I have the impression from reading the news that he has nothing to do with taking the census; it is mandated by the Constitution.
Monty
July 3, 2019, 9:26pm
34066
Failing to follow the constitution is minor?
I’m sure he’ll take it very, very seriously then.
:rolleyes:
Prolly as seriously as not manipulating the dollar to gain trade advantages… oh, wait.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday accused China and Europe of playing a “big currency manipulation game.” He said the United States should match that effort, a move that directly contradicts official U.S. policy not to manipulate the dollar’s value to gain trade advantages.
In a tweet, the president said if America doesn’t act, the country will continue “being the dummies who sit back and politely watch as other countries continue to play their games — as they have for so many years.”
Trump’s own Treasury Department in May found that no country meets the criteria of being labeled a currency manipulator, although the report did put China and eight other countries on a watch list.
However, after taking office, Trump’s Treasury Department has issued five reports on the subject, required by law every six months. In each report it said no country met the criteria to be labeled a currency manipulator.
Not to most of us, but this Senate isn’t going to give a crap.
Hold the phone…this just in:
DOJ Reverses Course on Citizenship Question, Citing Trump’s Orders
WASHINGTON — A day after pledging that the 2020 census would not ask respondents about their citizenship, the Justice Department reversed course on Wednesday and said it was hunting for a way to restore the question on orders from President Trump.
Officials told a federal judge in Maryland that they thought there would be a way to still add the question, despite printing deadlines, and that they would ask the Supreme Court to send the case to district court with instructions to remedy the situation.
Holy fuck. :smack:
Damn, I hope they didn’t read my “on the envelope” idea and decide to run with it.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21729297#post21729297
Ogod… Donnie will LOVE that feature. You better watch tossing out those ideas, Mister! :dubious:
JohnT
July 3, 2019, 10:47pm
34073
I don’t know who the person at the printer who finally, reluctantly, said “well, we can delay this by two days, still make the deadline and add the question, but only if…”, but I cannot imagine the shitshow and pressure s/he experienced since oh, say, 10am yesterday. It must have been intense.
jsc1953
July 3, 2019, 11:54pm
34074
JohnT:
I don’t know who the person at the printer who finally, reluctantly, said “well, we can delay this by two days, still make the deadline and add the question, but only if…”, but I cannot imagine the shitshow and pressure s/he experienced since oh, say, 10am yesterday. It must have been intense.
I often think along the same lines. As someone who’s spent decades as a corporate drone, I’ve been in a lot of pointless thrashing, running around with your hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer scenarios. I can only imagine the utter chaos that has consumed the Commerce Department ever since this hair-brained idea started going through the courts – and today it just got worse. Probably multiple teams are putting together contingency plans for every possible scenario: with question, without, delayed, on time…I feel sorry for those poor schmucks.
enipla
July 4, 2019, 12:11am
34075
Waiting for the Trump administration to order 300,000,000 sticky notes to add the question to the census forms. Oh, and they will need a few pens.
JohnT:
I don’t know who the person at the printer who finally, reluctantly, said “well, we can delay this by two days, still make the deadline and add the question, but only if…”, but I cannot imagine the shitshow and pressure s/he experienced since oh, say, 10am yesterday. It must have been intense.
Who says they didn’t want to? trumpistas are everywhere.
Maybe someone at the printer is a True Believe and kept shouting “we can make the deadline” because they agree with donny two scoops.
Monty
July 4, 2019, 1:09am
34077
Who wants to bet against this? Trump will lose again in court, yet he will order the printer to publish the census questionnaire with the citizenship question.
Why wouldn’t he? What would be the penalty he would face? Prolly the same as for someone who violates the Hatch Act, right?
El_Kabong:
From the horse’s, er, mouth this morning:
Yep, there’s not just going to be fireworks, there’s gonna be some doddering old guy rambling on for an hour or so, then fireworks!
Well, at least we can say “Happy 4th of July” again. When Obama was president, July only had 3 days.
If I hugged a few flags, could I also be hailed a great American patriot? As best I can tell from internet commentary pages, that’s all Trump had to do.
This ruling should ordinarily have been a foregone conclusion, but under the circumstances, I find myself cheering whenever norms actually prevail. (Reuters)
A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to lift an injunction barring the Trump administration from using $2.5 billion intended for the fight against illegal narcotics to build a wall along the southern U.S. border with Mexico.
The ruling was another setback in President Donald Trump’s effort to construct a border wall, one of his top promises in the 2016 presidential campaign. He pledged at the time that Mexico would pay for it.
“Congress did not appropriate money to build the border barriers defendants seek to build here,” a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 ruling.
“Congress presumably decided such construction at this time was not in the public interest. … It is not for us to reach a different conclusion,” the panel said.
What’s interesting to me is that the 9th used basically the same reasoning that the SCOTUS used in their gerrymandering ruling. Which hopefully will make it harder for the SCOTUS to depart from such reasoning when this case is inevitably before them. If stare decisis says, “We don’t decide for Congress or the states,” then I can’t think how they could distinguish their role to rule in a different way on this issue.
Although with this SCOTUS, who the fuck knows.
Aspenglow:
This ruling should ordinarily have been a foregone conclusion, but under the circumstances, I find myself cheering whenever norms actually prevail. (Reuters)
What’s interesting to me is that the 9th used basically the same reasoning that the SCOTUS used in their gerrymandering ruling. Which hopefully will make it harder for the SCOTUS to depart from such reasoning when this case is inevitably before them. If stare decisis says, “We don’t decide for Congress or the states,” then I can’t think how they could distinguish their role to rule in a different way on this issue.
Although with this SCOTUS, who the fuck knows.
Remind me: what’s the penalty for the SCOTUS Justices just doing whatever the hell they want?
Nothing. Yet. Let’s see what happens after 2020.
Jul 3, 2019https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/july-4th-fireworks-donor-lobbied-president-trump-tariffs/story