DC Tom

It's not the court's job to worry about anyone's leverage over anyone else either way. The court's DACA decision was wrong on its face, for reasons having jack ***** to do with the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive.

Well...it's not Sumerian, Akkadian, or old Assyrian religion. And there's nothing recorded earlier than Sumerian. And Moloch is, in fact, early Phoenician - Caananite, actually. Which isn't traced back beyond the middle Akkadian period. You're saying the inheritors of the Classical Greco-Roman world - us - are fighting an occult power with its roots in early Phoenicia. Basically, we're fighting the fourth Punic War, and Carthago delenda est. And no one sacrificed chickens to Moloch. Moloch was the god of...wait for it...child sacrifice.

The DACA decision was *****. A president can't rescind a department memo from a previous administration? There was absolutely no legal basis for that decision. It was strictly "Rescinding DACA is not nice, and Trump is a racist." And ultimately, it's not the court's job to provide the president with leverage against Congress. It is their job to rule on the law...which delegates the authority to the president to make the decisions Trump is making. If the courts are going to judge that Trump shouldn't make those decisions, they should be ruling the law is unconstitutional, not Orange Man Bad.

Just this morning, a bunch of us were talking about whether or not we had to recite the incantations before or after sacrificing the goat to connect to our office wireless. We're sure as hell not Deep State Satanists. People make jokes. Particularly sarcastic ones. And Babylonians didn't believe in black magic or child sacrifice. That's more Cimmerrian or Phonecian (child sacrifice in Carthage is well documented - it's not a coincidence that the mythological "deep state occult" carries the same elements as Rome's greatest enemy.)

NOW public records rules matter? Not six years ago. But now they do? Just ***** off with your mendacious *****. You argued for six years that it didn't matter, so suck it.

The ruling is, however, an entirely accurate and appropriate reading of immigration law and Constitutional law. Immigration law is broken, it's not the courts' responsibility to fix it. You can't simultaneously support the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations and be against this ruling without being hypocritical.

Prolithic? Literally, for stones?

Good Lord, what a throw and what a catch.

The EEOC's more likely to fine her than support her lawsuit.

I was looking for the stories I originally read on this. A lot of them have disappeared.

When a Democrat gets back in to the White House, this rule is going to be drastically loosened for liberal media, and tightened for conservative media. President Beto will likely be able to ban Fox from the press pool completely, on their grounds that they're unprofessional and unfairly disruptive because their "fake news" breaks "established journalistic norms." If these rules stand up to the court challenge CNN will file tomorrow, arguing that these rules violate the First Amendment as an unfair restriction on the press...which they do, which any reasonable court should judge they do, which decision will amount to "The White House has no right or authority to moderate a press conference."

Ironically, this is objectively more of a violation of the freedom of the press than was taking Acosta's pass away. Good job, CNN.

It's the border fence at Border Field State Park in San Diego, without razor wire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Field_State_Park#/media/File:United_States_-_Mexico_Ocean_Border_Fence_(15838118610).jpg

Doesn't look like one I've ever been in... ...er, doesn't look like one I've ever seen.

"Toxic masculinity?" All three are less toxic and masculine than Hillary... (And I told you Beto's being groomed.)

They will when they get the same national coverage as Cortez.

Tuna is cat food.

A lot of junior Representatives do end up living out of their offices, in fact I get your joke...but it's not as much a joke as you'd think.

No. You read them and dismissed them with "but that's not the AG" *****, which distinction the Constitution doesn't make either. So ***** you and your buffet-style selective misinterpretation of the Constitution, you asshat.

I gave you precedents from 2010. Why hasn't he nominated anyone for confirmation by a lame-duck Senate? Because morons like you would say "He can't nominate anyone until the new Senate is in session!" You're not giving honest criticism. You're just running down a list of ignorant excuses. No, it's not. Appointing someone to an acting position has never before required Senate confirmation. This is entirely a made-up interpretation of the law that is no more than three weeks old. It only became "illegal" because you hate Trump.

That reporting is very inaccurate. Not completely wrong...but it's confusing many separate and unrelated issues with DACA and background checks. It's also not a crime...the law specifies that USCIS get information from the FBI. It doesn't say how, or to what level of detail. So if DHS says "do a 'lean and lite' check," it's legal.

The Appointments Clause gives Congress the right to delegate to the President "inferior" appointments, which Congress did with the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which allows the appointment of acting officials without Senate Confirmation.

Who gives a ***** how the talking points shift. He's trying to distract from the facs that he's 1) wrong, and 2) an !@#$. And you're falling for it. Don't be the MSNBC to his Trump.

It doesn't matter. ACTING appointments do not need approval.