#trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor
“These officers have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have signed secrecy agreements. They quietly go about their work and try not to get too worked up over the headlines, including the fanciful notion that they spy on their fellow citizens via microwave ovens.”
#trippingthetrumpfantastic | #WhatTheyVotedFor
“Usually, even the laziest of partisans aren’t quite so ridiculous when dealing with the legislative branch’s oversight role over the executive branch.”
Something goes here about striking decay. And something unfortunate about how that sounds about right. No, really: In what universe?
This is what it is, which in turn is the lede from Mark Hensch of The Hill:
Newt Gingrich says former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) is a better choice to be President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of State than 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
There is and will be a lot to keep our eyes and ears toward; basic details sometimes get overlooked. This is the condition of the policy discourse in the inchoate and ascending Trump administration.
____________________
Hensch, Mark. “Gingrich: Giuliani ‘better’ than Romney for State”. The Hill. 21 November 2016.
Last week seems like, well, right. But it was all of a week ago we quoted without commment Patricia Murphy of Roll Call saying something about how the incoming president would need Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), “the rising Senate Democratic leader and the man poised to be a Clinton consiglieri or Trump’s not-so-loyal opposition”. Shoulda, coulda, doesn’t matter woulda said something, you know? Because, a headline today from The Hill tells us, “Protesters block Schumer’s office, call for new leadership”, and, you know, why not?
Meanwhile, Roll Call runs a bland, informative headline, but stings in the sub with, “Protesters chant for Schumer to ‘grow a spine,’ step aside for Sanders or Warren”.
“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”
It’s not really a gaffe, is it? It’s an interesting headline from CNN: “John McCain: ‘I don’t know’ if Trump will be better for Supreme Court than Clinton”
Trump has released lists of 21 potential justices. He has pledged to choose from among those 21 when making Supreme Court selections, in a move that has earned him praise from conservatives, including his former rival in the Republican primary, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
Asked on the Dom Giordano program on 1210 WPHT Philadelphia radio whether Trump was the superior candidate on issues like the Supreme Court, the Arizona senator replied, “Uh, first of all, I don’t know, because I hear him saying a lot of different things.”
Later in the interview, McCain used the opportunity to make the case for fellow Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, who is locked in a close battle to retain his Senate seat in Pennsylvania. McCain promised that Republicans would be “united against any Supreme Court nominee” put forth by Clinton.
“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. “I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered.”
Or, as Taylor Link fashioned the obvious lede for Salon:
Sen. John McCain is sure that if Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton wins, the Senate will continue to be an obstructionist mess.
In a Monday interview, the senator from Arizona said that Republican nominee Donald Trump is not necessarily a better candidate than Hillary Clinton when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices and “promised” that Republicans wouldn’t approve any Clinton nominee to the Supreme Court.
Couldn’t see that one coming, eh?
“A leading Satanist group is trying to distance itself from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) after the presidential candidate was compared to Lucifer this week.”
This is your lede of the week.
This is also your Republican Party.
Why is it always Donald, Donald, Donald?
Over at The Hill, it seems a fine way to spend a weekend:
• Oh, yeah …: The Hill staff offer an overview of the Sunday interview shows, including notes about Donald on Trump, Lindsey on Trump, Carly trying to hop on Trump’s coattails, and a strange reminder that former U.S. Senator Jim Webb is running for the Democratic nomination.
• Speaking of Sunday shows: Mark Hensch reports on Meet the Press attempting to consider a nexus of ideas: Donald Trump and flip-flop.
• Imagine that: And Alexander Bolton explains why the obvious advice for Jeb Bush is to “walk a fine line” in dealing with the Donald, or, as the headline has it, “Treat trump with kid gloves”.
____________________
Image note: Donald Trump announces his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination in New York City, New York, 16 June 2015. (Photo: Justin Lane/European Pressphoto Agency)
“If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court.”
Sometimes the question of where to start is not so easily resolved. The essential point to remember is that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, perhaps hoping to impress conservative voters as he prepares a 2016 Republican presidential nomination bid, has seemingly run out of room to maneuver against marriage equality. Yesterday’s ruling in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was the third, and yet Mr. Jindal still desperately seeks to delay:
But while Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration previously had said it was waiting on that 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling before recognizing same-sex marriages, top state officials dug in their heels Wednesday and said they wouldn’t change course until a district court orders them to do so.
That only widens the gap between the administration and the reality on the ground across the state. Clerks or other officials in nearly all parishes have now said they will issue licenses to same-sex couples, even as Jindal administration officials continue to tell state agencies to hold off on accepting them as valid.
The administration’s delay in accepting the Supreme Court’s ruling may be behind another point of conflict that cropped up on Wednesday as members of newly married same-sex couples seeking to change the name on their driver’s licenses to reflect their union found their efforts thwarted by the Office of Motor Vehicles.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit appeared to address the administration’s stalling.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is “the law of the land and, consequently, the law of this circuit and should not be taken lightly by actors within the jurisdiction of this court,” the ruling said.
“We express no view on how controversies involving the intersection of these rights should be resolved but instead leave that to the robust operation of our system of laws and the good faith of those who are impacted by them.”
The panel then ordered district judges who have overseen cases involving same-sex marriage, including U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans, to issue final judgments in their cases legalizing and recognizing same-sex marriage by July 17.
Normally that ruling, and any judgments that come from the lower courts, would be largely procedural measures now that the Supreme Court has decided the issue. And, indeed, that’s how they have been treated in most of the country, where clerks began issuing licenses immediately after Friday’s ruling.
But Jindal administration officials have said they won’t comply until forced to do so. While they initially pointed to the 5th Circuit’s decision as the event that would fully grant gay marriage rights in Louisiana, they changed course after the ruling was handed down and said they would continue to follow the state constitution’s ban on same-sex marriages until forced to do so by a lower court.
So, yeah. That’s what is going on in Louisiana. And, you know, there comes a point where this isn’t about anything else than sheer petulant malice.
Or, as Bobby Jindal is wont to call it, leadership.
____________________
Image note: Republican Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal speaks at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s forum in Waukee, Iowa, April 25, 2015. (Photo by Jim Young/Reuters)
Hensch, Mark. “Jindal: ‘Let’s just get rid of the court'”. The Hill. 26 June 2015.
Adelson, Jeff and Marsha Shuler. “5th Circuit Court tells Louisiana to recognize same-sex marriages; Jindal administration still balks”. The Advocate. 2 July 2015.
Today.
This is our honor.
• There is, of course, the decision itself: Obergefell v. Hodges (14-556)
• Or perhaps a headline: “Gay Marriage Supporters Win Supreme Court Victory”
• The author: “Kennedy: The Gay Marriage Justice”
• Another headline, this one somewhat overstated: “Texas Pastor Says He Will Set Himself On Fire In Protest Over Gay Marriage”
• Dissents or temper tantrums? “‘Ask the nearest hippie’: The conservative SCOTUS justices’ opinions on marriage equality are hilariously bitter”
• And why not ask a hippie? “We Asked the Nearest Hippie About Scalia: It Was David Crosby”
• Unfit for duty: “To avoid marrying gay couples, some Alabama counties have stopped marrying everyone”
• GOP presidential timber, part one: “Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court”
• Fifty-four years, cookie dough, and Stonewall celebrations: “From Ice Cream To Ian McKellen: Reactions To Same-Sex Marriage Ruling”
• GOP presidential timber, part two: “Jindal: ‘Let’s just get rid of the court'”
• GOP presidential timber, part three: “Scott Walker calls for Constitutional amendment to let states define marriage”
• What a real President of the United States sounds like: “Remarks by the President on the Supreme Court Decision on Marriage Equality”
I would at this time raise a glass to homophobic traditionalists from Sea to Shining Sea; without your dedicated, horrifying zeal, we might never have come this far. Indeed, your own cruelty and hatred shepherded this day.
Drink up, dreamers of hatred and supremacism; you’re running dry.
Then again, we also know you’re nowhere near finished, at least in your own minds. We’re here. We will hold the line. We know you’re targeting children, now, and we will hold the line.
____________________
Image note: People celebrate inside the Stonewall Inn, an iconic gay bar recently granted historic landmark status, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states. (Yana Paskova/Getty Images)
So here’s a conundrum; Mark Hensch is a talented enough writer to land a job at The Hill, yet his article this morning, under the headline, “Perry: Americans want ‘fairness’ for Wall Street”, makes exactly no sense. Perhaps Mr. Hensch … er … um … right. You know―
Former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) said on Sunday that Americans are hungry for a government that treats them the same as big Wall Street firms.
“Americans want to see fairness in that,” Perry told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”
“What is wrong is Washington bailing out companies that make bad decisions,” he added, citing the federal bailout of firms during the 2008 financial crisis.
“In today’s world, a lot of Americans are out there saying, ‘What are these people on Wall Street getting rich for?’” Perry, a GOP presidential candidate, asked.
Perry cited his rural upbringing and humble background as proof he is relatable to the citizens he meets on the campaign trail.
“Americans are ready for a great success story,” he said. “We have a social compact with one generation to the next.”
―this is Rick Perry, after all.
To wit, is the Republican presidential candidate actually suggesting a (cough!) “government takeover” of personal debt?
Sure, we can go with, “Probably not”, but still, just what in the world is going on? And, you know, we can always blame Mr. Hensch, because in reviewing headline and content we find that cuffs and collar don’t match. But still, I’m not certain that’s the problem.
Because, in the end, this is still Rick Perry we’re talking about.
____________________
Hensch, Mark. “Perry: Americans want ‘fairness’ for Wall Street”. The Hill. 21 June 2015.
This Is 