republicans look terrible, boy are they going to regret this, as if the republican party has been taking great pains to not appear racially insensitive these days. as if they re very concerned as a party with how they re viewed by african-americans and other minorities and women. i mean, it s not an accident, right? this stuff is happening on purpose. these aren t dumb people. they re doing what they re doing deliberately. the president just nominated the whitest, malest cabinet since reagan. this was the bennetton tableau while the president signed his first abortion restrictions. senate republicans just introduced new legislation to cut in half legal immigration to this country. not illegal immigration, legal immigration, and they really did use an anti-abolitionist arcane senate rule to shut up a woman who was reading the words of martin luther king jr. s widow on the senate floor and last
whatsoever. but the previous company that occupied that site was his son. it was a company run by donald trump jr. when donald trump the president went in to bail out that failing company he did so because it was his son who was failing, now the state of south carolina has to decide if they believe what the president s company is saying if they believe president donald trump has no connection whatsoever to donald trump jr. who he bailed out when he bought this possibly polluted seven-acre falling down factory. so if the south carolina government decided to buy that argument that there s no connection whatsoever between donald trump and donald trump jr. they don even kn each other, just a coincidence then the taxpayers of that state would be on the hook for an environmental mess at that site. on the other hand, if the south carolina government decided they were not going to buy that argument then they have to say sorry, mr. president, you re on the hook to pay for any clean up here your
this was not, like, in the 1940s. the federal government sided with bob jones university on their race ban for dating by their students and even at the time in 1982 it was seen as a pretty radical thing for the federal government to be doing. there were people inside the reagan government, there were people inside, for example, reagan s solicitor general s office and the justice department who objected, who didn t want anything to do with defending the racial dating ban but the reagan administration took this radical line on it and took it all the way to the supreme court and when it got to the supreme court they got destroyed. the court ruled against the reagan administration and racist bob jones university by a vote of 8-1. anthony lieu lewis wrote in the york times the 8-1 decision was worse than an embarrassment for president reagan and his lawyers, it was a humiliation. how couldn t president be given such incompetent legal advice? how could lawyers for the u.s.
your company has to pay, mr. president, you had? that s a loutsy position to put these folks in south carolina in, these are mid-ranking government officials, people in charge of enforcing these state regulations, they re being asked to make a decision on the financial bottom line of the sitting president of 2 united states should we be doing this to people? we ve never done this to them before. but that s what we re doing now. last night south carolina made their call. they said no to the president. the state will not be granting his application to have the taxpayers on the hook for the environmental cleanup. they did not buy the president s argue. there s no relationship whatsoever between the president and his namesake son and that means the president s company will be responsible for any cleanup costs at that site instead of the taxpayers. now, we contacted the president s lawyer to ask for a reaction to-the-decision by the state of south carolina; we haven t heard anything back bu
supreme court nominee judge gorsuch. today a spokesperson for him confirmed something that had been claimed by senator dike blumenthal. senator blumenthal said he had a meeting with the judge and the judge in that meeting described the way president trump has attacked judges in cases against him, described those attacks as disheartening and demoralizing. that means the judge is putting some distance between himself and president trump. did anything like that happen in your meeting? what s your take on this? i asked judge gorsuch to publicly condemn donald trump s attacks on the judiciary. i said this president shows so little respect for an independent judiciary that the bar is higher and any nominee particularly by the supreme court to this president has to show independence. i said you have an obligation to publicly condemn the actions of president trump. he said, well i m disheartened by them. to whisper to a senator behind