And none of those things have any impact on American's day to day lives, unlike what Obama did with HC or what Bush got us into in the ME.
I suppose it will come as no surprise to you that I think the trade tariff chaos Trump has created does affect American's day to day lives, directly and indirectly; that I think the ordinary people that lost money to Trump's frauds were affected; that the contractors he made sue him to collect what was owed to them were affected, and in turn their employees; that the soybean farmers in the Midwest and the Mississippi delta were affected by trade chaos Trump created for the purpose of attracting attention to himself and trying to appear as though he is " a great deal maker," when in fact nothing of substance was gained, and our relationship to our trading partners was seriously damaged.. I could go into how Trumps violation of the emoluments clause could even impact whether a young American might live or die, but I'll not. To do that would require far more discourse then I am inclined to engage in here. Just as things often seem more complex than they are, the opposite is true as well.
We are a democratic republic with all the defects and strengths that implies. We have now a President that cares nothing for majority opinion, the very bulwark underpinning our Republic. Instead, he makes decisions based on the demands of his ego. This is why our country is in grave peril.
Mr. Trump has selected a man of impeccable qualification to sit on the Supreme Court for perhaps 40 years, but he has selected him for the wrong reason. He has selected him specifically because of his peculiar views, views far from mainstream legal thinking on executive privilege and the powers of the executive. This candidates singular interpretation of our Constitution could, and there is little doubt that in fact it will if he is confirmed, result in the unnecessary loss of tens of hundreds of Americans' lives over the course of his career on the Court*, and also the loss of women's right to choose when to bear a child, and when not to! These are matters of the most profound importance affecting the day to day lives of millions of Americans.
Mr. Trump selected Bret Kavanaugh for one overriding reason. Kavannaugh was chosen for his singular, and peculiar views on the powers of the Chief Executive, views highly favorable to Mr. Trump's in his current precarious position. These strange views, expressed in writing and especially while he was in the G.W. Bush White House --there again seemingly tailored to be highly favorable to the chief executive -- break away from those of nearly all legal scholars, precedents set by courts, and the principle taught to all school children for over two Centuries that the President is not above the law.
In Mr. Kavanaugh's view, the President is not bound by statutory law, but may selectively decide whether he will obey a law or not; the president may not be investigated while in office; the president is not subject to subpoena; and the president may not be indicted. In his confirmation hearings, Mr. Kavanaugh artfully dodges all questions regarding whether he agrees with prior Court decisions, his stock answer is that they are "settled law." Because of his unambiguous and peculiar views of the Executive's power, however, there can be no doubt that Mr. Kavanaugh disagrees with the Courts prior decisions that held that civil suits against the president may proceed while the president is in office; and with the Courts unanimous decision in U.S. v Nixon holding that the President must respond to Mr. Jaworski's subpoena.** Obviously these precedents are inconsistent with Kavanaughs view that the President is above the law, and serve to highlight how truly bizarre Kavanaugh's opinions are in regard to executive power.
Mr. Kavanaugh was asked whether the president could pardon himself. He declined to answer, saying that this was a hypothetical situation and he could not respond to hypotheticals. But what does that tell you about his extreme interpretation of Presidential power? No juror would hold that the president could pardon himself, because to do so would place the President above the law; an interpretation of law that violates virtually every American's long standing belief that the President is
not above the law. Why did Mr. Kavanaugh not simply dismiss the question by saying, "Of course the president may not pardon himself. That would mock the drafters of the Constitution by claiming they intended something that was absurd. If the president may pardon himself, then of course he is above law." Mr. Kavanaugh's non-answer on a question so clear-cut leaves us with only one reasonable course of action. He must not be confirmed. The only one we thought could possibly believe the president is above the law was of course Mr. Trump. But that was before we knew of Mr. Kavanaugh's strange beliefs. Now Mr. Trump has apparently been joined by Mr. Kavanaugh.
The unfortunate high probability that Mr. Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the Senate, is another example of how Mr, Trump can go on affecting the Day to Day lives of Americans, as you put it, long after he is out of office. Mr. Trump is not harmless. The lasting harm that Mr. Trump may cause has little to do with the merits and nuances of left versus right politics. Instead, it strikes at the bedrock of our Republic, its democratic foundation. It is a gravely serious matter.
_______________________
*As a self declared "textualist" he holds extraordinarily bizarre views on the application of the Second Amendment.
**My reading of this case is that when compliance with the subpoena can be shown to be necessary to judicial process, that need may override privilege claimed by the executive. Thus I would expect any subpoena of any type issued to the president to be more or less automatically adjudicated, whereas if you or I are subpoenaed, we will simply respond without challenge. So in this sense subpoenas issued to a president are different.
