SCOTUS Listening to Arguments (FOX News)
SCOTUS Grills Both Sides (USA Today)
I Have Seen Trump's Taxes and You Should, too (Bloomberg)
Trump's Many Promises to Release Tax Returns (Politifact)
It still amazes me that the Trump supporters are so scared of what is in Trump's taxes that they are not asking him to honor his commitment. And yet they seem fine voting for the same guy that they fear is likely hiding some deep and damaging secret.
I am more interested in learning about how he cheated to avoid estate taxes. Then there are possible bribery charges in his future? And this guy has created a timeline. It would be humorous if Trump becomes the first ex-President to end his life in jail. Maybe he should have just stayed a celebrity...
SCOTUS Grills Both Sides (USA Today)
I Have Seen Trump's Taxes and You Should, too (Bloomberg)
Trump's Many Promises to Release Tax Returns (Politifact)
It still amazes me that the Trump supporters are so scared of what is in Trump's taxes that they are not asking him to honor his commitment. And yet they seem fine voting for the same guy that they fear is likely hiding some deep and damaging secret.
I am more interested in learning about how he cheated to avoid estate taxes. Then there are possible bribery charges in his future? And this guy has created a timeline. It would be humorous if Trump becomes the first ex-President to end his life in jail. Maybe he should have just stayed a celebrity...
25 comments:
Very unlikely. The Supreme Court doesn't want to risk a confrontation with the Trump administration that they might lose.
--Hiram
Hiram,
What do you fear? Trump using the military against the Congress and the SCOTUS?
Here is an interesting WAPO opinion piece
Headed for a Split Decision?
My fear is that Republicans expect to govern the country through the courts.
In this case, it's what the Court fears. They know that if they rule against Trump, they don't have the means to enforce their order. And if that happens, the court knows that will be the end of the legal authority of federal courts over the other two branches of government. If a Republican president establishes a precedent that presidents are not obligated to follow the orders of Republican justices and judges, it cannot be expected that Democratic presidents will follow them.
I think CJ Roberts understands this, and so what he is doing now is crafting some sort of middle ground ruling that avoids a confrontation with the president. One easy way of doing that is to simply say it's a political question, one that can only be resolved between the two branches of government, or at the ballot box.
I am sure this is very frustrating for Republicans. Their politics has centered for years on control of the courts. Generations of young attorneys have crafted their resumes and managed their careers in ways that are designed to get then through senate nomination hearings. Republican believe that control of courts can mean that they will have de facto control of the government even with Democrats nominally in office. To blow that now, over Trump's vanity and narcissism and vanity means all that work will go to waste. Once Trump defies a court order, if that does happen, the federal court role going forward will never be more than advisory. No president, no congress will ever take them seriously again.
I do believe in both siderism here. I think by ruling for Trump, the courts can put off this fight for a while. But I also think that sooner or later there will be the same confrontation between a Democratic president and the Republican supreme court. It's just that republicans which much prefer a better issue.
--Hiram
Maybe... But I have more faith in the robustness of the US systems...
Politicians have been working to manipulate them for 244 years... And they are still working.
But I have more faith in the robustness of the US systems...
In robust systems, Congressional subpoenas are enforced. Supreme Court nominations are given hearings. In robust systems, religious freedoms are respected, and monies are not diverted in ways that violate congressional content. In robust systems, attorneys do not argue before the Supreme Court that congressional powers vis a vis the executive are limited and subject to judicial review, and they certainly don't expect to win. In robust systems people don't believe that political authority is based on force instead of the consent of the governed. A robust system doesn't put a Donald Trump in the White House contrary to the popular will.
Our system is dying, and it will not recover. The throes are evident everywhere.
--Hiram
It must be very sad in your cynical world...
Just remember that people have been saying similar things for centuries...
And we are still here...
The only scary change has been our introduction of entitlements and huge debt over the past 50 years... That is something new...
Just remember that people have been saying similar things for centuries..
And over centuries, lots of systems have died.
In this era, as many people seem to believe and argue, political power won't be based on the consent of the governed or on democratic principles, it will be based on force and the threat of force.
It's the Melian dialogue: "For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
--Hirm
Please name a wealthy stable system like the USA that has died in the last 240 years?
And I will refine my statement...
"Just remember that American citizens have been saying similar things about the USA for centuries.."
What is the unemployment rate? How many Americans are running out of money for food? How much more in debt are we now than we were three months ago, both publicly and privately? If the current move to reopen our businesses turns out to be premature, certainly the greatest gamble our political leaders have ever made in our lives, do any of us think the economy can even survive.
Do we really think our system is wealthy? Or stable? Or did it just present the illusion of those qualities that has now been stripped away?
But of course, we saw the failure of systems throughout the 20th century throughout the world. America has always been protected by it's prosperity and it's oceans. Those don't play the same role that they used to.
--Hiram
Yes I did acknowledge our biggest change / risk...
"The only scary change has been our introduction of entitlements and huge debt over the past 50 years... That is something new..."
For some reason people chose to vote themselves "free money and services".
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin
Just curious...
Let's say that we lose ~400,000 mostly elderly people (ie 65+ yrs old) to COVID 19 in the next 9 months.
What if we lose ~2,000,000 mostly elderly people (ie 65+ yrs old) to COVID 19 in the next 9 months.
Will that be bad or good for the American economy and stability?
Please note that entitlements are currently the country's biggest economic liability. What if they are reduced by 25%?
I have never understood this Republican view that stuff is free. Do they think World War II was fought on a complementary basis?
--Hiram
WWII was a disaster that was somewhat forced on the USA from the outside.
And the generations at the time paid down the debt...
Entitlements are a self created disaster that are reliant on creating debt.
Boomers: The Most Selfish Generation
"WWII was a disaster that was somewhat forced on the USA from the outside."
It says something about us that we didn't think genocide was a problem until we were attacked on our soil.
Moose
Moose, I am still amazed you live in this country considering how much you disapprove of it. :-)
I think your timing is a bit suspect. To me it seems that the US entry and genocide occurred at about the same time.
Why, When and How US Entered WWII
It sounds like we were heavily involved long before Pearl Harbor...
And I thought you were against US military intervention in other countries to save people? (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, etc)
Then it's your language that is the problem, and belies your attitude.
"...forced on the USA from the outside."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...US military intervention in other countries to save people? (ie Afghanistan, Iraq, etc)"
I suppose that's one jingoistic way to look at it.
Moose
jingoistic: "characterized by extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy"
I am not sure it is extreme in anyway. The USA historically has required 2 things before getting involved in foreign conflicts.
1. The interests of the USA are involved. (ie attacked, fight communism, mutual defense agreement triggered, etc)
2. An aggressor is harming the people of their country or another.
Why do you think we got engaged in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria?
Do you think the people tortured / killed under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban deserved less than the Jews of Germany?
And we did not jump into either of those conflicts until they attacked us or our ally.
Why do you think we got engaged in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria?
World War II, basically. After World War I, America retreated to it's traditional isolationism. In a sense, that was the last time, the last moment really, when that was possible. Within just a few years, global media would develop. Commercial radio was invented. Movies became common. Crossing the Atlantic which used to take a week was now possible in a matter of hours. The development of an internation community happened very quickly, far faster than the ability of our politics could keep up with it. Our awakening and it was a rude one occurred on December 7th, 1941. From that morning on, afternoon in the eastern United States, it became clear that ignoring the rest of the world was no longer possible. It's that lesson we are working so hard to unlearn right now.
A question that hasn't been asked much so far, is why was the travel ban so ineffective? Despite shutting down travel from China, the virus came anyway in a ferocious form. The answer to that is simple enough. While we proclaimed a travel ban, we didn't enforce to a sufficient degree. We haven't unlearned the lessons of WW II, the globalism, not isolation, is the key to peace and, incidentally partisan. The lessons of our current politics have not yet taken hold.
--Hiram
Hiram,
It looks like you did not read my source. It seems that FDR was pretty engaged in those "European" and "Asian" wars long before Pearl Harbor. Though you maybe are correct that the American citizens needed something to wake them up.
The reasons travel limitations did not work was because they were only about 25% implemented... Only limiting Chinese citizens coming from China while US and European citizens still traveled freely. No duh it failed...
It looks like you did not read my source. It seems that FDR was pretty engaged in those "European" and "Asian" wars long before Pearl Harbor.
But was the country?
But the politics of the time is well understood. Roosevelt was more committed to Britain and defeating the Nazi's in private then he was in politics. It is accepted by historians that he was disingenuous on the issues. Asian policy was something of an afterthought. WW II in the European theater was always the priority.
The reason why the travel restrictions weren't successful is they weren't fully implemented. Despite his tough talk, Trump could not bring himself for political and other reasons, to actually shut down travel. This kind of mistake in dealing with viruses is systemic. We want to see them in political, economic, social and moral instead of a health threat. And it's the basic problem of politics. What is easy is more likely to happen than what is hard. It's easier to ban travel than to order a domestic lockdown. You notice none of the politicians advocating the opening of the economy don't support opening travel, a less aggressive policy but politically more difficult. You notice also that what Trump did was also the easier path, announcing a travel ban as opposed to actually banning travel.
--Hiram
Trump was desperate for a trade deal with China, Trade and deals, were the way he defined is presidency. He wanted that deal so badly that he took his friend's word for what was happening, someone nobody who wasn't desperate for a deal would do. He believed the numbers, and of course that was wrong. Numbers you get from tyrants just aren't reliable. Quite honestly, numbers you get from anyone in a crisis, aren't very reliable. Trump, also, is a complete babe in the woods yesterday. He displayed this yesterday in his speech where he said the problem with testing is that it finds too many cases. If he can reduce the numbers, Trump believes he can reduce the disease.
--Hiram
In the impeachment matter, many Republicans demonstrated a belief that if you couldn't prove something that it wasn't true. What they did then, was fight to prevent the discovery of evidence, and then argue that what the evidence would have proven wasn't true. This makes sense to the Republican mind and this kind of thinking is hardly limited to impeachment matters. You see it in Trump's belief that if we don't count something it doesn't exist. If a boat isn't allowed to dock the people on it are not diseased. That, as he said in so many words yesterday, it can't be a case of the disease if it is untested, undiagnosed or uncounted.
We are not lawyers, mostly. We should not believe as not even lawyers don't believe except in courts, that something that can't be proven can't be true. I assure you, that is profoundly an deeply not true.
--Hiram
Post a Comment