MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
xy5jn0
New Member
xy5jn0
New Member
xy5jn0
New Member
If true, this implicates Trump and Kushner in the cover-up of a political assassination.
1/ So, the lawsuit filed by Senate Democrats challenging DJT's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general?
It cites Hamilton -- Federalist #76.
Let's take a peek at his logic, shall we?
H/T @paul_dalen
2/ This particular Federalist essay is about the appointing power of the President.
In it, Hamilton explains the logic behind submitting executive appointments to the Senate for approval.
3/ Left to his own devices and able to appoint officers without Senate approval, a President might appoint "unfit characters."
Senate confirmation would "be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President."
4/ What might these "unfit characters" for federal office look like?
They might be "in some way or other personally allied" to the President.
They might be people "possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
5/ "[T]he obsequious instruments of [the President's] pleasure."
Boy, that Hamilton sure had a way with words when writing about politics, didn't he?
6/ The need for Senate approval would discourage the President from submitting such "unfit characters" for federal office because he would know that a "different and independent body" (i.e. the Senate) would be considering and discussing his choices.
7/ An independent Senate would discourage unfit appointments for federal office by facing the President with the very real and embarrassing possibility of rejection by the Senate, & the Senate's opinion "would have great weight in forming [the opinion] of the public.
8/ So...the actions of an INDEPENDENT Senate would shape public opinion on an unfit presidential appointment.
9/ Because of the power of that independent Senate shaping public opinion -- according to Hamilton -- a President would be "both ashamed and afraid" to propose unfit people for office, knowing that it might damage "his own reputation, and...his political existence."
10/ A fascinating line of reasoning, I'd say, with two critical cogs that make it run:
An independent Senate.
An executive who would feel ashamed to bring unfit appointees forward.
11/ The lack of the latter makes the former that much more important.
This has been a commercial advertisement for checks and balances.
Brought to you by the Committee of People Who Really Want Checks & Balances.
Thread by @jbf1755: "1/ So, the lawsuit filed by Senate Democrats challenging DJT's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general? It cites Hamilton […]"
It cites Hamilton -- Federalist #76.
Let's take a peek at his logic, shall we?
H/T @paul_dalen
2/ This particular Federalist essay is about the appointing power of the President.
In it, Hamilton explains the logic behind submitting executive appointments to the Senate for approval.
3/ Left to his own devices and able to appoint officers without Senate approval, a President might appoint "unfit characters."
Senate confirmation would "be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President."
4/ What might these "unfit characters" for federal office look like?
They might be "in some way or other personally allied" to the President.
They might be people "possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
5/ "[T]he obsequious instruments of [the President's] pleasure."
Boy, that Hamilton sure had a way with words when writing about politics, didn't he?
6/ The need for Senate approval would discourage the President from submitting such "unfit characters" for federal office because he would know that a "different and independent body" (i.e. the Senate) would be considering and discussing his choices.
7/ An independent Senate would discourage unfit appointments for federal office by facing the President with the very real and embarrassing possibility of rejection by the Senate, & the Senate's opinion "would have great weight in forming [the opinion] of the public.
8/ So...the actions of an INDEPENDENT Senate would shape public opinion on an unfit presidential appointment.
9/ Because of the power of that independent Senate shaping public opinion -- according to Hamilton -- a President would be "both ashamed and afraid" to propose unfit people for office, knowing that it might damage "his own reputation, and...his political existence."
10/ A fascinating line of reasoning, I'd say, with two critical cogs that make it run:
An independent Senate.
An executive who would feel ashamed to bring unfit appointees forward.
11/ The lack of the latter makes the former that much more important.
This has been a commercial advertisement for checks and balances.
Brought to you by the Committee of People Who Really Want Checks & Balances.
Thread by @jbf1755: "1/ So, the lawsuit filed by Senate Democrats challenging DJT's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general? It cites Hamilton […]"
"The most direct distillation of the current phenomenon is quite simple. Educated people employ critical thinking skills, hence they can easily identify extreme or fringe ideologies and those individuals that perpetuate them."
xy5jn0
New Member
xy5jn0
New Member
xy5jn0
New Member
xy5jn0
New Member
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who illegally cross the southern border into the United States, saying the policy likely violated federal law on asylum eligibility.
In a ruling late Monday, Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy. President Trump’s action was announced on Nov. 9, though the White House had as early as last month floated drastic changes to the way the United States affords sanctuary to people fleeing persecution in their home countries.
The judge’s order remains in effect until Dec. 19, at which point the court will consider arguments for a permanent order. The administration offered no immediate comment overnight but has routinely appealed adverse decisions.
Similar threads
