Zik

What would a non-establishment Democrat do differently?

Senators represent their constituents. Only the people of Alaska voted for Murkowski. Her obligation is to them. The GOP senators that let down their constituents are the ones to blame here. She didn't.

I don't understand. Care to expound a little please.

I get what you're saying here and I agree. But to be fair, the Senate rules aren't binding like the constitution is. They can be changed at the will of the majority.

Well the other GOP senators didn't represent their states' interests as well as she did hers. That's on them.

The parliamentarian doesn't have a vote. The Senate is controlled by whoever is in the majority. They get to determine all the rules.

The majority makes the rules in the Senate. That means they can ignore any rule they make.

Senators represent their state. That's what this senator did.

4.8 million people in Texas voted against Trump in the last election. So a very small fraction of that number can make a huge showing at a protest march but it does not in any way signal that Texas is turning away from Trump.

Well I don't want to be right here. But there doesn't appear to be any way for Democrats to stop anything. So gauging their performance based on whether or not they stop GOP nominations seems like guaranteeing that they'll fail the test.

Raise the cost how? And how would that block the nomination?

The GOP doesn't need Democrat votes to confirm judges.

People know that Trump is corrupt. They voted for him anyway. Why do you think saying he's corrupt would change anything now? What's that optimism based on?

How do they do that while in the minority?

Assuming they had spines, how exactly would Democrats block the nomination?

Good point. Most voters in America voted for Trump. Any attempt to wash this fact away should be viewed with skepticism. You're absolutely right to be concerned that this is indicative of the direction that the American public is going.

But how will it be enforced?

I don't think there's much else that they can do though.

I'm not seeing anything in this text that supports the view that the US marshal isn't a department of the DOJ and doesn't ultimately report to the AG.

That's not what the law says though.

No, but that's irrelevant here. He doesn't have to. He just has to instruct his attorney general to tell the US Marshalls to not act to enforce any contempt charges. Game over.

The US Marshall office is under the control of the DOJ. The head of the DOJ is the attorney general. The attorney general can therefore direct the US Marshalls to not act to enforce a court order. The judiciary has no enforcement mechanism outside of cooperation from the executive branch.

That sign will probably not be there for long.

The law has a loophole that he used. It allows the president to stay the ban if in his discretion a deal can be made.

SCOTUS said that the law Congress passed complied with the constitution. SCOTUS didn't say that the president couldn't use the provision written into the law to delay the ban.

He's not defying the SC here. SCOTUS didn't order that TikTok be banned. They simply said they won't overturn the law.

Well the AG isn't going to go against him. That's all that matters.

Who? Any attempt to enforce a TikTok ban is political malpractice right now.

Your caption misleadingly implies that digital IDs will be required or accepted by cops for identity verification.

It's not meant to be a replacement for your physical id. It's not even a requirement. The opposition to this is way overblown.