I didn't see that this was posted elsewhere, so if it was, just let me know and I'll self-delete.
Talking pundits on MJ...they started discussing one POSSIBLE thing the Dems could do.
They must take back the Senate & House.
They must win the next Presidential election.
THEN...they can enlarge the # of seats in the U. S. S.Ct.
THEN...they can appoint justices for those add'l seats.
Can they do that? The people discussing that seemed to think so.
It's a tall order, winning back both houses of Congress AND the Presidency. But if that can be done, they can "fix" the S.Ct. problem. Which those guys thought should probably be enlarged anyway. I missed the part where they mentioned why there was good reason to enlarge it, anyway.
The U S Constitution leaves it to CONGRESS to decide on the number of justices. The number SIX was decided by The Judiciary Act of 1789. 1789. Maybe it IS time to review that.
Light at the end of the tunnel
My father is 85 and a full-out Trumper. The EPA, the Muslims, the taxes...the works.
So there I am standing at the phone looking at the Caller ID, while the phone rings. I say to the phone, w/o picking it up, GO AWAY TRUMP LOVER! GO AWAY, TRUMPER!
Sadly, that's where I'm at. I can't bear to speak with a Trumper right now. Even a parent.
The only branch that was not in control of the Republicans and which checked Trump's actions.
With Kennedy gone, that ends. Even some circuits who try to check his illegal actions, their decisions will be automatically appealed to the USCT. A Trump-owned USCT.
Trump would then control all three branches of govt. So much for our checks & balances system. It couldn't work forever, I guess.
I know this has been posted before, but it's just so great, that I watched it again on Youtube, thought it was the best campaign ad I'd ever seen, so I wanted to post it again. She's going against the odds, a long time incumbent....but who knows? There's a blue wave, and she's extraordinary.
Women become progressively happier as they age, according to a health survey conducted in England. They have higher rates of poor mental health than men throughout much of their lives, until over the age of 85, when womens overall happiness increases and mens decreases.
With the exception of the elderly set, women were more likely than men to have poor mental health at nearly every age. Overall, 21 percent of women reported mental health problems, compared to 16 percent of men. The change that occurred over a lifetimeleading to less mental health concerns among womenwas likely due to the specific burden of responsibilities that women often carry, according to the dean of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Kate Lovett. Further, many women are widowed by then, which psychiatrists say may also be a factor.
Women are still more likely to bear the brunt of domestic and caring responsibilities, Lovett told the Times. As women age, that burden may lessen as they are no longer responsible for children and elderly parents.
LOL! Too funny.
Just FYI, if you want to know where the known immigrant children detention centers are. WaPo is also asking for information from anyone who knows of ones not on the map. (I know my state doesn't have any, per the Governor.)
I think this means to click on the link & retweet, which causes it to trend, the more people that do it.
Should Sens. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders become candidates, Merkley told the Times he would "not necessarily" stay out of the race.
In April, the Oregon senator said he was "keeping the options open," but his focus remained on 2018.
Merkley has been in the news as of late for his visit to an immigrant processing center on the southern border and for calling the President's latest executive order "handcuffs for all plan," a nickname referencing his worry that the order will land entire families in prison.
Hmmm. I'm unfamiliar with him, except for his recent appearances on tv regarding the immigrant children imprisonment thing.
I expect we'll see other names pop up as possible Presidential candidates that weren't on the radar before.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Federal authorities have subpoenaed the publisher of the National Enquirer for records related to its $150,000 payment to a former Playboy model for the rights to her story alleging an affair with Donald Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
Investigators are probing any potential efforts by Cohen to suppress damaging information about Trump during the presidential campaign, including whether he coordinated with American Media to pay McDougal and then not publish her account, other people familiar with the matter said.
Prosecutors are examining whether the payment violated campaign-finance or other laws, the people said. American Media hasnt been accused of wrongdoing, and the company has denied paying McDougal to suppress her story.
Ms. McDougal has said publicly that she had a nearly yearlong affair with Mr. Trump beginning in 2006. The tactic of paying for a story but not publishing it is known in the tabloid world as catch and kill, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.
Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/publisher-of-national-enquirer-subpoenaed-in-michael-cohen-probe-1529529151?mod=mktw
The article also says that if investigators find evidence that Mr. Cohen coordinated with American Media to buy Ms. McDougals story to protect Trumps campaign, prosecutors could bring charges against Cohen and/or the company, since that is providing "something of value" for the campaign.
Trump and the head of the company, Pecker (if you can believe that name) are long time friends. He was known by employees in the company as a FOP (Friend of Pecker). The employees called him that because they weren't allowed to turn in articles that painted Trump in a bad light...because he was a FOP.
There is speculation...Chuck Todd's afternoon show. John Meachum guest.
Bloomberg has made some big donation, and when asked if he runs for President (which he hasn't said he'd do but hasn't ruled it out, apparently), which party he'd run as? He said the Democratic Party.
I like him, to the extent I know him and his policies.
Independents and a lot of people from center left & center right would consider him, I'd guess. Not sure what other groups would. Is he pro-union? Pro-gay rights? Pro-fair pay for women? Does he want to keep Social Security and Medicare? I think he describes himself as socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Feb 10, 2007, 12:29 PM
Number of posts: 37,648