Here's something you just won't hear from me too often: Trump's approval rating jumped a couple times recently for me. Now before you stop reading, it's pretty much so low it's off the bottom of the grid so going up still won't make me think of him without a shiver of horror and disgust. And in both instances the jump was followed by a larger fall, but I have to admit feeling a bit for Pee OTUS and actually appreciating him in a miniscule way. It might have been a first.
When I heard about this New York Times report about how the Trump family dodged taxes so that Father Freddie could give his kids his ill-gotten gains as inheritance without paying the inheritance/death/estate taxes, I kinda felt a little like someone was trying to get us to hate the Trumps so badly that we would defend the very unfair inheritance/death/estate taxes. My position is they are absolutely absurd! The government has no bloody business taking tax off money that anyone has rightfully earned, paid taxes on and decided to give to someone after they die. Like most taxes, I don't even know why this tax is even legal except that nobody has the balls to get rid of it.
Now the assumption that Fred Trump's money was anything like this may require some suspension of disbelief. I have already called them "ill-gotten gains." But for argument's sake, let's say it was totally legit. Then I don't hold it against him for setting up a sham company owned by his kids, OVERcharging building supplies in its name like thousand dollar hammers and such, then allowing the kids to keep the difference as a tax-free inheritance. I don't blame him at all for doing this.
However, then came the fall. From what I heard and read of the report, those ridiculous receipts for building improvements that were FAR more than was actually paid, were then used as justification to tenants for rent increases. GREED! It's not enough to get the tax free inheritance, they had to con the tenants into believing they had spent millions of dollars on upkeep and renovations so HAD to raise the rent.
This is what I've been squawking about lately. Why are we so agreeable to this business model that REQUIRES any cost to the company to come out of the consumers' pockets? Back when Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr were making nothing the NHL needed a player's union. They formed one. Players, being the product that the owners sold, deserved a larger share of the profits. Even the owners had to agree. So they gave them bigger contracts. But did they pay? NOPE. They just jacked up ticket prices. So the NHLPA jacked up contract expectations and owners jacked up concession prices and so on and so forth. Owners still make as much as they always have but now the poor fan has to spend a mortgage payment to go to a hockey game and have a hot dog and a beer.
You can bet the wonderful Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has pre-emptively raised, or will soon raise prices to cover the recently introduced 15 dollar minimum wage for Amazon workers. And, as I keep saying, they never really DO that, do they? It's always a little bit MORE than enough to cover it. Or sometimes a LOT more. Business!!!
The next instance when I thought of the Conundrum in Chief was when I said to myself, "Say what you will about Trump, but I, (and I'm guessing a LOT of other people), am learning a great deal about American politics since he bolloxed his way to the presidency." This week I spent several hours investigating the effect the appointment of Brett Kegstand Kavanaugh to the supreme court might have on the U.S. Would you like to read what I've come up with?
In short,
BK IS ultra conservative, to put it mildly, but I wondered if he would have the impact that people are raging about since the half-assed investigation, clearing, and appointment of this obviously unstable dude to the position that he himself wrote requires a certain sophisticated demeanor. I think he missed demeanor. ahem.
So let's see he lead a privileged life, went to the same all boys Catholic prep. school as fellow SCOTUS judge, and conservative appointed by Trump, Neil Gorsuch, got into Yale, played sports, studied law and was a member of the Delta Tau Chi fraternity. Interestingly, he worked for Ken Starr early in his career and assisted in the investigation of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct and the drafting of the Starr Report that called for his impeachment largely because of it. So he has no problem impeaching a president and is against sexual misconduct in high offices. Hmmm....
He worked for George Dubyuh during his election campaign against Gore in 2000 and participated in the fraudulent Florida recount that "won" him the presidency. So he has no problem with sham presidents.
Between 2003 and 2018 the Washington Post analyzed his votes on the D.C. court and characterized them as the most, or the second most conservative. Likely his only competition is Clarence Thomas, who, (get outta jail free five!), was also accused of sexual misconduct. Remember Anita Hill? She claimed he repeatedly harassed her despite her constant refusal of his advances. Well Clarence Thomas said that all the witnesses' testimony was completely fabricated and they were all out to get him because they didn't want a black, (oh yeah he played that card), conservative on the supreme court. He was voted in 52-48 by the senate. BK was 51-49. So in 27 years the senate has changed. By one vote.
Not one but THREE people have accused BK of sexual assault/misconduct including Christine Blasey Ford. 2 Yale professors advised female law students at Yale that their female attractiveness could help secure them internships with Brett Kavanaugh. That's still being investigated.
He is against abortion, the affordable care act, the clean air act, greenhouse gas regulation, blocking the NSA's warrantless collection of personal metadata, net neutrality, gun control, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This one requires some explanation and is probably the most dangerous to the average American. The CFPB is an agency where they try to regulate banks, loan shark-I mean offices, credit unions, security firms, debt collectors and other financial companies. Basically they try to keep them honest. TRY is the operative word. BK proposed the idea that any of those agencies directly regulated by the CFPB could challenge its constitutionality. Luckily his idea was voted down. For now...
And it's very well known, and no small part of his nomination you have to think, that he believes very strongly in presidential power and immunity from any prosecution while in office. (even though he was on the task force to prosecute Clinton)
There are 9 judges on the supreme court. BK will be the latest.
Here's a rating of the supreme court justices as far as their liberal/conservative leanings that is a bit out of date but still quite helpful. I'll go through them one at a time using blue for conservatives and red for liberals, like we do in Canada:
John Roberts - Nominated by George W. he's the chief justice of the supreme court. He's conservative but has shown a willingness to work with liberals. He's hard to read. He has voted against abortion but will not reveal his opinion on Roe vs. Wade. He is in favour of the affordable care act. Same sex marriage - he has gone both ways on this. heh heh.
Clarence Thomas - 27 years on the supreme court. Appointed by George W. As conservative as they come although not from a privileged background. Was poor as a kid. First language was Gullah, a sea island Creole English. But despite being from the real America, he may have forgotten his roots. No to abortion. No to gay rights. Just easy to predict.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Appointed by Bill Clinton. 2nd female on supreme court after Sandra Day O'Connor. Strong advocate for gender equality and women's rights. Pro abortion. Is 85 years old and a colon cancer survivor but can still do 20 push-ups.
Stephen Breyer - Appointed by Clinton. Was a prof. at Harvard Law School and wrote law texts that are still in use today. Believes that interpretation and the purpose of the law is important, not just the words and facts. Whereas textualists like Scalia and Gorsuch support the letter of the law over the spirit. For example, he believes the founding fathers did not intend guns to go unregulated. Also an abortion rights advocate.
Samuel Alito - Appointed by Dubyuh. Yale law. Italian Catholic. Very conservative. Loves the death penalty.
Sonia Sotomayor - An Obama appointee. Puerto Rican parents and the first Hispanic/Latina on the supreme court. Yale law. Has a history of voting along the liberal bloc of justices' ideological lines. Has called for criminal justice reform especially regarding the issues of race, gender and ethnic identities. Not from privilege. Lived in the Bronx and Puerto Rico. Credits her position to affirmative action for giving her a chance and hard work after she got it. Ended the '94 baseball strike by denying owners a new collective bargaining agreement and permission to use replacement players. Said, "Anyone from the Bronx knows about baseball." Catholic so is against abortion.
Elena Kagan - Obama appointed her. Princeton/Harvard. She went from University of Chicago Law School prof. to White House Counsel and policy advisor to Bill Clinton to Harvard Law prof. to becoming the first female dean of Harvard Law School. She was also the first female Solicitor General of the U.S. in 2009.
Neil Gorsuch - Trump's replacement for Scalia. Harvard law and doctor of Law Philosophy. Another privileged life. Mom actually worked for Reagan as E.P.A. administrator. Wrote on euthanasia saying that "the intentional taking of a human life, by private persons, is always wrong." Not sure if the "by private persons" part was there originally in his writing or after he came out in support of the death penalty. He also questions the constitutional right to abortion. His first consequential vote was to put to death 8 death row inmates in Arkansas in 2017. Stephen Breyer, one of our four libs, all of whom would have stayed the execution, said the reason the executions proceeded was the lethal injection drugs were nearing their expiration dates.
But this gives you an idea of how the votes are likely to go now with Brett Kavanaugh sworn in. 5-4 for the blues most likely. I would be remiss if I didn't bring up one more name though.
Merrick Garland - Nominated to the supreme court by Barack Obama. The republican dominated senate refused the nomination because Obama was in the last year of his presidency. So for almost a year nobody filled the position Scalia had vacated. It is still viewed as a controversial reason, or non-reason to have refused the nomination. Considering the possibility that Trump is in his last MONTH and all those pesky women conspiring again like they did to Clarence Thomas to keep a guy off the supreme court with their wild fabrications, the senate had no problem voting Brett Kavanaugh in.
With Garland in, Breyer, a liberal, would have been the decisive 5th vote, or the "swing" vote in the usual 5-4 decisions of the supreme court. Now with judge Bluto in, that swing vote is expected to be John Roberts - a conservative.
This is why people are so upset! Not just this but because the investigation into sexual allegations was terribly rushed and the timing of it just prior to November's midterm elections in which house and senate members will be shuffled around a bit, looks suspicious at best. In a month, the senate vote might not have been 51-49. Kavanaugh might not have gotten in. And Trump might be on his way out. So Trump and the republicans rushed BK in there just to be sure to have a stacked supreme court.
Dirty politics to be sure!
When will this administration receive its comeuppance? I'm hoping November, but the way the Senate voted on Kavanaugh, I am a bit disheartened.
