Genuine insanity. Just watch. Calling this blather 'incoherent' is very kind.

Sorry Bill, I have still something caught in my throat - you'll have to get Monica do that.

As with much of o's 2 terms, he did nothing, more leading from behind.


Obama should have done more to counter Russia's election meddling, top Dem says

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday the Obama administration should have done more to counter Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election.

"I think the administration needed to call out Russia earlier, needed to act to deter and punish Russia earlier, and that was a very serious mistake," Schiff, of California, said in a televised interview with CNN.

Schiff added that President Barack Obama may have been worried that doing more against Russia would have looked like he was “trying to tip the scales for Hillary Clinton” and did not want to give in to the notion that the election was “rigged” against Donald Trump, according to The Hill.

President Trump criticized Obama earlier Sunday for allegedly doing “nothing” about reports that Russia interfered in last year’s presidential campaign.

“I just heard today for the first time that (former President) Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it,” he said on “Fox & Friends Weekend.” “The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before the election. … If he had the information, why didn't he do something about it?”

Trump suggested the media has underreported the story, while it has rigorously pursued allegations that his team colluded with Russia during the 2016 race, in which he upset Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the [b]Obama administration hesitated to act[/] on and speak about information it was given about Russia’s interference in the election.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ng-top-dem-says.html

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Ex: Those of faith and particularly those who are anti abortion object (to put it lightly) to their tax dollars being used to fund such thing's that go against their beliefs. See: Planned Parenthood drama. A position, BTW, that I agree with even though I support PP, broadly.

Likewise, those who are not of such religious inclinations object to *their* tax dollars being spent to fund things of a religious nature, wheher it be religious schools or anything else of a faith based nature.

Neither should have to pay for the other, ever. You (the universal) don't want to bake a gay cake, I don't want to have to pay for new pews or playgrounds, and so on. *That's* liberty.

It's as simple as that.

That Churches and other religions institutions also avoid a *tremendous* amount of taxes that everyone else has to pay is just icing on the cake, and when combined with the idea that they also want some tax dollars in a direct sense, is too much. *Way* too much.

Anyway. That's that. Carry on.

SCOTUS agreed that you can't exclude groups based on religion. Another win for libertarian principles.

quote:

Roberts writes that, although the state's policy "is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office," "the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand."

Only the 2 left wing loonies Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented on this - pretty clear and obvious decision. The constitution is pretty clear on this.

News on the travel ban before SCOTUS:

quote:

The justices did NOT act on the travel ban this morning. We don't know whether there will be anything later on. There is another conference today, so they could act on it tomorrow. And it is possible that the justices could act on the stay -- that is, the government's request to reinstate the ban -- later on today. But it is not likely that the justices will act on the government's petition to review the lower court's rulings putting the travel ban on hold.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

SCOTUS agreed that you can't exclude groups based on religion. Another win for libertarian principles.

quote:

Roberts writes that, although the state's policy "is nothing so dramatic as the denial of political office," "the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand."

Only the 2 left wing loonies Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented on this - pretty clear and obvious decision. The constitution is pretty clear on this.

Excellent. A case like this though should've been 9-0.

The 7-2 decision is still encouraging however.

quote:

“I just heard today for the first time that (former President) Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it,”

stop and think about that

here is the Wash Post article that triggered President Trump's comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.b1d6f1868c9a

The article is long and detailed, and chock full of BS.

But if the Russian interference was

"In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy.”

as the Post article states, and Obama didn't discuss this with President Trump after the election and during the transition process?

also from the Post article (propaganda):

"A week later, in one of Obama’s final news briefings, he expressed irritation that such a consequential election “came to be dominated by a bunch of these leaks.” He scolded news organizations for an “obsession” with titillating material about the Democrats that had dominated coverage."

"obsession with titillating material about the Democrats that had dominated coverage."

now that's funny

More on travel ban before SCOTUS:
http://www.scotusblog.com/

quote:

"The clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October Term 2017."

I can't believe they put this off for another 4 months.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
More on travel ban before SCOTUS:
http://www.scotusblog.com/

quote:

"The clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October Term 2017."

I can't believe they put this off for another 4 months.

But the stay is lifted substantially, with some exceptions.

link

Travel Ban reinstated

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.

The action Monday is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.

Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours being cleared by courts.

The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Are there any real consequence for lower courts or judges when the Supremes reverse them?

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Are there any real consequence for lower courts or judges when the Supremes reverse them?

No.

Well, there is a conference attended by all sitting judges each year. The judges who suffered a reversal have to wear a dunce hat, they have to sit in the back of the meeting hall, and the other judges laugh at and mock them. A vote is taken to award the dumbass trophy in each state/court. Very humiliating.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Are there any real consequence for lower courts or judges when the Supremes reverse them?

No.

Well, there is a conference attended by all sitting judges each year. The judges who suffered a reversal have to wear a dunce hat, they have to sit in the back of the meeting hall, and the other judges laugh at and mock them. A vote is taken to award the dumbass trophy in each state/court. Very humiliating.

That's what I thought. There are going to be a lot of dunce caps awarded this year.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Genuine insanity. Just watch. Calling this blather 'incoherent' is very kind.

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RcujVF9a9vk" width="420"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Donahue needs a 72 month psych evaluation.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Are there any real consequence for lower courts or judges when the Supremes reverse them?

No.

Well, there is a conference attended by all sitting judges each year. The judges who suffered a reversal have to wear a dunce hat, they have to sit in the back of the meeting hall, and the other judges laugh at and mock them. A vote is taken to award the dumbass trophy in each state/court. Very humiliating.

That's what I thought. There are going to be a lot of dunce caps awarded this year.

Wish this were the case.

They should be publicly ridiculed as in the old days.

RMD

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Napolitano just said on Fox Business that this was a UNANIMOUS DECISION.

Suck that liberal obstructionists! Bitter isn't it?

RMD

quote:

Napolitano just said on Fox Business that this was a UNANIMOUS DECISION.

Even the left-wingers can't ignore what the law says. It probably pained them to have to do it. The whole thing was based on emotion and what Trump said as a candidate, not facts.

It was Per Curiam which means that all justices joined in the basic decision.

However, Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch did not agree with all of the carve outs put in place pending the appeal being heard.

It was a very practical partial dissent found at page 14 of 16 of the PDF found Here.