dumb federal agent gets to spend the rest of his career being the guy who took the stand to rather dubiously and exaggeratedly describe how the sandwich ‘exploded’ on him. And it had onions.
 
The whole thing was an utter farce. Give the guy a ticket for drunk and disorderly or something appropriately minor like that. The administration tried to make an example of him and just got humiliated both by grand then trial juries. The criminal trial was almost certainly a case of jury nullification of a BS charge.

The guy was being a drunken buffoon. Handle it as such.

And now some dumb dumb federal agent gets to spend the rest of his career being the guy who took the stand to rather dubiously and exaggeratedly describe how the sandwich ‘exploded’ on him. And it had onions.
His callsign is now; "The Onionator"
 
To be clear, I’m anti-throwing-sandwiches-at-police. I just think the Feds humiliated themselves humiliated themselves trying to portray him as some kind of radical terrorist and how public they were in trying to charge him as such.

If they just kicked him loose with a ticket, we would never have heard of this incident.
 
To be clear, I’m anti-throwing-sandwiches-at-police. I just think the Feds humiliated themselves humiliated themselves trying to portray him as some kind of radical terrorist and how public they were in trying to charge him as such.

If they just kicked him loose with a ticket, we would never have heard of this incident.
Absolutely agreed.
 
There is no "unanswered question" about "how much latitude the courts have to decide how Congress means appropriations to be spent." A court's very purpose is to interpret the law as written and to fill in the blanks where the law is vague. There is a vast body of law on statutory interpretation to assist the courts in this process. The power of the courts are derived from Article III of the US Constitution as augmented by the very laws passed by Congress.
As with most of what I write about American politics, I pass along American opinions about their own country and government. Most of those opinions are informed. Americans in America, some of whom work or have worked as lawyers or otherwise adjacent to legal matters of governance, hold the opinion that what courts can tell the administration to do in this particular matter is open to challenge. They don't believe the court can interpret what constitutes legitimate use of the contingency funds, and more strongly don't believe a court could require an administration to spend funds not yet formally appropriated if any judicial decision were to go that far.
Just a quick comment on "ridiculous behaviour from a few Ideologically-motivated judges." That cuts both ways.
It surely does. It manifests mostly against whatever party controls the WH. Today, that is Republicans.
I personally find it amusing how some people think that only judges with an ideology opposed to theirs are the ridiculous ones. The profession is not: "only as strong as its weakest members." Quite the opposite, here and even in the US, the profession is strong despite its weakest members. It's the parties with the weakest arguments that try to demean or tear down those who decide against them.
Whether or not the profession among its practitioners is strong is not my point. I wrote about its reputation. Degrade its reputation enough, and it loses popular support. This is a matter of critical importance: courts have very little power to enforce their decisions, ultimately depending on the polity to deliver the message to politicians (the executive branch in particular) that they better respect the courts, or else. If people see enough of what looks like partisan legal warfare, read opinions describing it as such, and then subsequently do indeed see the decisions slapped down by higher courts, sometimes in very strong terms, the collective reputation of all courts suffers.
 
Part of me is a little surprised he hasn't fashioned himself a gaudy uniform. He is CIC after all and seems to love lots of bling.

Maybe he gets a uniform like our GG. And a whole bunch of new medals too.
 
Surely they have nothing to worry about identifying themselves if they arent breaking the law?
Surely there are no threats to people going about their lawful business, like people campaigning for president, or spouses of senior politicians quietly at home, or politicians practicing for a baseball game, or activists giving talks, or politicians holding meetings? So no-one needs to mitigate risks posed by people whose minds have been broken by political setbacks and deranged by passive and active incitements that their bugbears ought to smarten up or someone might do something - personally? Is that about it?

Last night on TV: footage of Canadian police officers, at least one wearing an improvised mask. Not the first one I've seen, either. What is the point of some Canadian police masking themselves?
 
Surely there are no threats to people going about their lawful business, like people campaigning for president, or spouses of senior politicians quietly at home, or politicians practicing for a baseball game, or activists giving talks, or politicians holding meetings? So no-one needs to mitigate risks posed by people whose minds have been broken by political setbacks and deranged by passive and active incitements that their bugbears ought to smarten up or someone might do something - personally? Is that about it?
Cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Cops piss off actual criminals on thr daily with badges out. ICE should have no problem with their names out while they ziptie kids and mothers in their underwear. Not exactly cold-blooded killers.
Last night on TV: footage of Canadian police officers, at least one wearing an improvised mask. Not the first one I've seen, either. What is the point of some Canadian police masking themselves?
Im 100% certain if he was asked to identify himself he would instead of the ICE go-to of just responding with tear gas and mace. Theyre not even in the same reality and you seem to always reach for the most ludicrous excuses to hand-wave the lawlessness of ICE. "Ive seen a couple Canadian cops with a mask on a couple times, that excuses American no-knock raids against migrants with no ID, no badge, no accountability."
 
Cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Cops piss off actual criminals on thr daily with badges out. ICE should have no problem with their names out while they ziptie kids and mothers in their underwear. Not exactly cold-blooded killers.
The immigrants aren't the risk. The risk is zealous anti-immigration activists and people who have generally absorbed rhetoric, from senior American politicians up to and including the former president, that the Trump administration and those who serve its interests are somewhere in the enemies-of-democracy/authoritarian/tyrant/fascist region.
Im 100% certain if he was asked to identify himself he would instead of the ICE go-to of just responding with tear gas and mace. Theyre not even in the same reality and you seem to always reach for the most ludicrous excuses to hand-wave the lawlessness of ICE. "Ive seen a couple Canadian cops with a mask on a couple times, that excuses American no-knock raids against migrants with no ID, no badge, no accountability."
Maybe. Point is, there are reasons for concealing identity. Bad or even illegal behaviour on the part of some does not remove the right to mitigate for all. All that's left is to argue about whether the risk is great enough. And, as we know, actual shots have been fired.
 
The immigrants aren't the risk. The risk is zealous anti-immigration activists and people who have generally absorbed rhetoric, from senior American politicians up to and including the former president, that the Trump administration and those who serve its interests are somewhere in the enemies-of-democracy/authoritarian/tyrant/fascist region.
Wrong, its the predatory farmers, small businesses, restaurants, hotels, gated community residents who are the problem for continuously fostering an environment that provides a constant source of income/revenue/opportunity for these illegal immigrants (because its NOT immigrants that are a risk).

The problem also lies with a significant number of those 42 million Americans on SNAP benefits who are not willing to get off their butts and perform some of the work that the illegal immigrants are doing in order to shrink the volume of unfilled job openings that exist within the US.
 
Back
Top