Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
There is no connection between 2 and 4/8. Put another way, presidential immunity doesn't make 4 or 8 easier or harder.
3 as written is extremely vague. Sure, if we somehow stripped the U.S. Supreme Court of authority to review federal constitutional questions, then you obviously would be correct, but I don't imagine you think that is going to happen.
AFAIK the only check on executive orders is the supreme court and they have the supreme court in their pocket
Don't negotiate. Disclaim in the terms and conditions this price is based on cost at time of submittal and could be subject to change. Any GC that doesn't do this type of thing is waiting to get bent over.
Yeah, sorry we accepted the other proposal because they were willing to commit to a 25% COGS cap and you guys wanted market rate variability up to 150%
AFAIK the only check on executive orders is the supreme court and they have the supreme court in their pocket
Sure. You can speculate that the SCOTUS will rubber stamp literally everything, no matter how blatantly unconstitutional, but I don't foresee a situation in which that occurs. The Court will be bad. No question about that. But not in the way or to the degree that you are imagining.
When they repealed Roe V Wade and turned a universal choice into a state matter that represents an across the board reduction in rights to placate a religious agenda
It isn't the same thing. Overturning Roe was terrible for the reputation of the Court, and a finger in the eye of stare decisis. It didn't need to happen, and I wish it hadn't. But the conservatives didn't have to tie themselves in knots to write an opinion overturning Roe. Legal scholars have viewed Roe as legally vulnerable almost from the day the decision came down.
It isn't the same thing. Overturning Roe was terrible for the reputation of the Court, and a finger in the eye of stare decisis. It didn't need to happen, and I wish it hadn't. But the conservatives didn't have to tie themselves in knots to write an opinion overturning Roe. Legal scholars have viewed Roe as legally vulnerable almost from the day the decision came down.
You're pretty knowledgeable on these topics. Are you a lawyer
It isn't the same thing. Overturning Roe was terrible for the reputation of the Court, and a finger in the eye of stare decisis. It didn't need to happen, and I wish it hadn't. But the conservatives didn't have to tie themselves in knots to write an opinion overturning Roe. Legal scholars have viewed Roe as legally vulnerable almost from the day the decision came down.
Overturning roe was one of the best things to ever happen for the rule of law exactly because of the bold.
SCOTUS should stop writing the constitution, and limit itself from reading it
When they repealed Roe V Wade and turned a universal choice into a state matter that represents an across the board reduction in rights to placate a religious agenda
Roe was SCOTUS inventing a right that never existed, and it was reversed because to do that you need a constitutional amendment.
The american federal constitution never gave citizens a right to abortion, which is why it was always constitutional for states to regulate abortion for 200 years before roe.
Roe was SCOTUS inventing a right that never existed, and it was reversed because to do that you need a constitutional amendment.
The american federal constitution never gave citizens a right to abortion, which is why it was always constitutional for states to regulate abortion for 200 years before roe.
There is an implied right to privacy in the constitution on which Roe is based.
There isn't, you can't claim 100+ years of no one even vaguely hinting at it didn't exist.
And btw abortion has nothing to do with privacy, being linked to when/if you think the fetus becomes a separate entity worthy of legal protection.
Even with a full constitutional right to privacy, abortion wouldn't be a constitutional right. See Switzerland which actually has an explicit right to privacy in the constitution.
Think of it as you would of animal right; your right to privacy in your home doesn't mean you are allowed to torture animals at home if the law decides you can't.
The law can decide a fetus has rights same as it can decide an animal has (unfortunately)
There isn't, you can't claim 100+ years of no one even vaguely hinting at it didn't exist.
And btw abortion has nothing to do with privacy, being linked to when/if you think the fetus becomes a separate entity worthy of legal protection.
Even with a full constitutional right to privacy, abortion wouldn't be a constitutional right. See Switzerland which actually has an explicit right to privacy in the constitution.
Think of it as you would of animal right; your right to privacy in your home doesn't
There absolutely is a right to privacy that is pointed to in the bill of rights. 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendment all point to it. Furthermore let me quote the 9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So please, the founders explicitly did not support your reading of the constitution.
There isn't, you can't claim 100+ years of no one even vaguely hinting at it didn't exist.
And btw abortion has nothing to do with privacy, being linked to when/if you think the fetus becomes a separate entity worthy of legal protection.
Even with a full constitutional right to privacy, abortion wouldn't be a constitutional right. See Switzerland which actually has an explicit right to privacy in the constitution.
Think of it as you would of animal right; your right to privacy in your home doesn't
You of course are wrong as well. You are talking as if Roe emerged full borne out of the ether, based on nothing. Roe was an extension of a line of cases that recognized an implied right to privacy.
But the real blind spot for you is your belief that liberal justices are highly predisposed to read between the lines (or embrace activism, if you prefer that formulation), and conservative justices are highly predisposed to avoid it.
In practice, I would rate politically liberal judges and politically conservative judges as barely distinguishable on this metric. And moreover, it isn't self-evident that narrow, formalistic interpretation is preferable in a well-ordered society.
bahaha! :shocked:🤐😮
♦
Nobody believes that you believe that. Trolling is only good when your targets think it's actually possible that you believe whatever dumb thing you're saying at the moment.
Anyway, Trump's NPD explains the permanently revolving door of his previous Administration, and it's why he'll never be able to work directly with Musk for very long (who himself is deeply addled in some way or another).
To answer the question, I bet the first people to be dropped are random underlings we'v
Can’t wait to say how great you will feel in about 3 years where the Americans will be ….
Since Harris or trump suppose to be the same resulting ambiance for the U.S. .
Well my first prediction is that I won't spend Inauguration Day dressing up like an asshat and storming anything.
As to the rest, I think it will go about as expected, at least for those that paid any kind of real attention. ACA dies, lots of legislation to protect future Republican majorities, plus lots of anti-climate, anti-LGBT, pro-NRA, pro-Christian type things with all kinds questionable tactics targeted at media outlets that run anything unfavorable. No reason to expect continued US support for Ukraine. Aggressive anti-immigration policies that focus on Mexicans. Trade policies that lean toward isolationist.
No real reason to expect they wouldn't do more or less what they've suggested or outright said they'd like to do, or have already been long trying to do, given the largely unchecked power to do it.
Lol antifa?
Trump was the best candidate for the business owner by far, which is why the stock market soared yesterday. For you not to realize this only means you're the sheep, not the "MAGA" people.
Stocks roses because of tax cuts coming and debasement of currency.
bonds got sold out for what you think ?
To buy stocks ….
I mean you can’t even spell out name correctly , how can u possibly understand anything about the economy ….
Another baham in action .
You of course are wrong as well. You are talking as if Roe emerged full borne out of the ether, based on nothing. Roe was an extension of a line of cases that recognized an implied right to privacy.
But the real blind spot for you is your belief that liberal justices are highly predisposed to read between the lines (or embrace activism, if you prefer that formulation), and conservative justices are highly predisposed to avoid it.
In practice, I would rate politically liberal judges and politica
Problem with the privacy line is that it has nothing to do with abortion anyway even if you want to claim a strong generalized right to privacy exists in the american federal constitution.
I am broadly aware of how you reached roe, but the fact itself that abortion was illegal in many states pre roe is more than enough to make roe a deep violation of the principle of judicial review.
Griswold was absurd as well and there is a chance it will be reversed as well. Not for the outcome, which is appreciable, but because that right doesn't even remotely exists in the constitution.
Because if there is a right to contraceptives because of privacy there is a right to consume any substance for the same reason.
Barnum act was unconstitutional for the provision that impeded communication about contraceptives but that's another issue.
And btw LOL at Griswold saying married people can use contraceptives as a constitutional right but that doesn't extend to unmarried couples. How is that consistent with privacy being the reason for that right?
It was all made up out of thin air to achieve what those people thought were desirable outcomes societal-wise.
I can't even blame then because they had that power and used it legally.
But that opens the door to the most unbearable horrors when the court is evil so it can't be allowed to stand.
Sure. You can speculate that the SCOTUS will rubber stamp literally everything, no matter how blatantly unconstitutional, but I don't foresee a situation in which that occurs. The Court will be bad. No question about that. But not in the way or to the degree that you are imagining.
Why ?
They can put anyone they want for the next 2 years .
And they will all abide to lord trump in choosing .
Problem with the privacy line is that it has nothing to do with abortion anyway even if you want to claim a strong generalized right to privacy exists in the american federal constitution.
I am broadly aware of how you reached roe, but the fact itself that abortion was illegal in many states pre roe is more than enough to make roe a deep violation of the principle of judicial review.
Griswold was absurd as well and there is a chance it will be reversed as well. Not for the outcome, which is apprec
Aren’t you libertarian ?
Wanting the least possible government intervention in people life privacy’s ?
Stocks roses because of tax cuts coming and debasement of currency.
bonds got sold out for what you think ?
To buy stocks ….
I mean you can’t even spell out name correctly , how can u possibly understand anything about the economy ….
Another baham in action .
I can't spell out name correctly, but stocks roses?
I know enough about the economy to know that prices were much lower and the economy was much stronger during Trump's first term then they are now.
Problem with the privacy line is that it has nothing to do with abortion anyway even if you want to claim a strong generalized right to privacy exists in the american federal constitution.
It has nothing to do with it so that’s why for 50 years the court accepted that argument?
I think what you mean to say is that “I don’t think the right to privacy extends so far as to cover abortion”. That’s way more defensible of a position. But to say it has nothing to do with it is absurd.
By the way the current court doesn’t deny an inferred right to privacy but instead makes that argument iirc. I’ll have to re-read the decision.
