Shocking: Some Asian Americans thought Trump would be appointing conservative supreme judges if elected, guarantee for the safety of our future generations. . That's your wishful thinking. Why? Read on..
These sentences struck me:
很遗憾，很多华人被歧视了也不觉得是歧视，中国当代国内文化教育的产物 - 霍人 - ♂
• 川普的不顾一切竭力维护美国人的观点，最终会导致反所有移民。 - 游玩了 - ♀
竞选诺言是选民判读投票的依据，民主的基本机制。出尔反尔随心所欲完全是独裁的做派 - 非否 - ♀
Some identified themselves as "美国人" - think again if Trump thinks you're "美国人" because of legality of your status; however, - In his language, you're "Chinese" or "Muslims" or "Mexican"
Watch out his word: A president is as good as his word! You can't say something for fun as every word counts. You can't say "Nuke them" ; then, you say, "just kidding."
Hey, "Nuke" ! Nuke! Nuclear Bomb - can you play with nuclear bomb !!????????????
Ask yourself, can you afford to be kidding? How can you avoid being kidding?
Ask for Trump "blueprints" "Footprints" - "I love Chinese" - Tell me How Trump can show his love to Chinese with his "blueprints" "Footprints", showing WHAT and HOW he can implement his "blueprints" "Footprints."
His slogans, insulting the public intellectual intelligence, can't win my vote.
Alert even that, as Trump "later reiterated its nonbinding nature" (below), none of his word worth trusting as in his nature.
Expect Trump anti-big banks? All his real estate was about working with big banks! History tells all, but you won't listen as you're biased for your own wishful thinking.
Hint: As dictator as Trump, Trump only wants Kissing ass, sucking up, followers, as he said "I love poorly educated people", even suprem judges, as you can tell he clearly can't handle any criticism. If you wanna to be a public servant, you're under magnifying glasses with spot light, all the time, under close scrutiny. You gotta take any criticism, well enough to satisfy the public curiosity. • 嗯，川普的风格，一听到不是赞美的声音立马气急败坏 - 霍人 - ♂
After all, the US President serves all of the voters, not of some of Kissing ass, sucking up, followers; as Abe Lincoln said wisely, goverment is of, by, and for the people, all of the voters of the United States of America - United! If you can't unite, go away!
You wanna truth, Trump is all about "of, by, and for himself." He won't give a damn about you. How do you know that? "Show me the mondy. Follow the money." So true, American dollar is the back bond of the US, but money intertwins with American value = American dollar = global influence = global spending(The US uses 自由民主的思想 (普世价值) to stabilize $$$$ for global influence)It doesn't matter who's in the White House, the US President gotta be a global leader, spending $$$$ for buying influence, in turn to stabilize the American value = American dollar, leading to prosperity, gasoline ~$3 per gallon. http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/57970/201605/937992.html
Maybe not. Then, you gotta conclude that, logically, Trump can't think/talk straight, as assessed by a hardcore GOP Fmr. aide to General Petraeus: Trump lacks character/interlectual to be president as Retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor tells Chris Hayes why he's voting for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in his adult life http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/57970/201606/1001284.html
In conclusion, borrow from the author below:
"If you care about the long-term future of originalism and enforcing constitutional limits on government, you have good reason to be #NeverTrump – all the way."
~~
The big picture on Trump and the Courts: Why constitutional originalists should be #NeverTrump all the way
The inside track on Washington politics.
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters in San Diego, California, U.S. May 27, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Some conservatives and libertarians who otherwise have little love for Donald Trump believe that he is preferable to Hillary Clinton because he might appoint good judges, whereas the Democrats almost certainly will not. That tendency may have increased after Trump announced a solid list of potential Supreme Court appointments last month. Leading legal scholar John McGinnis (with whom I have coauthored several articles), for example, argues that Trump is now a better bet on the Supreme Court than Hillary Clinton, even though there are strong reasons to oppose him on other issues. Although Trump may not care much about the Supreme Court or constitutional issues, McGinnis and others argue he might stick to the list in order to get the support of Republicans for other initiatives (such as his plan to massively increase tariffs, for example). On this theory, the case for Trump is that he might appoint much better judges than Hillary Clinton, even if it is by no means certain.
The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it overlooks the possibility that Trump might not only fail to appoint better judges than Hillary Clinton, but actually appoint much worse ones. Even more importantly, it overlooks the likely longterm effects of a Trump victory on the Republican Party and its judicial philosophy. When it comes to constitutional law, Trump is not just a blank slate. He has an agenda.
I. Why Trump Might Appoint Worse Judges than Hillary Clinton.
The mere existence of the list certainly does not preclude Trump from appointing terrible judges. As I have previously pointed out, Trump’s announcement of the list indicated that it is just a “guide,” and he later reiterated its nonbinding nature. Much more importantly, all or most of the judges on the list are at odds with Trump’s strong commitment to undermining freedom of speech and constitutional property rights. Both long predate his presidential campaign, and are therefore likely to be genuine objectives, not merely short-term political ploys. Trump also seeks to undermine constitutional limitations on presidential power on a shockingly wide range of issues. Trump could appoint some good judges if he thinks it is politically advantageous to do so. But he could instead appoint ones more in line with his own positions.
Once President Trump discovers that the judges on the list probably won’t support his agenda, he might well instead nominate people who will. Where will he find such nominees? It would likely have to be among those conservative jurists and legal scholars who support wide-ranging judicial “deference” to the political branches of government across a very broad range of issues. Such people do exist, and they would be the ones most likely to give him much, if not all, of what he wants on speech, property rights, executive power, and other issues. If you care about enforcing constitutional limits on government power, such ultradeferential judges are likely be even worse than standard-issue liberal ones. The latter, at least, will enforce a wide range of civil liberties, some restrictions on executive power, the rights of criminal defendants, and so on. The former won’t even do that much to a more tha minimal degree. Some on the right might argue that the Democrats are worse on freedom of speech because they want to overturn Citizens United. But, so does Trump.
Admittedly, you might welcome all of this if your main goal is to promote “judicial restraint” defined as deferring to the legislature, the executive, and their agents in the bureaucracy. Ditto if your main judicial goal is overruling Roe v. Wade. But if you care about enforcing originalism, and its associated limits on government power, judges who reflect Trump’s views are likely to be worse than liberal ones would be.
II. Why We Can’t Count on GOP Senators to Save US.
Perhaps we needn’t worry about this because Republican senators will refuse to confirm Trumpist judges, and instead insist on getting more conventional conservatives. Don’t count on it. Senators rarely oppose judicial nominees by a president of their own party. John McGinnis suggests that the Senate will refuse to confirm “cronies,” citing the example of the 2005 rejection of poorly qualified Bush nominee Harriet Miers. An obvious crony may indeed be rejected. But it is unlikely very many GOP senators would oppose a reasonably well-qualified nominee with a conservative background, who nonetheless takes an ultradeferential approach to judicial review.
If a few GOP senators do defect, Trump could potentially make up the shortfall by soliciting Democratic support. Given growing liberal fear of what they decry as “conservative judicial activism,” some Democrats might well prefer a deferential Trumpist judge to a more conventional Republican nominee, who might want to tightly limit federal power or strengthen protection for property rights and religious liberties.
Ultimately, it is dangerous to count on the congressional GOP to restrain Trump. Few politicians will put principle ahead of support for the party’s leader – especially if that leader has just led them to a major electoral victory. Just as GOP members of Congress supported Bush in many actions they would never have accepted from a Democrat, and Democrats did the same (in reverse) with Obama, so too most Republican members of Congress will back most of Trump’s agenda if he wins the presidency. Such tendencies are particularly strong in our age of virulent “partyism,” where partisans are reluctant to attack a president of their own party for fear of giving aid and comfort to the opposition. As conservative columnist Mona Charen puts it: “If Donald Trump is president,… there will be no united opposition among Republicans. As we’ve seen in the past few weeks, the urge to bend the knee is very strong. How much more intense will it be if he sits in the Oval Office?”
III. A Look at the Long Run.
Understandable focus on the Supreme Court nominations in our immediate future has led virtually all commentators to overlook the likely longer-term effects of Trumpism on Republican judicial philosophy. Even if Trump initially appoints a few good judges, that trend is not likely to last.
Trump is not just a conventional Republican candidate. He wants to remake the GOP into a “workers party” (as he himself calls it), similar to the big-government right-wing nationalist parties of Western Europe, such as France’s National Front. Like Trump, these parties combine xenophobia and protectionism with a strong authoritarian streak, and support for an expansive welfare and regulatory state (so long as the beneficiaries are primarily people of the “right” racial and ethnic background).
If Trump wins the presidency and his agenda is seen as a political success, he will have the opportunity to move the GOP further in a National Front-like direction. And a Trumpist/National Front party will have little use for limited government-originalist judicial philosophy. To the contrary, federalism, the separation of powers, and many individual rights limitations on government power would be an impediment to its agenda. A Trumpist GOP would, over time, seek to appoint judges in line with its priorities.
We don’t yet know what the full contours of a Trumpist judicial philosophy might be. But they are likely to include sweeping executive power (so the party’s Great Leader will not be hamstrung by constraints on his power), a narrow view of freedom of speech (so he can intimidate critics with libel suits and administrative harassment), tight restrictions on civil liberties (making it easier to, among other things, round up and deport many millions of undocumented immigrants), and weakening constitutional property rights (so that the government can have a free in transferring property to its cronies in the business community).
More speculatively, it could also include a weakening of legal rules barring racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination by the government. Trump, after all, has called for a ban on the entry of Muslims into the US, and referred favorably to one of the most infamous cases of racial discrimination in American history: the World War II-era internment of Japanese-Americans, which Trump has cited as a precedent justifying his own policies. Such discriminatory policies are consistent with his efforts to capitalize on white racial resentment and identity politics. Here too, Trumpism is very similar to the agenda of European far-right nationalists.
History shows that in the long run parties tend to appoint judges who are at least generally in line with the party’s ideology. When the ideology shifts in a major way, the party’s judicial philosophy eventually changes as well. Traditional Progressive judges such as Learned Hand became dinosaurs after the Democratic Party shifted in favor of civil liberties and racial equality in the 1950s and 60s, and old-style Republican judges went the same way after the GOP became more conservative in the late 70s and 80s. The same thing will eventually happen to pro-limited government originalists in a Trumpist GOP.
Judges are not just the handmaidens of their party’s political agenda. They have an important measure of autonomy. But rarely will they be fundamentally at odds with that agenda – at least not for very long. Admittedly, Trump might not succeed in changing the GOP much, even if he becomes president: if he gets impeached or otherwise fails spectacularly, for example. But that won’t be much consolation to people who want the GOP to be able to make judicial appointments. The party would be (rightly) blamed for Trump’s failures, and its ability to win the White House and make future judicial appointments would be seriously impaired for quite some time.
If Trump wins the election and manages to recast the GOP in his image, the types of judges the party appoints will also change. And a president who is perceived as politically successful usually has a substantial impact on his party’s agenda, as other politicians will seek to mimic his platform in order to share in the electoral spoils.
If Trump loses, on the other hand, there is a good chance that originalists who seek to limit government power will continue to have a strong influence on the party’s judicial philosophy. As long as that philosophy is the dominant view within one major party, it is likely to have a considerable impact on the judiciary and constitutional debates more generally. Admittedly, support from one party is not nearly as good as a bipartisan consensus. But it’s a lot better than being shut out from the major parties entirely. Ultimately, maintaining the long-term viability of a judicial philosophy is a lot more important than any one Supreme Court appointment, or even two or three of them. If you care about the long-term future of originalism and enforcing constitutional limits on government, you have good reason to be #NeverTrump – all the way.
Mark Cuban: We don't really know if Trump's a billionaire
Donald Trump claims he is worth billions, but another wealthy businessman has his doubts.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee's real estate success has not necessarily yielded the wealth Trump claims, entrepreneur Mark Cuban told WABC's "The Bernie and Sid Show" on Wednesday. He added that Trump is "not transparent enough for us to really know."
"I'm not so sure Donald knows what he's not good at. What he's done well is put his name on big buildings, right? He appears to have done well putting his name through a licensing arrangement on hotels and buildings. He's good at that. Now, whether or not that's made him a billionaire, I don't know," the Dallas Mavericks owner and "Shark Tank" investor said.
Earlier this month, Trump claimed a net worth of more than $10 billion. He said his 2015 income topped $550 million.
Some experts have disputed his net worth, and Trump has been criticized for not yet releasing his tax returns. Presidential nominees typically do so.
Trump has touted his wealth and business acumen throughout the election as evidence of his viability. He repeatedly boasted about his ability to loan his campaign most of its funds, though he is now raising money with the Republican Party for the general election.
Cuban acknowledged Trump's talent in real estate but questioned some of his other decisions. He said products like branded water bottles and steak reflect "desperation."
Cuban said he asked Trump, "Are you that desperate for money?"
The Trump campaign and Trump Organization did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
