President Donald Trump

[Redbirds Fan]

come on, he says he's new here and doesnt know any lawyers.

Okay guys, I'll admit it. I do know some lawyers.

Nobody likes to be misled about anything substantive, although I think we all enjoy being led down the garden path a bit. Whether it is professional wrestling or the waitresses at Hooters, there is something to be said for not knowing everything. I certainly wouldn't want to mislead anyone about anything important, as I am sure none of you would. Well, almost none of you.

But I still don't know what some of you are talking about.

[Redbirds Fan]

I'm not saying that Argument C should preclude Arguments A & B, just that Argument C is also a very good one in its own right, and one that could prove critical during this administration. If I'm making Argument C to a Trump supporter, I think it legitimizes my case if I was consistent and made the same argument against the previous president.

I think you are absolutely right, and that is something which will be raised over and over.

On the reverse side, I noticed that one of the first defenses used by Sean Spicer on the immigration ban was referring to Obama's listing the same seven countries in a group of nations friendly to terrorists or some such thing. Obama bad unless useful.

And by the way, I appreciated Post #371.

[nots]

I think you are absolutely right, and that is something which will be raised over and over.

On the reverse side, I noticed that one of the first defenses used by Sean Spicer on the immigration ban was referring to Obama's listing the same seven countries in a group of nations friendly to terrorists or some such thing. Obama bad unless useful.

And by the way, I appreciated Post #371.

Again, another two way street. Just saw a post in here saying 'even Cheyney thinks the ban is wrong' (or words to that effect). Citing someone from the other side that agrees with you has been going on since Adams vs Jefferson in 1799. Cheyney bad unless useful.

[cardboardbox]

Again, another two way street. Just saw a post in here saying 'even Cheyney thinks the ban is wrong' (or words to that effect). Citing someone from the other side that agrees with you has been going on since Adams vs Jefferson in 1799.

you mean like this?

"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote." - Harry Reid, 2005

[senorsheep]

On the reverse side, I noticed that one of the first defenses used by Sean Spicer on the immigration ban was referring to Obama's listing the same seven countries in a group of nations friendly to terrorists or some such thing. Obama bad unless useful.

Absolutely. "Obama is a lawless constitutional violator" was a GOP meme for eight years. Now we'll see who among them really cares about constitutional respect.

And by the way, I appreciated Post #371.

[Redbirds Fan]

you mean like this?

"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote." - Harry Reid, 2005

Given all of that, and the strong sentiment that Gorsuch is up for a "stolen seat", I don't think he will get a vote unless the GOP goes the unprecedented route of the nuclear option. Trump has already called for it. If it happens, there will be bedlam.

[cardboardbox]

Given all of that, and the strong sentiment that Gorsuch is up for a "stolen seat", I don't think he will get a vote unless the GOP goes the unprecedented route of the nuclear option. Trump has already called for it. If it happens, there will be bedlam.

McConnell simply applied the Biden and Reid rules to Garland last year.

I think Democrats will make a lot of noise but will realize this isnt the fight they want right now and confirm Gorsuch without much delay.

[nots]

Given all of that, and the strong sentiment that Gorsuch is up for a "stolen seat", I don't think he will get a vote unless the GOP goes the unprecedented route of the nuclear option. Trump has already called for it. If it happens, there will be bedlam.

So what's the endgame for the Dems? Hold out until 2020?

[senorsheep]

So what's the endgame for the Dems? Hold out until 2020?

They might be wise to give him this one, and then focus on getting Democrats elected to the Senate in droves in 2018 so they can stop the next one.

[nots]

They might be wise to give him this one, and then focus on getting Democrats elected to the Senate in droves in 2018 so they can stop the next one.

I agree. I was just curious to hear what a Democrat thinks their move should be. 2018 is a tough year for Dems Senate races though. I think it's 25 Dems up, including 10 from states Trump won, and 8 Reps up. To me, the biggest problem for Dems wasn't that Hillary lost, but that they didn't do more with a favorable Senate map. 3 more Democratic wins would make things really interesting right now.

[senorsheep]

I agree. I was just curious to hear what a Democrat thinks their move should be. 2018 is a tough year for Dems Senate races though. I think it's 25 Dems up, including 10 from states Trump won, and 8 Reps up. To me, the biggest problem for Dems wasn't that Hillary lost, but that they didn't do more with a favorable Senate map. 3 more Democratic wins would make things really interesting right now.

It's not an easy map, but something tells me the country will be in the mood for some checks and balances by then.

[cardboardbox]

Trump makes surprise trip on presidential helicopter to honor return of fallen US Navy SEAL

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-makes-surprise-trip-presidential-205311589.html

"Trump was said to have had a long phone call with Owens' family. Owens represents the first combat loss during Trump's presidency."


Is this what the usual suspects were hyperventilating about last night?

[Redbirds Fan]

McConnell simply applied the Biden and Reid rules to Garland last year.

I think Democrats will make a lot of noise but will realize this isnt the fight they want right now and confirm Gorsuch without much delay.

I'm curious why you think that? What do the Democrats risk in fighting Gorsuch? Making Trump angry?

And there is no "Biden Rule". It's a myth. A fantasy. It was made up by the GOP, particularly Mitch McConnell. Don't join in spreading this lie!

[nots]

It's not an easy map, but something tells me the country will be in the mood for some checks and balances by then.

Long way off, but I think if he brings jobs back, people will put up with a lot of other stuff if it doesn't directly effect them. If he doesn't, it will be the biggest blood-letting in midterm election history.

[cardboardbox]

I'm curious why you think that? What do the Democrats risk in fighting Gorsuch? Making Trump angry?

And there is no "Biden Rule". It's a myth. A fantasy. It was made up by the GOP, particularly Mitch McConnell. Don't join in spreading this lie!

ok Lucky, I'll keep the Biden rule a secret since a google search wouldnt find anything.