Just wondering–and BTW in this case the “performance artist” in question is a “he”–if the artist complains the art is too complicated, could it be he didn’t put in the ten thousand hours of practice practicing to do the actual job?
Could the performance artist walk away now without his snowflakes leaving a trace? If only. Are the original intentions of the Framers, including the Framers of the 25th Amendment, enough to cope with our situation? If a tyrannical soul announces in advance that he cannot possibly be blamed for any outcomes, is the “laugh test” still apropos? The SMFH test, perhaps?
Trump, Trump, Trump, why are you trying to fool us with your fake story that health care is complicated. It is so easy to understand that anybody who pays any attention at all to details figured it out a long time ago. Lemme break it down for you, in little pieces you oughta be able to chew:
Your body is a lot like a broken-down used car. Not a fine-tuned mass-produced brand-new car.
The market for health care is like the market for repairs of broken-down used cars, and not much like the market for new cars.
For “free markets” to work “perfectly” everybody buying and selling has gotta have “perfect” information about the product being bought and sold.
Thus a “free market” system to provide health care is not gonna be perfect. This is called “market failure.” Sometimes government regulation does not make everything perfect, but it is often worth a try.
You, as President, have all kinds of power (via the administrative state your strategist says he wants to deconstruct) to negotiate good prices on drugs and the delivery of health care services–on behalf of all 320 million Americans.
The word for your power is “monopsony.” Look it up, and then use it. You can become the greatest monopsonist ever!
Speaker Paul Ryan, in the wake of his announcement that he will give us freedom by abolishing Obamacare and replacing it with freedom, all freedom all the time, has announced his Summer 2017 Freedom and Carnage tour schedule. See his twitter feed for details, but the gist of it is, if he takes away your healthcare coverage, shut your mouth and be grateful for all the freedom you have to “access” the free market of medical services. You are free to enter into a voluntary transactions with any and all providers of care. You and only you have the freedom to negotiate with Humana or Aetna or Kaiser and don’t be a begrudger about it because you are just as free and big and powerful as your corporate negotiating counterparty. You are also free to ignore the carnage by plugging your ears and shutting your eyes and pretending the protesters you see are all zombies paid by George Soros and French socialists. You are free to enjoy the “deconstruction of the administrative state” because you know that they are going after those other elite people, they are not coming for you.
settle down mr. president. a lot of the indivisible folks are even older than you, and you seem super energetic now, but pace yourself. i hope you read the financial times article by david allen green today that explained why “see you in court” made lots of sense in your old world of commercial litigation in which your “aggressive shout of ‘see you in court’ would…be a standard prelude to cutting some sort of a deal….the problem with this approach is that public law litigation–legal disputes over whether a public body has the power to do a thing or not–is not like commercial litigation. going to court is the very point of public law litigation….only a court can hold an act or a decision…to be lawful or not….public law litigation is about decision-making, not deal-making.”
likewise with china. the one china policy, as paul haenle, a former national security council china specialist, explained, “is not a card on the bargaining table–it is the table itself.” you reversed your previous position, which some say you never do. but china is special. with special prices on all the cheap stuff with which we like to fill our homes. time to move on to the next distraction.
going to all lower case does not come naturally to you, mr. president, but maybe a golfing weekend with the japanese prime minister will help you settle yourself. if not, maybe he will explain to you a very amazing and noble and beautiful japanese exit strategy you can achieve all by yourself, with no court or congress or anybody getting in your way.
Though the “judicial branch,” which once was lost on whitehouse.gov, has now been found, it has been compromised, not in a beautiful way. For example, court-packing might be just around the corner. The number of Supreme Court justices is not specified in the Constitution, as the site notes correctly. It also notes that the current number of nine justices, established by act of Congress, has “only been in place since 1869.” Only? Ominous?
And regarding the Supreme Court, “since justices do not have to run or campaign for re-election, they are thought to be insulated from political pressure when deciding cases.” “Thought to be”–that was then.
I believe it would be wrong and illegal and unconstitutional to deport all the cousins of Timothy McVeigh and Dylann Roof and the Unabomber. But if President Trump decided that taking that tack would be “just common sense,” and that anybody who disagreed with him is to blame for any ensuing acts of terror, where would we be? Would any Republicans begin to dissent from such an unconstrained claim of executive authority?
Constrained discretion vs. unconstrained discretion: that is the issue in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today re the “ban” or whatever alternative term you like. Presidents have “wide authority,” the media tell us, and they are not lying about that. (However, few if any TV heads have emphasized that there is already extended vetting before foreigners are allowed into the U.S. from the countries in question. Newswatchers could easily get the impression that there was little if any filtering during the Obama administration.) But unconstrained presidential discretion is another matter. Giving any president, even Mr. Trump, unconstrained discretion over anything has big league downsides. The only possible upside would be that Trump’s blame-shifting, which is already unconstrained by common sense or facts or shame, would be even less believable. But the price is far too high. If Trump manages to fool courts as well as Congress that his whims are unreviewable and that any oversight is unpatriotic and dangerous–game over.
Will any Congressional Republicans pull themselves away from celebrating the nomination of Neil Gorsuch and take note of President Trump’s easing/”I am not easing” of sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies?
If somebody offered me 19 or 19.5 percent of the Russian petrostate and sent it to a Cayman Islands shell company, I might be tempted to do something nice for them. Is that what is happening here? Did President Trump acknowledge it by speaking of finding a “pretext” for lifting sanctions? Hard to be at all sure, but it’s not a question I expected to need to ask.
Senate Democrats do have a tricky choice re Neil Gorsuch: to filibuster or not. I can see the merits both ways. Setting aside for a minute the plentiful hypocrisy regardless of party, Mitch McConnell’s refusal to consider the merits of Judge Garland was a new low.
Moving on. Democrats cannot prevent Gorsuch from receiving a hearing, as McConnell prevented one for Garland. Before, during, and after the Gorsuch hearing, Democrats should focus their questions on the new dangers that everyone, regardless of party, ought to recognize are in play. That is, ask about the meaning and reach of the emoluments clause. Ask what constitutes treason. Ask about the Tenth Amendment–it’s a new day, Democrats. Ask about the Congressional war power. Ask about the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression. Ask about the scope of valid executive orders. Ask whether Senator Ted Cruz’s law review article on Obama’s “lawlessness” made valid points that still apply now. Ask about the Supreme Court’s capacity or incapacity to counteract declarations of emergency powers and martial law. Some of these questions have not been asked in recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, but the “threat assessment” needs to be rethought.