Supreme Court of the United States

[DMT]

It's amazing that you guys continue to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in any ambiguous situation. You think he gave two shits about Kavanaugh's judicial record? That's laughable.

I will concede that Kennedy recommending him as his replacement makes perfect sense but if you think it's outlandish that Trump didn't consider how Kavanaugh might impact Trump himself and his children in future rulings, you are hopelessly naive.

[Judge Jude]

It's amazing that you guys continue to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in any ambiguous situation. You think he gave two shits about Kavanaugh's judicial record? That's laughable.

I will concede that Kennedy recommending him as his replacement makes perfect sense but if you think it's outlandish that Trump didn't consider how Kavanaugh might impact Trump himself and his children in future rulings, you are hopelessly naive.

obviously you are not talking to me, so who are you responding to?

[chancellor]

Gosh, a president considered what a justice might rule on. I’m shocked, shocked to the core. I mean, no president cares about his legacy

[DMT]

Gosh, a president considered what a justice might rule on. I’m shocked, shocked to the core. I mean, no president cares about his legacy

I specifically said rulings directly impacting Trump and his children...far cry from the considerations that every president makes. But keep pretending he's just another president.

[DMT]

obviously you are not talking to me, so who are you responding to?

Just generally to anyone who thinks that Trump wasn't thinking of himself when he chose Kavanaugh.

[chancellor]

I specifically said rulings directly impacting Trump and his children...far cry from the considerations that every president makes. But keep pretending he's just another president.

Well, then he's a damn sight smarter and more forward looking than all y'all give him credit for. Certainly, before the hearings, if your implication is that somehow Kavanaugh would protect he and his family better than, say, Amy Coney Barrett or Thomas Hardiman, I can only laugh at you. That would imply powers that we all know only Sith Lord Darth Cheney ever held.

[B-Fly]

Well, then he's a damn sight smarter and more forward looking than all y'all give him credit for. Certainly, before the hearings, if your implication is that somehow Kavanaugh would protect he and his family better than, say, Amy Coney Barrett or Thomas Hardiman, I can only laugh at you. That would imply powers that we all know only Sith Lord Darth Cheney ever held.

You don't think he has advisors who reviewed the options and could say something to him like, "This candidate is the most likely to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergfell v. Hodges, but this other guy is the most likely to provide the broadest interpretation of the presidential pardon power and presidential immunity?"

[baldgriff]

You don't think he has advisors who reviewed the options and could say something to him like, "This candidate is the most likely to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergfell v. Hodges, but this other guy is the most likely to provide the broadest interpretation of the presidential pardon power and presidential immunity?"

That would then assume that he actually listens to his advisors - which has been stated in other threads he is not able to do because he is such a narcissist and thinks he is smarter than everyone.

I dont like the idea of the Executive Order - or any of them for that matter.

[nots]

That would then assume that he actually listens to his advisors - which has been stated in other threads he is not able to do because he is such a narcissist and thinks he is smarter than everyone.

I dont like the idea of the Executive Order - or any of them for that matter.

Yeah, a few of us were upset with Obama’s ‘I have a phone and a pen’ method of governing, because we saw what it might lead to. We were mostly dismissed as right wingers unsupportive of Obama trying to overcome a GOP Congress out to get him.
The good news is that this EO would be so far out of bounds that it would be quickly struck down by the SC. The problem is the next one might not be and that bothers me greatly. Presidents should not govern by EO, whether they be Trump or Obama. Hopefully, the Dems in this room will remember that next time there guy is in the Oval Office and not be so dismissive of us that are concerned.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, a few of us were upset with Obama’s ‘I have a phone and a pen’ method of governing, because we saw what it might lead to. We were mostly dismissed as right wingers unsupportive of Obama trying to overcome a GOP Congress out to get him.
The good news is that this EO would be so far out of bounds that it would be quickly struck down by the SC. The problem is the next one might not be and that bothers me greatly. Presidents should not govern by EO, whether they be Trump or Obama. Hopefully, the Dems in this room will remember that next time there guy is in the Oval Office and not be so dismissive of us that are concerned.

I don't ask this because I disagree as much as I'm genuinely curious what people think. Are there any differences that are worthy of consideration between a president who does not have Congress and who can't seem to get anything done through the proper channels due to obstructionism and a president who does have Congress and thus could use the proper channels? Again, I understand the slippery slope and all. Just curious if you or anyone think there are any circumstances, or any specific examples where an EO from a president made practical sense for the nation. And, are there any important distinctions in comparing the use of EO from a president that has an opposition Congress hell bent on obstructionism vs one that has support from Congress?

[nots]

I don't ask this because I disagree as much as I'm genuinely curious what people think. Are there any differences that are worthy of consideration between a president who does not have Congress and who can't seem to get anything done through the proper channels due to obstructionism and a president who does have Congress and thus could use the proper channels? Again, I understand the slippery slope and all. Just curious if you or anyone think there are any circumstances, or any specific examples where an EO from a president made practical sense for the nation.

I think, for me at least, the system of checks and balances is what works best. If a President can’t get legislation thru a recalcitrant Congress, then he can’t get it thru. Circumventing Congress is a bad idea, even if the legislation is noble or just.
I will say, that if folks are consistent in their view that EO’s are ok even when it’s not their guy writing them, then I would disagree but respect the intellectual integrity. If you believe that Trump should be able to formulate policy thru EO because you thought Obama should, then OK. ( again, notreferring to this recent example because it pretty clearly goes against the 14th Amendment IMO—talking about the next possible Trump EO).

[Sour Masher]

I think, for me at least, the system of checks and balances is what works best. If a President can’t get legislation thru a recalcitrant Congress, then he can’t get it thru. Circumventing Congress is a bad idea, even if the legislation is noble or just.
I will say, that if folks are consistent in their view that EO’s are ok even when it’s not their guy writing them, then I would disagree but respect the intellectual integrity. If you believe that Trump should be able to formulate policy thru EO because you thought Obama should, then OK. ( again, notreferring to this recent example because it pretty clearly goes against the 14th Amendment IMO—talking about the next possible Trump EO).

Your last point does bring up the issue of degree of badness with EOs. Would you agree that some EOs are much worse than others in terms of them violating the spirit of our system of government of checks and balances? Are some EOs worthy of more scorn than others? Are any tolerable at all, or must one be 100% against all or 100% for all? Is it a tool that should be completely stripped from the Executive Branch or just restricted more in some way?

[nots]

Sure, there are degrees of value in EO’s, but I think it’s pretty clear Obama was trying to circumvent Congress, which I think is wrong.
Trump is trying to circumvent the Constitution with this one, which is certainly worse, but by no means excuses what Obama did in my opinion.

[baldgriff]

The excessive usage of EO - to circumvent Congress is just another thing that has created such division. Obama ran as this guy who was going to unite folks - yeah not so much. EO governance only makes the other side dig in deeper. The checks and balances built into our system are to promote bi-partisanship and making both sides work together to promote those ideals that are best for the large majority of folks.

[Sour Masher]

Sure, there are degrees of value in EO’s, but I think it’s pretty clear Obama was trying to circumvent Congress, which I think is wrong.
Trump is trying to circumvent the Constitution with this one, which is certainly worse, but by no means excuses what Obama did in my opinion.

That's fair and well put. I do agree there is a big difference between circumventing Congress and the Constitution. I am perhaps a little more forgiving of the former in certain circumstances than you, but I try to be consistent with that. For instance, I haven't bristled at some of Trump's EOs, especially when they seem consistent with why he was elected--they are his privileged in our current set up. I do find it frustrating that he attacked their use and isn't called out for using them with less cause and justification than Obama had, given that he has Congress with him and Obama did not. And we agree that any EO that circumvents the Constitution is an egregious breech that should not be tolerated and should raise massive red flags for the president who puts them forward.