How will Trump handle losing the election?

irresponsible to the Americans

Is your memory so short that you've forgotten how obstructive the Democrats have been in Congressional past times? The Republicans are hardly alone in believing their own **** doesn't stink.

Given the current balance in the SCOTUS and some useful recent decisions, I'm good with that (are the Republicans even looking at those recent decisions?).

I think they're banking on the court flipping again when there's more attrition among the Justices. If I recall correctly, the two oldest judges were appointed by Democrats.

They were already counting on it ... before Scalia died.

Thank you, I need a regular dose of common sense to keep me on a even keel lately.

Good god, man. Find me an earlier instance where any Dem at any time has said anything remotely close to what Chaffetz has said. You cannot get away with a glib claim of equivalence.

A fundamental objective of congressional oversight is to hold executive
officials accountable for the implementation of delegated authority. This
objective is especially important given the huge expansion of executive
influence in the modern era …. Clearly, given the role and scope of the
federal establishment, the importance of Congress’s review function
looms large in checking and monitoring the delegated authority that it
grants to federal departments and agencies.

During the Bush Administration, Congressional Democrats were vocal advocates
for fulfillment of this oversight responsibility. Leading up to the 2006 Congressional
midterm elections, Congressional Democrats decried what they viewed as the
Republican-led Majority’s “blind eye to the problems created in the executive branch.”7

Central to the House of Representatives’ oversight powers is the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (“Oversight Committee”). The Oversight Committee
is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and has the
authority to conduct oversight of virtually everything the federal government does.8

During the first six years of the Bush Administration, the Ranking Member of the
Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman, “established himself as the Democrats' chief pursuer of
purported wrongdoing within the Bush Administration” and became known as “the
Democrats’ Eliot Ness” for his barrage of reports on Executive Branch activities,
information requests from the Administration, and hearing requests to the Oversight
Committee’s Majority.

When the Democrats regained Congress in the 2006 elections, Rep. Waxman
became Chairman, and the Congressional obligation to conduct vigorous oversight of the
Executive Branch became a central priority of Congressional Democrats. In February
2007, Chairman Waxman told The New York Times that “There has been no cop on the
beat. And when there is no cop on the beat, criminals are more willing to engage in
crimes.”13 Without constant Congressional oversight, Chairman Waxman said, “the bad
actors feel they can get away with anything.”14
Following the 2006 elections, it was in noted in Time magazine that, “Come
January … the man that the liberal Nation magazine once called the "Eliot Ness of the
Democrats" can do even more, thanks to the two words that strike fear in the heart of
every government official: subpoena power. As the new chairman of the House
Government Reform Committee, Waxman will have free rein to investigate, as he puts it,
‘everything that the government is involved with.’”15 In an interview, Chairman
Waxman seemed to relish the power of the subpoena, asking “Do they want to litigate
this? If we’re doing our constitutional duty of oversight, how can they refuse to give us
information? If they withhold information and try to get away with it, I think it will be
very unfortunate for them.”