What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

Which makes sense except for Musk and Tesla's exposure to China?

(This is something I wonder about because on one level Trump and Musk make sense - on another I can't quite work out what the deal really is)

[PJL]

Which makes sense except for Musk and Tesla's exposure to China?

(This is something I wonder about because on one level Trump and Musk make sense - on another I can't quite work out what the deal really is)

Fair point, perhaps tariffs will only apply to manufactured goods & parts for assembly will be exempted? Will allow Tesla to operate US (or more likely Mexico) plants.

[Solmyr]

Apparently, Trump is already getting annoyed with Musk's constant presence. Time to break out the lettuce?

[Barrister]

Apparently, Trump is already getting annoyed with Musk's constant presence. Time to break out the lettuce?

I think that was always a relationship doomed to fail.  But I would have thought it would last beyond inauguration day.

[crazy canuck]

All it requires to cause issues is for a few, strong-willed anti-Trump Republicans who are willing to take a position and stick to it...

Let me know if you find some of those

[Barrister]

Which makes sense except for Musk and Tesla's exposure to China?

(This is something I wonder about because on one level Trump and Musk make sense - on another I can't quite work out what the deal really is)

Musk figures he can manipulate Trump into doing what he wants after the election.

Trump figures he can use Musk's money to get elected.

[The Minsky Moment]

As a political constitution kind of person my general view is that guardrails, legal constitutional protections and institutions are the opium of the ruling classes.

That's the Carl Schmitt view, but as Schmitt's career shows, that kind of thinking can lead to pretty dark endpoints.

I don't think it stands up.  Judicial review in the United States has had a solid 2 century run, which is pretty impressive given that's it 9 over the hill lawyers in robes with nothing more than a few courtroom bailiffs backing them. 

There are many constitutional norms that operated just fine for centuries, some even right through the Civil War. And historically, they have operated not just as props for the "ruling class" (not always a stable group in American society) but as essential tools in the struggles of the most oppressed classes of people in America for asserting their rights.

[crazy canuck]

To add to that outside the American context, just take a look at how dramatically the Charter of Rights and Freedoms substantially changed Canadian law in favour of those challenging the ruling classes.

[Sheilbh]

That's the Carl Schmitt view, but as Schmitt's career shows, that kind of thinking can lead to pretty dark endpoints.

I don't think it stands up.  Judicial review in the United States has had a solid 2 century run, which is pretty impressive given that's it 9 over the hill lawyers in robes with nothing more than a few courtroom bailiffs backing them. 

I'd also say it's maybe on the borderline of orthodoxy but within an English law view which is certainly where I'm coming from rather than the Schmittian view. As well as some of the recent Irish criticism of more "expressive" constitutionalism from Irish scholars, or Martin Loughlin's Against Constitutionalism.

Though I do think Weimar is a case in point. I don't think the flaw was democracy or the constitution, but actually that the institutions didn't believe in it. The courts were flaccid when faced with insurrection against the state by an avowed opponent, by the end across all of German politics there was one party (the SPD) that genuinely believed in a democratic order embodied by that constitution.

As I say, I think the other sources of power through the US state and other layers of government (and particularly power over democratic process) will be more important than courts or Congress.

Edit: And to be clear my argument isn't that constitutions don't matter but that their power derives from political legitimacy and support - but they're very, very flimsy defences if that turns.

There are many constitutional norms that operated just fine for centuries, some even right through the Civil War. And historically, they have operated not just as props for the "ruling class" (not always a stable group in American society) but as essential tools in the struggles of the most oppressed classes of people in America for asserting their rights.

So genuine question away from the current issues - is that a true reflection of the two centuries or more an ideal of what the courts can be?

I may be being unfair but it feels possible that we project a fairly singular mid/late twentieth century moment in the court's history as the true identity of the court. Whenever I've read US histories, it feels to me that that moment is pretty uncharacteristic - that the 19th and early 20th century are of a very different character with very different types of decisions. Or is that unfair?

I think this court is unusually politicised because I think there's been a "conservative legal" project since at least Reagan to create a plausible career path for ideologues without getting Borked. But it doesn't strike me as a million miles from those earlier courts?

[crazy canuck]

Trump says he is going to nominate Kennedy for Health.

[The Minsky Moment]

So genuine question away from the current issues - is that a true reflection of the two centuries or more an ideal of what the courts can be?

I wasn't just referring to the courts.  Constitutional norms led fairly quickly to adoption of universal male suffrage at the state level and eventually to direct election of Senators.  They were also used to support abolitionist arguments based in constitutional principle. 

Re the Supreme Court, although there always have been periods of awful court jurisprudence, the early Court cut through disputes over federal powers to confirm broad authority to regulate markets and the national economy,

[Sheilbh]

Trump says he is going to nominate Kennedy for Health.

I suspect in terms of how staffers in the department feel this may be the worst.

I keep thinking of that Simpsons meme - this is the worst cabinet appointment so far

Although saw an interesting comment from a leftish journalist about RFK specifically.

[crazy canuck]

Trump says he is going to nominate Kennedy for Health.

I suspect in terms of how staffers in the department feel this may be the worst.

I keep thinking of that Simpsons meme - this is the worst cabinet appointment so far

Yep

[Barrister]

Trump says he is going to nominate Kennedy for Health.

I suspect in terms of how staffers in the department feel this may be the worst.

I keep thinking of that Simpsons meme - this is the worst cabinet appointment so far

Nice reference though.

[Josquius]

Snoop Dogg to be appointed head of the DEA...