TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:
Which law has Trump made via executive order?

I agree with the premise of your comment. My comment was regarding gullible people falling for the the slanted reporting that makes the executive orders Trump is signing worse than they are.

Here's the difference between Trump's orders and Obama's so far. Trump's are executive orders giving the executive branch orders and directives to follow the law. They counter/offset/resend the Obama executive orders that erroneously made or changed laws. Trump is leading from the oval office and Obama was legislating from the Oval office. There is a big difference.

I don't think there are near as many of those "gullible" people there used to be. Trust in the media is at a very low level according to polling.

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

First, the democrat leadership has been getting increasingly to the point they will do anything they can get away with. So I don't think Dems would hesitate one second if they really wanted their own SC pick approved, but couldn't get the votes. The proof of this is they already used the nuclear option for cabinet and less judge picks. So I really have no issue with Republicans doing this.

Second, Republicans are more inclined to approve SC picks even if they have opposing political views. Democrats seem to be voting 100% party line. The Senate was not intended to sit on SC nominations indefinitely.

Third, I think the current Senate rules about filibustering are silly. They want to filibuster without actually stepping up and talking. They could still do that if they really wanted to.