The Briefing Room
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on June 18, 2020, 02:28:13 pm
-
Thanks Bush for what's his face.
-
This is a disaster. Can't wait to hear how Trump's EO is no bueno while Obama's EO is ok.
-
This is a disaster. Can't wait to hear how Trump's EO is no bueno while Obama's EO is ok.
Clownworld.
-
Clearly, we need to keep the WH and the Senate to overcome the current liberal majority.
Tell me again what was so attractive about Roberts, please.
-
Supreme Court blocks Trump plan to end DACA program
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to block the Trump administration from ending an Obama-era program that shields nearly 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation, upending a key feature of President Trump’s immigration agenda.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the administration failed to give an adequate justification for terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, as required by federal law.
https://thehill.com/regulation/503356-supreme-court-blocks-trump-plan-to-end-daca-program
-
Clearly, we need to keep the WH and the Senate to overcome the current liberal majority.
Tell me again what was so attractive about Roberts, please.
Roberts is worse the RBG, who never pretended to be anything other than a left wing ideologue.
-
Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program
Fox News, Jun 18, 2020
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against the Trump administration’s effort to end the Obama-era program that offers protections to young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.
The court ruled that the administration's decision to rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
In a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members to author the opinion, the court said the move to eliminate the program that grants privileges to children who entered the U.S. illegally as minors was "arbitrary and capricious," although they did not rule on the merits of the program itself.
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. 'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern,'" Roberts wrote in his opinion. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."
Roberts wrote that the administration "failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance," as well as the impact the decision would have on DACA recipients who have relied on the program.
"That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner," Roberts wrote. "The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew."
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent, saying: "These cases could—and should—have ended with a determination that his legal conclusion was correct. Instead, the majority today concludes that DHS was required to do far more."
He continued: "Without grounding its position in either the APA or precedent, the majority declares that DHS was required to overlook DACA’s obvious legal deficiencies and provide additional policy reasons and justifications before restoring the rule of law. This holding is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority. I would therefore reverse the judgments below and remand with instructions to dissolve the nationwide injunctions.â€
More: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-over-move-to-end-daca-program (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-over-move-to-end-daca-program)
What a convoluted decision. Makes me wonder if the President will take another crack at this in his second term.
-
Clearly, we need to keep the WH and the Senate to overcome the current liberal majority.
Tell me again what was so attractive about Roberts, please.
All I know so far is that Roberts wrote the majority opinion. I will be curious to see how Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted. If they sided with the majority, I would put the blame on them too.
Roberts was sold as a conservative jurist, but he was merely a registered Republican. As we all know now, being a Republican does not mean being conservative. The party is infested with flaming liberals and has been for many years. We just didn't know it till recently.
[Edited to add] Ok, I posted before I read the article you posted above. So it looks like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined with Alito and Thomas in the minority. Good. Just too bad they were outnumbered by Roberts and the rest of the libs.
-
What in the hell is Roberts talking about? Is he saying he didn't like the reason the agency gave for ending the program? Isn't this a rather subjective ruling for a court that is supposed to objectively compare law to the Constitution?
-
All I know so far is that Roberts wrote the majority opinion. I will be curious to see how Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted. If they sided with the majority, I would put the blame on them too.
It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood Roberts broke with the "conservatives".
-
Schumer says he cried 'tears of joy' over DACA decision
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503366-schumer-says-he-cried-tears-of-joy-over-daca-decision
-
What a convoluted decision. Makes me wonder if the President will take another crack at this in his second term.
So Trump merely has to provide a reason to shut down the program beforehand? He should just do that.
-
It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood Roberts broke with the "conservatives".
Thanks @Right_in_Virginia
I wouldn't say Roberts "broke" with the conservatives since he has been on the liberal side since the beginning. Like I said, Roberts might have been a Republican, but he sure as hell isn't conservative.
-
Schumer says he cried 'tears of joy' over DACA decision
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503366-schumer-says-he-cried-tears-of-joy-over-daca-decision
Sounds unstable. He should resign immediately and seek professional help.
-
It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood Roberts broke with the "conservatives".
(https://scontent.fbed1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79592834_104520314382227_3681222417931304960_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=dd9801&_nc_ohc=LmUzFv6ysnIAX9ct7uD&_nc_ht=scontent.fbed1-1.fna&oh=0b641748c273e0d2804430cc6bdf6888&oe=5F100E16)
-
This is a disaster. Can't wait to hear how Trump's EO is no bueno while Obama's EO is ok.
This is an atrocity of the first order with zero constitutional underpinnings!
-
So Trump merely has to provide a reason to shut down the program beforehand? He should just do that.
Trump's not going to do it now ... but he will try again Jan 20, 2021. I'd like him to just override Obama's EO.
But whatever, I'm sure he's taking another crack at this.
-
What in the hell is Roberts talking about? Is he saying he didn't like the reason the agency gave for ending the program? Isn't this a rather subjective ruling for a court that is supposed to objectively compare law to the Constitution?
It's convoluted for sure @skeeter But then this is from the mind that turned an individual mandate into a tax.
-
Thanks @Right_in_Virginia
I wouldn't say Roberts "broke" with the conservatives ....
Good point @Applewood :beer:
-
Roberts is worse the RBG, who never pretended to be anything other than a left wing ideologue.
Roberts and Bolton are doing their best knifing conservatives in the back routine. Those two guys are probably having a celebratory circle jerk.
-
‘Wow’: Democrats celebrate high court ruling protecting 'Dreamers'
by Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent |
| June 18, 2020 11:36 AM
Democrats celebrated a Thursday Supreme Court ruling protecting “Dreamers†from deportation with “tears of joy†and “a sigh of relief†and said the court was delivering surprising rulings they were happy to support.
“I cried tears of joy a few minutes ago when I heard the decision of the Supreme Court on DACA,†Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech.
Schumer said the court “provided a bright ray of sunshine this week†with its decisions.
In addition to upholding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Supreme Court ruled federal law protected LGBTQ workers from discrimination.
“Who would have thought it would have had so many good decisions in one week?†Schumer said. “Who would have thought. Wow.â€
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said polls showed the vast majority of people supported legalizing Dreamers.
"The DACA decision is something that supports our values as a country," said Pelosi, a California Democrat. "We were in such dread about what could possibly happen in the court. But this way is the American way. And we are very proud of it."
more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/wow-democrats-celebrate-high-court-ruling-protecting-dreamers (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/wow-democrats-celebrate-high-court-ruling-protecting-dreamers)
-
What in the hell is Roberts talking about? Is he saying he didn't like the reason the agency gave for ending the program? Isn't this a rather subjective ruling for a court that is supposed to objectively compare law to the Constitution?
From The Thomas dissent:
DACA alters how the immigration laws apply to a certain class of aliens. “DACA [recipients] primarily entered the
country either by overstaying a visa or by entering without inspection, and the INA instructs that aliens in both classes
are removable.†Texas v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 3d
662, 713 (SD Tex. 2018) (footnote omitted).
But DACA granted its recipients deferred action, i.e., a decision to “decline to institute [removal] proceedings, terminate [removal] proceedings, or decline to institute a final order of [removal].†Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 484 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under other regulations, recipients of deferred
action are deemed lawfully present for purposes of certain federal benefits. See supra, at 4. Thus, DACA in effect created a new exception to the statutory provisions governing removability and, in the process, conferred lawful presence on an entire class of aliens. To lawfully implement such changes, DHS needed a grant of authority from Congress to either reclassify removable DACA recipients as lawfully present, or to exempt the entire class of aliens covered by DACA from statutory removal procedures. No party disputes that the immigration statutes lack an express delegation to accomplish either result. And, an examination of the highly reticulated immigration regime makes clear that DHS has no implicit discretion to create new classes of lawful presence or to grant
relief from removal out of whole cloth. Accordingly, DACA is substantively unlawful.
This conclusion should begin and end our review. The decision to rescind an unlawful agency action is per se lawful. No additional policy justifications or considerations are necessary. And, the majority’s contrary holding—that an
the agency is not only permitted but required, to continue an ultra vires action—has no basis in law.
HE is exactly right!
-
Roberts and Bolton are doing their best knifing conservatives in the back routine. Those two guys are probably having a celebratory circle jerk.
Bolton is a simple bureaucratic hack. Worse than that, Roberts has tossed out his sworn commitment to the Constitution in favor of protecting his Deep State benefactors.
-
It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood Roberts broke with the "conservatives".
Yep, he's a fag.
-
From The Thomas dissent:
HE is exactly right!
He is. Roberts is committing Constitutional malpractice on a regular basis.
-
All I know so far is that Roberts wrote the majority opinion. I will be curious to see how Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted. If they sided with the majority, I would put the blame on them too.
Roberts was sold as a conservative jurist, but he was merely a registered Republican. As we all know now, being a Republican does not mean being conservative. The party is infested with flaming liberals and has been for many years. We just didn't know it till recently.
[Edited to add] Ok, I posted before I read the article you posted above. So it looks like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined with Alito and Thomas in the minority. Good. Just too bad they were outnumbered by Roberts and the rest of the libs.
Dumbya sold us down the river.
-
Bolton is a simple bureaucratic hack. Worse than that, Roberts has tossed out his sworn commitment to the Constitution in favor of protecting his Deep State benefactors.
Someone needs to do an analysis of Robert's voting patterns when it comes to close votes. I seem to see a trend, and not afraid to accuse him of being blackmailed for ... well I won't impose that innuendo, but you get the picture.
-
Someone needs to do an analysis of Robert's voting patterns when it comes to close votes. I seem to see a trend, and not afraid to accuse him of being blackmailed for ... well I won't impose that innuendo, but you get the picture.
True he always seems to side with the left on the big rulings. We get tossed the crumbs so he can maintain some credibility.
-
I think Roberts attended too many DC cocktail parties, he's now one of them...
-
Trump's not going to do it now ... but he will try again Jan 20, 2021. I'd like him to just override Obama's EO.
But whatever, I'm sure he's taking another crack at this.
I hope he does. The problem with rescinding an EO of this kind is that thousands have changed their position as the result of the EO. All that have come forward have exposed their illegal status but for the EO's protection.
It is hardly a radical notion to require that, when a law changes, you don't leave high and dry those who relied (in good faith) on the prior law to order their lives.
-
I hope he does. The problem with rescinding an EO of this kind is that thousands have changed their position as the result of the EO. All that have come forward have exposed their illegal status but for the EO's protection.
It is hardly a radical notion to require that, when a law changes, you don't leave high and dry those who relied (in good faith) on the prior law to order their lives.
Why? There is no such consideration for others, like Christian bakers.
-
Dumbya sold us down the river.
We were gullible, naïve, whatever you want to call it. We thought a Republican jurist would be a constitutional conservative. Learned the hard way it ain't so.
-
We were gullible, naïve, whatever you want to call it. We thought a Republican jurist would be a constitutional conservative. Learned the hard way it ain't so.
Why does Roberts' recognition that abolishing DACA will jeopardize the expectations of those who came forward in good faith reliance, and place them at renewed legal risk, mean that he is not a "constitutional conservative"?
To me, recognizing the principle of detrimental reliance is inherently conservative, as a protection of the innocent from the arbitrary power of government.
Or isn't that important to you?
-
Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court over their DACA decision, calling it "gamesmanship."
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeKgt3z3a9E#)
-
Why does Roberts' recognition that abolishing DACA will jeopardize the expectations of those who came forward in good faith reliance, and place them at renewed legal risk, mean that he is not a "constitutional conservative"?
To me, recognizing the principle of detrimental reliance is inherently conservative, as a protection of the innocent from the arbitrary power of government.
Or isn't that important to you?
Maybe I’m mistaken but didn’t Trump simply say he wasn’t renewing what was likely an unconstitutional executive order in the first place, and SCOTUS is telling him, essentially, he lacks the authority to even do that much?
-
We were gullible, naïve, whatever you want to call it. We thought a Republican jurist would be a constitutional conservative. Learned the hard way it ain't so.
WERE? Many still ARE.
-
WERE? Many still ARE.
Yep. And I can think of a former Democrat who registered as a Republican to run in 2016 and I was told he had "evolved."
-
@EdinVA
Thanks for that clip. But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard. He looks like a homeless person. Ick!
-
Dumbya sold us down the river.
Think if you will, back to 2006, now I don't remember John Robert's appointment perfectly, but I do remember it, and IIRC any criticism of Bush was due to "Bush Derangement syndrome" and we were a part of Code Pink to question Bush in any way. This was prior to his signing/support of the amnesty bill, before conservatives broke with him in mass.
-
@EdinVA
Thanks for that clip. But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard. He looks like a homeless person. Ick!
:silly:
-
Yep. And I can think of a former Democrat who registered as a Republican to run in 2016 and I was told he had "evolved."
Yeah... sure he did. *****rollingeyes*****
-
:silly:
I think he looks better with the beard.
-
@EdinVA
Thanks for that clip. But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard. He looks like a homeless person. Ick!
I looked at it with a jaundiced eye too - as being too quaffed.
Mine is almost down to my third button, and my tail is two fists long... :whistle:
Soon enough it will be too hot and it will all come off... And folks would criticize the onion-head instead. No accounting for it. :shrug:
-
I looked at it with a jaundiced eye too - as being too quaffed.
Mine is almost down to my third button, and my tail is two fists long... :whistle:
Soon enough it will be too hot and it will all come off... And folks would criticize the onion-head instead. No accounting for it. :shrug:
I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to Ted's beard and I've probably insulted every man on this forum who sports a beard. I'm sorry, but I just don't like beards. Perhaps you can wear a beard well -- some men can -- but most of the ones I've seen who sport a beard look terrible.
My brother, for instance. He grows a beard starting every fall. He is a skier and he says the extra fur protects his face from the elements when he's on the slopes. Ok, I'll buy that. Only...my brother's beard is never even. One side of his face might have a full beard, but the other side is sparse and straggly. He could, I suppose, even out both sides. but he doesn't. And he too looks like a homeless person. Right now he's clean shaven for summer and his wife is a happy camper -- she doesn't like his beard either. But in a few months, he will look like a homeless person again. Ugh!
That all said -- and getting back to the original topic -- bravo to Ted. His speech was spot on.
-
I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to Ted's beard and I've probably insulted every man on this forum who sports a beard. I'm sorry, but I just don't like beards. Perhaps you can wear a beard well -- some men can -- but most of the ones I've seen who sport a beard look terrible.
It is a cultural thing... Many folks are not into a natural man.
I catch a lot of heck in the cowboy community. Cowboys as a rule remain clean shaven... But they tolerate my hillbilly tendencies. There is great equanimity between cowboys, farmers and hill folk. Women though, not so much. Cowgirls demand a clean-shaven man, for the most part. So I tend toward HillJillys, who prefer their men entirely natural. The last gal I was with mourned my absent fur in the summer, and could not wait for my hair to grow back. I tried to keep it on for her, but nope. She was overjoyed when it got long enough I could put my throat patch back on (Native decoration she made for me - Looks dumb without the hair)
No, really. :laugh:
My brother, for instance. He grows a beard starting every fall. He is a skier and he says the extra fur protects his face from the elements when he's on the slopes. Ok, I'll buy that.
Good. Because it is absolutely true.
Only...my brother's beard is never even. One side of his face might have a full beard, but the other side is sparse and straggly. He could, I suppose, even out both sides. but he doesn't. And he too looks like a homeless person.
I have a similar problem - the right side of my face having been subjected to road rash... It eventually catches up, but it is more sparse in the growing of it till it gets full.
That all said -- and getting back to the original topic -- bravo to Ted. His speech was spot on.
That's right.
-
Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court over their DACA decision, calling it "gamesmanship."
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeKgt3z3a9E#)
This is the Cruz I remember. Teds calling Roberts out as a fraud and he’s right.
-
Maybe I’m mistaken but didn’t Trump simply say he wasn’t renewing what was likely an unconstitutional executive order in the first place, and SCOTUS is telling him, essentially, he lacks the authority to even do that much?
Yes, he can eliminate the program. But he has to address the situations of those who relied on DACA to change their legal position. No one likes a bait and switch, especially when the potential consequence is loss of job and deportation.
-
Yes, he can eliminate the program. But he has to address the situations of those who relied on DACA to change their legal position. No one likes a bait and switch, especially when the potential consequence is loss of job and deportation.
But if a baker doesn't bake a cake everything he has worked for all his life can be taken.
This is the crap you get with deciders deciding instead of the rule of law.
-
I dislike Roberts with the rest of ya, but his decision says there’s no question President Trump has the power to end DACA but the issue was how he did it. DACA was not an obummr EO, it was written at the DHS, Cabinet Level. As usual the Trump Administration f*ced this up but let's hate on Robert's instead, he's an azzhole!
Trump will try again, after the election, and I suspect he won't screw it up this time.
-
@EdinVA
Thanks for that clip. But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard. He looks like a homeless person. Ick!
I disagree. I love Ted's beard!!!
-
But if a baker doesn't bake a cake everything he has worked for all his life can be taken.
This is the crap you get with deciders deciding instead of the rule of law.
I don't see the connection. The baker knew what the law was (to serve his customers without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) and chose to defy it.
The DACA enrollees chose to conform to the law, at great personal risk, and then the rug was swept out from under them.
That is, as Roberts wrote, arbitrary and capricious. It is not the way government is supposed to act. To me, a Constitutional conservative is one that respects due process and the rule of law. Roberts qualifies, IMO.
-
Yes, he can eliminate the program. But he has to address the situations of those who relied on DACA to change their legal position. No one likes a bait and switch, especially when the potential consequence is loss of job and deportation.
You are carving legal justifications out of thin air.
Congress, Presidents, even the SCOTUS changes law all the time without considering the consequences of those affected.
Obamacare comes to mind.
-
I dislike Roberts with the rest of ya, but his decision says there’s no question President Trump has the power to end DACA but the issue was how he did it. DACA was not an obummr EO, it was written at the DHS, Cabinet Level. As usual the Trump Administration f*ced this up but let's hate on Robert's instead, he's an azzhole!
Trump will try again, after the election, and I suspect he won't screw it up this time.
If what you say is true, the I don't understand.... The case specifically states the case is between DHS and UC
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-homeland-security-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california/
-
I haven't liked a SCOTUS justice nominee since Thomas. They all have been wishy washy. Lukewarm that tends to spew to the left when pressed.
Ted's beard looks fine.
Laconic reply.
-
I don't see the connection. The baker knew what the law was (to serve his customers without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) and chose to defy it.
The DACA enrollees chose to conform to the law, at great personal risk, and then the rug was swept out from under them.
That is, as Roberts wrote, arbitrary and capricious. It is not the way government is supposed to act. To me, a Constitutional conservative is one that respects due process and the rule of law. Roberts qualifies, IMO.
@Jazzhead there you go again...spouting bullshit. And you’d been doing so well for a while. No baker in ANY of these cases denied service. PERIOD. FULL STOP. They only refused to make a CUSTOM wedding cake. ANY other item was good to go. Argue your points, but argue from facts and truth.
-
I don't see the connection. The baker knew what the law was (to serve his customers without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) and chose to defy it.
No, that was not the law. That was a decision imposed by fiat, that months prior did not exist wrt homo marriage.
-
The baker silliness is in no way similar to the legal equivalent of a bait and switch. Roberts made clear in the opinion that the issue of reliance was unaddressed.
What if you complied with a law requiring you to do certain things to be able to carry a firearm in public, and then the solons abolished that law with no replacement? Unless you're grandfathered, you've been screwed. The essence of conservative jurisprudence is respect for the right of the individual against the arbitrary whims of the state. Those who registered with DACA put their necks on the line for government dispensation. Now the government can renege on the deal?
-
Yes, he can eliminate the program. But he has to address the situations of those who relied on DACA to change their legal position. No one likes a bait and switch, especially when the potential consequence is loss of job and deportation.
The original EO was illegal. And it was never sold as anything other than a temporary program.
-
I dislike Roberts with the rest of ya, but his decision says there’s no question President Trump has the power to end DACA but the issue was how he did it. DACA was not an obummr EO, it was written at the DHS, Cabinet Level. As usual the Trump Administration f*ced this up but let's hate on Robert's instead, he's an azzhole!
Trump will try again, after the election, and I suspect he won't screw it up this time.
Did you watch Cruz's speech? It has nothing to do with what Trump's lawyers did. Roberts is playing a game here he has played before.
-
Did you watch Cruz's speech?
I watched it after I posted that @skeeter I've missed him. He and I agree that Roberts has been playing 'Gamemanship' and all his examples of this I think further illustrates my point that, again, the Trump Administration was inadequately prepared to see this through, but it could just be my TDS.
-
I watched it after I posted that @skeeter I've missed him. He and I agree that Roberts has been playing 'Gamemanship' and all his examples of this I think further illustrates my point that, again, the Trump Administration was inadequately prepared to see this through, but it could just be my TDS.
I suspect that by this time Trump has a pretty competent team of legal minds developing these arguments. Especially after this same gag has been pulled on them several times already. Its a little too pat - 'sure you have the legal authority to do what you are arguing here, but on article 5 sub-article 5.4 you mispelled indemnity.' Tomorrow's story becomes 'Trump f&^$ed up again'. Heard it before, not buying.
-
I dislike Roberts with the rest of ya, but his decision says there’s no question President Trump has the power to end DACA but the issue was how he did it. DACA was not an obummr EO, it was written at the DHS, Cabinet Level. As usual the Trump Administration f*ced this up but let's hate on Robert's instead, he's an azzhole!
Trump will try again, after the election, and I suspect he won't screw it up this time.
Ideally, this should have been dealt with by congress with the president's influence when Republicans held the majority in both houses of congress plus the presidency. But as with everything else they promised -- they did nothing.
Trump could write another EO, but given his track record with those, I don't have much confidence he will succeed next time. And with the house in Dem hands and the possibility the Republicans will lose control of the senate -- well, I think we can forget about any effort to fix our illegal immigration mess -- DACA included.
Let's face it -- the Republican Party had their chance. They blew it. The Dems will get to keep all these new voters and will rule this country for generations.
-
I suspect that by this time Trump has a pretty competent team of legal minds developing these arguments. Especially after this same gag has been pulled on them several times already. Its a little too pat - 'sure you have the legal authority to do what you are arguing here, but on article 5 sub-article 5.4 you mispelled indemnity.' Tomorrow's story becomes 'Trump f&^$ed up again'. Heard it before, not buying.
Another thing I am noticing. Seems since we lost Scalia, we have lost a forceful conservative advocate on the court. Decisons have tended more left than needed since.
-
Thomas wrote a hell of a dissention today.
-
Another thing I am noticing. Seems since we lost Scalia, we have lost a forceful conservative advocate on the court. Decisons have tended more left than needed since.
Thomas would be the guy to step into Scalia’s shoes - he’s got it down & is a damn good jurist. I wish he were more of a leader.
-
Thomas would be the guy to step into Scalia’s shoes - he’s got it down & is a damn good jurist. I wish he were more of a leader.
No... Justices are not leaders, they're supposed to debate and rule on the merits of the case only.
-
No... Justices are not leaders, they're supposed to debate and rule on the merits of the case only.
Yes, but every group has those who stand out. Scalia took the lead on SCOTUS and gave the impression of being an influence on the others.
-
This is an atrocity of the first order with zero constitutional underpinnings!
We have a rogue court, a traitorous House, and executive agencies full of turncoats and seditionists.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
-
Roberts is worse the RBG, who never pretended to be anything other than a left wing ideologue.
And he'll be on the bench for decades to come. I fully support PDJT" call for more Justices. There is no other option.
-
Roberts is worse the RBG, who never pretended to be anything other than a left wing ideologue.
@skeeter
I tried to warn people that he was a part of the "Homo Mafia" in DC and that's why Boy Jorge nominated him,but back then everybody was still pretending that Boy Jorge was a conservative.
-
Schumer says he cried 'tears of joy' over DACA decision
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503366-schumer-says-he-cried-tears-of-joy-over-daca-decision
@mystery-ak
Of course he did. He and all the other Dims need the illegal alien vote to stay in power and to keep the money flowing into their foreign bank accounts.
-
Judges from the Supreme Court down through all of the US District Courts are making politicized judgements amounting to legislation their way. It's not in their pay grade to do what congress should be taking care of. Roberts decided he would tax US citizens for health care, that was not the courts responsibility, now he doesn't care for the wording of an EO and again he is politicizing a President's decision.
-
Judges from the Supreme Court down through all of the US District Courts are making politicized judgements amounting to legislation their way. It's not in their pay grade to do what congress should be taking care of. Roberts decided he would tax US citizens for health care, that was not the courts responsibility, now he doesn't care for the wording of an EO and again he is politicizing a President's decision.
I have outlived most of my friends. Dad was the same. It is the Neanderthal DNA. I am sturdily built with especially strong legs and large head. I always thought for enhanced thinking. Well sometimes I have enhanced thinking. It would seem that Roberts has defective genes I surmise not a singular Neanderthal gene to be found, that defect could lead to self removal.
It is a natural process with the choices from those defects that become quickly apparent, reminding us all to select better stock for president. That is, no more presidential Rinos or any Rinos.
We have suffered long with Supreme Ginsburg, who appears to be slowly giving it up. Maybe November will be a trifecta.
-
Judges from the Supreme Court down through all of the US District Courts are making politicized judgements amounting to legislation their way. It's not in their pay grade to do what congress should be taking care of. Roberts decided he would tax US citizens for health care, that was not the courts responsibility, now he doesn't care for the wording of an EO and again he is politicizing a President's decision.
He's "politicizing" nothing. He told the Administration to reform the order to address what's wrong with it. The Administration is proceeding to do so. That's the system (and yes, justice) working, protecting both the President's right to unwind a previous President's EO, as well as the interests of those who are, legally speaking, stuck way out on a limb.
Granted, every other damn fool under the sun is politicizing it.
-
He's "politicizing" nothing. He told the Administration to reform the order to address what's wrong with it. The Administration is proceeding to do so. That's the system (and yes, justice) working, protecting both the President's right to unwind a previous President's EO, as well as the interests of those who are, legally speaking, stuck way out on a limb.
Granted, every other damn fool under the sun is politicizing it.
Roberts spelled "penalty" T A X and upheld one of the most disastrous crap bits of legislation, ever, costing millions of Americans any health insurancethey had.
Recently he rewrote "sex" (as used, the obvious original intent of the legislation being a "binary" biological determination of male versus female) into an act, a preference, an "identification", a practice, in order to encompass the right of perverts and sick people to a job anywhere.
Someone has some career ending dirt on him, and something that could possible put him in prison, and they are pulling his strings. Either that or anything conservative he ever did was just an act.
-
Roberts spelled "penalty" T A X and upheld one of the most disastrous crap bits of legislation, ever, costing millions of Americans any health insurancethey had.
Recently he rewrote "sex" (as used, the obvious original intent of the legislation being a "binary" biological determination of male versus female) into an act, a preference, an "identification", a practice, in order to encompass the right of perverts and sick people to a job anywhere.
Someone has some career ending dirt on him, and something that could possible put him in prison, and they are pulling his strings. Either that or anything conservative he ever did was just an act.
:yowsa: pointing-up
And it is my strong belief has to do with his adopted daughters and how they were adopted.
-
@Smokin Joe
It would have hardly been "conservative" to blow up the Affordable Care Act: an arbitrary decision by an unelected judge to nullify an individual insurance market that millions, for better or worse, had come to rely on. If the ACA is to be reformed or abolished, that is the job of the legislature. Roberts knows that, and you do too, if you'd be honest about the limits that ought to be respected by judges with lifetime tenure.
-
@Smokin Joe
It would have hardly been "conservative" to blow up the Affordable Care Act: an arbitrary decision by an unelected judge to nullify an individual insurance market that millions, for better or worse, had come to rely on. If the ACA is to be reformed or abolished, that is the job of the legislature. Roberts knows that, and you do too, if you'd be honest about the limits that ought to be respected by judges with lifetime tenure.
It would be hardly conservative to rewrite legislation from the bench.
The penalty was not a tax, according to the authors and proponents of the bill. We, the people, were repeatedly assured of that, too many times to count.
To rewrite that penalty as a tax, (that penalty which had effectively mandated the purchase of goods or services or be penalized just for breathing), was completely out of the legitimate powers of the Judicial branch at any level.
THAT is completely Unconstitutional.
He can rule on it, but he cannot rewrite it.
The absence of a severability clause would have voided the entire act.
As for relying on the ACA, what about the millions of US who LOST our health insurance because of that legislation? You think WE didn't rely on that? Instead, we get to pay for levels of health care we, ourselves often still cannot enjoy. That isn't one bleep bit conservative, and furthermore, it just isn't right.
Calling something good because some people who should never have benefited from it did, does not make it right, it only perpetuates the injustice upon those who suffer as a result.
-
@Smokin Joe
It would have hardly been "conservative" to blow up the Affordable Care Act: an arbitrary decision by an unelected judge to nullify an individual insurance market that millions, for better or worse, had come to rely on. If the ACA is to be reformed or abolished, that is the job of the legislature. Roberts knows that, and you do too, if you'd be honest about the limits that ought to be respected by judges with lifetime tenure.
@Jazzhead Please help me with something. I never see this question answered and I'm certain that I have to be missing something.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/midterm-exit-polls-2018-n932516 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/midterm-exit-polls-2018-n932516)
1. The number one issue behind the ass-kicking that the GOP took in the midterms of 2018 was healthcare.
2. As of now, the GOP has no viable alternative plan to the ACA
3. Yet, the GOP is trying to end the ACA. During a pandemic. When millions have lost their jobs (and job-based healthcare).
4. The Democrats are likely going to run on the issue of healthcare again in the autumn.
5. Are all these suppositions correct, or am I missing something?
-
Roberts spelled "penalty" T A X and upheld one of the most disastrous crap bits of legislation, ever, costing millions of Americans any health insurancethey had.
Recently he rewrote "sex" (as used, the obvious original intent of the legislation being a "binary" biological determination of male versus female) into an act, a preference, an "identification", a practice, in order to encompass the right of perverts and sick people to a job anywhere.
Someone has some career ending dirt on him, and something that could possible put him in prison, and they are pulling his strings. Either that or anything conservative he ever did was just an act.
@Smokin Joe
Hmmmm,let's see,here. Nominated by a homosexual president still living in the closet,never known to have dated a woman before he married one,and adopted two babies from Argentina (guess there were no blonde babies to adopt in America?) that are white,blonde,and have blue eyes.
Nope,nothing to be seen there.
I was trying to warn people about him right after Boy Jorge nominated him,and nobody wanted to listen. Then again,most of those people were still claiming that Boy Jorge was a conservative,so it shouldn't have surprised me.
-
:yowsa: pointing-up
And it is my strong belief has to do with his adopted daughters and how they were adopted.
@Bigun
Not to mention WHY those particular children were adopted. Were there no white babies up for adoption in the US?
-
Roberts spelled "penalty" T A X and upheld one of the most disastrous crap bits of legislation, ever, costing millions of Americans any health insurancethey had.
Recently he rewrote "sex" (as used, the obvious original intent of the legislation being a "binary" biological determination of male versus female) into an act, a preference, an "identification", a practice, in order to encompass the right of perverts and sick people to a job anywhere.
Someone has some career ending dirt on him, and something that could possible put him in prison, and they are pulling his strings. Either that or anything conservative he ever did was just an act.
It would seem this act that Roberts did can be known by many. Why not put some investigators on it. Discover it and ask
for his resignation along with a full disclosure by Roberts himself. One of those deep sorrow kind of things.
If he has been blackmailed, then let him talk about it to the nation.
-
It would seem this act that Roberts did can be known by many. Why not put some investigators on it. Discover it and ask
for his resignation along with a full disclosure by Roberts himself. One of those deep sorrow kind of things.
If he has been blackmailed, then let him talk about it to the nation.
That's a dream, but you forget the political ecology of Washington DC is an intricate balance of everyone knowing dirt on everyone else. They, with rare exception have dirt on each other. Not just ordinary 'paid to have a parking ticket ignored' event (that's a perk, anyway), but the sort of Federal hard time career-ending dirt (unless they are Democrats, then it's called a resume).
Recall, the first thing Hillary did was grab over 900 FBI raw data files on Republicans, both the powerful and the up-and-comers, which provides a wealth of rumor and gossip, as well as some hard info that can be turned to political advantage. They even know where to look for the poster children to make 11th hour allegations in election years.
They carefully avoid digging up each other's graveyards. Once it is out, there's no leverage.
Anyway, that delicate balance of not spilling the beans on people who might spill beans back (or have a mentor who will) is one of the reasons nothing seems to ever get rolled back, even when the opportunity is presented, not to mention why people like Epstein ("service providers" whose only power is having dirt on everyone) wake up dead in the morning if they are caught, lest they spill the beans they have.
Despite us knowing full well that frequent flyers for such providers have abundant reason for being relieved at the thought of convenient accidents, plane crashes, and yes, even 'suicides', the obvious layer yet unturned is whether they were the only, or even the most motivated to celebrate the unfortunate passing of some potential bean-spiller in a botched robbery, accident, of fire.
It's more pervasive than most would like to believe, and both sides of the aisle are involved. We just tend to blame the 'other guys'.
So, it is likely the people still surviving who have any dirt on Roberts either would go down as a result of releasing that dirt, criminally in court, or criminally, in their untimely but 'convenient' demise, with the exception of those who value it for leverage or potential reprisal. One way or another, their lips are sealed.
-
If Roberts is inconsistent with base principles, that is a problem. Has Roberts asked for relief from
anyone? Yep, that would be tightly held.
In the end if Roberts declines there could be a general outing by Tucker, Gutfeld or even Hannity.
There are things worse than exposure. This is a hard business. Independent of threat, men stand.
-
In the end if Roberts declines there could be a general outing by Tucker, Gutfeld or even Hannity.
For years there have been whispers for years around how Robert''s votes seem to align left when the vote is close due to extortion.
This shit has to stop if correct.
-
That's a dream, but you forget the political ecology of Washington DC is an intricate balance of everyone knowing dirt on everyone else. They, with rare exception have dirt on each other. Not just ordinary 'paid to have a parking ticket ignored' event (that's a perk, anyway), but the sort of Federal hard time career-ending dirt (unless they are Democrats, then it's called a resume).
Recall, the first thing Hillary did was grab over 900 FBI raw data files on Republicans, both the powerful and the up-and-comers, which provides a wealth of rumor and gossip, as well as some hard info that can be turned to political advantage. They even know where to look for the poster children to make 11th hour allegations in election years.
They carefully avoid digging up each other's graveyards. Once it is out, there's no leverage.
Anyway, that delicate balance of not spilling the beans on people who might spill beans back (or have a mentor who will) is one of the reasons nothing seems to ever get rolled back, even when the opportunity is presented, not to mention why people like Epstein ("service providers" whose only power is having dirt on everyone) wake up dead in the morning if they are caught, lest they spill the beans they have.
Despite us knowing full well that frequent flyers for such providers have abundant reason for being relieved at the thought of convenient accidents, plane crashes, and yes, even 'suicides', the obvious layer yet unturned is whether they were the only, or even the most motivated to celebrate the unfortunate passing of some potential bean-spiller in a botched robbery, accident, of fire.
It's more pervasive than most would like to believe, and both sides of the aisle are involved. We just tend to blame the 'other guys'.
So, it is likely the people still surviving who have any dirt on Roberts either would go down as a result of releasing that dirt, criminally in court, or criminally, in their untimely but 'convenient' demise, with the exception of those who value it for leverage or potential reprisal. One way or another, their lips are sealed.
Roberts is in the Epstein flight logs. It's a bit more than mere adoptions.
-
Roberts is in the Epstein flight logs. It's a bit more than mere adoptions.
If that is the deal then the job goes to Bush and Trump should inform him of his assignment.
Certainly Bush could be more gracious and presidential about it than anyone else. Something
about cleaning up your own messes.
Time for Roberts to develop some cover story, maybe liver cancer, and resign.
-
That's a dream, but you forget the political ecology of Washington DC is an intricate balance of everyone knowing dirt on everyone else. They, with rare exception have dirt on each other. Not just ordinary 'paid to have a parking ticket ignored' event (that's a perk, anyway), but the sort of Federal hard time career-ending dirt (unless they are Democrats, then it's called a resume).
Recall, the first thing Hillary did was grab over 900 FBI raw data files on Republicans,
@Smokin Joe
You fail to give her the credit she is due. She also grabbed all the raw Feeb files on Dims,Independents,union leaders,newspaper editors,and EVERY OTHER "influencer" in the FBI vaults
including people who are not involved in professional politics.
People like relatives of those who are politicians or on the fringe of politics.
-
It would be hardly conservative to rewrite legislation from the bench.
The penalty was not a tax, according to the authors and proponents of the bill. We, the people, were repeatedly assured of that, too many times to count.
To rewrite that penalty as a tax, (that penalty which had effectively mandated the purchase of goods or services or be penalized just for breathing), was completely out of the legitimate powers of the Judicial branch at any level.
THAT is completely Unconstitutional.
He can rule on it, but he cannot rewrite it.
The absence of a severability clause would have voided the entire act.
As for relying on the ACA, what about the millions of US who LOST our health insurance because of that legislation? You think WE didn't rely on that? Instead, we get to pay for levels of health care we, ourselves often still cannot enjoy. That isn't one bleep bit conservative, and furthermore, it just isn't right.
Calling something good because some people who should never have benefited from it did, does not make it right, it only perpetuates the injustice upon those who suffer as a result.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
@Jazzhead Please help me with something. I never see this question answered and I'm certain that I have to be missing something.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/midterm-exit-polls-2018-n932516 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/midterm-exit-polls-2018-n932516)
1. The number one issue behind the ass-kicking that the GOP took in the midterms of 2018 was healthcare.
2. As of now, the GOP has no viable alternative plan to the ACA
3. Yet, the GOP is trying to end the ACA. During a pandemic. When millions have lost their jobs (and job-based healthcare).
4. The Democrats are likely going to run on the issue of healthcare again in the autumn.
5. Are all these suppositions correct, or am I missing something?
NOT-AFFORDABLE...was NEVER about health. It was a ploy for re-distribution of wealth and to put in 18,19 new taxes and JOB KILLING REGULATIONS. The mandated, makes it a dictator event. LENIN used 'heath' as a way to control people for 70 years. PRESIDENT Trump was able to remove the ugly mandate part. NO PENALTY. He has reworked it some, to allow those still on it, for some benefits. We never needed this, not about health, health plan. POTUS also removed the job killing REGULATIONS, as company's' could not grow and people could NOT work a 40 hour job. The people needed, 2 to 3 part time jobs, to survive. (Artificial jobs increase) The many millions of dollars it required to implement this on computer , went to Mancheel Obama, school friend in Canada. Remember all the glitches?
We have medicaid. That is welfare and each state has their own budget for this freebie. Illegals have run it out in Arizona and probably other states. MEDICARE, monthly paid premium to government health care, mostly for the elderly. Co-pays and deductibles. INDIGENT CARE, comes from the years property taxes, as homeowner. Emergency care. No one can be turned away. Military (Tri-care ? ) health insurance. Veterans health care. PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. FREE CLINICS. PLANNED PARENTHOOD, PAID ON SLIDIG SCALE FOR WOMEN TO USE. CATHOLIC CHARITYS.
ACA is just another MEDICAID plan. WE DON'T NEED IT. Again, not about 'health'. Need to stop thinking of it as any kind of "care". UNIONS have their health care plans too. (blue color workers, construction) CULINARY UNONS. Nothing about Obamacare was good. You also were mandated to give all your health issues to them. Cancer was redefined under ACA. to avoid treatment payment. Remember Obama, " no surgery, you may only need a pill"? THOUSANDS of IRS agents were hired to be gestapo and make sure you paid. When ACA was on the floor for total REPEAL, the ONE vote that destroyed that plan, was John McCain. No-name. Screwed over the American people. Please, don't believe socialized health care means better treatment or care. How does government run the post office? Any program, before TRUMP? He fixed the V.A. for Veterans. Then 'the right to try' for people who are told terminal. One does not have to travel or go to Europe to find the best cure or help from cancer, now. It can be done in USA .
AGAIN...obamcare was NEVER about health. Wrong premiss. I like private health insurance. One can buy catastrophic insurance if young. And NO, 2018 was NOT about health care. 2018 WAS PURE VOTER FRAUD BY DEMON-RATS. IT WAS PROVEN. BRENDA SNIPES. Voter fraud , is the ONLY way demon-rats can get into office. PROVEN TOO? PROJECT VERITAS, O'KEEFE. This is all by memory. There is more, but this should address most of your desires/issues.
-
DACA...was sent back to POTUS to rework technicality. Is this the result/update or old news? I need to look at OP.
-
NOT-AFFORDABLE...was NEVER about health. It was a ploy for re-distribution of wealth and to put in 18,19 new taxes and JOB KILLING REGULATIONS. The mandated, makes it a dictator event. LENIN used 'heath' as a way to control people for 70 years. PRESIDENT Trump was able to remove the ugly mandate part. NO PENALTY. He has reworked it some, to allow those still on it, for some benefits. We never needed this, not about health, health plan. POTUS also removed the job killing REGULATIONS, as company's' could not grow and people could NOT work a 40 hour job. The people needed, 2 to 3 part time jobs, to survive. (Artificial jobs increase) The many millions of dollars it required to implement this on computer , went to Mancheel Obama, school friend in Canada. Remember all the glitches?
We have medicaid. That is welfare and each state has their own budget for this freebie. Illegals have run it out in Arizona and probably other states. MEDICARE, monthly paid premium to government health care, mostly for the elderly. Co-pays and deductibles. INDIGENT CARE, comes from the years property taxes, as homeowner. Emergency care. No one can be turned away. Military (Tri-care ? ) health insurance. Veterans health care. PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. FREE CLINICS. PLANNED PARENTHOOD, PAID ON SLIDIG SCALE FOR WOMEN TO USE. CATHOLIC CHARITYS.
ACA is just another MEDICAID plan. WE DON'T NEED IT. Again, not about 'health'. Need to stop thinking of it as any kind of "care". UNIONS have their health care plans too. (blue color workers, construction) CULINARY UNONS. Nothing about Obamacare was good. You also were mandated to give all your health issues to them. Cancer was redefined under ACA. to avoid treatment payment. Remember Obama, " no surgery, you may only need a pill"? THOUSANDS of IRS agents were hired to be gestapo and make sure you paid. When ACA was on the floor for total REPEAL, the ONE vote that destroyed that plan, was John McCain. No-name. Screwed over the American people. Please, don't believe socialized health care means better treatment or care. How does government run the post office? Any program, before TRUMP? He fixed the V.A. for Veterans. Then 'the right to try' for people who are told terminal. One does not have to travel or go to Europe to find the best cure or help from cancer, now. It can be done in USA .
AGAIN...obamcare was NEVER about health. Wrong premiss. I like private health insurance. One can buy catastrophic insurance if young. And NO, 2018 was NOT about health care. 2018 WAS PURE VOTER FRAUD BY DEMON-RATS. IT WAS PROVEN. BRENDA SNIPES. Voter fraud , is the ONLY way demon-rats can get into office. PROVEN TOO? PROJECT VERITAS, O'KEEFE. This is all by memory. There is more, but this should address most of your desires/issues.
:amen: 888high58888
-
Sounds unstable. He should resign immediately and seek professional help.
Correct. He sees people sitting in chairs, that aren't there. HALLUCINATIONS. Could be early Parkinson's, for sure, some mental issue. Like DEMENTIA PELOSI, who thinks BUSH is still president, neither care about America. (skips over the obama years.)
-
AGAIN...obamcare was NEVER about health. Wrong premiss. I like private health insurance. One can buy catastrophic insurance if young. And NO, 2018 was NOT about health care. 2018 WAS PURE VOTER FRAUD BY DEMON-RATS. IT WAS PROVEN.
@LegalAmerican
Thank you for the reply.
I have to disagree with you. Are you saying that a man as brilliant, as genius (DID YOU SEE HIS SCORE ON THE COGNITIVE TEST?) as President Donald JOHN Trump would let the DEMON-RATS, led by the enfeebled NANCY PELOUSY steal an election? SERIOUSLY? That a true fighter, a PATRIOT who loves this country such as POTUS #45 would sit idly by and let the DIMS take control of the House by cheating? Nay, I say, NAY! President Trump would use EVERY MEANS at his disposal, the full weight of his investigatory powers to root out such nefariousness. I have TOO MUCH FAITH in the President's STRENGTH, HIS FORESIGHT, HIS MENTAL ACUITY, and HIS LEADERSHIP to even consider such a possibility. You are severely UNDERESTIMATING how special a man that our POTUS truly is. SHAME!
-
:amen: 888high58888
Thank you! 888heartkitty
-
AGAIN...obamcare was NEVER about health. Wrong premiss. I like private health insurance. One can buy catastrophic insurance if young. And NO, 2018 was NOT about health care. 2018 WAS PURE VOTER FRAUD BY DEMON-RATS. IT WAS PROVEN.
@LegalAmerican
Thank you for the reply.
I have to disagree with you. Are you saying that a man as brilliant, as genius (DID YOU SEE HIS SCORE ON THE COGNITIVE TEST?) as President Donald JOHN Trump would let the DEMON-RATS, led by the enfeebled NANCY PELOUSY steal an election? SERIOUSLY? That a true fighter, a PATRIOT who loves this country such as POTUS #45 would sit idly by and let the DIMS take control of the House by cheating? Nay, I say, NAY! President Trump would use EVERY MEANS at his disposal, the full weight of his investigatory powers to root out such nefariousness. I have TOO MUCH FAITH in the President's STRENGTH, HIS FORESIGHT, HIS MENTAL ACUITY, and HIS LEADERSHIP to even consider such a possibility. You are severely UNDERESTIMATING how special a man that our POTUS truly is. SHAME!
OMGGGGGGG. Lol. I am talking about corruption. Everyone on here knows I support my POTUS....BIG TIME.
I have to chuckle a bit. WWW.MAGAPILL.COM (http://WWW.MAGAPILL.COM) :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :seeya:
-
Breaking Now (7/21) FBI makes arrests......of Republicans in Ohio.
-
AGAIN...obamcare was NEVER about health. Wrong premiss. I like private health insurance. One can buy catastrophic insurance if young. And NO, 2018 was NOT about health care. 2018 WAS PURE VOTER FRAUD BY DEMON-RATS. IT WAS PROVEN.
@LegalAmerican
Thank you for the reply.
I have to disagree with you. Are you saying that a man as brilliant, as genius (DID YOU SEE HIS SCORE ON THE COGNITIVE TEST?) as President Donald JOHN Trump would let the DEMON-RATS, led by the enfeebled NANCY PELOUSY steal an election? SERIOUSLY? That a true fighter, a PATRIOT who loves this country such as POTUS #45 would sit idly by and let the DIMS take control of the House by cheating? Nay, I say, NAY! President Trump would use EVERY MEANS at his disposal, the full weight of his investigatory powers to root out such nefariousness. I have TOO MUCH FAITH in the President's STRENGTH, HIS FORESIGHT, HIS MENTAL ACUITY, and HIS LEADERSHIP to even consider such a possibility. You are severely UNDERESTIMATING how special a man that our POTUS truly is. SHAME!
???? Correct me if I am wrong, but overseeing elections is not a duty of the executive branch. Federal elections are conducted by state and local governments. Election laws are determined at the state level. Each county has a supervisor of elections.
-
Breaking Now (7/21) FBI makes arrests......of Republicans in Ohio.
Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder arrested in $60 million bribery case (https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200721/ohio-house-speaker-larry-householder-arrested-in--60-million-bribery-case)
Must be an Ohio style republican. Much like the son of a mailman former governor of that state.
-
NOT-AFFORDABLE...was NEVER about health. It was a ploy for re-distribution of wealth and to put in 18,19 new taxes and JOB KILLING REGULATIONS. The mandated, makes it a dictator event. LENIN used 'heath' as a way to control people for 70 years. PRESIDENT Trump was able to remove the ugly mandate part. NO PENALTY. He has reworked it some, to allow those still on it, for some benefits. We never needed this, not about health, health plan. POTUS also removed the job killing REGULATIONS, as company's' could not grow and people could NOT work a 40 hour job. The people needed, 2 to 3 part time jobs, to survive. (Artificial jobs increase) The many millions of dollars it required to implement this on computer , went to Mancheel Obama, school friend in Canada. Remember all the glitches?
We have medicaid. That is welfare and each state has their own budget for this freebie. Illegals have run it out in Arizona and probably other states. MEDICARE, monthly paid premium to government health care, mostly for the elderly. Co-pays and deductibles. INDIGENT CARE, comes from the years property taxes, as homeowner. Emergency care. No one can be turned away. Military (Tri-care ? ) health insurance. Veterans health care. PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. FREE CLINICS. PLANNED PARENTHOOD, PAID ON SLIDIG SCALE FOR WOMEN TO USE. CATHOLIC CHARITYS.
ACA is just another MEDICAID plan. WE DON'T NEED IT. Again, not about 'health'. Need to stop thinking of it as any kind of "care". UNIONS have their health care plans too. (blue color workers, construction) CULINARY UNONS. Nothing about Obamacare was good. You also were mandated to give all your health issues to them. Cancer was redefined under ACA. to avoid treatment payment. Remember Obama, " no surgery, you may only need a pill"? THOUSANDS of IRS agents were hired to be gestapo and make sure you paid. When ACA was on the floor for total REPEAL, the ONE vote that destroyed that plan, was John McCain. No-name. Screwed over the American people. Please, don't believe socialized health care means better treatment or care. How does government run the post office? Any program, before TRUMP? He fixed the V.A. for Veterans. Then 'the right to try' for people who are told terminal. One does not have to travel or go to Europe to find the best cure or help from cancer, now. It can be done in USA .
AGAIN...obamcare was NEVER about health. Wrong premiss. I like private health insurance. One can buy catastrophic insurance if young. And NO, 2018 was NOT about health care. 2018 WAS PURE VOTER FRAUD BY DEMON-RATS. IT WAS PROVEN. BRENDA SNIPES. Voter fraud , is the ONLY way demon-rats can get into office. PROVEN TOO? PROJECT VERITAS, O'KEEFE. This is all by memory. There is more, but this should address most of your desires/issues.
:thumbsup: