Biden
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Monday, August 31, 2026 21:54
VIEWED: 53741
PAGE 54 of 90
Schumer Explicitly Points To Manchin As Cause Of ‘Frustration’ But Promises Floor Votes
In a new letter to Senate colleagues, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) fingered Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) as a cause of “deep discontent and frustration” but promised to at least force senators to vote on the record for both reconciliation and voting rights.
“Senators should be aware that the Senate will, in fact, consider the Build Back Better Act, very early in the new year so that every Member of this body has the opportunity to make their position known on the Senate floor, not just on television,” he wrote. “We are going to vote on a revised version of the House-passed Build Back Better Act – and we will keep voting on it until we get something done.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/schumer-explicitly-points-to-m
anchin-as-cause-of-frustration-but-promises-floor-votes/ar-AARZD5e?ocid=msedgntp
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Doesn't matter. 
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Coal miners' union urges Manchin to reconsider opposition to Biden plan
The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), which represents West Virginia coal miners, urged Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Monday to revisit his opposition to President Biden's Build Back Better plan.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/coal-miners-union-urges-manchi
n-to-reconsider-opposition-to-biden-plan/ar-AARZU1N?ocid=msedgntp
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed
T
Let Democrats Show Their Support for BBB Issues with a Vote
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Harris says Americans under the pressures of student loan debt 'are literally making decisions about whether they can have a family, whether they can buy a home'
"I think that we have to continue to do what we're doing and figure out how we can creatively relieve the pressure that students are feeling because of their student loan debt,"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-says-americans-under-th
e-pressures-of-student-loan-debt-are-literally-making-decisions-about-whether-they-can-have-a-family-whether-they-can-buy-a-home/ar-AAS9YGm?ocid=msedgntp
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just how much is Trump’s judiciary sabotaging the Biden presidency?
More than a year after Trump’s defeat, Biden is forced to share power with increasingly partisan judges.
No one has ever elected Matthew Kacsmaryk to anything.
Kacsmaryk, whom former President Donald Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2019, was previously a lawyer for a Christian right law firm. He once claimed being transgender is a “mental disorder” and that gay people are “disordered.” He’s also one of the most powerful immigration officials in the country, having successfully wrested control of much of America’s border policy away from the man Americans elected president in 2020.
With the Supreme Court’s blessing, Kacsmaryk ordered President Joe Biden’s administration to reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires many asylum seekers who arrive at the United States’ southern border to stay in Mexico while they await a hearing.
Even if you ignore the moral implications of reinstating such a policy, there are good reasons to doubt that the policy is a good use of America’s limited border security resources. And Kacsmaryk’s decision is also unlawful for numerous reasons.
One of the most important reasons is that it upends the balance of power between the president and unelected judges. Reinstating the Remain in Mexico program requires the Mexican government’s cooperation — which means that Kacsmaryk ordered the United States to change its diplomatic stance toward Mexico. And that’s despite decades of warnings from the Supreme Court that judges should be “particularly wary of impinging on the discretion of the Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign affairs.”
Kacsmaryk’s decision, and the Supreme Court’s decision to stand with Kacsmaryk against President Joe Biden, is one of the most dramatic examples of the Republican-controlled federal judiciary's many conflicts with America’s Democratic president. But it’s hardly an isolated incident.
More at https://www.vox.com/22820378/trump-biden-supreme-court-judiciary-sabot
age
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
40 federal judges confirmed in 2021; Biden nominates 2 more
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Thursday made two final nominations to the federal bench this year as he caps his first year in office with 40 judges confirmed, the most since Ronald Reagan was president.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-bill-clinton-race-and-ethnicity-v
oting-rights-district-of-columbia-80830dd1e0687173a0d3927952ed4a8b
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^
Terrible thing for America.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Supposedly, as this argument goes, the authority to direct foreign policy resides solely with the President.
With the Supreme Court’s blessing, Kacsmaryk ordered President Joe Biden’s administration to reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy ... Kacsmaryk’s decision is also unlawful for numerous reasons.
One of the most important reasons is that it upends the balance of power between the president and unelected judges. Reinstating the Remain in Mexico program requires the Mexican government’s cooperation — which means that Kacsmaryk ordered the United States to change its diplomatic stance toward Mexico ... despite decades of warnings from the Supreme Court that judges should be “particularly wary of impinging on the discretion of the Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign affairs.”
So why did multiple interest groups willfully involve the US courts in foreign policy and sue the Trump administration over its "remain in Mexico" (Migrant Protection Protocols) foreign policy?
And if the courts need to stay out of foreign affairs, WHY DID DEMOCRATS NOT COMPLAIN THEN about the courts usurping Presidential powers?
Quote:
https://ubaltlawreview.com/2020/06/05/the-migrant-protection-protocol-
why-the-trump-administrations-unprecedented-immigration-policy-does-not-protect-migrants-but-puts-them-in-danger/
In February 2019, the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies sued the Trump Administration (the Administration) on behalf of “11 individual asylum seekers and organizational plaintiffs.”
The recent ruling by the Supreme Cort has been in the works for literally years - since 2019 - when the US court system was brought in by the filing of several lawsuits. This is not a sudden, unexpected, unforeseen, Supreme Court intrusion.
And complaining about court involvement NOW, after willingly bringing the courts into foreign policy 2 years ago, is beyond hypocrisy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME