Voor een Republikein niet heel extreem zijn is nog heel wat anders dan een moderate zijn. Zelfs de gematigde Republikeinse congresleden moeten niet veel van dit plan hebben.quote:Op donderdag 16 maart 2017 19:48 schreef antiderivative het volgende:
Op hem? Als het gaat om Healthcare is Trump een echte moderate
Rep. Mark Meadows says he raised entitlement reform with President Trump and the pushback was stronger than expected
Een gedeelte diep-conservatieve republikeinen willen meer hervormingen (lees hack & slash) in allerlei regelingen en programma's en een gedeelte van dezelfde partij, de gematigden, willen juist enkele belangrijke elementen (medicare/medicaid) in stand houden (omdat dat in hun staat een belangrijk punt is).
quote:I’ve been reading about things. I read in, I think it was January 20 a New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping. There was an article I think they used that exact term. I read other things.
“I watched your friend, Bret Baier, the day previous where he was talking about certain very complex sets of things happening, and wiretapping. I said, wait a minute, there’s a lot of wiretapping being talked about. I’ve been seeing a lot of things”.
“Not that I respect The New York Times. I call it the failing New York Times. But they did write on January 20 using the word wiretap," he explained.
Oooooww, nou begrijp ik het:quote:
quote:"Wiretap covers a lot of different things," Trump told Fox News' Tucker Carlson in an interview aired Wednesday night. "I think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks."
Maar nu weten we ook dat de leaks ook geen "witch hunt" is:twitter:
DNC was eigenlijk ook niet "rigged"twitter:
https://www.theatlantic.c(...)us-precedent/519828/quote:The Dangerous Precedent Set by Judicial Attacks on Trump's Travel Ban
Let’s start with the law.
The president of the United States has power to bar “any class of aliens” both as immigrants and as nonimmigrants and to impose on their ordinary comings and goings “any restrictions he may deem appropriate.”
That’s the language of the U.S. Code, the law of the land as enacted by Congress, under Congress’ own constitutional power over immigration and naturalization.
Presidential power is never absolute, of course. It’s always subject to the Constitution. Many have argued that Trump's ban is unconstitutional because—as the president himself has repeatedly said—it’s intended to ban Muslims, and should be regarded as prohibited religious discrimination.
But here’s the problem for those making the argument: It’s firmly established U.S. law that the rights of the Constitution belong only to Americans. The U.S. Army can strip enemy combatants of weapons without offending the Second Amendment right to carry firearms. It can billet troops in private dwellings overseas without offending the Third Amendment. The NSA can intercept foreign communications without regard to the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. courts do not hear cases from foreign nationals who complain their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment have somehow been infringed. And so through the gamut.
Where do foreign nationals then acquire their supposed First Amendment right to enter the United States without religious discrimination?
The answer offered by Judge Derrick Watson’s opinion is a judicial reach of a kind that might sound clever to the student editors of an academic law review—but that should worry all Americans in real life. By barring foreign Muslims, the opinion argues, the Trump administration has signaled disfavor of domestic Muslims as well, thereby violating their First Amendment rights to religious equality.
Not only that! Watson’s opinion further contends that this argument is so convincing that it is “highly likely” to prevail on the ultimate merits—and for that reason, that he is justified in issuing immediately a temporary restraining order against Trump’s ban.
This double argument is bold, to put it mildly.
What it does, in effect, is globalize the First Amendment (and possibly other amendments too) provided only that a fellow adherent of that religion live inside the United States.
This approach is so ambitious and so new that it renders incredible. Judge Derrick Watson’s claimed certitude that the plaintiffs are “highly likely” to prevail. Their chances are at best touch-and-go; at worst, probably doomed.
Frankly, under any other president than Donald Trump, it seems impossible that a federal judge would have expressed such certitude—or granted their requested order. The federal courts have historically granted large deference to presidential power over immigration and naturalization. The Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2015 that the president could deny a visa to an alien for no reason at all!
Een neo-con die het niet eens is in een opinie stuk met federale rechters? Color me surprised...quote:Op donderdag 16 maart 2017 20:57 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:
https://www.washingtonpos(...)m_term=.b57e33c0347aquote:White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that President Trump “stands by” his allegation that former president Barack Obama ordered wiretapping surveillance of Trump Tower last fall, despite statements from the leaders of congressional investigations that no evidence had been found to support the claim.
In a remarkably combative exchange with reporters at his daily press briefing, Spicer was asked whether Trump still believes Obama ordered the alleged surveillance effort.
“He stands by it,” Spicer said, going on to assail journalists for the way they have reported on the controversy.
quote:"I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use. But too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable. I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana – so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that's only slightly less awful. Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life."
Het is Trump he...quote:
Trump is buitengewoon goed in "bijzondere keuzes"...quote:Op donderdag 16 maart 2017 21:14 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Ook wel een bijzondere budgettaire keuze:
Het is echt Banetwitter:
Bane had een plan,Trump niet.quote:
He maar 'stands by it' staat tussen haakjes, en in Trumpland is het dan het tegenovergesteldequote:Op donderdag 16 maart 2017 21:40 schreef nostra het volgende:
"I think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks," Trump told Fox host Tucker Carlson.
Het gaat om de inhoud, niet de auteur (die trouwens opriep om voor Hillary te stemmen). je moet geen neo-con zijn om te zien dat de rechter z'n uitspraak met vrij dubieuze argumenten verdedigt.quote:
https://www.lawfareblog.c(...)detour-or-speed-bumpquote:Wednesday was an active day in the courts for President Trump’s Refugee Executive Order (EO). A U.S. district court in Hawaii issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the revised EO issued less than two weeks ago. In addition, the Ninth Circuit, with five judges dissenting, declined to order an en banc rehearing on a Seattle district court’s TRO against the original EO. Judge Jay Bybee’s dissent (joined by judges Kozinski, Callahan, Bea, and Ikuta) comes closest to the deferential note that I believe the Supreme Court will ultimately strike when and if it considers the revised EO’s legality. However, because of the substantial tailoring in the revised EO, the Supreme Court could upheld EO 2.0 without embracing the broad deference urged in Judge Bybee’s dissent.
First, some background on the revised EO (see Josh Blackman’s posts here, here, and here)): The revised EO exempts lawful permanent residents (LPRs), current visa-holders (VHs), and noncitizens with approved refugee status—all of whom had reliance interests disrupted by the original EO. The revised EO only affects foreign nationals abroad who are seeking visas ab initio. The Supreme Court has never held that the Constitution protects noncitizens in this context. The revised EO excludes Iraqis, makes Syrian refugees subject to a 120-day bar (not the indefinite halt decreed by the initial EO), and deletes any mention of a priority for religious minorities.
In the Hawaii case, Judge Derrick K. Watson found the revised EO’s careful tailoring insufficient to withstand the plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause challenge. Unfortunately, Judge Watson paid no heed to the ill fit between the varied factors that drive immigration decisions and the Establishment Clause case law’s search for an intent to harm or help religion.
That heedlessness swims against the tide of Supreme Court precedent. In Kerry v. Din (2015), Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion found that even the due process rights of U.S. citizen sponsors of visa applicants had to bow to the “facially legitimate and bona fide” interest of the U.S. government in countering terrorism. In endorsing this flexible standard, Justice Kennedy cited Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), in which the Court first articulated the “facially legitimate and bona fide” test. Mandel, which Judge Bybee cited repeatedly in his Ninth Circuit dissent, rejected a First Amendment challenge to the denial of a visa to a Marxist scholar whom U.S. citizens wished to hear speak in person. Mandel’s relaxed standard suggests that Judge Watson’s opinion will be short-lived.
Rejecting Mandel’s teaching, Judge Watson second-guessed the security emphasis of the revised EO. The revised EO cites the armed conflicts that have engulfed 5 of the 6 countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) subject to the country-wide pause in admissions. Because of those armed conflicts, the EO concludes, a review of U.S. visa procedures is appropriate. According to the revised EO, review is appropriate for the 6th country on the list—Iran—because that country has been a longtime sponsor of terrorism. In my opinion, these facts do not present a persuasive policy case for the EO’s pause in admissions, for reasons that former senior Department of Homeland Security lawyer David Martin states here. However, a given policy need not command a unanimous policy consensus to be “facially legitimate and bona fide.” Indeed, the whole point of the “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard, as Justice Kennedy reiterated in Kerry v. Din, is to ensure that courts stay out of the policy debates that are the rightful province of the political branches.