At the start of the year, the Republican party attempted to get rid of the independence of the Office of Congressional Ethics, a group that investigates accusations of criminal doing among Congressmen.
Donald Trump ran on a platform of improving ethics within the government, “Drain the Swamp”. He hopes to institute term limits and reform the rules around how people can move between political jobs and paid lobbying roles. There is no chance that the Legislature, the same ones who were canny and strategic enough to block the nomination of Judge Garland and who made a premature move to gut the OoCE are going to propose or vote for any anti-corruption legislation against themselves so long as there is nothing to trade for it. They can kill the OoCE now and in two years, everyone will have forgotten about it. Two years from now, “Drain the Swamp” will no longer be mentioned and life will go on merrily for all our Representatives.
The only possible thing that could possibly bring a Republican-lead Legislature to willingly propose and vote for anti-corruption legislation is if President Trump can still nominate and approve a Liberal Supreme Justice. The instant he approves Gorsuch or any Conservative to the Court, his only leverage for completing his campaign promise goes right out the door.
Now it’s possible that the Republican party might still not be willing to enact anti-corruption policy, even with the ability to preserve a Conservative majority on the Court. And after the fight between them and Trump, and he has lost, I could easily see him appointing a Liberal justice, just to get even with them (it would, after all, have been exactly his threat all this time).
Long story short, if you want a Liberal justice or if you want term limits and other anti-corruption legislation, I would highly encourage you to make the above points to your Republican friends and family. Unless this message bubbles up to Trump, he will not realize that his ability to fulfill his campaign pledges are going to hinge on prolonging his Supreme Court appointment.
This OP reads like a Sherlock Holmes mystery: “I see you have a sunburn, which can only mean that you’ve recently returned from the Middle East. And there is dirt underneath your fingernails, which indicates that you were searching for something on the ground, perhaps a lost ring you intended to use to propose marriage to a young woman? And your tousled hair indicates that you have little regard for what others think of you, leading me to believe you are a man of independent means! Deduction, my dear Watson!”
“Uh, Holmes, that man is a migrant farm laborer.”
In any case, the OP piles on assumption after assumption such that a bizarre conclusion is framed as the most logical result. Not so.
For example, the decision to eliminate the ethics office was reversed under pressure by the public (and Trump too, it’s worth noting). I don’t think there’s any reason to suspect that ethics reform is actually on the agenda of either Trump or the Republican Congress in any scenario. And holding out on a Supreme Court appointment for something that is not on anyone’s agenda is holding a hostage that Trump can’t afford to shoot.
Seriously, you think Trump actually wants to eliminate big influence in Washington? Have you even looked at the cabinet he has nominated? The billionaires named for these top positions have spent more money on lobbying government than probably the net worth of the poorest third of American families. There is zero fucking chance that Trump is actually going to do anything about this “drain the swamp” rhetoric, other than use it as a tool to bludgeon his political opponents, real or imagined.
Possible. But I’m not seeing how there is any advantage in holding to that view? For the cost of making a Facebook post, it’s worth doing regardless of whether it turns out that there was no hope. It’s basically free. But if I’m correct, then your return of investment is immense.
That’s not even a dilemma worth turning to game theory to debate. Free for nothing versus free for everything? Easy choice.
Sure, which is the theory behind fake news, the birther conspiracies, and so on. There is undoubtedly a logic to posting anything you want on Facebook, or telling your conservative uncle any theory you’d like at the kitchen table, and so on, with the hopes that it resonates and produces an effect that someone would like.
I’m simply saying that I don’t think there’s anything in terms of substance to the argument.
If there is, then we can expect to see another vote for the Office of Congressional Ethics go ahead after the appointment (probably during some new major incident that Trump has caused, that will hog all the headlines - they’ll figure that they won’t have to wait too long for that sort of opportunity), and the number of times you see an article saying that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are supporting a move that Trump made or at least not decrying it, are going to vanish. The Executive branch and the Legislative branch are going to become a lot less friendly.
It appears you are thinking that there has already been a behind-the-scenes deal with Congress to pass some kind of term limit, or anti-corruption, legislation. Trump already nominated Gorsuch. If there was such a deal, and Congress reneges, then I suppose Trump could nominate a liberal next time, but he is going to have to wait for a couple of years - Ginsberg and the other liberals will only leave the bench feet-first.
Plus, what makes you think that Trump is so committed to term limits or whatever that he will appoint a liberal just out of revenge? He campaigned mostly on immigration and trade. Sure, he talked about anti-corruption - what Presidential candidates hasn’t?
I literally can’t make heads or tails of this paragraph. Another vote? Counting articles about Republicans supporting a move that Trump made? It’s all English, but colorless green worms sleep furiously.
You’re proposing a solution with no explanation. Would you care to explain why a liberal justice would achieve this? The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. You might recall that that was one reason voters voted against Clinton.
Anyway, Trump is likely to have two more picks after Gorsuch. Ginsburg is wilting, and the Republicans will likely want Kennedy to retire either late this year or in early 2018 so they can get his replacement confirmed.
If there’s one issue to move the core Republican base, it’s abortion, and if there is one key block to illegalizing abortion, it’s Roe v. Wade. The only way to overturn that is to keep packing the Court with pro-life judges.
Trump is certainly just as corrupt as Clinton (if not more so) and a sexual offender, and I don’t think there are too many people who weren’t clear on that. That Republican women decided to hold their nose and back him is purely to keep Conservative judges leading the Supreme Court. A Clinton presidency would have ruined that.
But a Trump presidency could as well. All he would have to do is appoint a Liberal justice.
If the public knows that Trump is holding Roe v. Wade over the Legislature’s head, and the politicians all vote against anti-corruption legislation, their political future is up in flames. You can be corrupt, so long as you’re pro-life. But you can’t hold personal corruption over pro-life politics and not get serious death threats, as a Republican legislator.
If Trump holds his SC appointments over their heads, they’ll have to pick between lobbying money or their political future. I don’t know which they will actually pick, but so far as most of the members of this board would be concerned, at least one good result would come from it.
Are they going to be able to trust that they can stay in office past two years, with Trump being the face of the Republican party, and that a Justice will die in that time?
I assume you are unaware that the Senate Republicans blocked a liberal justice from being appointed to the SCOTUS for a whole year? Trump threatening to appoint a liberal justice would just be responded with, “Go right ahead; that nominee won’t even get a hearing.” The response would NOT be, “OMG we will enact term limits right away Mr. Trump!!!”
A) While they’re waiting, the Court is going to continue on making new decisions, with a more Liberal view.
B) They can only hold it for two years. The President has 4.
C) They would be making this proclamation during an open war between them and the President over corruption law, and threatening the future of the pro-life movement (see A and B). They’re going to have, as said, their electorate out hunting them with literal weapons.
Well, I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but this thinking is just… so odd.
A. If an 8 member court is going to make “more liberal decisions,” it is not to Republicans’ advantage to consider approving the nomination of a liberal justice appointed by a Republican President. That would just make the court even more liberal.
B. “They” can only hold what for two years? Office? I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but senators are elected for six years, and the 2018 elections probably favor Republicans holding the Senate. I don’t see what this has to do with anything.
C. There is no open war about corruption laws. Congressional Republicans don’t have anything on the agenda for anti-corruption, and neither does Trump, to be honest. This is an imaginary issue for you. Yes, Trump said he wants to “drain the swamp,” but he hasn’t proposed anything, isn’t likely to propose anything, and is probably just going to keep yammering about the “swamp” without doing anything at all. There is no war.
I think there’s a miscommunication – you both seem to agree that Trump doesn’t actually care about draining the swamp. He just wants to talk about it to make him seem cool and piss off some people.
I don’t think Trump is seriously committed to an ethical administration. He has some populist impulses, but his funhouse of a brain appears easily distracted. I’d be surprised if there aren’t multiple scandals involving his appointees.