Tuesday Trump Thread

[redheadbaker]

Barr says the Trump administration can legally add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, breaking with the Supreme Court, which ruled against its inclusion last month.

thehill.com/homenews/administration/452043-barr-says-trump-admin-can-legally-add-citizenship-question-to-census

Attorney General William Barr said Monday that he believes the Trump administration can legally add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, though the Supreme Court ruled against its inclusion last month.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said he has been in regular contact with President Trump about the question, which the president is determined to see featured on the decennial survey.

[aurora]

Since when does the Attorney General override SCOTUS?

[Velar Fricative]

Barr isn't even hiding the fact that he's Trump's lawyer. That fucker is making me pine for Jeff Sessions wtf (not really but still).

[2curlydogs]

Hitler is going to be in Milwaukee on Friday and basically ruin everyone's week. It's Bastille Days starting Thursday. Downtown is going to be a fucking nightmare.

I swear if that shitface holds a rally you will probably see me on the nightly news.

[Vespasia]

House Judiciary Committee to vote Thursday on subpoenas for Kushner, Sessions, Kelly, and more:

www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/house-democrats-subpoenas-immigration/index.html

The committee is planning a Thursday vote to authorize the subpoenas, which would ratchet up the Democrat-led panel's investigation into possible obstruction of justice and examination of the Trump administration's immigration policies. The vote would allow Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, to issue the subpoenas at his discretion.


The committee has previously requested numerous documents related to immigration matters from the administration, but Tuesday's notice to authorize subpoenas is an escalation of those requests. It shows the committee is broadening the investigation into President Donald Trump as Democrats weigh whether to start an impeachment inquiry and comes ahead of former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees next week.

[Bernadine]

Jul 9, 2019 10:23:50 GMT -5 Vespasia said:

House Judiciary Committee to vote Thursday on subpoenas for Kushner, Sessions, Kelly, and more:

www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/house-democrats-subpoenas-immigration/index.html

The committee is planning a Thursday vote to authorize the subpoenas, which would ratchet up the Democrat-led panel's investigation into possible obstruction of justice and examination of the Trump administration's immigration policies. The vote would allow Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, to issue the subpoenas at his discretion.


The committee has previously requested numerous documents related to immigration matters from the administration, but Tuesday's notice to authorize subpoenas is an escalation of those requests. It shows the committee is broadening the investigation into President Donald Trump as Democrats weigh whether to start an impeachment inquiry and comes ahead of former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees next week.

Fucking finally.

[mbcdefg]

[cville]

ARGH $&*+!$###&<×!!

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL THESE PEOPLE WE ALSO NEED SOME FUCKING DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND GOVERNOR'S MANSIONS?!?!?

www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/09/tom-steyer-billionaire-pushing-to-impeach-trump-changes-mind-and-decides-to-run-for-president.html


Tom Steyer--go home

[cous0226]

Jul 9, 2019 8:44:26 GMT -5 kellady said:

Jul 9, 2019 8:17:38 GMT -5 aurora said:

Since when does the Attorney General override SCOTUS?

l guess since Trump became king. I’m sickened by this but I wonder how the SCOTUS will take to being possibly overruled by Trump and his toadies.

I don’t even know what to say to this possibility just holy fuck. What is left if they don’t even give a fuck about a SC decision.

[seeyalater52]

ACA oral arguments are today. I am having flashbacks to the one billionty other ACA lawsuits. Ugh.

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/09/739653482/the-affordable-care-act-is-back-in-court-5-facts-you-need-to-know

[cous0226]

I just saw on twitter that 45 said in the oval presser that he feels very badly for Acosta.

[anodyne]

Jul 9, 2019 11:58:31 GMT -5 cous0226 said:

I just saw on twitter that 45 said in the oval presser that he feels very badly for Acosta.

Twitter video link.

[downtoearth]

So... this is loosely Trump related b/c drug prices are a bit of a unity horse these days. But having TV ads disclose?! How does that even work. I have a drug that is $2k/month if out of pocket, but with insurance the co-pay is $200/month, and then coupled with some pharmaceutical co-pay assistance program I pay $20/month. So how does this work when prices are not fixed for anyone... especially for Medicare/Medicaid who negotiate drug prices, right? I mean, we need more transparency in pricing, but this is crazy to require TV ads to add the cost at the end.

Judge strikes down rule requiring drug ads to reveal prices

The narrow ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., struck down a requirement that was set to go into effect within hours, on Tuesday. Drugmakers had argued that requiring them to disclose list prices amounted to coercion that would violate their free speech rights under the Constitution.

But in his 27-page ruling Mehta avoided debating the First Amendment, saying simply that the Trump administration had failed to show it had legal authority under the statutes that govern federal programs such as Medicare to require price disclosure.

He wrote that neither the law’s “text, structure, nor context evince an intent by Congress to empower (administrative agencies) to issue a rule that compels drug manufacturers to disclose list prices.”

Mehta also said he wasn’t questioning the motives of the Health and Human Services Department, which issued the price disclosure rule. He suggested the administration could even be right on the merits.

www.apnews.com/77f6b6815a374226a4f4d44af82b251e

Oh and I will say that the doctors and pharmacies need to have this info and know how to help their individual patients make drug decisions IMO. Having "Tremolyifyahiatate costs between $200 and $4000 per dose." as a rider on a commercial dose nothing for real change or transparency when making medical decisions on pharmaceutical prescriptions.

[Velar Fricative]

Trump still can't block people on Twitter.

www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html

I love the argument from his lawyers about this just being his personal account. Thankfully the judges called shenanigans on that.

[Velar Fricative]

Poor Acosta. Now where did I put that tiny violin?

[isabel]

Jul 9, 2019 8:13:13 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

Barr says the Trump administration can legally add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, breaking with the Supreme Court, which ruled against its inclusion last month.

thehill.com/homenews/administration/452043-barr-says-trump-admin-can-legally-add-citizenship-question-to-census

Attorney General William Barr said Monday that he believes the Trump administration can legally add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, though the Supreme Court ruled against its inclusion last month.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said he has been in regular contact with President Trump about the question, which the president is determined to see featured on the decennial survey.

DH and I had a conversation about this in which I asserted that the norms of our government do not apply to this man and so if wants the question on the census, he'll get it. DH looked at me like *I'm* the crazy person and said there's no way they can legally do that.

Uh huh. Yeah. As if that ever fucking mattered.

[seeyalater52]

OH SHIT.

Leaving the Fifth Circuit Obamacare case now. Short news is it went very badly. The two Republican judges appear determined to strike Obamacare.



There is a chance they will be too embarrassed to do so, but don’t bet on it.

[downtoearth]

Jul 9, 2019 14:58:29 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

OH SHIT.

Leaving the Fifth Circuit Obamacare case now. Short news is it went very badly. The two Republican judges appear determined to strike Obamacare.



There is a chance they will be too embarrassed to do so, but don’t bet on it.

This is not good. So no subsidies and ACA b/c there is no taxation/penalty part? That is the crux, right?

[seeyalater52]

Jul 9, 2019 15:13:52 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Jul 9, 2019 14:58:29 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

OH SHIT.

Leaving the Fifth Circuit Obamacare case now. Short news is it went very badly. The two Republican judges appear determined to strike Obamacare.



There is a chance they will be too embarrassed to do so, but don’t bet on it.

This is not good. So no subsidies and ACA b/c there is no taxation/penalty part? That is the crux, right?

The lower court struck down the ENTIRE ACA (all of it) because the mandate was repealed by Congress (they venue shopped a lot to get that evil judge.) The argument that because Congress repealed the mandate that they actually intended to repeal the entire law (which they tried and FAILED to do repeatedly) is just unbelievably asinine. 

[downtoearth]

Jul 9, 2019 15:15:52 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Jul 9, 2019 15:13:52 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This is not good. So no subsidies and ACA b/c there is no taxation/penalty part? That is the crux, right?

The lower court struck down the ENTIRE ACA (all of it) because the mandate was repealed by Congress (they venue shopped a lot to get that evil judge.) The argument that because Congress repealed the mandate that they actually intended to repeal the entire law (which they tried and FAILED to do repeatedly) is just unbelievably asinine. 

Thanks. I feel like the lower court decision was so out there that I wasn't sure the basis for the appeal and if they would change their tact for defending the lower court's decision. Ugh.

Congress is not going to ever repeal the whole thing b/c it is working! I mean, they want to look like they repealed it without actually taking away their constituents health insurance, right? So now this is the way to do that... "we elected officials didn't take your health insurance, it was the court b/c the law was so weird (and b/c they argued that we elected officials wanted to do that, but didn't have the backbone.)"

[biscoffcookies]

Jul 9, 2019 14:58:29 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

OH SHIT.

Leaving the Fifth Circuit Obamacare case now. Short news is it went very badly. The two Republican judges appear determined to strike Obamacare.



There is a chance they will be too embarrassed to do so, but don’t bet on it.

Ugh. Maybe they will be able to get em banc hearing and maybe a full panel of the Court will be better. But ugh.

[seeyalater52]

Jul 9, 2019 15:30:26 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

Jul 9, 2019 14:58:29 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

OH SHIT.

Leaving the Fifth Circuit Obamacare case now. Short news is it went very badly. The two Republican judges appear determined to strike Obamacare.



There is a chance they will be too embarrassed to do so, but don’t bet on it.

Ugh. Maybe they will be able to get em banc hearing and maybe a full panel of the Court will be better. But ugh.

Possibly. I haven’t heard any rumblings that there is a push for that. I’m not a lawyer but it seems the 5th circuit is a pretty dismal lot. It might be better to just go straight to SCOTUS to try to get a ruling next session so it’s pre-election. But we aren’t involved in the suit so that is just speculation.

[scout8]

seeyalater52, if the appeals court upholds the lower court's decision, could the dismantling happen immediately? Or would there be a hold until it gets in front of SCOTUS?

[seeyalater52]

Jul 9, 2019 15:53:30 GMT -5 scout8 said:

seeyalater52, if the appeals court upholds the lower court's decision, could the dismantling happen immediately? Or would there be a hold until it gets in front of SCOTUS?

I cant imagine a world where SCOTUS would not put a stay on the ruling. It would be absolute chaos and premature to move forward with dismantling it outside of a final ruling.

[ESF]

Jul 9, 2019 15:46:03 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Jul 9, 2019 15:30:26 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

Ugh. Maybe they will be able to get em banc hearing and maybe a full panel of the Court will be better. But ugh.

Possibly. I haven’t heard any rumblings that there is a push for that. I’m not a lawyer but it seems the 5th circuit is a pretty dismal lot. It might be better to just go straight to SCOTUS to try to get a ruling next session so it’s pre-election. But we aren’t involved in the suit so that is just speculation.

Yeah, I think I'd take my chances with John Roberts over the entire 5th circuit. 

[seeyalater52]

Jul 9, 2019 16:37:21 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jul 9, 2019 15:46:03 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Possibly. I haven’t heard any rumblings that there is a push for that. I’m not a lawyer but it seems the 5th circuit is a pretty dismal lot. It might be better to just go straight to SCOTUS to try to get a ruling next session so it’s pre-election. But we aren’t involved in the suit so that is just speculation.

Yeah, I think I'd take my chances with John Roberts over the entire 5th circuit. 

Every time I think to myself that Roberts might save us from this mess I gag a little. What a terrible place to be.

But we are 2/2 with ACA lawsuits and it is admittedly a little hard to imagine someone like Roberts blowing everything up like that in June of an election year. Maybe.

[moonriver]

Jul 9, 2019 12:14:58 GMT -5 anodyne said:

Jul 9, 2019 11:58:31 GMT -5 cous0226 said:

I just saw on twitter that 45 said in the oval presser that he feels very badly for Acosta.

Twitter video link.

At the beginning, he’s talking about Epstein, right? I think he’s trying pretty hard to distance himself from him....

[StrawberryBlondie]

I just got a news alert that a federal judge ruled that the census case lawyer swap can't happen.

[aurora]

Jul 9, 2019 17:49:50 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I just got a news alert that a federal judge ruled that the census case lawyer swap can't happen.

That's probably good news, right? Because the original lawyers don't want to reverse course?

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 9, 2019 17:53:02 GMT -5 aurora said:

Jul 9, 2019 17:49:50 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I just got a news alert that a federal judge ruled that the census case lawyer swap can't happen.

That's probably good news, right? Because the original lawyers don't want to reverse course?

Yes, it's good. The credible speculation I'm hearing is that the swap of lawyers happened because the attorneys previously on the team felt they couldn't make any arguments without violating professional conduct rules.