While the President during his short tenure has often frustrated me and left me scratching my head; I wanted to give him kudos and praise for two of his decisions:
He signed a Bill today making a Government re-commitment to NASA and the eventual manned exploration of Mars.
While I firmly believe that for there to be a true and lasting commitment to explore the Universe, it must eventually become a) a commercially viable endeavor, and/or b) becomes one that directly and profoundly improves the human condition ; until then; the U.S. and itâs allies must pave the way.
I applaud this move.
Neil Gorsuch is the real-deal. Great choice, Mr. President.
I really think the DEM âoppositionâ is not really âweakâ per se; just more âtokenâ.
This is a stolen SCOTUS seat. Acquiescing without a fight sets a bad precedent.
Trumpâs administration, if not the POTUS himself, is under a counter-intelligence investigation. This fact alone is enough to warrant delaying consideration of his nominee to the highest court.
The NASA funding they approved is in line with the funding of the past several years; he hasnât increased it substantially from what Iâve read. And while I am all for space exploration, increasing its funding at the expense of NASAâs climate science budget makes little sense.
As for Gorsuch, he might be a reasonable pick, but the simple fact is we have an administration that is currently under both counter-espionage and criminal investigation by the DOJ for coordination with an enemy of the United States. The GOP held up Garland for nearly a year. I think the dems are well within their rights to put the brakes on this however they deem necessary.
If (I repeat: IF IF IF) it turns out Trump had/has inappropriate/criminal ties to the Russians, he will be impeached. Clearly, no one would want such an individual making a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS. Thus, until this issue is resolved, decorum dictates he should refrain from doing so.
If you think this is BS, youâre not paying close enough attention.
Oh but I am paying attention. Over 90% of the DOJ voted Clinton.
The Democrats are losing very big this cycle. 33 governors, President, Senate, House, State Legislators. They have lost the ability to win important US elections⊠This cycle (the pendulum will swing back as it always does).
What the Democrats do have is the bureaucracy. They own the whole thing. This is why Obama granted more access to classified information before he left, to encourage leaks. If you read Saul Alinsky they are doing exactly what they are supposed to. They are out to destroy Trump. They will sue, investigate, insinuate and block. If they had anything real, the spooks would have leaked it already.
But this isnât about reality. This is about perception. Itâs a game. They will just keep on saying âRussiaâ and Trump will keep on saying âObamaâ.
Which is good for the Republic actually. Dysfunctional government canât oppress the people as efficiently as a one party monolith. They are wasting their time going after each other and not us. Thatâs a small win.
if itâs stolen, then all the big Dems have spoken in favor of stealing seats. Obama, Biden, Hilary, est. all supported not appointing supreme court nominees in election years.
The Dems can stonewall all they want. The fact that they are now apposing gorsuch when all the same people voted for him in the past and are going to stonewall without the excuse of an election year makes them all raging hypocrites. By the same token, if Hilary was elected, she shouldnât be allowed to nominate either, but we all know you and the dems would be lamenting the obstructionist Republicans if they did it.
The reasoning that Iâve heard bantered about, ED, is that itâs not this pick that needs to be foughtâŠbut the next Trump pick (since that pick could truly change the âbalanceâ of the Court).
In terms of GarlandâŠhe also would have been a great pick.
One thing worth emphasizingâŠlabeling these choices as âliberalâ or âconservativeâ has often shown to be accurateâŠbut just as often has been an extremely poor indicator of where these judges would side on a case.
EDâŠIâm still not understanding your reasoning on delaying the Gorsuch appointment because of the issues surrounding Trump.
Agree on Gorsuch. His responses in the hearing were marvelous. He properly defined the role of a judge numerous times. Gorsuch explained to Al Franken and other democrats the dangers of punting their power to executive agencies. It was almost as if members of the Senate didnât understand what a SCOTUS judge is supposed to do. Gorsuch had to say basically âItâs not my job to make law. If Congress wants better law, then write better laws.â
Itâs butthurtness. I have a friend who was flipping out yesterday saying the same crap. This seat was stolen, they didnât give Garland a hearing, boo hoo.
If we are to delay his hearing because dirty politics was played, so lets play dirty, okay. If itâs to be delayed because there are particular cases coming to the court that you donât want him having a say in or a possible tie breaking vote, okay. But be honest and say itâs one of those things. Donât act like if Merrick Garland had gotten a hearing and a vote that Democrats would all be lining up to confirm Gorsuch thereafter. (Not directed at you Mufasa,)
I donât think they areâŠthe reality is that Gorsuch is just such a solid pick and a solid individual.
His exchange with Dick Durbin on the legality of asking women in job interviews their maternity plans was as professional and as solid as they come. (Itâs on-line). He also defended his playing of âdevilâs advocateâ when he was trying to get Law Students to think.
âWithout the excuse of an election yearââI appreciate your honesty in impugning the GOP over this matter. I personally think the âexcuseâ of a stolen seat is more compelling and valid than the âexcuseâ of an election year, but to each his own I suppose.
During the election, members of the GOP said, over and over, that someone under investigation shouldnât even be running for POTUS, much less ascend to the position. Well, it turns out Trump was also under investigation for a significant portion of the campaign, and is still under investigation at the moment. Despite this, weâre hearing nothing from the GOP members who previously excoriated HRCâs candidacy over the investigation issue. So spare me the suggestions of hypocrisy.
Yes. And he should have been given a hearing, and a vote.
OK, suppose the FBI announced today that Trump was going to be charged with colluding with Russia. Would you still think it appropriate that he be allowed to nominate a lifetime SCOTUS appointment? I hope your answer is âno.â Thus, given that his admin is under investigation, the Senate should delay consideration of his nominee until said investigation resolves (one way or the other). As the GOP amply demonstrated vis a vis the last year, there is absolutely no reason to rush a SCOTUS appointment process.
Yes for two reasons. One, Due Process applies to Trump like everyone else and until such a time as heâs found guilty he is still the President. In reality, the nomination process would be pushed aside, but thatâs another matter. Two, itâs the Senates responsibility to vet Gorsuch and unless he has unscrupulous ties to Russia or anyone for that matter then his nomination should live or die on the merits of his judicial history. Not whether Trump picked him or not.
Then you disagree with the dems when bush was president.
I didnât ask what the republicans did. You believe that if Hilary was elected, she shouldnât be allowed to nominate anyone either? Iâm calling BS. You just donât like the pick.
You understand that there is exactly as much available evidence for Trump-Russia collusion as for Obama wiretapping Trump, right? None. There is simply no known evidence for any such thing. If you really think that congress has the duty to become obstructionist for a president they suspect of something without evidence, then you must think the opposing party should always be obstructionist.
You really should read this article; it just dropped today. The evidence piling up is simply too much to ignoreâŠdespite many people on this forum wanting to do just that.
The problem with withholding a nomination because Trump âmightâ have done something illegal, at least from a democrat perspective is that the same thing was said about Hillary when under investigation when running for president but they were all okay with that.
Innocent until proven guilty, unless you think your better than the law.
