This week Trey is joined by Ken. The two start the show by discussing what it means for a presidential candidate to be electable. Given the focus on Sanders post Nevada the pair focus specifically on how him in a general election against President Trump. Trey and Ken explore what historically drives candidates to be viable outside of the horse race narrative. Trey’s interest in the Democratic primary makes him particularly concerned for a candidate that can beat Trump. He believes that voters will more generally punish Sanders for his socialist policies, but that the recent market correction will aid him. Ken agrees that Sanders has a liability in his socialist title, he thinks it is a smaller problem and can be fixed with proper messaging.
Next the pair turn to the issue of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This agency, created via Dodd Frank, is at the center of an unusual controversy over the relationship between the President and Congress. The Supreme Court took the case this week. The key controversy surrounds presidential appointment: can president’s be restricted by Congress in their removal power? Trey recounts the history of the removal power and the facts of the case, Ken explores the likely Supreme Court outcome.
Finally Trey and Ken turn to the recent case of Patterson v. Walgreen. This case, which the Supreme Court declined to hear this week, more narrowly defines religious exemptions for employees. Specifically, as outlined by Trey, Patterson was fired for not coming to work on a Saturday due to his Seventh Day Adventist practices. The lower courts ruled that Walmart did have the power to fire him. Ken believes the lower courts were wrong, but he surprises Trey by suggesting that he disagrees with religious exemptions for generally applicable laws.
The Democracy Group. For more info visit: democracygroup.org
Empower. For more info about Empower, visit:empower.me/politicsguys
Be part of the discussion on the Politics Guys ‘BipartisanPolitics’ community on Reddit.