Topic ClosedGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools |
| hello darkness my old friend  |
Just heard Trump will decide on a supreme court justice this weekend to be announced next week. Since the republicans have used the nuclear option. Can they go nuclear with the supreme court as well to avoid having to find ten votes from the democrats to get the justice approved? | |||
|
| Knows too little about too much  |
I don't think so. I believe supremes require 60 or more votes. RMD TL Davis: “The Second Amendment is special, not because it protects guns, but because its violation signals a government with the intention to oppress its people…” Remember: After the first one, the rest are free. | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
Will be a real test for Schumer. Can he keep 8 DEMs from voting for the nominee. McConnell in a recent interview was emphatic the SC nominee will be approved. Right now w the Senate rules as they are, we need 60 senate votes to confirm SC nominee. If McConnell can't get those 8 DEMs, will he change the rules ? I expect McConnell is working hard to get the votes he needs w/o rule change. ************** in other news, http://hotair.com/archives/201...e-wont-be-happening/ That big CDC climate change conference… won’t be happening With little warning or explanation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently canceled a major climate change conference that had been scheduled for next month in Atlanta. The Climate and Health Summit, which had been in the works for months, was intended as a chance for public health officials around the country to learn more about the mounting evidence of the risks to human health posed by the changing climate. But CDC officials abruptly canceled the conference before President Trump’s inauguration, sending a terse email on Jan. 9 to those who had been scheduled to speak at the event. The message did not explain the reason behind the decision. “Unfortunately, we are unable to hold the Summit in February 2017,” CDC officials wrote, adding that the agency is “currently exploring” whether it could reschedule the event later in the year. | |||
|
Info Guru |
Democrats can filibuster a vote on the nominee, it would still only require a simple majority to confirm, but you have to get past the filibuster to end debate first - which requires 60 votes. Yes, the Republicans could go nuclear and change the rules so that a simple majority is required to end debate. They don't want to have to go there, but may have to. GOP could nuke filibuster for Supreme Court nominees The word is that Neil M. Gorsuch from the 10th Circuit is the leader right now. Conservative Colorado judge emerges as a top contender to fill Scalia's Supreme Court seat “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
Member |
If I was director of the Secret Service she would be placed on administrative leave, investigation would commence and either criminal or administrative actions or both would follow. | |||
|
| Member |
How is Neil M. Gorsuch on gun control? Does he value the second amendment as it was orginaly written and intended? -c1steve | |||
|
| Info Guru |
Maybe this would help with the nomination/confirmation process: Nominee goes to committee where a simple majority vote from the committee sends the nomination to the floor of the Senate for debate. The Senate debates the nominee on the floor. To end the debate (cloture) and allow the Senate to vote on the nominee, either party can filibuster the vote to end debate. If either party filibustered the motion to end debate, it would require 60 votes to end the debate and send the nominee up for a vote. At this point, no one is voting yes or no on the nominee, just to end the debate and have the whole Senate vote. At this point the entire Senate votes on the nominee and a simple majority is required to confirm. That's how someone could vote to end the debate, but then vote against the nominee, which does happen frequently. The Republicans can change Senate rules to require a simple majority to end debate like the dems did for all other federal appointments. They don't want to do this because obviously they know that they will one day be in the minority again. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
| Member |
Reassign her to guard the Obama's. I bet she would take a bullet for Zippy. ********* "Some people are alive today because it's against the law to kill them". | |||
|
| Member |
The Democrats no longer understand Commander in Chief.  They are a looney tunes party.Democrats introduce bill to restrict Trump's ability to launch nukes http://www.washingtonexaminer....ukes/article/2612848 Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill on Tuesday that would prevent President Trump from launching a nuclear first strike without Congress declaring war. A joint press release from Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said that overseeing the policy of nuclear first use is "more urgent than ever now that President Trump has the power to launch a nuclear war at a moment's notice." "It is a frightening reality that the U.S. now has a commander-in-chief who has demonstrated ignorance of the nuclear triad, stated his desire to be 'unpredictable' with nuclear weapons, and as president-elect was making sweeping statements about U.S. nuclear policy over Twitter," Lieu said in a statement. The bill would prevent the president from launching a nuclear weapon against an enemy who had not launched a nuclear weapon first unless Congress passes a war authorization that explicitly authorizes a nuclear first strike. The president has the sole authority to launch a nuclear weapon through a process devoid of checks and balances, in order to enable a quick response to a possible nuclear attack. If the president orders the launch of a nuclear weapon and someone within the chain of command questioned or defied the order, that would be grounds for dismissal, experts said. During the campaign, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton questioned whether voters wanted someone as unpredictable as Trump to have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. _________________________ "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Mark Twain | |||
|
| Member |
Trump is not the type to waste talent. He should transfer to currancy division, hell even give her a promotion as the head of the middle east currency fraud division in Jedda. Make it a 10 year assignment. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
Almost certainly unconstitutional. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Info Guru |
There is a good profile on SCOTUSBLOG: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017...rofile-neil-gorsuch/ Not much on cases involving guns, but a little in that article. He is seen as being very close to Scalia in being a textualist and a clear writer.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
Don't Panic |
Removed from that post, or find an individual she would 'take a bullet for' and post both her and that individual on a long-term assignment to Syria.  | |||
|
| Official forum SIG Pro enthusiast  |
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The price of liberty and even of common humanity is eternal vigilance | |||
|
| Administrator |
Not anymore, if the USSS takes itself seriously.
Highly professional, that. Makes me wonder how she got to the management position she was in at the time she made those statements. This can't be the first time she's acted in an unprofessional manner.
Your job is to protect the office, not the person. The office is provided for in the Constitution. That oath you swore is not a sorority chant. You don't just get to protect who you like. If you don't want to do the job you're being paid to do, then you should resign. Otherwise, you're stealing or worse. You're worse than people who make lots of money and don't pay their taxes. At least when someone evades taxes, other people don't risk death. Also, someone would have to evade a huge amount to owe the gov't what you're soaking up as a SAC.
How about you change by taking a job you want and leave the security of this nation to true professionals?
Would you want someone on your security detail that had an "internal struggle" about protecting you? Would you want someone in your command who had an "internal struggle" about the mission? Oh, BTW, when you posted your lack of commitment on Facebook your internal struggle became an external one: it's not just your problem, it's not just the USSS's problem, now it's America's problem.
Yeah, a little too late for that. Next time you see a job opening for "Head of Campus Security" don't turn it down.This message has been edited. Last edited by: LDD, | |||
|
| Just for the hell of it  |
I would bet she will be looking for a new job very soon.
USSS is a very male dominated organization. Wonder if her being a women helped push promotions instead of merit.
She should have been toast after that comment. USSS are supposed to be apolitical. It's part of why they sign up for. It's one thing to say things around family and friend but on a public site is a big no-no from my understanding.
Sure she says that now looking at the loss of a good pension and other benefits from retiring from the USSS. _____________________________________ Because in the end, you won’t remember the time you spent working in the office or mowing your lawn. Climb that goddamn mountain. Jack Kerouac | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
when Elijah Cummings says your attack against Trump "didn’t seem professional", you know you screwed up http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...-anti-trump-attacks/ On Monday, the director of the Office of Government Ethics, Obama donor Walter Shaub, Jr., was admonished by a bipartisan group of Congressmen for using his non-partisan office as a platform to attack President Donald J. Trump. Lawmakers from both parties criticized Shaub for using his official Twitter account and otherwise making comments attacking Trump over his plans to settle ethics concerns with his connections to his business empire. Early in January, Shaub attacked Trump’s plans to satisfy ethics concerns as “wholly inadequate.” In further comments, Shaub demanded that Trump completely divest from his businesses. Utah Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, reported that Shaub was an Obama donor. The ethics official gave $250 to Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, according to donor records. Chaffetz called Shaub’s comments “highly unethical.” Even Maryland Democrat Representative Elijah Cummings said he was troubled by Shaub’s misuse of his office. “When he did that, it didn’t seem professional,” Cummings said after the committee met with Shaub. Chaffetz said he felt Shaub got the message being sent by both Democrats and Republicans that his actions were untoward. For his part, Shaub insisted that the meeting was “extremely useful.” | |||
|
| His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm.  |
Great post.  Even in the private sector, if your boss sees you tweeting shit about him, you'll get the boot. | |||
|
Member |
I'm sure in true Libtard fashion, Ms. O'Grady has ZERO remorse for WHAT she said...her remorse stems from the fact that she got CAUGHT. We all know what she can eat a bag of. Just sayin'..... "If you’re a leader, you lead the way. Not just on the easy ones; you take the tough ones too…” – MAJ Richard D. Winters (1918-2011), E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isaiah 5:20,24 | |||
|
Only the strong survive |
Kerry O'Grady, the special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Denver district, posted on social-media she wouldn't want to "take a bullet" for him. I think that is grounds for her to lose her security clearance. FIRED! 41 41 | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... 522 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed© SIGforum 2024