Quote:Trump On Senate: "A Very Rough System," "An Archaic System" That's "A Bad Thing For The Country"
In an interview with FOX News Channel's Martha MacCallum, President Donald Trump weighed in on governing what he called the "archaic rules" of the Senate. MacCallum interviewed Trump on the final edition of her show, The First 100 Days. Beginning Monday, the name of her show will change to The Story.
"The rules of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through, it's -- it's really a bad thing for the country, in my opinion," the president said. "They're archaic rules."
Trump warned, "at some point we're going to have to take those rules on."
"And maybe at some point we're going to have to take those rules on, because, for the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different. You can't go through a process like this. It's not fair," Trump told MacCallum.
Quote:MACCALLUM: You were a registered Democrat for a long time. Now Republican president of the United States. And people say, "Well, President Trump's not an ideologue. He is a pragmatist."
How would you describe your political philosophy?
TRUMP: Well, I'm not really an ideologue. I think I'm a person of common sense I think more than anything else.
And I was a Democrat. I came from a place -- you know, I lived in Manhattan. I started in Queen with my parents and then when I started doing little bit better and better deals, I was able to get into Manhattan, I moved into Manhattan. And in Manhattan you -- you know, Republicans are not exactly flourishing. And -- so I started off as a Democrat, like Ronald Reagan was also a Democrat. And over the years, you know, your -- your views just change somewhat.
But I think, more than anything else, I'm a person of common sense. I understand what has to be done. I get things done. I've always been a closer. We don't have a lot of closers in politics, and I understand why. It's a very rough system. It's -- it's an archaic system.
You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House -- but the rules of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through, it's -- it's really a bad thing for the country, in my opinion. They're archaic rules.
And maybe at some point we're going to have to take those rules on, because, for the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different. You can't go through a process like this. It's not fair. It forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, you're really forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules.
So...
Watch the full interview:
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Well the rules aren't Constitutionally involved except that the Senate gets to make its own rules. I don't have a problem with someone complaining about the rules, but he has no authority to do anything about them.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
He's rambling a bit so I wouldn't comment on what rules are "archaic."
But there are things that need a serious update. As an example, in Kentucky elected or apointed officials are required to take an oath of office where half the language is concerned with the individual having not been in a duel. Not "have you ever cheated on your taxes" or "have you ever murdered anyone." The oath is concerned with having taken part in or sent a challenge for a duel.
(06-29-2017, 10:27 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well the rules aren't Constitutionally involved except that the Senate gets to make its own rules. I don't have a problem with someone complaining about the rules, but he has no authority to do anything about them.
(06-29-2017, 01:08 PM)Benton Wrote: He's rambling a bit so I wouldn't comment on what rules are "archaic."
But there are things that need a serious update. As an example, in Kentucky elected or apointed officials are required to take an oath of office where half the language is concerned with the individual having not been in a duel. Not "have you ever cheated on your taxes" or "have you ever murdered anyone." The oath is concerned with having taken part in or sent a challenge for a duel.
I think this falls back on "run it like a business". Trump probably thought he could just tell people what changes to make and they would do it. He's never needed votes or heard opposing arguments. Otherwise we would have never had Trump Steaks or Trump Vodka or Trump University or....
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-29-2017, 01:08 PM)Benton Wrote: He's rambling a bit so I wouldn't comment on what rules are "archaic."
But there are things that need a serious update. As an example, in Kentucky elected or apointed officials are required to take an oath of office where half the language is concerned with the individual having not been in a duel. Not "have you ever cheated on your taxes" or "have you ever murdered anyone." The oath is concerned with having taken part in or sent a challenge for a duel.
And have any of them ever gotten in a duel? Hmmmm? Have they?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Posts: 3,267
Threads: 195
Reputation:
16836
Joined: May 2015
Location: Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere!
Mood: None
(06-29-2017, 01:08 PM)Benton Wrote: He's rambling a bit so I wouldn't comment on what rules are "archaic."
But there are things that need a serious update. As an example, in Kentucky elected or apointed officials are required to take an oath of office where half the language is concerned with the individual having not been in a duel. Not "have you ever cheated on your taxes" or "have you ever murdered anyone." The oath is concerned with having taken part in or sent a challenge for a duel.
I remove my white glove and slap you across the face.
"Slap"
I challenge you to a duel underneath the old oak tree outside the old courthouse.
10 paces
Be there or be square.
Deceitful, two-faced she-woman. Never trust a female, Delmar, remember that one simple precept and your time with me will not have been ill spent.
(06-29-2017, 01:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And have any of them ever gotten in a duel? Hmmmm? Have they?
Well, none have ever spoken up. So I guess if that's our major concern, it works to scare off anyone who might have participated in a duel.
On the other hand, I'd rather say something like: "I affirm that I have not willfully, intentionally or knowingly cheated anyone out of anything substantial or tangible to the benefit of myself, my family or any known associates."
I took the first round of complaints a few weeks ago as meaning he's frustrated that so much does through Congress and that Congress has a system for making sure shit (usually) doesn't get passed (committees, debates, voting).
From what former Trump execs have said, his company was basically him deciding what happens and a "board" a execs just saying it was a good idea.
(06-30-2017, 12:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I took the first round of complaints a few weeks ago as meaning he's frustrated that so much does through Congress and that Congress has a system for making sure shit (usually) doesn't get passed (committees, debates, voting).
From what former Trump execs have said, his company was basically him deciding what happens and a "board" a execs just saying it was a good idea.
Committees are where most of the deal making comes in.
Lawmakers on different committees hold bills hostage so that other bills get killed, get enough votes, don't get to the floor, etc. Some truly outstanding bills never make it out of committee at the state and federal level just because a committee chair (or enough of the committee together) can't get what they want.
If that's what Trump is referencing, I'm all for a change there. The idea of a committee is to weed out redundant or pointless proposals as a way to cut down on wasted time. And they do that. But the by product is a handful — or sometimes a single lawmaker — with the ability to manipulate all of Congress.
(06-30-2017, 12:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Committees are where most of the deal making comes in.
Lawmakers on different committees hold bills hostage so that other bills get killed, get enough votes, don't get to the floor, etc. Some truly outstanding bills never make it out of committee at the state and federal level just because a committee chair (or enough of the committee together) can't get what they want.
If that's what Trump is referencing, I'm all for a change there. The idea of a committee is to weed out redundant or pointless proposals as a way to cut down on wasted time. And they do that. But the by product is a handful — or sometimes a single lawmaker — with the ability to manipulate all of Congress.
Do you think that is better or worse than the POTUS running the country like his business?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-30-2017, 12:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you think that is better or worse than the POTUS running the country like his business?
Not referencing the current POTUS, but ultimately running the executive branch is similar to running a sbuiness. One person makes decisions and delegates to a group of people he's chosen to make other decisions. Outside rules and restrictions control the impact of those decisions.
Congress is supposed to be a different animal, where every representative has an equal voice. The committee process severally stifles the voice of some, while increasing the voice of others.
(06-30-2017, 02:20 PM)Benton Wrote: Not referencing the current POTUS, but ultimately running the executive branch is similar to running a sbuiness. One person makes decisions and delegates to a group of people he's chosen to make other decisions. Outside rules and restrictions control the impact of those decisions.
Congress is supposed to be a different animal, where every representative has an equal voice. The committee process severally stifles the voice of some, while increasing the voice of others.
Was that a yes or a no?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Good afternoon. Running the Government like a business is a hoax and will never work. It is a concept that will go down in history as another hoax perpetuated by the right did, the old "trickle down theory". What a scams.
Whichever side you cheer for, it's good to know that "winning" is subjective.
Until you learn to be critical of "your team", then you're the enabler the founding fathers tried to protect us against. I'm looking at you, Trump apologists. I'm looking at you, Obama apologists.
You all are pathetic. All you have is your vote. And you give it away to charlatans.
(07-02-2017, 03:02 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Whichever side you cheer for, it's good to know that "winning" is subjective.
Until you learn to be critical of "your team", then you're the enabler the founding fathers tried to protect us against. I'm looking at you, Trump apologists. I'm looking at you, Obama apologists.
You all are pathetic. All you have is your vote. And you give it away to charlatans.
Why aren't false equivalencies pathetic?
The sooner people stop relying on those, the sooner the republic can right itself.
Quote:Why the Koch brothers want to kill an obscure Senate rule to help shape the federal courts
WASHINGTON — The influential donor network tied to billionaire Charles Koch is taking aim at a longstanding Senate tradition that allows Democratic senators to block judicial nominees from their states, as conservatives race to seize on one-party control of Washington to rapidly reshape the federal judiciary.
Their target: The “blue-slip” process, which keeps judicial nominees from moving forward in Senate confirmation if a home-state senator raises an objection. Since Republicans hold a narrow 52-48 majority in the Senate, honoring the practice could give Democrats significant power to delay confirmation of President Trump’s nominees.
“Having a home-state senator have the ability to slow down the process, in our opinion, doesn’t make sense under the Constitution,” Mark Holden, a top official in the Koch network told USA TODAY. “If you look at why (President) Trump won, he wanted to change the culture of D.C. and what’s going on there.
“Some of these arcane rules in the Senate, they don’t make a lot of sense,” Holden said.
At a recent private retreat in Colorado for some 400 of the network’s donors, Koch officials distributed a one-page document, explaining the blue-slip practice and urging attendees — many of them big players in Republican politics — to press the issue with the Senate’s GOP leadership and “other Republican senators you know.”
“Tell them not to allow needless delay tactics and obstruction of the process,” the document read.
The stakes are high.
Trump entered office with more 100 vacancies on the federal bench — an opportunity, created, in part, by Senate Republicans blocking many of President Barack Obama’s nominees before he left office. Removing the blue-slip obstacle could help Trump reverse, in a single term, the Democrats’ advantage on the nation’s 13 federal appeals courts and shape the federal judiciary for decades.
Currently, nine of the 13 appellate courts have a majority of Democratic presidents’ nominees. As of Thursday afternoon, Trump had announced 22 nominees tor the lower courts, including nine to the appeals courts, considered a pipeline to the Supreme Court. Federal judges have lifetime appointments.
More lower-court nominations are on the way.
Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of conservative Federalist Society who has advised the White House on judicial picks, told USA TODAY that Trump already has signed off behind the scenes on a “few dozen” more still-to-be-announced nominees to the federal bench.
Holden's network plans to spend as much as $400 million to advance its free-market, limited-regulation agenda ahead of the 2018 elections. He called the lower-court nominations a “huge priority” for the political empire associated with Koch and his brother, David Koch.
[url=http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2017/06/28/judicial-nominee-louisville-john-k-bush-ducks-questions-controversial-blog-posts/433160001/][/url]
The Supreme Court typically takes only about 80 cases a year, so the group is focused on shaping the lower courts that "are rendering all the decisions,” Holden said.
The Koch's Kansas-based industrial conglomerate, Koch Industries, is among the corporate donors to the Federalist Society, and Leo attended the June donor conclave.
Other Republican-aligned activists are weighing in, too.
On Friday, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, which spent $7 million promoting Justice Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, began a $140,000 ad campaign in Michigan to push another Trump pick. Its 30-second commercial calls on the state’s Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, who could use their blue slips to veto Michigan picks, to back Joan Larsen, a Michigan Supreme Court Justice nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
The blue slip is a century-old practice of senatorial courtesy and refers to the blue-colored form that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee sends to a nominee’s home-state senators. Senators can send it back with a positive response to move the nomination along. If senators object, they either don’t return the form or return it with a negative response.
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he expects to abide by the blue-slip tradition. But he and other top Republicans also say home-state senators should have less say about nominees to regional appeals courts, which cover multiple states.
Holden said many of the Koch donors are "incensed by the obstruction in D.C. and think this is a key issue and are going to make their opinions known to their senators" and key players, such as Grassley.
For their part, Democrats and liberal groups have accused Trump of outsourcing the judicial vetting process conservative organizations, such as The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation think tank.
In a May memo, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said ending the blue-slip practice would allow “nominees to be hand-picked by right-wing groups.”
Nan Aaron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said stripping Democrats’ power to a “have a meaningful conversation” with Republicans about nominees could undermine an independent judiciary
“The administration, together with ultra-conservative groups, will pack individuals who will rubber-stamp President Trump’s agenda across a range of issues,” Aaron said. “That’s what so dangerous about doing away with the blue-slip process.”
Leo of the Federalist Society said every president consults with outside organizations about nominees, but the final decision rests with Trump.
“The president and his advisers are making the picks,” he said. “This outsourcing thing is a canard. It’s basically the Senate Democrats' way of avoiding responsibility for moving the process along.”
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Zu8AdZv.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/Zu8AdZv.png?1)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
