Wanna bet?? :D

Just to show that Gorsuch can indeed side with the liberals

That happens a lot, thank God!

Kennedy did it often, didn't he? And, I think we'll see Roberts making it somewhat of a habit ...

Kick said that about Trump, too. But, I haven't had time yet to dig into the case and decision.

I have to say I'd be extremely and pleasantly surprised if Trump supported aboriginal rights.

Which was never in contention..

Leave it to you, Balthy, to counter an argument that was never made..

I guess that's how ya get yerself a win to feel good. :D

Slap down an argument I never made... :D

Hay, if that's how ya make it thru your day, who am I to begrudge ya that, eh? :D

Which was never in contention..

Just because Gorsuch CAN side with Liberals doesn't mean he is going to side with Liberals when it comes to ruling on Executive Privilege...

You just throw all the shit up against the wall and hope something sticks.

THIS time the shit bounced back and hit you squarely in the face because Gorsuch and the Lefty Justices were all on Trump's side.. :D

What makes you think he won't??

Just to show that Gorsuch can indeed side with the liberals, when inclined to. Michale says that Trump also held that opinion, but I've seen nothing about that.

By comparison, I don't think that Clarence Thomas has ever done that, alone. I could be wrong, but it's at least very very rare.

Essentially, this case is about whether aboriginal and treaty rights can be implicitly extinguished. Some cases get that right, others don't. The Herrera case got it right.

I'm interested in comparing certain cases in Canada to the US.

Deripaska own Rusco, Russia's largest aluminum co.

The treasury DID remove the sanctions from him.

Wendy Vitter was so unqualified that her confirmation hearing went viral.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/wendy-vitter-is-an-untrustworthy-and-inappropriate-choice-as-a-lifetime-federal-judge

1. Oleg Deripaska, the Russian Oligarch that directed the attack on the US in 2016 was given sanctions.

2. But when the Treasury suggested that it would remove those sanctions, the House voted overwhelmingly against the move. 130 Republicans signed on.

3. But when it got to the Senate, Mitch McConnell came out against it, and it died there.

4. Former Senator David Vitter, who works (!) for Deripaska, informed McConnell that a 200+ Million dollar aluminum plant would be put in Kentucky.

5. Wendy Vitter, whose nomination to be a US District judge was languishing, is suddenly fast-tracked to that judgeship.

Was McConnell paid to remove the sanctions from Deripaska with that 200 million dollar plant? Was Wendy Vitter's nomination a part of the deal?

Senate Democrats are asking..

You can read the entire case decision here. Essentially, this case is one in which competing cases were at issue.

and even Sotomayor explained in her Opinion how the State of Wyoming could still win the case upon it's remand to the lower court.

On what basis did Sotomayor remand it to the lower court?

So, the Trump administration supports aboriginal rights and agrees that aboriginal rights cannot be implicitly extinguished?

Good for the Trump administration!

A confidential Internal Revenue Service legal memo says tax returns must be given to Congress unless the president takes the rare step of asserting executive privilege, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The memo contradicts the Trump administration’s justification for denying lawmakers’ request for President Trump’s tax returns, exposing fissures in the executive branch.

Trump has refused to turn over his tax returns but has not invoked executive privilege. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has instead denied the returns by arguing there is no legislative purpose for demanding them.

But, according to the IRS memo, which has not been previously reported, the disclosure of tax returns to the committee “is mandatory, requiring the Secretary to disclose returns, and return information, requested by the tax-writing Chairs.”

The 10-page document says the law “does not allow the Secretary to exercise discretion in disclosing the information provided the statutory conditions are met” and directly rejects the reason that Mnuchin has cited for witholding the information.

“[T]he Secretary’s obligation to disclose return and return information would not be affected by the failure of a tax writing committee ... to state a reason for the request,” it says. It adds that the “only basis the agency’s refusal to comply with a committee’s subpoena would be the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege.”

https://tinyurl.com/y37cp2f9

Obviously, executive privilege wouldn't apply to Trump's tax returns.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/herrera-v-wyoming/

Didn't say that. Said that Gorshuch will often side with the lefties, as he did here.

So what makes you think he'll side with Trump on a close decision?

Gorsuch and Trump were on the SAME SIDE in the SCOTUS ruling...

Hay Balthy... Kinda TOTALLY decimates yer argument that Gorsuch will always go against Trump..

So, ALL the Lefties and Gorsuch were on the SAME side as President Trump.. :D

"OUCH!!! THAT's GOTTA hurt!!"
-Jim Carrey, THE MASK

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-532/63413/20180911212614508_17-532tsacUnitedStates.pdf

The SCOTUS narrowly ruled in favor of Herrera with four of the conservative justices disagreeing with Herrera and the Trump administration's arguments. So on the one hand, the Trump administration did win when "righty" Gorsuch sided with the four "lefties," but on the other hand, the "righties" Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh all disagreed with the position of the United States in their dissenting opinion. Womp, womp. :)

Yea??? How did that work out with the Mueller report??

You were counting on LAW and FACT then..

Apparently, your concept of LAW and FACT are skewed by your Party slavery..

No other explanation is possible..

You've got a point.

Of course I have a point.. I *ALWAYS* have a point.. Your Party slavery prevents you from seeing it..

I'm counting on it!

Trump is not the quintessential Republican..

You've got a point. We'll see.

No one is claiming he is..

Neither, by the way, is Roberts. Your side could be walking into a trap.

Yea, COULD be..

Or it COULD be they will decide on the LAW and FACT and your side will be screwed..

Considering the results of your Mueller witch hunt, which is more likely?? :D hehehehe

It's clear. Republicants like war!

As you have made clear, Trump is not the quintessential Republican..

You see how you flail around trying to throw ANYTHING up on the wall and hope it sticks!! :D

You LOST... Get over it..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-congress/senate-breaks-from-trump-with-syria-troop-vote-idUSKCN1PT2DH

It's clear. Republicants like war!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons

But, while we're on the subject, the question of Syria has been also on the table for the current Congress, which wasn't too happy, in a bi-partisan way..

Huh? You're confusing fact with respect. The FACT is, that he's not the 'perfect' right wing jurist. Neither, by the way, is Roberts. Your side could be walking into a trap.

STOPPED IT!!!

BBWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yea, that's why President Trump had to rein in Odumbos massive Syria deployment..

Nothing like re-writing recent history to further yer Party slavery, eh? :D

Which has NOTHING to do with Trump..

Keep on telling yourself that.

Explain what the aboriginal decision has to do with Trump...

You can't because it doesn't..

He's contradicted himself, so that means nothing. Bolton is looking for his own "gulf of Tonkin" incident to set it all up...

We're talking about Trump, not Bolton..

I accept your concession..

Keep on telling yourself that.

President Trump has contradicted Bolton..

He's contradicted himself, so that means nothing. Bolton is looking for his own "gulf of Tonkin" incident to set it all up...

Pretty much all my life. For every President, unfortunately.

Interestingly, Obama took the invasion of Syria to Congress and they voted "no", which stopped it. Then, of course, the Right pummeled him for it.

He's actually not.. President Trump has contradicted Bolton..

But why let FACTS ruin your hysterical Party slavery rant..

Which has NOTHING to do with Trump..

I accept your concession..

Yeah, he was, but I wouldn't call my reaction "hate".

Yea.. It's the kind of love your Left Wing AntiFa terrorists show towards patriotic Americans..

Gorsuch was HATED in this forum.. This is fact..

But NOW he does something you can use?? Now, all of the sudden, he has "his own mind" and you respect him..

More proof that you are completely and utterly ruled by your Party slavery..

Sure he is. That's why he's listening to Bolton.

And the Saudis. Those murderous bastards have wanted us to do their dirty work for a long time.

Trump will find a reason when he's ready. Watch the polls...

And when did Congress do this??

Under Odumbo..

And WHO cheered Congress on in ceding too much power to the executive under Odumbo??

YA'ALL!!!!!!!!

Reap what ya sow, biatch!!! :D

As for impeachment, Michale is so sure that his idol would survive it, he's trying to goad us into it.

Not only will Trump... excuse me.. PRESIDENT Trump... Survive..

He will thrive!!!

So hell yea, I am trying to goad Dumbocrats into it..

Because it would be the ABSOLUTE UNEQUIVOCAL WORST mistake they can make..

And, considering all the bone headed mistakes Dumbocrats have made in the last decade, THAT says a lot...

I answered it. Gorsuch has his own mind.

Yea, you thought he was "different" when he replaced Garland Merrick, eh?

Yeah, he was, but I wouldn't call my reaction "hate".

Hey, by the way, Merrick Garland is going to hear Trump v. Deutsche Bank (or whatever its title is). Seems life has some sweet rewards.

Then let them...

THEN they will have some clout to back up their legal machinations.

But they won't..

It's the same thinking they had with the Mueller report..

"We'll invest EVERYTHING in the Mueller report!! He's GOT to find SOMETHING to justify it!!!"

They bet it all on Mueller and they lost..

They are not going to want to bet it ALL again on Impeachment.. Because they will lose and when they lose, Democrats can kiss ANY chance of 2020 and 2022 goodbye..

Trump is on record as not EVER wanting to START wars..

If a war starts, it won't be Trump's doing..

If Iran lobs a few nukes at Israel, what do you think the US reaction should be??

Sure, Congress has ceded too much power to the executive. No doubt about it. They could put an end to it right now, but won't.

As for impeachment, Michale is so sure that his idol would survive it, he's trying to goad us into it.

So far, clearer heads prevail.

Except that is not what Liz asked..

She asked what the aboriginal rights case had to do with President Trump..

Do you have an answer??

No.. Because it's a retarded (... oh.. sorry snowflakes... It's a mentally challenged..) connection..

But I discern that Gorsuch is different. Now I could be wrong, but wouldn't bet my presidency on it.

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yea, you thought he was "different" when he replaced Garland Merrick, eh??

You HATED him then...

Gods, you are so full of shit, yer eyes are brown.. :D

It's up to the president but he may have already gone too far ...

Oh yea, I do..

Democrats had their shot with the Mueller report..

If you are going to attack the king, you better KILL the king..

Dems had their shot and they missed...

They don't get a second shot..

Do you think Trump thinks he can make a decision to start a war without congressional approval?

Clinton did.. Bush did.. Obama did..

Why is Trump any different??

You're right, Liz. Michale seems to think that Trump's SCOTUS picks are little robots like himself.

Well, Kavanaugh could be.

But I discern that Gorsuch is different. Now I could be wrong, but wouldn't bet my presidency on it.

But, his latest attach on Biden for leaving Scranton at the age of eleven was good for a sustained laugh. Who knows, maybe Trump was joking. Which proves my point above. Heh.

Once such a declaration is made, assets are deployed and processes are activated..

So it is with Impeachment..

Once Impeachment is declared there are a whole slew of actions and processes and assets that are NOT available in run o the mill legal cases..

Put another way.. A subpoena during run o the mill legal wrangling is a garden shovel..

A subpoena during an Impeachment process is a bulldozer..

Do you think Trump thinks he can make a decision to start a war without congressional approval?

Apples and Eskimos

There was an Impeachment process well under way when the SCOTUS ruled against Nixon..

We are no where near such a point in the current case..

If Democrats want to start impeachment then, in 6-8 months time, they might have a chance in overcoming Executive Privilege..

Until such time, EP is sacrosanct...

Well, hasn't SCOTUS already done that in the Nixon case? So, why wouldn't they do it now?

No, we weren't.,.

Blathy brought it up as if it had some relevance to anything...

Wasn't the first time he was wrong.. Won't be the last..

I doubt it... I would think he would assess those on a case by case basis, based on the merits of the individual cases..

It has NOTHING to do with Trump..

That was MY point..

But Balthasar thinks it does...

Ask him why he thinks that because I can't fathom any rhyme nor reason from it..

If anyone here thinks that the SCOTUS is going to overrule the POTUS on Executive Privilege in this case, they need their heads examined..

Is Trump against the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights?

I took a quick look at the Herrera case.

Like the Supreme Court of Canada, SCOTUS holds that aboriginal and treaty rights cannot be implicitly extinguished and that aboriginal peoples do not need a license to practice their rights.

I'm happy to see that Justice Gorsuch recognizes aboriginal and treaty rights.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Trump, Michale ...

You can't get to McGahn and even MUELLER is rejecting ya'all's blatant political Party slavery machinations...

Ya picked a bad time to be a Dumbocrat.. :D

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/724987193/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-native-american-rights-in-wyoming-hunting-case

It's ludicrous to think that Gorsuch is Anti-Trump JUST because he sided with liberals in this case..

Only a MORON who is a Trump/America hater would believe such a connection exists..

And that has WHAT to do with Trump??

NOTHING...

You honestly believe that Gorsuch is on the liberal's side in EVERYTHING???

Gods, you are so ate up with Trump/America hate, you are an addled fool..

Oh man, do you hate the left. Well you go on focusing on those two while the rest of us run right over you.

According to your OWN DUmbocrats, they are "the future of the Democrat Party"...

Once again.. YOU LOSE :D

The special counsel's team has expressed the notion that Mueller does not want to appear political after staying behind the scenes for two years and not speaking as he conducted his investigation into President Donald Trump. One option is to have him testify behind closed doors, but sources caution numerous options are being considered in the negotiations between the committee and the special counsel's team.

Even Mueller realizes that Dumbocrats are just playing political games..

He said his peace and that's the end of it..

You lose, Dumbocrats..

Why, we won yesterday, on the issue of Native American rights. Gorsuch sided with the liberals.

Actually it was hysterical Left Wingers like Occasional Cortex and that Oman bitch who hates Jews and Israel..

Oh man, do you hate the left. Well you go on focusing on those two while the rest of us run right over you.

Irrelevant..

You lost at the SCOTUS.. You will lose EVERY ruling at the SCOTUS against President Trump..

Because you have no moral, ethical or legal leg to stand on..

Now, of course, the Republicants have moved the window so far to the right,

Actually it was hysterical Left Wingers like Occasional Cortex and that Oman bitch who hates Jews and Israel..

They are the ones who has moved the Democrat Party to the Fringe Left..

The GOP had nothing to do with that...

So...

You realize if Biden is the center, he CAN'T be liberal..

Yeah, used to be like that. Now, of course, the Republicants have moved the window so far to the right, that a liberal is now centrist. So you can blame your own side for that...

And he IS liberal, which apparently chews you up.

You realize if Biden is the center, he CAN'T be liberal..

Your contradicting yerself..

Hey! Thought you like this game. No worry, it's far from over. Seems we're gonna haveta beat you in court.

Yea, like you did with the Muslim Ban???

BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ya'all have NEVER won against Trump at the SCOTUS..

And you never will...

Hey! Thought you like this game. No worry, it's far from over. Seems we're gonna haveta beat you in court.

Again.

Biden is in the center, which places him several notches left of the present Republican base.

And he IS liberal, which apparently chews you up.

Whiney biatch Nadler is whining because President Trump invokes Executive Privilege...

Congress' subpoenas were optional when they were issued by a Republican House to a Democrat..

Suck it Nadler! :D

Democrats had their shot at McGhan thru their hero, Mueller..

They lost.. Game over..

Yer right..

Biden IS more Republican than liberal.. :D

"Whoever" is better than Trump, natch.

Where do you get that conclusion? Biden's fine, and far, far better than Trump in that regard.

You're just disappointed that playing the "liberal" card isn't going to work in this election. Too bad for you.

I'll remind you of that when yer bleeding heart makes a re-apperance... :D

So, for all your talk of diversity and loyalty to minorities and principles and all...

All of that goes the window, just because you want to win.. Yer not even gonna vote for the gay guy!!!?? You must be homo-phobic....

Congrats.. You are now officially what you call a Republican..

I am sooo proud.... :D

Chris is a Bernie fan, so I can forgive him for hoping that the polls change. But I can think of several reasons why it won't. Most importantly (and backed up by no less than Trump) is the fact that Biden's from Pennsylvania, where a Democrat HAS to win in 2020.

I expect Gillibrand to drop out. Her kneecapping of Franken and Clinton did her in. Clinton may be done in American politics, but she still has fans.

"I know, right!!"
-Felix, WRECK IT RALPH

Just remember the golden rule of Polls..

Most everyone here LOVES polls.. At least, they love the polls that say what they want to hear... :D

I'm surprised that after 2016, there is a single person left in the world willing to admit that he even IS a pollster!!!

I agree completely with you, EM. :)

Astro Turf is not the same as grass. A family worth over 50 billion dollars is a charter member of The Establishment. You are mistaking a successful "Republican Palace Coup" for grass roots reform. I am pretty sure the brothers didn't limit their reforming contributions to $200 per brother. Or, is dark money not subject to your limit?

So, what exactly were you right about?

One more thing. Your prose is too prolix.

This common practice of Presidents and their spouses also applies to Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and Barack and Michelle Obama and indeed applies to past GOP presidents as well. :)

Of course, the Clinton's influence is fading away, but I don't think Gillibrand's low polling numbers are indicative of that. Indeed, I believe what's causing Gillibrand's poor showing is partly her simultaneous kneecapping of Al Franken and badmouthing of Bill Clinton directly, and Hillary Clinton by extension, when she called for the resignation of Franken and stated that Clinton should have resigned. There are obviously other factors, but the fact that she pissed off a lot of Democrats with her comments about Franken and Clinton sure isn't helping her.

Democrats wishing to get ahead might want to avoid kneecapping their fellow Democrats... leave that BS to the Trumplicans and their ilk.

McConnell introduces bill making the legal smoking age 21
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/senate-majority-leader-mitch-mcconnell-introduces-bill-raise-federal-legal-smoking-age-21

I applaud McConnell and the GOP for pushing this legislation thru..

Personally, I would like to see all tobacco products banned, but that's just me..

Nope...

Those two former US Military guys were railroaded by the HATE THE MILITARY attitude of the Demcorat Party..

As such their pardon is fully acceptable to ANY patriotic American..

So, just regard the first part of that comment.

I think another question Trump should answer is why he is considering a pardon for two former US Military guys who were convicted of or charged with war crimes, don't you?

I would also like President Trump to answer that question..

This is why Anti-Gun hysteria will hurt the Democrat Party..

Because it massively negatively affects the very constituencies that are the life-blood of the Demcorat Party...

Oh please, please, PLEASE Democrats.

Do this!! :D

This isn’t an approach you probably learned in your Statistics 101 class, but the suggestion is not that we apply Bayes’ Rule in a mathematical sense (which can be difficult outside of the circumstances where an analyst has clearly defined prior beliefs). Instead, it is that analysts should simply avoid the temptation to react to each new piece of information in a vacuum. We should move from our prior beliefs slowly, unless we receive overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/20/does_bidens_pop_in_the_polls_change_anything.html

Basically, Biden's bump should be viewed as an outlier as such time more evidence emerges that it can be sustained..

I don't think we will see that evidence..

Party purity will re-assert itself as the dominant force in the run-up to the first debate..

This will be confirmed by Biden's numbers going down..

It's simple..

With the Democrat Party, you have 2 competing priorities..

#1 Party Purity

#2 Beating President Trump..

In the here and now, #2 is the bigger priority..

That will change as time goes on... Party Purity will take center stage...

I - - don't - - under - stand.

because I think the overriding concern here, if not the only concern, is which candidate has the best chance of beating Trump.

So, what you are saying is that the Democrat Party candidates and voters hate President Trump so much that they are going to ignore their principles and their "woke"ness and their diversity and just vote for the guy who can beat Trump..

Hokay... Kewl.. I can accept that..

I still don't believe it.. But I accept it.. A familiar concept, I am sure you will recall. :D

Do you want me to tell you what I think??

Of course you do.. :D

Biden introduces a new concept to the entire political morass..

Lefties think Biden can beat Trump and they are totally excited about the IDEA that they might actually be able to BEAT Trump after losing to Trump again and again over the last 3+ years...

But once that initial euphoria fades, reality will set in and Leftie voters will remind themselves or, BE reminded, that they value diversity and identity and "woke"ness and blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa above all else..

Republicans fall in line and Demcorats fall in love...

And Democrat voters are desperately SO IN LOVE with the idea of being in love..

But they will never fall in love with Biden...

And this will become evident prior to the first debate in about a month's time...

Biden will go into the first debate (26 Jun 2019) with his popularity on the down turn..

You can take that to the bank...

Aren't you glad you asked my opinion?? :D

You DO realize you just described the entirety of everyone here, right? :D

There's one other thing that the Beltway punditocracy is largely missing, although they do occasionally point this one out. Democratic voters are overwhelmingly concerned with just one thing this time around -- winning. They want to beat Trump, period. In fact, the voters who are already paying attention are mostly viewing all the candidates through this one single lens: Will this person be able to beat Trump? All the infighting over the whole host of issues, from progressive to moderate, is decidedly secondary to this overall goal. Democratic voters don't really care who is greener or who is more "woke" or any of the rest of it. They want a candidate who can beat Donald Trump and they're more than willing to forgive all kinds of things in a candidate who appears best able to do so.

Yep.. Throw principles out the window and just concentrate on WINNING.. :D

I still don't believe Biden can win...

But if he does, I am going to have a FIELD DAY at the Democrat Party's expense.. :D

The political pundit's lot is not a happy one. Failure is not not an option.

I'm guessing that the polls won't change a whole lot after the debates (or the lower candidates will actually poll even lower) because I think the overriding concern here, if not the only concern, is which candidate has the best chance of beating Trump. I'll be surprised if that calculus changes.

I also know that he was able to make the 2005 bill better for women and their children and that is why he voted for the bill that was going to pass anyway in a Republican-led senate.

Just today, Sanders unveiled a plan to fix America's education system, and one part of this plan was to bring back school busing -- a subject that Biden is old enough to have been on the wrong side of, back in the 1970s. It's a subtle contrast rather than a frontal attack, in other words. Bernie has also introduced a bill (jointly with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) to cap credit card interest rates at 15 percent -- another subtle slap at Biden, who has been very friendly to Delaware-based big banks over his whole career.

I hope you will help me understand some of this. First, wasn't Biden against forced busing as the best way to desegregate and not for segregation? I've read a few pieces practically calling Biden a racist for his stance on school busing. Obviously, this is not true.

Secondly, was Biden on the side of the big banks during the financial crisis of 2007/08, the latter part of his whole career?

Help me understand exactly what Biden did for big banks over the course of his long senate career ...