What would it take?

Well, I don't think protest is ever meaningless.
This is my favorite so far,....

https://youtu.be/sqiwLYhwxAY

Well at least it's not a high school pep rally chant like most you hear broadcast

Exactly this was a stick it to the right pick. And there was never an ounce of thought put into one that might help unify things. Trump is so hung up on his popularity that he is now in full battle mode with every action he takes. Has no intentions of unifying anybody. Good luck with that.

To be fair, the democrats have no intention of unifying anyone, the republicans have no intention of unifying anyone, and if this division were more along the geographical divide, we probably would be closer to a civil war then any point since the 1850's. I keep picturing FarmersOnly.com tractors encircling every urban city and splashing mud on all them fancy city boys

I think the problem is that in the White House they are confused. Michael Flynn couldn't respond to his Canadian counterparts questions about the executive action and this the man who is supposed to be enforcing it. It looks pretty piss poor when the admins own team can't field these questions from inquiring governments. This is why there is so much confusion not journalist making stuff up.

So if the media reports green cards are banned, writes articles stating the green cards are banned, that's ok?

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Nailed it...everything ive read he is unbiased to the letter of the law type. I think the most important thing he said was...a good judge should never be happy with all his rulings.

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.

That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.
That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

Could you have imagined if Scaila would have criticized Obama as a nominee for President like Ginsburg did?

Funny, didn't hear liberals say a peep about this when it happened several months ago.

So if the media reports green cards are banned, writes articles stating the green cards are banned, that's ok?

No it means that those representing the administration need to get their shit together and make sure they are providing the same information when being interviewed instead of one person saying one thing and one saying the other.

No it means that those representing the administration need to get their shit together and make sure they are providing the same information when being interviewed instead of one person saying one thing and one saying the other.

So you agree. The media should wait for the facts, that's all Im asking.

The media is so corrupt that dumb people believe this stuff.

I can't get over this quote from the party of obstruction and do nothing.

“We did not inflict this kind of obstructionism on President Obama,” added Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), the only other senator in the room. He added that the Democrats were committing “a completely unprecedented level of obstruction. This is not what the American people expect of the United States Senate.”

:doh:




https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-ram-through-committee-approval-of-trump-cabinet-nominees/2017/02/01/aa2b5458-e87f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.20c86142d11a

The Republicans are a total shit show. Say what you want about Democrats, but Republicans have taken insanity and "alternative facts" to a new level. It's why I won't vote for them anymore. That party died two decades ago.