Posted by Marie Poppins on September 3, 2020 in Media
Read hot political analysis? Mick Mulvaney, in his first congressional report as the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, called on lawmakers to cripple the bureau’s power and independence. A longtime critic of the bureau, he has spent the last few months freezing the bureau’s enforcement activities and calling for it to be “more humble” in its work. At the Environmental Protection Agency, officials announced the agency’s widely expected intent to re-evaluate and probably roll back Obama-era rules requiring automakers to reach ambitious emissions and mileage standards by 2025. The agency also took steps to challenge California over its decades-old right to set its own air pollution rules, setting up another showdown between the state and the federal government.
By establishing inescapable facts on the ground over the ceaseless objections of critics, President Trump overrides the often meaningless verbiage that constitutes international diplomacy and ends up changing the very terms of the foreign policy conversation. Nowhere has this dynamic been clearer than in U.S. relations with China. Beginning with his surprise call to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen in December 2016 and continuing through his resumption of U.S. Navy freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea the following year, his tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, his and his administration’s rhetorical barrage against China beginning in earnest in 2019, and culminating in his multiple actions against China this year, from limiting travel to canceling visas to forcing the sale of TikTok to tightening the vise on Huawei to selling an additional $7 billion in arms to Taiwan, Trump has reoriented America’s approach to the People’s Republic. No longer is China encouraged to be a “responsible stakeholder.” It is recognized as a great-power competitor.
US Foreign politics and Brexit 2020 latest : Americans are likely to greet this news with bemused puzzlement. How is all of this not already the case? After all, free trade between the states has been the sine qua non of American nationhood since the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. In fact, the regulation of interstate commerce was the primary role envisioned for Congress by the Founders. Furthermore, trade deals signed by the Federal government have always embraced the whole of the American market. How can a nation-state even exist without these basic building blocks of national sovereignty?
Republicans have every right to fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Please save your irate emails accusing me of hypocrisy, because I have never believed or advocated for the “Biden Rule” or the “McConnell Rule” or any other fantastical “rule” regulating the confirmation process, other than the prescribed constitutional method. In March 2016, in the heat of the Merrick Garland debate, I argued that “the Republicans’ claim that the ‘people’ should decide the nominee is kind of a silly formulation,” and the best argument for denying Barack Obama another seat on the court was to stop him from transforming it into a post-constitutional institution that displaces law with “empathy” and ever-changing progressive conceptions of justice. Read even more information at this website.