monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Looks to me like O'Really? is as guilty of playing politics with this incident as the media he's castigating. There are around 89,000 reported rapes a year in the USA. So these two crimes should be plastered all over the front pages because the assailants are immigrants? So the crime is worse because the perpetrators are foreign? Is he suggesting that every sexual assault should receive maximum media attention? Or just those committed by immigrants? Seems to me he wants to use the crimes to fire up general anti-immigrant sentiment and stoke the flames of intolerance, suspicion, and hatred 'beyond anything I have ever seen'.

Careful here ... you may find yourself castigated as a part of the "war on women" by some group of snowflakes.

I think the issue here is that bureaucrats in the Federal Government and state governments (Maryland in this case) and the Montgomery County Board of Education decided to place 17 ands 18 year old illegal immigrants from El Salvador and Guatemala, at least one with a known criminal record and being processed for deportation in a freshman high schools class, ostensibly to accelerate their learning of English, without the consent of, or even informing, the parents of the children attending the school.

Both Guatemala and El Salvador are seriously failed states noted for their lawlessness and immigrants from both have high rates of such behavior here, Finally they constitute a disproportionately large fraction of the illegal immigrants reaching this country in the last few years. Trump's allegations about the dumping of criminals and dysfunctional people by some states are accurate with respect to these countries.

Once the two illegal immigrants had been identified as illegal, and found to have been engaged in criminal activity, they should have been deported, and certainly not sent to a public school with children four years younger than themselves. This was yet another example of mindless bureaucratic rule by our now very dysfunctional governments.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
no law or constitutional provision prevented his actions.

That's what allowed him to get away with it. That and a broad consensus among Republicans and conservatives that he should do it so that Obama wouldn't get to pick the replacement for Scalia.

Quote:
What was done was entirely within the discretion of the Senate Majority Leader, and he acted in keeping with most (not all) previous precedent.
Utterly false. That was a pretense of historical justification. It was the cover for breaking norms.

And you do not address the stated intentions to hold the seat vacant if Hillary had won, perhaps for four or more years, and the claims that an SC with only 8 sitting justices would be just fine. Do you doubt that if Hillary had won, the GOP would try to do that? And had they done so, are you going to tell me that you'd protest their divergence from what has always been normal process?

So I understand from your comment, we agree there was no legal or constitutional requirement for the Republican Majority in the Senate to withhold hearings on Obama's lame duck appointee, and neither was there any legal or constitutional prohibition of such action. Therefore the inescapable conclusion is that we agree that what the Senate did was within its legal discretion.

Given that I find your statement that the conclusion above is "Utterly False" to be incomprehensible. I also note that you, perhaps slyly, changed your position to one of "breaking norms". Sadly even there the facts are not with you. There are no such norms: lame duck appointments are rare and confirmations are rarer.

As for the riff about what might have been the intentions of Republican leaders in the Senate had Hillary won, the fact is you can't possibly know, though I recognize you frequently make such fantastic accusations, based only on your hypothetical imaginings.. Moreover considering the proceedings of Democrat controlled Senates with respect to Justice Thomas and candidate Justice Bork, It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that Republicans in power are far more considerate fo Democrat judicial appointments than are Democrats.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Rubio stated that a last year appointment was "without precedent".

Quote:

• 1968: President Lyndon Johnson — who announced he would not run for re-election — nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and Homer Thornberry to fill Fortas’ vacancy. Fortas’ nomination failed, Thornberry withdrew his nomination and Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench, delaying his retirement. (More on this later.)

• 1932, President Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo. Hoover lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

• 1912: President William Taft successfully nominated Mahlon Pitney to the Supreme Court. Taft lost to Woodrow Wilson.

Three other presidents made successful Supreme Court nominations while running for re-election, but unlike Taft and Hoover, they won another term:

• 1956: Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan.

• 1940: Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy.

• 1916: Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke and Louis Brandeis.

Obqmq should hqve done a "recess appointment" I would hqve, had I known the GOP was this bunch of cynical folks

2 Replies

@farmerman,

The issue isn't about what Rubio said. Cynicism is pervasive in the world and particularly so in politics. I find your implied suggestion that Democrats are less cynical than Republicans to be truly laughable. Consider for a moment some of the famous statements of Nancy Pelosi and the esteemed Prof. Jonathan Gruber about the then pending Obama care legislation. That, of course is just a start !

This was a bit below your usual standard.

1 Reply

http://wpgc.cbslocal.com/2017/03/22/d-c-police-advice-to-young-people-stay-home-to-avoid-trafficking/

D.C. Cops warning kids to avoid fat, evil, perverted pedophile de-moKKKer-Rat pols and pizza-parlor clientelle...

0 Replies

@McGentrix,
Quote:
Illegal immigrants come to this country and have no regard for the people or laws that make this country great.

That statement is pure bigotry. I have lived around and worked with illegals most of my life. Every one of them that I interacted with was intent only on making a decent life for themselves. As has been pointed out by others, there are a few bad apples in every tree, but on average, I believe the illegals are less criminal than the average citizen.

5 Replies

more:

https://investmentwatchblog.com/d-c-pedophile-epidemic-police-warn-kids-to-stay-home/

D.C. Parents, Don't let YOUR child be the next child to be hauled off to a perverted de-moKKKer-Rat PIZZA PARLOR to be spirit-cooked, and sacrificed to pagan gods and goddesses in a sadistic satanic ritual!!!!!!

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

That statement [wanting to have a real country with real laws and a real immigration policy] is pure bigotry.....

What about wanting other things?? Is wanting to have food to eat bigotry? Wanting to have clothing, schools which your kids could attend safely, prisons which weren't filled to overflowing with illegal immigrants? Safety from diseases which had been eradicated in the United States through large-scale policies and practices? Is it bigotry to want any or all of that?

Is there anything a normal person living in the United States could ever want for himself and his family which your ilk wouldn't find some way to call "bigotry"???

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I don't think McG has any personal experience with illegals.
If they are here illegally, they're not going to commit crimes to get themselves returned to their own country where food and jobs are scarce.
In California, many Mexicans come here to harvest our crops, because Americans do not like laboring in the fields. It's hard work with low pay.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

"If the president does it that means it is not wrong" - R M Nixon

Yes. You're right in pointing to Nixon's statement as an earlier similar claim. But that is a claim to the President being the sole determiner of "right/wrong" in the execution of power. It's a constitutional/legal claim about the Presidency and the powers that properly (in his view) arise from the office. And it is a claim that has adherents like John Yoo and Dick Cheney (at least where someone is in the office who shares their political views).

But Chait is pointing to something quite a bit different from Nixon's claim. Indeed, I doubt Trump would make that exact claim because he's far too stupid as regards constitutional theory/law and the division of powers to have such notions or debates in his head.

Trump's claim, simplistic and incoherent, is that all authority on any matter (ie scientific claims, moral claims, truth claims, etc) is properly understood as deriving from political power. "I won, you didn't, therefore your opinion on anything is made irrelevant by mine."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

"snowflakes". Really?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Just a start? Trumpcare is going to cause 24 million people from losing their health insurance. That is significant in my books! I want to see more people covered by health insurance, not less. We already spend the most per capita for health care. We need to make the necessary corrections so that everybody is covered by health insurance.

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/trumpcare-and-you-how-will-the-gops-american-health-care-act-change-your-health-insurance/

1 Reply

@blatham,

Sounds like the sort of thing Mr Potter would say.

http://blog.ambassadorhighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Henry-Potter.jpg

From this film, if anyone doesn't get the reference.

https://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/74/MPW-37013

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Given that I find your statement that the conclusion above is "Utterly False" to be incomprehensible. I also note that you, perhaps slyly, changed your position to one of "breaking norms". Sadly even there the facts are not with you. There are no such norms: lame duck appointments are rare and confirmations are rarer.

As I see Farmerman has pointed out, nominations in the final year (and this was longer than a year) are not unprecedented - true as regards the SC and moreso for lower courts See Politifact

Further, there was no tradition in US judicial culture/norms where sitting presidents were denied the ability to place a nominee because "they were in a lame duck" period. That was made out of whole cloth by McConnell. I did not "change" my argument to "norms". That IS the issue. It has been acknowledged as the issue since McConnell acted as he did. There was no precedent for his actions. There is no history of constituional or judicial theory that undergirds his actions. It was entirely arbitrary and entirely cynical.

The most obvious demonstration of how arbitrary his actions were is to consider the "one year" marker. Why not two years? Why not 8 months? Why not three years? Why not a full term as Cruz, for one, advocated?

What now is to prevent a future Dem-controlled Senate from denying any Republican president's SC pick for the court at ANY point in his presidency hearings for the position? Nothing. Because this is a matter of norms only. Which is why Cruz, for one, promised he would block hearings for any appointment Hillary might have made.

0 Replies

Trumpcare for de-moKKKer-Rat snowflakes:

http://images.rapgenius.com/cwj28k3toud6db3ng76spjyaw.640x360x1.jpg

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Quote:
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Illegal immigrants come to this country and have no regard for the people or laws that make this country great.

That statement is pure bigotry.

Of course it is. This is the sort of statement that arises out of anger. It is a far too broad and irrational rejection of all such individuals. If we consider people coming from south of the border, most are serious Catholics, for example. Most hold values regarding family which are broadly shared on the American right. Most are extremely hard-working. By far the most do not commit crimes other than residing in the US without proper authorization.

By way of contrast, we could compare with some of the Russian Mafia types presently living in Trump's hotels. But legal re immigration status.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Sounds like the sort of thing Mr Potter would say.

Though difficult to believe, it is the case that I've had conservatives argue passionately that Mr Potter represents a typical Democrat and that the Jimmy Stewart character represents the typical Republican.

1 Reply

Today's winner in our on-going and world-famous "Totally Meaningless Statements" category.

Quote:

House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) said Thursday that his decision to go to the press and to the White House with fresh intelligence reports before going to his own committee, which is investigating Russia’s interference in the U.S. election, was “just a judgment call.”

TPM

So, ladies, why did you follow Mr Manson to that house and set to all the slashing and stabbing and vicious murdering?

"It was just a judgement call."

0 Replies

TPM has a must read piece up on Time's interview with Trump.
The 7 Wildest Moments From Trump's Fact-Free Time Magazine Interview I'll just toss in some of the headings to give you that delicious Trumpian flavor:

Quote:

"A wiretapping is, you know today it is different than wire tapping"

Anthony Weiner "had it, all of Hillary’s email on his thing"

"I'm not saying" GCHQ wiretapped me, "I'm quoting highly respected people" who said so

"I talked about Sweden" and "two days later, they had a massive riot"

"I have people say it was more than" 3 million votes that were illegally cast in 2016

"I'm president, and you're not"

0 Replies

@blatham,

For some reason I don't quite understand myself, your talk of Mexico rang a bell in my brain re an old favorite book of mine, which I now wish I'd saved in my collected books - Children of Sanchez, 1961, by the anthropologist Oscar Lewis. I remember arguing about it with JLNobody of A2K, as the book was about Lewis's take re a culture of poverty. JLN, a social anthropologist himself, was not wrong, but I still liked the book and recognized some of us, including myself, in it. I may need to reread it, as it has been years now. I think I remember putting it into a bunch of cartons of books on Mexico that I gave to Venice High School. (I used to be as crazed about reading re Mexico as I am re Italy more recently,)

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know