I said he started, you reap what you sow. They thought she was going to win, they did not put up much of a fight. But you know what, it doesn't matter we won and the left lost. 5-4 solid for decades. rather see 6-3 or 7-2. Don't trust Roberts, although he did help the cause in the long run. Democrats still have Obamacare hanging around their necks.Wrong again. Reid didn't mess with SC appointments, nor did he deny a confirmation hearing based on a false claim that SC justices aren't seated in election years.
Like Obamacare?No.
Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.
Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.
Can you list the parts of Obamacare that were done via executive order?No.
Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.
Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.
Yeah but we have 6 more years almost, until Ivanka or Nikki break the glass ceiling.No.
Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.
Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.
Oh no....that disaster is ALLL yours!Can you list the parts of Obamacare that were done via executive order?
Remember Pelosi, we have to pass it before we can read it.Oh no....that disaster is ALLL yours!
You should probably read the obamacare thread to get a clear picture of my opinions on it. I was far from a fan. Still don't like it...it's not the right answer and it keeps getting worse because the GOP can't get out of their own way and remove it.Oh no....that disaster is ALLL yours!
I can point to numerous instances of conservative judicial activism, including Scalia deciding that half of the words in the Second Amendment should just be ignored. Was that following the Constitution?No.
The Democrats govern from the courts. They cannot pass legislation so they try to pack the courts with left-leaning judges that will uphold any silly-### EO that a Democrat POTUS implements. It is the only way that the Left seems to be able to get "things done".
Nope. Just innuendo.Did she say what this paper was about, or make an accusation?
That's a misquote, a mischaracterization of what was said and the context in which she said it. It's not like she kept the bill literally behind closed doors and prevented others from reading it until it was time to vote on it. You're thinking of Paul Ryan.Remember Pelosi, we have to pass it before we can read it.
A major party candidate for president spent years claiming the current person in the position wasn't born in the country and therefore wasn't lawfully in office. During the campaign, the candidate accused the father of another candidate of participating in the JFK assassination and got a magazine publisher friend to print a fake story supporting it. Also spent a lot of time making fun of others' appearances and mannerisms, including mocking a reporter with a disability. Promised to put the other major party candidate in jail.I don't understand this one. Was somebody's high school era an issue and I missed it?
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-itThat's a misquote, a mischaracterization of what was said and the context in which she said it. It's not like she kept the bill literally behind closed doors and prevented others from reading it until it was time to vote on it. You're thinking of Paul Ryan.
By the standards you hold others to in threads you participate in, you wold be screaming for them to produce links and calling them liars over what you've done here.
Let's see 'em!I can point to numerous instances of conservative judicial activism, including Scalia deciding that half of the words in the Second Amendment should just be ignored. Was that following the Constitution?
As long as it is not a Democrat POTUS doing the appointing...THIS is the new norm.Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?
Your google broke?If you left a link someone might actually listen to it?
Nah, it changed when Robert Bork got blocked.Supreme Court nominations probably changed permanently with the bull#### that McConnell pulled with Garland. I don't agree that this is a positive, but I expect this to be the new normal.
Did you say Pelosi said "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"?https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it
Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html
David Gregory Asks Pelosi About "Pass The Bill So You Can Find Out What's In It" Comment
https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/
Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"
Only thing I see potentially solving the problem is installing term limits on SCOTUS justices and staggering their terms of service so there's one new justice for each two-year session of Congress. But GLLLL getting the two major parties as they stand now to agree on that.Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?
Absolutely...that was the beginning...and the Clarence Thomas circus was next up...Nah, it changed when Robert Bork got blocked.
It was nothing federal or within the statute of limitations.So it was nothing.
What was the final vote on Bork? Was he stopped by party line voting?Nah, it changed when Robert Bork got blocked.
Thanks for the reply.Nope. Just innuendo.Did she say what this paper was about, or make an accusation?
I don't see innuendo there, nor anything to apologize for. That's a pretty bland statement.“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in a statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
Bork the guy who fired the prosecutor for Nixon?Nah, it changed when Robert Bork got blocked.
DACA has proven to be very hard to roll back.Opie said:Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back....
Got a link?Also, just heard that the letter we've heard about was when Kavanaugh was 17 and allegedly locked a similar age girl in a room (which she subsequently left) and, in the process, made her feel uncomfortable.
I prefer "Hatchet man for the Saturday Night Massacre".Henry Ford said:Bork the guy who fired the prosecutor for Nixon?
The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible. Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there. Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here. It's all a wisp of air.No, I meant a credible link.
If I may, I think the only play with whatever this letter is, and the reason Feinstein won’t let anyone find out about it, is to be used against Trump because he knew about whatever is in it and put forth Kavanaugh anyway.The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible. Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there. Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here. It's all a wisp of air.
I actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote:The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible. Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there. Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here. It's all a wisp of air.
1 - Anyone that goes against your narrative is not creditable, including most people here.I actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote:
1. fatness really is correct; Laura Ingraham is not a credible source for news reporting. During the Trump years in particular she has repeated several falsehoods.
2. I don’t always agree with Diane Feinstein but I’ve never known her to be dishonest. For me, if I had to name a trustworthy politician, she would be first on my list.
So those are my two caveats. But I’m sure we’ll find out one way or another.
Is Senator Dianne Feinstein a Crook?
While Feinstein was on the military appropriations committee] the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.
Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
Ingraham is a Dartmouth girl and I can assure you her veracity is beyond reproachI actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote:
1. fatness really is correct; Laura Ingraham is not a credible source for news reporting. During the Trump years in particular she has repeated several falsehoods.
2. I don’t always agree with Diane Feinstein but I’ve never known her to be dishonest. For me, if I had to name a trustworthy politician, she would be first on my list.
So those are my two caveats. But I’m sure we’ll find out one way or another.
I disagree she is not stupid, just as big a crook as HRC.Ingraham is a Dartmouth girl and I can assure you her veracity is beyond reproach
Feinstein is a dolt
I disagree she is not stupid, just as big a crook as HRC.
Should be investigated, but it's pretty funny that in this case you are concerned about conflicts of interest
Anything? No....because as far as Obamacare is concerned it was done via Congressional legislation, not EO.The Commish said:Can you list the parts of Obamacare that were done via executive order?Opie said:No.
Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.
Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.
Dartmouth makes one beyond reproach.Ingraham is a Dartmouth girl and I can assure you her veracity is beyond reproach
Feinstein is a dolt
And that was all bad, right? Or does it become okay when your side is doing it?Bruce Dickinson said:A major party candidate for president spent years claiming the current person in the position wasn't born in the country and therefore wasn't lawfully in office. During the campaign, the candidate accused the father of another candidate of participating in the JFK assassination and got a magazine publisher friend to print a fake story supporting it. Also spent a lot of time making fun of others' appearances and mannerisms, including mocking a reporter with a disability. Promised to put the other major party candidate in jail.
There was a LOT more crap like this. That was just the stuff off the top of my head.
Sure Mitch McConnell can't live forever. He isn't really a Sith lord.The Z Machine said:Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?
Agreed.And that was all bad, right? Or does it become okay when your side is doing it?
Got a link?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/13/brett-kavanaugh-dianne-feinstein-confidential-letterA source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
I have no idea what Feinstein is doing with this Kavanaugh mess, but this second story about corruption is utter nonsense and a perfect example of something I've referenced before with you and more broadly with right wing conspiracy theorists- the internet is so full of so many strands of information that if you look hard enough for anything you can find what you're looking for.1 - Anyone that goes against your narrative is not creditable, including most people here.
2 - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/6/367861/-
Is Senator Dianne Feinstein a Crook?
While Feinstein was on the military appropriations committee] the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.
Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.