Sensible Politics Thread |
|
Sensible Politics Thread |
|
|
|
|
Mar 11 2017, 11:24 PM |
Never in the history of our republic has something like this gone down. The "Administration" has requested that ALL, yes, ALL 46 remaining Attorney's General appointed by Obama RESIGN their posts, WITHOUT HAVING ANY REPLACEMENTS. Talk about cutting the head off the judiciary and removing checks and balances. This is the kind of thing Govt's we mock do, not the kind of thing we do, until now. No reason given, none expected, just an over reach of the executive branch to get rid of any Obama appointee. I"m feeling sick.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nation...m=.0146712a7043 This is just not a decision that can be defended IMHO. It's a blatant power grab so that people can be put in place to further erode the system of checks and balances that is at the core of our system of Govt. It's a sad day for "Democracy" Tod This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Mar 12 2017, 12:06 AM |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 11 2017, 11:37 PM |
I read this is very normal in USA, every president did this but the only difference with Trump is he took such action in a hurry while previous president gave a few months.
http://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trum...orneys-resigned I am sad about Bharara, he was working on a case that involved Turkey and the current goverment that I don't support. This post has been edited by Mertay: Mar 11 2017, 11:40 PM |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 12 2017, 12:05 AM |
Not like this Mertay. Usually, there is a transition period where the old guys stay in until new guys can be confirmed, and each one has to be replaced after getting approved by congress. This is NOT what is happening. They are ALL simply being asked to resign NOW and there are NO REPLACEMENTS FOR THEM!!!!!
When Clinton did this, they allowed the old guys to stay on til they had someone to take over. " President Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, asked for resignations in March 1993, but allowed U.S. attorneys to stay in place until their replacements could be confirmed." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jeff...ignation-235940 That's what I mean by "never before in the history of the republic". They are just getting rid of all of them, with nobody to take over. This leaves a MASSIVE power vacuum in the judicial system and creates an artificial need for expediency in pushing through new candidates. This is EXACTLY what I fear Trump wants. he wants to create this power vacuum so that his appointees can slide right through. Don't get me wrong It's a shrewd political move, bordering on brilliant even, it's just not good for our overall govt imho. I read this is very normal in USA, every president did this but the only difference with Trump is he took such action in a hurry while previous president gave a few months. http://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trum...orneys-resigned I am sad about Bharara, he was working on a case that involved Turkey and the current goverment that I don't support. It's humiliating to be honest. If it turns out that Trump is really Putin's B***H, I have no idea what will happen. News from the US has become extremely interesting recently so I have started following it. Just a random thought from me as uninformed: If it turns out the new administration is actually just a plain attack from Russia - and Trump gets condemned for treason etc etc. Will this also mean that his executive orders (etc) get revoked? |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 12 2017, 01:05 AM
|
|
Never in the history of our republic has something like this gone down. The "Administration" has requested that ALL, yes, ALL 46 remaining Attorney's General appointed by Obama RESIGN their posts, WITHOUT HAVING ANY REPLACEMENTS. Talk about cutting the head off the judiciary and removing checks and balances. This is the kind of thing Govt's we mock do, not the kind of thing we do, until now. No reason given, none expected, just an over reach of the executive branch to get rid of any Obama appointee. I"m feeling sick. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nation...m=.0146712a7043 This is just not a decision that can be defended IMHO. It's a blatant power grab so that people can be put in place to further erode the system of checks and balances that is at the core of our system of Govt. It's a sad day for "Democracy" Tod WWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Clinton let 93 go , do you think he had replacements for all , KEEP CALM and breath Todd, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/so-is-this-us-...edented-or-not/ Plus you didn"t give me your Pew research source , you gave more Fake news Sources This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Mar 12 2017, 01:07 AM |
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 12 2017, 04:49 AM |
Looks fun Ill try that. Not "Wrong", it's ....
RRRIIIIIGGGGGGHHTT The problem, as I mentioned, is that he asked for resignations and didn't allow them to stay until replacements were in place. Thus creating a judicial vacuum, thus ensuring quick uptake on whoever questionable judge he throws in to the pit, just to get someone in to the job. You must have missed that bit. I did say it was clever, but it's still an attack on the basic checks and balances of our govt. Check your sources and share them please. Clinton allowed them to stay until replacements were approved. If you read my entire post you'd have noticed that but I'm guessing you didn't? So yeah, I'm calm, just a bit sick. It's the not letting the resigned folks stay in their jobs til the replacement is in place that is UNPRECEDENTED. Todd WWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Clinton let 93 go , do you think he had replacements for all , KEEP CALM and breath Todd, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/so-is-this-us-...edented-or-not/ Plus you didn"t give me your Pew research source , you gave more Fake news Sources This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Mar 12 2017, 05:09 AM |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 12 2017, 05:35 PM |
This is business as usual, every president does it when a new one comes in. The seats are not vacant, so nothing in the courts is going to stop because those vacancies are temporarily filled by the deputy attorneys of the judges that have resigned, or have been fired, or the seats will be temporarily filled by others from within the US Attorneys Office. For example, Preet Bharara's seat will be filled temporarily by Deputy US Attorney Joon Kim.
Todd, you seem to be the only one freaking out about this. Every article I have read on the matter reports that this is common practice when a new administration comes in. Even the Huffington post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/preet-...ohii4tpgb9& http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/d...ticle-1.2995420 This post has been edited by AK Rich: Mar 12 2017, 05:44 PM |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 12 2017, 08:26 PM |
I am starting to feel like a broken record here, but here we go again This is NOT in fact business as usual. Business as usual is letting the folks who are resigning stay in their seats and do their job til their replacement takes over. That's biz as usual as it's been done for decades.
Trump is the first one to demand resignations and NOT allow the folks leaving to stay in their chairs. That is what makes this different. I don't know how else to say it. It's not the way it's been done for many decades now. Read this quote from REUTERS. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trum...e-idUSKBN16I0PZ ""President Trump's abrupt and unexplained decision to summarily remove over 40 U.S. attorneys has once again caused chaos in the federal government," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the firings showed "the independence of the Justice Department is at risk under this administration" and that lawmakers had to carefully evaluate Trump's replacements." So yeah, it's not just me. Reuters and the other news wire services have been covering these for the past several news cycles as it is simply unprecedented to do what he did in this way. Yes, it's common to ask for resignations for a new adminstration. But NO, it's not common to ask for them all at once without letting the previous folks keep their seats til their replacements are confirmed. As the quote from Senator Patrick Leahy states (he sits on the senate Judiciary committee) "The Firings showed the independence of the justice depart is at risk under this administration". So we have a guy on the senate Judiciary comt. saying the same thing I'm saying. Not to mention the major news/wire services reporting on it daily Again, shrewd move to be sure, but a clear attack on an independant judiciary as mentioned by a member of the Judiciary comt. This is business as usual, every president does it when a new one comes in. The seats are not vacant, so nothing in the courts is going to stop because those vacancies are temporarily filled by the deputy attorneys of the judges that have resigned, or have been fired, or the seats will be temporarily filled by others from within the US Attorneys Office. For example, Preet Bharara's seat will be filled temporarily by Deputy US Attorney Joon Kim. Todd, you seem to be the only one freaking out about this. Every article I have read on the matter reports that this is common practice when a new administration comes in. Even the Huffington post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/preet-...ohii4tpgb9& http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/d...ticle-1.2995420 I sourced a quote from Reuters who has been covering this. See the rest of this post. BTW typing in all caps may be fun, but it doesn't actually help your argument. WWWWWW. Plus you didn"t give me your Pew research source , you gave more Fake news Sources |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 12 2017, 09:09 PM
|
|
I am starting to feel like a broken record here, but here we go again This is NOT in fact business as usual. Business as usual is letting the folks who are resigning stay in their seats and do their job til their replacement takes over. That's biz as usual as it's been done for decades. Trump is the first one to demand resignations and NOT allow the folks leaving to stay in their chairs. That is what makes this different. I don't know how else to say it. It's not the way it's been done for many decades now. Read this quote from REUTERS. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trum...e-idUSKBN16I0PZ ""President Trump's abrupt and unexplained decision to summarily remove over 40 U.S. attorneys has once again caused chaos in the federal government," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the firings showed "the independence of the Justice Department is at risk under this administration" and that lawmakers had to carefully evaluate Trump's replacements." So yeah, it's not just me. Reuters and the other news wire services have been covering these for the past several news cycles as it is simply unprecedented to do what he did in this way. Yes, it's common to ask for resignations for a new adminstration. But NO, it's not common to ask for them all at once without letting the previous folks keep their seats til their replacements are confirmed. As the quote from Senator Patrick Leahy states (he sits on the senate Judiciary committee) "The Firings showed the independence of the justice depart is at risk under this administration". So we have a guy on the senate Judiciary comt. saying the same thing I'm saying. Not to mention the major news/wire services reporting on it daily Again, shrewd move to be sure, but a clear attack on an independant judiciary as mentioned by a member of the Judiciary comt. I sourced a quote from Reuters who has been covering this. See the rest of this post. BTW typing in all caps may be fun, but it doesn't actually help your argument. I can side with you that it is faster than normal, but not illegal , hence if the fathers that implemented the president from firing them , they would have known someday someone would fire all . They would have had language from stopping a complete house cleaning if they thought there was a problem . They did not because THERE IS NOT A CRISIS . Rich and I are just trying bring off your perch of chicken littleness |
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 12 2017, 10:08 PM |
I never once said it was illegal. Where on earth did you get the idea that I was asserting that this was illegaL?
Uggh. Despite your insight to the founding fathers, what I find disturbing, again, is that the administration didn't do, what every other administration has done, and allowed for a smooth transition of the judiciary. of course they all had to go. That's how it works. But he could have let them stay til their replacements were confirmed, just as every other president has done. By not doing so, he creates a judicial power vacuum where the case load on those beneath the ones let go is now increased. I'm not saying the sky has fallen, or is falling. Nothing of the sort. I simply agree with the folks I quoted in my last post, including a member of the Judicary comt., who feel that this action destabilizes one of the branches of govt and was not necessary at all. That's all I've said, repeatedly. Doesnt' seem to get through though. But it is what it is. On a side note, the new GOP health care plan looks like it's going to shaft the very folks who voted trump in to office. It's Ironic. Sad, but Ironic. here is a link to an article on CNBC (hardly a left wing blog) http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/the-republi...mps-voters.html I can side with you that it is faster than normal, but not illegal , hence if the fathers that implemented the president from firing them , they would have known someday someone would fire all . They would have had language from stopping a complete house cleaning if they thought there was a problem . They did not because THERE IS NOT A CRISIS . Rich and I are just trying bring off your perch of chicken littleness |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Mar 13 2017, 10:26 AM |
In fact, yes, he did promise "everybody" and he confirmed it in an interview with the washington post.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-p...-for-everybody/ taking the liberty of using CBS news here referencing the interview article. After all, it's an interview with verified quotes, not an op ed bit. Todd I don"t think he promised " Everybody " ( I could be wrong , if you can find a sound bite in context I will gladly eat crow ) , But he did promise coverage to pre existing . Yes the GOP are Screwin health care up this up at this point but I don"t it will pass like it is . It is Ryan 's plan not trump's . If they don't get there act together they will pay at mid terms
Time will tell . Trump being putins beotch is tin foil hatery. You don't seem like you have an opposing source so you can at least blend them to come to a logical conclusion |
|
|
||