President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[PaloAltoCougar]

This story reminds me of PAC talking about how much Austrians dislike SoM referenced.

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/li...tfVugHw4JXqeI/

This irritates me for several reasons, including the fact that I'd actually love to have that job, and I'm certain I'd do it better. I hope the guy shows up in Vienna wearing lederhosen and one of those hats with a big brush on it, singing Rodgers and Hammerstein tunes to ingratiate himself to the flummoxed locals.

And despite his 75 viewings of the movie, it's clear I know far more about the movie's shooting locations that he does--another reason why I should have been Trump's pick for the job. But it's just as well I was overlooked as I wouldn't want to spend everyday trying to explain or apologize for my boss.

[Moliere]

I'm going to be late for church now, but Twitter this morning has been excellent.

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CardiacCoug]

Interesting how I guess Sean Spicer has lost all credibility so now they trot out the dummy Stephen Miller for the morning shows.

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

[imanihonjin]

No, the title to the article is right. He was successful with implementing many of his New Deal programs, but many of them failed and/or were rejected by the courts. Either way, my post (and the article) are specifically referring to his court-stacking proposal. It failed.

Here is the critical point in all of this and is the reason that despite not packing the court, FDR won. From the article you linked earlier:

Never again would the court strike down a New Deal law.

The whole reason FDR wanted to pack the court was so that he could push is new deal programs through. His threat and intimidation tactics led to the Court caving and giving him what he wanted...he didn't need expand the court, he had already won and his winning dramatically changed the relationship of the governed and their government.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is the critical point in all of this and is the reason that despite not packing the court, FDR won. From the article you linked earlier:



The whole reason FDR wanted to pack the court was so that he could push is new deal programs through. His threat and intimidation tactics led to the Court caving and giving him what he wanted...he didn't need expand the court, he had already won and his winning dramatically changed the relationship of the governed and their government.

Yes, he got that part of his legislation passed. But he was not able to fundamentally change the Supreme Court in order to accomplish that. That is where he failed. I'm not sure why this difficult understand.

[imanihonjin]

Yes, he got that part of his legislation passed. But he was not able to fundamentally change the Supreme Court in order to accomplish that. That is where he failed. I'm not sure why this difficult understand.

His goal wasn't to fundamentally change the SC, his goal was to get the new deal legislation passed and the court packing was merely a means to that end. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. Also, what is the difference between adding more members to the SC and bullying them to giving you what you want?

[BlueK]

Interesting how I guess Sean Spicer has lost all credibility so now they trot out the dummy Stephen Miller for the morning shows.

The power of the president will not be questioned!

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wat...r-876012099646

[Jeff Lebowski]

His goal wasn't to fundamentally change the SC, his goal was to get the new deal legislation passed and the court packing was merely a means to that end. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. Also, what is the difference between adding more members to the SC and bullying them to giving you what you want?

You don't see any difference between getting some legislation passed and fundamentally altering the makeup of the court (number of justices, forced retirement, etc.) and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government? Really? I never once argued that FDR did not get some of his New Deal legislation passed. We are talking about a very specific piece of proposed legislation related to the court makeup that failed.

History disagrees with you.

http://content.time.com/time/special...085399,00.html

Ultimately, his proposed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill failed though, in large part because he failed to win over the American public, who viewed the court-packing proposal as an unprecedented overreach into the judicial branch.

[imanihonjin]

You don't see any difference between getting some legislation passed and fundamentally altering the makeup of the court (number of justices, forced retirement, etc.) and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government? Really? I never once argued that FDR did not get some of his New Deal legislation passed. We are talking about a very specific piece of proposed legislation related to the court makeup that failed.

History disagrees with you.

http://content.time.com/time/special...085399,00.html

Nuance isn't your friend. Keep focusing on the means.

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

Embedded Tweet

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Busy weekend down at the Mar-A-Lago.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maximus]

[YOUTUBE]xecEV4dSAXE[/YOUTUBE]