"Star Force, Star Force, Star Force"I had to google the word profundity.
A sad and ironic realization that I'm no expert on it either is what followed.
But then I learned it's also the name of a battlecruiser from the rebel fleet in Star Wars, which is, well, not really related to anything.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The Federalist article that's linked in the piece is all over the place. It's actually saying that it's inevitable that socialism will prevail but at least you can give them a bloody nose on the way out by killing a few.
No, the most profound question is whether the current president formulates his policy and thoughts using a magic 8 ball.
He has the Supreme Court at his back. God help America.
They've stolen a seat, its an absolute disgrace this is allowed to happen
Yeah I remember.
Yes. But we, democrats, helped him/them by staying home in November 2016 in key states. We also helped them by not showing up to vote in November 2014 which led to the loss of the Senate---> obstructing Merrick Garland's nomination.
We have to learn the lesson, but most likely we won't.
If you ignore the Trump element it now sets a precedent for the power of future presidents. Both the left and right representatives and senators should be concerned about this. They should therefore get off their fat arses and start doing their job. Maybe, this is the straw that breaks the camels back that stops the obstructionists/resistance that both Obama and Trump have experienced. If the DACA EO also goes in Trump favor, it will really force the government to realise that non-action leads to EOs. That is not how Government should work.
Looking forward to hear the arguments used on this. It's what I expected based on the questioning posed by the judges though
This third iteration of the travel ban is significantly watered down from the initial one Trump tried to force through in the early days of the administration.
Trump has not experienced anywhere near the obstructionism that Obama did. The suggestion that both parties are anywhere close to equally obstrucionist is clearly false.
It is indeed easier to blame the faceless immigrants they do not know but most of them are mere pawns being used by the local and state politicians that benefits from this growing xenophobia. It is easy to blame these people but in truth it is the people that have been fuelling the anti-immigrant sentiment that are the driving force behind the growing racism and bigotry in America that are truly to blame. People tent to trust those they know and socialize with in their local community and the Tea Party and more racist groups have infiltrated these local and state leadership positions for decades. President Donald Trump is ultimately the fruit of all the labour that was put into radicalising these communities. The Democratic party have abandoned many red states and that has left many of these states or regions into the hands of extremist far right movements as a result.
The Democratic Party needs to get back into these states and counter act all of these extremist movements by being a presence there in body and political activism to help de-radicalising these communities but this will take years of effort to do but it is a needed effort if the extremist far right groups is to be countered effectively. The far right extremist groups have been left unchallenged far to long in many areas of U.S.A by a lazy Democratic Party that have neglected doing grass root work for years. The centrist Democrats are partly to blame for allowing this to happen though the lack of activism. They have also by not been actively trying to solve the economic and social problems that the working and middle class Americans face like the appallingly low minimum wage, a poor health care system and opium addiction. They never tried for real to help replace dying industry jobs within the coal energy industry with new jobs that these people need to provide for their families and to keep their communities alive and well. This has helped growing an huge resentment towards the Democratic party as people feel left behind to rot without opportunity to make a decent living for them selves and their families.
This is what Bernie Sanders is trying to do by promoting both economic and social policies that will address these problems and this is what the Democratic Party need to embrace to effectively counter act the Republicans and to get people in these places to vote for them.
Yeh agreed. Its not actually unlawful in my opinion . I found justice Kennedys opinion quite interesting
Shhh.. voters were disenfranchised, it's never a problem with the voter, it's the leaders on the ballot.
Does it have to be equal. Surely it is obvious that the US government is broken and has been getting worse over the years. Obama did have the luxury of control ( not just a majority ) of the house and senate. It is not really fair to compare 8 years with less than 18 months. The issue is there is obstructionists that are allowing a president to write as many EOs as they like, which is not a democracy. If the SCOTUS decision doesn't scare them they shouldn't be in government.
I found that quote to be a bit troubling when applied to Trump. He clearly doesn't understand the limitations of his position in that he has repeatedly made comments about passing laws and policies that seem to usurp the role of Congress.
Exactly why I found it interesting. Hopefully he doesn't retire and can last until the next presidential cycle.
2010, 2014, 2016, state elections, etc. It's not just Hillary Clinton.
I know that the party in power tends to under-perform in midterm elections, but this has been going for quite some time, and we can now see the results!
But we had this discussion multiple times before, so let's not get too much into that.
What exactly have the Democrats done in the last 18 months that you view as obstructionist?
Both parties play the obstruction game. This cycle the Dems are doing it as well, primarily on judicial appointments.
Do you believe the minority party must always just bow down and pass every judge nominated by the President?
Can you link evidence of this alleged obstructionism?
I don't think either minority party should "bow down". They can either approve the judicial nominations or obstruct and play games to slow them down as a device to wield political power and leverage over a variety of other issues. Both parties do it in order to have some degree of leverage despite being in the opposition.
That looks like the letter “T”. Obviously to represent the word Twunt.I had to google the word profundity.
A sad and ironic realization that I'm no expert on it either is what followed.
But then I learned it's also the name of a battlecruiser from the rebel fleet in Star Wars, which is, well, not really related to anything.
I think you are missing the point i am making. If the SCOTUS says any president can write an EO under the banner of security of the country. Let that sink in. If one writes an EO for say building a wall under the same premise, it cant now be stopped. Surely, that is not what the government want. So their behaviour will have to change regardless of who is in power. They will have to work together when there is no outright control of government. In a way, this disruption is draining the swamp, though you may not like that expression. This may lead to better government and we get better laws.
All the Democrats are doing is what they are supposed to be doing as minority party - blocking nominations from the executive that are too extreme. That is not obstructionist. That is just utilizing the features of the system to the proper degree.
However, not allowing a President to nominatea Justice for over a year is not a feature, its a bug. What the Republicans did was an unprecedented, unconstitutional and straight authoritarian level of obstructionism that dwarves anything the Democrats have ever done with nominations going back to WWII all put together. To simply conclude "both parties are obstructionist" IMO is misleading almost to the point disingenuous.
This is exactly the dirty trick USA conservatives have been using for a long time. Act as extreme as possible while breaking any mores and norms to push your partisan view. Then when the liberals do literally anything in response they fall back on this completely disingenuous "but look both parties are doing it, both are obstructionist, blah blah blah".
Its like taking someone guilty of a single involuntary manslaughter and Jeffrey Dahmer and saying 'but they both killed people, they are both bad'. On one level that statement is true (from a certain point of view) but its also very clearly misleading and a bit offensive to make that equivalence there.
The degree to which the Republicans have been obstructionist has been so far beyond anything the meek and incompetent Democrats have done that I find the statement "both parties can be obstructionist" lacking any meaningful information value. Its not a useful assertion in any way and obfuscates more than it reveals. It doesn't accurately reflect the reality.
Democrats have been involuntary manslaughter level of obstructionist.
Republicans have been Jeffrey Dahmer + Charles Mansion + LV Shooter level of obstructionist.
I understand that. Its just a continuation of what Dick Cheney was pushing 17 years ago. Cheney was big proponent of unitary executive theory and was laying the foundation for this stuff all during the Bush Admin.
They're traitors.
Republicans doing it a bit more may just be a perceptual illusion because we just got done with 8 years of Obama where the GOP had an active strategy to minimize (what they felt was) the destruction his policies would entail. Ultimately, both parties do it to "obstruct" the other side from making progress, limit the damage inherent in the majority passing its policies, wield power and leverage over ongoing policy discussions, and most importantly, to whip up enthusiasm among their respective bases for maximum turn out during the mid terms. Its simply a byproduct of bifurcated gridlock where political parties are incentivized to not cooperate because it yields more power and interest formation within their respective camps.
Last edited:
The scotus as far as I know doesn't make lawes it interprets them. If Congress doesn't like the law then they should pass another one. The USA shouldn't be depending on the unelected judges of the SCOTUS to pass laws in my opinion .
That should be dealt with the Congress.
If Congress don't like the EO they can override it. That's their job not the supreme Court. All the supreme Court can do is look on the laws of the land a deem an action lawful or unlawful. They can't say well this is mean and we don't like the policy and overturn it. That's not their role .
What are your thoughts on both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell going Nuclear for Senate appointments. And do you think they should just extend it to legislation
I prefer it when government works, where people from diverging political backgrounds compromise to actually move policy forward. Even if its not my ideal policy preference, its likely better than continued gridlock because it demonstrates that the governance process is actually working. Reid and McConnell obviously felt that they would come out ahead by playing the political game with nominees, but at the end of the day, it did little more than add more poison to the well, which has significant knock on effects in terms of forcing both parties to entrench further, which at the end of the day is a complete breakdown in the governance process.
We need a Supreme Court overseeing the Supreme Court. Like - should Gorsuch's appointment be upheld?
I don't see any illusion. No President has ever gotten all his lower court judicial nominees through COngress. The system is designed for minority to have some ability to stop extreme nominations. This is designed to incentivize more moderate nominations.
So a President not getting all his judicial nominees does not equal obstructionism, that is simply the system working as intended.
This is night and day difference from the Senators from one party clearly breaking their Oath to uphold the Constitution solely to prevent a President from exercising his Constitutionally granted right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. This is unprecedented level of breaking the public servant oath to the Constitution.
Its not an illusion. There is simply no comparable event from the modern Democratic party (FDR-current). The closest you get is what happened to Robert Bork, a far right Reagan nominee that the Democrats blocked. But, and this is a pretty massive BUT the difference is the Democrats did let Reagan get his Supreme Court nomination in the end (Clarence Thomas). What happened to Bork was the system working as intended. The minority preventing an extreme nominee but eventually allowing the President to nominate a slightly less extreme Justice.
Blocking a President from performing his Constitutionally granted right for over a year for no reason other than partisan politics was the greatest oath breaking I have seen in modern times. \
Nothing modern Democrats have done is even remotely comparable to this level of injustice - again compare Bork to the outright refusal to allow any nomination for over a year.
---
Personally I believe this was such an unprecedented, egregious and life changing violation, the Democrats now have a free pass to reclaim their stolen Justice. If Trump gets a nomination, the Democrats blocking it is not obstructionism, it is justice to reclaim the unconstitutional theft of a nomination.
Let's be honest: apart from some heavy metal maniac, who is gonna buy them?
I think they’re a bucket list item for a lot of
- Status