Trump administration 2024-2028

[FJAG]

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.

 

[brihard]

And “sandwich guy” acquitted.

Jury acquits D.C. 'sandwich guy' charged with chucking a sub at a federal agent

Sean Dunn faced a single misdemeanor after federal grand jurors refused to indict him on the felony charge sought by prosecutors.

www.nbcnews.com

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

Dramatic video shows feds re-arresting Subway sandwich slinger after he pelted officer with hero in DC

Sean Charles Dunn, 37, was cuffed by an armed team of at least a half-dozen US Marshals in a Wednesday night raid, per footage shared by the White House.

nypost.com

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.

 

[RangerRay]

I guess this is what happens when you replace career DA’s with hacks and toady ambulance chasers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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"

 

[RangerRay]

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.

 

[brihard]

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.

 

[lenaitch]

When your interior design preferences run to third world dictator chic or New Orleans whorehouse.

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.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

 

[QV]

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.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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?

 

[PrairieFella]

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."

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

 

[Czech_pivo]

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.

 

[Genetk44]

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.

Plenty of time yet…just wait for it

 

[Brad Sallows]

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).

You've flipped cause and effect. The environment (demand) for low-wage workers is always there; it isn't in any sense predatory. All that can happen is that workers can out-compete each other by being willing to work for less. A student willing to work for minimum wage displaces workers requiring a higher wage. If anything can be given the attribute "predatory", it's the workers willing to work for less. They displace other workers. If they aren't there to displace other workers, either employers are paying whatever wages clear the market or they aren't in business.

Large numbers of illegals try to enter the US when the administration of the day sends signals that they might not be too strenuously opposed, and those numbers drop precipitously when the administration of the day sends strong signals the other way. Businesses react to what is available - a supply signal. Close the pipeline and they will find other ways. They will whine, but they will find other ways. Mostly wages will rise enough to clear, and costs will be passed on.

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.

Sure, social welfare programs promote a lazier - or if you prefer, less striving, doesn't really make a difference except in an aesthetical sense - culture. Humans have known this since the first tribes made life hard for slackers. A culture in which people are reluctant to accept charity and determined to make their own way is difficult to sustain when governments replace private charity on massive scales.

 

[FJAG]

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,

I think that this is the fundamental problem that we all now have the ability to create content and distribute it widely through algorithm-boosted online media. I don't find much "informed" opinion on the web. What I find is opinion backed by other opinions rather than fact. And its getting worse. It was once easy to identify biased opinion because it stood out from factual reporting. Now everything is opinion. And it comes from both sides so that all that you have in front of you are polar opposite opinions about the same issue. It's harder and harder to apply common sense when analysing these.

It surely does. It manifests mostly against whatever party controls the WH. Today, that is Republicans.

But that is the nature of things. It is only the party that is in power that can act in a way to affect the public's life. Some of those will be harmed, or think they are being harmed, by those actions and they will be the loudest critics.

Degrade its reputation enough, and it loses popular support.

That, IMHO, is why I think Trump is a danger to American democracy. His infantile and extreme tirades against anyone he feels is against him do resonate with a certain element of MAGA. That undermines whatever institution he targets. One's only hope is that those die-hard MAGA supporters never grow to being the nation's "popular support" but remain at a minority. Even a minority, if substantial, can be dangerous.

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.

Courts do have coercive powers beyond mere persuasion. Money judgements and jail are part of their arsenal. In one respect you are right though. In order to effect those punishments, the courts rely on entities controlled by the executive. If the executive simply drags it feet then those powers become meaningless. The problem here quite simply is that Trump is the first executive leader in the US who is prepared to test that type of inaction and has installed secretaries who are extremely loyal to him rather than the Constitution. And let me be clear, by Trump, I mean him and that small core of political advisors led by Stephen Miller who are the architects of this chaos.

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.

Again, whether or not these decisions are partisan or not is very much in the eyes of the beholder. Frequently their views are clouded by their own partisanship. And, yes, within that group of beholders the reputation of the entire judiciary may suffer. IMHO, that is a consequence of a poorly educated and schooled populace who can't isolate one decision from the overarching nature of the benefits that a strong judicial system brings to a society. That's my complaint about MAGA - they barely understand first order effects of their positions, much less second or third.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That, IMHO, is why I think Trump is a danger to American democracy. His infantile and extreme tirades against anyone he feels is against him do resonate with a certain element of MAGA. That undermines whatever institution he targets. One's only hope is that those die-hard MAGA supporters never grow to being the nation's "popular support" but remain at a minority. Even a minority, if substantial, can be dangerous.

Trump is a buffoon, and aside from the die-hard supporters, who else really pays attention when he blackguards an institution?

Conversely, when people regarded as sober and serious react to an adverse USSC decision or a Congressional legislative accomplishment by putting pen to paper and writing sober serious articles about the shortfalls of the institution, often favouring the words "illegitimate" and in the case of the court, "partisan", who is paying attention then?

And is the first group or the second ultimately more corrosive to institutional reputations?