Pages

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Was this the closing song of the first set?

Donald Trump had a busy first ten days or so in office. There was so much going on that I believe much of it got lost in the shuffle of inauguration crowd size arguments, vagina hats, airport detainments, and the other distractions. Overall you could make a pretty good case that despite the best efforts of the fake news media to report it differently, Trump had a pretty good start:

  • There were several orders (such as freezing federal hiring) that went somewhat unnoticed, but were actually campaign promise kept.
  • The controversial refugee and travel ban is actually holding up pretty well in the polling... in spite of the negative coverage. 
  • The chance to merge Trump the reality show star with Trump the President by the firing of the inconsequential deputy attorney general showed some leadership.  

But the best thing he did so far happened just last night with his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to fill the USSC vacancy left by the death of Justice Scalia. This move certainly brought pretty much everyone on the right (from Paul Ryan, to Glenn Beck, to Mitch McConnell, to the cast and crew of Red State) together in support of a Presidential action by Donald Trump... 

At least for the time being. 

If I were the Donald, I might take a couple of days off and let the Gorsuch moment linger a while. Sort of like saving your best song of the first set for your last. You always want to leave the crowd remembering and talking about your best, and maybe even looking forward to more.  

Reality is that this nomination is difficult for even the most partisan liberal journalists to spin into something sour. Unless you are truly brain dead to the point where you expected Trump would nominate a liberal to replace Scalia, there is little to complain about. This guy is the real deal, both as a jurist and a person, and most importantly he appears to have influential friends on all sides of the political spectrum. More to the point, this action sort of overshadows everything else to the point where it will look like misdirection to try to change the subject. It forces most or the media to talk about the nomination. 

I might even expect the President's approvals to go up over the next few days. That is if he simply stays out of the limelight for a couple of days or so. 

33 comments:

Roger Amick said...

In an odd way, we are not too far apart.

I'm looking at the nomination Gorsuch as a fight the Democrats should avoid. It would play right into the hands of the Donald. He's eminently qualified for the position as an associate justice. I have read about him and a couple of his decisions. He is quite possibly the most intelligent nominee perhaps as ever.

I don't agree with some of them, but his comments are very solid. He and Chief justice, Roberts are both likely to disappoint hard right types.

Bottom line. This is not a smart move to go nuclear on the nomination of Gorsuch.

KD, Dems Go FOR IT, listen to Nanci and Chuckie said...

US House Minority Leader Nancy Peeeeloseee a baby killer that attempts to hide behind a bible, what bible I am not sure.


"Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch as "a very hostile appointment" and "a very bad decision, well outside the mainstream of American legal thought".

She went on babbling about how if you love clean air, water and you love medication, then he is not your man..... same bs .


You would think HollyWierd could write some new material for her.

Roger Amick said...

The Kansas idiot is the biggest spammer on this blog.

KD said...

2022 President wantabe Lizzy Warren put it this way:


"“Based on the long and well-established record of Judge Gorsuch, I will oppose his nomination.”

Something called a Markey, Senator ,,, is all in:
"... Judge Gorsuch has authored or joined opinions that have demonstrated hostility to women’s reproductive rights, commonsense environmental regulations, and the rights of workers, consumers, and the disabled. I will not support the nomination of Judge Gorsuch."

Well, now, what has tiny chuckie said?


KD, Trump Green Lights McConnel to go Nuclear like Ried said...

When did it become span to quote , you, Polosi, Warren and Soon Cry Chuck?

They are on your team and they are tell you , you are wrong ACLU Barbie.

C.H. Truth said...

He and Chief justice, Roberts are both likely to disappoint hard right types.

Roberts really has only disappointed the right with the Obamacare decision, where by all accounts he found reason to avoid stepping into that political fray. At the end of the day, perhaps he got it right. Perhaps it was better to leave it to the people to decide.

After all, the election of Donald Trump and the complete wipe out of Democratic power was the "people's response" to the heavy handed governing and shoving that policy down the throats of Americans.

It's not unreasonable to assume that a USSC decision striking "down" the ACA law could have galvanized the left, took some of the passion out of the right... and led to much different election results in the past few elections.

PNC said...

This guy made the liberals feel enough warm fuzzies that they went along with confirming him in a voice vote.

BIG red flag. You Republicans are supporting another Stevens, not another Scalia.

C.H. Truth said...

PNC - there is nothing in this guys past that would make him anything but conservative. Even those who knew him at Harvard claimed he was the token "conservative" in the school of "liberals".

If he was conservative as a college student, still conservative as an adult, I doubt he changes at age 50.

Indy Voter said...

My understanding is that Merrick Garland also was the real deal. The disgraceful treatment of his nomination by Senate Republicans will heavily influence how the Gorsuch nomination is responded to by Senate Democrats.

Roger Amick said...

The United States is of course a very robust democracy. Yet no human contrivance is tamper-proof, a constitutional democracy least of all. Some features of the American system hugely inhibit the abuse of office: the separation of powers within the federal government; the division of responsibilities between the federal government and the states. Federal agencies pride themselves on their independence; the court system is huge, complex, and resistant to improper influence.

Yet the American system is also perforated by vulnerabilities no less dangerous for being so familiar. Supreme among those vulnerabilities is reliance on the personal qualities of the man or woman who wields the awesome powers of the presidency. A British prime minister can lose power in minutes if he or she forfeits the confidence of the majority in Parliament. The president of the United States, on the other hand, is restrained first and foremost by his own ethics and public spirit. What happens if somebody comes to the high office lacking those qualities?

Over the past generation, we have seen ominous indicators of a breakdown of the American political system: the willingness of congressional Republicans to push the United States to the brink of a default on its national obligations in 2013 in order to score a point in budget negotiations; Barack Obama’s assertion of a unilateral executive power to confer legal status upon millions of people illegally present in the United States—despite his own prior acknowledgment that no such power existed.

Donald Trump, however, represents something much more radical. A president who plausibly owes his office at least in part to a clandestine intervention by a hostile foreign intelligence service? Who uses the bully pulpit to target individual critics? Who creates blind trusts that are not blind, invites his children to commingle private and public business, and somehow gets the unhappy members of his own political party either to endorse his choices or shrug them off? If this were happening in Honduras, we’d know what to call it. It’s happening here instead, and so we are baffled.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/


Roger Amick said...

Every day since the President took office, I've observed that he's taking a far different path than I have seen, or read about in the historical record of every President in the twentieth century. He is attempting to govern in the same manner as a business man. His use of the executive orders, is always a television show, like the Celebrity Apprentice.

I know that it's all over the media, but long before this became the new game in town I have been concerned. He's got an authoritarian view of the Presidency. He's not going to go through the Constitutional process, if he can avoid it, proposing laws to the congress, and engaging in negotiations with the Republicans or the Democrats. I'm already seeing, even among the Republicans, like with the removal and replacement of Obama Care.

The founding fathers were very wary of a President assuming powers that posed a threat to the Republic.

I'm seeing some of the signs that he's succeeding in his quest to be CEO, rather than a politician, who in a democracy, has to work with and compromise with the congress. He has long been able to do or say anything about anything that in the regular world of politics.

1: The Birther nonsense, that has deeply racist content.
2: His long history of unfaithful relationships with three wives.
3: His belief that his wealth meant he could grab the pussy.

The list goes on forever.

Dictators get and hold onto power, if they can convince a sufficient percentage of the population to support him, no matter what. I truly believe that he can do that, even here. We see the evidence every single day. Fortunately, our system has enough checks and balances to stop him. But it ain't gonna be easy.

The Democrats have to be very selective when and how they can stop him. But if he continues down this path, even the Republicans will step up and him.

We can survive him, but it won't be easy.

Roger Amick said...

I had to make two posts.

KD said...

Indy, maybe you forgot that old Biden Rule when it comes to lame duck presidents and USSC Judges.



KD, darn ACLU Barbie , the US Markets were up today said...

ACLU Barbie, you did not have to post three posts to get what you needed onto this , the adult Blog.

Here, let me assist you.

Democrat Hillary Clinton should now be the President, but because she failed, I will continue to puke on this blog and not use the kiddy side that CHT created just for me and my ilk.

KD, bow on ACLU Barbie said...

ACLU Barbie too stupid to learn how to post a link to his hack op ed piece,,,, again doing it all in the space of a few lines,,,, really HB are you too stupid to learn how ?

KD, President Trump, (((Eyes, Right))) said...

This is what real men do when Holding the Office of the US President.

They lead from the front.

Trump makes unannounced trip to honor fallen Navy SEAL

By JULIE PACE
AP White House Correspondent

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - as soon as someone states that the Russians stole the election, I stop reading. The person is obviously not level headed enough to have an objective opinion. Continuing is a waste of time.

Roger Amick said...

The author is a Republican. The Russians had a role in the election,there is no denying that. So you just quit thinking .. go figure. You are one of those I described I didn't use the word, but it applies.

caliphate4vr said...

The Russians had a role in the election,there is no denying that

By exposing how the Donks rigged their primaries and the contempt they held of the American people in the general?

Keep thinking that, you will die with a 7-2 hard right SCOTUS and Pence being sworn in

And don't take this wrong or claim i'm wishing ill upon you.

You haven't gotten it

C.H. Truth said...

David Frum is a never-Trump former neo-conservative who now writes for The Beast (among other places). Either way, political affiliation doesn't matter to me (some day you may understand). I judge a conservative the same as a liberal if they both say the same thing. You say "the Russians stole the election" and I will shut you off.

I never have been and never will be "convince" that I must agree with someone simply because they were a speech writer for Bush fifteen years ago. I am not enamored with "media figures" like you are Roger.

C.H. Truth said...

by the way...

Reciting someone else's opinion with a C&P... is pretty much the opposite of thinking. I stopped reading someone's opinion. I can do my own thinking without relying on others (maybe you could learn that one day).

Roger Amick said...

First, I have been thinking about this long before I even read the comments by Frum. Like I said.

"I know that it's all over the media, but long before this became the new game in town I have been concerned. He's got an authoritarian view of the Presidency."

I'm not lying, as you are implying. I just dug out his piece because I saw him talk about it.

Yes, I'm very concerned, for the reasons I stated.

To some extent, you appear to be that kind of person, who ignored the things the man said that if it was a Democrat, you would be firing away at the "gullible" Democrats who blindly ignored the outrageous comments.

These are my thoughts, not planted in my brain by the evil media.

Commonsense said...

My understanding is that Merrick Garland also was the real deal. The disgraceful treatment of his nomination by Senate Republicans will heavily influence how the Gorsuch nomination is responded to by Senate Democrats.

It wasn't so disgraceful when the Democrats did it.

Biden also discussed a number of supporting precedents:

“President Adams had a number of judicial nominations blocked from getting to the floor”;
“A number of President Monroe’s nominations never reached the floor by the end of his administration and were defeated by delay, in spite of his popularity and his party’s control of the Senate”;
Because of a filibuster, in 1881 “Stanley Matthews’ Supreme Court nomination failed without getting a vote”;
Because of a filibuster, President Johnson’s nomination of Abe Fortas “never got a vote, even though he was a sitting Supreme Court Justice about to be elevated to Chief Justice.”

Biden was not alone in endorsing Senator Byrd’s view of the Senate’s power to withhold its consent by doing nothing. Three weeks after Biden’s impassioned speech, Senator Harry Reid echoed the Byrd argument in a floor statement:

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


Hyprocrisy --- Bedrock --- Liberalism

rrb said...



He's got an authoritarian view of the Presidency."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

consider the staggering hypocrisy of this criticism of trump.

we have just endured 8 years of a man who, cloaked in his own epic narcissism and arrogance, began his presidency with "the election's over and I WON," rejected every effort from the GOP to add constructive amendments to his signature legislation - the ACA -, was smacked down unanimously by the USSC at least a dozen times, weaponized various factions of our government to do harm to his political opponents, pursued members of the press (fox's james rosen & the AP) with a vengeance, and wound down his reign with his "pen and phone." democrats in congress applauded his executive overreach, and some openly called for him to amass even more power in the executive to further implement their agenda.

so all of the above occurs with your tacit approval, but now that the opposing party has taken the white house, you are suddenly repulsed by some mythical authoritarian power the guy who's been in office all of 2 weeks has yet to yield.

what a fucking joke.


rrb said...

The disgraceful treatment of his nomination by Senate Republicans will heavily influence how the Gorsuch nomination is responded to by Senate Democrats.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

only if they're stupid, and wildly hypocritical which i fully expect them to be, since they simply can't help them themselves.

gorsuch's appointment to the 10th circuit was unanimous. let's see if many of those who voted for him before are willing to vote against him now.

i suspect not. 8 senators are up for re-election in 2018 in states trump won. they either confirm gorsuch and keep their powder dry for the next court vacancy in the interest of political self-preservation, or they vote no, mitch nukes their asses, and gorsuch get's confirmed anyway making the opposing dems look foolish, hypocritical, while providing much campaign fodder for their opponents in 2 years.

rrb said...


But a curious thing happened in 2006. In spite of Judge Gorsuch’s obvious extremism, the danger he presents to the lives and liberties of every American, and his manifest unfitness to hold any federal judicial seat, he was confirmed.

He was confirmed unanimously.

Senator Wyden could not stir himself to vote against this human horror, whose defects are so obvious and so well-documented. Neither could Gorsuch’s classmate from Harvard Law, Senator Obama. Senator Dick Durbin knuckled under to the unanimous decision, as did Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (remember her?), Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator John Kerry, even the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

And, of course, there was Senator Wyden, who now has turned against his former confederate.

Not one Democrat could stir himself to cast a vote against this menace to all we hold dear.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444473/neil-gorsuch-ron-wyden-democratic-senators-unanimously-confirmed-2006

rrb said...




democrats insist upon being taken seriously, while making it impossible to take them seriously:


This is a petition to stop the inevitable Donald Trump animatronic figure from speaking, let alone giving a speech similar to the one given by Barack Obama and past incumbent Presidents, during the "Hall of Presidents" attraction at the Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida.

https://www.change.org/p/the-walt-disney-company-no-speech-from-the-donald-trump-animatronic-in-walt-disney-world-s-hall-of-presidents


KD, CA a State No More said...

ACLU Barbie did you get in on the Rioting over at UC Berkely?

The riot was over a conservative expressing free speech and well you leftist can't stand that.

KD, UC Berkley Burn Baby Burn said...

I have learned it is too much for ACLU Barbie to think on his own after defecating and puking a row of Cut n Paste on this the Adult blog. He has not the mind to debate and to answer questions.


He still owes a list of answers on his topics, one such topic he brought here was how US Manufacturing is a bad thing for the US Consumer. We asked him for a list of 10 items of necessities that if manufactured her in the USA would be priced out of the hands of most Americans that work for a living. So far true to form, nothing.

KD said...

Tomorrow we get the first Jobs Report of the President Trump Era.

Question for HB today, do we put that report on the books of Trump if it is good, or If it is bad do we do as you did for Obama and keep it off his books, that is until the numbers turn good?

Which of your two standards will you be using?

Roger Amick said...

Two Republican senators announced Wednesday that they will not support Betsy DeVos's nomination to become education secretary, in an unusual display of resistance from members of the president's own party to his chosen Cabinet pick.

One more and she can shove her anti public school bullshit up her ignorant ass.

rrb said...


not unusual at all when you consider all the goonion $$$ stuffed into their purses.

pence handles this and randi weingarten can go fuck herself.

PNC said...

rub:
"Not one Democrat could stir himself to cast a vote against this menace to all we hold dear."

That, my sycophantic friend, is what's known as a "clue."

Anything that can get unanimous support from Democrats is obviously made of ground up aborted baby guts, burned American flags, pages from Das Kapital, and gay wedding rings.

But you just keep supporting a Supreme Court nominee who once got unanimous approval from the far left because he's a "conservative."