Again, this was not housekeeping. They specifically asked her to stay on in the interim. She was their choice. She was not some Obama-bot pushing a liberal agenda.
It's almost amusing at this point, as a liberal, to continue to warn about things that continue to come true. It took 6 years of being called traitors and fools during the Bush Administration before people finally came around after Katrina. Myself and others on the forum were told numerous times in last month that none of the stuff that has been done just in the first week of Trump being in office would ever happen, that it wasn't literal. Nearly every damn thing has taken place. We were told the Russia angle was exaggerated when it absolutely wasn't. Now, of course, we are being hysterical and overreacting to things that we were initially told wouldn't happen at all. I fully expect as things get worse some other narrative about how none of this is alarming will form, right up to the point where something happens where there is no one who can possibly defend it, at which time everyone will claim to have opposed him vigorously from the beginning. I've seen this movie before.
I could retreat to my usual liberal enclaves on the web, but, honestly, in this age of Trump, I find this forum to be a far better place to hone my arguments.
Call me cynical, but I draw certain satisfaction from knowing it's not just us in Russia going down the hellhole. As small a consolation as it is, at least nice to know I'm not the odd one.
Call me cynical, but I draw certain satisfaction from knowing it's not just us in Russia going down the hellhole. As small a consolation as it is, at least nice to know I'm not the odd one.
I would be interested to know what those in Russia think of these developments, and how the current situation in your country is as well. I confess I know very little about what day to day life is like for a Russian citizen.
Again, this was not housekeeping. They specifically asked her to stay on in the interim. She was their choice. She was not some Obama-bot pushing a liberal agenda.
If you do not listen to your boss, you get fired. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy. Also if you label yourself (Conservative or Liberal) you are locking yourself into one way of thought. You are only arguing with yourself so that you can convince yourself that you are right. Can I explain to you the meaning of insanity?
Back in November, in one city we had taxi drivers offering free ride for those who carried Trump's portrait with them (no idea if anybody actually did, but). An odd poll of sympathies that I saw also indicated half rooting for Trump, and another half for neither. I guess it can be attributed to his pro-Putin remarks and promises to cease hostile attitude towards Russia.
And for ourselves, we've got people sentenced for "extremist" postings in social networks, internet censorship, and the surveillance project that promises to put PRISM to shame. To be fair, I guess the first two items on the list are mostly due to just lazy officers looking to score easy points, instead of actually doing some work - that with the laws being open to as wide an interpretation as the imagination can run. But still, what the heck :facepalm:
Again, this was not housekeeping. They specifically asked her to stay on in the interim. She was their choice. She was not some Obama-bot pushing a liberal agenda.
If you do not listen to your boss, you get fired. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy. Also if you label yourself (Conservative or Liberal) you are locking yourself into one way of thought. You are only arguing with yourself so that you can convince yourself that you are right. Can I explain to you the meaning of insanity?
What happens when your boss acts you to do something which you, a obviously very accomplished lawyer, believe to be totally illegal?? I agree, Trump can surely fire her. So he can continue to enforce a ban on a certain religion from certain countries that will not prevent one single act of terrorism and will likely create more. But yeah, if they want to continue to keep 5-year old children and grandmothers locked up in detention at airports for 17 hours at a time, and if anyone seriously thinks that is keeping them "safe", well I don't know what to tell you. No one seems to have any problem with the Executive Branch just straight up IGNORING the judiciary and a ruling made by a federal judge, but again, who in their right mind would think they would follow a court order??
I'll remind everyone that Obama did not have a single terrorist attack that wasn't the act of a lone gunman take place in his 8 years (and every one of those people was a US citizen). In a nation as awash in guns as this one, stopping that would be an impossibility. So I'd say we've been pretty "safe", or as safe as one can be when the entire country can be armed to the teeth if they choose to be. So this is Trump's big promise?? Fine. He has personally vowed to eradicate terrorism FROM THE EARTH and to keep the country safe. I'll say right now, the moment ANY sort of terrorist attack happens on US soil, by Trump's own rules, he must be held personally responsible for it. These are his standards, and the standards Democrats who have been blamed for terrorist attacks for 16 years have been held to. Some guy walks into a gas station and shoots 4 people?? Trump's fault, he didn't prevent it. A bomb goes off in any city in the country?? Trump at fault again, after all, he promised this wouldn't happen. Maybe these things will happen, maybe they won't. But I guarantee that detaining legal residents by the hundreds across the country at airports won't prevent a single attack.
This video, of Yates answering a question at her confirmation from Jeff Sessions is simply stunning:
Didn't miss the Bannon NSC thing, as it's fairly clear he is THE major influence in the White House, and is building a very small cabal around Trump. You can read Steve Bannon's own quotes about himself to get a sense of how dangerous this guy is. Or maybe check out his divorce proceedings where his ex-wife stated that he said didn't want his kids at a certain school because there was "too many Jews". Bannon isn't hiding anything, he's an out and proud White Nationalist.
Trump can retaliate against California by withholding federal funds for things. California knows this, and they don't need them. They aren't Mississippi or Arkansas. They can, in conservative parlance, "pull themselves up by the bootstraps". As has been mentioned before, it's universally red states that receive the bulk of federal funding compared to what they contribute.
I'll remind that Republicans have claimed "states rights" since time immemorial to ram through any policy they can think of. They are about to get a taste of their own medicine. It will be States and Cities that push back against Trump, not the Democratic Congress Minority. And really, why should they comply with Executive Orders?? The Trump Administration itself has demonstrated that you don't have to respect the separation of powers.
The Nuremberg trials established that "just obeying orders" is not a valid defence. Ergo, not only can you refuse to carry out an order that you believe to be illegal or immoral, but you are actually legally obliged to do so.
Executive Orders apply onto to Federal agencies; State and local law enforcement answer to local voters, the governor, and/or the State Attorney General rather than any Federal authority. I suspect California's SB54 will pass, after which other States will adopt similar resolutions. The Federal Government has been running over States a lot in recent years so it will be good for States to begin pushing back.
I have also advocated self-determination for a long time so part of me wants CalExit to succeed. There are also loosely-organized groups of people who have been longing for Alaskan and Hawaiian independence--remember that Hawaii was its own nation as late as 1893, so nationalistic feelings are still quite strong there. In fact, Congress passed a resolution which Bill Clinton signed back in 1993 apologizing for overthrowing the Queen and illegally annexing Hawaii (Statehood did not occur until 1959).
The White House is framing the choice of the stolen Supreme Court pick tonight like the season finale of The Apprentice or The Voice. Maybe they do have the public pegged. Maybe this country is far stupider than even I thought, which is already pretty damn stupid.
European Union President Donald Tusk listed the Trump administration as a threat alongside China, Russia, terrorism and radical Islam, adding that "worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable." "The change in Washington puts the European Union in a difficult situation; with the new administration seeming to put into question the last 70 years of American foreign policy," Tusk said in a letter to EU members.
So, Neil Gorsuch, the Hobby Lobby judge, is the illegitimate Supreme Court pick. A guy who believes that women are not entitled to controception coverage in their health insurance AND is against abortion. I suppose the solution is that women should never have sex, ever (and that's really what that issue is about anyway).
So, Neil Gorsuch, the Hobby Lobby judge, is the illegitimate Supreme Court pick. A guy who believes that women are not entitled to controception coverage in their health insurance AND is against abortion. I suppose the solution is that women should never have sex, ever (and that's really what that issue is about anyway).
It's a good thing there's never been a man that has been interested in sex or pressured a woman for sex. It's all women's responsibility, right GOP?
So, Neil Gorsuch, the Hobby Lobby judge, is the illegitimate Supreme Court pick. A guy who believes that women are not entitled to controception coverage in their health insurance AND is against abortion. I suppose the solution is that women should never have sex, ever (and that's really what that issue is about anyway).
It's a good thing there's never been a man that has been interested in sex or pressured a woman for sex. It's all women's responsibility, right GOP?
If men could have babies you'd be able to get an abortion at an Arby's.
What's sad is how anti abortion they are even though in the early stage of pregnancy its just a mass of cells with no functioning organs. Yet against supporting refugee children.
I just watched an entire 20 minute segment about this on CNN and there wasn't a SINGLE mention of this pick being ripped from Obama and given to Trump. Not one. Liberal media my ass.
I mean, it is so utterly and fundamentally ridiculous to watch Republicans start bitching about Democratic obstruction of this pick. They haven't even invented a word for this kind of hypocrisy. You have to believe, to your CORE, that the American people are just fundamentally dumb as rocks to make this argument after what they did to Obama's pick. Maybe they're right. Hell, they probably are.
I know this much. The media will apply a complete and total double standard to the Democrats simply engaging in the EXACT same behavior as Republicans, because the rules automatically change when Republicans are in power. They flip like a lightswitch. I also know that 3 or 4 Blue Dog Democrats will cave and vote for this guy anyway, because they're spineless and weak. I also know they are going to face primary challenges so fast it will make their head spin, and NONE of them will be Senators in 2018.
Turn the other cheek is a nice parable in the Bible. In politics, it makes you roadkill. At this juncture, if you hope to survive these bastards, you better be playing by Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" rules: "They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of their's in the morgue." This is actually a valid reason people don't vote for Democrats. They rarely ever project strength.
“The most fundamental thing that must be understood about tonight’s announcement is that this is a stolen seat. This is the first time in American history that one party has blockaded a nominee for almost a year in order to deliver a seat to a President of their own party. If this tactic is rewarded rather than resisted, it will set a dangerous new precedent in American governance.
“This strategy of packing the court, if successful, could threaten fundamental rights in America, including workers’ right to organize, women’s reproductive rights, and the rights of ordinary citizens to have their voices heard in elections rather than being drowned out by the corrupting influence of dark money from the richest Americans.
“If President Trump were serious about healing the divisions in America and undoing the damage wrought by Senate Republicans last year, he could have named Merrick Garland to fill this seat. Garland is a centrist jurist who is respected on both sides of the aisle. Instead, he doubled down on division by picking an ideological and extreme nominee to satisfy the far right.
“This is a stolen seat being filled by an illegitimate and extreme nominee, and I will do everything in my power to stand up against this assault on the Court.”
I just watched an entire 20 minute segment about this on CNN and there wasn't a SINGLE mention of this pick being ripped from Obama and given to Trump. Not one. Liberal media my ass.
Yeah maybe they're afraid Trump's going to call them fake news again when they repeat his words and so they got scared and bowed down to him.
For the millionth time, the Supreme Court seat was not *stolen*. In order to be stolen, something had to be yours in the first place. No, this situation is like you putting down earnest money and making an offer to buy a house, including filing the initial paperwork then the seller drags their heels for so long that, desperate to have some place to live, you finally give up and rent an apartment. The house wasn't stolen from you--you never owned it--but the seller was certainly being a obstinate troll whose inaction caused significant disruption to your life. As I have said before, the Republicans in the Senate should have held hearings then voted "nay" if they didn't want Obama's candidate.
It is always a shame when politicians engage in dereliction of duty. In fact, if you, as a politician, fail to fulfill the duties of your elected office, whether that office is at the local, State, or Federal level, you should immediately be removed from office and a replacement appointed until a special election can be held. Having rules such as this in place would have forced the Republicans to hold the meeting they should have held.
Actually, I am still rather surprised that the Supreme Court itself never issued any sort of opinion urging the Senate to fulfill its duties. The SCOTUS has not been fulfilling its duty as a check against the other two branches in recent years.
Truthfully, I will be surprised if confirmation hearings last two weeks--they will probably try to fast-track this guy into the Court. $5 says Bannon shows up at the hearings.
I fundamentally disagree. The seat was stolen by any historical precedent. Scalia died during Obama's second term. The constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent. They refused to do so, in hopes of just this outcome. It was unprecedented. The pick WAS Obama's.
The ONLY argument conservatives can make is that Robert Bork didn't get on the court in the Reagan era. But Bork got a vote and a hearing. And, let's get real about Robert Bork. He was the guy who Nixon finally found to fire Archibald Cox during the Saturday Night Massacre.
it isn't stolen. american constitution is not based on precedent, and it's a constitutional matter. the constitution appears to be imperfect here. maybe that's the case, maybe that's how we should see this. but it's probably not. politics is a game of winners and losers. the congressional majority didn't want something and no one can force them to accept any candidate that they don't want, whichever be the reason for that.
I would call it stolen. Every other president who has ever nominated a Supreme Court justice to fill a seat has been able to fill that seat before his term is over, even if he didn't get to appoint his first choice. Having the Senate refuse to even grant hearings to a qualified and respected nominee, or to refuse to accept any nominee no matter who it is (as McConnell explicitly said he would do if things ever got beyond Garland), is beyond unprecedented, and our legal system is indeed based on precedent. Precedent is also the basis of constitutional law; you see precedent cited all the time in legal decisions.
By all legal precedent, that seat belonged partly to Obama and partly to the Senate. But rather than even attempting to reach an agreement with Obama or even suggesting an alternative to Garland, the GOP chose to stop the entire process and hand off to the next President. Except John McCain explicitly said that the GOP would also block any justice nominated by Clinton if she were elected.
McCain and McConnell explicitly said the only person who was allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice was a Republican president. That is stealing a seat.
Obama is the only president in American history who has not been able to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and there was nothing about his nomination that was the least bit unusual. Congressional Republicans refused to even consider Obama's nominee because they wanted that power for themselves.
I knew from the moment I heard about Scalia's death on the news--and I told my mother, who was watching at the time--that the GOP would not accept any Obama nominee, no matter how qualified or respected the nominee was. Literally five minutes later, I heard McConnell say the exact same thing.
The new rule (with no hyperbole) seems to be that only Republicans are allowed to make Supreme Court picks. This is confirmed not only by the Garland pick, but the fact that even such "moderates" as John McCain said publically they would block Hillary's pick for 4 years. When one side totally abandons political norms going back decades and centuries and aren't held accountable, the center cannot hold.
Gay marriage and Roe v Wade are toast the moment Trump gets his second justice (assuming the one leaving isn't Thomas). If Anthony Kennedy leaves or Ginsburg can't hold one for 4 years, they're gone. There are conservative legal groups sitting on cases specifically designed to reach the High Court the moment it happens.
I'm of the opinion that Obama should have put Garland in by recess appointment. But the fact is, he had too much respect for the office for that, to a fault considering who he was dealing with.
By all legal precedent, that seat belonged partly to Obama and partly to the Senate.
the precedent you speak of is historical precedent, not legal precedent, because this elementary constitutional power is not contingent on any precedent
European Union President Donald Tusk listed the Trump administration as a threat alongside China, Russia, terrorism and radical Islam, adding that "worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable." "The change in Washington puts the European Union in a difficult situation; with the new administration seeming to put into question the last 70 years of American foreign policy," Tusk said in a letter to EU members.
The reason they are butthurt is because Trump told Putin that he would not interfere with Russia taking or bothering the Ukraine, for now. Just another bargaining chip Trump will hold on to against the Globalist EU.
Comments
It's almost amusing at this point, as a liberal, to continue to warn about things that continue to come true. It took 6 years of being called traitors and fools during the Bush Administration before people finally came around after Katrina. Myself and others on the forum were told numerous times in last month that none of the stuff that has been done just in the first week of Trump being in office would ever happen, that it wasn't literal. Nearly every damn thing has taken place. We were told the Russia angle was exaggerated when it absolutely wasn't. Now, of course, we are being hysterical and overreacting to things that we were initially told wouldn't happen at all. I fully expect as things get worse some other narrative about how none of this is alarming will form, right up to the point where something happens where there is no one who can possibly defend it, at which time everyone will claim to have opposed him vigorously from the beginning. I've seen this movie before.
I could retreat to my usual liberal enclaves on the web, but, honestly, in this age of Trump, I find this forum to be a far better place to hone my arguments.
And for ourselves, we've got people sentenced for "extremist" postings in social networks, internet censorship, and the surveillance project that promises to put PRISM to shame. To be fair, I guess the first two items on the list are mostly due to just lazy officers looking to score easy points, instead of actually doing some work - that with the laws being open to as wide an interpretation as the imagination can run. But still, what the heck :facepalm:
I'll remind everyone that Obama did not have a single terrorist attack that wasn't the act of a lone gunman take place in his 8 years (and every one of those people was a US citizen). In a nation as awash in guns as this one, stopping that would be an impossibility. So I'd say we've been pretty "safe", or as safe as one can be when the entire country can be armed to the teeth if they choose to be. So this is Trump's big promise?? Fine. He has personally vowed to eradicate terrorism FROM THE EARTH and to keep the country safe. I'll say right now, the moment ANY sort of terrorist attack happens on US soil, by Trump's own rules, he must be held personally responsible for it. These are his standards, and the standards Democrats who have been blamed for terrorist attacks for 16 years have been held to. Some guy walks into a gas station and shoots 4 people?? Trump's fault, he didn't prevent it. A bomb goes off in any city in the country?? Trump at fault again, after all, he promised this wouldn't happen. Maybe these things will happen, maybe they won't. But I guarantee that detaining legal residents by the hundreds across the country at airports won't prevent a single attack.
This video, of Yates answering a question at her confirmation from Jeff Sessions is simply stunning:
SHE lived up to her promise, which would include, as acting Attorney General, respecting the authority of a federal court order.
Meanwhile, California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles has introduced SB54, which would direct all law enforcement agencies in the State to stop working with Federal immigration officials or agencies, turning the entire State in a "sanctuary State". If this measure passes, similar measures may show up in other predominantly-Democrat States. This is going to cause another round of threats from Washington, D. C. as the Trump Administration returns fire. Ultimately, this fight over immigration and executive orders is going to have to wind up in the Supreme Court.
Trump can retaliate against California by withholding federal funds for things. California knows this, and they don't need them. They aren't Mississippi or Arkansas. They can, in conservative parlance, "pull themselves up by the bootstraps". As has been mentioned before, it's universally red states that receive the bulk of federal funding compared to what they contribute.
I'll remind that Republicans have claimed "states rights" since time immemorial to ram through any policy they can think of. They are about to get a taste of their own medicine. It will be States and Cities that push back against Trump, not the Democratic Congress Minority. And really, why should they comply with Executive Orders?? The Trump Administration itself has demonstrated that you don't have to respect the separation of powers.
I have also advocated self-determination for a long time so part of me wants CalExit to succeed. There are also loosely-organized groups of people who have been longing for Alaskan and Hawaiian independence--remember that Hawaii was its own nation as late as 1893, so nationalistic feelings are still quite strong there. In fact, Congress passed a resolution which Bill Clinton signed back in 1993 apologizing for overthrowing the Queen and illegally annexing Hawaii (Statehood did not occur until 1959).
"The change in Washington puts the European Union in a difficult situation; with the new administration seeming to put into question the last 70 years of American foreign policy," Tusk said in a letter to EU members.
I know this much. The media will apply a complete and total double standard to the Democrats simply engaging in the EXACT same behavior as Republicans, because the rules automatically change when Republicans are in power. They flip like a lightswitch. I also know that 3 or 4 Blue Dog Democrats will cave and vote for this guy anyway, because they're spineless and weak. I also know they are going to face primary challenges so fast it will make their head spin, and NONE of them will be Senators in 2018.
Turn the other cheek is a nice parable in the Bible. In politics, it makes you roadkill. At this juncture, if you hope to survive these bastards, you better be playing by Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" rules: "They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of their's in the morgue." This is actually a valid reason people don't vote for Democrats. They rarely ever project strength.
“This strategy of packing the court, if successful, could threaten fundamental rights in America, including workers’ right to organize, women’s reproductive rights, and the rights of ordinary citizens to have their voices heard in elections rather than being drowned out by the corrupting influence of dark money from the richest Americans.
“If President Trump were serious about healing the divisions in America and undoing the damage wrought by Senate Republicans last year, he could have named Merrick Garland to fill this seat. Garland is a centrist jurist who is respected on both sides of the aisle. Instead, he doubled down on division by picking an ideological and extreme nominee to satisfy the far right.
“This is a stolen seat being filled by an illegitimate and extreme nominee, and I will do everything in my power to stand up against this assault on the Court.”
- Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley
Yeah maybe they're afraid Trump's going to call them fake news again when they repeat his words and so they got scared and bowed down to him.
It is always a shame when politicians engage in dereliction of duty. In fact, if you, as a politician, fail to fulfill the duties of your elected office, whether that office is at the local, State, or Federal level, you should immediately be removed from office and a replacement appointed until a special election can be held. Having rules such as this in place would have forced the Republicans to hold the meeting they should have held.
Actually, I am still rather surprised that the Supreme Court itself never issued any sort of opinion urging the Senate to fulfill its duties. The SCOTUS has not been fulfilling its duty as a check against the other two branches in recent years.
Truthfully, I will be surprised if confirmation hearings last two weeks--they will probably try to fast-track this guy into the Court. $5 says Bannon shows up at the hearings.
The ONLY argument conservatives can make is that Robert Bork didn't get on the court in the Reagan era. But Bork got a vote and a hearing. And, let's get real about Robert Bork. He was the guy who Nixon finally found to fire Archibald Cox during the Saturday Night Massacre.
but it's probably not. politics is a game of winners and losers. the congressional majority didn't want something and no one can force them to accept any candidate that they don't want, whichever be the reason for that.
By all legal precedent, that seat belonged partly to Obama and partly to the Senate. But rather than even attempting to reach an agreement with Obama or even suggesting an alternative to Garland, the GOP chose to stop the entire process and hand off to the next President. Except John McCain explicitly said that the GOP would also block any justice nominated by Clinton if she were elected.
McCain and McConnell explicitly said the only person who was allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice was a Republican president. That is stealing a seat.
Obama is the only president in American history who has not been able to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and there was nothing about his nomination that was the least bit unusual. Congressional Republicans refused to even consider Obama's nominee because they wanted that power for themselves.
I knew from the moment I heard about Scalia's death on the news--and I told my mother, who was watching at the time--that the GOP would not accept any Obama nominee, no matter how qualified or respected the nominee was. Literally five minutes later, I heard McConnell say the exact same thing.
Gay marriage and Roe v Wade are toast the moment Trump gets his second justice (assuming the one leaving isn't Thomas). If Anthony Kennedy leaves or Ginsburg can't hold one for 4 years, they're gone. There are conservative legal groups sitting on cases specifically designed to reach the High Court the moment it happens.
I'm of the opinion that Obama should have put Garland in by recess appointment. But the fact is, he had too much respect for the office for that, to a fault considering who he was dealing with.