President Trump's First 100 Days

The 9th is not only covering far too much territory, but is far and away the leader in being overturned by SCOTUS, namely as a result of their penchant for disregarding the law, wherever politically convenient.

It should have been broken up years ago - just as many judges in its own territory recently asked for (maybe 100 or so? IIRC) - and will soon be.

 

I disagree with his messing with NK, at all, but even more so that he seems eagerly willing to allow China off the economic hook in order to meddle in a shit-storm that poses no strategic incentive, at least insofar as I am aware (but could easily be wrong / not know / have missed it).

He's violating one campaign promise (needlessly meddling in NK) by ignoring another in letting China off the hook - and I am against both, again, barring something more threatening / important than I now know.

 

That is an incorrect stat peddled by conservatives. There are two other districts that have a higher rate of overturning cases than the 9th. Plus, an exceptionally low number, less than 1/10th of 1% of cases from the 9th are overturned. The idea that the 9th is some liberal alternate universe where loony judges have their activist decisions thrown out is a completely false narrative from the right. The one salient point is that it probably is too big, although that's, obviously, not why Trump wants to break it up.

It's not surprising that someone like Trump would promote such disinformation as he often does when decisions go against him. He has an astonishingly poor grasp of legal procedure, which is why is keeps losing in court when he can't simply bully a defendant, and doesn't seem capable of crafting controversial EOs in a manner which would survive legal challenges. Naturally, he blames others for his own shortcomings and issues ad hominem, false and self-serving arguments in response. There's little wrong with this ruling on "sanctuary cities" (Which is a phony labeling of the issue in and of itself) and Trump, again, merely pitches a fit because he doesn't get what he wants while seeking ways to allocate more power for himself with less accountability.

 

The EPA neutralizing will be very interesting in a few years, when there are human health costs because of it.

 

1st quarter with slowest GDP growth in 3 years. This will be used to justify a massive tax cut for corporations and the most wealthy. The deficit will soar, but moderate economic growth will be pointed to as making it "worth it." The everyday American loses, and cheers.

 

Everyday American loses with tax cuts? Serious Clark?

 

Leaving out some pretty critical details in that question.

"Hey guys! IP likes taxes!"

Look, just laugh at me. I'm surely totally wrong, right? Everything will be awesome. The deficit will be paid for by growth, and everyone is going to be doing better. Just laugh at me. It has always been that simple.

 

I remember how pleased my dad was with W's tax cut. "Paid for a new chainsaw!" Never mind going from a surplus to a deficit. Just blame it on Democrats or Mexicans or something. Don't worry about the massive decline in social mobility, either. You're all temporarily disadvantaged billionaires.

 

Jesus. We went from a surplus to a deficit because we went in a recession.

 

Tax receipts exploded after reagan's tax cuts

 

You are partially correct - they are the second most overturned circuit, with only the Federal Circuit having a higher percentage of cases where SCOTUS overturns / vacates their rulings. I stand corrected on that point, purely on the math, and despite it's being so closely akin to the ol'' "Butch is sufficient because he's less terrible than Dooley" argument.

But, you're wrong on the rest, including where the line between fact and personal opinion becomes irrevocably blurred, as it always seems to do. From the American Bar Association, here are some facts on the 9th Circuit, from 1999-2008:

Despite being just one of 1 of 13 circuits beneath the SCOTUS' rule - the 9th represented some 27% of total cases reviewed (175 out of 660), a figure that dwarfs the second most frequently reviewed circuit (the 6th Circuit) by some 105 cases (175 to 70), itself covering TN, KY, OH and MI.

Of the 175 cases which originated in the 9th Circuit, and which SCOTUS reviewed, only 35 - 20% - were affirmed, meaning, 140 were either overturned, vacated or both - or 80% of reviewed cases.

To be fair, when looking at the percentage of total reviewed cases being overturned, vacated or both by SCOTUS, the 9th (80%) is only second worse than the Federal Circuit (83.3%) and was closely followed by the 10th Circuit (75%). However, it's important to note that the Federal and 10th Circuits only had 58 reviewed cases between them, and the 9th had 175 - literally more than triple the cases for both the Federal and 10th Circuits (58 x 3=174 v 9th = 175).

I strongly disagree on the rest of your Trump take, but won't speak to it, as it's just your opinion, and which you are entitled to enjoy and espouse. And by now, you are as capable of imagining my points of contention just as well - if not better - than I can envision your rebuttals to those points. So, I'll just save us each the time and trouble of drafting several pages of text.

I won't relent on the argument that the 9th hasn't become a legal bastion of uber-liberalized social-justice-warriors-turned-judicial-activists, but will concede that while their reversal rates are particularly high, that such is not uniquely theirs alone. Shockingly, I do agree with Gowdy's assessment on the 9th Circuit (again, understanding that you likely won't):

But, our beliefs and Trump's motives aside, it is gigantically too large, too influential, and needs to be broken up, again, just as many of their own lower courts have been asking to be done for a number of years. Unlike several other Circuits, it's original jurisdiction hasn't moved since it was first established in 1891, before the great(?) western migration and when it only encompassed 4% of the total US population. Now, some 125+ years later, it is far and away the largest court, covering more than 20% of the total population.
And if that isn't enough, justice (for whatever that's worth) is suffering as a result, as it takes an extraordinarily longer amount of time to resolve cases than any other Circuit.

If you don't like that it could be split up, ostensibly because it's exactly what many see it as - an uber-liberalized institution which insulates and promotes the political bent which you most prefer - that's perfectly fine. But you'd best leave facts out of it, because they are clearly hostile and pose significant risk to any position you'll take / prop up / imagine / hope to defend, beyond your personal preference, alone.

I think that it should happen, and likely will, but will need to see it to believe it.

Link: http://www.americanbar.org/content/...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

 

Ya, so did national debt.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA

I know that no one, I mean no one, is ready to be President. But if he actually thought it would be 'easy' to be President, then he is completely delusional.

I also am aware of myself enough to know that everything he does is colored through my anti-Trump glasses, but this guy is like Butch Jones, completely out of his element, got here being a showman and carnival barker, and is now trying to tread water.

 

That because of Cold War spending

 

If something being upheld or overturned by the supreme court is the same as it being "correct" or "incorrect," why are you against Roe v Wade?

 

He should be held accountable wherever this is proven to occur, and directly result from his budget cuts.

 

Neither side has the high ground on the deficit, and it wasn't Clinton that lead and fought for the "surplus" either during the 90's.

 

He's also admitted he didn't know anything about healthcare or NATO. His daughter is now doing the same things he criticized the Clintons for in terms of foundations. He's a massive hypocrite, and this isn't surprising to probably 70 % of Americans. The "Outsider" isn't an outsider if he's a billionaire that has been bumping elbows with the elite for 30+ years.

 

The point remains that tax cuts don't magically solve deficits.