I cannot believe someone complained that the new ballroom has a built-in bomb shelter.
Just how do you expect to shelter hundreds of guests on short notice?
I guess some people would complain for being hung with a new rope.
I can’t believe a formal ballroom hadn’t been built before this. The whole concept of putting up tents for large events at the f’ing White House is bizarre!!
And this is such a Trump way of doing things… paid for by donations, and unlikely he will ever use it officially himself unless they miraculously manage to knock it together before his term is up.
Meanwhile how is the world’s most expensive renovation going at the Fed?
IMO, the only judge that should be issuing opinions on the President’s actions, (or Congress’) is the chief justice of the SCOTUS. He (like the president) is the leader of that branch of government; just like the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader.
None of the Judicial Branch answers to the executives of the Executive Branch or to any individual Congressman. If the branches are co-equal, why should every pissant judge get to lord over the other two branches?
It’s about time for the executive and legislative branches to tell the pissant judges to “Bugger off. We’ll talk to the chief justice.”
Concur, to an extent. The system was designed to default to stopping the government from doing something to an individual if the was question of it’s Constitutionality. Hasn’t always worked that way, but that was the intent. SO a “pissant” judge ought to be able to block it. But you’re also %100 correct that the system can’t work if every Tom, Dick, and Harriet in a black robe can halt the internal workings of another branch at a whim. I’d say a reasonable compromise would be that the “pissant” judge can stop the action from impacting a specific individual, but in order to stop the “machinery” it ought to require the Supremes.
10 Comments
Better than the Brit version:
“it was the night of the King’s castration, and the King was giving a ball…..”
– WW II RAF humour
If you survived the Battle of Britain, you were allowed to poke fun at royalty.
I LOVE that name, TeTe’s . I’m gonna “Borrow” that one for a Test Drive. I support the Ballroom 100%. Needs be done
I cannot believe someone complained that the new ballroom has a built-in bomb shelter.
Just how do you expect to shelter hundreds of guests on short notice?
I guess some people would complain for being hung with a new rope.
Or soft cotton rope instead of hemp!
Zar Belk!
They should tell them it’s not a bomb shelter; it’s an “undocumented worker’s refuge”. They’ll donate money for that one.
I can’t believe a formal ballroom hadn’t been built before this. The whole concept of putting up tents for large events at the f’ing White House is bizarre!!
And this is such a Trump way of doing things… paid for by donations, and unlikely he will ever use it officially himself unless they miraculously manage to knock it together before his term is up.
Meanwhile how is the world’s most expensive renovation going at the Fed?
I thought the most expensive was at 24 Sussex ?
IMO, the only judge that should be issuing opinions on the President’s actions, (or Congress’) is the chief justice of the SCOTUS. He (like the president) is the leader of that branch of government; just like the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader.
None of the Judicial Branch answers to the executives of the Executive Branch or to any individual Congressman. If the branches are co-equal, why should every pissant judge get to lord over the other two branches?
It’s about time for the executive and legislative branches to tell the pissant judges to “Bugger off. We’ll talk to the chief justice.”
Concur, to an extent. The system was designed to default to stopping the government from doing something to an individual if the was question of it’s Constitutionality. Hasn’t always worked that way, but that was the intent. SO a “pissant” judge ought to be able to block it. But you’re also %100 correct that the system can’t work if every Tom, Dick, and Harriet in a black robe can halt the internal workings of another branch at a whim. I’d say a reasonable compromise would be that the “pissant” judge can stop the action from impacting a specific individual, but in order to stop the “machinery” it ought to require the Supremes.
Fetes for tetes…I like it!