I just missed it. What happened?
He’s giving up the census question idea, and instead says he will use data from existing government files. He’s executive ordering all government agencies and department to hand over all requested records they have about citizens and non-citizens.
“We will utilize these vast federal databases to gain a full, complete, and accurate count of the non-citizen population.”
thanks
This was meant to help the Republicans gerrymander better. This new plan does nothing to further this goal, and thus is just a very obvious attempt to pretend that this isn’t a massive, pathetic loss for Trump.
It seems to me a huge waste of time and governmental resources and money to fight this as long as he has fought it just to say that he could have utilized existing means to “get the count” of these people, if thats what he really wanted.
Pretty lame.
I wish I could hear what Judge Hazel said when he heard that the administration was now dropping it’s challenge. Trump just wasted his and the court’s time for over a week.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there had been some confessional blowback, but I would think it would have been along the lines that census is Vongress’s ban, and the Prez can’t intrude on Congress’s responsibility by EO.
Haven’t you ever heard So let it be written, So let it be done?
(While I was watching this clip a new term popped into my head: Trumpankhamen. Though I can’t imagine I’m the first/only person to come up with it.)
What “we” are you envisioning?
Those reps generally won in districts that skew Republican and which Trump won in 2016. Those reps have to represent the electorate they actually have if they want to win. Voting against impeachment may sound like it’s wrong in terms of the national party composition. That has limited impact on the pressures they face. They need to keep both the Democrats that support impeachment vehemently AND the Republican leaning to independents that pushed them into office. It’s a tricky coalition of their more right leaning electorate that they need to keep together. That’s challenging enough without listening to people that don’t vote in their district.
If they don’t keep it together in Jan. 2021 a Republican will have the job. Which is a good reason for the Speaker not to hold divisive votes simply to put people on record. Put them on record on an issue that splits the fragile coalition and they stand a good chance of losing in 2020. You are effectively calling for significantly increasing the chance of the GOP taking back the House majority. Is that what you really want?
Given that we were just on the brink of Trump illegally meddling in our electoral process - how far do you extend this logic?
What if Trump actually did defy a court order to affect the election. If you still think it’s more or less fair and Trump only tipped the scales a little bit that we should still be in “business as usual” mode of focusing on what a good political move would be in a democracy? What if he illegally affected something slightly more direct concerning the elections - let’s say a new election security bill was passed through congress with a veto-proof majority, Trump fought it in court and was ordered to comply, but he didn’t. At that point is it still a bad political move so we shouldn’t start an impeachment process?
Please do me a favor and don’t take every thing I say like 100 percent literally. I knew you didn’t mean that the vote had to occur, like, tomorrow; I’m saying that the Democrats would deliberate, build their case, and then vote on impeachment at a later time.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but there does become a point when boundaries really are crossed and when we should toss political considerations out the window. If a president is seriously going to assert - and I don’t think he’s done asserting - that there are no boundaries to the Executive, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s “the right time” to do battle; you just do battle.
Pronounced Trump-punk-common I hope?
I do think abandoning the lawsuit is an “implicit admission” totally. It was most likely as simple as: we don’t have enough time to see this case through before we have to print census forms and mail them out, so the whole exercise would be wasted, particularly since we will eventually lose in court.
I’m not sure if it was Ivanka/Jared, McConnell, Miss Graham or DJT’s new boyfriend Tucker Carlson or someone else who sat him down and explained very slowly, with one syllable words that this endeavor was doomed and trying an end run around SCOTUS was a very very bad idea. And I really don’t care.
I must admit I find it extremely comical every time DJT falls flat on his face in failure and declares VICTORY. It is equally amusing to see the same folks fall for his nonsense hook, line and sinker EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I’m starting to think some of them may be at risk of serious injury every time they leave the house without wearing a helmet.
Do not take comfort in the fact that Trump pulled his punches this time. He simply came to the conclusion that he couldn’t go any further - this time. Let’s not forget that his “Muslim bans” were initially nixed by the courts, but he came back and got another version of it that passed court muster. He initially “lost” on Obamacare, but now he’s poised to win. Authoritarians frequently lose their first skirmishes but they figure it out later.
Authoritarians are often incompetent and ignorant of existing constitutional and legal boundaries. They will find ways to weaken and penetrate through those boundaries. The machinations of the courts, the constitution, the law won’t stop Trump. You have to view him through the prism of raw human power. At first, he doesn’t understand the limitations on his power, so he ends up looking stupid…until he prepares for the next fight and comes prepared.
It has ended in failure and humiliation for the Orange Cheese Doodle. He may want to get used to that.
The snake to keep an eye on here is Barr. From TPM:
"But Attorney General Bill Barr went even farther. After Trump said that the data the Commerce Department would produce would include the number of “illegal aliens” in the United States (something the proposed citizenship question would not have asked), Barr said data on undocumented immigrants could be useful for the purpose of deciding how many U.S. congressional seats each state gets, in the process known as apportionment.
Currently, like redistricting, apportionment is done using total population. In fact the Constitution mandates that apportionment be done based on all people.
However, Barr described there being a “dispute” over counting undocumented immigrants in apportionment, and said the data the administration is now collecting could be useful once that so-called dispute is resolved."
Barr and minions are pushing states to use only “citizen” data in setting their state districts and also implying that setting Congressional districts this way could also be done, because apportionment this way is in “dispute” and hasn’t been settled by the courts.
Like chaperoning children at a pool party, you just cannot allow your vigilance to drop.
Authoritarians like Trump and Barr (and the entire GOP) will find ways to rig the system. They won’t stop. They can’t. They’re outnumbered and they know it, which is why they have to find ways to marginalize “others”. This is what the America-first GOP did from about 1910 - 1930, so it’s not the first time. Democrats in the South also rigged the political system but did so using white terrorism. In 2019, it’s almost as if the America first Republicans have teamed up with White South Democrats to produce a kind of racist, oppressive political super-organism.
No ‘teaming up’ necessary. Those early 20th century Republicans and the southern Democrats were the most conservative sectors of the population. They just identified with different parties. Now they identify with the Republican Party.
Gimme a break. If it was obvious in the case of Nixon, it’s about 100x as obvious for Trump. Dem inaction has allowed the normalization of everything from repeated obstruction of justice to babies in cages, to almost starting a war, then changing his mind, on little more than a Presidential whim,
Not until I know for sure who they are.
I’ve seen little evidence of this. And I’ve compared the membership of the Problem Solvers Caucus to the list of freshman House Dems, and there’s some overlap but not much.
And about half those Problem Solvers are from safe districts - D+6 or better.
Look, if they’re doing a good job of representing their constituents’ wishes, that’s great, but if the vast majority of the caucus isn’t on the record, it’s tough to know whether they are or aren’t. Too often, it seems like they’re playing defense against their own voters.
So her strategy is what - twiddle her thumbs until the American public comes around on its own to being pro-impeachment? Fearlessly leading from behind.
The House could have hearings on topics that could turn into grounds for impeachment. They’re not doing it. There is no strategy: Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach, end of story.
So give them a chance to know what side their Congresscritters are on.
Last time I checked, something like 79 House members had come out for impeachment. Even if they’re all from safe districts (they’re not), **the vast majority of Dem House members who haven’t come out for impeachment are from safe districts. **
They aren’t doing anything to try to break through. No hearings on babies in cages, or on the dozens of times Trump’s been accused of sexual assault, or on nearly bombing Iran, or on the mystery of the Kushner family’s 666 Fifth Avenue bailout…they’re not trying.
Are you sure about that? It seems they’ve only just figured out that nobody’s noticed all those bills they’ve passed that the Senate has ignored.
I don’t expect them to care about anyone but their own constituents. But I’m including those who are pro-impeachment in the ‘we’ here.
The Dems have done nothing to suggest that Trump should be impeached. They dropped the ball on the Mueller Report - GOP said it exonerated Trump, and the Dems didn’t say much of anything. So the public believed that it didn’t make much of a case against Trump.
And they haven’t had hearings on any other potential grounds for impeachment (even without calling it an impeachment inquiry, this would be useful in selling the public on it) so again, it’s a frickin’ miracle that the public is evenly divided on impeachment.
Have an inquiry into whether Trump should be impeached. Or don’t call it that, but have hearings into the various potential grounds for impeachment. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Last fall, Pelosi promised that if we gave her back her gavel, the Dems would hold Trump accountable. Surely the House Dems can agree on some ways to go after Trump, even if they’re not ready for impeachment, and even acknowledging that Trump can obstruct many avenues of inquiry. There is still much they can do that they’re not doing. They can pick and choose the fights they want to fight, but AFAICT the only ones they’re choosing are the ones where Trump can tie them up in court, which was fine back in March when they were just figuring this out, but makes no sense in July. They need to pick the three or four issues where they think hearings would get the most attention and do the most damage to Trump and his party, and do them.
:sigh:
I am the independent voter that the democrats are so desperate to win over. They aren’t blowing my hair back by worrying if the public is going to be on their side or not with the whole impeach business. If they feel they should, now is not the time to play politics. Take a damn stand already. If they don’t, then it just seems like whining.