The Democrats are delusional if they think they are going to take back both houses easily, especially with the current crop of candidates. The Senate looks most plausible but the House is definitely an uphill battle. It's a numbers game in gerrymandered districts. It is easier to win an open seat as opposed to oust an incumbent but still.

Voters across the U.S. tend to think their representative is the good guy/gal, and it's the other voters in the other states that should vote out incumbents.

Take for example the "Dingell" seat from Michigan in the House of Representatives. The seat has been held by a member of the same family for 84 years. John Dingell, Sr served from 1933-1955. His son won a special election to succeed him. John Dingell, Jr served from 1955-2015 and retired as the longest-serving member of Congress in history. His wife, Debbie Dingell, won a special election to replace him and has been serving since 2015. The voters of Michigan seem to really like this family.

The longest-serving current member of Congress Thad Cochran (age 80) of Mississippi, who has been in office for 45 years.

I think the Democrats have a better chance of taking the House than the Senate. All House seats are up for grabs, and mid-terms have traditional gone against sitting Presidents. The Senate, on the other hand, has a better chance of staying Republicans, because 24 Democrats seats are up for re-election against only 8 Republican seats.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all a WIN-WIN-WIN situation anyway, with Uncle Mike Pence.

@realDonaldTrump
In new Quinnipiac Poll, 66% of people feel the economy is “Excellent or Good.” That is the highest number ever recorded by this poll.

A perfect example of what 22 Yards was talking about. Bit of an obscure poll, but anyway from the same polling...:

- American voters give Trump a negative 36 - 59 percent job approval rating
- 63 - 34 percent that he is not honest
- 59 - 39 percent that he does not have good leadership skills;
- 59 - 38 percent, that he does not care about average Americans;
- 65 - 32 percent that he does not share their values.
- 49 percent of voters say former President Barack Obama is more responsible for the state of the economy, while 40 percent say Trump is more responsible.
- Only 24 percent of voters say Trump policies are helping their personal financial situation, while 26 percent say his policies are hurting them and 47 percent say his policies are not making a difference

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=2511

Strange Trump didn't tweet these other results.

There you go.

I wonder how Trump would know whether 66 was a high number or not. I doubt he would be able to recite natural numbers in progression without using his fingers and toes, and he doesn't have 66 of those.

...he might have 66% of a brain.

So your are saying the Conservatives, just like the Muslims, do not want to modernise their law book
Of course, the US Constitution was only written a quarter Millennium ago so it is practically modern.

You really think it is that much?

Good job Obama

Maybe I was mixing him up with a Turnip...

You are getting closer to asking more relevant questions, Marton. It is almost like you are getting more intelligent, kind of. You ought to be grateful I have patience with you.

It is not up to the Judiciary branch to define laws. They merely make judgment based on interpretation of laws.

Neither does the US President make laws. They only implement and executes laws.

Congress is responsible for creating and defining laws.

We call this "checks and balances".

Can we all just take a moment to appreciate how utterly wanky this thread has become?

Wrong, wrong, and somewhat correct.

The judiciary interprets laws and thereby defines the way the law is implemented -- often substantially changing what many believe to be the original intent of the law by doing so (think, 2nd amendment).

The president has the right to create (flimsy) laws by Executive Order. The only other "implementation" of laws that he carries out is his signing of laws presented to him by Congress.

Yes, Congress creates and attempts to define (subject to presidential acceptance and Supreme Court interpretation) laws. But Congress is heavily influenced by the House and by the president (and by the myriad lobbyists that Trump has done nothing to evict from the swamp).

To be fair, do you really think it's the thread that's wanky?

Its an old video but an interesting analysis of Trumps speaking mannerisms and his simple use of language. I am quite sure that the simplification is not intentional, but rather because he is a simple minded individual.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong country, and you simply don't get it.

I was making a statement, not asking a question.

As 22yards posted; American courts follow the doctrine of stare decisis and defer to earlier cases on similar issues. Such cases are known as “precedents.”

Each judge, when deciding a matter before him or her, selects the prior cases on which to rely; no external authority designates precedents.
Under stare decisis, every case has the potential of being a precedent in some sense.

When a law is not clearly defined or poorly written or has gaps or does not cover a particular case then a judge makes a decision which sets a precedent that becomes the law since all future cases will follow that.

Right, a precedent of how a law was previously interpreted and applied. But the courts do not create laws.

I think this is key to understand what is going on in the US. If you can grasp this, you may actually find the whole thing less confusing for yourself and more interesting to observe.

In the news this morning !
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/10/news...ing/index.html

How do you spin my post into me claiming courts create laws which I never did claim, I am not the one who is confused

You were the one who posted liberal judges change law (see your quote) which you also posted is not possible.