Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

So, as head of the DOJ she is obliged to ignore the order in regions in which a judge has ruled against it, and to heed it in regions where no judge has done so?

No. She was obliged to represent the government which, in this case, involved challenging the order. The judge has only issued a temporary stay. She will hold a hearing/read briefing on the merits of her limited order. The DOJ is damn well obliged to represent the government in this substantive hearing. Then, if the government wishes to appeal the decision, the DOJ heads up the appeal.

As noted, the DOJ didn't just throw its hands up and quit when multiple district courts in multiple different jurisdictions ruled the ACA unconstitutional. That's not the end of the things by a longshot.

[hack]

The argument has been advanced that there have been no terrorist attacks from citizens of any of these countries. Could that be because of the travel restriction program?

Well there's competing interpretations out there of the extent to which travel was really and actually restricted by these programs, but, probably it's helped. If not directly, vetting people has probably led to helpful intelligence gathered about others. But the interesting thing at this point is that it's less the policy that's in question at this point than the execution. Under Obama we've seen that this can be done quietly, and perhaps as you suggest, quietly effective.

Or this can be done loudly, in a way that offends the sensibilities of many Americans, hands ISIS the recruiting tool it is looking for, and casts doubt on the rule of law in the country. We're seeing Trump use the concept of governing as a form of theatre in which he can score popularity points with some people and shit on others. That's not what governing is for.

I'm of two minds about Yates. On the one hand, as I said, staging theatrical episodes isn't what governing is for, and the two shouldn't mix. On the other hand, this is no game. If one side uses a set of tactics it can only expect those tactics to be used by the other side as well. I don't think it's a good think to have official conduct become a race to the bottom, but nor it is OK to sit around, Obama-like, acting like a gentleman and all, while people suffer because the other side is not. We're at the point where the options are all bad.

[hack]

No. She was obliged to represent the government which, in this case, involved challenging the order. The judge has only issued a temporary stay. She will hold a hearing/read briefing on the merits of her limited order. The DOJ is damn well obliged to represent the government in this substantive hearing. Then, if the government wishes to appeal the decision, the DOJ heads up the appeal.

As noted, the DOJ didn't just throw its hands up and quit when multiple district courts in multiple different jurisdictions ruled the ACA unconstitutional. That's not the end of the things by a longshot.

Ah. OK. I get it now.

[entropy]

not surprised she got fired. But I think the tone of the WH release was a bit harsh. President Trump fired her there was no need to take a couple petty swipes at her (but then against President Trump is a petty man).

Again, it's an unnecessary fight. Just move on..

[Jeff Buchanan]

talent, in it's symbolic nature, it was a good move as it applies to his political base, badly handled as it applies to identifying and then dealing with the predictable blow-back.

Newt probably put it best when he was asked about the EO and said the administration is feeling it's way around Washington. It just takes a while.

I don't think Trump feels any need as the Executive to consult with Congress, in this narrow instance, as some who are from that side of government feel he should have. They claim he may have better understood the problems with such an EO. Frankly, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care.

Whether I agree with the EO or not, and I'm not sure of my position on that right now, is less important to me than watching how stuff like this tends to define his modus operandi as President. Trump, and we know this from the persona that defines him leading up to his election, is confrontational.

It is a significant departure from both national and international norms of conduct with the organs of state as I described these in another post. There are risks and benefits to this kind of behavior. Within the sandbox that is Washington, it could be a refreshing departure, Rooseveltian in terms of his unwillingness to suffer fools and there are plenty of those in Congress. He could also irreparably damage his presidency by this confrontational conduct.

It's a different sandbox internationally. I think there is real danger here as relationships with his peers at this level are much more subtle and The Donald is not that ..... at all.

[hack]

There is an element of the American mentality that thinks the rest of the world should be made to say uncle. It's emotionally satisfying for voters to hear that their leader is going to go take all those crazies out there and knock them down a few pegs. But that's not the way it actually works. Tough talk isn't going to suddenly make terrorist put down their weapons and say ``you're right and we were just waiting for you to be forceful before acknowledging that. You can get more of what you want in international diplomacy if you allow people to retain their dignity at the same time as complying with you. In fact if you don't, they know they can usually score political points at home by standing up to the big bully. So, again, it's a matter of what you actually want. Policy outcomes, or to massage the perceptions of voters.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

I leaning more toward it probably being at least a political push for DJT. As I noted, I try to let the smoke clear and things settle before starting to make the political assessment.

I'm not sure if this is just a matter of DJT "feeling his way around DC" -- ie, incompetence -- or an intentionally, loud and provocative move as hack suggests. I lean more toward the latter. I think he got what he wanted.

[Mainevent]

Actually, she couldn't. The pending action in the Court is against the Government. The DOJ represents the Government. If the DOJ doesn't represent the Government, then the motion is unopposed and the movants win. That's what she was doing. She literally refused to do her job.

Got it, makes sense.

Is there any substantive difference between something that's actually codified into law and an executive order? I know the legality of this move is not necessarily the clearest, but say for example an EO was issued that was directly in conflict with codified law, how should the DOJ respond?

[Da Geezer]

I saw this segment on FBN this morning. It certainly was news to me in terms of the "trillion dollar" infrastructure projects that Trump has alluded to:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5305020503001/?#sp=show-clips

[hack]

Things are surely going to calm down. He's doing everything he said he was going to do. Forget first 100 days -- this is a first 10 days presidency so far. And then the pace of implementation will surely slow, and there will be time to see what's what.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Personally, I still disagree with the EO. I don't find the policy particularly grounded in fact. But, TBH, immigration from those 7 countries is not significant enough for me to really become too invested in it one way or the other. It is, as most of the first week stuff, largely symbolic.

How he deals with Mexico is not symbolic.

You are exactly correct that the Muslim ban is not based on facts. It's based on bigotry and fear. That's a big problem.

[hack]

But that's not new. Obama slowed the pace at which America shits on Muslims, but it never stopped.

[Da Geezer]

It should also be noted that the Office of Legal Council within the White House signed off on the EO's wording. The OLC is part of the Justice Dept., and perhaps the left hand should know what the right is doing. Also, there is a lot of chaff out there that Tillerson et al didn't know about the order, to which the proper response is "so what?".

As Talent says, this is akin to your personal lawyer telling you that he will not represent you as you walk into a trial. Talent, is there any way of finding out if the US actually had representation in the four cases in which the Judges issued an order?

[hack]

$9bn for an electricity-transmission line? WHOA. That project is no different than many others in which I just am astonished at the cost. There's a lot of gold-plating of capital costs ongoing out there, which is something I've only heard anecdotally, but it would be great to get a capital-costs database going. Major shareholders especially of big oil comapnies would love to have a comparative tool. Overseas it's a way to get around FCPA and a response to chippy governments that are getting smarter about how to negotiate.

That said, what's interesting that they highlighted is that these are two projects which may be commercially viable, based on the idea that private investors want to build them without any public money. It may be that government is sharing in the risks or providing other incentives that get the investors to say go.

But, if not, the next question is this -- Americans often say that government should be run more like a business. Or that we should get executives in office to make things work better. What I would do in this case, if I were government, is to build the damn thing myself. I have the lowest cost of capital, and if the thing is going to be profitable, then I should be in that game too. Reduce the pressure on taxpayers to fund government.

I've always thought that privatization doesn't necessarily make sense. The idea that putting big public assets in private hands makes them more efficient is bunk. We've done it enough times to know. That was just self-interested garbage made up by investors looking to score monopoly-prone assets on the cheap.

[iam416]

Tough talk isn't going to suddenly make terrorist put down their weapons and say ``you're right and we were just waiting for you to be forceful before acknowledging that. You can get more of what you want in international diplomacy if you allow people to retain their dignity at the same time as complying with you.

So, this is an interesting point of thought when it comes to terrorism. It's quite clear terrorists aren't going to put down their weapons and say, hey, thanks for being nice to us! I think the correct read on Islamic terrorism is that there is no effective mitigation policy other than action. The speak softly angle, though, gets to who helps with that action. It's easier to get, e.g., Saudi assistance or Jordanian assistance if you're not shitting on them. And so forth.