THE ERA OF TRUMP

[de officiis]

Why did you send me those books deo? Is there a particular reason or is it something you just like sharing?

I found then to be well written and useful & thought you might enjoy them.

[Okeefenokee]

The gall of these damn Russians. First they hack my MHF handle and post inarticulate shit, then they drink all my beer.

#mccainewasright

[Okeefenokee]

Even when a Supreme Court decision goes "my way" by a five-four decision, I don't like the fact that one appointed official can make a potentially huge impact on the law of the land; but I accept it (whether "my way" or not) because that's their role, however badly played. Federal judges here, federal judges there, agreeing and disagreeing, starting and stopping, fast-tracking or delaying--that's where I lose heart. Why is something legal when one president does it--without intervening new law--yet illegal when the next president does the same thing? Unfortunately, I know the answer and it has nothing to do with The Constitution.
And the best explanation we'll ever hear is, "It's complicated, you wouldn't understand."

don't tell adwin. he thinks it's all impartial.

[Penner]

More news on that immigration ban- looks like Trump's winning streak has hit a road block (and I am posting a few more just to get some context here):

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking U.S. President Donald Trump's recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson's order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately.

Ferguson filed the lawsuit on Monday, saying it wasn't a decision he made lightly.

"I firmly believe that no one is above the law, however, and I have a duty to protect all Washingtonians from unlawful actions that violate the Constitution," he said in a Monday statement. "I will continue this fight — all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary — to uphold the rule of law."

The challenge was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The Seattle judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/ ... rump-et-al

That was basically, the same information on what I posted.

[Penner]

Democrats are really playing a shitty hand.

What do you think the odds are that we will see another terror attack from one of these people the democrats just ensured would be allowed in this country? If that happens, their entire position on this immigration issue will become untenable and Americans will turn on them.

It will take one more shooting or bombing as a result of their policies and Trump will have them politically crucified in the public square for it.

That's certainly possible. I'm sure if it happened, the Left would claim that Trump's order inflamed them and that he's the one to blame.

Trump and his team need to play smarter, or they're going to get bogged down into a legal morass. As recent events have shown. I'm willing to cut him some slack because he has no government executive experience, and I think the American public will give him the opportunity proceed with his policies and see how things go. But he needs to get better lawyers.

So, far his cabinet picks and advisors are just his biggest donors and election supporters. In my opinion, he clearly needs someone who isn't a "yes man" and would actually tell things like it is and actually listen to them without calling them names and/or firing them.

[Smitty-48]

What is the point of getting better lawyers, when you don't listen to them?

Methinks Trump will simply have to keep going, until he gets burned, until he gets burned, he's not going to listen to the lawyers.

[adwinistrator]

Even when a Supreme Court decision goes "my way" by a five-four decision, I don't like the fact that one appointed official can make a potentially huge impact on the law of the land; but I accept it (whether "my way" or not) because that's their role, however badly played. Federal judges here, federal judges there, agreeing and disagreeing, starting and stopping, fast-tracking or delaying--that's where I lose heart. Why is something legal when one president does it--without intervening new law--yet illegal when the next president does the same thing? Unfortunately, I know the answer and it has nothing to do with The Constitution.
And the best explanation we'll ever hear is, "It's complicated, you wouldn't understand."

don't tell adwin. he thinks it's all impartial.

I was actually going to respond in that thread later, well, I still will. I'll just copy/paste this over there as well...

I don't disagree at all with your statement at all that federal judges are politically motivated, it's always been that way... Is this a surprise to anyone? I never claimed the judge involved was impartial, it just wasn't relevant to my opinion of this single ruling.

I'm not some party loyalist, so to me, if a judge makes a ruling that I think is good for our country, then I am pleased.

If a Republican appointed judge makes a ruling that strikes down some BS law that infringes on our rights, then I am pleased. If he did it to win some political battle between the 2 parties, I really don't care.

Same with this CPD lawsuit. It was filed before the election, as soon as the CPD denied the 3rd party candidates, by a group that is supported by 3rd party candidates. The lawsuit is about the bullshit the CPD pulls, and pushing back on their practices. If this judge decided one way or another because of Democratic interests, I just don't care. Unless you support the CPD and the bipartisan control of the presidential debates, this is a good thing.

[Smitty-48]

All the judge has actually said is that Washington and Minnesota have a case, it's likely that this will have to be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, but as of now, the judge hasn't actually ruled on the merits, he's simply passed it up the line for further judicial review.

[Speaker to Animals]

I have a feeling this will literally blow up in democrats' faces.

And if that happens, none of them will have any ground from which to oppose Trump's immigration policies. It saddens me that democrats could inflict even more casualties on the American people before they are shut down.

[Okeefenokee]

Even when a Supreme Court decision goes "my way" by a five-four decision, I don't like the fact that one appointed official can make a potentially huge impact on the law of the land; but I accept it (whether "my way" or not) because that's their role, however badly played. Federal judges here, federal judges there, agreeing and disagreeing, starting and stopping, fast-tracking or delaying--that's where I lose heart. Why is something legal when one president does it--without intervening new law--yet illegal when the next president does the same thing? Unfortunately, I know the answer and it has nothing to do with The Constitution.
And the best explanation we'll ever hear is, "It's complicated, you wouldn't understand."

don't tell adwin. he thinks it's all impartial.

I was actually going to respond in that thread later, well, I still will. I'll just copy/paste this over there as well...

I don't disagree at all with your statement at all that federal judges are politically motivated, it's always been that way... Is this a surprise to anyone? I never claimed the judge involved was impartial, it just wasn't relevant to my opinion of this single ruling.

I'm not some party loyalist, so to me, if a judge makes a ruling that I think is good for our country, then I am pleased.

If a Republican appointed judge makes a ruling that strikes down some BS law that infringes on our rights, then I am pleased. If he did it to win some political battle between the 2 parties, I really don't care.

Same with this CPD lawsuit. It was filed before the election, as soon as the CPD denied the 3rd party candidates, by a group that is supported by 3rd party candidates. The lawsuit is about the bullshit the CPD pulls, and pushing back on their practices. If this judge decided one way or another because of Democratic interests, I just don't care. Unless you support the CPD and the bipartisan control of the presidential debates, this is a good thing.

You can still be okay with this decision and realize it was a political decision.

I don't say that with a fist in the air. I say that with my sides splitting.

They still haven't figured out what went wrong. Now they think if they open up the debates they'll do better, but they must have forgotten about Bernie. This is just as likely to hurt them as it is to hurt the Republicans. It's like they don't realize that their own side is divided, and they are very likely to get multiple challengers from their own side to whoever they pick next time, and they'll have to share the stage with them.

Imagine Bernie on the stage with Clinton and Trump. Imagine them both taking shots at her for the same things from both directions.

This is going to be hilarious.