Posted on 05/31/2018 12:35:29 PM PDT by centurion316
hen, just weeks after taking office, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the supreme court, the newly minted US president made good on a central promise of his campaign: to replace the late justice Antonin Scalia with a bona fide conservative.
That moment foreshadowed what is shaping up to be among the most indelible of Trump’s triumphs – the reshaping of the federal judiciary with the appointment of dozens of judges with an ideological bent toward the administration’s agenda.
Republicans are working with Trump to make a record-breaking number of appointments to federal courts. These new, mostly young, white men will be in a position to rule on legislation that could change America for years. But the most contentious appointment would be a second nomination to the highest court in the land. The supreme court has over decades delivered landmark decisions on issues from abortion to affirmative action and same-sex marriage. The potential for Trump to install another justice on the nine-seat bench, some legal experts argue, could have profound consequences on issues ranging from women’s reproductive health to LGBT rights. With speculation mounting over the possible retirement of supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy, Trump could have a lasting impact on reshaping America’s most important court.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
“but still holding out hope they’ll get to say, “I told you so.””
how sad if true, because that means they WANT Trump to fail, which means they want our country to fail by lapsing into a fascist leftist fake republic.
Mattis said during his confirmation that he had no intention of reviewing the policy and apparently he meant it. Slow-walked Trump's transgender ban as well.
It seems to me that the military is not moving in the right direction, not even stagnating, but hurtling in the wrong direction as if Obama had never left. I'm afraid that none of this stuff is going to be put back in the bottle. I don't believe Trump understands or particularly cares about these issues, he just throws money at the military to build "big beautiful ships" and calls it a day. He's leaving it to Mattis, who has utterly betrayed us, along with all th Obama brass who are still kicking around. A year and a half is enough time to see movement on this SJW BS strangling thr military, if movement was ever going to happen.
The military is getting money, yes. Beautiful new tanks and planes, with girls, trannies and communists to fly them. Standards are dropping, not improving, and our troops are being bombarded wuth social justice crap as if Hillary had won or Obama never left.
Trump’s going to leave his mark...
Liberals might never recover... at least that’s my prayer...
Dang
I really hate hearing that ...
I’m an unofficial Pen Pal with a couple of Congress Critters ... time to break out the quill n ink
Mears:
Listen to Windy... he’s a fellow Dawg Soldier and knows of what he speaks!!! :^)
Windy:
WOOF!
There has already been progress in stopping the politically correct crap. It will continue as long as Trump is Commander-in-Chief.
WOOF back atcha, brother!
I don’t get it either. You’re right about the implications.
Exactly right.
De nada, amigo.
Capiche, sahib...................
Lol!
My thoughts exactly but articulated much more effectively.
“Wise Latrina.” I knew the responses here would be a gold mine.
Working in ER has the benefit of fairly rapid patient turnover so that the personnel don’t have a lot of time to dwell on things.
It would be great to get new Supreme Court justices who will not stray from the Constitution. Ginsberg is being pumped full of formaldehyde to keep going and I’m not confident McConnell will be of much help.
“Trump will not effect a recovery like Reagan did. Trump is winning a pragmatic populist rearguard action. As welcome as it is the electorate is not being won over to principles of freedom and less government.”
I’ve been pondering this question of what Trump’s legacy might be - but I’m coming to a more optimistic conclusion:
I think when we discount Trump as merely ‘pragmatic’ or ‘populist’, and therefore not ‘principled’, like Ronald Reagan, we forget that limited government conservatism is based on pragmatism.
Pragmatists insist on retaining the right and means to defend themselves, while idealists give up that right when they can see no immediate threat.
Pragmatists insist on retaining the right and to enter into transactions (or not), as they see fit, while idealists trade away that right for the fools gold of collectivism, as if some committee of ruling class experts can direct capital to its best use better than the marketplace.
Pragmatists respect the rights of individuals because they see that if they coerce their neighbor with a multitude of laws, those same laws can be used by the neighbor to coerce them in return. Idealists do not respect the rights of individuals because they are not PRAGMATIC enough to weigh the consequences.
If Trump is as pragmatic as I think he is, he will seek to limit the power and scope of the federal government per the constitution.
The Founding Fathers were the ultimate pragmatists, and if Trump is populist enough to make pragmatism popular again, that would be a huge sea change indeed.
Imagine it being popular again for people to be pragmatic about life - pragmatic enough to defend themselves, - pragmatic enough to prevent obvious sexual deviants from sharing public bathrooms with small children. - pragmatic enough to fight for their liberty. - pragmatic enough not to enter into transactions or associations unless they see fit - including employment - and under prices an terms acceptable to both parties. To the pragmatist, liberty is fundenental - to the Leftist, liberty is a threat - and so is pragmatism.
Trump does not articulate conservative principles the way Reagan did, but he sees the damage being done by this oversized monster state we call the federal government. He may turn out to be a far more powerful force for the conservative movement than any of us dared hope.
Services recommended that combat arms should stay all male, ignored. Services recommended that if girls are going to serve in combat arms, they ought to be subject to Selective Service as well. Congress hemmed, hawed, grandstanded, and ignored. Now the Army has 500 girls in combat arms last I saw, and the Marine Corps something less than that.
I was given a tour of the USCG cutter Seneca last year...I would estimate that close to half the crew was female. I saw an article in Stars and Stripes or one of the service magazines earlier this year (shortly before the Corps removed pass/fail from the Infantry Officer Course IIRC) titled "where are all the female marines?" complaining that there are no girls in recon, snipers, and some other specialized Marine combat roles. Quotas are needed, the article said, to make it "fair". They want combat arms to look like what I saw on the Seneca, and they'll get it. Girls can't throw grenades? simple, remove grenades from Army Basic! Ain't it grand.
Caveat that I'm a civilian who prays that he's wrong on this, but I take a particular interest in this subject and nothing I've seen, read, or researched indicates anything other than Obama's policies continuing full steam ahead.
WoofWoof!
Arrooooo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.