Executive Privelege:A Presidential Pillar without Constitutional Restraint
Berger, Raoul (Edit Author Profile)
This is worth everyone's time to read. Thanks for posting.
Gosar won handily in my district in AZ. He beat back the EPA over Lake Havasu. He belongs to the Freedom Caucus as well. He has a darn good scorecard with Heritage.
Gosh I miss having excess to all the library books and information I had excess to when I was working at the University of Cincinnati.
Sure don't miss the getting out among them for all the traffic and tie-ups though,.
I live in Yavapai County, AZ. We are very proud of Congressman Gosar. Yavapai posted around 85% voter turnout in the 2016 election. Gosar won by just over 70% of the vote. He makes himself available and not just at election time, unlike Senator McCain and I have yet to see Jeff Flake take any time for the base.
Well a no brain'er to do. It was unfair.
I feel for those who must use PayDay lenders -- I have known two people who really have paid through the teeth for a loan they took from PayDay lenders and last time I talked with them getting the loan paid off is a stretch for both of them.
One of them is now living in her van moving from one spot to another each night to make the PayDay loan payments.
Both said never again no matter the circumstance that besieges them.
Good for the Court. No surprise from the two Justices who dissented.
Not all payday lenders outstanding ethical and moral business'. That is one reason for consideration but it does seem to me that a District cookie-cutter approach is a wrong headed approach.
I knew a woman who by her own choice took a payday lender loan. She is in a situation where she "owes her soul" to them. She now lives in her Van because a chunk of her SS monthly stipend goes to the lender. The interest just keeps building and she will most likely succumb to a winter freeze long before seeing the end of a rainbow.
I don't like the payday lender industry both a curse and at times I'm sure a blessing to some.
What seems a solution is honest scrutiny of the industry.
American912, Good post for discussion.
Blue Slip so-called "courtesy" seems to be a "courtesy" used primarily for judicial nominees since way back to 1917.
If it is a "courtesy" extended mostly by the majority party to the minority party on the judicial committee why for goodness sake does not the judicial committee just ignore the 'blackball'.
Why must we endure another public fight between the democrats and republicans? Why would the judicial committee have to have Mitch's permission before they say to a democrat member "thank you very much for your blue slip blackball but the nominee will be recommended.
To me this is an example of political fighting for the sake of the game they love so much. They are a bunch of swamp dwellers who enjoy a tid for tat with each other in murky water.
Just my .02 cents.
I would say "Mitch shut-up and let the judicial committee members know that he would not try and inflict punishment on them if they chose to ignore blue-slips". Now wouldn't that be a solution?
Yes a blue slip worth if it is to survive worth a nay or yes vote. Of course within the judicial committee a simple Yea or No is taken anyway.
Since each President elected will nominate judges and those nominations are almost guaranteed to be one that leans in that party's direction in some ways as the pendulum swings the courts to another point and the true point of where the pendulum may come to rest is the holy grail.
This blue slipping I think could and should be eliminated and not used by the judicial committee. It is a tradition I think that should be mothballed. For to keep it keeps the political game an insider game. A game we the people truly want stopped.
Courts will always have left and right leaning appointees. As a constitutional conservative if they follow the letter of the law (intent of, originalist perspective) I am pleased. Then if we the people think the law is a flawed one up to us to work for change.
I agree with what you said about the Uniparty in Congress.
Here I do think we conservatives have an obligation to educate the public voter. By-and-large Americans are predominantly NOT any of the "ist" and "isms" when they are taught the dangers of the left leaning groups. We have been lazy and the left has done an excellent sneak-a-roo job. Lot's of ground to take back now.
I do believe that giving latitude to the unsavory politicians who we elect and GOP ones lie to us to get our support then do a McCain/Flake like acts against us.
Bottom line if a minority party member on a judicial committee can blackball a nominee when the majority has members that out number the minority numbers then you have to ask yourself why don't they? Question the majority? Are they hiding under this blue-slip skirt? Or is it just a fight game they want to fight? If this is the reason then the dems seem to be better at the fight than republicans. If that be true then the game is rigged and we have to question the republicans motivation for losing the fight? I do think that there exist so-called republicans who are left of center and would throw the fight.
An issue to ponder. On first read this seems an attempt to neuter a President. Can't say that especially during O's tenure that I wished that Congress had possessed the backbone to control (neuter) the out-of-control executive.
Bipartisan sponsored bills? Well sponsors are made up of R's and D's. Must then evaluate for oneself each Senator's motivations for choosing to go down this path.
In truth over the years I would say that in the aggregate oversight by congressional committees is not quite up-to-snuff. So here would Congress actually add value.
This brought up a lot of questions in my mind to ponder. There is executive privilege and for sure in many instances there exist privileges that the exe has exercised in prior administrations that we all perhaps would "say what! not right! hiding something unsavory!".
While I personally would like to see President Trump fire Mueller, he was created under a dubious left firestorm, a political firestorm would follow a firing. I think the POTUS could survive that firestorm. Considerations within the WH executive then comes down to political considerations and management thereof.
For congress there exist a lot of value in the political arena for seeming to address an issue. In the final however will either of the bills return separation of powers enforcement? Lot of depends issues here.
I would appear there are constitutional considerations around the 2 bills. Now we are into political game playing and involved the judicial branch.
It will be an ugly thing to watch how this plays out.
Yes President Trump and his team certainly being cooperative with Mueller, as they should. I feel that the dems crap was to divert from any possible attempt to nab the Clinton's -- a diversion tactic so getting a re-open investigation from DOJ would be viewed by folks on the right as a proper and right thing to do. Knowing politician's perhaps they just want to time it at the right time.
Adding in the house democrats and especially Debbie W. investigation would be icing on the cake for mid-term election cycle.
I do not think either bill is necessary. Republicans in congress at this time should think twice about "curbing" Trump.
Let's get real Mueller has already widened the scope of the investigation he could be going through widening up to the next general election cycle. This is not good.
They need a fall guy to get themselves out of the mess obviously Manifort is that guy.
Just do it and close the investigation. Then open others against the Clinton's and Debbie and other house democrats.