"This is the first president in history who has never had, at this point in his presidency, a civilian nominee approved either by unanimous consent or voice vote in the Senate," Thune said Thursday during an interview on the "Brian Kilmeade Show" on Fox News Radio.

Townhall.com @townhallcom
·
LOL — @SpeakerJohnson is OVER Jeffries' crap.

"Ronald Reagan said one time, 'No speech should be longer than 20 minutes.' Unlike the Democrat leader, I'm gonna honor my colleagues time and be a little more brief than that." 😂
0:20 / 0:20
1:55 PM · Jul 3, 2025. //

"My friends and colleagues, we are so blessed, we should not take it for granted. We live in the most free, the most successful, the most powerful, the most benevolent nation that has ever been on the face of the Earth. And there's a reason for that — the reason that we are the greatest nation is because we were built on the ultimate foundation. And the bold Declaration that my friend Hakeem Jeffries articulated earlier is true. We unite under that. The bold Declaration that we do hold these truths to be self-evident. What is a self-evident truth? It's something that's obvious. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — it does not say 'born equal,' it says 'created equal.' And...it is our creator that gives us our rights.

"See? The powerful thing about that is we're the first nation in the history of the world that acknowledged that our rights do not derive from government — they come from God himself. You see those words up there — that motto — it says 'In God We Trust,' right above the Speaker's rostrum. You know, a previous Congress put that there in the early sixties....Congress voted to put that there as a rebuke to the Soviets' worldview at the height of the Cold War. Why? Because communism, socialism, find their root in Marxism, and Marxism begins with the belief that there is no God. It's wrong."

"This Congress made a stand those many years ago, and we should do it again — we're different, we're distinct, we're exceptional, because we acknowledge that right there, our motto. It doesn't say 'In Government We Trust,' it says 'In God We Trust.' And we better remember that. He has blessed us with this grand experiment in self-governance now for almost two-and-a-half centuries, and by God's grace, we are working hard, and we are delivering on our promise to Make America Great Again.

‘When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.’. //

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared rogue lower courts’ universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order to be unlawful.

“[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

That said, the past few days have demonstrated how eager U.S. lawmakers are to abdicate their constitutional responsibilities entirely. House leaders — or, should I say, “leaders” — have reportedly welcomed the release of the “pocket rescission” paper, because it gave them a roadmap to lower federal spending without lawmakers having to vote on spending reductions. You know, the thing that taxpayers pay them to do.

The whole episode makes Nancy Pelosi’s “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” seem trivial by comparison. It also illustrates how Congress has transformed into an episode of The Simpsons, where lawmakers’ posture on reducing spending amounts to “Can’t Someone Else Do It?”

In that sense, the “pocket rescission” strategy would not only constitute a major change in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. It also would let lawmakers “off the hook” and absolve them for their role in creating an unsustainable federal budget — an absolution they do not deserve.

Where this goes is anyone's guess. The lawsuit by the Democrat Attorneys General seems a bizarre claim to entitlement. Likewise, the GAO opinion ignores the law it claims to enforce, as the Trump administration has not refused to spend the funds, but is reexamining how those funds are used. In a sane world, the Democrat lawsuit would fail for lack of standing, as no one is entitled to federal funds. Even though no one was found to have requisite standing to challenge the 2020 election results in court, we're seeing a new legal philosophy in play under President Trump where anyone has standing to challenge any act by the administration.

Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court will have to rule on the legality of the Impoundment Control Act. This was enacted by a hostile Democrat Congress against the efforts of a Watergate-damaged Richard Nixon to stop spending on stupid stuff to bring inflation under control (some of this should sound familiar). It was one of at least two pieces of legislation intended to make the president into a servile butler rather than the Chief Executive. The other piece is the, in my opinion, facially unconstitutional War Powers Act. There is a large amount of evidence that, previous to the Impoundment Control Act, presidents treated Congressional appropriations as a ceiling that could not be exceeded, rather than a mandatory number to be achieved. The former makes sense if the president controls the executive branch; the latter only makes sense if the president's only function is to do as he's ordered. As we're seeing with the struggle in Congress to cut spending, the only way to control the budget is for presidents to have the right to refuse to spend.

The administration is on course to bring all "independent" agencies under the control of the White House.

It will push the envelope until the impoundment issue reaches the Supreme Court, and I think it will win.

Rob Pyers @rpyers
·
The vote to repeal California's ban on gas-powered cars, however, was supported by 35 Democrats in the House (including 2 Democratic representatives from California), and 1 Democrat in the Senate.

Ashley Zavala @ZavalaA
·
California voters did not vote on CA’s 2035 ban on gas powered cars, neither did state lawmakers.

Gov. Newsom signed an executive order in 2020, then had his @AirResources set the rule.

When I asked about it, he said the rule had buy in from people all across the U.S.
Embedded video
10:51 PM · May 22, 2025

Thursday, the Senate voted to block a package of vehicle emissions regulations issued by California, including a highly controversial rule that would have banned the sale of gasoline-powered (aka real) cars by 2035. In the process, tears were shed, threats were issues, and knickers became tightly knotted by leftist Democrats out to cripple the US economy. //

Only a month before leaving office, the [Biden administration] approved a California regulation that banned the sale of new cars and trucks in California in 2035. This was a decision of earthshaking import. Given the size of its market, unilateral economic actions affect the entire country as businesses adjust their processes to accommodate California regulations. Making matters worse, 11 other states were in the process of enacting similar bans. All told, this would have reduced the market for new gasoline-powered automobiles in the US by 40%. This approval was an obviously malicious act by the outgoing EPA management. The EPA had been sitting on the approvals since 2022 but dumped this burning bag of ordure on the front porch of the Trump White House for political points.

The House teed up the action with a bipartisan vote of 246-164 to disapprove three EPA waivers granted to California: a "zero emissions" standard for trucks, a regulation that would have essentially banned heavy-duty off-road vehicles, and the 2035 ban on real cars and trucks.

When the resolution of disapproval arrived in the Senate, its fate was in question. The General Accounting Office had rendered a "legal opinion" (funny how that phrase has become synonymous with "anti-Trump mischief-making") that a mere waiver of an existing law did not rise to the level of being a regulation that the mere collective vote of Congress could override. In this assertion, the GAO was joined by the Senate parliamentarian. //

Neither the GAO nor the parliamentarian has binding authority over the will of the Senate, but what Republicans wanted to avoid was the appearance of steamrolling the parliamentarian. This is where the solid leadership of South Dakota's John Thune came into play in a clear contrast to the "failure theater" directed by Mitch McConnell whenever he was majority leader. //

Thune decided to go around the bureaucratic obstacle. “What I didn’t want to do was vote to overturn the parliamentarian," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), "and with help from a lot of experts the leader came up with an approach that avoids that outcome, and I’m glad.” //

What Thune did was get a ruling from the floor that the situation was not as cut and dried as the GAO and parliamentarian had claimed and that the waivers did, indeed, fall under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act. //

DaveM
8 hours ago
"[Schumer]: This Senate vote is illegal,"

Apparently we have more than a few Senators sworn to uphold the Constitution that have never bothered to read it.

Article II Section 5 Paragraph 2:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." //

Romeg
7 hours ago
After carefully scouring my copy of The Constitution of The United States of America I have to report that I was unable to find that article, clause, paragraph or amendment that grants California the power to regulate interstate commerce. Perhaps someone reading this can help me out. //

anon-hlc8 streiff
7 hours ago
Sometimes the problem is that whomever is prosecuting the case does not bring that point of law up in their briefing. If they do not bring up that states may not regulate or impede interstate commerce, the judge is not going to help them out. //

Romeg streiff
5 hours ago
I cannot avoid the conclusion that such rulings utterly negate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Wickard v Filburn went in the completely opposite direction making ALL commerce, in effect, Interstate Commerce and thus subject to congressional regulation. The ruling you cite along with past failures to challenge CA's high-handedness seem to be judicial nullification of at least certain aspects of that clause in the Constitution.

Donald Trump’s first term began with an unsuccessful attempt to repeal Obamacare. His second term could begin with a successful attempt to expand it.

That’s one possible outcome from a strategy Senate Republicans are attempting to use to pass their budget and spending blueprint. The wonky accounting maneuvers could make it easier to pass a permanent extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions, but they could also make it easier to pass a permanent extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies in the process.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed a complaint with the Senate ethics subcommittee over Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., asserting that he was fundraising off his marathon floor speech last week, which the watchdog says is a violation of the chamber's ethics rules.

In a letter dated Tuesday to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, chaired by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., FACT said several solicitations were sent before, during and after Booker's speech that directly linked "official actions with solicitations for campaign contributions."

The ethics rules draw a clear line between official government business and campaign activity, and it is important these rules are enforced to prevent Congress from simply becoming a venue for campaigning," FACT wrote in their announcement.

The fact is that if Senate Republicans stand by the parliamentarian’s ruling and allow her to determine what executive communications are and aren’t actually rules, they will be setting their own new precedent for the CRA; call it “the Whitehouse Rule” after Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., the senator who goaded GAO into action. Going forward, those opposed to CRA resolutions would be able to smother them in the crib with adverse GAO “observations” adjudicated by the parliamentarian, who will herself be mired in an endless morass of legalese about statutory construction and APA interpretation.

Furthermore, if the comptroller general is able to foil the White House’s energy agenda, Donald Trump will surely fire and replace him. Tenure protections have not stopped the president yet. When that legal storm subsides, does anybody really think a Trump comptroller’s “observations” will green light, say, Democrat CRA resolutions against the Department of Government Efficiency? The Whitehouse Rule would set a precedent even Democrats will regret — and perhaps a lot sooner than they think.

Much has been made about Congress outsourcing its legislative responsibilities — to the courts, the executive, and private parties. Senate Republicans shouldn’t continue this unfortunate trend by outsourcing their legislative prerogatives to the parliamentarian.

Maybe Luna genuinely does have strong convictions on being “pro-family” and ensuring parents are present in their children’s lives. But those convictions do not change the fact that being a member of Congress is not a part-time gig, and in no way should the House change its rules to accommodate members who fail to understand that.

What Luna clearly doesn’t comprehend in her push for proxy voting is that she’s a proxy tasked with voting on behalf of the people who elected her. It’s her sworn obligation to be there for House activities and act in accordance with her voters’ interests.

Like any individual who runs for public office, Luna took an oath to represent her constituents on a full-time basis. That means showing up for votes, committee hearings, and any other actions related to the obligations she agreed to.

If the congresswoman or other representatives want to be an active presence in raising their children, then they should abdicate their seats to people their voters can count on to represent them in Congress. They can’t have it both ways.

JHW252
7 hours ago
Has anyone noticed that no one in Congress from either side of the aisle has acknowledged that the oversight occurring by Musk and his team was the job they were elected to do ?
The entire Congress should be embarrassed and humiliated that their incompetence and malfeasance has cost the taxpayers millions.
Politicians have hides like rhinoceroses my father used to say. //

Sane & Logical
8 hours ago edited
I didn’t hear her going on about how bad it was for the Keystone Pipeline employees who lost their jobs. Or any other number of private sector employees who had lost jobs because of government shutting down coal and gas companies.
As far as I am concerned, government employees should not be paid more than the average private sector worker. And no lavish bonuses or benefits. They are supposed to be public servants.
Also need to get rid or all the lifetime pensions, perks, and benefits for members of congress and senators.

Steamfish Sane & Logical
8 hours ago
Nor did she shed a tear over military personnel and defense contractor employees who were sacked for refusing The Holy Vax.

In 1932, FDR decided he had better use for the seat and summarily fired Humphrey. Humphrey sued but died five months later. The executor of his estate pressed the suit to recoup five months' salary. This spat was destined to become a landmark Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), or just Humphrey's Executor. Mr. Humphrey's estate hit the jackpot.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled: //

This ruling let independent agencies do whatever they wished. As rulemaking became a big deal, an independent agency in the hands of political opponents of the president with the power to interpret statutes and make legally binding regulations could engage in sabotage of the president's agenda. //

Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
.
Earlier today I posted a Substack article arguing that the TROs being sought against the Trump Admin are, in many respects, great opportunities for the Admin to assert its Article II authority over the Admin. state and push back against encroachments by Congress and the lower…

SCOTUS has danced around the continuing vitality of the Humphrey's decision for many many years. The issue is now squarely before them. This is a fight worth having at this moment in time.

And the most important part about fights worth having is that you need someone who will fight them. And we do. //

Musicman
6 hours ago
Let's pray we finally have a Supreme Court that cares about the Constitution. There are three branches and only three branches. Either each "independent" board reports to the Executive, the Legislative or the Judicial. Those are the only choices. The notion of any kind of board with any kind of power could exist apart from the three branches is simply unconstitutional. Period.

all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. //

The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. //

If this order sticks, Trump has permanently and fundamentally changed the Executive Branch, as it has existed since 1935, in less than a month. //

bk
9 hours ago edited
Liberals: "Musk is unelected and therefore can't tell us what to do!"
Also libs: "How dare Trump interfere with tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats who have been telling us what to do for decades!"

Congress illegally spent at least $516 billion in 2024 on programs for which there was no authorization. Yes, billion, with a "b." A stunning report by the Congressional Budget Office underscores the reason for the legal assault upon President Trump's right to audit payments by the Treasury Department.

In a report titled "Expired and Expiring Authorizations of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024," the CBO observes: "Historically, House and Senate rules restrict lawmakers from considering an appropriation if it lacks a current authorization." Nevertheless, "CBO estimates that $516 billion was appropriated for 2024 for activities with expired authorizations, which the agency identified for each House and Senate authorizing committee and appropriations subcommittee." That $516 billion in illegal payments cover "1,264 authorizations of appropriations that expired before the beginning of fiscal year 2024 and 251 authorizations of appropriations that were set to expire by the end of fiscal year 2024." The legal authority for some of these payments expired 40 — that's not a typo — years ago. //

Making this all the more intriguing is that it would seem that the President could stop those payments without worrying about violating the Impoundment Control Act as they are not legal appropriations by Congress's rules.

I will guarantee you that when DOGE really digs into this, they are going to find other ongoing illegal payments on a Biblical scale.

Kennedy's Executive Order 10973 named the USAID. But read the first line carefully.

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 424) and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

This corresponds to a Congressional directive, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. That law required Kennedy to create a foreign aid organization to replace the hodgepodge then in existence. The law lists a wide range of international aid activities required by Congress and directs the president to put those functions under a single person.

The President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. Tne head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions, and may delegate authority to perform any such functions, including, if he shall so specify, the authority successively to redelegate any of such functions to any of his subordinates. //

Such designation and authorization shall be in writing, shall be published in the Federal Register, shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as the President may deem advisable, and shall be revocable at any time by the President in whole or in part. //

From the beginning, the USAID administrator has required Senate approval and has had a budget.

Because Congress created the agency, President Trump will either gut it and leave the remnant alive or set off a direct conflict with Congress, which he may or may not want.

Holy cow! We're talking eight figures in many cases. Now, the time scale runs from 1990 to 2024; we might note that the guy in second place, Raphael Warnock (D-GA), wasn't elected until 2021. So in three years, the reverend managed to rake in Big Pharma bucks to the tune of $14 million and change. He's in second place - and guess who's in first?

If you guessed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), the daffy old Boshevik from Vermont, you guessed right. The pharmaceutical companies and the organizations associated with them have been feeling the Bern to the tune of $23,193,451. "Medical Societies" are the biggest donor bribers; they're into Bernie for over half that amount, $12,749,883. When Sanders claims he hasn't taken any money from Big Pharma CEOs, we should notice that he's specifying CEOs because he's taking a lot of money from the medical societies that they doubtlessly belong to. //

The only thing Bernie gets right about what socialism claims to be is that, despite his massive net worth, he still looks and dresses like a flood victim.

I’m guessing it would take quite a lot to cross California Democrat Sen. Adam Schiff’s ethical line because in Donald Trump’s first term and in the subsequent corrupt J6 Committee, the long-necked Democrat proved that he was willing to do just about anything to “get Trump.” As fierce and nasty a partisan as you could find in The Swamp, Schiff was a leader of both impeachment trials against the 45th president—now the 47th president—and for years promised evidence of Russia collusion that he never produced.

We're still waiting, Adam.

He is so dishonest that the House censured him in 2023, making him only the 25th House lawmaker to face the punishment in U.S. history.

But evidently, Adam has found someone even more corrupt than himself: former (oh, I type that with such glee!) President Joe Biden, who has thrown out a slew of pardons in his waning days in office. Even Schiff was able to see that the pardons were not in the best interests of the country: //

He tries to claim that Biden’s J6 Committee pardons were “unnecessary” and “unwise” because he and fellow committee members, former Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) did such “important work.” But if it was so important, why did Trump become president on Monday despite your stunning conclusions, and why does Biden feel the need to give you a preemptive pardon? A classic Shakespeare quote comes to mind, Adam: You "doth protest too much, methinks." //

When one of the most ethically challenged people ever to cast a cloud over Congress says you've crossed a line, you've really, really crossed a line. //

It wasnt me
43 minutes ago
He doesn't have to accept the Pardon.

Submitted by another.
In the 1915 Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt". The Court also stated that accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt". //

Black Magic
8 minutes ago
“I continue to believe that the grant of pardons to a committee that undertook such important work to uphold the law was unnecessary, and because of the precedent it establishes, unwise,”

Buuuut......I'll take it.

In January 2023, Pelosi unloaded more than $1.5 million worth of stock in Google’s holding company, Alphabet, just one month before the Justice Department announced an antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant. Just a coincidence? Sure, let's call it that. //

Speaking of members of Congress, Pelosi is far from the Lone Ranger with respect to her stellar 2024 portfolio performance. In fact, her results were surpassed by multiple other lawmakers. (Pelosi came in ninth.) As Unusual Whales noted earlier in January, U.S. politicians have outperformed the mark every year since 2020. //

Rufus McGee
5 hours ago
Buying call options is arguably the least consistently successful trading strategy for any long-term portfolio, akin to trying to get rich playing the lottery. No way it's legit.

Brandon Morse @TheBrandonMorse
·
That time Chris Farley, impersonating Newt Gingrich, came to congress to swear Gingrich in as the Speaker of the House.

What a great time in entertainment/politics when we could all laugh together.

3:53 PM · Jan 8, 2025