Donald Trump's Cabinet picks

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Both disagreeing with Brown vs. the Board of Education or not knowing what Brown vs. the Board of Education are terrible and either should be enough to make her unqualified for a judicial post.

[ImLawBoy]

Is it weird that not only does her answer not bother me but it sound like the exact non answer she could give to a question like that?

Yeah, I think she's just really awkwardly trying to say that she doesn't want to start playing the "do you agree with decision x" game, and that she would comply with Supreme Court precedent regardless of whether she personally agreed with a particular decision. I think people are reading into it a bit (and not 100% unjustifiably so, given her sloppy phrasing) if they interpret that as her having reservations about Brown.

Now, if she was answering whether or not she agreed with certain other cases, that changes things, because I would wonder why she's comfortable saying she agrees/disagrees with some cases, but not with Brown.

[LordMortis]

Now, if she was answering whether or not she agreed with certain other cases, that changes things, because I would wonder why she's comfortable saying she agrees/disagrees with some cases, but not with Brown.

+1 Now [that would send up red flags everywhere. I did not see that in the two minute.

[Alefroth]

Is it weird that not only does her answer not bother me but it sound like the exact non answer she could give to a question like that?

Yeah, I think she's just really awkwardly trying to say that she doesn't want to start playing the "do you agree with decision x" game, and that she would comply with Supreme Court precedent regardless of whether she personally agreed with a particular decision. I think people are reading into it a bit (and not 100% unjustifiably so, given her sloppy phrasing) if they interpret that as her having reservations about Brown.

Now, if she was answering whether or not she agreed with certain other cases, that changes things, because I would wonder why she's comfortable saying she agrees/disagrees with some cases, but not with Brown.

She could still say she agrees with it and make the point that her view on past decisions wouldn't impact her judgments. What possible downside could there be to saying she agrees with it?

[LordMortis]

She could still say she agrees with it and make the point that her view on past decisions wouldn't impact her judgments. What possible downside could there be to saying she agrees with it?

Opening up the door to scrutinize every decision she agrees with or not for political points, irrespective of judgements.

[ImLawBoy]

Is it weird that not only does her answer not bother me but it sound like the exact non answer she could give to a question like that?

Yeah, I think she's just really awkwardly trying to say that she doesn't want to start playing the "do you agree with decision x" game, and that she would comply with Supreme Court precedent regardless of whether she personally agreed with a particular decision. I think people are reading into it a bit (and not 100% unjustifiably so, given her sloppy phrasing) if they interpret that as her having reservations about Brown.

Now, if she was answering whether or not she agreed with certain other cases, that changes things, because I would wonder why she's comfortable saying she agrees/disagrees with some cases, but not with Brown.

She could still say she agrees with it and make the point that her view on past decisions wouldn't impact her judgments. What possible downside could there be to saying she agrees with it?

I'm not saying she handled it well - I'm just saying that her refusal to answer is not likely because she disagrees with it. Another of Trump's nominees was asked about it, and he basically said that he normally wouldn't answer questions about specific decisions, but this one was so obviously right that he was OK here as an exception to agree with it. He later would not comment on Roe v. Wade. This approach would probably have been a better one to take, particularly given how much of the public seems to think that her answer indicates she did not agree with Brown.

Interestingly, when during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings, Scalia was asked whether he agreed with the decision in Marbury v. Madison, which essentially set the precedent for judicial review in the US. Scalia refused to answer directly because he didn't think he should comment on settled cases.

[Pyperkub]

Is it weird that not only does her answer not bother me but it sound like the exact non answer she could give to a question like that?

Yeah, I think she's just really awkwardly trying to say that she doesn't want to start playing the "do you agree with decision x" game, and that she would comply with Supreme Court precedent regardless of whether she personally agreed with a particular decision. I think people are reading into it a bit (and not 100% unjustifiably so, given her sloppy phrasing) if they interpret that as her having reservations about Brown.

Now, if she was answering whether or not she agreed with certain other cases, that changes things, because I would wonder why she's comfortable saying she agrees/disagrees with some cases, but not with Brown.

Doesn't sound awkward here (but it is Townhall and not the entire interview):

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CO) asked Vitter if she believed that “Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided?”

“I don’t mean to be coy,” she replied, “but I think I get into a difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with. Again, my personal, political, or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent, it is binding, if I were honored to be confirmed, I would be bound by it and of course I would uphold it.”

Blumenthal then repeated the question.

“If I start commenting on I agree with this case or I don’t agree with this case I think we get into a slippery slope,” she emphasized. “If I’m honored to be confirmed I would be bound by Supreme Court precedent and that’s what I would follow, and Fifth Circuit precedent.”

Vitter also refused to comment on Roe v. Wade for this reason.

Blumenthal asked if there were any cases that Vitter “can tell us were correctly decided by the United States Supreme Court?”

“It’s very easy with hindsight, looking back through history to see ones that were not correctly decided,” she replied. “It’s very easy to see Plessy v. Ferguson and to read Justice Harlan’s dissent which of course became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education and to look at that and say well that sounds very obvious to us now in 2018, that that was the right decision, but that’s hindsight, I have the benefit of that hindsight.”

[ImLawBoy]

It may read better than it was live, but I thought the initial discussion that was linked earlier had her stumbling a bit and it sounded awkward.

Interestingly, that clip did not contain the last paragraph that you quoted, which does have her indirectly stating that Brown was correctly decided.

“It’s very easy to see Plessy v. Ferguson and to read Justice Harlan’s dissent which of course became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education and to look at that and say well that sounds very obvious to us now in 2018, that that was the right decision,

[Isgrimnur]

The Hill

A group of 131 representatives and 39 senators signed a resolution introduced Wednesday that calls for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to resign.

The resolution states that the co-signers have "no confidence in the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and [are] calling for the immediate resignation of the Administrator."

Highlighted within the resolution are concerns about Pruitt's use of taxpayer money, "dramatic" budget cuts and waivers given to employees to work at connected companies while still employed by the EPA.
...
The lawmakers argue that Pruitt is failing to uphold the responsibilities his job as administrator due to regulation rollbacks and actions to lower environmental protections at the agency they say should remain "science-based."
...
The resolution, signed entirely by Democrats, attracted the most senators to ever sign a resolution calling for a Cabinet official’s ouster, according to their press release.

Notably absent from the letter were the signatures of the three Republican members of Congress who previously called for Pruitt to resign or be fired: Reps. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.) and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.).

A number of Democrats have called for Pruitt's resignation or firing since news broke at the end of March that he rented a $50-a-night condo from the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist. Pruitt has maintained that the arrangement was ethical and approved by the agency's ethics office after the fact.

The administrator has attracted criticism from the left since ever before being confirmed. Pruitt was asked more than 1,000 questions during the nomination process and passed through confirmation with the fewest votes ever for an EPA administrator.

[Skinypupy]

If there's one person I despise more than Trump, it's Betsey DeVos. And deservedly so.

Her latest target is the department's Office of Civil Rights, a body tasked with investigating claims of civil rights abuses in schools. Under DeVos, the Department of Education has found a way to completely avoid its duty, simply by inventing a rule that lets them opt out of it, in order to be more "efficient." As the New York Times reports:

Among the changes implemented immediately is a provision that allows the Office for Civil Rights to dismiss cases that reflect “a pattern of complaints previously filed with O.C.R. by an individual or a group against multiple recipients,” or complaints “filed for the first time against multiple recipients that” place “an unreasonable burden on O.C.R.’s resources.”

So far, the provision has resulted in the dismissal of more than 500 disability rights complaints.

Let's break this down. Under DeVos, the Department of Education has instituted a policy that allows them to outright dismiss claims that students' civil rights have been violated. And one of the criteria they're using is "this person has brought too many claims already." According to this rationale, DeVos would argue that laws and civil rights stop applying to individuals if they seek protection too many times. And by refusing to follow through on claims against "multiple recipients," the Education Department is essentially claiming that patterns of abuse or systemic violations don't exist: civil rights can only be violated by one person at a time.

EDIT: The NYT article has more details, including this.

According to the Education Department, 41 percent of the 16,720 complaints filed in the 2016 fiscal year came from three people. The next year, of the 12,837 total cases, 23 percent of them did.

The department calls the complainants “frequent fliers.”

Marcie Lipsitt is proud to be one of them.

In the last two years, Ms. Lipsitt, a disability rights advocate in Michigan, has filed more than 2,400 complaints with the office against schools, departments of education, colleges and universities, libraries and other educational institutions across the country that have websites that people who are deaf or blind or who struggle with fine motor skills cannot navigate.

In that context, I can see why they did it. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are very real accessibility issues that exist for people with disabilities. A competent administrator would probably explore options like batching the complaint process, rather than simply saying "Yeah...we're just going to ignore you. Mmkay?"

[Rip]

Rand Paul says he won't vote to confirm Pompeo or Haspel

"My announcement today is that I will oppose both Pompeo's nomination and Haspel's nomination," Paul said.

Paul was the only Republican to vote against Pompeo for CIA director. And his decision on Wednesday complicates, but doesn't unilaterally sink, Pompeo's path to leading the State Department.
Republicans have an 11-10 advantage on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, making Paul a key vote.

If Paul votes no during the panel's deliberations and every Democrat opposes him, committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) will be forced to decide if he'll move Pompeo's nomination to the floor anyway.

Lynn Cheney just called him a terrorist sympathizer for this.

No worries, he flipped.

[Pyperkub]

Anonymous sources may be signalling the end for Scott Pruitt:

White House officials are cautioning Republican lawmakers and other conservative allies to temper their defense of Scott Pruitt, according to two people familiar with the discussions, in a sign that administration support for the embattled EPA chief may be waning.

The warnings come as several top GOP lawmakers have stepped forward to publicly criticize Pruitt in recent days, marking a dramatic turn of fortune for one of the most conservative members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet who has been heralded for dismantling Obama-era regulations...

...Pruitt’s performance in front of two congressional committees this week could be key in determining how long he remains at the agency’s helm. The back-to-back House hearings scheduled for Thursday -- nominally on the EPA budget -- are set to be Pruitt’s first public appearance on Capitol Hill since the deluge of damaging revelations that began late last month.

[malchior]

I don't get this Pruitt mess. Isn't there a *yuge* stable of Republicans who hate the EPA and love coal and gas?

[El Guapo]

I don't get this Pruitt mess. Isn't there a *yuge* stable of Republicans who hate the EPA and love coal and gas?

Yeah, and that's what's kept Pruitt's boat floating to date, against really staggering levels of clear corruption. The question is how long can that alone keep Pruitt going.

[Pyperkub]

I don't get this Pruitt mess. Isn't there a *yuge* stable of Republicans who hate the EPA and love coal and gas?

Yeah, and that's what's kept Pruitt's boat floating to date, against really staggering levels of clear corruption. The question is how long can that alone keep Pruitt going.

Not much, as a Coal Industry Lobbyist was confirmed as the #2 in the last week or so...

[malchior]

Only the best! Continuing a pattern that shows this administration is completely incompetent. Call me crazy but I don't think the best system to pick the person to run the biggest bureaucracy in the US government is the one where you fondly remember that they fudged your physical so you weren't called fat.

[Holman]

Only the best! Continuing a pattern that shows this administration is completely incompetent. Call me crazy but I don't think the best system to pick the person to run the biggest bureaucracy in the US government is the one where you fondly remember that they fudged your physical so you weren't called fat.

Wow. And he was supposed to be one of the only top-level appointees who *wasn't* tainted by scandal or incompetence.

I guess there's still... Elaine Chao maybe?

[pr0ner]

Only the best! Continuing a pattern that shows this administration is completely incompetent. Call me crazy but I don't think the best system to pick the person to run the biggest bureaucracy in the US government is the one where you fondly remember that they fudged your physical so you weren't called fat.

Wow. And he was supposed to be one of the only top-level appointees who *wasn't* tainted by scandal or incompetence.

I guess there's still... Elaine Chao maybe?

Mattis?

[Holman]

Only the best! Continuing a pattern that shows this administration is completely incompetent. Call me crazy but I don't think the best system to pick the person to run the biggest bureaucracy in the US government is the one where you fondly remember that they fudged your physical so you weren't called fat.

Wow. And he was supposed to be one of the only top-level appointees who *wasn't* tainted by scandal or incompetence.

I guess there's still... Elaine Chao maybe?

Mattis?

True. But Mattis' willingness to push back on Trump behind the scenes and thwart some of his worst impulses almost makes him a Deep State interloper.

[malchior]

According to CBS via TPM - the allegations amount to claims of creating hostile workplaces , excessive drinking on the job, and overprescribing meds. Good lord.

[pr0ner]

When Trump is having second thoughts about you, you know you've done something wrong.

[malchior]

Pruitt to roll out a maliciously misnamed 'transparency' rule to prevent research from being used in EPA decision making. The worst people are running this government.

[Pyperkub]

When Trump is having second thoughts about you, you know you've done something wrong.

Actually, as usual, it's Trump who f'd up and didn't do his homework by vetting him properly first.

[pr0ner]

When Trump is having second thoughts about you, you know you've done something wrong.

Actually, as usual, it's Trump who f'd up and didn't do his homework by vetting him properly first.

I'm sure Trump was trying to reward Jackson for doing him a solid on national TV and lying about his physical results. Couldn't possibly see that backfiring spectacularly.

[Alefroth]

When Trump is having second thoughts about you, you know you've done something wrong.

Actually, as usual, it's Trump who f'd up and didn't do his homework by vetting him properly first.

Isn't it actually Obama's fault?

[Pyperkub]

When Trump is having second thoughts about you, you know you've done something wrong.

Actually, as usual, it's Trump who f'd up and didn't do his homework by vetting him properly first.

Isn't it actually Obama's fault?

Gee, funny how the Fox News article ignores that he was actually W's Dr. first.

The point isn't whether he's good at that, the question is whether he should be a Cabinet member, which requires different vetting...

[Remus West]

Pruitt to roll out a maliciously misnamed 'transparency' rule to prevent research from being used in EPA decision making. The worst people are running this government.

Reading the article it almost sounds like he is finishing the job of crippling the agency ahead of being removed himself. Asshole can not be gone soon enough. Which also applies to this entire administration.

[malchior]

I don't think the rule survives the inevitable court case. Its only transparency is in how obvious it is designed to harm the ability of the EPA to be an effective regulatory body. It also puts it at odds with HIPAA rules and undermines the public good. It is malicious policy making at its worst.

[Holman]

Allegations made by Senator Jon Tester against Admiral/Doctor Ron Jackson are proving false. The Secret Service is unable to confirm (in fact they deny) any of the phony Democrat charges which have absolutely devastated the wonderful Jackson family. Tester should resign. The.....

....great people of Montana will not stand for this kind of slander when talking of a great human being. Admiral Jackson is the kind of man that those in Montana would most respect and admire, and now, for no reason whatsoever, his reputation has been shattered. Not fair, Tester!

Trump is calling for Senator Jon Tester to resign because he brought up the allegations against Jackson (which are not political charges but are sourced from numerous people who worked with Jackson).

In an unusual turn, Senator Johnny Isakson (Republican chair of the VA Committee) is backing Tester, presumably because he had access to the same sources Tester did.

If Trump and his supporters are so certain that Ronny Jackson's record could stand up to scrutiny, they could just re-nominate him. There's nothing stopping them.

[Fitzy]

If false allegations were the standard, Trump would have had to resign day 1.

[GreenGoo]

How much longer can Drumpf's base stay riled up? It's been 1.5 years or so, with the election campaign plus a year in office. These sorts of tweets have got to start losing their effectiveness at some point, no?

I read that tweet and I'm like "Drumpf is denigrating and complimenting 2 men that I don't know, and don't care about. What percentage of his base knows or cares, or even has the energy left to get angry?"

[Holman]

How much longer can Drumpf's base stay riled up? It's been 1.5 years or so, with the election campaign plus a year in office. These sorts of tweets have got to start losing their effectiveness at some point, no?

I read that tweet and I'm like "Drumpf is denigrating and complimenting 2 men that I don't know, and don't care about. What percentage of his base knows or cares, or even has the energy left to get angry?"

Angry Trump is strong. Angry Trump won't back down. Angry Trump is sticking it to the Libs. Rather than being tiring, it's exactly what they voted for.

If you read his feed, he alternates regularly between attacking his enemies, praising his friends (including most of all himself), and claiming all the facts vindicate him even when they very obviously don't. Trump fans believe he's winning all the arguments.

[hepcat]

As long as there are minorities he can demonize in order to keep his base scared, he’ll continue to be popular with them. The best we can hope for is that their children are smarter than they are and form their own opinions.

[YellowKing]

I wish people could just realize he's a shitty person, and we shouldn't support and reward shitty people. You don't even have to get into the politics of it. Just admit he's a terrible human being, and stop throwing your support to someone who is so terrible.

[Skinypupy]

How much longer can Drumpf's base stay riled up? It's been 1.5 years or so, with the election campaign plus a year in office. These sorts of tweets have got to start losing their effectiveness at some point, no?

I think you seriously underestimate the power of stigginit.

[GreenGoo]

I wish people could just realize he's a shitty person, and we shouldn't support and reward shitty people. You don't even have to get into the politics of it. Just admit he's a terrible human being, and stop throwing your support to someone who is so terrible.

+1.

[Max Peck]

How much longer can Drumpf's base stay riled up? It's been 1.5 years or so, with the election campaign plus a year in office. These sorts of tweets have got to start losing their effectiveness at some point, no?

I read that tweet and I'm like "Drumpf is denigrating and complimenting 2 men that I don't know, and don't care about. What percentage of his base knows or cares, or even has the energy left to get angry?"

You underestimate the power of the Dark Side of the Force propaganda. His supporters have always been angry and will always hate the nameless faceless entities that stand between them and the things they believe they deserve. Trump is giving them names and faces against which they can direct their anger and hatred - immigrants, minorities, "Deep State" swamp-dwellers, and so on. It energizes rather than enervates them.

[GreenGoo]

Being angry is very draining. being angry for over a year has got to be exhausting.

That's why I question the effectiveness of a constant stream of outrage fodder.

[Max Peck]

Trump's deplorables have been angry and resentful for their entire lives. He just gives them focus.

[GreenGoo]

Trump's deplorables have been angry and resentful for their entire lives. He just gives them focus.

Yeah, in a slow brew, and mostly resentment. Now it's rage, always on, all the time. They finally get to lash out without losing their jobs, maybe.