Trump II; First 100 days

[ombugge]

7 poll numbers that sum up Trump’s first 100 days

Where Trump is strong, the many places he’s losing ground and what it says about what comes next.

President Donald Trump marked 100 days of his second term on Tuesday. And it’s been a lot.
The Post’s team has published all kinds of content looking at what he’s done and what’s ahead. You can see the big stuff in chart form here.
But in this space, we focus on the politics. And of late, that’s involved tracking fast-changing opinions about Trump and what he’s doing.

So for Trump’s 100th day, we decided to take a look at the poll numbers and trends that tell the tale of a consequential — and often controversial — first 100 days. Here they are.

Source: https://wapo.st/4jWltX5 (Gift article. No paywall)

[Hornblower]

So, 100 days in;
How many voters now wish that -
a) They should have voted for him and,
b) They should not have voted for him.

Just asking.

[ombugge]

@Hornblower

So, 100 days in;

1359 days to go from today.

@Hornblower

How many voters now wish that -
a) They should have voted for him and,
b) They should not have voted for him.

1 in 4 Trump voters disappointed or regret voting for him: "I'm scared"

Among those who identify as moderates, 47% said they regret voting for Trump or are disappointed by his early performance, while 43 percent of Trump voters who do not identify as MAGA said the same.

But the vast majority (73 percent) of Trump voters neither regret their vote, nor feel disappointed by his first few months back in the Oval Office. Only 13 percent of MAGA Republicans said they regret voting for Trump or are disappointed by his early performance

[Ausmariner]

@ombugge

But the vast majority (73 percent) of Trump voters neither regret their vote, nor feel disappointed by his first few months back in the Oval Office. Only 13 percent of MAGA Republicans said they regret voting for Trump or are disappointed by his early performance

Have these individuals undergone an Intelligence Quotient test?

[Hornblower]

I only endeavoured to determine whether or not there was a stastically significant volte face in the voter demographic; do I regret my vote, or do I stand by it?

[tengineer1]

Going great. The idea is to regress goverment to Hoover’s time. There is a faction among the moneyed libertarian class which now includes the tech bros that still hates FDR and all he did.

[Hornblower]

Awesome!
I read that and got hoover.
We have a rechargeabe one.

[freighterman1]

@Hornblower

I read that and got hoover.
We have a rechargeabe one.

Yanks won’t get that joke.

[dbeierl]

@freighterman1

[Some] [septics] won’t get that joke.

Fixed it…

[Noggin]

Just wondering,seeing that Trump is making for Ukraine to pay back its cost during the war if he will also make Israel pay for the US weapons and aircraft supplied during that war.

[tengineer1]

Well 70% of the money for Ukraine went to US defense contractors so not sure how that’s going to work

[Steamer]

They have already paid in votes, campaign contributions, and lobbyists. There will undoubtedly be some real estate component as soon as Gaza is “desinfiziert”.

[ombugge]

US Senate rejects bid to block Trump’s tariffs

The upper house of the US Congress voted 49-49 to knock back the resolution on Wednesday, hours after government data showed that the US economy shrank for the first time in three years.
Three Republican senators – Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – voted for the measure in a rare rebuke of Trump from within his own party, along with all present Democrats and Independents.

The resolution was widely viewed as a symbolic gesture since it was unlikely to have gained traction in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and would ultimately be subject to Trump’s veto power.

The US Department of Commerce on Wednesday reported that the economy contracted 0.3 percent during the first three months of the year, a period that occurred before Trump imposed his steepest tariffs.
A recession is typically defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

[Binbag_the_Saylore]

The Economist today…
… no comment…

[Jughead]

Perhaps it’s good thing the courts are being squeezed. Some are corrupt.

Justice Department Announces Two Cases Involving Judicial Misconduct and...

And congress needs to get off its arse and legislate laws assisting Trump’s agenda.

[tengineer1]

@Jughead

nd congress needs to get off its arse and legislate laws assisting Trump’s agenda.

No need, he ignores legislation already and will sooner rather than later ignore the judicial branch and make himself king/dictator. Mission accomplished for MAGA,

[tengineer1]

If one is into bribery and money laundering Trump’s 1st hundred days has been a rousing success. Especially if you’re a Russian oligarch

Trump Administration Gives All Clear to Laundering Money through Shell...

[Jughead]

@tengineer1

No need, he ignores legislation already

But you can’t, and that’s the point.

[ombugge]

What happens if a president and the federal government fail to follow a...

The Supreme Court factor

Another question is what appeals courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, would do with a contempt ruling against the Trump administration.

Parillo’s research found that while district court judges are willing to issue contempt findings, sanctions are rarely upheld on appeal.

“There are no opinions of the Supreme Court on the subject," he wrote. “When the courts of appeals hear a potentially relevant case, they usually dispose of it on narrow, case-specific grounds in a deliberate attempt to avoid the bigger and more portentous issues about whether and when judges can use contempt sanctions against the federal government.”

In a 1911 ruling, in Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., the Supreme Court described the need for courts to be able to enforce their orders through contempt but do so sparingly.

“The power of courts to punish for contempts is a necessary and integral part of the independence of the judiciary, and is absolutely essential to the performance of the duties imposed on them by law,” the opinion says. “Without it, they are mere boards of arbitration, whose judgments and decrees would only be advisory."

The justices warned that without the power of contempt, the authority of the court would be derided.

“If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own disobedience set them aside,” the opinion warns, "then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls the ‘judicial power of the United States’ would be a mere mockery.”

[Jughead]

@ombugge

“The power of courts to punish for contempts is a necessary and integral part of the independence of the judiciary, and is absolutely essential to the performance of the duties imposed on them by law,” the opinion says.

That’s all very well, but it ignores one important point.

The president is the chief executive and the court’s orders can only be enforced by the executive branch under the president.

The cases against Trump seek to bind the president when the powers he is using are set out in the constitution. The courts cannot overrule the constitution and cannot limit the powers of the president legitimately acting as the executive.

So if the constitution says the president can deport aliens, defund universities, or anything else, no court can overrule that. They may be able to delay to ensure due process has been followed, but not overrule or countermand a legal order of the executive.

I’m sure Trump has good lawyers advising him so be cautious of claiming victories when two-bit county judges decide to be president and order things that only the president can order. You can sing “Gotcha” every time a lower level court finds against Trump but he just appeals up the chain and finally SCOTUS has no option but to uphold the constitution.