WaywardWind

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

986 Excellent

About WaywardWind

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/10/1950

Profile Information

  • Location
    Naklua

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Naklua
  1. Medical error has recently been rated as the 3rd largest cause of death in the USA, only exceeded by heart disease and cancer. Medical malpractice litigation is not a "sport" by any means. In most states, access to the court room in malpractice cases is rigorously screened, and nuisance suits and those without merit are not allowed to proceed.
  2. No, he did not - because he can not. It would take legislation to eliminate the mandate and the penalty, which legislation would never get past the Senate. What he did do is sign an executive order, in anticipation of the imminent repeal of the ACA, which gave non-binding guidance to federal agencies: President Trump’s executive order calls for federal agencies to “exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden,” on individuals or businesses. That reflects the president’s determination to eliminate the mandates that require individuals to carry health insurance, and for businesses with more than 50 employees to offer it. But Trump lacks the authority to eliminate those requirements without congressional approval. So, for now, they remain in effect. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2017/0125/What-Trump-s-executive-order-on-Obamacare-repeal-means-for-your-health-care-coverage How that will play out now that the repeal effort has failed, is still up in the air. My guess is that the agencies affected - HHS, IRS, etc., will now enforce the law as written.
  3. Explain what you mean when you say the ACA is going broke...with specific evidence....
  4. I disagree, and so would some other folks:
  5. My bad for not checking that you were the original poster. The majority of my comments apply to his post. However, to respond to your queries, all US Attorneys are presidential appointees and well aware that their tenure will likely end with a new administration. They are also aware that it is their responsibility to ensure a smooth transition with their successors, something which Trump's actions has prevented. While it is true that the US Attorney in a given office is not likely to be involved in the day to day handling of an investigation (Assistant US Attorneys and FBI agents generally handle those matters) there are matters which because of their sensitivity the US Attorney does not share with his or her subordinates. Those matters would be shared with a successor US Attorney but in the present situation that will not happen. The US Attorney's offices will continue to function irrespective of the firings, but valuable insights and information will be lost.
  6. Deleting double post
  7. Your original post said: Actually, that is not true. On his first day in office, Bill Clinton fired 95 of 96 US Attorneys, and started replacing them with his own appointments. A number of the positions took months to be filled. That information is not accurate, and is virtually identical to that which is posted on the sites I later referenced. Must be pure coincidence that you and the authors of those sites came up with the same information independently. Beyond that, your information is completely wrong: no US attorneys were fired on the first day of Clinton's presidency. Two months after his inauguration, his newly appointed Attorney General asked for the resignations of the then serving US Attorneys, in accord with historical practices. None were immediately removed, all stayed in office until their successors were nominated and approved by the Senate, and some were kept on and served under the Clinton administration. Very, very different than the actions of Trump and Sessions, and of your portrayal of historical precedent here.
  8. My information is historically correct, and yours is not. You did what so many others have done here: visit one of the right wing websites and then post here as fact what you get from there. When researching a topic, you need to look well beyond Breitbart, Infowars, Townhall, etc. - those sites exist to post inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy theories with almost no regard for the truth. Dig deeper if you want accuracy. Transitions always involve replacement of the US Attorneys, but it is almost always done in an orderly fashion to ensure that ongoing investigations and cases are not disrupted. Outgoing attorneys then have the opportunity to being their successors up to speed on the activities of that office. What Trump and Sessions did was exactly the opposite, perhaps intentionally so, given the number of investigations which are focusing on members of the Trump administration.
  9. The Constitution gives no such authority to the president; he is attempting to use the statutory authority contained in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, but is ignoring the limitations on that authority which are set forth in the INA.
  10. You are welcome to provide examples of instances where other presidents banned immigrants and refugees on the basis of their religion after boasting for over a year that they were going to do so. We will all be interested in seeing your proof....
  11. Your information is incorrect; not surprising since nearly all of the right wing web sites are carrying the same story, with virtually identical language.... The facts are quite different: (http://wiredpen.com/2017/03/10/trump-fires-46-us-attorneys/) Clinton: On March 23, 1993, Janet Reno sent a notice to all 93 U.S. attorneys asking for resignations; however, incumbents stayed on “until their replacements could be confirmed.” Salon has a long list of Republican objections from 1993. Note that from 1981 to 1993, Attorney General Sessions served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. Speaking to the NY Times, Michael D. McKay, a U.S. attorney in Seattle, “recalled at least one colleague who was in the midst of a major investigation and was kept on to finish it.“ Michael Chertoff, a 1990 Bush appointee, did not leave until 1994. Terree A. Bowers, a Republican, became the interim U.S. attorney in 1992 and served through 1993, the first year of Clinton’s term. John Smietanka, a Reagan appointee, also kept his position for the first year of Clinton’s term.
  12. Once again we hear from a Trump supporter who likes to quote the provision granting discretionary powers to the president, but inevitably fails to add the provision which limits those powers: 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) This provision provides"... no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." These kinds off shenanigans might work well at a political rally, or on Twitter, but they fail miserably when advanced in the bright lights of a federal court.
  13. The protections of the Constitution will always control when examining any law, regulation, executive order, etc. You thought wrong. One cannot traverse the country for a year and a half, constantly promising to impose a ban on Muslims, then sign an order which bans immigration from seven (now six) countries with 99% Muslim populations, and say it is not a ban on Muslims. Words matter, and are most definitely to be considered when deciding intent.
  14. The INA (including 212(f)) became law in the early 1950s and was amended in 1965, including section 1152. One of the first things that you learn in law school (or at least one did when I went to law school 40 years ago) is that in the event of a conflict, the later provision rules; if that is not clear, then the legislative history is examined. In this case, it seems pretty clear that 1152 acts as a check on the powers enumerated in 212(f). Beyond that, the Constitutional prohibition on discrimination based on religion has been argued in the courts examining the travel ban, and found to be controlling,. Trump does not have a leg to stand on; it is easy to make all kinds of wild promises in a campaign, but they inevitably fail when tested against the law and the Constitution, as he is painfully learning now. One cannot bluff or bully a federal court judge, although Trump and his advisers seem to think they can.