Patterico's Pontifications


BREAKING: Supreme Court Will Not Immediately Hear DACA Case

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:15 am

The Supreme Court has refused to immediately undo a federal judge’s order that the Trump administration continue to process certain DACA applications. USA Today:

The Supreme Court refused Monday to review a federal judge’s order that the Trump administration continue a program protecting undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

The denial leaves in place the popular DACA program, which has protected some 690,000 undocumented immigrants from deportation and enabled them to get work permits.

The program had faced a March 5 deadline for congressional action set by Trump last summer. Two federal courts have ruled the administration’s action was illegal.

The case will now follow the normal (meaning much slower) appeals process.

The USA Today story is not entirely accurate when it says that the decision leaves DACA in place. The outrageous order that the Trump administration sought to appeal did not completely undo Trump’s order; it blocked enforcement of the order only as to renewal applications filed by those who had previously submitted applications. Because today’s order is less sweeping than some in Big Media realize, don’t be surprised if Democrats still press for a legislative fix by March 5. Those who never submitted applications before are still affected by Trump’s order.

This does not necessarily signal that the Court will ultimately be unsympathetic to Trump’s position, mind you. It just means that the Court doesn’t want to rush the process. I find that disappointing but not terribly surprising.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

103 Responses to “BREAKING: Supreme Court Will Not Immediately Hear DACA Case”

  1. i thought this was what we expectered to happen

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Gor-Souter??? More likely is that this emerging cockfight results in Roberts peeling off whats left of the mask.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  3. The court is hoping that Congress will deal with the issue and make it moot. I’m not sure that I disagree with that approach as it is Congress’s job. But it would be nice if the lower courts could be reigned in. Not that the ninth circus actually cares that it gets overturned more than any other court.

    mark (2f585f)

  4. Is it correct that only four of the justices must vote to hear a case?

    Lenny (5ea732)

  5. The problem was daca stemmed from w/o, not legislation, the damage Obama wrought continues

    narciso (0ad9f3)

  6. The question now is: will they take the first case that the circuit courts send their way, or will they wait for a conflict between the circuits? Of course, the 9th Circuit is pretty well the main event on this issue, so waiting would be rather a rather craven act by the Supremes.

    M Scott Eiland (b16b32)

  7. , don’t be surprised if Democrats still press for a legislative fix by March

    That probably won’t happen. What will happen is that there could still be some trouble getting the continuing resolution passed that will fund the government past March 19.

    Senator Jeff Flake is pushing for a 3-year extension of all current DACA work permits combined with funding for a border wall, but as of now, Trump is set to veto that (while blaming Democrats for letting DACA lapse) and the House set not to vote on it.

    This is heading to be a much bigger crisis than people are not seeing.

    In the meantime the agreement to have a summit meeting with the president of Mexico broke up, because Trump, in a prepratory telephone call with the president of Mexico, refused to agree to publicly acknowledge (at the press conference they would hold) that Mexico was not going to pay for the wall.

    Trump said he couldn’t do that – it was a campaign promise he couldn’t go back on. Trump wanted to agree to disagree and move on to other subjects but the Mexican president refused and Trump got angry.

    Now Jared Kushner has contirnued talking with Mexican officials about the other subjects.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  8. 4. I think it is correct that only 4 justices are required to hear a case. That means that neither the liberals norm the conservatives wanted to expedite this. Part of the reason is that, after all, it could be made moot by Congress. (The justices may be overestimating the chances of that happpening. 80% of the public may agree on the policy of extending DACA, and more than 2/3 of the members of Congress but it is what goes with it and what does not that is hanging things up.)

    This is a political decision, but it could be argued that what would be political is for the Supreme Court to expedite the case.

    They do things like that – but usually when it will help matters along.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  9. It seems to be in line with the SCOTUS’s Per Curiam opinion, also out of the Ninth Circuit, in December. They’re going to wait for a final ruling or at least a more nearly complete record.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. Does it seem SCOTUS is reluctant to get involved because they lack intestinal fortitude?

    Ben burn (a5ae42)

  11. How about their one time expedition into a Presidential election?

    They can go fish..

    Ben burn (a5ae42)

  12. CNN says:

    Monday’s action by the court, submitted without comment from the justices, is not a ruling on the merits of the DACA program or the Trump administration’s effort to end it.


    University of Texas professor law and CNN legal analyst Stephen Vladeck said justices normally don’t weigh in at this stage.

    “The justices have not granted such a request since 2004, but the government claimed that the urgency of settling the legal status of DACA, and the potential for nationwide confusion, justified such an extraordinary measure,” Vladeck said.

    Sounds like a purely procedural decision.

    Dave (af0487)

  13. @ Lenny (#4): You’re right: Under the so-called “Rule of Four” — which is actually not a rule but an internal custom and practice — normally four votes are required for the SCOTUS to grant a writ of certiorari, which is the procedural device by which the overwhelming majority of cases, civil or criminal, get heard by the SCOTUS.

    But normally you can only apply for a writ of certiorari if there’s been a judgment or other appealable order against you that’s been entered by one of the courts of appeals — and in this case, there hasn’t been, yet.

    Thus, this was an extraordinary “petition for writ of certiorari before judgment,” as filed by the DoJ on January 18, 2018. The government could instead simply have asked for a stay of the district court’s order pending further appellate proceedings, including those before the court of appeals, but it chose not to.

    Quoting from the DoJ’s petition (footnotes omitted, italics in original, boldface mine):

    Congress has vested this Court with jurisdiction to review “[c]ases in the courts of appeals … [b]y writ of certiorari … before or after rendition of judgment or decree.” 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (emphasis added). “An application … for a writ of certiorari to review a case before judgment has been rendered in the court of appeals may be made at any time before judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e). This Court will grant certiorari before judgment “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” Sup. Ct. R. 11. This case satisfies that standard.

    The DoJ then made its pitch as to why this case is of such imperative public importance, but apparently failed to persuade even four Justices of that.

    If the SCOTUS had instead gone along with the Trump DoJ and advanced this case for decision by the SCOTUS on the merits immediately, the Court would have been subjected to criticism for bending the rules quite severely to accommodate the current POTUS’ political and legal agendas. This was frankly an overreach by the DoJ, and its failure is utterly unsurprising. Yes, it’s an important case. But Bush v. Gore it’s not.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  14. But they did do so, re judge Hanen so judge shopping does yield results,

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. Whatever authority Obama had to create the DACA recipients’ status — whether that was full authority or (as I believe) none — Trump has just as much authority to continue it. He’s already formally extended it once, which created the current reasonable (but ultimately arbitrary) expiration that’s driving the current congressional discussion. Trump’s also hinted at least once in public that if Congress can’t give him a fix, he might unilaterally extend it again.

    All of that tends to cut very, very hard against all predictions by the DoJ that the sky will fall if the SCOTUS doesn’t give his case a special path to review on the merits right away. It wouldn’t surprise me if this application got zero votes to grant cert, actually. I would have voted against it if I were on the SCOTUS, with the full expectation that in due course — when a timely cert petition has been filed — I’d both grant the petition and then, on the merits after argument, vote to reverse the district court (and, likely, Ninth Circuit). This is the SCOTUS keeping its powder dry and preserving its reputation by “going by the book” — and being seen to do so. Chief Justice Roberts, in particular, would see this issue that way, as a matter of institutional (not political) conservatism.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  16. The other decision was in keeping with this order.

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. Time to judge shop and make national concealed carry reciprocity a thing.

    NJRob (b00189)

  18. I agree with Beldar and the others that the procedural posture of this case, combined with the absence of any dire consequences if the status quo is maintained pending resolution, made this outcome unsurprising.

    The only record before SCOTUS now is a minimal record made in the District Court.

    DOJ can go back to the 9th Circuit and ask for a stay on the District Court’s order, while seeking immediate review of the District Court’s injunction. If the 9th Circuit denies the stay after a hearing, there will be a better record to go back to the Supreme Court on just the issue of the injunction. That would be the same process they followed with the Travel Ban.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  19. OT, but the dismemberment of The Weinstein Company that I predicted here some months ago is playing out pretty much as I expected, heading now for a trip through the bankruptcy courts.

    That will change the parameters of the bidding war among bottom-fishers that’s been going on since the Weinstein Bros. were quote-unquote “exposed.” I’m guessing that unless there’s a new deal cut, the company’s bankruptcy counsel will push to have have all of the victims’ claims against it — which undoubtedly are general unsecured claims, entitled to no preference whatsoever in any Chapter 11 reorganization or Chapter 7 bankruptcy — estimated for purposes of confirming a plan of reorganization. Because as a matter of law they’re mostly barred by limitations regardless of merit, they’ll be estimated at some fairly small current-dollar value, which will effectively so minimize the victims’ potential ability to block any plan of reorganization as to render them a sideshow.

    Under the plan, there will be some kind of fund, of mostly symbolic proportions, for those who’ve either already sued or who assert claims by the court-approved “bar date.” That funded (possibly through coupons or not-quite-cash consideration), the company’s very significant IP assets will either be spun off to outside bidders or perhaps retained by a reorganized company that’s been fully inoculated against all sexual harassment/assault claims arising out of the company’s history.

    Meanwhile, as this article also correctly notes, the real action will be going on in litigation against the company’s former directors in their personal capacities, which in turn is pretty sure to bankrupt both of the brothers individually. The outside directors will then settle somewhere within their E&O carriers’ policy limits.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  20. If anyone is interested, Andy McCarthy completely dismantles the Schiff memo in his column posted last night, and makes it clear why every Republican member of the House Intel Comm voted to release Schiff’s “rebuttal” to the Nunes memo.

    The Nunes memo has now been established to be correct in all its details, as aided by the more specific memo and letter from Grassley and Graham, and now the tacit and overt admissions made in the Schiff memo.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  21. As ever they are out of touch

    Sykes wrote that he expects “to come home to a home cooked dinner at six every night,” and attacked “the non-stop feminization campaign against manhood.”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  22. I read there one point of rebuttal in the Schiff memo.

    1. A rebuttal of somethingh that is not in the Nunes memo. It “rebuts” the claim that trump’s campaign was spied upon.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  23. Shippy has been hawking McCarthys fishwrap for several days now.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  24. 23 — just Ben’s way of expressing his realization that he can’t really do anything with what McCarthy wrote, so why try?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  25. I can’t seem to do anything about Trump either shipwrecked.

    Ben burn (39368b)

  26. Basically McCarthy is still catching up, as it took him time with , currently sen partner skadden arps

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. Schiff, schiffed himself

    EPWJ (4dc563)

  28. Whoops..

    Republicans are fretting that a front-runner for an Arizona congressional seat — a married minister.involved in a sexting scandal — will pull a Roy Moore and hand the seat to Democrats if he wins Tuesday’s special-election primary.

    Ben burn (39368b)

  29. Thanks to the Gods they see fit to expose the cromulent Hordes.

    Ben burn (39368b)

  30. Red squaw buries her own hatchet in her scalp

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. My grandma’s DR window in her old house looked out on Black Mountain IIRC. I don’t know if she’d have voted for a sexting minister. I gather he wasn’t a King James breasts like twin roes type of guy.

    Pinandpuller (238426)

  32. @30

    Connecticut’s yearly rah-rah bash — this year the keynote speaker was U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — will no longer be called the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey Dinner. By a unanimous vote with no discussion, the Democratic State Central Committee this past week struck the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, the two presidents most identified with the early Democratic Party.

    This wasn’t hard to find, so you might want to evaluate your sources.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  33. @30 – narciso, lol! I am constantly amazed at the brazen hypocrisy of these pols…do they think the Internet isn’t forever? I don’t know, maybe they never get their hands dirty on a keyboard and aren’t aware of what you can find with simple searches. That’s the only explanation that makes any sense…

    If I were running against Warren, I’d have tons of youtube clips just roasting her on Jackson, Harvard, Cherokee heritage, etc. Talk about a target-rich environment.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  34. @33

    great post

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  35. Even c Thomas howell wasnt so brazen in soul man, she looks the portrait from American gothic

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. @34 – thanks! Fauxcahontas is a gift that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  37. Revisionism. That seems to be the hallmark of Democrats lately. In addition to sexual practices that involve a small furry animal and a jar of peanut butter.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. @37

    No problem. It was a perfect example of someone uncritically accepting a fake story because it fit their pre-conceived notions.

    Davethulhu (99cc74)

  39. I know three years is an eternity, but seriously how much of us history is unusable Jackson was a rough hewned figure he had fought the British as a teenager, Spanish and Indian encroachments as well as the British.

    narciso (d1f714)

  40. Not only the Indian removal but through Polk the conquest of
    the western territories.

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. 34… I suspect the Left is coming to understand that Elizabeth “Sitting Bullschiff” Warren wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in New Orleans of winning the presidency.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. Wait ’til teh schiff hits teh fan…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. They do speculate to a degree, but they put some of the pieces together

    narciso (d1f714)

  44. Here’s the mug shot of Stephanie Holworth, the staffer who sent an unsoliticied titty pic over party business channels, to the Republican congressional candidate in Arizona.

    Prior to her job as digital media coordinator at the Arizona state Senate beginning in January 2017 she had spent seven years in the hooscow.

    I’m given to understand that incarceration raises the libedo of some women to wreckless levels.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  45. How did she get that job, in the first place, jot?

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. P-Funkster makes a solid case on the need for all of us to get along… cuz we may be standing on the verge of gettin’ it on with teh space aliens…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. People… whatcha doin’ ?!?!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  48. This is the salient part of Ben Burn’s politico article;

    Usually a sex scandal emerging a week before an election would typically be fatal to a [Republican] candidate, but 75 percent of voters had already mailed in their ballots by the time the story became public, according to an estimate from Garrett Archer, a senior adviser for election data at Arizona’s secretary of state’s office.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  49. Even if ya don’t dig it…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. @39 – yes, forgive us for believing one story – out of dozens – that turned out not to meet the narrative of Elizabeth Warren’s monumental hypocrisy, to wit:

    1) Her lying about her heritage to obtain a position at Harvard Law School
    2) Writing in her 2006 book All Your Worth that it’s a myth you can make money flipping houses. Warren flipped at least five homes; one she bought from an older woman for $30K, selling it a few months later for $115K more, without making any improvements
    3) In her own words, she was the intellect of the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose goal was the eradication of the 1%, of which she is a member.
    4) She rails against corporations, yet represents the largest:

    These are just a few examples. So the Democrats changed the name of their conference in Connecticut and she’s not a hypocrite for speaking there…..that certainly changes my opinion of her, Dave-O.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  51. Here’s one of my favorite Warren stories:

    Louisiana attorney Matt J. Farley described Waren’s role in the Cajun Electric Bankrupcty Case:[2]

    Professor Warren’s description of her role in Cajun Electric, as it appeared on the website for The Boston Globe.[3] The description is:

    In re Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, 150 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub nom Mabey v. Southwestern Electric Power Co., 119 S.Ct. 2019 (1999). In this case, Elizabeth represented a company that offered a plan to help save a bankrupt rural power cooperative. The company also helped defray litigation costs for some members of the cooperative. Elizabeth sought to preserve the plan to save the company, and the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Elizabeth’s position.

    I can’t imagine that Warren really believes that she was helping to save a rural power cooperative. Her description is seriously inaccurate both by omission and commission….

    Warren’s statement that “Elizabeth represented a company that offered a plan to help save a bankrupt rural power cooperative,” simply is not the case. The plan was to liquidate Cajun Electric, not to save it….

    So in short: Warren characterizes herself as working to save a rural electric cooperative, when she did no such thing. Her client was a large power company that wanted to liquidate the cooperative, not to save it, in order to acquire its prime asset, a large coal-powered electric plant.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  52. That Hogg kid is threatening to hold his breathe until the right to bare arms is amended out of the constitution.

    Or maybe he’s just going to stomp his feet.

    He’s entertaining.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  53. So red squaw was really Gordon gekko going after blue star airlines

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. What was that movie making fun of a Michael Moore type (and lookalike) with two “women” who have vowed not to shave until something? It’s the one where he gets slapped around by JFK and Bill O’Reilly in another scene.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. Tmi, the image already gives me the dry heaves, I think it was a David abrams project.

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. So putting things in perspective, there is concurrence with the host:

    narciso (d1f714)

  57. Zucker. “An American Carol”. Trailer.

    nk (dbc370)

  58. Cajun’s financial problems can be traced back to its ill-fated investment in Gulf States Utilities’ River Bend Nuclear Power Facility (“River Bend”). Cajun borrowed at least $1.6 billion from the Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”), an agency of the federal government, to invest in River Bend. The investment went sour, and Cajun has since sued Gulf States Utilities on the grounds that it was fraudulently induced to invest in River Bend.

    Cajun’s financial problems came to a head when the Louisiana Public Service Commission (“LPSC”) ordered Cajun to lower its rates. Because it could not meet its debt obligations under the lower rates, Cajun filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 the same day that the rate decrease went into effect.

    Entergy owns 100% of River Bend. In 1986 they dangled the possibility of building a River Bend no. 2 reactor to draw investors. Then withdrew due to state interference.
    Then in 2008 they offered buy ins on a no. 3 reactor. Then withdrew. Again due to state interference.

    On September 25, 2008, Entergy filed a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for Unit 3, a new nuclear reactor at River Bend. The 1550 MWe Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) was the selected design.[4][5] The reactor’s cost was estimated at $6.2 billion.[6]

    On January 9, 2009, Entergy indefinitely postponed work towards the license and construction of Unit 3.

    Sounds alot like one of the many salvos shot in the Obama era’s war on coal.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  59. Hey . You don’t like the Obama admin offering speculative loans on projects they have no intention of allowing, then foreclosing on the coal power compoanies that took the bet, too bad suckers.

    He won the election.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  60. Something about the cost of energy ‘naturally spiking’ or words to that effect.

    narciso (d1f714)

  61. Papertiger, maybe my memory is faulty, but wasn’t Bush the Younger still POTUS on January 9, 2009?

    Kishnevi (2717fb)

  62. Don’t step on my toes, Kish. I’m rolling. [YouTube]

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?! NO!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  63. On point of fact, that fellow,was just going with the flow:

    narciso (d1f714)

  64. @52

    It’s ok to admit you were wrong.

    Davethulhu (99cc74)

  65. @61

    Amazing. Obama did all that and he wasn’t even president yet.

    Davethulhu (99cc74)

  66. “cuz we may be standing on the verge of gettin’ it on with teh space aliens…”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/26/2018 @ 7:39 pm

    The mothership connection has landed

    Matador (39e0cd)

  67. What was that movie making fun of a Michael Moore type (and lookalike) with two “women” who have vowed not to shave until something? It’s the one where he gets slapped around by JFK and Bill O’Reilly in another scene.

    nk (dbc370) — 2/26/2018 @ 8:09 pm

    An American Carol

    NJRob (b00189)

  68. How did she get that job, in the first place, jot?

    narciso (d1f714) — 2/26/2018 @ 7:35 pm

    Interesting that she [Stephanie Holford] did the whole stretch. No time off for good behavior.

    Here’s the source for the mugshot. She has an attorney who is described as “the Gloria Allred of Arizona”.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  69. She had four different charges of assault, she’s like Kim basinger in that 80s movie with bruce willis, but its,left unclear how did she get the job

    narciso (d1f714)

  70. – thanks! Fauxcahontas is a gift that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving.

    Lenny (5ea732) — 2/26/2018 @ 6:49 pm

    We can’t just take it back.

    Pinandpuller (f4bd9f)

  71. I suspect the Left is coming to understand that Elizabeth “Sitting Bullschiff” Warren wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in New Orleans of winning the presidency.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/26/2018 @ 7:28 pm

    Secretary of the Interior.

    Pinandpuller (f4bd9f)

  72. Here’s the mug shot of Stephanie Holworth, the staffer who sent an unsoliticied titty pic over party business channels, to the Republican congressional candidate in Arizona.

    papertiger (c8116c) — 2/26/2018 @ 7:32 pm

    So he wasn’t asking for it?

    Pinandpuller (f4bd9f)

  73. So he wasn’t asking for it?

    That’s what Steve Montenegro [the candidate] says. I have no reason to doubt.

    Holford claims the flirty bits were over snapchat, which apparently erases messages after they’re viewed.

    Mission Impossible – to verify her account.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  74. I spent a lot of time down in Arizona during the impeachment of Evan Meacham. War Hero, POW, Mormon, Millionare Car Dealer. That guy was Trump, McCain,Romney and Roy Moore all rolled up in a burrito.

    Mr. Mecham (R), a millionaire automobile dealer, was called the Harold Stassen of Arizona because he unsuccessfully ran for governor four times before he won a three-way race in November 1986 with 40 percent of the vote.

    The state attorney general quickly began investigating allegations that Mr. Mecham had lent his auto dealership $80,000 from his inauguration fund and had obstructed justice in his efforts to stop the investigation of a death threat against a former lobbyist. He was the first U.S. governor impeached and removed from office in 59 years.

    Charges against him did not hold up in court, however. After the impeachment, Mr. Mecham was acquitted of six felony counts of violating campaign finance laws by allegedly concealing a $350,000 loan from his campaign fund to a developer.

    Mr. Mecham’s archconservative and impolitic opinions, his deep suspicions about government and his willingness to carry grudges against the establishment were as lethal to his political career as the financial charges. Having campaigned for more than two decades as an outsider, he did not alter his perspective upon his arrival in the governor’s office.

    In a self-published 1988 book, “Impeachment: The Arizona Conspiracy,” Mr. Mecham said the real reason he was impeached was “pure and simple raw political power exercised by those groups who wanted to remain in control.”
    Experienced political hands considered him incompetent and widely ridiculed several of his nominations for state jobs. His choice for a state investigative post was a Marine who had been court-martialed twice, and one of his special assistants was charged with extortion.


    Pinandpuller (f4bd9f)

  75. snapchat, which apparently erases messages after they’re viewed.

    Mission Impossible – to verify her account.

    papertiger (c8116c) — 2/26/2018 @ 10:32 pm

    You can screencap Snapchat still pics on an iPhone.

    Pinandpuller (f4bd9f)

  76. A month in kamuela and I had forgotten about lieawatha.

    mg (36764b)

  77. Shortage of textbooks, hooliganism in the classroom, lobbing of bricks through windows, chasing of the girls, coming to school with daggers and spears and a good deal of unpleasant and sadistic behavior

    Pinandpuller (f4bd9f)

  78. Yeah,think about it…it is humiliating to both an Aryan Brotherhood and to an Eme for Montenegro to win, albeit for very different reasons.

    urbanleftbehind (60b5be)

  79. @66 – wrong? That Warren’s a hypocrite? The overwhelming evidence is that she is. Wrong about one instance of her hypocrisy? OK, if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, she’s still a hypocrite, Davey

    Lenny (16de9f)

  80. @81

    Yes, I can understand how a Trump supporter could be very concerned about someone being a lying hypocrite.

    Davethulhu (99cc74)

  81. Are you, were you birfer, pin?

    Flecks on your vest..

    Ben burn (39368b)

  82. for thirty years warren pretended to be indian, like Blumenthal a marine for forty,

    narciso (d1f714)

  83. Was Max Cleland faking his amputation?


    Ben burn (39368b)

  84. Self mutilation isnt as far out in left field as one may think. Clelland , an honorable man, certainly not. But i wouldnt put it past super-ambitious Tammy Thai girl.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  85. His piece on the Adam Schiff memo is typical of his current work. Virtually every single point is easily refuted; most are laughable, such as when he claims the FBI’s use of his 2013 interview to prosecute some spies means his March 2016 interview was truthful.

    The memo does note that “the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian intelligence contacts.” Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also lets slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful informant since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page himself has never been accused of lying to the FBI.

    McCarthy also adheres to the GOP propaganda line that “Democrats conveniently omit is that … the Russian spies explicitly regarded him as an ‘idiot’ (and they had not even seen him on cable TV),” which I mocked in this piece at Vice.

    The Republican response to the evidence that the Trump campaign named Page a foreign policy advisor around the same time the FBI interviewed him over suspected ties with Russian spies is perhaps the most pathetic thing in here. Among other things, it complains that the Schiff memo doesn’t mention that “a Russian intelligence officer called Page ‘an idiot.’”

    So the latest Memoghazi arguments might best be summarized this way: After Democrats convincingly argued Trump made a suspected Russian asset a key foreign policy advisor, Republicans insisted that doesn’t matter because the suspected Russian asset was a moron.

    Ben burn (39368b)

  86. re afscme and the janus case, one of the leading left union figures, paul booth, tied to the Midwest academy, from sds days passed recently,

    narciso (d1f714)

  87. the Trump campaign named Page a foreign policy advisor

    candidate Trump was left with low-wattage window dressing like Mr. Page at the time because nevertrump filth like pedophile Mitt Romney and burn victim John Kasich had put out the word they wouldn’t work with anyone who associated themselves with the campaign of the man who would become our 45th president, President Donald Trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  88. I was whisked off to Abington hospital last night with a collapsed lung. 2nd time this is he left side though. It’s hard to type but I’m watchin’ you guys!

    Rev.Hoagie (30e82d)

  89. carter page was very low on the totem pole, he had made some small change with Gazprom, but the big money was with rosneft, and they cut him out of that deal entirely, gherman khaan and Blavatsky sold their block of shares, to a consortium with mark rich’s glencore, Qatari investment trust and an Italian bank, based in venice, that’s as smart a move as when flounder lent his car to the delta house,

    narciso (d1f714)

  90. Don’t forget Duncan Hunter/Rohrabacher Maytag Washers with no warranty whatsoever.

    Ben burn (39368b)

  91. Hang in there, Hoagie!

    “TACKLING THE DEEP STATE: I was honored to speak at a panel at CPAC last week entitled, “New Sheriff in Town: How Trump is Taking Down Lawless Government Agencies.” There’s a nice write-up of the panel at LifeZette.”

    Colonel Haiku (bd4dc3)

  92. get better Mr. Hoagie

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  93. Hoagie…sorry, didn’t see that. Sorry dude. Get better.

    Ben burn (39368b)

  94. Heal up Reverend.

    I’ll keep you in my prayers.

    NJRob (b00189)

  95. “Jesus Christ! The [edit] Gimp finds something useful to do in the [edit] brace you made her. Do you think you could treat being Johnny, always struggling to fashion a thought? Every [edit] night I, that could cut a throat and sleep the sleep of the just, spend six [edit] wakings trying to find a piss pot with my dribble, and wondering when I got to be so old.

    Pick out a [edit] swatch for a spit rag. Use the others for masks, and go about your [edit] business…
    I ain’t learning a new Doc’s quirks!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  96. the popular DACA program

    Popular with whom?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  97. And what will the courts do if those “renewal applications” are “slow walked”?

    askeptic (340f22)

  98. Obama “made law” through a memo. The idiots on the 9th Circuit said Trump can’t undo the memo with another memo. The 9th will review this again, get it wrong again and it will end up back at SCOTUS. Basically SCOTUS just said Trump is not fully president.

    WarEagle82 (2b3d34)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1946 secs.