Tag Archives: case

Donald Trump Has No Jobs Plan At All

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Will cutting taxes on the rich, combined with reducing regulation on Wall Street and big corporations, create millions of jobs, as Donald Trump claims? As you may recall, we tried that tonic fairly recently during the presidency of George W. Bush. It didn’t really turn out so well:

Jobs started to recover sooner on Obama’s watch than Bush’s, probably thanks to his stimulus package. Bush just cut taxes on the rich and left it at that. Still, maybe you think this chart isn’t fair. We really ought to measure from the trough of the recession. Here you go:

Based on his speech this morning, there’s no real difference between Bush and Trump on economic policy except for Trump’s claim that he’ll get tough on trade. I doubt that, myself, but it hardly matters. Renegotiating a couple of trade treaties just wouldn’t generate very many jobs. Done badly, in fact—a pretty likely scenario in a Trump presidency—it would hurt job growth. Trade wars have a habit of doing that.

Note that I’m not really making a case for the brilliance of Obama’s economic policies here. I’m just pointing out that Trump’s policies are little more than the same tedious stuff we’ve heard from Republicans for years. If he thinks this tired old rehash is going to supercharge the economy, he ought to at least make some kind of case for it.1 It didn’t work for Bush. Why should it work for Trump?

1And don’t even think of pretending that 9/11 ruined the economy under Bush. It had only a minor, short-term effect. If anything, spending on Bush’s wars acted as a stimuls.

Source:  

Donald Trump Has No Jobs Plan At All

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Has No Jobs Plan At All

Chevron won’t have to pay for its own version of Chernobyl

Environmentalist Donald Moncayo shows his glove after conducting a test made on an affected field in Lago Agrio January 25, 2011. REUTERS/Guillermo Granja

Chevron won’t have to pay for its own version of Chernobyl

By on Aug 8, 2016Share

In 1993, Ecuadorians filed suit against American fossil fuel giant Chevron, arguing that the company was responsible for contaminating that land and sickening people through decades of drilling in the Lago Agrio oil fields. The suit dragged on for over two decades, and Monday, a federal U.S. court finally handed down its decision: Some 30,000 native Ecuadorians have lost out on billions of dollars in damages.

Though Chevron pulled its operations from Ecuador in the early 1990s, it left behind billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Lago Agrio region, poisoned water, and people suffering from cancer. The contamination was so great that it’s sometimes dubbed “the Amazon’s Chernobyl.”

In 2011, Ecuador’s Supreme Court ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion in cleanup and damages, a fine that was later reduced to $9.5 billion. American lawyer Steven Donziger — who has worked the case for decades — moved the case to the U.S. in the hopes an American court would force Chevron to comply with the Ecuadorian judgment.

But a federal appeals court in New York upheld a decision on Monday that Donziger and his legal team obtained the Ecuadorian judgment through bribery, coercion, and fraud, and is therefore unenforceable.

Ecuadorians may seek justice outside the United States, in Canada and “other countries where litigation is underway to seize Chevron assets,” according to Karen Hinton, American spokeswoman for the Ecuadoreans.

For more on Lago Agrio, Steven Donziger, and the long fight against Chevron, check out this episode of Alec Baldwin’s Here’s the Thing.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Excerpt from:  

Chevron won’t have to pay for its own version of Chernobyl

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chevron won’t have to pay for its own version of Chernobyl

North Carolina Is Being Sued for Gerrymandering

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A group of Democrats, voters, and activists joined with Common Cause, a public advocacy group, and filed a lawsuit Friday alleging that the way North Carolina Republicans drew up the state’s congressional districts constituted a blatant partisan gerrymander and violates the US Constitution. If the case is successful, it could go a long way in helping courts define when redistricting with partisan intent violates voters’ rights to elect officials of their choosing.

“What is at stake is whether politicians have the power to manipulate voting maps to unjustly insulate themselves from accountability, or whether voters have the fundamental right as Americans to choose their representatives in fair and open elections,” Bob Phillips, the executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, said in a statement. “We believe this is a vital case that could strike at the very foundation of gerrymandering.”

In 2011, after Republicans took control of both legislative houses in North Carolina, they created a new redistricting plan for the state’s 13 congressional districts that sought to entrench a Republican majority in the state’s congressional delegation. On February 5, 2016, a state district court ruled that the plan constituted illegal racial gerrymandering by populating two districts disproportionately with African American voters, thereby white-washing the other districts and ensuring Republican victories. It ordered the state Legislature to redraw the districts. North Carolina has appealed that ruling to the US Supreme Court in Harris v. McCrory, but the case has not yet been decided.

Meanwhile, the Republicans redrew the districts again after the district court ruling. During that process, state Republicans made it clear that they planned to redraw the districts to preserve the state’s 10-3 Republican congressional delegation majority. Friday’s lawsuit argues that the Republicans clearly drew the districts to disenfranchise Democratic voters by essentially letting the candidates choose their voters, and not the other way around.

The coalition’s lawsuit points out that state Republicans’ effort to lock in their party’s 10-3 advantage for the state’s congressional delegation flies in the face of representative democracy because voter registration data shows that Republicans make up just 30 percent of all registered voters, compared with 40 percent for Democrats. The remaining 30 percent register as unaffiliated.

Two of the Republicans involved in redrawing the maps said in a statement Friday that the districts are fair and legal, and that the lawsuit is “just the latest in a long line of attempts by far-left groups to use the federal court system to take away the rights of North Carolina voters.”

The lawsuit filed Friday notes that Common Cause is nonpartisan, and that the organization is currently opposing the efforts of the state Democratic party to gerrymander in Maryland.

See the full lawsuit below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3006116-North-Carolina-Gerrymander-Complaint.js”,
width: 630,
height: 550,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-3006116-North-Carolina-Gerrymander-Complaint”
);

North-Carolina-Gerrymander-Complaint (PDF)

North-Carolina-Gerrymander-Complaint (Text)

Visit site:

North Carolina Is Being Sued for Gerrymandering

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on North Carolina Is Being Sued for Gerrymandering

Democrats and Republicans Have Mirror Image Race Problems

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Sunday, Chuck Todd asked Donald Trump about former KKK grand wizard and famous white nationalist David Duke:

On Tuesday, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman asked about Trump’s reply to Todd:

And here is longtime Republican policy wonk Avik Roy:

“Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble,” Roy says. “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.

….He expands on this idea: “It’s a common observation on the left, but it’s an observation that a lot of us on the right genuinely believed wasn’t true — which is that conservatism has become, and has been for some time, much more about white identity politics than it has been about conservative political philosophy. I think today, even now, a lot of conservatives have not come to terms with that problem.”

Trump’s politics of aggrieved white nationalism — labeling black people criminals, Latinos rapists, and Muslims terrorists — succeeded because the party’s voting base was made up of the people who once opposed civil rights. “Trump tapped into something that was latent in the Republican Party and conservative movement — but a lot of people in the conservative movement didn’t notice,” Roy concludes, glumly.

The problem for Republicans is simple to describe: it’s not that their leaders are racist, but that they’ve long tolerated racism in their ranks. They know this perfectly well, and they know that they have to broaden their appeal beyond just whites. But they’re stuck. If they do that—say, by supporting comprehensive immigration reform or easing up on opposition to affirmative action—their white base goes ballistic. In the end, they never make the base-broadening moves that they all know they have to make eventually.

For Democrats, the problem is the mirror image. Bashing Donald Trump and his supporters for their white nationalism helps with their base, but it’s the worst possible way to attract working-class whites who might be attracted to traditional Democratic economic messages. Once you say the word “racism,” the conversation is over. Potentially persuadable voters won’t hear another word you say.

As long as this remains the case, Democrats will routinely win the presidency because their non-white base is growing every year. But Republicans will routinely win the House—and sometimes the Senate—because way more than half of all congressional districts are majority white. Result: endless gridlock.

I wish I knew the answer.

Source:  

Democrats and Republicans Have Mirror Image Race Problems

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats and Republicans Have Mirror Image Race Problems

Obama still hasn’t banned Arctic drilling, but he just made it more annoying

polar attraction

Obama still hasn’t banned Arctic drilling, but he just made it more annoying

By on Jul 8, 2016Share

Environmental activists have been on a winning streak when it comes to keeping fossil fuels in the ground, from knocking down approval for the Keystone XL pipeline to stopping the Obama administration from opening Atlantic waters to drilling. They’ve been holding out for one more big win over Arctic drilling.

Activists were disappointed, then, on Thursday when the Department of Interior teased a “major” announcement only to leave the future of the Arctic open. Instead, Interior finalized regulations that will supposedly make it safer to drill in the difficult polar waters, while costing the industry around $2 billion over the next 10 years. The most prohibitive of the measures requires backup rigs in the case of a spill, and as well as planning for Arctic-specific conditions like limiting drilling during bad weather.

At the moment, Obama’s not really making environment or industry allies happy. “It may be the case that the rules require safer drilling practices, but the simple fact is that there’s no safe way to drill for oil in the Arctic with the climate crisis deepening all around us,” David Turnbull of Oil Change International told Grist.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) thought it sent mixed messages on the offshore industry’s future and was “dismayed by the regulatory onslaught” on energy production.

In any case, this is just the prelude to Obama’s big climate finale of his administration. The draft for the administration’s five-year offshore-drilling plan offered new leases for sale in the Arctic; the final plan is due out later this year, and will determine development all the way through 2022.

Obama has already protected more ocean than any other president before him, but his decision on Arctic leasing might be the legacy that sticks.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit site: 

Obama still hasn’t banned Arctic drilling, but he just made it more annoying

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama still hasn’t banned Arctic drilling, but he just made it more annoying

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

By on Jul 5, 2016Share

Remember that time the George W. Bush administration tried to sneak a new gas tax onto the books and sort of succeeded?

You probably don’t, because not even those fighting over this measure in Congress understood what was going on. As far as I can tell, the only person who knows the full story is Hanna Breetz, a political scientist at Arizona State University who wrote a dissertation on U.S. alternative fuel policy back in 2012. It’s a dissertation that — mirabile dictu — broke news. But, because it’s a dissertation, no one noticed.

Breetz’s research provides a rare glimpse inside the political sausage factory that churns policy proposals into laws for the good old US of A. In this episode, nobody saw the full picture, and nobody was pushing for the thing that emerged in the end. It’s a story that shows how sometimes there is no guiding plan behind this country’s policy. The politicians weren’t rational planners — they were more like ants tugging a leaf in haphazard directions until they reached a destination.

Back in January 2006, Bush held a one-man intervention with the United States, telling the country that it was “addicted to oil.” To help wean us off our addiction, he called for us to increase our alternative fuel consumption to 35 billion gallons by 2017. Where did this number come from? Conventional wisdom held that Bush pulled it from thin air.

“Tellingly, not one of the industry lobbyists, environmental advocates, Department of Energy analysts, or Congressional staff that I interviewed seemed to know where the 35 billion gallon goal came from,” Breetz writes. “Many of them derided it as a number made up for political purposes.” The people she interviewed described the target as “arbitrary,” “mythical,” and “mind-boggling.”

It’s tempting to believe that some young speechwriter suggested this number after Bush initially wrote “62 squigilliam gallons!”

In fact, the number had a purpose, and it wasn’t plucked from a hat. But the Bush administration seems to have kept silent about its rationale so that no one would figure out what it was actually proposing: doubling the federal gas tax.

Before the speech, Bush had asked his advisors for a proposal that could make dramatic change without dramatic government intrusion. Bush wanted to work with the market, not pick winners and losers. His advisors suggested a gas tax. Make gas a lot more expensive and people will start choosing other fuels. Of course, this would never fly because most members of Bush’s political party had sworn not to raise taxes of any kind. I imagine someone in the Council of Economic Advisors standing up to say, “Clearly, the best solution would be to tax oil but … we’re Republicans.”

Then, one of these advisors, Benjamin Ho, “reached into the economics literature for an almost subversively clever alternative,” Breetz writes. That alternative: Tell oil companies that they must use an unrealistically high quantity of alternative fuels or pay a penalty — in this case $1 per gallon. It’s functionally equivalent to a gas tax, but it doesn’t look like one. If that doesn’t make sense, you can read how it works here, but remember this is incomprehensible by design. The Bush administration didn’t expect the alternative fuels to emerge out of thin air — it chose a number so big that it would force companies to pay a penalty and push gas prices up. Setting a mandate for 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels would add about 20 cents to the price of gas, on top of the existing 18.6 cent federal gas tax.

When the Senate took up this proposal, however, it morphed into something different. Instead of allowing the market to choose the alternative fuels, senators picked the winner: biofuel — ethanol and biodiesel grown in the Midwest. Instead of creating a mandate for a wide variety of alternative fuels, senators expanded a mandate exclusively for biofuels — gas from plant juice — they had passed two years before. Environmentalists, concerned about the amount of land that we’d need to grow all these biofuels, successfully lobbied to get a mandate for cellulosic ethanol — which can, in theory, be produced without any additional land — into the law.

Along the way, lawmakers eliminated the $1-per-gallon penalty, the key feature required to make this policy an incognito gas tax. They replaced it with fines for companies that failed to meet the impossibly high oil displacement goals. These fines have driven up the price of gas, Breetz told me, but the entire process is inefficient and punitive. In the past, the companies have paid fines for failing to buy cellulosic ethanol that didn’t exist. The courts struck down that practice in 2013, but the EPA still requires oil companies to buy biofuels or pay a fee. Now the fees and volumes are much lower than Bush advisors envisioned, and probably too low to significantly budge the price of gas.

The bill President Bush signed into law on Dec. 19, 2007, Breetz writes, bore little resemblance to what most analysts thought was achievable, or what anyone had wanted to begin with (including the industry it purportedly helped).

The Bush administration deserves more credit than greens generally give it for passing an incognito gas tax. Of course, it didn’t exactly work, but it’s still interesting to see how factions with shared interests pulled this proposal in opposite directions. This case study challenges the notion that democratic governments make deliberate, rational choices. Perhaps we should think of public policy as emergent phenomena, like the formation of geometric patterns in snowflakes and the movement of schools of fish. Maybe democracies plan their political fate only to the same degree that termites plan the architecture of their mounds. For this termite, spending his days scribbling away about what ought to be done, that idea is at once terrifying and liberating.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link to original:

The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The crazy true story of how George W. Bush secretly tried to raise the gas tax

John Oliver Slams "Absolutely Insane" Brexit Campaign

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ahead of Thursday’s referendum to decide whether Britain will leave or stay in the European Union—a campaign commonly referred to as Brexit—John Oliver took to the latest “Last Week Tonight” to urge the people of the United Kingdom to vote to maintain its EU membership.

“The EU is not perfect: it’s large, confounding, and relentlessly bureaucratic,” Oliver said. “Think of it like Gerard Depardieu: it’s an unwieldy European body that’s a source of great bewilderment. But Britain leaving it would be a huge destabilizing decision, so you would expect the Brexit camp to have some pretty solid arguments. Unfortunately, many of them are bullshit.”

Many international leaders, including President Barack Obama, have warned against Britain leaving. And as Oliver showcased with a series of disturbing clips, those on the other side tend to be anti-immigration—and sometimes downright racist.

To help make his case, Oliver delivered a brilliant, profanity-laced anthem in hopes it would convince the United Kingdom to vote “no” this Thursday.

From – 

John Oliver Slams "Absolutely Insane" Brexit Campaign

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Oliver Slams "Absolutely Insane" Brexit Campaign

Muhammad Ali’s Fist — Life Size?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is from the great Pictures on a Page, by Harold Evans. Originally published in Esquire in 1974.

But is it really life size? On the printed page, yes it is. On the web, who knows? It all depends on how your device scales it. That’s something that goes missing in the digital world. For the record, “life size” in this case is 173 mm wide from the left margin of the picture to the right. If you want to compare your fist to Ali’s—and yes, it really is kind of irresistible—zoom in and out until that’s how big the image is.

Original post:

Muhammad Ali’s Fist — Life Size?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Muhammad Ali’s Fist — Life Size?

Religious Pharmacists Want the Right to Refuse to Sell Contraception. The Supreme Court May Step In.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today the Supreme Court will consider whether to take on another case at the intersection of religion and reproductive rights. In Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, a group of religious pharmacists are suing the state of Washington over a law that requires them to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.

The Stormans family, which owns Ralph’s Thriftway, a grocery store with a small pharmacy, and two individual pharmacists who work elsewhere have religious objections to the use of emergency contraceptives, which they believe act as abortifacients. Until July 2007, pharmacists in the state of Washington could make conscience-based referrals if they objected to a drug for religious reasons. This meant they could refuse to stock or dispense the product and refer patients to another pharmacy that would sell the medication—an informal practice that was legal but not required for pharmacists.

In 2007, after receiving consumer complaints for years that some pharmacies were refusing to dispense certain drugs, particularly emergency contraceptives, the state’s pharmacy board passed regulations that set out a specific and limited list of reasons that would allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a drug—for example if a drug is temporarily out of stock or if a prescription seems fraudulent. The new rules presented a compromise: They required pharmacies to stock contraception, doing away with the practice of referring patients elsewhere, but also allowed pharmacists with religious objections to give the prescription to a colleague at their store to be filled.

After the first round of appeals on this case, the pharmacy board agreed to take a stab at amending the new rules. But it decided against any amendments “after receiving additional public testimony highlighting the risks refusals pose to patients’ timely access to medications,” according to court filings. That testimony included a man who was refused HIV medication due to his perceived homosexuality, and a rape survivor who was forced to go to multiple pharmacies over several days before she could obtain the morning-after pill. (The pill’s efficacy in preventing pregnancy diminishes as time passes.)

The Stormans family, who are devout Catholics, brought the lawsuit challenging the new regulations in 2007, the year they passed, on the grounds that they violate the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees the right to freely practice religion. The other two pharmacist plaintiffs joined the lawsuit after one lost her job and the other was threatened with the loss of hers, according to the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this case. The suit has been through two rounds of appeals, and in February 2012 a district court sided with the plaintiffs, saying these new regulations unfairly targeted conscientious objections while allowing exceptions for other reasons. In 2015, a 9th Circuit panel of judges unanimously reversed that decision and upheld the regulations, noting that they are neutrally applied to all pharmacists, and don’t specifically target those with religious motivations.

The high court is weighing whether to take this case on the heels of Zubik v. Burwell, another case where religious freedom and contraceptive access were central. In that case, a group of religious employers, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, challenged the opt-out process for contraceptive coverage that is set out in Obamacare. Last month, the high court punted on reviewing the merits of the religious freedom arguments in the case, instead sending it back to the lower courts for further review. It seems to be putting off a decision on taking this case as well—they’ve rescheduled their review of it three times.

Importantly, if the high court were to take this case, they could end up weighing in on state-level protections for religious objections and contraception—the ruling in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case, which exempted certain corporate employers from laws they object to on religious grounds, applied only to federal statutes. But SCOTUSblog predicts, it’s unlikely the court will take this case while they are still down a justice.

Originally posted here: 

Religious Pharmacists Want the Right to Refuse to Sell Contraception. The Supreme Court May Step In.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Religious Pharmacists Want the Right to Refuse to Sell Contraception. The Supreme Court May Step In.

Federal Judge Launches a Thousand Tiny Violins for Donald Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A couple of days ago Donald Trump unloaded an extraordinarily blistering public attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing the class-action lawsuit against Trump University:

“The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he’s given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative.” Mr. Trump also told the audience, which had previously chanted the Republican standard-bearer’s signature “build that wall” mantra in reference to Mr. Trump’s proposed wall along the Mexican border, that Judge Curiel is “Mexican.”

What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine,” Mr. Trump said.

….“I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK? But we’ll come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I’m president and I come back to do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. OK. This is called life, folks.”

As it happens, Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana, but hey, what’s a little race-baiting between Trump and a few thousand close friends and few million TV viewers?

More broadly, though, what the hell was this all about? Well, it turns out that Trump probably had forewarning about what was coming down the pike. The Washington Post had filed a motion to unseal some documents in the trial, and one of their arguments was that since Trump was now the presumptive Republican nominee for president, that increased the public interest in these documents. The judge agreed:

As an initial matter, the court must strongly presume the public interest in access. But “the interest in access to court proceedings in general may be asserted more forcefully when the litigation involves matters of significant public concern.” As the Post points out, the Ninth Circuit found that Trump University was a public figure for purposes of defamation.

….Subsequently, Defendant became the front-runner for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue. The Ninth Circuit has directed courts considering the public disclosure of litigation materials to take into account “whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and…whether the case involves issues important to the public.”

So Trump is now more than just a public figure: he’s a legitimate contender for high public office. And that means his actions justifiably invite stronger scrutiny.

So what was Trump’s ploy here? Does he not realize that publicly bashing a judge is a bad idea? Federal judges don’t have to worry about Trump’s mob and they don’t have to worry about being re-elected. Or did he think that ranting against the judge before the ruling was handed down would help him on appeal? I criticized him, and he took it personally and ruled against us. Maybe. Or does Trump simply have no self control and couldn’t help himself?

Generally speaking, I think Trump still doesn’t realize that running for president is different from anything else he’s ever experienced. The bullying just doesn’t work the way it used to. The press scrutiny is beyond even Trump’s imagining. Money and organization matter. You have to appeal to more than just a half of a half of the electorate. And in this case, the fact that he’s the presumptive nominee of a major political party means that his actions are presumptively of legitimate public interest.

Live by earned media, die by earned media. In the meantime, let us all break out the crocodile tears for Trump. It’s schadenfreude time.

Continue reading: 

Federal Judge Launches a Thousand Tiny Violins for Donald Trump

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Federal Judge Launches a Thousand Tiny Violins for Donald Trump