jerseyhoya wrote:Toomey sure seems like he's boned

Maybe he can run against Casey in 2 years

jerseyhoya wrote:Toomey sure seems like he's boned

Maybe he can run against Casey in 2 years

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Toomey sure seems like he's boned

Maybe he can run against Casey in 2 years

he'd lose that one

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Toomey sure seems like he's boned

Maybe he can run against Casey in 2 years

does he become the junior senator if he loses this year and beats Casey? (not that it matters much)

pacino wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:I'm glad Trump turned belligerent on immigration again. I was worried some independents might be snookered into believing him if he followed through with a softer stance.

it's still being misreported by some outlets (such as the NY Times):

Donald J. Trump made an audacious attempt on Wednesday to remake his image on the divisive issue of immigration, shelving his plan to deport 11 million undocumented people and arguing that a Trump administration and Mexico would secure the border together.

In a spirited bid for undecided American voters to see him anew, Mr. Trump swept into Mexico City to make overtures to a nation he has repeatedly denigrated, then flew to Phoenix to outline in his usual bullying tone his latest priorities on immigration.

No, he did not try to remake his image or shelve his plans. NO HE DID NOT.

or the NY Post editorial:

Pivoting on Immigration & Mexico: A Good Day for Trump

where was the pivot?

pacino wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Rachel Maddow's opening just now. So well said.

Just listened via podcast...very good stuff. Tied what is happening to the Know Nothing party. when a normal politics is weak, nativism tends to rise and take over.

jerseyhoya wrote:

That'll leave a mark.

Thank you for contacting me about the Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.
On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The White House's team asked if I would meet with Judge Merrick Garland, and I agreed to do so out of courtesy and respect for both the President and the judge.
I met with Judge Garland for over an hour. He is a pleasant man with impressive legal training and experience. But areas of Judge Garland's record give me particular pause.
Under our Constitution's system of checks and balances, federal courts play an essential role in limiting executive abuses of power. For example, in recent years, overreaches by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have cost Pennsylvanians thousands of jobs, shuttered coal plants across the Commonwealth, and dramatically raised costs for employers-all with little or no environmental gain. Fortunately, federal courts have blocked some of these illegal actions.
Judge Garland's record raises serious doubts that he would serve as an adequate, independent legal check on the EPA and other federal agencies.
Judge Garland has ruled on dozens of cases involving challenges to new EPA regulations. He sided with the EPA over 90 percent of the time. And one of the handful of times Garland ruled against the EPA, he ruled that the EPA was not regulating enough.
Indeed, Garland was the deciding vote to uphold the EPA's 2012 regulations of coal- and oil-fired power plants. The EPA predicted that the regulations would impose $9.6 billion in costs but yield only $4 to $6 million in benefits-a ratio of $2,400 to $1,600 in costs for every $1 of benefit. The EPA stated that costs were irrelevant-a conclusion Garland upheld. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Scalia, halted the EPA's rule. Had Judge Garland been on the Court instead of Justice Scalia, the EPA's rule would be in effect today
I am also concerned about Judge Garland's approach to cases concerning terrorist detainees. Judge Garland authored an opinion that resulted in the release of 17 detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The detainees were part of a group of violent Islamist extremists from China, a group the State Department has designated as terrorists. They were captured after fleeing an Afghanistan training camp funded by al Qaeda and the Taliban. Judge Garland overruled a military tribunal's unanimous finding that these detainees were enemy combatants. He second-guessed military intelligence, contrary to federal statute. And his conclusion-that military intelligence is unreliable unless its sources are revealed-left the military with the choice of either jeopardizing the safety of informants or releasing enemy combatants.
As a result of Garland's decision, the detainees were ordered to be released into the United States. Fortunately, another panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit halted this, and the detainees were instead released into other countries.
I tried to discuss these issues with Judge Garland, but he was often unresponsive-unwilling to discuss one of his own decisions, refusing to opine on historic Supreme Court precedents, and (like other nominees before him) unwilling to discuss issues that might come before the Court. In short, he did little to alleviate my concerns
The stakes are too high for any error: Not only is the balance of the Supreme Court at stake, but with it the futures of workers, farmers, and businesses across Pennsylvania. In sum, while Judge Garland is highly credentialed, areas of his legal thinking, particularly his deference to regulatory agencies and job-killing regulations and his approach to the War on Terror, deeply concern me. These concerns, in addition to my preference for giving the American people a voice in November about the long-term balance of the Court, lead me to oppose his nomination at this time.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

jerseyhoya wrote:

That'll leave a mark.

Werthless wrote:Are you aware of polling of folks with graduate/professional school education? I'd be curious how badly Trump is doing on the subset of the most educated.

drsmooth wrote:#tacotrucksoneverycorner is some kind of Tweeter popularity thing right now and yes, it DOES have to do with drumpf