Bluegrassrivals

It is a rare and extraordinary thing to see a Chief Justice come forth publicly, to rebuke the sitting President of the United States. But these are extraordinary times.

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in an unusual Wednesday statement. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." ---Chief Justice John Roberts---

Kind of reminds you of one of Paul Ryan's self possessed grandiosities, does it not? To demonstrate a little context; Remember this?

March 16, 2017----
"A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked the major provisions of President Trump's revised ban on refugee resettlement and travel from six predominantly Muslim countries, hours before the executive order was to take effect.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said his ruling applies nationwide. "
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trav...story.html

Same judge strikes again the following October 18, 2017 ----
CNN) — A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump's revised travel ban one day before it was set to take effect. Judge Derrick Watson said the travel ban -- Trump's third version of the policy -- "plainly discriminates based on nationality."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/...index.html

Now, straighten me out here. A judge sitting on an island in one of the most remote and isolated locations on earth, surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean in every direction which basically provides natural immunity to the problem of illegal immigration, decides nevertheless to inject himself into the mainland's illegal immigration dispute. Why?

To bring suit one must have standing, correct? John Roberts qualified his statement (ill conceived as it was) by making this comment, "judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing 'before them'." Who flew out to Hawaii to appear before Judge Watson? And what gives the good judge 'standing' to foist his political opinion on all 350 million off-island American citizens to whom he has no viable authority?

IMHO, Judge Watson is a culture warrior wearing a black robe and he's a headline hound. Thus the last minute 'stays' to which he is prone to favor. But what is the real problem in all of this? Immigration law is clear and just as binding as the day it was written and passed by the US Congress. And what's to say the left activist judiciary would fall in line for a body of new law with which they would likely not agree? I am not one of those who believes that passing new laws that may not please the left, would be obeyed or enforced anymore than are the ones that are presently on the books and little more than steamroller fodder to them. No, the only situation they will accept are laws that conform to their liberal leanings. Which of course means that everybody else will have to conform 100% to 'their position,' or this type of politically correct activism from the bench will rage on, no matter what new law is passed.

I do not accept the assumption of most. That assumption being somehow, that it is MR Trump himself being rejected by the forces arrayed against his administration. It's true that he has and is being vilified beyond reason. But what's going on here is the rejection of our founding, and the moral principles upon which this land was built. It is a rejection presently being referred to as the resistance, and is centered in the people's government and being fought at the national level. Any Republican, Independent or Democrat for that matter, bold enough and honorable enough to espouse the traditional conservative values of our heritage, would be treated just as rudely.

Now as literally thousands of invaders assault our southern border, "In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month."

Friends, the judge knows full well that there are precious FEW "families" in these so-called caravans.

For the good of the country and for the good of his party, Trump needs to break his Twitter addiction and start acting presidential. Personally picking public fights with people who should be his natural allies is idiotic.

John Roberts is the top official of a co-equal branch of government. Of course, Roberts should have responded to a very specific attack on one of the courts that fall under his jurisdiction. The only thing that I fault him for is not responding to similar attacks by Obama.

Trump has the sole power to nominate federal judges. He needs to privately pressure McConnell to get his nominees confirmed in a timely manner. Putting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in a position where he feels obligated to publicly defend the legitimacy of the Judicial branch of the federal government is just plain stupid.

I agree with Trump's opinion about the 9th Circuit and I suspect that Roberts also agrees with Trump - but Trump's public, poorly worded attacks demand very public responses. I am sure that Trump would not be happy if the next radical left-wing president claims that future court rulings are illegitimate because they are made by Trump appointed judges.

I know that Trump's core supporters believe that liberals will overplay the hand that they were dealt when they flipped 39 (probably 40) House seats, and will behave stupidly for the next two years. No doubt that they will do just that, but if Trump continues making unforced error after unforced error, then whether liberals shoot themselves in both feet will not matter much.

Getting into a public feud with a generally conservative Chief Justice is an unforced error.

^^^The only error that was made was made by Roberts. I hope he really is not that stupid. Judges aren't political? BAHAHAHAHA!!!! Everyone with a brain knows Trump is right. Of course liberal media and never Trumpers use an idiotic statement by Roberts to attack Trump. Which again everyone with a brain expects and disregards.

jetpilot Wrote:^^^The only error that was made was made by Roberts. I hope he really is not that stupid. Judges aren't political? BAHAHAHAHA!!!! Everyone with a brain knows Trump is right. Of course liberal media and never Trumpers use an idiotic statement by Roberts to attack Trump. Which again everyone with a brain expects and disregards.

Trump continues to make a fool out of himself with his juvenile insults directed at his political enemies and, even worse, at members of his own team. The last thing that I want to see is for liberals to take control of the entire federal government in 2020, but that is the course that Trump has set for this country.

As unfair as the media has been in ignoring Trump's successes, nobody does more to make Trump look ridiculous than Trump does. I will vote against every Democrat on the ballot in 2020, but if Trump does not grow into the job in the next two years, then I expect Democrats to take over the Senate and the White House.

And, I never said or implied that judges are not political - but it is important that our justice system is perceived as fair - just as it is important that a president knows how to act presidential. Publicly feuding with Jeff Sessions and John Roberts makes Trump look very small - not a good look for a president who has already started campaigning for re-election.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:For the good of the country and for the good of his party, Trump needs to break his Twitter addiction and start acting presidential. Personally picking public fights with people who should be his natural allies is idiotic.

John Roberts is the top official of a co-equal branch of government. Of course, Roberts should have responded to a very specific attack on one of the courts that fall under his jurisdiction. The only thing that I fault him for is not responding to similar attacks by Obama.

Trump has the sole power to nominate federal judges. He needs to privately pressure McConnell to get his nominees confirmed in a timely manner. Putting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in a position where he feels obligated to publicly defend the legitimacy of the Judicial branch of the federal government is just plain stupid.

I agree with Trump's opinion about the 9th Circuit and I suspect that Roberts also agrees with Trump - but Trump's public, poorly worded attacks demand very public responses. I am sure that Trump would not be happy if the next radical left-wing president claims that future court rulings are illegitimate because they are made by Trump appointed judges.

I know that Trump's core supporters believe that liberals will overplay the hand that they were dealt when they flipped 39 (probably 40) House seats, and will behave stupidly for the next two years. No doubt that they will do just that, but if Trump continues making unforced error after unforced error, then whether liberals shoot themselves in both feet will not matter much.

Getting into a public feud with a generally conservative Chief Justice is an unforced error.

You did a fly-by on the tower, but in this case there was in fact, somebody up there. But I can appreciate your willingness to call out the 9th circus and I agree, Roberts probably agrees with Trump on that. Where you left me in the dust was in saying Trump should lay down and take a public scolding from a Justice of the SC. I mean, the writhings and machinations of 'the resistance' aside for the moment, MR Trump is the President, right? The President didn't say one word about the Supreme Court. Trump has done nothing but restore the credibility of the court. If you ask me he has held up the honor of the court, all the way down to the lowliest, one-horse-town, one bullet toting Barney Fife out there. IF Roberts wants to make a public statement as far as I'm concerned; He might want to lavish a little praise on THE President whom just put his own head in a potential noose in doing his dead level best to put down an organized rebellion aimed at denying the integrity of the Supreme Court and the process by which Justices have been appointed since John Jay in 1791.

But none of this is about Trump supporters versus Hillary or Obama or whomever supporters. And you cannot boil it down to rudimentary politics as usual. As I said and you drove sideways around, this is about the US citizenry biting the hand that feeds them, so to speak. But all the talking heads and political analysts and political hacks who've managed to somehow ignore world chaos and war's unmistakable encroachment, continue to think they'll be able to go on cashing checks drawn on a state of abject moral bankruptcy, which of course is today's America.

The things which are right in the sight of God ought not be politicized as the media and the political establishment insist on doing presently. But they are. Put another way, labeling or in this case 'relabeling,' the tenets of morally correct behavior as being attributable only to "core Trump supporters," is wildly disingenuous at best. Just doing a default roll-eye, and mocking the long accepted characteristics of traditional conservatism as somehow now symptomatic of being a Trump supporter is ridiculous.

How could any rational person not see and understand the true nature of the threat posed by open borders? As I have in times past mentioned, America began to lose her right of self governance when she turned her back on God and His Word. God granted inalienable rights were the basis and authority on which the founders informed King George, via the document known as the US Declaration of Independence, our intentions to become a free people. Past that all of our laws were predicated on our understanding of God's law, as was/is the measure of punishment meted out for breaking that law.

Now thanks to the fact that the authority to govern has been, or largely is forfeit, men in black robes have bought into the notion that arbiters of the law have the right or privilege to derive their authority from any late breaking clever legal arguments which happen to support their personal and political leanings. The only safeguard we have left is precedent, as far as I am aware. But just relying only on precedent is no particular preservative of the law, because the continual attack on same for the sake of a big payday, cause it to be ever in a state of flux. Jet has it just right, absent a weatherman, men of reasonable common sense still know which way the wind blows. This one is coming across the stockyards.

jetpilot Wrote:^^^The only error that was made was made by Roberts. I hope he really is not that stupid. Judges aren't political? BAHAHAHAHA!!!! Everyone with a brain knows Trump is right. Of course liberal media and never Trumpers use an idiotic statement by Roberts to attack Trump. Which again everyone with a brain expects and disregards.

That is funny. Roberts saying there are no 'Obama judges,' when they're the absolute ONLY ones out there ordering stays on the rightful power of the executive branch is beyond insulting to the public trust.

Roberts can mix in every president who ever appointed a judge if he so chooses. But Derrick Watson and Jon S. Tigar are both Obama appointees. End of story

TheRealThing Wrote:You did a fly-by on the tower, but in this case there was in fact, somebody up there. But I can appreciate your willingness to call out the 9th circus and I agree, Roberts probably agrees with Trump on that. Where you left me in the dust was in saying Trump should lay down and take a public scolding from a Justice of the SC. I mean, the writhings and machinations of 'the resistance' aside for the moment, MR Trump is the President, right? The President didn't say one word about the Supreme Court. Trump has done nothing but restore the credibility of the court. If you ask me he has held up the honor of the court, all the way down to the lowliest, one-horse-town, one bullet toting Barney Fife out there. IF Roberts wants to make a public statement as far as I'm concerned; He might want to lavish a little praise on THE President whom just put his own head in a potential noose in doing his dead level best to put down an organized rebellion aimed at denying the integrity of the Supreme Court and the process by which Justices have been appointed since John Jay in 1791.

But none of this is about Trump supporters versus Hillary or Obama or whomever supporters. And you cannot boil it down to rudimentary politics as usual. As I said and you drove sideways around, this is about the US citizenry biting the hand that feeds them, so to speak. But all the talking heads and political analysts and political hacks who've managed to somehow ignore world chaos and war's unmistakable encroachment, continue to think they'll be able to go on cashing checks drawn on a state of abject moral bankruptcy, which of course is today's America.

The things which are right in the sight of God ought not be politicized as the media and the political establishment insist on doing presently. But they are. Put another way, labeling or in this case 'relabeling,' the tenets of morally correct behavior as being attributable only to "core Trump supporters," is wildly disingenuous at best. Just doing a default roll-eye, and mocking the long accepted characteristics of traditional conservatism as somehow now symptomatic of being a Trump supporter is ridiculous.

How could any rational person not see and understand the true nature of the threat posed by open borders? As I have in times past mentioned, America began to lose her right of self governance when she turned her back on God and His Word. God granted inalienable rights were the basis and authority on which the founders informed King George, via the document known as the US Declaration of Independence, our intentions to become a free people. Past that all of our laws were predicated on our understanding of God's law, as was/is the measure of punishment meted out for breaking that law.

Now thanks to the fact that the authority to govern has been, or largely is forfeit, men in black robes have bought into the notion that arbiters of the law have the right or privilege to derive their authority from any late breaking clever legal arguments which happen to support their personal and political leanings. The only safeguard we have left is precedent, as far as I am aware. But just relying only on precedent is no particular preservative of the law, because the continual attack on same for the sake of a big payday, cause it to be ever in a state of flux. Jet has it just right, absent a weatherman, men of reasonable common sense still know which way the wind blows. This one is coming across the stockyards.

No, I never said that Trump should "lay down and take a public scolding." There should have been no public exchange at all and there would have been none had Trump not publicly called out the 9th Circuit Court in a very non-presidential manner. As the top official in the federal court system, Chief Justice Roberts defended the system, just as Trump or any president should defend his own cabinet members when they are attacked by members of Congress. President Trump placed Chief Justice Roberts in the position of defending the courts that he must deal with on a daily basis. Roberts was not wrong in defending his extended team.

Trump needs to focus his efforts on reshaping the federal courts by making the best appointments to fill openings as possible. He does not need to make more enemies with his infantile tweets.

As for immigration policy, Trump's failure to secure full funding for a border wall during his first term has placed him in an almost impossible position now that Republicans have lost control of the House. Now, Trump needs to rely on the federal court system to support his executive actions to deal with the illegal invasion of the U.S. by our neighbors from the south. Insulting judges and engaging in public fights with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not presidential and it is a political blunder.

Trump needs to kick his Twitter addiction or we will all suffer the consequences in 2020. He also needs to learn how to use surrogates to attack his political enemies, instead of personally responding every time some low level Democrat baits him with an insult. When a president responds personally to an insult by the media or a politician, he elevates the status of his critic.

TheRealThing Wrote:That is funny. Roberts saying there are no 'Obama judges,' when they're the absolute ONLY ones out there ordering stays on the rightful power of the executive branch is beyond insulting to the public trust.

Roberts can mix in every president who ever appointed a judge if he so chooses. But Derrick Watson and Jon S. Tigar are both Obama appointees. End of story

If you recall, Antonin Scalia defended Ruth Bader Ginsburg against personal attacks by conservatives. Our federal court system is shaped by presidential elections and that is what our founders intended. Once they are nominated and confirmed, they are all federal judges. Some ultimately reflect the political philosophies of the presidents who appointed them, and some become great disappointments to the appointing president.

One of the most important jobs that a president has is to make sound nominations of federal judges and to get his appointments confirmed by the Senate. IMO, it is counter productive for sitting presidents to make political attacks against federal judges. Trump should leave such attacks to his allies in the conservative media and conservative politicians who are not trusted with making appointments to the federal courts.

There is nothing wrong with a president expressing disappointment with adverse decisions and optimism that his administration will prevail on appeal - but that is the extent to which a sitting president should personally comment on ongoing litigation.

It was okay for candidate Trump to criticize the federal courts' liberal bias, but it is not presidential for President Trump to do so. He has the power to change the system and he should rightfully and energetically be exercising that power, but labeling sitting judges as Obama-judges tarnishes his own appointments, IMO. In doing so, Trump is feeding an image of a president who is balancing left wing judges with his own right wing appointments, when he should be touting the professionalism, qualifications, and competence of his nominees.

^^ There would have been no exchange had activist judges not usurped the power of the executive by using the court to advance their own political agendas. The President has given no indication that he is a racist or racially biased against any nationality. Democrats made that charge during his campaign and media and Dems continue to push that falsehood to this day. But there is not a scintilla of evidence to support a finding where the President's supposed biases are used against him. That's been an ongoing political argument, not a legal argument.

Roberts knows his extended team is comprised of a bunch of loons who do not feel particularly beholden to the law as written, and he should not have defended some podunk judge that felt compelled to personally challenge the President of the United States, and force the millions of people whom find themselves beset by invaders from the south, to endure even more hardship.

You obsess over polishing up your point of view, which I believe is influenced by your desire to see Trump put in the place you'd like to see him, while ignoring the reality of the situation. The US Constitution vests the power of immigration control in the person of the President. Illegal immigration has escalated from singles and small groups to columns numbering in the thousands. There's no defending that sort of thing and I don't believe for one second that Scalia would have defended any judge engaged in challenging the Constitutional powers of the Presidency.

TheRealThing Wrote:^^ There would have been no exchange had activist judges not usurped the power of the executive by using the court to advance their own political agendas. The President has given no indication that he is a racist or racially biased against any nationality. Democrats made that charge during his campaign and media and Dems continue to push that falsehood to this day. But there is not a scintilla of evidence to support a finding where the President's supposed biases are used against him. That's been an ongoing political argument, not a legal argument.

Roberts knows his extended team is comprised of a bunch of loons who do not feel particularly beholden to the law as written, and he should not have defended some podunk judge that felt compelled to personally challenge the President of the United States, and force the millions of people whom find themselves beset by invaders from the south, to endure even more hardship.

You obsess over polishing up your point of view, which I believe is influenced by your desire to see Trump put in the place you'd like to see him, while ignoring the reality of the situation. The US Constitution vests the power of immigration control in the person of the President. Illegal immigration has escalated from singles and small groups to columns numbering in the thousands. There's no defending that sort of thing and I don't believe for one second that Scalia would have defended any judge engaged in challenging the Constitutional powers of the Presidency.

I am not ignoring the "reality of the situation." The reality of the situation is that Trump failed to secure funding for a border wall, lost control of the House, continues to squander what little political capital that he has by tweeting childish personal insults that ultimately undermine his own position, and is increasingly looking like a lame duck, one term president.

The immigration cases are making their way through the courts and Trump is not going to get a decision overturned by Twitter. Trump's fight should not be with the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice - he needs them to decide which cases to hear.

At best, Trump's tweets criticizing the federal courts and the judges that his predecessors appointed make him look ridiculous and at worst they may make it less likely that Roberts and his court will take up as many immigration cases.

Neither of us know how Scalia would have responded to Trump's criticism of the federal courts but if he defended Ruth Bader Ginsburg against outsiders, and he did, it is not hard for this conservative to imagine that Scalia would have advised Trump to worry about his own branch of government and leave the inferior federal courts to Congress and the Supreme Court, as Tthe Constitution dictates.

Twitter is no way to run a country. Trump is not winning any friends or defeating any enemies with his tweets, so what is the point of wasting so much time and energy on them?

When is the last time you recall personally witnessing somebody not named Donald J. Trump taunting another person by making fun of their name or looks? For me, I was in high school but it was far more common in grade school.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Trump continues to make a fool out of himself with his juvenile insults directed at his political enemies and, even worse, at members of his own team. The last thing that I want to see is for liberals to take control of the entire federal government in 2020, but that is the course that Trump has set for this country.

As unfair as the media has been in ignoring Trump's successes, nobody does more to make Trump look ridiculous than Trump does. I will vote against every Democrat on the ballot in 2020, but if Trump does not grow into the job in the next two years, then I expect Democrats to take over the Senate and the White House.

And, I never said or implied that judges are not political - but it is important that our justice system is perceived as fair - just as it is important that a president knows how to act presidential. Publicly feuding with Jeff Sessions and John Roberts makes Trump look very small - not a good look for a president who has already started campaigning for re-election.

When I filter all the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of your post all that is left are two facts:
1. Sessions was a horrible AG and Trump fired him. Trumps wins.
2. Trump is right and Roberts is wrong about judges being activists. Roberts looks especially stupid speaking out when he never did when Obama repeatedly did the same thing you are bashing Trump for doing.
So 2 Trump wins and a lot of Trump bashing by you.

You bash Trump more than you criticize Democrats which puts you in the esteemed company of Scarborough/Mika, Kristol, and Schumer/Pelosi.

jetpilot Wrote:When I filter all the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of your post all that is left are two facts:
1. Sessions was a horrible AG and Trump fired him. Trumps wins.
2. Trump is right and Roberts is wrong about judges being activists. Roberts looks especially stupid speaking out when he never did when Obama repeatedly did the same thing you are bashing Trump for doing.
So 2 Trump wins and a lot of Trump bashing by you.

You bash Trump more than you criticize Democrats which puts you in the esteemed company of Scarborough/Mika, Kristol, and Schumer/Pelosi.

Sessions was a bad pick for AG - one of Trump's many bad choices. Hiring the wrong person for jobs and then . them is not a win for Trump.

It doesn't really matter that Trump is right about the 9th Circuit Court. He accomplished nothing by starting a personal feud with the Chief Justice, who is serving a life term.

The few legitimate wins that Trump has posted during two years with Republican control of Congress will be for naught if Republicans lose control of every branch of government in 2020 and that is where Trump's arrogant, childish behavior has us headed.

I don't do personality cults. If you don't like reading about both Trump's strong points and his flaws, then feel free to put me on your ignore list or just skip my posts. I really don't care.

As for criticizing Democrats, I am pretty sure that I have made an order of magnitude more posts criticizing them than you have. Any conservative who lived through the Clinton and Obama years doesn't need me repeating my posts about how liberals are destroying our country.

My political philosophy hasn't changed since President Ronald Reagan campaigned for president. I was a strong conservative before Republicans elected a populist president and I will be a strong conservative long after Trump moves out of the White House.

Save your populist insults for somebody with a thin skin. :biglmao:

jetpilot Wrote:When I filter all the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of your post all that is left are two facts:
1. Sessions was a horrible AG and Trump fired him. Trumps wins.
2. Trump is right and Roberts is wrong about judges being activists. Roberts looks especially stupid speaking out when he never did when Obama repeatedly did the same thing you are bashing Trump for doing.
So 2 Trump wins and a lot of Trump bashing by you.

You bash Trump more than you criticize Democrats which puts you in the esteemed company of Scarborough/Mika, Kristol, and Schumer/Pelosi.

Your analysis is smack on Jet. According to Hoot, the front loaded resistance to the Trump Presidency is all attributable to his own failings in one way or another. In a word, absurd. In four words Hoot said it best himself, "I don't like Trump." I mean, what further clarification would one need?

The sentiment of resistance on the part of the left and the establishment en toto, which President Trump has dealt with since election night in 2016, is not grounded in his failings as a statesman. It is the result of sore loser Libs who had gotten so used to winning, that they wrongly thought the fight was over and will not accept the reality of the last election. Notice I said will not instead of can not. That is an important distinction in my view because even the right wing favoring media unwittingly give plausibility to the subversions of the left in saying they cannot accept the results of the election. That makes them seem far more noble by inferring that they just underestimated the task of electing Hillary and as such, their resolve has now been steeled. Not true, not that Dems were not taken by surprise in 2016. They know full well they lost fair and square, but like the repairman who thought he had fixed the problem and went on his merry way only to get called right back because the problem was not fixed; Dems are now determined once and for, all to stomp out all meaningful conservative resistance to their ridiculous agenda. They're playing hardball from here on out.

But far more important and noteworthy than citing the chapter and verse political wranglings of days gone by, is understanding what is happening to this nation right now. At one time exposing political plots to the people caused the plotters, (usually Dems) to either fire as many as seemed necessary as sacrificial lambs, and further, completely pull in those liberal horns and play nicey-nicey for a while. But as I have already pointed out, these days Dems just shake it off with impudence and keep on pursuing their goal of political dominance.

No amount of exposure causes them shame anymore because of two reasons IMHO. First, liberals know that there is precious little they could do to alienate those who believe they owe their government provided goodies to them. And they would vote for Vlad the Impaler if he ran on the Democrat ticket. Second, the lame stream media not only enable their Democrat icons, they go on to cover for them and help to pin false charges on Republicans. Republicans who BTW, are much more chummy with both the press and the Dems than they are their own conference. But I digress. As I have said, IF exposure could have made a difference it would have. Because there are multitudes of folks out there of stellar repute and experience delivering the message of truth and sounding the alarm. Not the least of which is a man that I have always respected in the person of one Mark Levin.

I will concede that MR Trump's familiarity with truly trustworthy cabinet members and staff has been anemic. He has made some bad choices in that he could not foresee the level of deception they were willing to perpetrate against their own country. But I believe the President wrongly ascribed a high level of patriotism to (a few perhaps) of those Generals with whom he was once so enamored. In any case there is no cause or excuse past that of their oaths of office, that would excuse the rats in question for the betrayals they have committed in their resistance to MR Trump's policies, even if they happen to disagree with those policies, because these RATS are beholden to the people and the common good. They are the ones at fault in all of this and MR Trump is no more responsible for their treasons than the rest of the inhabitants of this land. In saying the foregoing, nobody understands what Jeff Sessions problem was.

For what it's worth, even the low lifes on the other side of the aisle did not foresee the level of cooperation to which RINO's and deepstaters would eventually stoop. Because if Dems had had any idea, they would have graciously capitulated to the President's picks and had themselves one heck of 'seasons' worth of daily happy hours.

You know, the left has beat the same old drum for decades now where it comes to willful disobedience of the law. To them, lawbreakers are innocent victims of the society that spawned them. So who's really at fault? Well if you listen to Dems it will always be those darned old rich white men of the Republican Party. That my friend is the quintessential example of racism. And as to this deal of blaming the target of all the sedition, MR Trump, (and BTW, said targeting of MR Trump also targets all 62,979,636 Americans whom voted for him), it will do great harm to the country, mark it down.

Past that, the founders were men of passion, not reciters of statistics, precedent or historical blunder. Hence in all that they did, they knew failure meant certainty for the gallows. Thus passion in the form of patriotism, ought to be part and parcel to self governance. Voter ID's IMHO, should be in the top five issues for John Q Public. As should construction of MR Trump's wall, a strong national defense, a viable Supreme Court, and restoring sanity by admitting our system of law is based on the Godly tenets plainly written in the Bible. And to borrow a basketball coaching stratagem, my go-to 6th man would be ensuring the common good through discouraging special interests. Not rewarding them with an entire body of new law, which thanks to clinical hysteria over issues of diversity, has managed to completely usurp the authority and function of our once glorious system of law, and the judiciary charged with overseeing same. If nothing else, (but there is plenty else) MR Trump did us all a favor by highlighting the insanity of political correctness.

Trump - a statesman? Shirley, you jest. :biglmao:

Trump is not, never has been, and will never be a conservative. He is a former liberal Democrat who has rebranded himself as a populist Republican. IF he runs in 2020, he will once again be the lesser of two evils. That's all.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Trump - a statesman? Shirley, you jest. :biglmao:

Trump is not, never has been, and will never be a conservative. He is a former liberal Democrat who has rebranded himself as a populist Republican. IF he runs in 2020, he will once again be the lesser of two evils. That's all.

And you think this is somehow a revelation into your particular bias... in what way? You were an admitted #NeverTrumper, were you not?

He didn't rebrand himself anything. He had a change of heart, an awakening as it were, the sort of which has thus far despite your oft quoted conservative manifesto, eluded you. Now, I grant you he has not shown to be a 'fiscal' conservative as yet, but if allowed to govern perhaps the realized economic growth will reign in the deficit enough to see some fiscal conservatism as well. His policies are nonetheless, conservative.

TheRealThing Wrote:And you think this is somehow a revelation into your particular bias... in what way? You were an admitted #NeverTrumper, were you not?

He didn't rebrand himself anything. He had a change of heart, an awakening as it were, the sort of which has thus far despite your oft quoted conservative manifesto, eluded you. Now, I grant you he has not shown to be a 'fiscal' conservative as yet, but if allowed to govern perhaps the realized economic growth will reign in the deficit enough to see some fiscal conservatism as well. His policies are nonetheless, conservative.

Trump has been a big spending Republican - with a Republican controlled House. There is zero chance that his fiscal record will be any better with Nancy Pelosi back in the House saddle. Trump's failure to keep his promise to build a border wall, combined with a slowing economy, will probably deny him a second chance to work with a Republican Congress.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Trump has been a big spending Republican - with a Republican controlled House. There is zero chance that his fiscal record will be any better with Nancy Pelosi back in the House saddle. Trump's failure to keep his promise to build a border wall, combined with a slowing economy, will probably deny him a second chance to work with a Republican Congress.

LOL, nobody ever accused you of knowing when to quit.

John Roberts strikes again. His tendency to side with the liberals of the Supreme Court seems to be in the offing. First he upheld ObamaCare, now he sides with liberals to uphold a lower court stay on the President's asylum ban.

It would seem to be much easier for America to get over an 8 year tenure of poor presidential performance, than the Supreme Court picks that a poor president may leave behind. George W Bush nominated John Roberts, who during the process saw his nomination elevated to that of Chief Justice. He seems to vote with the libs. On the matter of Mr Trump's asylum ban, his two picks held firm to the constitutionalist expectations of those who confirmed them. A third Trump pick at this point doesn't look to be a bad idea.