Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent public statement issued by Chief Justice John Roberts. While I am entirely sympathetic with the statement (which is also true) about the unfairness in referring to “Obama judges” ruling against the Trump Administration, the public rebuke only highlighted the glaring disconnect in Roberts’ defense of apolitical courts and his deafening silence over the conduct on his own Court.
Here is the column:
Chief Justice John Roberts’ public rebuke of President Donald Trump caught many by surprise, not the least of which was Trump himself. In his signature style, Trump immediately fired back with a series of tweets rejecting Roberts’ claim that there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” just federal judges trying “their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
Although I am highly sympathetic with the chief justice in responding to Trump, this is a case where Roberts would have been better to start with his own house in combating the politicalization of the courts. Moreover, despite accounts to the contrary, this is not the first time that Roberts has taken such a public position against a sitting president.
First and foremost, Trump long has been out of line in his unrelenting attacks on judges and the courts, including his favorite foil, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has a deeply troubling habit of attacking the motivations of judges who rule against him, including decisions such as the recent (and correct) ruling by District Court Judge Jon Tigar blocking his effort to unilaterally bar certain asylum claims in contradiction to federal law. He attacked one judge over his Mexican heritage, denounced another as a “so-called judge,” and treated any countervailing rulings as part of a campaign by “Obama judges.”
Roberts kept his silence for two years but reached a tipping point with Trump’s attacks on Judge Tigar. As the most senior figure in the judiciary, he understandably felt a need to speak on behalf of our federal judiciary.
Roberts’ public statement is rare, and there is a good reason for that. Justices need to speak through their opinions alone, not engage in public tit-for-tats with critics, in the interest of maintaining the integrity of their institution. Trump is not the first to attack the courts for perceived bias — or to pledge to change the courts through new nominees with more favorable views of the law. Yet, Trump is a politician, and Roberts is a jurist; a politician is valued by such public commentary, while a jurist is valued by its avoidance.
Ironically, Roberts played into Trump’s obvious strategy in creating the appearance of a fight between the courts and the president.
Given Trump’s irresponsible criticisms of individual judges, Roberts can be excused for taking this controversial step. However, his response would have had greater credibility if he showed the same principle in policing his own court. As I have repeatedly argued in columns, justices increasingly are making highly inappropriate, ideological statements in public without nary a growl from Roberts.
For example, in 2010, Justice Samuel Alito was shown at a State of the Union address, shaking his head and mouthing “Not true,” in response to President Barack Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits. Obama was out of line in his portrayal of the ruling — but he’s a politician. Some of us immediately denounced Alito’s conduct in breaking a longstanding tradition of justices remaining silent and neutral at such addresses. It was a serious violation of both protocol and principle. I wrote at the time that it was incumbent on Roberts, as head of the Supreme Court, to repudiate Alito’s conduct.
Instead, Roberts gave a public speech with a not-so-veiled criticism of Obama allowing the address to “denigrate to a political pep rally.” It was an early example of how Roberts’ own version of the “Rules of Order” seem to excuse the conduct of his colleagues while excoriating the conduct of others.
In reality, criticism of the judiciary by a politician — even a president — is far less harmful than political activities or commentary by members of the judiciary. Moreover, this is a problem not of the courts in general but of the Supreme Court. Lower court judges are closely monitored and disciplined for any violations of these rules dealing with political commentary or associations. However, the Supreme Court long has maintained that the rules of ethics do not apply to them and that they must be their own judges. The result is predictable and disheartening.
We have seen a rising number of these controversies over members of the court. While Roberts cannot remove or suspend a justice, he can use this position to reaffirm a bright-line rule of conduct — the same that applies to lower-court judges. Instead, his silence has reaffirmed a sense of utter impunity for members of the Supreme Court. Justice Alito has been criticized for attending political fundraisers, a red line that federal judges shouldn’t cross. Alito’s response to this objection on one occasion was, simply, “It’s not important.”
Roberts repeatedly has faced such questions over public commentary and has done nothing. For example, I was highly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia for his regular and inappropriate public speeches on contemporary issues as well as matters before the court. These speeches were often given to conservative groups.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been criticized for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups. Ginsburg is something of recidivist in abandoning the longstanding avoidance of political discussions in public — and liberals have lionized her for it, with the affectionate title of “The Notorious RBG.” Ginsburg has persisted, despite clear violations of judicial canons of ethics.
This year, she has continued unabated, seemingly unnoticed by Roberts. As in a 2017 speech, Ginsburg again held forth on the election and the unfair, sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton. She previously criticized Donald Trump and opposed his candidacy for the presidency; in addition to labeling him a “faker” and calling for him to turn over his tax returns, she criticized Republicans in Congress for impeding President Obama in his final year in office. She seemed to endorse the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland for the high court.
The response from Roberts? Utter silence.
Had Roberts shown vigilance in policing his own court, his criticism of President Trump would have had far greater ethical weight. Instead, while publicly criticizing both Obama and Trump for politicizing court decisions, Roberts looked the other way as his colleagues repeatedly ventured into political controversies.
As a result, Roberts’ otherwise principled objections to Trump’s remarks would seem to fulfill H.L. Mencken’s view that “a judge is a law student who grades his own papers.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“MANIFEST TENOR”
“courts of justice…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
The singular American failure has been that of the Supreme Court and judicial branch.
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Speaking of Judges..
JUDGE RULES CASE CAN PROCEED AGAINST TRUMP FOUNDATION
Over the Thanksgiving weekend a judge rejected arguments by Trump lawyers that a sitting president cannot be sued. This green-lights a case against the Trump Foundation by New York’s Attorney General. Said case accuses Trump of running a sham foundation that was little more than a ‘piggybank’ for paying Trump bills. Trump had used the foundation for blatantly political purposes days before the 2016 Iowa Caucus.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/418034-judge-rejects-trump-foundation-request-to-dismiss-lawsuit
What is the big deal? Since the Foundation is closed will there be a fine? This is political.
Maybe some of the donations were questionable (I don’t doubt there may have been or may not have been since that is the nature of these foundations even run by Democrats.), but I note no one says which ones. Maybe you don’t like his gift to the Police Athletic League or Central Iowa Shelter that isn’t even in NY. Loads of people legally donate to charitable organizations to be noticed so why don’t you tell us some specifics instead of the generalities you surround yourself with.
Professor….spot on. I would have also cited that Obama went to the Supreme Court to “have a chat” with the Justices. Hmmmm….think they were talking about Tom Brady? How Roberts plays into the silly commentary by a sitting president baffles me. It is obvious he possesses a childish naivete. Hey, BTW, I, the 58 yr old who asked you for advice on attending law school?…..I am thriving. Be well, Professor. Mark.
This situation is similar to the following post about the Saudis and the CIA.
The US does not have the rule of law. With only a few exceptions most judges have rolled over and voided the Constitution. What is wrong w/what Trump is saying is what he leaves out. He is no more honoring the constitution than the judiciary or the Congress. Ours is a govt. of lackeys. It is shameful and horrifying.
The oligarchy is making a systematic attempt to destroy the rule of law and our Constitution. Roberts and Trump are on that team. There is no more an Obama judge than a Trump judge. There is no more an Obama administration than a Trump administration. They are all lackeys of the powerful and this is what is destroying our nation. These are evil men creating evil times.
Jill
You are 100% right, but most of the customers here don’t realize there’s only one political party: The Property Party – which has two right wings aka Democrats and Republicans.
What is wrong with property whether it be real or intellectual?
I own property and I guarantee you, I have no power as far as this government is concerned. The problem is the globalist oligarchy.
Easy to define when one remembers the Court has taken zero steps to supervise and administer much the federal courts for which they are responsible. Thus those courts do what they want including one judge decisions that dictate to the entire nation.
“Trump long has been out of line in his unrelenting attacks on judges and the courts … He has a deeply troubling habit of attacking the motivations of judges who rule against him” A judge of Mexican heritage was then brought up by Professor Turley.
Was it absurd for Trump to claim bias of a judge based on ethnicity?
How did those feeling originate?
Doesn’t the elitist left not only use ethnicity in their choices but they insist on making ethnicity a factor in judicial appointments? That attitude of the left affirms that what Trump said was true.
If one chooses to promote ethnicity they shouldn’t then state that ethnicity or race doesn’t count. That is illogical.
.
Allan: “Was it absurd for Trump to claim bias of a judge based on ethnicity?”
Allan, that judge was born in Indiana, which was once considered the heart of America. That judge, by chance, was assigned the Trump University case; a class action suit by disgruntled students. Judge Curiel hadn’t even ruled on the case when Trump began attacking him. As a candidate for president, Trump referred to Curiel as “that Mexican judge”; implying that Hispanic Americans have no right to sit on the judiciary.
That case, by the way, revealed that Trump University was essentially a FRAUD! A settlement of $25 million was awarded to the plaintiffs. By then, however, Trump was president and creating so many controversies that the Trump U settlement barely made headlines.
But in his comment above, Allan implies that Judge Curiel was somehow a tool for the ‘elitist left’. And while there’s no intellectual basis for making such an assertion, it’s simply par for the course with Allan to draw such conclusions. Perhaps because he’s old and righteous, Allan feels at liberty to make these pronouncements
When you know the basis of Trump’s opinion come back and then talk. Right now you are talking out of ignorance. People are appointed to the bench for all sorts of political reasons. I’ll repeat my comment and you can reply directly to the question at hand. I know you have difficulty doing so but try anyhow.
“Doesn’t the elitist left not only use ethnicity in their choices but they insist on making ethnicity a factor in judicial appointments? That attitude of the left affirms that what Trump said was true.
If one chooses to promote ethnicity they shouldn’t then state that ethnicity or race doesn’t count. That is illogical.”
” Trump University …A settlement of $25 million”
Once again you provide a soundbite without knowing the underlyihg circumstances. I discussed that months ago with Enigma. The $25 Million settlement could be considered a win for Trump. (This settlement only occurred because of the timing not because any payment would be justified.)
I don’t know what type of disconnection with reality causes someone to claim a potential “victory” when $25 million is paid on a fraud claim. Allan: IT WAS FRAUD! How do you know payment wasn’t justified? Who would shell out $25 million as a nuisance?
“I don’t know what type of disconnection….”
You wouldn’t know because you don’t know the details surrounding the case or the settlement and you certainly don’t understand business. That is typical of you since all you spout are sound bites. Go read the history of the case and what happened to it before Trump ran for the Presidency. Then make your argument based on fact instead of your irrational rantings and fantasy.
From The New Yorker: “If anyone still has any doubt about the troubling nature of Donald Trump’s record, he or she should be obliged to read the affidavit of Ronald Schnackenberg, a former salesman for Trump University. Schnackenberg’s testimony was one of the documents unsealed by a judge in the class-action suit, which was brought in California by some of Trump University’s disgruntled former attendees.
Schnackenberg, who worked in Trump’s office at 40 Wall Street, testified that “while Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.” The affidavit concludes, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”
This is from one of his top salesmen.
The top salesman rendered an opinion. That is the salesman’s conclusion. What are the facts and what evidence did he have? He claims that the salesmen were upselling and some people didn’t have a lot of money. Did you ever buy a gym membership? What do they do? They try to sell the most complete package which is also the most expensive. Do they check your bank accounts to see if it is prudent for you to buy the most complete package? No. Do you end up having the body of a Charles Atlas? Go sue Gold’s Gym.
Did you ever buy a vacation package? Was the room as nice as the one on the brochure? Go sue them.
I think the first set of lawyers gave up on the case because it was a lousy case and they lost money. It was revived when Trump was running for President. The lawyers all connected with Democratics and perhaps even the judge took the case pro bono.
I’m not saying I like or approve of Trump University. I am not saying it was good or bad. I consider a lot of educational institutions scams or partial scams, but that doesn’t mean what they have done is actionable.
I await evidence and facts. Generally you have neither and go off half-cocked eventually shooting yourself in the foot so frequently that you act like a chicken without its head. Most have become used to your antics.
Once again Allan dismisses Trump wrongdoings with cynical false equivalencies.
Where is there a false equivalency when one is asking for fact and evidence?
You are using words like false equivalency that are too big for you.
The problem with your argument is that when you buy a gym membership, you’re getting something of value. The question is whether the supplementary services are worth anything. That’s not the case with educational services.
There was never a full airing of the factual case to be made. One contention which has been made which this fellow Schnackenberg’s testimony supports. And that is that the seminars weren’t run by real estate professionals, but by salesmen. The whole enterprise looks seedy, and there’s enough out there to put the burden of proof on ‘Trump University’s defenders.
Steven Sailer has written on how the presence of a vast network of public and philanthropic institutions devoted to education of various sorts tends to crowd out legitimate commercial providers. Commercial providers thus tend to be people whose business model is hunting for marks.
“One contention which has been made which this fellow Schnackenberg’s testimony supports. And that is that the seminars weren’t run by real estate professionals, but by salesmen. The whole enterprise looks seedy, and there’s enough out there to put the burden of proof on ‘Trump University’s defenders.”
DSS, I am not defending or criticizing Trump University. I am defending the law. Trump U. provided a contract and between the 4 corners they set out the responsibility of each party. You pay X and we give Y. A lot hinges on what Y is so the burden of proof is for the plaintiff to demonstrate that Y was not provided or there was a concerted effort by all to deceive and that is hard. Then the deception has to be tied to Trump U. and then to Trump himself who I think is mostly lending his name. The actual price is not an issue since we all remember pet rocks being sold for more than they were worth.
I have dealt in real estate and aside from the most common piece of advice as to what makes a good purchase, location, location and location, the other piece of advice is due dilligence to the property, the 4 corners of the contract and the legalities covering the land including liens and liabilities that run with the land. I would say that some of those people learned a lot about due dilligence.
I know that sounds a bit flip but it is true. Where has Anonymous provided any evidence that the university didn’t provide its duties according to the contract? She has none. Where is her proof of concerted fraud or collusion? She provided none. Where has she demonstrated that whatever the salesman she mentioned did was known or should have been known by the University? She didn’t. Where did she show a legal requirement of Trump to the University? She failed.
The “elitist left” is a misnomer. The only name that most right wingers mention is a billionaire.
Actually it can refer to multiple groups and includes academicians that have many degrees, live in ivory towers and frequently have little real world experience.
Once again, our president is rebuked for being clear-eyed and speaking the unvarnished truth! But more and more Americans are becoming tired of these mealy-mouthed invitations to close our eyes to what we’ve allowed our country to become. The Ninth Circuit has been an embarrassment for decades. As has RBG. Turley is right, Roberts better get his own house in order!
Deb: that lying, genital-grabbing fat slob with the orange pompadour is NOT OUR president. That thing is incapable of speaking the truth. If Roberts didn’t speak up to defend the judiciary, who would? Every single day, the slob proves he is not fit for office, and fomenting distrust of the entire judiciary is unpatriotic, untrue and just another symptom of his malignant narcissism. BTW: he’s just setting the stage for the legal battles he’s set to lose in the near future. Political statements of Justices that Turley criticizes do not compare on any level with attacking the integrity of the entire judiciary by false accusations of partisanship.
Haha. Excellent! We have a sighting of one of the dwindling 38%ers. How touching. How’s the weather out in B.F.E. flyover-nowheresville, “deb?”
this is to “but all the oldsters out here in toad swaller luvs them some day glo bozo” deb
I agree with Trump, and this guy, Kurt Schlichter:
—-
Call it an “aspirational lie,” the kind of lie that an establishment-type tells you that is manifestly, obviously, what-the-hell-are-you-kidding-me false, but he/she/xe tells it to you anyway because he/she/xe really really really wants it to be true and because he/she/xe does not want to admit that his/her/xir institution is broken. Take Justice John Souter Roberts’s astonishingly untrue statement from last week:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Every word of this is blatantly false, and the punctuation is pretty deceptive too. If you dished out such a dog’s breakfast of bogus clichés to one of those vaunted jurists he refers to during an oral argument, you’d have a bad day. And you should.
But the worst part is how transparently false it is, how indisputably and insultingly incorrect it is, how in-your-face-daring-you-to-not-burst-into-laughter wrong it is. Didn’t we just have a national mudwrestling match over a justice Donald Trump appointed? Was it because everyone was really concerned about Kegger Kavanaugh’s high school antics, or was it the fact that he would be a Trump judge? Are liberal weirdos offering Ruth Bader Ginsberg their ribs for transplantation because there is no such thing as a Clinton judge?
Everyone knows the truth. What’s the first thing every single client ever asks me when we get a new federal case in?
“Who appointed the judge?”
Duh. Because it does matter, more than anything else, and everyone knows it matters more than anything else. Wishing doesn’t make it not so. The judge’s political origin is the threshold factor in knowing how the case will likely go – not law, not evidence, but the preexisting political preferences of the guy in the robe. In every political case, you can know the result with about 90% certainty based on the judge. In routine, nonpolitical cases, it’s less but still a big factor. It just is. What, do you think it’s a coincidence that the leftists who are trying to replace voters like you with pliable foreign peasants file in San Francisco courthouses 500 miles from the border instead of in a Texas courthouse a hop skip and a jump away from the Rio Grande?
Sorry/not sorry if I’m too real for you. A quarter century in courtrooms gives you a perspective about judges that the goo goo gang doesn’t have (and, of course, my mother was one in the state courts – if you think I’m too real, try stepping to Judge Mom). See, human beings tend to act in accordance with their beliefs and – surprise! – that’s what judges do too. It doesn’t necessarily make them bad people. It just makes them people.
This is why the Founders, in their amazing wisdom, created a system where the people indirectly appoint the judiciary via their elected executive and representatives. Judges are still supposed to strive toward neutrality and adherence to the law, but human nature is what it is. At least when the judges represent the views of the people who appointed them, they indirectly reflect our views. That can be a feature, not a bug – but only when it does not extend to utterly ignoring the law, which it does today.
So, it’s just not true that judges are fungible. Who appointed them matters, period. But John Roberts and his establishment ilk want it to be true, so darn it, they’re going to keep saying it in the hope that someday it becomes true through sheer force of repetition.
Of course, this kind of comforting fib – obvious to everyone, even you lucky folks who don’t do courtroom stuff for a living – reinforces the widespread belief among Normal people that the establishment thinks we’re stupid. We’re not. We’re woke. As my new book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy, we’re not buying the grift anymore. We know the game is rigged, that it’s largely run for the benefit of the elite.
Roberts utters this utter nonsense because he places the stability and prestige of the institution he has been charged with managing above all else, which is exactly wrong and will have exactly the opposite effect that he intends in the long run. He’ll get plenty of kudos for doing it though. Suddenly, the New York Times and the Washington Post will love him. They’ll try training him with treats for being a good boy. I hope they fail but, sadly, conservative domestication has worked before. See Jeff Flake v. His Own Party and His Campaign Promises (Arizona 2016-2018).
The Fredocon geeks giddy at Justice Roberts’ ill-advised finger-wagging thought this would put Trump in his place. But Trump’s place is at the vanguard of the backlash against the baloney the elite keeps feeding us about its own alleged disinterested, competent stewardship of our institutions. Everyone sees that these Obama and Clinton judges are creating a special kind of law, Trump Law, where different standards apply because he is not one of the in-crowd, and because he represents the interests of the Normals, not the elite. Every other president has broad powers over immigration, but not the one we just elected. Why? Because the judges who so rule don’t like the way he is exercising his power.
That’s literally it. You parse away all the fluff and dross, and the rationale behind all these rulings is that Trump isn’t pursuing policies the judges personally approve of so his acts are somehow unconstitutional for reasons and because.
That’s not how things are supposed to work, but that’s how things do work today – and it’s indisputable that it correlates with who appointed the offending judges. That’s what John Roberts should be focusing one, the utter failure of his beloved institution to perform its duties at even the minimal standard of dedication to the principles it supposedly enshrines and from which it derives its deteriorating legitimacy.
Instead of speaking the painful the truth, Chief Justice Roberts chose to attack the one guy who was telling it like every single one of us know it is. Instead of calling on his robed solons to do the hard work of applying the law and not their personal policy preferences, Chief Justice Roberts compounded the problem that is undermining the judiciary.
Getting mad at Trump (and, by extension, the half of America that supports him) for pointing out that the judge has no robe is the most establishment thing ever. John Roberts thinks pushing pretty falsehoods is going to save his institution. He’s wrong. His aspirational lie and his sadly all-too-typical elite refusal to confront the bitter reality that his institution has utterly failed to do its job will do exponentially more damage to the judiciary than a million Donald Trumps ever could.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3708500/posts
——
I think that says it all.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Presidents don’t make court decisions. Judges make court decisions. The fact that the President appoints the Judge does not change the previous facts that the Judges decide cases and the President does not decide cases.
Great job of ignoring the article and contributing nothing of value to the conversation!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The article claimed that Roberts told an aspirational, yet blatant, lie when he said that we don’t have Obama Judges, Trump Judges, Bush Judges nor Clinton Judges. Roberts was not claiming that Presidents don’t appoint Judges. Roberts was claiming that Presidents don’t decide cases. Judges decide cases.
Now here’s a valuable contribution: Trump does not decide cases when Trump appoints Judges. Because The Judiciary is an independent branch of the federal government of the United States of America. Consequently, Roberts and Thomas are going to put the kibosh on Kavanaugh and Gorsuch when Andrew Miller’s appeal to Mueller’s subpoena makes its way to SCOTUS sometime around March of 2019 or sooner.
Now you go ignore that, Fake Schoolgirl.
https://goo.gl/images/tsi8Jc
That’s a laugh.
I might also suggest the following http status codes:
203 Non-Authoritative Information
402 Payment Required
Paul Kamenar vowed that he would take Andrew Miller’s appeal to Mueller’s subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court. No crystal ball. No pay wall. No appeal to authority, either.
If you want judges who aren’t affected by the politics of those who appointed them then you want what Jefferson coined as something “that never was and never will be.” It’s not as pronounced as the Kurt Schlichter article opines but it’s there nonetheless.
Funny, but I thought that that’s what you wanted–Judges that decide cases based on the facts and the law and not the politics of those who appoint them. Maybe that’s just what Turley wants. But I’m pretty sure that a great many supporters of Santa Trump fully expect Santa’s reindeer, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, to deliver for them everything they’ve always ever wanted for Christmas but were made to wait, instead, stretching back at least as far that “turncoat reindeer” Mr. Justice Blackmum and then some. Eh?
Well said, Squeek!
Thank you, Anon!!! I thought Kurt summed it up nicely!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Good find, Squeeky! Our nation began heading south on a day in 1973, when SCOTUS denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the most vulnerable among us, while, ever since, genuflecting to the rights of illegal aliens, whose numbers by now equal or surpass the number murdered in the womb, the blame for which belongs squarely on the shoulders of SCOTUS!
I wasn’t alive then, but I agree that abortion is pretty much nothing short of murder. My elders say that the country started its slide when JFK won the election, even though they were Democrats at the time. They said that he won because of all the wrong reasons, like being more photogenic than Nixon.
I don’t know much about JFK except that he was a man child player when it came to women.
One uncle says that the slide started when they allowed women to vote. I tend to agree with him. Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and I would gladly give up my right to vote, if it kept the majority of insane women from voting.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote”
Squeeky, I hate to disagree, but what is it that makes a woman’s vote disagreeable yet finds a man’s vote acceptable?
IMHO, women are much more stupid and emotional than men. And more money grubbing. That is just my life experience, and what I see. Perhaps it is a monthly flow of hormones? Who knows. But it is what I see. You might as well let millions of retards vote, and take them seriously, as women.
Do you think if women could not vote, that we would have had the Great Society? I don’t. Mean old men would have simply told the single mother whores to get married before having children, and when asked “Who gonna feed my babies?” would have answered, “You, you stupid b*tch! You had ’em!”
And as a result, we would not see a 77% illegitimate birth rate among blacks, 30% among whites, and 50%(?) among Hispanics. And all those ensuing problems.
And black men would not be called a far worse and demeaning term than n*gg*r, that is “baby daddy.”
IMHO.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – I was on a jury where a waymen voted guilty because she had not seen her husband in 3 days.
Squeaky there is advocacy for only property owners to vote which has logical arguments supporting the idea. In at least some of the colonies only property owners could vote. The assumption was that the man owned the property. If he died and the woman inherited the property then the woman had a right to vote. It was not based on gender. You can see a similar way of voting in homeowner associations where all those under the same roof and property title have one joint vote. If “women are much more stupid” then why use gender as the preferred method of determining who should vote and who shouldn’t. One could use IQ tests and do a better job of separating the low IQ folk from the level of IQ one deems necessary to adequately vote.
You are worried about how the “Great Society” has negatively impacted society. It has, but that is because a lot of people vote without a firm attachment to the consequences of their vote. A rememdy for that would be only permitting voters if they pay more taxes than they receive in benefits. That need not be gender related. It would also end the votes of those that produce children as a way of financing their lifestyles along with many of the men who do not pay child support sufficient so that government aid need not be necessary.
I don’t see gender as a cause of the problem. Correlation does not imply causality and if it did then should men suddenly vote wrongly one would have to suggest that only women get the vote.
Well, since your average single black woman has a net worth between $5 and $8, if the studies are correct, you would eliminate the ghettopotamii from voting. That alone would turn most blue states, red.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, I am not advocating any one idea rather providing ideas with a logical basis. I don’t think preventing women from voting satisfies logic unless one is determining the logic based on the results known beforehand.
Enigma carries the voting process one step further. He likes the idea of dead people voting, illegal aliens voting, and Democrats having multiple votes. It almost seems as if Enigma feels it is voter supression if black voters aren’t paid for their efforts at pulling a lever or should be paid for others to take their ballots and vote for them. If we took a few steps back and made absentee ballots a priviledge only for those with a substantial proven need along with strict ID control over voting over a 24 hour period would be sufficient to improve the voting process.
A fine point of distinction on your comment. I don’t think Enigma believes dead people should vote, BUT, you have to remember Enigma is not living in 2018. He lives in a perpetual 1940s or 1950s world, maybe even earlier. Therefore, the “dead people” are not really dead in his time period. They are still alive, and being chased by KKKer’s on horseback, and made to drink out of separate water fountains. So yeah, they should still vote!
Like Dr. Who said, time is all wibbly-wobbly. . .
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Great point and it makes sense where Enigma is concerned.
Everybody knows that Republicans can’t win an election without cheating. But there aren’t that many Republicans who are willing to admit as much out loud in public. And most of those blabbermouths are extreme Wing-Nuts who post comments here on the Turley blawg. Because Turley is so highly permissive that he actually allows a black man to post comments on his blawg. too–right alongside the drivel of little Miss O’ Fay.
Squeek, I’ve asked this of you before, and I’m forced to repeat myself: “What is wrong with you?”
jrd – Hillary apologists are making the same excuses for women who voted against Hillary as were made when women were trying to win the vote, “They voted like their husband told them.” Liberal women hate women. God, I only wish my wife would vote like I tell her. We cancel each other out. Have as long as we have been together.
Personally, I think you should have to pass the immigration citizenship knowledge test before every election. A grade of 60 would be fine. 🙂
I have this horrible affliction where I see things the way they are, not the way I wish they were. It is debilitating in a way because a lot of joy and enthusiasm disappears when you live in the Real World. But it is also exhilarating in a way, because you really know where you are, and who you are, and you can find joy in real things, like kittens, books, guitars, and shoes!
I think Scott Adams is right, that most people live inside the movies playing in their own heads (cognitive dissonance). Which, I try to avoid by simply looking at the facts in an issue.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, if you don’t think women should have the right to vote, then you have forfeited any residue of credibility regarding comments on this thread. Not that we thought you were anything more than a mindless metalhead. But this confirms our worst suspicions.
If women shouldn’t have the right to vote, then surely they shouldn’t be commenting on politics.
I question the opinion by Squeeky as well but that opinion doesn’t mean that Squeeky doesn’t have a lot to add. She does, far more than the Shill who adds almost nothing. Should such an opinion prevent her right to comment on this board. Of course not. Only a self centered idiot would say such a thing.
It is a free society, and you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I agree with Ann Coulter:
Ann Coulter had this to say to the New York Observer:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
“It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’”
Update – I just stumbled upon this quote, on the same subject:
I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting — and your Communists will back me up on this — is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”
— Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, I got news for you, no literate American defers to Ann Couter in serious discussion. Women like her hate themselves for being a woman. How pathetic can one get!
Would we respect any Black who said, “Blacks shouldn’t have the right to vote”..? Would we respect any Hispanic who said, “Hispanics shouldn’t have the right to vote”..? Of course not!! Any Black or Hispanic who uttered such nonsense would be thought of as childlike.
Again, it is YOUR opinion that no literate American blah blah blah. BUT, as usual, you offer no substantive argument of anything. Just the typical NPC, Orange Man Bad, FOXNews bad, Ann Coulter bad, ICE bad, etc. ad nauseum.
Typical shill spillage.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, I got news for you, no literate American defers to Ann Couter in serious discussion.
Darren needs to insert a feature which marks all of your posts with a ‘Dunning-Kruger Alert’ stamp.
false. I will prove.
you asserted NO literate American defers to Ann Coulter in serious discussion
a) i am literate
b) i am american
c) i defer to AC in Serious discussion
ergo by showing one instance your statement is false
Please make an assertion that is relevant well formed and well founded and then we have a “serious discussion”
If Peter were better read he still would not like her tone, conclusions or the way she presents herself but he would recognize that her data points were mostly accurate providing truth to what she says. Peter bases his arguments on ignorance of facts necessary to draw conclusions.
Mr Kurtz – #MeToo.
Here’s you an experiment. If you know any professional type women, that is lawyers, doctors, businesswomen, etc., ask them if they think they are like other women. You need to be casual about it, and just work it into the conversation elliptically.
I suspect that most will tell you that they are not like other women.
When you get these answers, then try something new for you. Try thinking about the answer, and why they would say that.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Peter Hill – have you seen the number of liberal women who think their conservative sisters vote only because of the way their husbands tell them? There is a hive-brain mentality about their rhetoric. Now, I would say those women do not deserve to vote because they cannot think for themselves (the liberal hive-brains) and therefore partially support Squeeky.
Squeeky is not the first woman to say that women should be denied the right to vote. There are at least a couple other outspoken female advocates for the anti-vote movement.
Great point! Hillary did imply that Republican women didn’t have enough sense to vote intelligently, didn’t she?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul, are you for real..???????
I can’t believe we’re having this discussion! Women have had the right to vote since 1920. But here we have a few Trumpers telling us that the last 100 years have been a mistake because women were allowed to corrupt our politics.
If Professor Turley actually reads these comments he must be shocked the nonsense put forth. It must be terribly discouraging.
Paul perhaps you’d be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia. There women do what they are told!
Women actually voted much earlier in N.J.
I can’t believe we’re having this discussion!
People like you argue in all seriousness that a state exercising its general police power to ban abortion is violating the federal constitution. People like you also argue that states with conventional matrimonial law are also violating the constitution. Others among your allies argue that the President as commander in chief has no authority to exclude head cases from the military if their particular form of lunacy is to imagine that they are women when they are not. Lots of discussions I cannot believe we have to have.
Look again, Tabby, I have NEVER advocated for TG’s in the military. I am under no obligation to defend anyone who does advocate.
Peter quit trying to use peer pressure to win an advantage. Nobody here is a tenth grader sitting in the lunchroom.
Many people think it’s wise to limit the franchise and many sane wise and well educated people think that today.
My opinions on subject don’t matter but my opinions are indeed very “Diverse” compared to your Peter. Isn’t Diversity our greatest strength? Or does that only apply to skin color rather than political opinions?
To the left diversity only counts with regard to identity politics and political correctness. There is no diversity of ideas. That is why leftists support groups like antifa because antifa can violently keep alternative ideas out of the community square.
Squeeky, giving up your vote to nullify 50 million insane women, yeah! Among women, you are not alone.
Patriotism, a Menace to Liberty
(Emma Goldman)
http://www.theamericandissident.org/essays/goldman_emma.html
And:
“The Curse of 1920”
http://www.thecurseof1920.com
I just ordered a copy of The Curse of 1920! Thanks for the tip!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And then there is “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrell, who defected from NOW when it began foisting lies upon the public, all eagerly swallowed by the mainstream media goons.
Squeeky – we will expect a book report. 😉
I will do my best! But the stack of unread books by my chair continues to grow. So many books, so little time!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Someone who calls herself Squeeky Fromm said, “Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and I would gladly give up my right to vote, if it kept the majority of insane women from voting.”
How about insane men? Men like this great guy?
https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/thomas-bruce/
Excerpts:
Thomas Bruce has been identified as the man who police say shot a woman in the head after attempting to sexually assault her at a Catholic Supply store in St. Louis County, Missouri. The 53-year-old suspect also forced two other women to strip naked at gunpoint and he sexually assaulted them during the brazen midday attack at the religious merchandise store, according to police.
The horror unfolded inside the store at 3:20 p.m. on November 19. The shooting victim, also 53, died later at a local hospital. Bruce fled from the scene before police arrived, authorities said.
Bruce wrote on his Facebook page that he attended Donald Trump’s November 6 rally in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. During that event, Trump campaigned for Republican candidates ahead of the mid-term elections alongside conservative personalities Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
Bruce wrote on his page that he bought a “Trump 2020” hat at the event. On the day of his arrest, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted a photo of officers investigating Bruce’s home in the Quail Run trailer park. That photo showed a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag flying outside.
Bruce also wrote on Facebook that he had worked at Election Day polls in St. Louis. It’s unclear if he was working during this year’s Election Day. He shared a video about alleged voter fraud in Texas and wrote, “So sad how things like this happen. Even when I was working the polls here in St Louis, I seen and reported…. but all they did was move me to another polling place.”
4. Bruce Is Accused of Holding the Store Up & Forcing 2 Woman to Perform ‘Deviant Sexual Acts on Him’ Before Shooting One of the Women Who Refused His Demands
Some of Squeeky’s friends:
https://www.propublica.org/article/an-atomwaffen-member-sketched-a-map-to-take-the-neo-nazis-down-what-path-officials-took-is-a-mystery
https://www.propublica.org/article/atomwaffen-division-hate-group-active-duty-military
What a horrible bad dude! Sounds like a future Democratic Party voter to me!
——
Voting Rights for Felons Becoming a Key Issue for Democrats
Florida remains the central battleground in the fight to restore voting rights for felons. The issue has been talked about for years by liberals and libertarians, but it’s gained new momentum lately and is close to becoming a default position for Democrats. It’s part of the party’s pushback against Republican voting measures, such as voter ID requirements, that Democrats believe are too restrictive or even suppressive.
“The policy of disenfranchising residents is unique among industrial countries. Other countries don’t eliminate voting rights for citizens, even if they’re incarcerated,” says Nicole D. Porter, director of advocacy for the Sentencing Project, a progressive criminal justice reform group.
http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-florida-felons-voting-rights-states.html
——
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Oh please it was already well on its way to difficulties when R V W came down. that was a result not a cause
Ah, another one of these weirdos. I regret to inform you that the bygone days when women were the chattel property of their nearest male relative are over, and aren’t coming back. (You sadly must know that “Handmaid’s Tale” is fiction?). Rather, women are now in control of their own lives–which includes their reproductive system. So, rather than hide behind the make-believe bodies of imaginary children, I suggest you take a shower, update your haircut, lose that belly, and get a better job if you want to interact with a real woman. So sorry for your loss and social life.
this is to “I’m not a loner, I just don’t mix well with others” vinegar
Half of America does not and has never supported Trump. He is President only because of a system that allows for votes to be weighted differently only because of the state in which one resides.
That is a comment that lacks true substance. The reason Trump is President is because the Constitution wished the States to hold onto more power than I believe they have today. The secondary reason is that Trump worked harder and smarter.
If you are not happy then you should try and pass a Constitutional Amendment. The founders did not envision California and New York telling Kansas what to do.
I am certain that you would prefer a system where millions of illegal immigrants could be granted amnesty, given the vote, and then keep the Democrats in power for the next few centuries.
But is that right, and moral??? To let foreigners decide our Presidency? Isuspect if millions of Russians snuck into the country, you would fell the same way.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Darn it! “fell” = “not feel”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Fromm quoted Coulter as saying, “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
Fromm previously said, “Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and I would gladly give up my right to vote, if it kept the majority of insane women from voting.”
Fromm subsequently said, “I am certain that you [Reality Check] would prefer a system where millions of illegal immigrants could be granted amnesty, given the vote, and then keep the Democrats in power for the next few centuries.”
Thusly did Fromm fling a false accusation against Reality Check for supposedly advocating just about anything to keep Democrats in power, even whilst Fromm avidly avows Coulter’s pipe dream of disenfranchising women so that we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. Evidently, Fromm thinks the Electoral College just isn’t cutting it anymore. Democrats are still getting elected president every now and then, anyhow. And Fromm is all about keeping Democrats out of power for as long as possible. What to do?
Maybe only male immigrants should be allowed to enter the country. Maybe all female immigrants should be turned away at the border. But how would Fromm keep the male immigrants from voting for Democrats? Well . . . If they come from a Catholic country . . . maybe they should be turned away at the border along with their wives, daughters, sisters and aged mothers. Unless they come from a White Catholic country. Then they can bring their wives, daughters, sisters and aged mothers with them, if, and only if, those White Catholic men promise to vote Republican and their White Catholic women are disenfranchised. How else might Fromm achieve Coulter’s pipe-dream of One-Party Republican Rule???
I think the nation’s Chief Justice should not only avoid political comments, but should also demand that members of his court do the same. As a nation, we have to get away from this continual response of, “Well, he did it; therefore, I can do it, too.” That is the type of response I would expect from a four-year-old child. But not from an adult.
I do not advocate for continual rebukes from the political class about the way others are acting, but I will say one thing about the idea of connecting a federal judge to the President who appoints them: The press does it all the time. There is too much conflation of who appoints a given judge to their current position and the views of the judge.
Oh, and one more thing: If the Supreme Court justices would read the law as written (as they are supposed to), then there would be many more 9-0 decisions, instead of all the split decisions and swing voters on the court.
Judge Not! Least you shall be judged.
If they name a hurricane “Ruth” and it is due to hit your coast– fly to the other coast as soon as possible.
If your last name is “Roberts” with an “s” at the end then your ancestors had their name changed at Ellis Island.
If Trump can Tweet then Roberts can Twitter.
Essentially Roberts held back and was timid in his response to the Donald.
ALL the judges should remember that ONLY the supreme court is in our constitution. ALL other Federal courts were created by and exist so long as Congress ALLOWS them to do so.
As for the 9th circuit court of appeals, I say Congress should move them to the most remote part of Idaho available. Or abolish them altogether.
The first status report on how well Paul Manafort has been cooperating is due today, November 26. It was postponed for ten days until the first Monday after Thanksgiving.
Arguments will be heard in the sealed appeal to a subpoena from Mueller’s grand jury on December 14th. Who could the mystery appellant be?
Mueller probably just caught Trump in a perjury trap. You won’t be reading about it for a while yet. But it’s almost certainly true.
Whatever Paul Manafort has been lying about to the OSC, those lies were probably served up to Trump and his lawyers through the Joint Defense Agreement with Manafort at the same time that Trump and his lawyers were answering Mueller’s written interrogatories. If Trump copied and pasted Manafort’s lies into Trump’s own written answers to Mueller’s questions, and since Mueller can prove that Manafort lied to the OSC, then Mueller would also be able to prove that Trump lied in his written answers to Mueller’s questions. Or not. IIRC, Manafort’s sentencing is scheduled for February of 2019. Something should shake loose by then.
https://goo.gl/images/tsi8Jc
Read it and weap, Gnash:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/mueller-paul-manafort-cooperation.html
I already read it, and I also read several other articles yesterday that reported on Manafort’s alleged lying to the Special Counsel.
I don’t know what Manafort had to offer, but whatever he gave them was deemed to be insufficient to maintain the plea deal/ cooperative relationship with Mueller.
Tom Nash – Manafort said long ago that he had nothing to offer.
And you believed him? Unquestioningly?
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I think Mueller should have listened to Manafort.
Read the status report. Mueller will submit a detailed sentencing memo on all of Manafort’s crimes and lies. Remember that the criminal information on Manafort’s plea deal included 38 pages of evidence. That means that Mueller can prove all of Manafort’s crimes and lies. And Whitaker can’t do anything to suppress Mueller’s sentencing memo on Manafort. Don’t be surprised if Mueller’s sentencing memo on Manafort presents Mueller’s case-in-chief against the Trump campaign. All of the malarkey about Whitaker suppressing Mueller’s report will be chucked overboard. And if Trump took any cues from Manafort while answering Mueller’s questions, then Trump has been royally screwed by Manafort. It’s so unfair.
PC Schulte,..
It looks like he may have told Mueller the same thing.😉
It’d be interesting to see transcripts of the c.dozen meetings that the Special Counsel prosecutors had with Manafort after the plea/ cooperation deal in September.
Paragraph 3 from Mueller’s Status Report on Manafort:
After signing the plea agreement, Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement. The government will file a detailed sentencing submission to the Probation Department and the Court in advance of sentencing that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement herein.
As the defendant has breached the plea agreement, there is no reason to delay his sentencing herein.
Repeated for emphasis:
The government will file a detailed sentencing submission to the Probation Department and the Court in advance of sentencing that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement herein.
[end excerpt]
The second sentence that was repeated for emphasis above can be loosely translated as stating, “Mr. Mueller’s gonna fix Manafort’s clock.”
Excerpted from the article linked above:
In his most recent criticism of the special counsel, Mr. Trump has suggested that prosecutors are frustrated because they cannot produce any evidence against his campaign. “The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess,” he wrote on Twitter recently. “They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want,” he declared. “They are a disgrace to our Nation and don’t care how many lives they ruin.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers responded last week to questions Mr. Mueller had for the president about ties between his campaign and Russia. Among the questions were inquiries about what Mr. Trump knew about Russian offers to Mr. Manafort during the campaign to assist Mr. Trump’s presidential run. The president’s lawyers have declined to discuss what he told Mr. Mueller, and it is not clear whether any of his answers conflicted with what Mr. Manafort told investigators.
[end excerpt]
Put two and two together, Ptom. Either Trump’s information about the “inner-workings of the Mueller investigation” came from Manafort or it came from Dr. Jerome Corsi. Or both. But not neither. If Trump’s knowledge of “the inner-workings of the Mueller investigation” came from Manafort, then Trump may have given written answers to Mueller’s questions based on lies that Manafort shared with Trump.
It’s not known what Manafort told Mueller during the sessions ( since September) they had after Manafort agreed to cooperate.
Also unknown are the Mueller questions, and the answers that Trump submitted.
When I do put “two and two together”, I get four; I don’t know what number L4D comes up with.
If I see a set of “unknowns”, like the ones that I mentioned above, then the result is ?+?=?
Repeated for emphasis from the article linked above:
Among the questions were inquiries about what Mr. Trump knew about Russian offers to Mr. Manafort during the campaign to assist Mr. Trump’s presidential run.
[end excerpt]
There’s just one example of a question that Trump and Manafort may have answered the same way. Or, if you prefer, maybe Trump answered it one way and Manafort answered it the opposite of the way Trump answered the question. If Manafort’s answer is a lie that Mueller can prove to be a lie, and if Trump answered it the same way Manafort did, then Trump may have been led into a perjury trap by his own Joint Defense Agreement with Manafort. Or not.
If you’ll recall, Turley was non-plussed by Trump’s claim that he answered Mueller’s questions easily and that it didn’t take very long. Uh-oh! Spaghetti-Os!
I won’t try to go over all of the possible “ifs” relating to statements/ answers given by Manafort or Trump.
If Mueller can prove that Trump fell into a “perjury trap”…either in Trump’s answers to the written questions or otherwise….then of course he’ll go after Trump on that.
All of these “ifs” about what Manafort may have said, or what Trump may have said/written that was different or the same as what Manafort said, are speculative clutter.
As is L4D’s conclusion that Trump must have receved information from Manafort and/or Corsi about “the internal workings” of the Special Counsel being “a mess”.
Trump has ratcheted up the criticism of the Mueller investigation over the past several months.
He’s used the words “witch hunt” over 100 times in those tweet criticisms.
If Trump “had to get” his info about the inner workings of the Special Counsel, did he also have to hear from witches to make the “witch hunt” claim?
Admittedly, it is not impossible for Trump to be lying about the inner workings of the Mueller investigation. I’m not sure what comfort you hope to derive from that hypothesis. If the inner workings of the Mueller investigation are not a disgrace to our nation the way Trump claims they are, then maybe, just maybe, Trump has been lying about the “witch hunt” claim the whole way through, as well. What do you think? Guess at it! Your own thoughts, that is. Go ahead on and just take a flying guess at your own thoughts. It won’t cost you anything to guess wrong. I promise. Ha-Ha!
I think that the “witch hunt” claim is somewhat exaggerated.
Looks more like a fishing expedition to me.
If Mueller has presented, and will present, “all of the evidence of Manafort’s crimes and lies”, then we’ll see what he presents.
If he had a case against Manafort involving illegal election activities tied to Russia, I think that Mueller would have presented it by now.
The numerous grand jury indictments to date are for Manafort’s tax/ money laundering issues, not for illegal conduct related to the 2016 campaign.
Finally, if Trump is literally correct that Mueller’s conducting a witch hunt, you may want to be careful about your enthusiastic support for Mueller.😊😂
Gnash says Trump is a fish–not a witch.
Ptom also argues for the umpteenth time already that because Mueller has not yet presented his case-in-chief, therefore Mueller will never present his case-in-chief. Instead, we get a statement like this from Mueller:
The government will file a detailed sentencing submission to the Probation Department and the Court in advance of sentencing that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement herein.
Perhaps Gnash thinks that Mueller’s statement really means that because the fish aren’t biting today, therefore the fish won’t ever bite. Well, fish gotta swim. Witches gotta fly. And Whitaker can’t do a damned thing about Mueller making his case-in-chief public through a detailed sentencing submission setting forth all of Manafort’s crimes and lies.
Roberts was focusing on one particular issue – are the judges political partisans. He did not focus on “ideology” or “values” or positions on public issues. Further, his comment could be understood as a preemptive strike against charges that his Court is a Trumpian court when they rule in favor of Trump. To repeat he did not focus on liberalism, conservatism, originalism or living Constitution doctrines.
Tyll van Geel – surprisingly the judges deciding against Trump are Obama appointees from the Ninth Circus. Roberts is blind to this?
pcs
Neither Roberts nor any other SCJustice will abandon their role of protecting the status quo. Crony capitalism and its cheerleaders have nothing to fear from ambitious folks who yap about process every once in a Blue moon.
Any law, including the “supreme law of the land” – the U.S. Constitution – is totally meaningless if there is no “healthy risk of penalty” to deter law breakers. That’s the whole premise of Law & Order. Although Ronald Reagan clearly outlawed torture and cruel treatment, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court actually “rewarded” the felony crimes of torture, warrantless spying, Cointelpro blacklisting tactics and employment tampering (Ashcroft’s criminal violation of the federal “Material Witness Statute” under Title 18 US Code 245, Title 42 USC 14141, Title 42 USC 1983, etc). In almost 20 years, not one U.S. Attorney General has enforced these federal laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has essentially ruled that defenseless Americans have the burden of proof – not the agencies – to prove illegal domestic spying by the most powerful agencies on Earth. By design, illegal domestic spying and Cointelpro blacklisting tactics robs it’s victims of legal standing in court. Most of the DOJ’s top legal minds, that knowingly committed legal malpractice, have been rewarded and promoted. One is a federal appeals court judge today. Only low level, non-college educated, prison guards, fresh out of high school, have served any prison time – for following orders from DOJ torture attorneys! None of these lowly prison guards attended law school like the top DOJ attorneys that green lighted torture. If Congress, prosecutors and the U.S. Supreme Court has enforced the law against the DOJ attorneys alleged felony violations, it would have created a “deterrent effect” for future DOJ attorneys to follow the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Trump’s DOJ attorneys may have provided a “check & balance” on his authority. Maybe the Roberts’ Court should start here? It’s not too late, most war crime indictments happen 20-40 years after the war crimes take place. The Roberts’ Court could issue a Writ of Mandamus for an Torture Inquisition (Leahy style Truth Commission) appointing a non-DOJ affiliated prosecutor (maybe someone like Nuremberg’s Robert Jackson).
Everyone inside the Beltway can now be on their worse behavior. In the case of The Donald that is precisely the same as his best behavior.
Deep.
“Full fathom five …”
Dershowitz says Mueller’s report will be politically (not legally) devastating:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/25/politics/alan-dershowitz-trump-mueller-devastating/index.html
That’d only be true if Mueller’s report is publically released before the 2020 elections. Meanwhile, Mueller’s grand jury information can and will be released to the House of Representatives to serve as a road map for their investigations.
BTW, Mueller’s status report on Manafort asking to precede to sentencing necessarily entails that Whitaker will have nothing to say about Mueller’s grand jury information in Manafort’s case. To the extent that Mueller’s grand jury information in Manafort’s case might be a sizeable portion of the case-in-chief against the Trump campaign and Trump associates, then whatever other information Whitaker attempts to keep from public disclosure will offer less protection to Trump. And maybe that’s also why Dershowitz thinks that Mueller’s “report” will be politically devastating to Trump. Or not.
The way I see it.The Congress is not doing their job to resolve issue of this Republic becouse differences on both side which has been growing. When issues comes harder to resolve they dump he cases on the SCOUTS. which became as Legislators instead interpreters of Constitution and laws.
EGERMENCY! EGERMANCY!
EVRYONE TO GET FROM STREET!
The Judiciary is so epistemologically corrupt, one has to fight the nihilist notion: “who cares anymore”! Reading Tea Leaves is as accurate of forecast for moral human action as gazing into the “penumbra” of the Constitution.
They’re back. The second one spells better than the first one. The second one is probably party to the lawsuit against Facebook for kicking Federal Agency of News off the platform. Putin’s Chef wants his First Amendment rights restored. Or else they’ll kick Facebook out of Russia.
Roberts certified himself incompetent when he voted it’s okay for the government to force consumers to buy something they don’t want.
Talk about cause for impeachment!!
That ship sailed long ago. What, you don’t like the state to require car insurance?
To vinegar
“state to require car insurance”
That is an act the state legislature creates and the governor signs. The courts should not cross that line.
Irrelevant to this discussion. I was hoping for the batsh*t tomfoolery set forth below. Enjoy.
It appears Mark you lost the distinction between the three branhes of government so I am glad you admit your comment was tomfoolery.
Marky,
Hell No, I Hate Mandatory car Insurance!!!!
1st: It violates my 1st Amendment Right of Religion as I don’t belief in bring forced by the govt to gamble. Car insurance is gambling.
2nd: Forced auto insurance Increases Risk of property & Personal Injury as people will take more risk or commit crimes, like crashing a car because they can’t make the payment….
3rd: Insurance & the same with Wallst Futures Contacts are all Ponzi Scams. The easy proof is that if all insur. policies or Futures Contracts were all called upon to perform at the sometime those writing those policies/contracts do not have enough assets to pay all the claims.
That actually happened again in the 2007/2008 Wallst/Govt collapse. Those ph’ers again wouldn’t Pay Off on my/others contracts & instead got taxpayer funded bail outs.
4th: Mandatory insurance is the cause of kinds of negative effects. In the early 70s when it came to Oklahoma insurance more the doubled on everyone & business. So all that money Leaves the local economies, dragging down business & in turn creates inflation. And any monies from premiums ends up allowing Medical/Big Pharma to go out of control driving up more cost & risk to us all.
IE: Ask Mespo just how bad lawyers are bring handcuffed by Big Med/Pharma’s bought/paid for polecats rules/laws.
Likely there’s a few more reasons I hate mandatory insur. but this above is enough for now to explain why.
Wasn’t Roberts the guy who changed the Affordable Care Act to make it Constitutional? Yes.
Truly one of the most judicial activist things he did.
The govt was very forcefully and clearly arguing that the mandate was a penalty for not joining in on the ACA.
Opposing side pointed out that a penalty was unconstitutional, so as to defeat the govt’s argument and win the case.
Roberts agreed with the anti-ACA’s argument, but instead of dismissing the govt’s case, he unilaterally changed the govt’s argument to make the mandate a tax instead of a penalty; a tax was constitutional, whereas a penalty was not.
When have I ever had a judge substitute a winning argument for me in court when ruling that my argument was a losing one? Like never. They would rightfully simply dismiss my argument as a losing one.
Does the word hypocrite ring a very large bell?
Paul:
Like at Westminster Abbey.