Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Massena's Trump Files III

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tuebor
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    I haven't read the decision, nor will I, but if your description is correct and Michigan law provides for 28 days, then I think you have a better handle on the law than the judge.
    When a statute places a time limit on the exercise of executive authority there is a reason for doing so.
    If the governor can simply, on her own authority, extend that time limit then the 28 days limit is meaningless.
    The rules of statutory construction require judges to give meaning to every part of the language of the statute. Her decision means the legislature put that 28 day limit in the statute for no reason.


    Regardless, given that the OP describes this decision as "good news", I will assume he also means to endorse Trump exercising executive power contrary to the wishes of the legislature too.
    There are two laws in effect. PA 302 of 1945 which gives the Governor authority to declare a state of emergency, and PA 390 of 1976 which, among other things, limits the state of emergency to 28 days, after which it may be extended by the Legislature. In the current case, the Governor received the 28 days, and the Legislature extended it another 13 days (which was far less than the 70 days the Governor requested). Upon the expiration of the extension (i.e. 11:59pm April 30th) Governor Whitmer ended the state of emergency, but issued another one minute later. It is the Governor's office claim that she is acting on the 1945 law, which has no limits on the length of an emergency. Her claim is, as I understand it, that the 1945 law preempts the 1976 law which limits the time of a governor's powers.

  • ljadw
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    Ignorant statement. Jews vote by a majority for the Dems.
    NO : they do not, unless you can prove that they are Jews ,which you can't : most ''Jews '' in the USA have since long cut all ties with the Jewish world,culture,religion and do not consider themselves as Jews .
    And those who vote Democrat while still being Jewish, do NOT vote Democrat because they are Jewish .The choice of Lieberman as candidate VP in 2000 did not increase the % of the Jewish vote for the Democrats :the highest % of '' Jewish "voters for the Democrats was in 1964,when there was no ''Jew '' on the Democratic ticket,but a former Jewish American as GOP candidate : Goldwater .
    There is NO Jewish vote in the US ,and no catholic vote : people do not vote for a party from religious reasons and most also not for reasons of origin : German Americans do not vote Democrat/Republican because of their origin, neither do Irish Americans,etc .
    Last point : there are NO Jews in the US,only Jewish Americans .Only anti -Semites call Jewish Americans American Jews .
    Jewish Americans are Americans who are Jewish wether by religion (almost extinct )ethnicity(going down )culture (diminishing )or nationality ( a very small group )
    Last edited by ljadw; 22 May 20, 08:49.

  • Cambronnne
    commented on 's reply
    It seems not all Michigan judges agree with Whitmer's ruling by decree.

    The Michigan Attorney General’s Office filed a request for an emergency temporary restraining order against barber Karl Manke when he refused to close his shop after receiving two citations — one for violating the governor’s executive stay-home order and another from the county health department.

    Shiawassee County Circuit Court Judge Matthew Stewart decided Thursday not to grant the attorney general’s request, allowing Manke to stay open.
    https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...el/5236925002/


    Like the decision in the OP, this ruling will likely be appealed too. I don't think the governor is going to win either case but we will see.
    It is sad that the state of Michigan has decided that destroying the a 77 year old barber's life is so important.
    But I'm sure it is for our common good , in her opinion at least.

  • ljadw
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    Do you know what quotes are?
    Where in post 8 can you find them talking about a possible second wave ?
    Gilday said : that threat is not going away any time soon .He did NOT say that there would be a second wave .

  • Cambronnne
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Then your assumption would be incorrect.

    Trump does act the dictator/tyrant and ignores the law and tries to do what he wants, not what the law or the courts decide. And that is a critical difference.

    Further, Governor Whitmer is doing the right thing and is supported by the majority of the Michigan population.

    Trump seldom, if ever, does the right thing, or anything for the benefit of the American people. Trump does what he believes is good for Trump-nobody else.
    So if Trump behaved exactly as governor Whitmer that would be bad news?

  • Cambronnne
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Rojik View Post

    Mental state, I don’t know. He does come across as a bit odd, but that is no big deal... most people that chase power strike me as odd. It’s more that he doesn’t have anything that looks like a plan. ‘I’m not him’ doesn’t cut it.
    Trump, for all his faults (and there are many) does things. Biden seems to do not much at all, and was a mover and shaker (and I use the term loosely) in what I see as an administration that didn’t do much but kick cans down the road.

    Very uninspiring, but I’m not sure that the Democrats can do inspiring without dodgy. I also think the real talent is keeping their powder dry for 2024.
    Thank you.
    I recognize all politicians say dumb things from time to time so perhaps I may be placing greater weight on some of his statements than I should. (I still think it is funny when he said "You know, the THING!" when trying to remember the declaration of independence)

    Biden strikes me as an odd choice for the dems, but perhaps no more than Trump was for the GOP.
    It seems to be that Biden has precisely the kind of baggage that dems would tend to reject. So his getting the nomination is somewhat surprising.


  • Massena
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Regardless, given that the OP describes this decision as "good news", I will assume he also means to endorse Trump exercising executive power contrary to the wishes of the legislature too.
    Then your assumption would be incorrect.

    Trump does act the dictator/tyrant and ignores the law and tries to do what he wants, not what the law or the courts decide. And that is a critical difference.

    Further, Governor Whitmer is doing the right thing and is supported by the majority of the Michigan population.

    Trump seldom, if ever, does the right thing, or anything for the benefit of the American people. Trump does what he believes is good for Trump-nobody else.

  • Cambronnne
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post

    Uh, an executive acting outside of legal authority is by definition totalitarianism. However, Judge Stephens talks out of both sides of her mouth re: the decision. On one hand she makes it clear that the Governor's authority is limited to 28 days, but then says the Legislature's case has no merit? According to Judge Stephen's decisions, a governor can continuously declare "states of emergency" indefinitely, which is preposterous. All a governor has to do, according to this decision, is wait until her four weeks are up, end the emergency, wait one minute, and declare a new one (which is exactly what happened) ad infinitum. Do you really believe this is a good thing?




    I haven't read the decision, nor will I, but if your description is correct and Michigan law provides for 28 days, then I think you have a better handle on the law than the judge.
    When a statute places a time limit on the exercise of executive authority there is a reason for doing so.
    If the governor can simply, on her own authority, extend that time limit then the 28 days limit is meaningless.
    The rules of statutory construction require judges to give meaning to every part of the language of the statute. Her decision means the legislature put that 28 day limit in the statute for no reason.


    Regardless, given that the OP describes this decision as "good news", I will assume he also means to endorse Trump exercising executive power contrary to the wishes of the legislature too.

  • Massena
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post

    Uh, an executive acting outside of legal authority is by definition totalitarianism. However, Judge Stephens talks out of both sides of her mouth re: the decision. On one hand she makes it clear that the Governor's authority is limited to 28 days, but then says the Legislature's case has no merit? According to Judge Stephen's decisions, a governor can continuously declare "states of emergency" indefinitely, which is preposterous. All a governor has to do, according to this decision, is wait until her four weeks are up, end the emergency, wait one minute, and declare a new one (which is exactly what happened) ad infinitum. Do you really believe this is a good thing?




    How is Governor Whitmer acting outside of her legal authority?

    If she was, then the courts would have overruled her.

  • Rojik
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post

    There is no "real talent" for 2024. Trump is not a politician and so does not act as one. His ego is no greater than his predecessor, but Obama knew how to couch his ego (for the most part) in a more "respectable" manor.

    "Educated" classes, or elites if you will, do not like Trump's manor of speaking, because it is "rough" and unpolished. Like you said he has his idiosyncrasies, and a sly devilish sense of humor (which most stuffed shirts do not get). He is quite blunt. Historically a no-no for a politician or a diplomat, but bluntness is seen as more of a positive trait in the U.S. than deflection and double talk. At this point, people are fed up with "standard" politicians. Hate Trump if you well, but he has connected well with the "common man," as no Republican has since. . . , and no Democrat since FDR, and that is a major major problem for ye olde Democrat. The workers have fled the party for "Trumpism," and will be a problem for any traditional Republican in the future if they believe that their base lies with those who believe a President should act with all the solemn dignity of a mortician.

    Policy-wise he is centrist, maybe tilting toward more Kennedyesque Democratism, but overall follows a more or less traditional American political line, which the Democrats have completely abandoned for European style leftist ideology.

    The Democrats really have no one of talent in its leadership even at lower levels. That will make it difficult to win in '24 (but not impossible--the political cycle plays a heavy roll in Presidential elections). It does not help that the Party itself is hopelessly blatantly corrupt, and is itself teetering on dissolution.

    We are in for an politically interesting third decade of the Millennium.


    That is a really good post. Balanced and thoughtful. I’d only disagree with your take on what the left is (your left is our centre) but that is by the by, on the rest I agree. Especially your point that the Democrats are imploding. I don’t think they will cease to exist, as nature abhors a vacuum, but they really need to reinvent themselves. It’s not good for anyone when there is no opposing thoughts, even if I they aren’t ones you like.
    I find politics interesting, US politics doubly so (nobody puts on a show like you do), and I’m more than a little dismayed and saddened that for such a great nation that there are so few people of talent that want to put their hands up. The Democrat primaries left me cold, and thinking that I’d rather eat a cup of cold sick than support any of them. But please don’t think I’m US kicking here. I find my own system full of the same too. Maybe it’s the new world. Soundbites over substance, and who but an ego head would take a massive pay cut and be grilled 24/7? I wouldn’t. So we get ego heads rather than people that have a plan.

    Or maybe we never had that, and as I get older I look back at golden days that really never were

  • Tuebor
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Absolute nonsense. Taking measures to ensure the safety of the citizens is not a 'totalitarian' act.

    And the idea that the judge ruled in her favor because he is a Democratic appointee is ridiculous.
    Uh, an executive acting outside of legal authority is by definition totalitarianism. However, Judge Stephens talks out of both sides of her mouth re: the decision. On one hand she makes it clear that the Governor's authority is limited to 28 days, but then says the Legislature's case has no merit? According to Judge Stephen's decisions, a governor can continuously declare "states of emergency" indefinitely, which is preposterous. All a governor has to do, according to this decision, is wait until her four weeks are up, end the emergency, wait one minute, and declare a new one (which is exactly what happened) ad infinitum. Do you really believe this is a good thing?






  • Tuebor
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Rojik View Post


    Very uninspiring, but I’m not sure that the Democrats can do inspiring without dodgy. I also think the real talent is keeping their powder dry for 2024.
    There is no "real talent" for 2024. Trump is not a politician and so does not act as one. His ego is no greater than his predecessor, but Obama knew how to couch his ego (for the most part) in a more "respectable" manor.

    "Educated" classes, or elites if you will, do not like Trump's manor of speaking, because it is "rough" and unpolished. Like you said he has his idiosyncrasies, and a sly devilish sense of humor (which most stuffed shirts do not get). He is quite blunt. Historically a no-no for a politician or a diplomat, but bluntness is seen as more of a positive trait in the U.S. than deflection and double talk. At this point, people are fed up with "standard" politicians. Hate Trump if you well, but he has connected well with the "common man," as no Republican has since. . . , and no Democrat since FDR, and that is a major major problem for ye olde Democrat. The workers have fled the party for "Trumpism," and will be a problem for any traditional Republican in the future if they believe that their base lies with those who believe a President should act with all the solemn dignity of a mortician.

    Policy-wise he is centrist, maybe tilting toward more Kennedyesque Democratism, but overall follows a more or less traditional American political line, which the Democrats have completely abandoned for European style leftist ideology.

    The Democrats really have no one of talent in its leadership even at lower levels. That will make it difficult to win in '24 (but not impossible--the political cycle plays a heavy roll in Presidential elections). It does not help that the Party itself is hopelessly blatantly corrupt, and is itself teetering on dissolution.

    We are in for an politically interesting third decade of the Millennium.




  • Massena
    commented on 's reply
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
    Good news if you are a totalitarian. We all knew she would win this round, because the judge is a Democratic appointee.
    Absolute nonsense. Taking measures to ensure the safety of the citizens is not a 'totalitarian' act.

    And the idea that the judge ruled in her favor because he is a Democratic appointee is ridiculous.


  • Tuebor
    commented on 's reply
    Good news if you are a totalitarian. We all knew she would win this round, because the judge is a Democratic appointee. If it had been a Republican appointed judge the end would have been the same. The losing party would appeal. In fact the judge said the same last week during oral arguments.

    So really no news. Good or bad.


  • Massena
    replied
    Governor Whitmer wins in court:

    https://news.yahoo.com/michigan-gove...l&uh_test=1_02

    Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer prevailed Thursday in a high-stakes challenge by Republican lawmakers who sued over her authority to declare emergencies and order sweeping restrictions during the coronavirus outbreak.

    A 1945 law cited by Whitmer, a Democrat, is not limited to regional emergencies and can have no end date, said Judge Cynthia Stephens of the Court of Claims.

    The opinion effectively means the governor's orders stand, including a stay-home decree that is likely to be extended beyond May 28.

    “It would take a particularly strained reading of the plain text of the (law) to conclude that a grant of authority to deal with a public crisis that affects all the people of this state would somehow be constrained to a certain locality,” Stephens said.

    The claims are “meritless,” she said.

    The lawsuit from the House and Senate grew out of frustration with Whitmer's one-size strategy to stop the spread of the coronavirus by keeping people at home statewide and shutting down businesses, even if regions far from the Detroit area were not harmed as much by the virus or COVID-19.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X