Regardless of How the Votes Go, It’s Going to Be the Republicans Tax Code

As long as most of us have been alive, the Democrats have “owned” the tax code, being blamed for every trade off and decision.

Assuming for a sad moment that the Republicans manage to ram this monster of redistribution through, it will become “their” tax code.

We can run ads against every element.

We can do April 15 ads.

We can print and Photoshop copies of the 1040 with Trump’s, McConnel’s and Ryan’s photos superimposed.

Every time a Republican complains about anything to do with taxes we throw it back in your faces.  “You wrote the code, you rammed it through.  You own it now.  You pay the price.”

Of course, if they fail to pass their bill, then anything wrong with the code is still their fault, because they are too pathetic to have changed it.

Not the platform I would like to have to run on, but one I would love to run against.

 

Advertisements

Refusing to Move a Vice Presidential Replacement Would Be The Ultimate Garland Payback

It’s time to start speculating about a post-Trump 2019.  Supposing Trump is impeached, Pence moves up, and Congress starts to talk about replacing him as the investigation reaches Pence.

Then the Dems, now in the majority, citing the Garland nomination, refuse to approve a new VP.  “The people should decide.” (imagined quote).

When Pence is convicted, we get, glory of glory of glories, President Pelosi.  Pelosi, of course, re-nominates Garland, no longer subject to the filibuster.

 

Rule for Today: Read Only Curated News

Here is a simple rule for maintanning sanity and undercutting attempts to destroy our democracy.

Read Only Curated News

It is that simple.  Read only news sources that take some form of responsibility for what they publish.  Eve Fox, hardly neutral, takes some responsibility and is concerned with reputation.  Not so Breitbart.

Unsubscribe to any and all automated gregators — they are too subject to being fooled by waves of false news.

As to news referrals on Facebook and the like – even if apparently from people you know, ignore unless they are pushing something from a curated source.  (Personally, I would like Facebook to allow one to list the sources that you want to hear about.)

These steps will not stop false news, but should significantly reduce the false news multiplier that the internet provides.

 

 

Would Earthquake Prediction Software Help Tell Us When Trump Will Blow?

In an article as wonderful as it is scary, the Washington Post reportsWashington Post reports on the efforts of the White House to contain the President.

One Trump confidant likened the president to a whistling teapot, saying that when he does not blow off steam, he can turn into a pressure cooker and explode. “I think we are in pressure cooker territory,” said this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

It is not clear if the tweets constitute “letting off steam” or if they can be the ultimate explosion.  Nor is is clear what the risk is in “pressure cooker territory,”

But, I am wondering if the software used to predict earthquakes could be tuned to predict when we will get an “explo[sion].

However, according to Wikipedia:

While part of the scientific community hold that, taking into account non-seismic precursors and given enough resources to study them extensively, prediction might be possible, most scientists are pessimistic and some maintain that earthquake prediction is inherently impossible.

Of course, just because it might not work with terran earthquakes, does not mean it will not work with Trumpian ones.  Not withstanding high IQ there are probably less varaibles.

Could Obamacare Repeal Split the Union Apart?

Then the Supreme Court decided Dred Scott, I doubt that they intended to split the Union apart, probably the opposite.

When Chief Justice Roberts engineered the decision that allowed states to opt out of the Medicare expansion, I suspect that he too had no such intent.

But that may be the consequence.

As the data on state budget implications of the Repeal making its way to the Senate becomes frighteningly clear, it is starting to seem as if the result will be to put opt-in (generally blue) and opt-out (generally red) states on fundamentally economic and political paths.

In Blue states, the economics and politics will do deep damage to the Republicans, with likely single party domination in many more blue states.  The reverse will be true in red states, at least until the voter rolls expand — and every effort will be made to prevent that.

At what point, with the states divided into single party red, and single party blue, how long till various forms of secession start to be appealing to both sides?  Remember that the right’s obsession with state’s rights tends to blind them to the advantages of the Federal role.

A frightening prospect.  But when one party stops representing a huge swathe of the country, that is what happens.

 

 

 

 

 

Trump Does Not Only Speak for himself — He Also Acts Only For Himself

Tillerson memorably explained that the President speaks for himself.

That’s bad enough.

But, once you think about it, it becomes crystal clear not only that he not acts for himself, but that the acts ONLY for himself.

Every story bout his financial benefits, about his marketing, about his policies, about his ego-serving behavior, demonstrates that nothing is done with any perception of national interest, let alone world interest.

Indeed, he has gotten away with this for so long because his base thinks he is acting in their interest.  So the simple trick is get them to start to see otherwise,  Maybe Tillerson has show how to start.

Remember, he acts only for himself.

 

 

If Trump Is Planning a Pardon for the Arizona Sheriff, He Might Want to Think again.

It does appear to be good law that even Federal Court criminal contempts are pardonable by presidents.  (I had  thought there might be a separation of power claim.)

However, the Supreme Curt has hinted, back in 1925, that a pattern of abuse could lead to impeachment.  The language might also provide some tools to persuade the Court to look differently at the Sheriff’s behavior, and any Trump pardon.

Here is what the court said in In the Matter of Philip Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925)

A pardon can only be granted for a contempt fully completed. Neither in this country nor in England can it interfere with the use of coercive measures to enforce a suitor’s right. The detrimental effect of excessive pardons of completed contempts would be in the loss of the deterrent influence upon future contempts. It is of the same character as that of the excessive pardons of other offenses. The difference does not justify our reading criminal contempts out of the pardon clause by departing from its ordinary meaning confirmed by its common law origin and long years of practice and acquiescence.

If it be said that the President, by successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation, might deprive a court of power to enforce its orders in a recalcitrant neighborhood, it is enough to observe that such a course is so improbable as to furnish but little basis for argument. Exceptional cases like this, if to be imagined at all, would suggest a resort to impeachment rather than to a narrow and strained construction of the general powers of the President.
(Bold added.)

There just are not so many Supreme Court cases about impeachment, so every hint is meaningful.  This might stand for:

The proposition that use of pardons, in a pattern, could result in impeachment,

That acts that go to undermining the constitutional balance are appropriate for impeachment,

The idea hat the impeachment clause phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is not necessarily limited to violations of the criminal code.

I would welcome additional suggestions.  Read and enjoy the full case.

More particularly, with respect to Arizona, the use of a pardon to undermine Federal authority is said to be particularly disturbing, for example in a “neighborhood.”   While the Sheriff is now out of power, such a pardon is far more threatening to Federal authority, than an individual violation of the law in the case the Supreme Court decided.

Indeed, a pardon for conviction for systematic abuses of governmental power in breach of the constitution would seem a classic exception requiring rethinking.

A sheriff’s county-wide pattern and practice of contempt for the constitution and the Federal Courts is far more damaging that an ongoing pattern of pardons for minor violations by individuals in a “neighborhood.”  Indeed, given that the case arose under the Prohibition Act, it is understandable that the Court felt the need to recognize that pardons might represent a threat to the enforcement of the law, and therefore hinted at remedies.

Time for second thoughts, Mr President.

Note:  This is a version of a very recent post on my access to justice blog.