On the extreme outside chance that confirmation was needed, NBC News reported Wednesday morning that Secretary of State (and former Exxon CEO) Rex Tillerson called Trump a “moron” after a July 20 meeting at the Pentagon. Actually, Tillerson’s exact phrase apparently was “F***ing moron.”
So it wasn’t surprising that when Trump trotted off to see the hurricane damage in Puerto Rico on Tuesday that he compared Hurricane Maria to Katrina, which he called a “real catastrophe.” “What is your death count as of this moment?” Trump asked Puerto Ricans. As far as can be determined, they showed admirable restraint and did not attack.
Trump later boasted that “most of the hospitals” on Puerto Rico were open, although according to FEMA itself only one of Puerto Rico’s 69 hospitals was fully operational. Then while handing out flashlights, Trump told the crowd they didn’t need such devices any more, even though the U.S. Energy Department said only about 5.4% of customers in Puerto Rico had power restored.
Also on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether there are constitutional limits on gerrymandering, the practice of drawing election districts to ensure the party in power remains in power. For example in In 2012, Republicans won 60 of the 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly despite winning only 48.6% of the vote. For some reason, certain people think that’s unfair. This is a case that could have a huge effect on which party controls Congress in the years to come.
At the hearing the four conservatives were opposed to intervening. (That includes Trump appointee Justice Gorsuch, whose judicial philosophy is somewhere to the right of King George III.) The four liberal justices were equally in favor. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, what becomes of the "precious right to vote, if you can stack a legislature?" An excellent question.
The deciding vote will be Anthony Kennedy, who seemed inclined to find a Constitutional right against gerrymandering. The question is how broad his opinion will be. The Court could issue an opinion any time from March to July of 2018. It will be an incredibly important decision.
Sadly, after the wanton shooting in Las Vegas, the question again is whether Congress will ever pass reasonable gun-control legislation. The National Rifle Association indicated it may not oppose the banning of “bump stocks.” Those devices allow a semi-automatic weapon to be fired as fast as a fully automatic one (about 600 rounds per minute, in other words, 10 per second). Presumably that’s because bump stocks also decrease accuracy so much that the NRA bans them at its shooting ranges.
Banning bump stocks, though, is hardly a panacea, as there are many other ways to accomplish the same goal. Also, such a ban wouldn’t address the facts that people can buy weapons at gun shows without any background check at all, that those on the U.S. “no-fly” terrorist threat list can buy weapons, that men with domestic violence convictions can buy weapons or that the assault-rifle ban was allowed to expire. Given this, I am pretty sure I have a God-given right to own a fully firing tank or a small nuclear weapon.
Yes, the National Rifle Association has immense power. It collects huge sums of money from the gun manufacturers and uses that money to elect Senators and Representatives who will oppose any regulation that will limit gun sales. The reality, harsh as it is, is that this is only possible because the voters in those districts have decided that mass shootings are an acceptable price to pay for the fewest regulations on guns possible. Until that changes, no meaningful reform can occur.