Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/supreme-court-colorado-baker-gay-wedding-religious-freedom/
  2. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/08/what_to_make_of_the_california_primary_results_137235.html#2
  3. I agree. Well, I'll add "shouldn't be removed for that". I keep coming back to the money.
  4. I think Peoria thinks Junior has a problem. But the link to the Prez is not in the public domain. For this particular charge to play in Peoria we'll need to see that Trump knew, and that he was making a trade, not just listening to vague Russian overtures. If Trump goes down I doubt that this is the vehicle. I've always been a fan of following the money. I think he did dirty deals, and the paper trail is there. I think what Mueller wants is somebody to make the story "come alive". Forensic accountants with complicated flow charts of shell companies don't always work. A co-defendant does.
  5. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-08/scott-pruitt-s-luck-at-epa-may-be-running-out
  6. That probably gets you the person who did the hiring. It won't get you the candidate if she didn't know.
  7. That works if the Prez made the promise. That doesn't work if Junior had the meeting and you think the Prez must have known and must have made the promise.
  8. To start with, use a different word. Say something like "fixed the election", or laundered money", or "was being blackmailed". Be specific. "Buying players" doesn't work. "Paid Cam Newton $200K" works. But it only works if Auburn paid Cam Newton or they knew about it. "Cam Newton got $200K and Auburn must have known about it" does not work. It has to be something that would make you disown your brother-in-law. "Promised to lift sanctions in exchange for dirt on Hillary" works. "Knew Russia wanted him to win" and was acting like Russia always does" won't work. "Lied under oath to conceal an affair with an intern" won't work.
  9. You boys sound like you are talking about an imaginary bogeyman, not the Colorado baker. I heard no evidence that he was anything but kind and good.
  10. You should read the posts about me INCLUDING YOURS!
  11. No. I'm suggesting the Senator is Republican.
  12. All of them. (I think. I don't remember any that weren't.) None were blocked. All were stalled. The Dems chewed up hours of floor time then the GOP voted to cut off "debate".
  13. Read (and watch): https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/15/watch_sen_john_kennedy_grills_trump_judicial_nominee_who_admits_he_has_no_trial_experience.html
  14. That guy was bounced by his own REPUBLICAN Senator. Oh, and the Brown thing is a cheap publicity stunt. These nominees are not supposed to have an opinion on ANY issue which could come before them. Because it's tough to say what will and what won't they have taken positions not to opine on past cases. There was no suggestion that Brown was wrongly decided and the point was clear that the nominee would give no opinion on any case.
  15. I don't have a handy chart for the votes on executive nominees. Here's one on judicial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump You'll see that almost no District Court nominee is controversial. (the 20 confirmed) I can tell you that the ones in gray have gone through the Judiciary Committee and most of them were reported out with Dem support. Almost all went though the full blow-by-blow process. All took a long time. Hell some of these were also Obama appointees and suggested by Dems. I'll use one confirmed three days ago as an example. He's number 18, Robert Weir. He was nominated ten months ago and finally got confirmed this week. The vote was 95-0. He went through the whole shmear including a filibuster process with a vote to cut off debate after thirty hours of floor time for speeches (which of course was not used). Using time for Robert Wier meant the GOP counln't use that time for something else.
  16. The GOP does not control the Senate. They need 60 votes to control the Senate. Many things can get blocked. Everything can get stalled.
  17. They are demanding hearings, using filibusters and demanding roll call votes for uncontroversial nominees. This has the effect of allowing confirmation of only a few a week instead of many. Nothing gets stopped. Everything gets dramatically slowed down. It's stalling, not blocking.
  18. Is that an argument that the NLRB guy is a puppet?
  19. They cannot stop any. They can force all through a time-consuming process. And they do. A District Judge that gets confirmed 95-0 isn't just brought to the floor for a vote. He's brought to the floor for speeches. Then, about a week later there is a vote to cut off debate. Then later there is a vote to confirm. There are about 40 that are ready to come to the floor today. Maybe 40 more will be ready soon. How many days of Senate time will it take just for 170 judges? How many for 335 Administration appointees? This week there were 3 judges and one appointee. If this is the way the Dems want to do it McConnell will have to start scheduling a lot of all day sessions with a bunch of votes. How many hours of Senate time should it take to vote through 40 judges that will pass with overwhelming majorities? Everybody knows almost to the exact number what the vote for each will be.
  20. You lost me. Are you arguing that a federal judge or a board member of the NLRB is a Trump puppet? What are you saying?
  21. Yes there is. And that's the point. The Dems can, and do, take up hours and hours with each appointee.The GOP can eventually stop it but unless they change the rules the Dems can chew up the calendar. From the time a person is nominated till the time he's confirmed is taking about three months if he's a priority.
  22. The nominations for executive positions work just like the nominations for judicial positions. That is, the general confirmation process is the same. It takes a long time to get somebody through the process. Right now there are about 90 names or so in the Senate's court. Trump needs to give them another 80 or so. They wouldn't get confirmed any faster if they were submitted today than if they were submitted next month. I watch the stuff every stinking day, monitoring how each nominee moves through each laborious step. They won't do the lieutenants until after the majors, and they won't do the majors until after the colonels. And I can see when they'll be getting around to the lieutenants. (not any time this year). That's fact. Of the 335 to go (not including ones that will need to get redone as people quit), we'll be lucky to get 100 this year. It doesn't really matter whether we have a nominee to be Ambassador to the Congo or not. The Senate won't get to that this year. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf
  23. That's an argument if favor of obstruction. Others are arguing that there is no obstruction. Your group isn't on the same page. I'll argue that Trump appointees are not Trump puppets. The lawyer who gets appointed to the Labor Relations board does not jump when Trump says rabbit. Trump's most famous appointee, Gorsuch, damn sure doesn't.
×
×
  • Create New...