monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

...is not going to win you a blue ribbon.

Earlier, you used the phrase "stream of consciousness" to describe what comes out of his mouth (or twitter fingers, I suppose). I'm not sure what you mean to suggest by that usage. We all type and speak (where words are previously composed) the same way. What bears attention is the content. "stream of consciousness" provides to valid or reasonable excuse for the content of Trump's thoughts.

Doom and gloom from you guys anytime someone tries to fix a broken system.

My conclusions are tentative but I like them.

Who's trying to fix a broken system, Baldimo?

Where's the plan to fix things?

All that's currently being proposed is to move faster on repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Are you on board with repealing the ACA without a replacement?

In a letter to the Office of Government Ethics, Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Elijah Cummings wrote that they had "extremely serious concerns" that Kellyanne Conway violated federal ethics rules when she appeared on Fox News on Thursday and explicitly endorsed Ivanka Trump's fashion line, which was dropped by Nordstrom after the retailer claimed the sales were slow.

"Conway's statements from the White House using her official title could appear to constitute an explicit endorsement, and advertisement for Ivanka Trump's personal business activities," the ranking members wrote.

The letter continued: "We request you review Conway's statements and act promptly based on the basis of your findings. We also ask you to report back to the committee with your recommendations for disciplinary action, if warranted."

Not to defend what they were saying, but they are pointing to Conway's use of airtime to promote Ivana's line of items. She would classify as a "friend" of Conway's and promoting her line of stuff would be a violation for Conway, not Ivanka or Melania, who benefits from the promotion. That's how I understand what they are implying.

A federal appeals court declined to reinstate the controversial immigration ban signed by U.S. President Donald Trump, delivering a blow to the White House and setting up a possible showdown in the nation’s highest court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ruled on Thursday that the nationwide halt to the ban issued by a lower court on Feb. 3 could remain in place, allowing refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim-majority nations to continue entering the U.S.

Mr. Trump now has two choices: ask the Supreme Court to intervene immediately, or wait for the case to return to the lower court for further proceedings.

Read more: Trump’s immigration ban: What we know so far, and how it affects Canadians

Read more: How do U.S. courts work? A map of the battlefield for Trump’s immigration ban

Read more: Trump’s immigration ban is blocked: Six things you need to know

The problem for Mr. Trump is that the fate of his ban now sits in the hands of judges – and his torrent of criticism makes them likely to show less deference, not more, to his decisions.

If the Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to intervene immediately, the court would hear the matter with its current complement of eight judges (the ninth seat has been empty for more than a year following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and a successful Republican effort to prevent former president Barack Obama from seating a replacement).

Mr. Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the empty seat and his confirmation process is in the early stages. As part of that process, Judge Gorsuch held meetings with several senators during which he distanced himself from Mr. Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. Judge Gorsuch called Mr. Trump’s remarks “demoralizing” and ”disheartening” in a meeting with a Democratic senator, an account confirmed by one of Judge Gorsuch’s advisers, according to the Washington Post.

As long as the Supreme Court has only eight members, it will represent a challenge for the Trump administration. Overturning the appeals court ruling issued on Thursday will require the agreement of five justices. But if the court were to split along liberal-conservative lines, the result would be a 4-4 tie, which would leave the appeals court judgment intact.

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the panel wrote. “Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.”

“We disagree,” they added.