Trump 9: RESIST!

[RoseWilder]

Democrats are working on a bill to overturn Trump's Muslim ban and stop him from appointing Bannon to the NSC: 

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/29/1627084/-Democrats-writing-legislation-to-stop-Trump-s-Muslim-ban-kicking-JCS-off-NSC

Quote

Elected Democrats are coming out with everything they’ve got.  From holding vigils at airports, to backing the ACLU’s legal efforts, to writing bills they’re daring Trump-loving Congressional Republicans to reject, they’re on the move against Trump.

Chuck Schumer and Chris Murphy aren’t waiting for the courts to deep-six the Trump-Bannon-Giuliani creation. They’re among the Democrats working hard on legislation to overturn the ban, and are looking to get a few Republicans to join them:

“If we get a few more Republicans, I think we might be able to pass legislation to overturn it,” Schumer said at a press conference in New York. “It will be up to getting more Republicans.”

Schumer noted that Sens. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have already spoken out against Trump’s order.

I'm having a brain blank right now and I can't remember how many people in takes to get a veto proof majority in the Senate, but I doubt they'd be able to get enough people. But it would still be interesting to see if people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are going to follow through on their criticism of Trump. So far, they've criticized his nominees and then turned right around and voted for them. 

As for the NSC: 

Quote

As for the restructuring of the National Security Council, Representative Rick Larsen of Washington state announced two hours ago on Twitter that he’s writing legislation to ensure that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are permanent positions on the National Security Council.

 

[AuntK]

Damn, every channel.  I refuse to watch him. And I will NOT watch wrestling. I am forced to watch the January white sale on QVC. I'll probably end up buying sheets I don't need. . .

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, AuntK said:

Cheeto's announcing his SCOTUS pick at 8 pm prime time, so he can pre empt network tv? NBC says they will be back for the pick. DAMN! I was hoping they wouldn't do this. I couldn't care less which of the two it is, I'm sure they are both horrendous, all his picks have been.

Oh, and now NBC is reporting Betsy DeVos plagiarized her app from an Obama staffer's work.  Great, just great, Secretary of Education plagiarized. 

DAMN. The only drama I watch on tv comes on tonight, and it will be delayed because of Cheeto and his sick need for attention.  

 

I quoted a WaPo article about the plagiarism in the Betsy thread. She is a piece of work. I'm watching TBS as I don't want to give Agent Orange one more viewer. He doesn't care what we think about his SCOTUS pick anyway.

 

1 hour ago, AuntK said:

Yes, you too could have been a member of the Trump administration with some well-timed and well-placed plagiarized documents! 

Well that, and a couple of million dollars to line Trumplethinskin's pockets.

 

A good editorial: "Trump goes above and beyond to break the unwritten rules of governing"

Quote

AMERICA’S HISTORY of orderly freedom reflects the strength of our Constitution and laws. Yet it also demonstrates the power of unwritten rules — norms of civility and decency — that are often hard to define but always crucial to respect, lest social trust disappear and instability spread. As Judge Learned Hand famously remarked: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”

Unwritten rules lie at the heart of the conflict over President Trump’s firing of the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, a caretaker left over from the Obama administration. Ms. Yates felt she was honoring a vital unwritten rule — the Justice Department’s political independence — by refusing to defend the president’s executive order restricting refugees and others from seven majority-Muslim countries. Ms. Yates was absolutely right that Mr. Trump’s order is neither wise nor just, as she said in a letter made public Monday. Less certain is that the appropriate response was to remain at her post, blocking legal defenses of the order — “unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate” to change course, as she also wrote.

The order’s legality, or lack thereof, is an unsettled issue; much of Mr. Trump’s decree, alas, may be permissible under the wide discretion that immigration statutes grant the president. Significantly, Ms. Yates herself did not state flatly that the order was unlawful, only that she was not yet convinced of its lawfulness. Given all that, she could have resigned in protest and let Mr. Trump appoint someone who could, in good conscience, defend his policy.

Mr. Trump was, accordingly, within his rights to oust her. Characteristically, however, the new president took power he legitimately possesses on paper and abused it in practice. The White House statement announcing Ms. Yates’s firing could have expressed respectful disagreement or thanked her for her long service to the government. Instead, it hurled politicized insults — “weak on borders” — at Ms. Yates and, more shockingly, accused her of having “betrayed” her department.

Among the unwritten rules that make democracy possible, none is more important than resisting the impulse to demonize political opponents. The fledgling Trump administration, like the Trump campaign before it, has violated this norm with zest. Before the White House’s ugly response to Ms. Yates, press secretary Sean Spicer told dissenters within the foreign service that “they should either get with the program or they can go.” Such rhetoric is having its predictable radicalizing effect on Democrats, including over-the-top tactics such as Tuesday’s boycott of Senate committee meetings on the confirmation of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet picks.

Hand delivered his “Spirit of Liberty” address in 1944, before administering the oath of citizenship to immigrants assembled in Manhattan’s Central Park. In a world at war, these new Americans heard his words and looked forward to new lives in a stable political community — flawed by deep social ills but blessed by democratic processes for addressing them.

Every participant in politics today could benefit from reflecting on Hand’s message — Mr. Trump most of all.

 

1 minute ago, AuntK said:

Damn, every channel.  I refuse to watch him. And I will NOT watch wrestling. I am forced to watch the January white sale on QVC. I'll probably end up buying sheets I don't need. . .

Big Bang Theory is on TBS. At least that's interesting.

[FrumperedCat]

Apparently he's picked Neil Gorsuch for his supreme court nominee. As a Brit though I know absolutely nothing about him. He was previously nominated to the 10th circuit court of appeals by Bush in 2006 so I presume he is fairly conservative.

[GreyhoundFan]

3 minutes ago, FrumperedCat said:

Apparently he's picked Neil Gorsuch for his supreme court nominee.

Sigh, he's only 49. I was hoping for a 79 year old. I hope the Dems push back hard. Off to leave voice mails for my Senators.

[FrumperedCat]

It also appears he's a big fan of religious freedom which I guess is no surprise. The thing that did interest me though is that he has no outright view on Roe vs Wade, however through his other writings it's believed that he is pro-life and a supporter of the death penalty.

[AnywhereButHere]

14 minutes ago, AuntK said:

Damn, every channel.  I refuse to watch him. And I will NOT watch wrestling. I am forced to watch the January white sale on QVC. I'll probably end up buying sheets I don't need. . .

Scarface is on one of the Cinemax channels. The chainsaw scene beats Trump any day.

[GreyhoundFan]

Here's what the WaPo has to say.

Quote

President Trump selected Colorado federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday, opting for a highly credentialed favorite of the conservative legal establishment to fill the opening created last year by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuch prevailed over the other finalist, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, also a federal appeals court judge, and Trump announced the nomination at a televised prime-time event at the White House.

Gorsuch, 49, and Hardiman, 51, emerged from a list of 21 as Trump’s most likely choices. A third person on the shortlist — U.S. Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama — saw his chances diminish as some Senate Republican leaders have said his confirmation would be difficult.

By comparison, Gorsuch was confirmed a decade ago to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver on a voice vote.

Gorsuch is seen as a less bombastic version of Scalia; he also believes in an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution and would seem destined to be a solidly conservative vote on the ideologically split court. But friends and supporters describe Gorsuch as being more interested in persuasion than Scalia, who was just as likely to go it alone as to compromise.

Senate Democrats have promised a vigorous battle, believing that Republican colleagues “stole” the court opening by refusing to hold even a hearing on former president Barack Obama’s nominee for Scalia’s seat, Judge Merrick Garland. His nomination withered.

Some Democrats have pledged to try to block a vote on Trump’s nominee. “I won’t be complicit in this theft,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote in an email to supporters. “There is only one person in America who is a legitimate selection: Judge Merrick Garland.”

Other Democrats aren’t likely to take such a bold move. But there were already signs that things won’t be particularly cozy: Trump invited senior Democratic senators to the White House for a reception to meet his Supreme Court pick, but they declined the invitation, according to senior aides.

Gorsuch would be the youngest Supreme Court justice since Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991. But Gorsuch has been on the bench for a decade, and at his 2006 investiture ceremony, friends joked that his prematurely gray hair was fitting.

“When Neil came to our firm in 1995 he had gray hair,” said one of his law partners, Mark C. Hansen. “In fact, he was born with silver hair, as well as an inexhaustible store of Winston Churchill quotes.”

Indeed, Gorsuch came equipped for the ultimate judicial elevation.

There is a family connection to Republican establishment politics, and service in the administration of George W. Bush. There is a glittery Ivy League résumé — Columbia undergrad, Harvard Law — along with a Marshall scholarship to Oxford. There is a partnership at one of Washington’s top litigation law firms and a string of successful cases.

There is a Supreme Court clerkship; Gorsuch was hired by Justice Byron White, a fellow Colorado native, who shared him with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Kennedy stood by that day in Denver to administer the judicial oath, and if Gorsuch is confirmed, Kennedy would become the first justice to sit with a former clerk on the Supreme Court’s mahogany bench.

But those who know Gorsuch and have studied his decade of solidly conservative opinions on the Court of Appeals say he more resembles the man he would replace — the late Justice Scalia — than the more moderate Kennedy.

Like Scalia, Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism — meaning that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written — and a textualist who considers only the words of the law being reviewed, not legislators’ intent or the consequences of the decision.

Critics say that those neutral considerations inevitably lead Gorsuch to conservative outcomes, a criticism that was also leveled at Scalia.

Gorsuch would like to curb the deference that courts give to federal agencies and is most noted for a strong defense of religious liberty in cases brought by private companies and religious nonprofit groups objecting to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that as a judge he had tried to follow Scalia’s path.

“The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators,” Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

Legislators “may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future,” Gorsuch said. But “judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.”

Instead, they should use “text, structure and history” to understand what the law is, “not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.”

Two recent studies have identified Gorsuch as the federal judge on Trump’s list of potential nominees most in tune with Scalia. And liberal Justice Elena Kagan is among many who have praised Gorsuch’s lucid and occasionally lyrical writing style.

But those who know him say he lacks Scalia’s combustible, combative style.

“He has very strong opinions, but he just treats people well in every context,” said Melissa Hart, a University of Colorado law professor. She is a Democrat who clerked for former Justice John Paul Stevens and knows Gorsuch because he has taught judicial ethics, legal writing and antitrust law at the school.

The nominee is an Episcopalian, and would be the court’s only Protestant. There are five Catholic and three Jewish members.

Gorsuch was born in Colorado and lives outside of Boulder with his wife, Louise, whome he met while at Oxford, and two daughters. He is a fan of outdoor sports — fly-fishing and rowing — and said in the speech at Case Western Reserve that he was skiing when he received a phone call with the news of Scalia’s death last February.

But he spent formative years in Washington and graduated from Georgetown Prep, the imposing private school on Rockville Pike in North Bethesda. He also witnessed firsthand how difficult Washington politics can be.

His mother was Anne Gorsuch Burford, a lawyer and conservative Colorado legislator who was picked by President Ronald Reagan as the first woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Her tenure was short and rocky: She clashed with environmentalists and was cited for contempt of Congress in 1982 for refusing to turn over subpoenaed agency documents relating to hazardous waste sites. Although she was following the legal advice of the Justice Department, Burford was forced to resign when the administration gave up the fight. She died in 2004.

After his Supreme Court clerkship, Gorsuch joined the D.C. law firm of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel, where he developed a taste for litigation and eventually became a partner. He helped secure what his former partner Hansen said was the largest antitrust award in history and won praise for his courtroom style.

After Gorsuch successfully represented a gravel pit owner in Prince George’s County, Md., Hansen said, associates reported a female juror approaching Gorsuch with praise: “You’re Perry Mason.”

After a short stint as a high-ranking official in the Department of Justice, Gorsuch was nominated to the appeals court by Bush. He sailed through on a voice vote in the full Senate and took his seat on the Denver-based court in August 2006.

Gorsuch is popular with current Supreme Court justices, and his clerks regularly are hired for a term on the high court, not just by conservatives but also by liberals such as Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On the appeals court, Gorsuch has not been called upon to consider two hot-button social issues that may come before the Supreme Court: same-sex marriage and abortion.

After a federal judge in Utah struck down that state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage, Gorsuch was not a member of the 10th Circuit that upheld the decision. It was one of the cases that eventually led to the Supreme Court deciding marriage was a fundamental right that could not be denied gay couples.

Likewise, Gorsuch has not ruled on abortion. But activists on both sides of the issue believe they know where he stands. They point to language in his book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he opines that “all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

Additionally, his rulings on behalf of those who challenged the Obamacare mandate that employee insurance coverage provide all approved contraceptives seemed instructive. He noted the provision would require the objecting businesses to “underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg.”

Gorsuch’s opinions favoring the owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores and a nonprofit religious group called Little Sisters of the Poor took the same sort of broad reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

In Gorsuch’s words, the law “doesn’t just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation’s long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance.”

Gorsuch has also called for reconsideration of a long-standing Supreme Court decision that is little known to the public but vitally important to the functioning of the federal government.

Great, he doesn't consider the consequences of his decisions? That's just freaking scary.

[GreyhoundFan]

I didn't see this posted. "Mysterious intruder rattles GOP lawmakers"

Quote

For hours, the intruder strolled around what should have been one of the most tightly secured buildings in the country.

Inside the Loews Hotel in downtown Philadelphia at various points Thursday were President Trump, Vice President Pence, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and scores of other Republican members of Congress. Reporters were kept out, and only a few select staffers, family members and outsiders were allowed to participate in the private GOP policy retreat.

But at least one unauthorized person made it inside, and while it is unclear to what degree the country’s top leaders were in physical danger, their circle of trust was undoubtedly breached.

A person secretly recorded closed sessions on national security and health care that were attended by many dozens of GOP lawmakers. They had gathered for a private discussion of some of the thorniest legislative issues of the moment, as well as a question-and-answer session with Pence.

The recordings were anonymously emailed that night to reporters for The Washington Post and other news outlets that published stories exposing qualms inside the GOP over the party’s plans to roll back the Democratic health-care overhaul and a looming debate between defense hawks and advocates of fiscal rectitude. Pence, meanwhile, made news by committing to pursue an investigation into unfounded accusations of widespread voter fraud.

The identity of the source of the recordings is not known; the individual communicated with The Post anonymously via email. The Post reported the contents of the recordings after confirming their authenticity with quoted lawmakers or their staffs.

Several lawmakers said they were outraged by the infiltration and have demanded answers on how an interloper made it inside Republicans’ sanctum sanctorum.

“Members want to be able to have a candid discussion about issues in that setting,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). “I have to think most of my colleagues are very upset about how this could have happened.”

Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) said: “If someone can get in and we don’t know who it is, they could have gotten in and been a dangerous person. Just from the security standpoint, that’s not good.”

On Tuesday, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), chair of the House Republican Conference, told Republicans in a private meeting on Capitol Hill that an “active criminal investigation” was underway and that police were close to determining the identity of the intruder.

The president of the Congressional Institute, the private nonprofit group tied to Republican lobbyists that organizes the retreat each year, told lawmakers in an email late Saturday that an “unauthorized person” infiltrated the retreat Thursday for nearly 11 hours using “counterfeit credentials.” The intruder was later ejected.

The woman “misrepresented herself on multiple occasions to retreat organizers as the spouse of an elected official,” wrote the group’s president, Mark Strand.

“We are working closely with Capitol Police to ascertain the identity of the woman in question,” he added. “In the meantime, we have already initiated efforts to develop new security protocols in order to better protect the internal nature of these meetings moving forward.”

The email did not indicate whether the woman who was ejected was the person who made the recordings. Strand declined to comment further, citing a “very active police investigation.”

Also unclear is whether the intruder or intruders could have posed a physical threat to Trump, Pence or lawmakers. Strand, in his email to members, said the woman who was ejected “entered the event through the same security checkpoints as every other attendee (i.e. magnetometers, police checkpoints, etc.).”

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police, which had primary responsibility for security at the event, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

U.S. Secret Service spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan said the agency’s Philadelphia field office was “assisting with the matter.” Trump and Pence, she added, were not in physical danger — although at least one of the recordings appears to have been made while Pence was in the room.

“The USSS relies on a multilayered security approach, and we are confident in the protection operation for the president and vice president,” Milhoan said.

Should the intruder be identified, the person could face charges under local trespassing or wiretapping laws. In Pennsylvania, it is a felony crime to record a conversation unless all of the recorded parties consent — though that applies only if a person speaks under the expectation that the remarks will not be recorded “under circumstances justifying such expectation.”

Cameron Kline, a spokesman for the Philadelphia district attorney’s office, declined to comment, citing an office policy not to confirm, deny or otherwise discuss pending investigations.

Gee, their circle of trust was breached. Whomever this woman is, she's got some cojones. I don't think I'd be gutsy enough to BS my way into the Repub meeting, especially since the whole meeting was a thousand pounds of BS.

[Breaking Good]

Long time lurker - first post! (I hope this is the right thread.)

Ohio has been gerrymandered so much that we are really are not democratic (similar to Wisconsin). We are trying to push back against Rep. Steve Chabot. He is really terrible. He is one of the longest serving Reps. If we put enough pressure on him and win over a "safe" Republican district, I think we can make the rest of the party uneasy. Even though we are drawn to favor Republicans, Chabot won by only 9 points. 

Rep. Chabot also refuses to hold townhall meetings. The current 'townhall' is a tele-townhall accessible through landline only! (See here: https://chabot.house.gov/forms/form/?ID=3073)

You can help our initiative by tweeting #WhereIsSteveChabot on Feb. 2. We are working to get Steve Chabot to have an actual townhall. It would also be really helpful if anyone could sign up for our Thunderclap on social media: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/52582-where-is-steve-chabot-day

 

 

 

[VelociRapture]

9 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

Senate Democrats boycott vote on two of Trumps cabinet picks: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-democrats-boycott_us_5890ae26e4b0c90eff001c3c?

YES! This is the kind of action I want to see from the Democrats in the Senate. I'm so glad they're finally starting to stand up to the Republicans. 

And, predictably, the Republicans are responding like total hypocrites: 

No, Orrin, this is not one of the most socking things that's happened in the senate in 40 years. The most shocking thing I've witnessed was Republicans refusing to hold a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland. So take your phony outrage and shove it where the sun don't shine. 

I hope every Democrat with a twitter or facebook page tweets and posts  a reminded of Merrick Garland to Orrin Hatch today.

Fucking hypocrite. 

I setup a twitter account just so I could follow the rouge park rangers. I just tweeted this at him after seeing your post. It was my first tweet. I like being an asshole to people who deserve it.

8 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

 

That's horrifying, but there is still the full senate vote. So everyone keep calling your senators. Be relentless. 

Especially Collins and Murkowski - they voted yes for the Committee, but expressed serious concerns about her eligibility and said they didn't know how they'll vote for the full Senate vote.

8 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

Trump has released a statement:

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/31/trump-caves-public-backlash-drops-lgbt-executive-order.html

This is a temporary reprieve. We all know how Pence and the nutters feel about the LGBTQ community.

 Yep. He doesn't get credit for not being an asshole on this. It's a matter of time before he changes course on this like he has on everything else.

[GreyhoundFan]

26 minutes ago, Breaking Good said:

Long time lurker - first post! (I hope this is the right thread.)

Ohio has been gerrymandered so much that we are really are not democratic (similar to Wisconsin). We are trying to push back against Rep. Steve Chabot. He is really terrible. He is one of the longest serving Reps. If we put enough pressure on him and win over a "safe" Republican district, I think we can make the rest of the party uneasy. Even though we are drawn to favor Republicans, Chabot won by only 9 points. 

Rep. Chabot also refuses to hold townhall meetings. The current 'townhall' is a tele-townhall accessible through landline only! (See here: https://chabot.house.gov/forms/form/?ID=3073)

You can help our initiative by tweeting #WhereIsSteveChabot on Feb. 2. We are working to get Steve Chabot to have an actual townhall. It would also be really helpful if anyone could sign up for our Thunderclap on social media: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/52582-where-is-steve-chabot-day

 

 

 

Welcome @Breaking Good! So many states are crazy gerrymandered. NC, VA, WI, OH, PA. Great initiative with the Tweet storm!

I was just reading a WaPo article about Va Rep Dave Brat (the name is so freaking perfect), the TeaBagger who unseated Eric Cantor in 2014. He is also refusing to hold local townhalls in his district, but he IS going to one in AZ. Yeah, that's close enough... FJers need to see the "best" quote from the article:

Quote

“Since Obamacare and these issues have come up, the women are in my grill no matter where I go.”

He added: “They come up — ‘When is your next town hall?’ And believe me, it’s not to give positive input.”

Boo-hoo, bratty boy. You're lucky your grill is the only thing "the women" are in. It sounds like he needs a swift kick in the jewels. Oh, and, he won because he said he'd be more responsive to constituents than Eric Cantor. Sure.

[RoseWilder]

Several more CEOs have spoken out against the ban: 

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/30/1627437/-Ford-Motor-Company-Opposes-Trump-Executive-Order

Quote

Ford Motor Co. said Monday that it does not support President Trump's 90-day ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, arguing that the policy goes against a “core value” of the company.

“Respect for all people is a core value of Ford Motor Company, and we are proud of the rich diversity of our company here at home and around the world,” said Executive Chairman Bill Ford and President and CEO Mark Fields in a joint statement. “That is why we do not support this policy or any other that goes against our values as a company.”

And Google is donating money to fight the ban: 

Quote

Google executives have created a $4 million crisis fund to support organizations helping those affected by President Trump’s executive order blocking refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, USA Today reported.

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, FrumperedCat said:

It also appears he's a big fan of religious freedom which I guess is no surprise. The thing that did interest me though is that he has no outright view on Roe vs Wade, however through his other writings it's believed that he is pro-life and a supporter of the death penalty.

Religious liberty?  I'd like to see a Muslim or a Wiccan use this refuse serve to a fundie.  Karma would be a bitch eh?

Oh jeeze I did it again.  A typo.  Typed service instead of serve.  Whole different meaning. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"The GOP senators who spoke up against Trump’s ban are all talk"

Quote

If the 230-year American democratic experiment unravels — no longer an unthinkable possibility — the postmortem should focus on what happened in the Senate this week.

The majority Republicans could have put the brakes on President Trump and forced the rewriting of his travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries. They chose not to.

The sloppily executed travel ban, produced under the auspices of attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions, has been blocked in part by federal judges, while the acting attorney general, doubting the order’s legality, said she would not defend it. Trump aides reacted with conflicting signals of whether they would honor the court orders and by firing the acting attorney general — Trump’s own version of Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, after just 10 days on the job.

Many Republican lawmakers voiced their objections. But given a chance to do something about the offending order, they demurred.

The Senate Judiciary Committee met Tuesday morning to vote on the Sessions nomination — a perfect leverage point to force Trump to revise or withdraw the order. Not one of the Republicans made a peep.

One of those on the panel, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), had called the order “unacceptable” as written.

But Flake said nothing of that Tuesday morning in his brief statement calling Sessions “a good man.”

Another on the panel, Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), had said in a joint statement with John McCain (R-Ariz.) that the “order was not properly vetted” and that “we should not turn our backs” on blameless refugees, mostly women and children, who “suffered unspeakable horrors.”

But on Tuesday, Graham “enthusiastically” saluted the man behind the order.

Also on the committee: Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who called the order “too broad” and cautioned that it could help terrorist recruiters.

Sasse didn’t speak at Tuesday’s meeting.

It’s commendable that many Republicans have spoken out against Trump’s travel ban. But the disconnect between what they say and what they do was particularly pronounced Tuesday morning.

As The Post’s Philip Rucker and Robert Costa reported, Sessions has been the “intellectual godfather” of Trump’s policies, including the travel restrictions. Key Trump aides Stephen Miller, Rick Dearborn and Stephen K. Bannon have strong ties to Sessions, and Bannon called Sessions “the clearinghouse for policy.”

Roger Stone, a Trump confidant, described Sessions as Trump’s John Mitchell — the Nixon attorney general who wound up in prison after an earlier constitutional crisis.

It’s not much of an exaggeration to describe the current situation as a constitutional crisis — except in this instance, those in the legislative branch have quickly surrendered the Article I authorities given them in the Constitution.

There’s a strong case that Trump’s unilateral action violates federal law, and the cavalier treatment of court orders is worrisome regardless of the outcome. But Senate Republicans have twice blocked attempts by the Democrats to rescind the order — swallowing their own misgivings along the way.

Back in December 2015, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), asked about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, said, “We’re not going to follow that suggestion.” He called the proposal “completely and totally inconsistent with American values.” Six months later, he was still arguing that “a kind of broad ban is a bad idea.”

Now Trump is doing just such a ban in the affected countries, a Muslim ban in all but name, and McConnell is punting: “It’s going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far.”

Democrats delayed action on three of Trump’s nominees Tuesday to protest the executive’s caprice, but ultimately only the majority GOP can stop Trump. And the Republicans will never have more bargaining power than they have now, with several of Trump’s Cabinet nominees unconfirmed.

Democrats forced a one-day delay in the vote on Sessions with long-winded speeches on the Judiciary Committee. “This is an administration that needed only one week to find itself on the losing side of an argument in federal court,” Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said. “Never, ever seen anything like that.”

Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) tied the Muslim ban to the internment of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, and she praised Republicans such as Sasse, Flake, Graham and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) for their critical statements.

But what about actions?

Hatch had previously encouraged Trump to “move quickly to tailor its policy . . . as narrowly as possible.”

But he didn’t press the point Tuesday, instead calling Sessions’s qualifications “unmatched in American history.”

Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) had cautioned about the need to remain “a welcoming nation.”

But on Tuesday he concentrated on Sessions’s “integrity.”

Mike Lee (R-Utah), also on the panel, had previously raised “questions” about Trump’s order.

But he had no questions Tuesday. Lee praised Sessions’s “deep commitment to the notion” that “laws govern us rather than the will and whim of individual humans.”

That was the notion, anyway — until 10 days ago.

What a bunch of freaking hypocrites. I guess they are all terrified that Agent Orange and/or Bannon will go after them.

[onekidanddone]

10 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"The GOP senators who spoke up against Trump’s ban are all talk"

What a bunch of freaking hypocrites. I guess they are all terrified that Agent Orange and/or Bannon will go after them.

I remember the "Saturday Night Massacre".  I was just a little kid, but I recall how upset my parents were.  I joke about Nixon looking pretty good right now. He was a horrible thug,  He nearly took this country down. This, what we have now is worse.

[countressrascal]

I sent an email earlier today regarding Extreme Vetting of Steve Bannon and "The Donald's" tax returns to the White House and I got this back-

Hello,

Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent.

Does this tell you something???
 

[RoseWilder]

Sean Spicer is so full of shit I'm surprised it's not oozing out of every pore in his body: 

 

[onekidanddone]

12 minutes ago, countressrascal said:

I sent an email earlier today regarding Extreme Vetting of Steve Bannon and "The Donald's" tax returns to the White House and I got this back-

Hello,

Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent.

Does this tell you something???
 

Yes.  1) They don't give a rats ass what we think or  2) Their server crashed and it really is overloaded.  Or maybe both.  Nobody is reading anything pro or con. They just have an "out of office" message auto reply thingy.

7 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Sean Spicer is so full of shit I'm surprised it's not oozing out of every pore in his body: 

 

Aaaaand I will go to bed with that visual.  It is funny and creepy all at the same time.  We are so doomed.

[JMarie]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I didn't see this posted. "Mysterious intruder rattles GOP lawmakers"

Gee, their circle of trust was breached. Whomever this woman is, she's got some cojones. I don't think I'd be gutsy enough to BS my way into the Repub meeting, especially since the whole meeting was a thousand pounds of BS.

Maybe she'll have better luck this weekend.  Trump will be at Mar-a-Lago (AKA the "winter White House").  He's been at his new job a week and is taking a vacation.  Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) else would be able to do that.

[CyborgKin]

3 hours ago, AuntK said:

Damn, every channel.  I refuse to watch him. And I will NOT watch wrestling. I am forced to watch the January white sale on QVC. I'll probably end up buying sheets I don't need. . .

Doesn't your television have some way of switching it off?

12 hours ago, apple1 said:

@CyborgKin You posted a tweet that Russian sanctions had been ended. I cannot find any evidence of this. If you have evidence, please post it. :-)

Thanks

Please provide evidence that I posted a tweet.

Cos I seem to have forgotten doing it and can't find the post in question.

[GreyhoundFan]

17 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Maybe she'll have better luck this weekend.  Trump will be at Mar-a-Lago (AKA the "winter White House").  He's been at his new job a week and is taking a vacation.  Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) else would be able to do that.

Maybe he'll hit himself in the head with a golf club and become medically unable to continue...

[47of74]

3 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

For some badly needed comic relief, listen to the Stephanie Miller show. I have listened to her for years, but I find her accurate, yet very funny take on things provides a bit of release for my angst. 

Yes, I by all means recommend Mama to everyone.  I haven't been listening to her as much since my mornings are now too busy with work.  Stephanie is a very nice person, and I've met her in person three times when she came up to commune with all of us godless Satan worshippers, as Bill-O-the-Blow-Hard called us - in Madison, Wisconsin. 

 

 

[RoseWilder]

47 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Maybe she'll have better luck this weekend.  Trump will be at Mar-a-Lago (AKA the "winter White House").  He's been at his new job a week and is taking a vacation.  Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) else would be able to do that.

I'm guessing all the Republicans who were bitching all over social media about how Obama going on too many vacations (because, you know, he frivolously went to visit his family once a year) will be totally silent. Fucking hypocrites.

Man, these people are pushing me to the edge. I've begun talking like a drunken sailor. I've used so much profanity in the last few days that if I started a swear jar and put a dollar in every time, I would be able to buy a summer home in the south of France with the money. 

[RoseWilder]

This is too fantastic for words: