Trump Thread

**Husar** · 06-08-2018, 13:31

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The one illegal thing (contempt of court?) Lincoln may have done re: suspending the privilege* of the writ of habeas corpus was ignoring Judge Taney in ex parte Merryman, except, like with Andrew Jackson and Worcester vs. Georgia, the court did not actually direct or enjoin any government action, so

The judicial branch has often taken pains to avoid stepping on the shoes of the other branches when it comes to injunctions.

I don't know why you bring up courts in reply to my post.
Courts can be changed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7140661.html

They only have power if the executive actually enforces their decisions. And failing that, the people in general.
The point was that with sufficient support in the populace and the executive, the rule of the law can be broken and Trump is moving somewhat in this direction by trying to discredit every institution that tries to block him.

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

**Montmorency** · 06-08-2018, 13:49

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't know why you bring up courts in reply to my post.
Courts can be changed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7140661.html

They only have power if the executive actually enforces their decisions. And failing that, the people in general.
The point was that with sufficient support in the populace and the executive, the rule of the law can be broken and Trump is moving somewhat in this direction by trying to discredit every institution that tries to block him.

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

That's what I was touching on in my response to your portion - executive power overriding subtle judicial arguments, and courts actively deferring to the executive in order to avoid a situation in which the executive have to choose between following onerous court orders, or explicitly rejecting them.

Sorry for rambling.

**Husar** · 06-08-2018, 14:12

Originally Posted by Montmorency

That's what I was touching on in my response to your portion - executive power overriding subtle judicial arguments, and courts actively deferring to the executive in order to avoid a situation in which the executive have to choose between following onerous court orders, or explicitly rejecting them.

Sorry for rambling.

What rambling? If I misread your post, it's your duty to point that out. How else would I learn?

In your example you seem to say Lincoln acted against a court order, but the court wasn't exactly interested in ordering him to do or not do anything anyway. Then you say the courts generally try not to interfere with the executive.

So, do you agree that it is possible that noone would stop Trump from ignoring the law and potentially the constitution?
It's not just about the courts, imagine a democratic congress were to impeach him, but his crazy cabinet would back him and order the police/military not to remove him. Would that result in a coup/civil war or endless debates until his term was over anyway? And what if he'd then declare a state of emergency and postponed the elections? Would all the California hippies pick up their AR-15s and march on Washington?

These are hypotheticals of course, but I'm not entirely sure how disinterested courts figure into this other than that they might make it even easier for him.

**HopAlongBunny** · 06-08-2018, 15:04

Trump spreads BS like a manure spreader.
It seems this trait has "trickled down" to the FCC:

https://wonkette.com/634875/trump-fc...ames-it-on-dog

"We've were hacked!"
"We have no proof, but, I mean obviously we need to stop public comment on net-neutrality cause...you know"

Making America Great

https://gizmodo.com/senior-us-offici...sec-1797593781

**Gilrandir** · 06-08-2018, 15:30

Originally Posted by Husar

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

There was no Turkey back then. So your supposition is wrong.

**Husar** · 06-09-2018, 02:12

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

There was no Turkey back then. So your supposition is wrong.

I think you misunderstand. I linked to an article about Erdogan to show what Trump could potentially do, but wanted to make sure people know that I don't think the US situation is exactly like the Turkish one. The last part was just a joke about the Romans probably having thought that their empire was more stable than it was, too.

**Gilrandir** · 06-09-2018, 04:28

Originally Posted by Husar

I think you misunderstand. I linked to an article about Erdogan to show what Trump could potentially do, but wanted to make sure people know that I don't think the US situation is exactly like the Turkish one. The last part was just a joke about the Romans probably having thought that their empire was more stable than it was, too.

I think you have failed to detect irony. For the first time.

**Husar** · 06-09-2018, 10:56

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I think you have failed to detect irony. For the first time.

Can't even see it now.

But late at night and early in the morning I'm less than perfect indeed.

**Gilrandir** · 06-09-2018, 12:17

Originally Posted by Husar

Can't even see it now.

But late at night and early in the morning I'm less than perfect indeed.

Perhaps it wasn't irony in the strict sense. Rather trolling.

**HopAlongBunny** · 06-10-2018, 10:45

G7 summit ends in confusion and mixed messaging:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44427660

Trump slags Trudeau once carefully out of any danger of a face-to-face; on trade the appearance is of a G6 with the USA going it own way; the communique will not be unanimous, again the USA will be the dissenting party.
The SCO meanwhile seems to just ticking along nicely...

**Montmorency** · 06-09-2018, 04:50

Guys, let's take jurisprudential stuff to the other thread.

Anyone have any comments on Trump gearing up for some top-down command in energy markets?

And I don't want to be this fellow,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

but here's an excellent argument for why "if Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it": it's a national security asset, it's relatively tiny against the scale of the economy, it concentrates a small number of skilled workers, it's been utterly outcompeted in international (and domestic) markets by the rest of the world even with govt subsidies, it's been operating on annual net loss for almost a decade, it could be bought out for cheap (compensated eminent domain?), and the desired level of strategic production and skill retention could be maintained more efficiently under national control than with scattershot efforts to keep a failed private industry solvent...