Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Demonrat Party is making it unlikely that they'll ever win the White House again

I hate to disagree with your comment, but Trump lost a lot of support today by signing that bill. Now things look shaky if you ask me. I wouldn't doubt that after today, people start talking about forming a new conservative party and leaving the GOP. It's that serious.

Trump is not GOP or Democrat. He is independent. It would be foolish if people don't see where the problem lies. I become more disillusioned with Democrats every day.

We'll see how this develops over the next 2 years.

Trump did not run as an Independent, he ran as a Republican and therefore the leader of the party. That aside, Republicans in the House and Senate had no business putting this on his desk. It gave Democrats total control over border security which as we both know, they are not interested in. They are now in control of what the wall will be made of, how high, how much technology, where the walls are allowed to be built, and gave local governments the legal right to refuse those walls if so desired.

I hate to agree with Ann Coulter, but she hit the nail on the head with this one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

It's already been to Federal Court where it was ruled that the government (state) can limit the number of rounds in a mag within reason. Obviously less than 5 would be outside a reasonable amount. But 10 through 20 is within the legal definition of legal. It's been tried to get it to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has refused to hear it and the lower Federal Court Rulings have stood. The Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague because it's not their job. It's the lower courts and the States. The only reason Heller V DC was heard and ruled on was that DC has no State Government and it's up to the US Federal Government to operate like a state government. And Heller V wasn't nearly as far reaching as many in here believe it was. It just made it so that we have the right to have traditional handguns in our homes for home defense but the State or Local Government can regulate that part as long as they do it fairly.

So if you are waiting for the Supreme Court to change state laws, you have a long wait. The Supreme Court can only rule on existing laws, they cannot write new ones.

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.

Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

Look closely at the people holding the shields. Those aren't Border Patrol. That is Mexican Police. Looks to me like someone is presenting something out of context.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.

Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

Look closely at the people holding the shields. Those aren't Border Patrol. That is Mexican Police. Looks to me like someone is presenting something out of context.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

It's already been to Federal Court where it was ruled that the government (state) can limit the number of rounds in a mag within reason. Obviously less than 5 would be outside a reasonable amount. But 10 through 20 is within the legal definition of legal. It's been tried to get it to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has refused to hear it and the lower Federal Court Rulings have stood. The Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague because it's not their job. It's the lower courts and the States. The only reason Heller V DC was heard and ruled on was that DC has no State Government and it's up to the US Federal Government to operate like a state government. And Heller V wasn't nearly as far reaching as many in here believe it was. It just made it so that we have the right to have traditional handguns in our homes for home defense but the State or Local Government can regulate that part as long as they do it fairly.

So if you are waiting for the Supreme Court to change state laws, you have a long wait. The Supreme Court can only rule on existing laws, they cannot write new ones.

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

 

[BULLDOG]

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

The only purpose that medieval solution to an almost nonexistent 21st century problem could serve is to prevent your orange buffoon from being shown to be a fool yet again. Did you forget he said Mexico would pay for it?

 

[BULLDOG]

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

It's already been to Federal Court where it was ruled that the government (state) can limit the number of rounds in a mag within reason. Obviously less than 5 would be outside a reasonable amount. But 10 through 20 is within the legal definition of legal. It's been tried to get it to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has refused to hear it and the lower Federal Court Rulings have stood. The Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague because it's not their job. It's the lower courts and the States. The only reason Heller V DC was heard and ruled on was that DC has no State Government and it's up to the US Federal Government to operate like a state government. And Heller V wasn't nearly as far reaching as many in here believe it was. It just made it so that we have the right to have traditional handguns in our homes for home defense but the State or Local Government can regulate that part as long as they do it fairly.

So if you are waiting for the Supreme Court to change state laws, you have a long wait. The Supreme Court can only rule on existing laws, they cannot write new ones.

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

 

[Lakhota]

Chris Wallace: Previous Presidents’ National Emergencies Have Been ‘Real’

I agree.

 

[xband]

The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.

“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.

“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

Yesterday, Trump declared "National Emergency". The Wall will be built one way or the other. Trump gave The Wall to the Army Corps of Engineers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

It's already been to Federal Court where it was ruled that the government (state) can limit the number of rounds in a mag within reason. Obviously less than 5 would be outside a reasonable amount. But 10 through 20 is within the legal definition of legal. It's been tried to get it to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has refused to hear it and the lower Federal Court Rulings have stood. The Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague because it's not their job. It's the lower courts and the States. The only reason Heller V DC was heard and ruled on was that DC has no State Government and it's up to the US Federal Government to operate like a state government. And Heller V wasn't nearly as far reaching as many in here believe it was. It just made it so that we have the right to have traditional handguns in our homes for home defense but the State or Local Government can regulate that part as long as they do it fairly.

So if you are waiting for the Supreme Court to change state laws, you have a long wait. The Supreme Court can only rule on existing laws, they cannot write new ones.

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

The only purpose that medieval solution to an almost nonexistent 21st century problem could serve is to prevent your orange buffoon from being shown to be a fool yet again. Did you forget he said Mexico would pay for it?

That's a leftist hangup, not ours. We don't get brainwashed by our politicians and media like you on the left do. Do you know why they taught you to bring up who's paying for it? Because you have no argument against the wall because barriers work.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

 

[BULLDOG]

It's already been to Federal Court where it was ruled that the government (state) can limit the number of rounds in a mag within reason. Obviously less than 5 would be outside a reasonable amount. But 10 through 20 is within the legal definition of legal. It's been tried to get it to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has refused to hear it and the lower Federal Court Rulings have stood. The Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague because it's not their job. It's the lower courts and the States. The only reason Heller V DC was heard and ruled on was that DC has no State Government and it's up to the US Federal Government to operate like a state government. And Heller V wasn't nearly as far reaching as many in here believe it was. It just made it so that we have the right to have traditional handguns in our homes for home defense but the State or Local Government can regulate that part as long as they do it fairly.

So if you are waiting for the Supreme Court to change state laws, you have a long wait. The Supreme Court can only rule on existing laws, they cannot write new ones.

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?

Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

The only purpose that medieval solution to an almost nonexistent 21st century problem could serve is to prevent your orange buffoon from being shown to be a fool yet again. Did you forget he said Mexico would pay for it?

That's a leftist hangup, not ours. We don't get brainwashed by our politicians and media like you on the left do. Do you know why they taught you to bring up who's paying for it? Because you have no argument against the wall because barriers work.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

Mexico paying for it was his main campaign point. A medieval wall won't work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

The only purpose that medieval solution to an almost nonexistent 21st century problem could serve is to prevent your orange buffoon from being shown to be a fool yet again. Did you forget he said Mexico would pay for it?

That's a leftist hangup, not ours. We don't get brainwashed by our politicians and media like you on the left do. Do you know why they taught you to bring up who's paying for it? Because you have no argument against the wall because barriers work.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

Mexico paying for it was his main campaign point. A medieval wall won't work.

No, it was not his main campaign point. His main campaign point was that a wall will be built. Nobody cares how it's paid for. Again, you've been brainwashed by the left because you can't support your argument that the wall is not needed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?

Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.

Facts like what, that the FBI didn't tell the court their research was paid for by the DNC and Hillary? The fact that the FBI got a surveillance warrant to spy on a political foe? The fact that Comey told Lynch not to charge Hillary? Is NPR fact enough for you?

IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups

 

[22lcidw]

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?

Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.

All sides do not care anymore about other areas for safety. You are going to deserve to have to defend yourself for survival one day. And by your own selfishness.

 

[danielpalos]

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.

Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

It looks like a refugee problem. Why not upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.