• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump seeks to limit judges' powers on injunctions after legal blows

President Trump is looking to stop lower courts from being able to issue wide-ranging injunctions in a move that could dramatically limit the authority of judges.

The plan comes as groups opposed to Trump have been able to get several of his policies, including those seeking to limit immigration, put on hold by nationwide orders issued by lower courts in battles that were eventually decided by the Supreme Court.

Advocacy groups that have pushed judges to issue nationwide injunctions say they are necessary to protect people from policies they see as harmful, and some legal experts agree, arguing that the right to issue such actions is protected under the Constitution.

But opponents argue that injunctions should be applied more narrowly to groups that are directly impacted, saying the more liberal use of injunctions is hurting the judicial system.

Vice President Pence this week brought the issue front and center, saying in a speech to the conservative Federalist Society that the administration has been “unfairly” targeted by injunctions — and promising to unveil in coming days pathways to put the issue before the Supreme Court.

“So I say to all those gathered here: For the sake of our liberty, our security, our prosperity and the separation of powers, this era of judicial activism must come to an end,” Pence said. “The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them.”

Pursuing an end to nationwide injunctions would mark the latest attempt by President Trump to shape the federal courts after getting two Supreme Court justices confirmed and more than 100 of his judicial picks installed by the Senate.

Trump opponents have argued that nationwide injunctions are necessary to protect people who may not be part of a lawsuit but would nonetheless be impacted by a particular policy or legislation.

“When the extent of the harm is nationwide, the relief should be nationwide,” Sasha Buchert, a senior attorney for the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal, told The Hill.

She pointed to the ban on transgender service members as an example of a national policy that the group was able to fend off by convincing a judge to issue a nationwide injunction, arguing that more soldiers than those filing the lawsuit would have been impacted by the action.

The administration eventually implemented a more limited form of its ban on transgender service members.

Meanwhile, Cecillia Wang, a deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration's effort to limit the scope of injunctions "is simply to stand in the way of justice."

Wang also argued that the power to issue nationwide injunctions is protected under the Constitution.

“I can't take seriously the vice president's threat to undo what the founders of the country, the framers of the Constitution intended, which is to have a safeguard against unlawful executive branch action,” Wang said.

But other legal experts oppose nationwide injunctions. They argue that judges’ rulings blocking policies should apply only to those behind the legal challenge and that courts are overstepping their bounds by issuing wide-ranging injunctions.

Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has been vocal in his opposition to national injunctions, said such sweeping orders “take the courts outside of their constitutional role.”

He argued that district courts were designed to rule on matters involving specific parties and not an entire nation. And if individuals in a lawsuit want the order applied nationally, Bray said, they could always file a class-action lawsuit to do so.

“Everybody in the class will win or lose together,” Bray said. And he noted that if one party loses its case for a national injunction before one judge “someone else can take another bite at the apple in another court.”

Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan who is similarly opposed to nationwide injunctions, said policies that are challenged in court deserve to undergo a “robust” review in the courts and should not simply be put on ice by the ruling of a single judge.

“What I struggle with is why anyone would support handing to judges the authority to put a halt to important government programs just because they happen to get their knickers in a twist about a particular case,” Bagley said.

It’s unclear how the Supreme Court would rule if the question does land before it.

Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, has previously called for the Supreme Court to take up the issue of national injunctions if they continue to be used in the legal system.

But some experts say the rest of the court may be wary of deciding to take away a power from judges that is currently used throughout the United States and that enjoys a strong legal precedent.

It would also be hard to get a case before the Supreme Court that allows it to rule solely on the constitutionality of national injunctions since challenges to injunctions are often part of broader cases.

That means the justices could effectively dodge the issue, ruling on the merits of an injunction as it applies to a specific case without necessarily ruling on the wider constitutionality of nationwide injunctions.

Legal experts also noted to The Hill that parties out of power have long supported injunctions, while those in power have opposed them.

Democrats and the Obama administration, for example, opposed national injunctions when they were issued in response to some of the former president’s policies, such as ObamaCare and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

“The party who holds the presidency doesn't like them. And the party who's out of power does like them,” Amanda Frost, a law professor at American University, told The Hill.

Frost said she supports the existence of national injunctions. But she said that judges should be cautious in issuing the orders and only do so if they feel it’s necessary to protect a wide range of Americans wrongly impacted by a federal policy.

But she rejected the argument made by Pence and others that one federal judge should not be allowed to make a ruling that can impact the entire nation.

“That's how our district courts work. A single judge gets to decide lots of sweeping questions about policy that are applied nationwide,” Frost said.

And she noted that the Trump administration can always appeal a judge’s ruling and receive a stay on an injunction, as it recently did over an order that would have paused a Trump policy requiring some asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico as their cases are processed in the U.S.

Ultimately, Frost said, conservatives who are now seeking to limit injunctions may come to regret it should the Supreme Court rule in their favor.

“It's shortsighted to get rid of them and say, ‘Well, that will produce more policy that I like.’ It might well not,” she said.

It's a political football, and hopefully this effort by the Trump administration goes nowhere.

It's interesting that Trump is attacking the judiciary's ability to issue blanket injunctions and congressional oversight powers. Not a great idea.
 
You ask this in response to my pointing out that Communism is "Arguably the most murderous ideology in recorded history". I did this in response to another who explained "the left" in these terms...
the term 'the left' is almost completely meaningless. sure communism has killed a lot of people - maybe 100m people as a result of democide - in the last 150 years and, certainly, a large number of those in the soviet union in the last 100 years. i don't think there's even the most tenuous resemblance between that period and the politics of that period and 'the left' in contemporary america. i think you're exaggerating and not really making myuch of a clear point about the relationship between the two

My original point was that the left has no boundaries. Anything goes. Nothing is ruled out.
i totally disagree. again, the term is, to me, essentially meaningless. it's vague but i think you have to be vague because if you were more specific, i don't think your argument would hold any water at all.

Go to the next "Climate Rally" and see what it's all about. Who is holding these rallies? Who is pushing the Climate Scam? Virtually every stall is openly pushing for Communism. It is basically one giant Commie fest.
so the left is equal to a "climate rally". you're really doing a fgreat job of making my point for me.

That is the left today, without boundaries. No leftist stands up and says "look here - this group is going to far - they are not a part of us".
that's just fanciful b.s.

related reading: Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ of antifa protesters

Isn't this a disappointment for you?
no. because it's not happening.

I would be disappointed if conservatives embraced/excused/accepted hordes of angry youths waving nazi flags - holding rallies with stalls handing out nazi propaganda...
come on. some of those angry youths waving nazi flags are "very fine people". the president of the u.s.a. said so.

Is it really so offensive?
who's offended. you make a lot of erroneous assumptions. you should try to do that less.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
Uhh, the nazis? I sure wouldn't call them left wing.

I think he was being sarcastic

You might be right. Though, I didn't detect any sarcasm when I read it. Admitidly tricky to do with text alone. I considered that possibility when I replied. But I'd rather take it seriously and have it be sarcasm than assume it's sarcasm and have it turn out to be serious.

Uh, no. He was being utterly retarded and pulled a brain fart - got called out on it like he should have been. One should think a bit more before asking such obvious questions.

General note, I do fall to sarcasm, but I tend to be overt about it and try to throw a smilie of some sort in.
 
Who does Trump owe money to and where are they located?
Most big banks have more than a passing relationship with the government of that country.

Did Donald Trump Lose More Than $1 Billion On Purpose? (Link is to Fortune magazine who may know a thing or two about big business)

Long read, so for those skimming, I highlighted the key points

The New York Times announced that it had ten years’ worth of Donald Trump’s tax data from official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts from 1985 to 1994. The news? Losses: almost $1.2 billion over the period and no federal income tax for eight out of the ten years. Trump responded on Twitter that real estate developers in the 1980s and 1990s “were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation” that could show losses for years.

The question is, was Trump truly so bad at this business that the losses piled up sky high? Or was he engineering huge losses on paper to offset paying taxes on income?

...

Appreciate depreciation
The first step to clearing confusion is to understand that losing money doesn’t mean companies and people don’t walk away with cash. “There’s lots of legal ways to report the non-cash losses [but] that doesn’t mean you don’t have the cash in your pocket.,” said Thomas Patrick Dore, Jr., a concurrent professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School and professor of practice at the Fitzgerald Institute for Real Estate, as well as senior counsel in Davis Polk’s Real Estate Group in New York City.

The main tool is depreciation. In accounting, there’s an assumed natural lifespan for assets that companies buy. “If you were in the trucking business and you had to buy new tires, you could take a loss for the amount it cost you to buy the tire,” Dore said. “But when you buy the building, you can’t deduct the whole cost of the building.” Instead, the company deducts the initial cost of the building over some standard useful life. Depending on the specifics, that can be decades. That’s the key to long-term paper losses.

Morris Armstrong, an enrolled agent who can represent people before the IRS, provided an example. “You buy a condo for $275,000 and rent it out,” he said. The depreciation is $10,000 a year and you rent the condo for $2,000 a month. At the end of each year, you’ve seen total depreciation of $10,000 and rental income of $24,000.”

“Now you pay for the real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and mortgage interest, which total $20,000,” Armstrong said. At the end of it all, you have business costs—the depreciation and the other expenses—of $30,000. Because the rental income is less than the costs, your rental business has a $6,000 loss. But because $10,000 of the loss is only on paper, you have $4,000 cash in your pocket.

The difference between renting the condo and big real estate development is only one of size. “Add more zeros, the basic concept does not change,” Armstrong said. And all the while, the market value of the building can keep climbing, making the developer wealthier.

If the loss is bigger than the income from the property, “you carry it forward as a net operating loss,” said Francine Lipman, a tax law expert and professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas law school. “It’s especially great if you can do it with somebody else’s money.” Someone like a Donald Trump might borrow significant amounts from banks, use their money to buy property, operate the property, deduct the depreciation as well as interest from the mortgage and other expenses, take home a lot of cash, and technically be losing money in their tax filings.

“Many real estate people would like to build a portfolio, have it grow, and keep building,” said Tim Wallen, CEO of MLG Capital. “If I’m always growing, new deals create losses. I could be generating losses on the new stuff I’m doing to offset the profits on the old stuff.” Although that may not be possible to do indefinitely, it is possible to pursue that strategy for long periods.

Limits of tax transcripts
Did Trump use such strategies to keep claiming large losses while continuing to do more development, generate increased cash, and put that into yet newer projects? Charles Harder, a lawyer for Trump, according to the Times, wrote to the newspaper to say that the type of documents they had were “notoriously inaccurate” and “would not be able to provide a reasonable picture of any taxpayer’s return.” The reporters for the story checked with Mark Mazur, currently director of the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center and a former director of research, analysis and statistics at the IRS, about the quality of the data. Mazur reportedly told the Times that such transcripts were “handy” summaries of tax returns.

However, a summary would not have enough detail to determine what actually happened because of a difference between paper losses and real losses. The first is an accounting acknowledgment of something that technically lowers value but may not mean a cash outlay, versus the second. Mazur told Fortune that “there’s no way to tell” the difference with transcripts, or even filed 1040s. The details are buried in other forms, such as the 8825 or 5498.

And frequently, real estate development is done as deals owned by dedicated legal entities like limited partnerships, which pass along profits to the partners rather than having them held by a corporation. To know the degree to which losses were paper or tangible would require having the tax filings of the legal entities, which in this case would be the limited partnerships that technically own and run a given building or real estate project.

In short, with the information available, there is now way to know if Trump was living hand to mouth while losing more than $100 million a year on average or eating caviar with a golden spoon. But if he had been engineering paper losses to avoid paying taxes, he wouldn’t be the only real estate mogul to have done so.

tl;dr summary:
1. Deprecitation on assets (real estate, in this case) can outweigh income, so you have a loss on paper but cash in pocket
1b. This is more beneficial when you can do so with other people's money (bank loans)

2. Tax transcripts (ref. the NYT article of Trumps $1B in losses from decades ago)
- Trump's lawyer says they are misleading
- Current "director of the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center" says they are a handy summary, but admit the summary doesn't tell you exactly what happened. Those would be in supporting detail documents

And in closing
In short, with the information available, there is now way to know if Trump was living hand to mouth while losing more than $100 million a year on average or eating caviar with a golden spoon. But if he had been engineering paper losses to avoid paying taxes, he wouldn’t be the only real estate mogul to have done so.
 
^ my point was in reference to Congress requesting Trump's 2013-2016 taxes, which presumably includes supporting documents.

I knew you're point. And, from my own research, Trump really has no leg to stand on. None at all. The IRS has to give up the documents. Though, in my readings, it hasn't specified the scope or depth beyond 'IRS filings', which as I mentioned would likely only give income, deductions, and taxes paid. I see where the request from Congress is asking for all related companies and holdings under Trump's name, so it is a pretty wide net = a lot more time needed (and delays added in) for collecting and providing the data, as well as reading thru and finding whatever they are looking for. It should be enough to show his income sources, how much he lied* to the IRS or boasted misleadingly to others.

*I don't think anyone expects a guy like Trump is going to be 100% straightforward in dealing with taxes. The next question is then if what he did was legal by tax laws or not. And if not, is this where Dems look to impeach?
 
White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran

One of the arguments I have heard in support of trump from a variety of people is that he hasn't caused any wars unlike previous presidents. Yet he has been aggressive towards Iran since he became President and is now considering sending 120,000 troops to the middle east. Hmm, I wonder if it has to do with oil at all? Naw, couldn't be. We've never sent troops to the middle east for oil while claiming it's for other reasons.
 
President Trump is looking to stop lower courts from being able to issue wide-ranging injunctions in a move that could dramatically limit the authority of judges.
trump was a vocal critic - and republicans generally are vocal critics - of executive overreach.

can any trump supporters (or generally right leaners) help me understand how this is not very troubling?

alasdair
 
It is troubling, but can be viewed as the only tool to undo what Democrats-Obama did with overreach in the past. Playing within the rules, as defined, would be expected. One side changes the rules when they have power, they cannot realistically expect the other side to not play by the new rules that they defined.

If you and I agree to a knife fight, and I show up with a gun. What are you going to do?
 
can you help me understand how this is an example of undoing something obama did?

is the answer just always "somebody else did something bad so it's ok for us to do something bad"? doesn't that completely contradict trump's claims that his administration would be different. not washington business as usual? because, if so, that's just more trump campaign b.s...

alasdair
 
can you help me understand how this is an example of undoing something obama did?

Here Are the Obama Executive Orders Trump Is Likely to Repeal

I quote this to point out this isn't a Trump-Obama thing, and has been going on for awhile. This, undermines my insinuation that Obama was pushing the over reach of the White House. He was just the latest before Trump.

For example, 10 days after President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, he issued Executive Order 13497 to revoke President George W. Bush’s 2002 Executive Order 13258, which expanded the role of the vice president in reviewing and planning the administration’s regulatory goals. (Incidentally, Bush’s executive order heavily amended an earlier order (12866) issued by President Bill Clinton nine years before that).

Presidents can also take executive action in other ways. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was created through a "presidential memorandum," while Obama’s Clean Power Plan came about because of a plan drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency. Because these cornerstones of Obama’s agenda came about through different processes, we’ll explain those in an upcoming piece.

HERITAGE EXPLAINS
Executive Orders


Apologies to Ali as I deviate from the question and put some general explanation of Presedential actions for the benefit of the readers who may not be familiar with them.

Put simply, an executive order is a type of written instruction that presidents use to work their will through the executive branch of government.
From George Washington on, our presidents have issued many forms of directives, the most familiar being executive orders and two others: Presidential memoranda and presidential proclamations. (One proclamation by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, students are taught in school with some oversimplification, “freed the slaves.”)
Congressional Latitude
Scholars say Congress has some latitude in defining the procedures the president must follow to exercise executive authority. Even so, the Constitution imposes some limits on the lawmakers’ ability to micromanage the president’s decision-making and enforcement of laws.
The constitutional separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches not only supports but limits a president’s authority to issue executive orders and other directives. So some friction naturally occurs.
It’s important to consider that the measure of abuse of this presidential authority isn’t the total number of directives, but whether any were illegal or improper.
While Reagan and both Bushes—all Republican presidents—issued significant numbers of executive orders, conservative scholars argue that Democrats Clinton and Obama routinely overstepped their authority to issue such directives in arenas where Congress had not acted.

...

Presidential Authority
Under our system of government, the president’s authority to issue such orders (or to engage in any other form of unilateral executive action) must come from the Constitution or federal law. Put another way, an executive order can be used to execute a power the commander in chief already has. It can’t be used to give the presidency new powers.
In particular, Article II of the Constitution assigns the president the roles of commander in chief, head of state, chief law enforcement officer, and head of the executive branch. The president has the sole constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and is granted broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions.

...

A Short History
Washington and his successors as president have issued thousands of executive orders. The State Department began numbering them in 1907, working from files going back to 1862. The Federal Register Act of 1936 built on that effort. Today, the official number is close to 14,000.
Even so, approximately 1,500 unnumbered executive orders also have been compiled, according to the American Presidency Project, which notes that there may be as many as 50,000 unnumbered orders...

Again, this started with Washington, and all Presidents have done this in various means, but it is part of their job.


Overuse and Abuse of Executive Power
During the Obama presidency, Congress frequently clashed with the executive branch on his use of executive orders and other unilateral actions that he undertook. Obama, however, isn’t the first president to face a backlash.
Some of the more controversial executive orders or actions of the modern presidency include:

Timeline of Executive Orders
<SNIPPED for brevity, but worth a quick look at 'overreach' or controversial orders>


Back to the topic Ali and I are discussing of Obama-Trump

Candidate Trump attacked Obama's executive orders. President Trump loves executive orders.

As he campaigned for the presidency, Donald Trump argued that Barack Obama’s frequent use of unilateral administrative tools made Obama a weak leader. “We have a president that can’t get anything done,” Trump told an interviewer in January 2016, “so he just keeps signing executive orders all over the place.”
That spring he added,
I want to not use too many executive orders, folks. … Obama, because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him, he starts signing them like they’re butter. So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.
Fast forward to a White House news release marking President Trump’s first 100 days in office. It claimed that Trump had “accomplished more in his first 100 days than any other President since Franklin Roosevelt.” The proof? He had signed more executive orders in that period than any of Roosevelt’s other successors.

...

Indeed, last week gave us many examples of President Trump’s wallow in the buttery goodness known as “the administrative presidency.” Atop the executive order promising great health care came a directive to cease cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurance companies as well as new rules allowing more entities to opt out of providing contraception coverage for their employees; these followed numerous prior HHS efforts to undercut Affordable Care Act markets. And the week’s directives went far beyond the ACA, ranging from the treatment of transgender people to environmental regulations to the international agreement aimed at reining in Iran’s nuclear program.

...

But some executive action can evaporate with the next executive — or be challenged in the courts
But even as Trump’s directives shape policy implementation, they also show the potential fragility of administrative action. As Peter Baker recently noted, Trump’s use of executive power has often been directed at undoing President Obama’s.

...

The latest Trump executive order on the Affordable Care Act, encouraging federal agencies to expand insurance options not subject to ACA requirements, may run up against statutory language limiting their ability to do as much as promised. Any resulting rules changes will almost certainly wind up in court.
Indeed, Trump claimed illegality as the reason he reversed both the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and halted CSR payments. His September statement on DACA emphasized its threat to “the core tenets that sustain our Republic,” claiming that “virtually all other top legal experts have advised that the program is unlawful and unconstitutional.” And the Justice Department delivered a legal opinion stating that CSR payments could not be made because they had not been appropriated by Congress.

...

The Trump administration’s reading of the law might well be correct in these cases; the CSR opinion, notably, is buttressed by a 2016 federal district court decision. It’s worth noting, though, that no small number of “top legal experts” have in fact taken opposite positions on both matters. The district court’s CSR ruling was under appeal — and in other cases President Trump has certainly not treated the rulings of individual judges as sacrosanct. Nor has he renounced aggressive interpretations of statute in other arenas. As usual, what counts as “faithful” execution of the law is at least in part a function of competing policy preferences.


Ton of words. Even so, I'm not sure I gave an adequate response.
 
I heard Trump is gonna over take China in the economy wars apparently he has a plan
 
i think you misunderstand my point @TheLoveBandit or perhaps i did not make it clearly enough...

cduggles reported that "President Trump is looking to stop lower courts from being able to issue wide-ranging injunctions in a move that could dramatically limit the authority of judges"

to which you responded: "can be viewed as the only tool to undo what Democrats-Obama did with overreach in the past"

so you see trump as undoing something Obama did. well, wouldn't that reasonably imply that Obama did something to dramatically expand the authority of judges? if not, then what exactly is trump undoing with this move?

thanks.

alasdair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top