Where the Trump administration is succeeding

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump Has Quietly Accomplished More Than It Appears
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-trump-is-actually-accomplishing/535458/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BudgieForce]

Thats a very low bar.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, it's getting pretty annoying seeing people point to his court appointments as this big, hidden success of Trump. Why is this even being factored in to any president? Let alone one whose party has a Senate majority? Court appointments are a default feature of the presidency (unless you're Obama and Republicans control the Senate, that is). Mitch's actions from 2015 - 2017 left Trump with more seats to fill than normal, so even for the most incompetent administration, this is kind of something that would be impossible to screw up, especially if you're just appointing whoever the Federalist Society tells you. I also might add that naming young conservatives is nothing new for Republicans.

My point being that if you're leaning on your "success" taking names and sending them to the Senate for confirmation, the bar has already been lowered so much that it is virtually nonexistent.

edit: basically what the previous 2 posters said while I was writing this

[KingSweden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, it's getting pretty annoying seeing people point to his court appointments as this big, hidden success of Trump. Why is this even being factored in to any president? Let alone one whose party has a Senate majority? Court appointments are a default feature of the presidency (unless you're Obama and Republicans control the Senate, that is). Mitch's actions from 2015 - 2017 left Trump with more seats to fill than normal, so even for the most incompetent administration, this is kind of something that would be impossible to screw up, especially if you're just appointing whoever the Federalist Society tells you. I also might add that naming young conservatives is nothing new for Republicans.

My point being that if you're leaning on your "success" taking names and sending them to the Senate for confirmation, the bar has already been lowered so much that it is virtually nonexistent.

edit: basically what the previous 2 posters said while I was writing this

Enthusiastically seconded

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Success may not be the right word.

But I think it is important to remember as Trump fills the car with garbage and sets it on fire, that he and the GOP are driving us to a very bad place as fast as he can.

[TheSaint250]

It's low-quality, no-big-bills-signed-type success

[publicunofficial]

It's low-quality, no-big-bills-signed-type success

And it's things that every new Republican administration would have also done, and that can be undone the moment a Democratic president is elected. Cutting environmental regulations is about as noteworthy an achievement as changing the sheets in the Presidential bedroom.

[Virginiá]

The court picks can't be undone without impeachment, and the average age of them means they will be around for a little longer than those under, say, someone like Obama.

[Young Conservative]

Democrats know these actions typical or failures. In reality, this is how government is truly shrunk, reformed, and reinvented.

[TheSaint250]

It's low-quality, no-big-bills-signed-type success

And it's things that every new Republican administration would have also done, and that can be undone the moment a Democratic president is elected. Cutting environmental regulations is about as noteworthy an achievement as changing the sheets in the Presidential bedroom.

Yeah. I don't disagree with that

[Nyvin]

By 2021 GW Bush's Judges should start to retire so who really cares?   It's just typical White House business...it's not "success" in any sense of the word.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

It's low-quality, no-big-bills-signed-type success

And it's things that every new Republican administration would have also done, and that can be undone the moment a Democratic president is elected. Cutting environmental regulations is about as noteworthy an achievement as changing the sheets in the Presidential bedroom.

Yeah but the extra carbon dioxide in the air won't be as easily removed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He shows no leadership skills to lead the GOP party to a majority in 2021-2030, where the census will help Dems get majority back.

[KingSweden]

The court picks can't be undone without impeachment, and the average age of them means they will be around for a little longer than those under, say, someone like Obama.

It's always puzzled me that Dems don't nominate younger judges. The Paul Watfords and Michelle Friedlands of the world are rare

[Virginiá]

It's always puzzled me that Dems don't nominate younger judges. The Paul Watfords and Michelle Friedlands of the world are rare

Obama just didn't seem to look at his duties like that. Democrats held the Senate for most of his tenure, so they could really stacked the judiciary with young liberals, but as far as I know that isn't quite what happened. Sotomayor was in her mid 50s when she was appointed to the USSC, which is notably older than Gorsuch or Thomas. I guess there is Alito who was mid 50s iirc, but then again Republicans got pretty lucky with Ginsburg, who was what, 60 years old when she was confirmed? In 1993 even, with a large Democratic majority.

Meanwhile, as conservatives regularly lambast Dem-appointed judges as activists, we have beauties like this coming from Trump:

Group asks Trump to withdraw Wisconsin judicial nominee who says Bible precedes the Constitution

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/news/group-asks-trump-to-withdraw-wisconsin-judicial-nominee-who-says/article_edb9c39a-6ff6-11e7-8fb7-5f13d109a205.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A religious activist judge if I ever saw one, and probably destined for a circuit court no less.

[Virginiá]

Democrats bring knives to tank battles and expect to win. The GOP never screws around when it comes to bargaining hard and being unyielding in their obstruction.

I don't know, the impact of that depends on how you interpret it: Are they trying to avoid scorched earth tactics or are they willing to do it but somehow too dumb? I only included the latter to be thorough even though I think it is an absurd position. It doesn't take a genius to know what the more ruthless tactic would be. I think Democrats sometimes just don't want to go down certain paths and thus, suffer the consequences for it. Sometimes I wish they would but at the same time, it's not like I want my party to become just as scummy and ruthless as Republicans.

As for Garland, well, that was the ideal compromise that should have brought even a semi-reasonable opposition Senate majority to the table. If this happened decades ago, someone would have been confirmed. However, it's not decades ago. This is now, with Mitch McConnell's power-at-any-costs strategy hard at work. There really is no negotiating with someone like that in that kind of situation.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Democrats bring knives to tank battles and expect to win. The GOP never screws around when it comes to bargaining hard and being unyielding in their obstruction.

Sometimes I wish they would but at the same time, it's not like I want my party to become just as scummy and ruthless as Republicans.

This is where I take the opposite view. I'm completely supportive of the Democrats becoming a bunch of Lyndon Johnson style bullies in their approach if it gets progressive legislation through.

If today's Democrats had passed the VRA and CRA, they would've been only optional because Democrats today are weak and always go half way even when they do the right thing. From Reagan-Trump, this conservative era has seen liberals constantly offering an olive branch to the other side while the GOP takes the olive branch, breaks it in half, and shoves it up the Democratic Party's collective ass in return. I understand that that is just how the Democrats have felt the need to operate since Reagan and Bush I, but times are changing and these coy, weak minded Democrats have got to go.

[Adam Griffin]

I really wouldn't worry about the federal courts becoming some beacon of solid conservatism unless Trump gets a second term. Right now, we're in the middle of a Clinton-Bush-Obama sandwich, comprised of 3 successive waves of 2 terms' worth of appointments - one term isn't going to dramatically change that. At best, Trump would merely end up balancing the partisan makeup of the federal courts as a whole by the end of his first term.

It is really slanted toward the Democrats right now. Roughly 60% of the district courts have Democratic-appointed majorities; only 30% have Republican-appointed majorities.