I just pre-ordered John Bolton's book. I'm sure it will be fascinating, but it also gets bonus points for simultaneously defending the First Amendment and being a huge "one-fingered salute" to Trump.
Let me echo the thanks of all of us for the many hours of hard work you put into these 'Letters from an American'. They comprise an important part of my soul's daily bread. They nourish my mind and spirit, and provide a perspective that helps keep me oriented and at least marginally hopeful. The realization that we have, as a nation, faced so much in the past that threatened our continued existence, and somehow managed to wobble our way forward is a wee, small glimmer in the dark tunnel of these times. Gosh, that sounded pretty dark coming from a woman who's a cockeyed optimist at heart!
I'm just starting into Heather's "History of the Republican Party" . It is somehow reassuring that we have been through this all before...and we've come out the other side smiling as we beat it at the polls. Onward and upward as you say. Life is a rising spiral which means that at some point in the future we'll face this again...but in a different form. That's how we collectively grow.
I have just successfully downloaded the electronic book of "History..." as well from my public library and can't wait to start digging into it tonight!
I still like to feel the book in my hands and have it on a shelf to go back to when i feel like it. I much prefer reading on paper to watching the screen
“Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals.” So then based on Graham's statement, if I don't want to hire, say, a Republican because they don't align with my moral and political beliefs that should be my right. Considering his statement, I guess we could fill in the blanks. I don't want to hire people because their skin color, gender, heritage, etc do not align. "Christian organizations", their hypocrisy makes me so enraged.
Whole lotta news to digest yesterday! I am not terribly surprised by Trump's response to the SCOTUS LGBTQ ruling. He has never really cared about sexuality except when he is riling up his base and his policies regarding sex/gender discrimination have been oxymoronic as a result: telling the press that Caitlin Jenner can use "whatever bathroom she wants to" while trying to remove protections for trans* people in the military. One reason for this is Ivanka's support for her personal coterie of LGBT friends, without whom she could never have functioned as a businessperson in the fashion world. I am far, far more worried about protections for women's bodily integrity and autonomy being eviscerated by this court.
Trump's reaction is no surprise. He likely had not yet been told what his opinion should be. He has no opinions of his own, he isn't smart enough to hold one.
Unless someone inside the WH leaks information to the contrary, I would think DT feels confident that the Supreme Court majority his ally Senator McConnell has secured for him, will not act to his personal detriment. He may be surprised, and we may be heartened, if they support the right of Congress and the courts to conduct investigations that touch on his finances. Personally, I have no idea what they will do but I am prepared to be disappointed.
Untill the GOP rats start to desert the sinking ship. Then life might not be so much fun for Trump. They are currently positioned by the polls to lose the control of the Senate and will have to choose between Trump and losing their job, perks, power and ...possible face accusations from all levels of lawbreaking and corruption
I have been waiting for a while for rats to jump from the Trump ship. Bolton looks like he's going, and Mary Trump, too. Why there aren't more is a mystery.
The Supreme Court has already decided the case - we're just waiting for the decision to be delivered. Whatever political calculations went into the vote are set by this point.
As for rats, the party of Trump is full of them and some will jump - already have - Mary and John are cases in point.
A clarification: The following decisions were argued in May and may not yet have been completed. Those argued earlier are most likely further along in the writing process:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com (argued May 4, 2020): Whether the addition of “.com” to an otherwise generic term by an online business can create a protectable trademark.
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (argued May 5, 2020): Whether the federal government can require foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that receive federal funds to have policies expressly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
Little Sisters of the Poor Sts. Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania) (argued May 6, 2020): Whether the expansion of the conscience exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate violated the ACA and the laws governing federal administrative agencies.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (argued May 6, 2020): Whether an exception for government-debt collection to a federal law that bars robocalls to cellphones is unconstitutional.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (consolidated with St. James School v. Biel) (argued May 11, 2020): Whether courts can hear employment discrimination claims brought by teachers at Catholic elementary schools.
McGirt v. Oklahoma (argued May 11, 2020): Whether land set up in the 19th century in eastern Oklahoma for the Creek Nation remains a reservation for purposes of a federal law that requires some major crimes committed on a reservation by or against Indians to be prosecuted as federal crimes.
Trump v. Mazars USA (consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank) (argued May 12, 2020): Whether congressional committees have the authority to issue subpoenas to the president’s accountant and creditors for financial records belonging to the president and his business entities.
Trump v. Vance (argued May 12, 2020): Whether the Manhattan district attorney can obtain the president’s tax returns as part of a state grand-jury investigation.
Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca (argued May 13, 2020): Whether state “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way that state law directs, are constitutional. Although both cases involve the same issue, they were argued separately because Justice Sonia Sotomayor is recused from the Colorado case.
Based on this vague waffle -- "we live with the decision of the Supreme Court…. Very powerful, very powerful decision actually, but they have so ruled” -- it sounds very much like he hasn't read it or had it explained to him yet!
"Minister Franklin Graham, who has said that God ensured Trump’s election, wrote on Facebook that it was an attack on religious freedom. 'Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals.'”
If anybody in the world needs to be careful what they wish for in this realm it is Franklin Graham.
Franklin Graham is as "Christian" as he is "conservative." In other words, not much. These people are NOT "Christians," they're Fundamentalists - the Fundamentalists masquerading as Christians share the world view of the Fundamentalists masquerading as Muslims, Jews and Hindus. As far as "conservative," they are far right wing radicals who have hijacked that honorable word.
Just to parse his statement a bit, is he saying it is ok for non-Christians to be forced to hire Christians, but not the other way around? And further, is freedom of religion a right that only Christians (specifically those who practice his brand of Christianity) enjoy?
Would you like a little “theocracy” with that burger?
This agnostic is no more a Satanist than than any other myth following cult, but I really admire their pushing the First Amendment by insisting their statues and edicts go up any place that the Christians go. Even Satanist Prayers wherever Christian prayers are allowed. A lot of ppl only got the message of Separation of Church & State when they had to choose to allow the Satanist churches in. :)
The most shocking thing he said was “I’ve read the decision." He sounded almost convincing until he reverted to one of his favorite adjectives and called it a "powerful" decision. One wonders if he's even aware of Justice Jackson's famous line from Brown v. Allen that gives power to every SCOTUS decision: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
His past behaviors suggest to me that he's hopping mad at Gorsuch. And fawning all over Kavanaugh. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the WH yesterday. By Saturday Steve Miller will have shifted talking points to lure religious conservatives back into the fold: "Worst opinion ever issued by SCOTUS."
Though tough to stomach, it could be an interesting display in Tulsa. He really can't slam the Court too hard since he's named 2 justices in what was supposed to be part of the grand plan to shift the bench. But he has yet to demonstrate oratory skill necessary to deliver such nuance. That takes patience and practice, two skills missing from his quiver. If the West Point delivery is any indicator, expect his greatest hits with a hot mess of race and gender topics sprinkled in. One thing's for certain: Sarah Cooper must be giddy with anticipation.
SCOTUS still hasn’t ruled on cases where 45 has skin in the game, like turning over his taxes or his ability to snub subpoenas. You’ll see him go nuclear if any of those go against him. In the meantime he’ll suck it up. And, apparently, suck up.
Sadly, I'm still inclined to think that HCR's initial "I've got a bad feeling about this" response to DJT's "we have to abide by the Court's decision" remark is probably the most likely result. I hope that our guts are wrong.
Took a step back from the SCOTUS decisions (huzzah!) to a view of that body as a whole. Alito and Thomas are roughly 70 years old. Do you think it's possible we may see another "retirement" on The Trump's watch? The goal: To bring in another/other young-by-comparison frat boy(s) to ensure the conservative tilt of the court? What substance/advantage is there to talk of growing the number of SCOTUS justices if Biden is elected? Do I ask a lot of questions? Yes/no?
As i understand it there is no constitutional limit on the number of justices but once you start down that road others can follow. You end up losing all credibility for SCOTUS.
Been done before. And this time around, given the games McConnell played with Merrick Garland and packing courts lately with completely unqualified nominees, it is time to do it again.
I find it odd (not really) that one of the Republican senators (Rand Paul, Graham?) said that the liberal justices should retire because they are old, but somehow failed to mention the conservative justices.
I just want to say thank you for all of the hard work that goes into your letters every day. I have learned so much from them. They really make this time of chaos endurable. Thank you!!!!!
I was surprised at Trump's comment about the Supreme Court LGBTQ ruling, too. But I have learned that liars lie, a simple statement, but true. So, I imagine Trump said what he said for some deceptive purposes, for example, paving a small patch to stand on that "shows" his "respect" for the independent judiciary.
I salute US forces for their stance on this. I knew that your military have the right values and a command chain that supports those. Keep up with your good traditions!
North Korea just blew up the joint liaison office and deployed troops to the border. Now, let us see what Trump's miracle friendship can do with that. Don't hold your breath, I bet it will be a Singapore 2. Same go for the Balkan peace talks and the Middle East. Singapore 3 and 4.
Wait till we see Trump firing the military command and trying to get friendlier people in charge just like he's done in the rest of the fed gov. How's that for defending national security? Trump, not America. First in every case.
There's an interesting development at the Treasury, relating to an esoteric aspect of federal funds: Normally, the Treasury keeps about $200-400B on hand to pay for things. It can either hold the funds in its own Treasury General Account (TGA) or it can place the funds in commercial bank accounts. Holding the funds in the TGA is like keeping your money under your mattress -- it's still there, but it's not part of the larger money supply, circulating around. When the Treasury places its funds in commercial bank accounts, it is A LOT like when the Fed injects liquidity into the system through the loan repurchase ("repo") market -- a large pool of cash is made available to fund a range of business/economic activities, and it generally leads to a boost in the markets.
So here's where things potentially get weird. It appears the Treasury is now sitting on $1.5T in its TGA -- about FIVE TIMES the normal amount. Now, one could argue that it's simply because stimulus money is passing through there, but there is growing speculation that the White House is actually holding onto those funds so that it can provide a large injection of liquidity (and send stocks skyrocketing) right before the election. They know that the Fed won't allow the markets to completely collapse in the interim. Whatever the case, it's highly unusual for them to amass funds on that scale. As an aside, a really surprising twist would be if Mnuchin is refusing to disclose how the $500B was distributed because it *hasn't* been distributed, and they don't want to have to explain that it's part of an October surprise.
This is scary. It almost seems like an acknowledgement that the current administration will not be around when the time comes to explain the market crash that would surely following such a large influx of cash.
I find it amazing that the Supreme Court only took 56 years - 56 YEARS!!! - to decide that LGBTQ individuals are actually human and have rights too. Now how about women? And with all due respect to those of faith - I’ll understand the evangelicals‘, such as Franklin Graham’s, position when they pay their fair share in taxes.
I just pre-ordered John Bolton's book. I'm sure it will be fascinating, but it also gets bonus points for simultaneously defending the First Amendment and being a huge "one-fingered salute" to Trump.
Let me echo the thanks of all of us for the many hours of hard work you put into these 'Letters from an American'. They comprise an important part of my soul's daily bread. They nourish my mind and spirit, and provide a perspective that helps keep me oriented and at least marginally hopeful. The realization that we have, as a nation, faced so much in the past that threatened our continued existence, and somehow managed to wobble our way forward is a wee, small glimmer in the dark tunnel of these times. Gosh, that sounded pretty dark coming from a woman who's a cockeyed optimist at heart!
Onward and upward!
I'm just starting into Heather's "History of the Republican Party" . It is somehow reassuring that we have been through this all before...and we've come out the other side smiling as we beat it at the polls. Onward and upward as you say. Life is a rising spiral which means that at some point in the future we'll face this again...but in a different form. That's how we collectively grow.
I have just successfully downloaded the electronic book of "History..." as well from my public library and can't wait to start digging into it tonight!
I still like to feel the book in my hands and have it on a shelf to go back to when i feel like it. I much prefer reading on paper to watching the screen
That one is on my list to read
“Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals.” So then based on Graham's statement, if I don't want to hire, say, a Republican because they don't align with my moral and political beliefs that should be my right. Considering his statement, I guess we could fill in the blanks. I don't want to hire people because their skin color, gender, heritage, etc do not align. "Christian organizations", their hypocrisy makes me so enraged.
Whole lotta news to digest yesterday! I am not terribly surprised by Trump's response to the SCOTUS LGBTQ ruling. He has never really cared about sexuality except when he is riling up his base and his policies regarding sex/gender discrimination have been oxymoronic as a result: telling the press that Caitlin Jenner can use "whatever bathroom she wants to" while trying to remove protections for trans* people in the military. One reason for this is Ivanka's support for her personal coterie of LGBT friends, without whom she could never have functioned as a businessperson in the fashion world. I am far, far more worried about protections for women's bodily integrity and autonomy being eviscerated by this court.
Trump's reaction is no surprise. He likely had not yet been told what his opinion should be. He has no opinions of his own, he isn't smart enough to hold one.
I agree and don't think trump understood the significance of the decision when he made that comment.
Unless someone inside the WH leaks information to the contrary, I would think DT feels confident that the Supreme Court majority his ally Senator McConnell has secured for him, will not act to his personal detriment. He may be surprised, and we may be heartened, if they support the right of Congress and the courts to conduct investigations that touch on his finances. Personally, I have no idea what they will do but I am prepared to be disappointed.
Untill the GOP rats start to desert the sinking ship. Then life might not be so much fun for Trump. They are currently positioned by the polls to lose the control of the Senate and will have to choose between Trump and losing their job, perks, power and ...possible face accusations from all levels of lawbreaking and corruption
I have been waiting for a while for rats to jump from the Trump ship. Bolton looks like he's going, and Mary Trump, too. Why there aren't more is a mystery.
The Supreme Court has already decided the case - we're just waiting for the decision to be delivered. Whatever political calculations went into the vote are set by this point.
As for rats, the party of Trump is full of them and some will jump - already have - Mary and John are cases in point.
A clarification: The following decisions were argued in May and may not yet have been completed. Those argued earlier are most likely further along in the writing process:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com (argued May 4, 2020): Whether the addition of “.com” to an otherwise generic term by an online business can create a protectable trademark.
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (argued May 5, 2020): Whether the federal government can require foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that receive federal funds to have policies expressly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
Little Sisters of the Poor Sts. Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania) (argued May 6, 2020): Whether the expansion of the conscience exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate violated the ACA and the laws governing federal administrative agencies.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (argued May 6, 2020): Whether an exception for government-debt collection to a federal law that bars robocalls to cellphones is unconstitutional.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (consolidated with St. James School v. Biel) (argued May 11, 2020): Whether courts can hear employment discrimination claims brought by teachers at Catholic elementary schools.
McGirt v. Oklahoma (argued May 11, 2020): Whether land set up in the 19th century in eastern Oklahoma for the Creek Nation remains a reservation for purposes of a federal law that requires some major crimes committed on a reservation by or against Indians to be prosecuted as federal crimes.
Trump v. Mazars USA (consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank) (argued May 12, 2020): Whether congressional committees have the authority to issue subpoenas to the president’s accountant and creditors for financial records belonging to the president and his business entities.
Trump v. Vance (argued May 12, 2020): Whether the Manhattan district attorney can obtain the president’s tax returns as part of a state grand-jury investigation.
Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca (argued May 13, 2020): Whether state “faithless elector” laws, which require presidential electors to vote the way that state law directs, are constitutional. Although both cases involve the same issue, they were argued separately because Justice Sonia Sotomayor is recused from the Colorado case.
Source: "Howe on the Court" http://amylhowe.com/
Based on this vague waffle -- "we live with the decision of the Supreme Court…. Very powerful, very powerful decision actually, but they have so ruled” -- it sounds very much like he hasn't read it or had it explained to him yet!
"Minister Franklin Graham, who has said that God ensured Trump’s election, wrote on Facebook that it was an attack on religious freedom. 'Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry’s purpose and goals.'”
If anybody in the world needs to be careful what they wish for in this realm it is Franklin Graham.
Franklin Graham is as "Christian" as he is "conservative." In other words, not much. These people are NOT "Christians," they're Fundamentalists - the Fundamentalists masquerading as Christians share the world view of the Fundamentalists masquerading as Muslims, Jews and Hindus. As far as "conservative," they are far right wing radicals who have hijacked that honorable word.
Just to parse his statement a bit, is he saying it is ok for non-Christians to be forced to hire Christians, but not the other way around? And further, is freedom of religion a right that only Christians (specifically those who practice his brand of Christianity) enjoy?
Would you like a little “theocracy” with that burger?
and that is what i meant by be careful what you wish for cause this can bite him in the butt in so many ways.
This agnostic is no more a Satanist than than any other myth following cult, but I really admire their pushing the First Amendment by insisting their statues and edicts go up any place that the Christians go. Even Satanist Prayers wherever Christian prayers are allowed. A lot of ppl only got the message of Separation of Church & State when they had to choose to allow the Satanist churches in. :)
I may be wrong, but I think faith-based organizations already have freedoms to be choosier in who they hire than non-faith-based organizations do.
The most shocking thing he said was “I’ve read the decision." He sounded almost convincing until he reverted to one of his favorite adjectives and called it a "powerful" decision. One wonders if he's even aware of Justice Jackson's famous line from Brown v. Allen that gives power to every SCOTUS decision: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
His past behaviors suggest to me that he's hopping mad at Gorsuch. And fawning all over Kavanaugh. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the WH yesterday. By Saturday Steve Miller will have shifted talking points to lure religious conservatives back into the fold: "Worst opinion ever issued by SCOTUS."
Though tough to stomach, it could be an interesting display in Tulsa. He really can't slam the Court too hard since he's named 2 justices in what was supposed to be part of the grand plan to shift the bench. But he has yet to demonstrate oratory skill necessary to deliver such nuance. That takes patience and practice, two skills missing from his quiver. If the West Point delivery is any indicator, expect his greatest hits with a hot mess of race and gender topics sprinkled in. One thing's for certain: Sarah Cooper must be giddy with anticipation.
SCOTUS still hasn’t ruled on cases where 45 has skin in the game, like turning over his taxes or his ability to snub subpoenas. You’ll see him go nuclear if any of those go against him. In the meantime he’ll suck it up. And, apparently, suck up.
Sadly, I'm still inclined to think that HCR's initial "I've got a bad feeling about this" response to DJT's "we have to abide by the Court's decision" remark is probably the most likely result. I hope that our guts are wrong.
P.S. Another factor in the tightrope he needs to walk with SCOTUS: Mazars decision is still pending.
Took a step back from the SCOTUS decisions (huzzah!) to a view of that body as a whole. Alito and Thomas are roughly 70 years old. Do you think it's possible we may see another "retirement" on The Trump's watch? The goal: To bring in another/other young-by-comparison frat boy(s) to ensure the conservative tilt of the court? What substance/advantage is there to talk of growing the number of SCOTUS justices if Biden is elected? Do I ask a lot of questions? Yes/no?
As i understand it there is no constitutional limit on the number of justices but once you start down that road others can follow. You end up losing all credibility for SCOTUS.
Been done before. And this time around, given the games McConnell played with Merrick Garland and packing courts lately with completely unqualified nominees, it is time to do it again.
I find it odd (not really) that one of the Republican senators (Rand Paul, Graham?) said that the liberal justices should retire because they are old, but somehow failed to mention the conservative justices.
I just want to say thank you for all of the hard work that goes into your letters every day. I have learned so much from them. They really make this time of chaos endurable. Thank you!!!!!
I was surprised at Trump's comment about the Supreme Court LGBTQ ruling, too. But I have learned that liars lie, a simple statement, but true. So, I imagine Trump said what he said for some deceptive purposes, for example, paving a small patch to stand on that "shows" his "respect" for the independent judiciary.
It's also possible that he had already discounted the ruling and intends both to get round it by dubious executive action and use it a campaign theme.
I salute US forces for their stance on this. I knew that your military have the right values and a command chain that supports those. Keep up with your good traditions!
North Korea just blew up the joint liaison office and deployed troops to the border. Now, let us see what Trump's miracle friendship can do with that. Don't hold your breath, I bet it will be a Singapore 2. Same go for the Balkan peace talks and the Middle East. Singapore 3 and 4.
Wait till we see Trump firing the military command and trying to get friendlier people in charge just like he's done in the rest of the fed gov. How's that for defending national security? Trump, not America. First in every case.
There's an interesting development at the Treasury, relating to an esoteric aspect of federal funds: Normally, the Treasury keeps about $200-400B on hand to pay for things. It can either hold the funds in its own Treasury General Account (TGA) or it can place the funds in commercial bank accounts. Holding the funds in the TGA is like keeping your money under your mattress -- it's still there, but it's not part of the larger money supply, circulating around. When the Treasury places its funds in commercial bank accounts, it is A LOT like when the Fed injects liquidity into the system through the loan repurchase ("repo") market -- a large pool of cash is made available to fund a range of business/economic activities, and it generally leads to a boost in the markets.
So here's where things potentially get weird. It appears the Treasury is now sitting on $1.5T in its TGA -- about FIVE TIMES the normal amount. Now, one could argue that it's simply because stimulus money is passing through there, but there is growing speculation that the White House is actually holding onto those funds so that it can provide a large injection of liquidity (and send stocks skyrocketing) right before the election. They know that the Fed won't allow the markets to completely collapse in the interim. Whatever the case, it's highly unusual for them to amass funds on that scale. As an aside, a really surprising twist would be if Mnuchin is refusing to disclose how the $500B was distributed because it *hasn't* been distributed, and they don't want to have to explain that it's part of an October surprise.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/dollar-liquidity%3A-2-catalysts-2020-06-15
This is scary. It almost seems like an acknowledgement that the current administration will not be around when the time comes to explain the market crash that would surely following such a large influx of cash.
I find it amazing that the Supreme Court only took 56 years - 56 YEARS!!! - to decide that LGBTQ individuals are actually human and have rights too. Now how about women? And with all due respect to those of faith - I’ll understand the evangelicals‘, such as Franklin Graham’s, position when they pay their fair share in taxes.
Disappointed by Bolton not jumping in the impeachment fire, but never underestimating Bolton.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Trump’s response to SCOTUS decision makes me wonder, “is this a gimme?”