Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (3 Viewers)

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The football board had the very useful Daily Trump Tracker thread, which was a good place to briefly discuss the latest ridiculous thing that might have ended 97% of prior Presidential administrations even if it didn't necessarily justify an entire thread devoted to it in 2017-2019 (because of the sheer volume of these things). Since I don't see anything like that here already, I'll add one myself.

 

[nolaspe]

Daily Mail is reporting that Trump just met with the My Pillow guy carrying notes about martial law.

BREAKING NEWS: MyPillow CEO visits Trump - notes say 'MARTIAL LAW'

President Trump met with My Pillow exec Mike Lindell, whose notes referenced 'martial law' - in a sign the president still refuses to accept the election results and court conspiracies.

www.google.com

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

If Trump is really considering Martial Law, then I hope the cabinet is considering the 25th amendment.

Keep hoping Sparky.. if it ain’t happened by now, it isnt going to.

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

i'll just put this here

In a parting gift, EPA finalizes rules to limit its use of science

On its way out, the Trump administration makes things harder for the next one.

arstechnica.com

The EPA's new rule, which will be formally published tomorrow, is an attempt to set additional standards for the evidence it considers when establishing new regulations for pollutants. In principle, the rule sounds great: it wants the data behind the scientific papers it uses to be made publicly available before it can be used to support regulatory decisions. In reality, the rule is problematic, because many of these studies rely on patient records that need to be kept confidential. In other cases, the organizations with the best information on some environmental hazards are the companies that produce or work with them, and they may not be interested in sharing proprietary data.

The practical result of this sort of change is that the EPA would be precluded from relying on scientific papers that contained the clearest indications of public harm. This would almost certainly lead to weaker rules or a decision not to regulate at all.

The EPA took it on the chin the last four years, so this is fitting. Didn't it start with the hiring of the Pruitt (who had previously tried to sue the EPA) and got busted charging boondoggles on the taxpayer's dime? One of the many, spiteful, childish and vindictive appointments he's made. Instead of working to improve government agencies, he sought to cripple or destroy them.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

It's obvious at this point the military command would not listen to Trump.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

It's obvious at this point the military command would not listen to Trump.

.



I certainly hope you’re right.. unfortunately there’s a little something called the law which states that Trump is still Commander in Chief til Wednesday afternoon... All bets are off for the next 4.5 days IMO

 

[Taurus]

If Trump is really considering Martial Law, then I hope the cabinet is considering the 25th amendment.

There is no bottom

 

[superchuck500]

.



I certainly hope you’re right.. unfortunately there’s a little something called the law which states that Trump is still Commander in Chief til Wednesday afternoon... All bets are off for the next 4.5 days IMO

The Supreme Court has held (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. "the Steel Seizure Case" (1952)) that the Constitution's Commander-in-Chief clause does not give the president unlimited power based on the president's view than an action is necessary in the prosecution of a war. In particular, the Court held that the clause relates to the administration of the armed forces "engaged in day-to-day fighting in the theater of war." The result of that case was that the president cannot use the Commander-in-Chief power as an end-run around the constitutional rights of private American citizens.

Any attempt by Trump to order the military help him prevent the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20, as required by the Constitution, would be patently unconstitutional, a direct demand for the military (its leaders and troops) to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution . . . and would amount to nothing short of a military coup in the United States of America.

I don't put anything past that man, but I'm confident that any such order would be ignored.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

The Supreme Court has held (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. "the Steel Seizure Case" (1952)) that the Constitution's Commander-in-Chief clause does not give the president unlimited power based on the president's view than an action is necessary in the prosecution of a war. In particular, the Court held that the clause relates to the administration of the armed forces "engaged in day-to-day fighting in the theater of war." The result of that case was that the president cannot use the Commander-in-Chief power as an end-run around the constitutional rights of private American citizens.

Any attempt by Trump to order the military help him prevent the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20, as required by the Constitution, would be patently unconstitutional, a direct demand for the military (its leaders and troops) to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution . . . and would amount to nothing short of a military coup in the United States of America.

I don't put anything past that man, but I'm confident that any such order would be ignored.

It’s great that you know this... I sure hope our leadership in Washington knows it as well.. Oh, that’s right- We have no idea who’s in charge for the next 4 days.. Pence? Someone else who we arent even familiar with? No one at all??

 

[not2rich]

The Supreme Court has held (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. "the Steel Seizure Case" (1952)) that the Constitution's Commander-in-Chief clause does not give the president unlimited power based on the president's view than an action is necessary in the prosecution of a war. In particular, the Court held that the clause relates to the administration of the armed forces "engaged in day-to-day fighting in the theater of war." The result of that case was that the president cannot use the Commander-in-Chief power as an end-run around the constitutional rights of private American citizens.

Any attempt by Trump to order the military help him prevent the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20, as required by the Constitution, would be patently unconstitutional, a direct demand for the military (its leaders and troops) to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution . . . and would amount to nothing short of a military coup in the United States of America.

I don't put anything past that man, but I'm confident that any such order would be ignored.

Additionally, if he tried such a move, I think it would make it much more likely at least 67 Senators would vote to convict in the impeachment trial.

 

[MT15]

Not sure if this needs its own thread, but this op-ed from someone who studies hate speech is good.

“Awful though it was that thugs smashed their way into the U.S. Capitol last week, it might do the United States good in the end. Here’s how.

Inspiring violence, which I study through my organization, the Dangerous Speech Project, doesn’t happen in one speech or tweet. It’s a steady insidious process that Donald Trump carried out for years until it was interrupted by last week’s display of what such language can do. The riot laid bare the urgent duty of Trump’s influential allies: to clearly repudiate his incendiary lies.”

The deadly consequences of Trump’s gradual and insidious rhetoric | Opinion

Dangerous speech is potent precisely because it is gradual.

www.inquirer.com

 

[MT15]

FAQ on how to respond to dangerous speech, but it has to be done by Republicans in order to start the healing.

 

[PurpleReign]

Let this sink in... A guy who sells pillows on TV for $29.99 has the ear of POTUS.

If the My Pillow guy’s notes had said something like “Submit a written offer to Denmark for the purchase of Greenland- there’s still time!”, he could put me down for 1 pillow.

 

[Ayo]

the steel seizure case made for a couple of the most fascinating, informative podcasts I've listened to in the last couple of years

as for the MyPillow guy... the videos he has released are totally nuts.

So, in the last couple of days, Trump has taken visits with him and Guiliani. I can't even....

 

[Maxp]

the steel seizure case made for a couple of the most fascinating, informative podcasts I've listened to in the last couple of years

as for the MyPillow guy... the videos he has released are totally nuts.

So, in the last couple of days, Trump has taken visits with him and Guiliani. I can't even....

Could you share the podcast you are referring to please?

 

[Ayo]

Could you share the podcast you are referring to please?

sure -

the first is the first episode of 'What Can Trump Teach Us about Con Law?" which is a Radiolab podcast. They are digestible and short and grew organically from the host's conversations with a parent of one of his kid's classmates at school - who is a Con Law professor.

The series was initially envisioned as around a dozen episodes (iirc) but since things have gone the way they have gone, they've yet to run out of things to talk about.

The episodes are not long. They are really interesting and some of them cover really obscure considerations - my wife and I both enjoyed it. And the Venn Diagram of Jonathan and Martha Podcasts Favs doesn't have a ton of titles in it lol.

The first episode looks at the broad and abstract concept of what does the President have to do about a judiciary that rules against him or that he doesn't like - and they site the Youngstown Steel case:

1- Judicial Legitimacy – What Roman Mars Can Learn About Con Law – Podcast

Back in February 2017, Trump tweeted a criticism of the “so-called judge” who blocked the enforcement of his travel ban. Why does the president have to listen to what the courts say? We’re going to te... – Listen to 1- Judicial Legitimacy by What Roman Mars Can Learn About Con Law instantly on...

podtail.com

The second one is a lot longer - more than an hour longer than that Radiolab episode above - but comes from lawfare blog:

The National Security Law Podcast: A Deep Dive into the Steel Seizure Case

This week, we explore the iconic 1952 decision of the Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, better known as the “Steel Seizure Case.” It’s an all-time classic regarding the separation of powers in general and war-related powers in particular (not to mention constitutional...

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

are people seriously asking to remove his two second appearance from Home Alone 2?

Was it being seriously entertained
=========================================================

Kristy Swanson has a thing or two to say about “cancel culture.’

The Buffy the Vampire Slayer star, 51, took to Twitter in defense of outgoing President Donald Trump, who caught flak from movie fans suggesting his 1992 cameo in the sequel Home Alone 2: Lost in New York be digitally removed following his second impeachment last week. The film’s star, Macaulay Culkin, even joined the discussion, endorsing the Trump-less cut.

A proud Trump supporter, Swanson declared that if Trump is removed from the classic flick, which was written and produced by the late John Hughes, then she’d like her own roles in the beloved writer and director’s canon to be wiped out as well...........

Kristy Swanson says if President Trump is removed from 'Home Alone 2,' she also wants to be cut from John Hughes films (msn.com)

 

[zztop]

^ aww damn, first Hercules is a right wing nutjob and now Buffy