Professor Peterson on President Trump, post election.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I'm sure someone has already noted this, but:

Trump's inauguration will take place on the 25th anniversary of Parabellum's registration date in SigForum.
Boy are we going to have a lot to celebrate!

Another evening of having a drink with Para may be in order.

Sig2340, great video! Thanks for posting!

"Y'know, The probability that the world is going to end is actually much lower than it was a week ago." -Jordan Peterson

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
PA Supreme Court rules for RNC, declares undated mail-in ballots may not be counted

https://justthenews.com/govern..._campaign=newsletter

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the Republican National Committee, holding that undated mail-in ballots may not be counted.

…

Yes, but they already ruled that and that cunt basically told the Court to fuck off. Time to now bring her to heel and FORCE them to stop counting those ballots before they “accidentally” mix them in with the others with no way to undo the fraud.

Time for criminal charges and consequences.

From the article:

"We just confirmed with our attorneys that the Bucks County Board of Elections will comply with todays PA Supreme Court Order will not count undated and misdated ballots and these votes will be removed from the County’s vote totals," the county Republican Party added. "We will continue to keep you updated throughout the state mandated recount process."

But the woman who openly defied the Supreme Court should have been jailed for contempt. I agree with you on that point.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
But the woman who openly defied the Supreme Court should have been jailed for contempt. I agree with you on that point.

And she will. Count on it.

Big Fani took a dump

BREAKING: Georgia Court of Appeals Abruptly Cancels Oral Arguments in Fani Willis Trump RICO Case Against Trump

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...cels-oral-arguments/

Understanding Recess Appointments as President Trump Prepares for Second Term

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...repares-second-term/

Americans are hearing a lot about recess appointments as incoming President Donald Trump announces nominations to top government positions for his new administration, so understanding when and how the Constitution empowers presidents to make those appointments is key to grasping how the president-elect plans to implement a bold agenda to move the United States in a new direction and overhaul a deeply dysfunctional government.

Normally, under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, senior positions in the federal government are filled by officers who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Congress creates federal offices by passing laws, and specifies for each officer whether or not they require Senate confirmation. These senior officials are called “principal officers” in constitutional law, and of the 4,100 or so political appointees in the executive branch, there are 1,200 such senior positions. Lower-ranking positions are “inferior officers” that do not require the Senate.

But the Framers who wrote the Constitution foresaw that the Senate would often not be in session. Their solution was that the Recess Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers the president to fill high-ranking positions without Senate confirmation under certain circumstances.

These recess appointments last throughout whatever annual session Congress is currently in, plus the next session. So, for example, any recess appointments made at any point in 2025 would last until Congress finishes in 2026 session sometime in December 2026. In other words, a recess appointment can last for almost two years — which is half of a presidential term.

Recess appointments are in the news as President Trump weighs his options for staffing up his administration, including the possibility of recess appointments. This strategy is the predictable result of Democrat obstruction in recent years.

With few exceptions, there was a standard way that Senate confirmations worked all the way from the Constitution’s adoption in 1789 to 1986, when Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 98-0. Everyone knew that Scalia was an archconservative, first as a law professor and later as a federal appellate judge. But Ronald Reagan had been elected as a conservative Republican, so every Senate Democrat acknowledged that Scalia was well qualified, and voted to confirm him to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. He served for just shy of 30 years.

But Democrats won control of the Senate in the 1986 midterms, then in 1987 voted down Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, despite Bork being every bit as well qualified as Scalia. Judicial confirmations have been broken ever since, plaguing the Bush 41 years, where Justice Clarence Thomas was narrowly confirmed 52-48, all the way to President Trump’s first term, where all three of his Supreme Court picks – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – were confirmed by similar margins.

Republicans tried to right the ship during the Clinton years. Liberal lion Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court 96-3 in 1993, despite a long record as the ACLU’s top lawyer and a law professor, then an arch-liberal appeals judge on the federal bench. And liberal Justice Stephen Breyer was confirmed 89-9 the following year.

Yet when Republicans retook the White House in 2000, things got worse. Senate Democrats expanded their judicial obstruction to include federal appeals courts, and — relevant here — Democrats tried to systematically block or delay key executive nominations. Unquestionably qualified Republican nominees were slow-walked or scuttled.

Expanding this obstruction to the executive branch poses new challenges because it hampers governmental functions. Presidents serve 4-year terms. The rule of thumb is that political appointees have a shelf-life of 18 months or 2 years. So until recently, conventional wisdom was that a president is entitled to his choice for senior positions unless they are manifestly unqualified, and the major political parties acted accordingly.

When a president wins the support of the American people to claim the presidency, he wins with it the right to have very broad latitude in picking the people who will assist him in delivering what he promised to the voters. That is part of his mandate.

Bush 43 nominees endured that treatment for 8 years, so Republicans returned the favor to some degree when Barack Obama took the White House in 2008. That’s where recess appointments come in.

The Constitution says in Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 that neither house of Congress can “adjourn for more than three days” without the consent of the other house. So Senate Republicans adopted a plan during the Obama years to give Democrats a taste of their own medicine, whereby every three days a Republican senator would take the presiding officer’s chair, gavel the Senate into session, go through a couple formalities, then adjourn for another three days. These “pro forma” sessions blocked recess appointments.

Predictably, Obama had other plans. He responded to Senate Republicans by having his Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issue a legal memorandum in 2012 saying that the president can declare the Senate to be in recess whenever there are too few senators on hand to conduct the Senate’s business. (OLC is essentially the general counsel’s office for the entire Executive Branch, including providing advice to the president on behalf of the attorney general.)

OLC’s claim was immediately seen by many as going too far. By 8:00 p.m. on most days there are no senators on the floor to do business, so taking the OLC opinion to its logical conclusion, most nights a president could make recess appointments right before going to bed. That would be absurd.

Nonetheless, Obama used his newfound power to make some recess appointments, including to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which at that time lacked a quorum to conduct any business at all because there were too many vacancies.

Noel Canning was a company who got the short end of the stick from the newly revived NLRB, and promptly sued, arguing that Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court in NLRB v. Noel Canning agreed, holding 9-0 that the Recess Appointments Clause did not empower Obama to make those appointments, splitting between two opinions on exactly what that constitutional provision authorizes.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion for five justices. Surveying varying historical practices since 1789, that majority held that 3-day pro forma sessions are too short for recess appointments, but the president can make recess appointments whenever the Senate adjourns for at least 10 days.

The court’s opinion also includes a caveat that is unhelpful for everyone. Specifically, the majority added that recesses that are longer than 3 days but less than 10 days are “presumptively” too short to open the door for recess appointments, but did not go on to explain what sort of circumstances could overcome that presumption so that a president could make appointments during that window.

But the practical takeaway is clear: If you want to give a president a clear alternate path for nominees who are having difficulty getting confirmed, make sure you adjourn for at least 10 days. The president will take care of the rest.

So long as there are at least 51 senators willing to adjourn for at least 10 days — or 50 senators plus the vice president as a tie-breaker — a president can make recess appointments that last roughly as long as a typical political appointment. Although the House also must consent to the Senate adjourning for that long, House procedures allow for the Speaker of the House to get such a measure through the chamber with fewer obstacles than in the Senate, so as long as the Speaker supports the move, it is harder to block consent in the House.

It is worth noting that the Constitution adds that if the House and Senate cannot agree on how long to adjourn, then the president has the authority to adjourn the entire Congress and also to set the date that members will reconvene, specifically providing that “he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”

So if one chamber is willing to adjourn for at least 10 days but the other is not, it is conceivable that the president could adjourn them for, let’s say, 11 days, and make recess appointments during that time.

President Trump won a historic victory this month, winning both 312 in the Electoral College and the popular vote in the modern version of a landslide, generating a Red Wave that also secured a 53-47 majority in the Senate and a slim majority in the House. And while it is possible that Republicans could have won a nominal majority in the Senate without Donald Trump, it is beyond debate that they would not have as large of a majority as they have were it not for the groundswell of public support for the forty-seventh president.

Senate Democrats took their obstruction to unprecedented heights during President Trump’s first term, attempting to block countless appointees, sometimes with the tired old cliché that they claimed Trump was illegitimate. (Democrats seem think the public would forget that Democrats likewise said George W. Bush was illegitimate and used that as a pretext for obstructing his appointees as well.) But Trump’s 2024 victory was so decisive that questions about legitimacy will fall on deaf ears today, leaving only those with acute cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome — TDS for short — making such claims this time around.

The Constitution provides a path both for Senate confirmation of the president’s top picks and for recess appointments if needed, and now all eyes will be on the Senate to see what senators have the political will to do as President Trump returns to the White House.

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
Big Fani took a dump

BREAKING: Georgia Court of Appeals Abruptly Cancels Oral Arguments in Fani Willis Trump RICO Case Against Trump

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...cels-oral-arguments/

Everything's coming up roses

Trump is the President-Elect. The lawfare is over.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
But the woman who openly defied the Supreme Court should have been jailed for contempt. I agree with you on that point.

And she will. Count on it.

I sure hope so. But who's going to throw her in jail and on what charges? The PA Supreme Court could. But just on contempt? And then for how long? What authority do the feds have here? Would a local DA's refusal to prosecute warrant federal civil rights charges, perhaps on 14th Amendment grounds? At the least she needs to be BK'ed in the process. But I kind of wonder what code or statute prescribes jail time for ignoring a state supreme court ruling. Sure would be nice if we had severe penalties for ignoring a SCOTUS ruling too.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Understanding Recess Appointments as President Trump Prepares for Second Term

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...repares-second-term/

So if one chamber is willing to adjourn for at least 10 days but the other is not, it is conceivable that the president could adjourn them for, let’s say, 11 days, and make recess appointments during that time.

I have read this strategy elsewhere, but there is something I am missing. If Trump wants to get his appointments during the holiday recess, Biden is still President and he would have to be the one to adjourn Congress, right?

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Understanding Recess Appointments as President Trump Prepares for Second Term

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...repares-second-term/

So if one chamber is willing to adjourn for at least 10 days but the other is not, it is conceivable that the president could adjourn them for, let’s say, 11 days, and make recess appointments during that time.

I have read this strategy elsewhere, but there is something I am missing. If Trump wants to get his appointments during the holiday recess, Biden is still President and he would have to be the one to adjourn Congress, right?

Senate goes into a 10 day recess on 21 Jan to celebrate the inauguration.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
So much for peaceful transition of power and protecting democracy

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W8q-VwiV5xg?si=EAb4O4JtATnuT4c8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

How can they attempt to usurp the executive powers of the President in this manner?
What are the repercussions if they execute their plan?

Seems like treason to me. If on a ship, mutiny.

The Jordan Peterson recording was great. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
The Jordan Peterson recording was great. Thanks.

I'm curious why he thinks that Vance would be a democrat "in a normal world".

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
So much for peaceful transition of power and protecting democracy

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W8q-VwiV5xg?si=EAb4O4JtATnuT4c8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

How can they attempt to usurp the executive powers of the President in this manner?
What are the repercussions if they execute their plan?

Seems like treason to me. If on a ship, mutiny.

Not really “usurping” anything just being the democrat mouthpieces to counter Trumps picks and give a “that’s wrong, we would do this instead” as they try to stay relevant and challenge everything he tries to accomplish.

“Shadow government” sounds scarier and like they might actually have power to do something, really just a a carnival mirror that shows the image they would offer instead.

Megyn Kelly shares her thoughts on the TDS inflicted sock-puppet Morning Joe duo media whores -

https://x.com/EricAbbenante/st.../1858634900561400174

Even PA Dem Gov. Shapiro sides with state supreme court and says no to counting incorrectly dated or undated ballots

By Louis Casiano | Fox News
Published November 18, 2024 9:59pm EST

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is siding with the state's high court after the justices ruled that faulty mail-in ballots can’t be counted amid a contentious recount, delivering a victory to Republican Party officials.

The state Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior decision in a 4–3 ruling Monday that counties cannot count incorrectly dated or undated ballots. The decision singled out the Boards of Elections in Bucks County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County, whom they said "SHALL COMPLY with the prior rulings of this Court in which we have clarified" for mail-in and absentee ballots in their Nov. 1 ruling.

"Any insinuation that our laws can be ignored or do not matter is irresponsible and does damage to faith in our electoral process," said Shapiro, a Democrat. "The rule of law matters in Pennsylvania. … It is critical for counties in both parties to respect it with both their rhetoric and their actions."

As governor, Shapiro said he would "continue working to protect our democracy and the votes of all eligible Pennsylvanians."

The high court initially ruled on Nov. 1 that mail-in ballots without formally required signatures or dates should not be counted. Democratic-led election boards, however — including in Philadelphia, Bucks County, Montgomery County, and Centre County — balked at the ruling and voted to include such ballots in the recount.

"People violate laws any time they want," Democratic Bucks County commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia said last week, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. "So, for me, if I violate this law it’s because I want a court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes."

Monday's ruling came amid a slew of lawsuits filed by Republican Party officials in the midst of an aggressive Senate recount effort following the narrow victory of GOP candidate David McCormick over three-term Democrat Sen. Bob Casey.

McCormick had defeated Casey by some 17,000 ballots in the state, or within the 0.5% margin of error. The narrow victory allowed Casey to qualify for an automatic recount under Pennsylvania law.

The Republican National Committee criticized Shapiro for not speaking up sooner in defense of the court's actions.

"Heartening to see. Once Democrats came to the conclusion that even ignoring the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can’t scrape up enough ballots to win…," RNC Chair Michael Whatley wrote on X. "Governor Shapiro suddenly discovers that he stands with the rule of law. Better late than never."

Trump campaign official Chris LaCivita said Pennsylvania elections officials would face jail time for counting incorrect mail-in ballots.

"They will go to jail," he wrote Sunday evening on X. "Count on it."

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Tell us why Mikey.

That’s okay that he’s literally praying. I’m literally praying that he will join Hilary and Kamala and that all three of them will dry up, blow away, and never be [expletive deleted] heard from again.
Good riddance to really raunchy garbage!

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:


Senate goes into a 10 day recess on 21 Jan to celebrate the inauguration.

Ahh, thanks!