Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the array of issues that now appear to be on hold pending the outcome of the election. This weekend former Vice President Joe Biden went so far as to say that voters do not “deserve” to know his position on packing the Court, reaffirming that voters must wait until after they elect him for an answer. It has a familiar ring for those who watched the movie The Truman Show.
Here is the column:
Joe Biden was asked again this week whether he would pack the Supreme Court if elected president. Rather than answer, Biden flashed a signature smile of the character from the “Truman Show” and offered his version of the classic line from the 1998 movie, “Good morning, and in case I do not see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight.”
From court packing to the Russia investigation to the Michael Flynn case, Washington is back to Seahaven Island where “you cannot get any further away before you start coming back.” In the movie, Truman Burbank was the only person in the dark. In this remake, the viewers are the voters in the dark, and only the main characters know the truth.
Though he once denounced court packing, as did the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden has refused to answer whether he would support the plan raised by Democrats, including his running mate Senator Kamala Harris. This week, Biden testily responded to reporters, “You will know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.”
That is a truly alarming position for a candidate to take. Court packing is widely viewed as threatening to destroy a foundational institution in our constitutional system. Yet Biden refuses to say whether he would take a hatchet to the Supreme Court of the last two centuries. But the future of the judicial branch is just one issue left on layaway.
As news emerged that United States Attorney John Durham uncovered some serious and possibly criminal conduct in the Russia investigation, Democrats demanded that he not release his report before the election. Indeed, the federal rules tell prosecutors to avoid timing “investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting an election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” However, major cases often do affect elections, and they are not sealed in amber until the votes are counted.
The investigation by Durham is focused on conduct in the election four years ago. His subjects of scrutiny are not candidates on this ballot but rather federal officials involved in the investigation of potential collusion between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign in 2016. This proved to be unfounded. Ultimately, there was no evidence of collusion, let alone anyone who committed crimes related to collusion. Indeed, disclosed evidence shows the FBI was told early on that the allegations were not only dubious but possibly disinformation from Russia.
In recent weeks, we learned that the primary source used by Christopher Steele in his now infamous dossier was believed to be an agent of Russia. Recent declassified material also showed that in 2016, then CIA director John Brennan had briefed President Obama on an alleged plan by Hillary Clinton to tie then candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The handwritten notes from Brennen would seem extremely serious on their face. Indeed, the allegation was sufficiently serious to brief the president.
It reflected intelligence reports given to the FBI and then director James Comey. When asked last week about the report, Comey simply said it did not “ring a bell.” What rings his bell is precisely what the investigation by Durham could reveal. All of this recent evidence happens to tie in to other earlier facts, from the Clinton campaign lying about funding the dossier to Steele misrepresenting his sources and his conclusions.
There are arguments for delaying the release of the report by Durham this close to the election. But there is a lack of assurances that we would ever know the findings after the election. If Democrats control both chambers of Congress, it is unlikely they will have hearings on the report. Democrats on the intelligence committees have said they want the investigations into 2016 to end so we can all “look ahead rather than back.” If Biden becomes the next president, the Justice Department could shut down or curtail the investigation, or even classify its final report as privileged.
Democrats are not the only Washington officials leaving the future open. In the case of Michael Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan appears to be waiting out on the election before issuing a final ruling. Sullivan was supposed to sentence the former national security adviser two years ago. Instead, he held a hearing where he made disturbing statements about the case and then threatened to jail Flynn, ignoring the Justice Department probation recommendation. An appellate panel decided this summer that enough was enough, and it ordered Sullivan to dismiss the charge.
But the full appeals court decided Sullivan should be given a chance to do the right thing and issue a final ruling before any review. He has refused to sentence Flynn, despite the Justice Department finding that Flynn should not have been charged. When Sullivan got the case back from the appeals court, he knew he would very likely be reversed if he did not dismiss the charge. Yet he again refused to rule and lambasted the administration, and said that he “still has questions” about the case.
If Sullivan waits a few more months, the Justice Department might reverse its position on Flynn if Biden wins the election. That creates a disturbing image in a case already marred by allegations of bias. When prosecutors try to manipulate a case by selecting the judge, it is denounced as judge shopping. If Sullivan delays until after the election, it will appear to be a type of president shopping, delaying a sentencing almost three years to wait for a president more amenable to jailing Flynn.
Voters will have answers to these questions, as Biden stated, “when the election is over” and no sooner. Then it will be a new day. In the “Truman Show,” the master architect of the artificial world of the flim rejected the concept of truth and declared, “We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented. It is as simple as that.” With a few weeks to the election, it is indeed as simple as that for the voters.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Wow – Trump and these Republican Senators did not campaign the last time on filling a SCOTUS appointment in the final year of a President’s term. In fact, most of them ran on the opposite – saying it was inappropriate to do so. In light of these broken Republican campaign pledges, Turley wants Biden to make a campaign pledge about the court.
“In the movie, Truman Burbank was the only person in the dark. In this remake, the viewers are the voters in the dark, and only the main characters know the truth.”
Hmmm…and, the elites have the high ground?
“Ants don’t serve grasshoppers! It’s *you* who need *us*! We’re a lot stronger than you say we are… And you know it, don’t you?”
Do we?
This is great. The American people have a front row seat to see the stark difference between the two major political parties and what’s at stake in this election. This confirmation process will be a government-funded civics lesson 2 weeks before the general election. While ACB will be confirmed, Republicans only need to follow the process. Democrats on the other hand will be exposing their disdain for our constitution, separation of powers, rule of law and outright hatred for the citizens that do not want a politicized Court. Bring it.
The reverse is why McConnell prevented having hearings for Garland.
“stark differences” is right-on. When twice legally-elected Barak Obama nominated Merrick Garland 11 months before the November election. McConell refused a hearing because the voters should have a voice. When election-cheater Trump (who lost the popular vote) nominates his third radical conservative chosen by the Federalist Society (primarily for her radical views) a few weeks before the election, and despite polls showing Trump and many Senators will be lame-ducks, and despite polls showing that most Americans do not want this confirmation process right before the election, everything else is put on hold to shove through a 48-year-old for a lifetime appointment. She has written extensively on how to overturn Roe. Time is only of the essence and the voters only should have a voice when Republicans want to abuse power.
Talk about disdain for the Constitution, the rule of law and politicization of the Court–not to mention outright hypocrisy and abuse of power, this is the starkest example ever.
Federalist society is not even close to radical and Amy Coney Barrett is moderate. Natch your hyperbole is ever tiresome
She isn’t moderate. Her Martin-Quinn score indicates she’d more conservative than all but Alito and Thomas.
Oh ok then. I stand corrected.
NOT!
I never even heard of your algorithm until today – i had to look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Quinn_score
“Martin-Quinn scores or M-Q scores are dynamic metrics used to gauge the ideology of a US Supreme Court Justice based on their voting record. Therefore, a jurist’s score will continuously change, unlike static measures of ideology such as the Segal–Cover score and Judicial Common Space score.[1] Martin-Quinn scores are among the most commonly used measures of judicial ideology.[2]
History and method
The concept of the Martin-Quinn score was published in a 2002 paper by Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn.[2] The Martin-Quinn score uses Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods to fit a Bayesian model of ideal points. The ideal points can change over time due to the item response model.[2] MQ scores are theoretically unbounded (have no minimum or maximum values).[3] MQ scores are dynamic, as each decision made by a judge creates another data point that can be integrated into the model.[4] The MQ score places the justices on a continuum of more liberal to more conservative.[5] As of 2007, scores roughly ranged between -6 and 4, with the lowest score of about -6 attributed to William O. Douglas (tenure on the USSC from 1939 to 1975) and the highest score of about 4 attributed to Clarence Thomas (tenure from 1991 to present).[6]
Ward Farnsworth wrote that while the MQ model has ingenuity and promise, it falls short of proving what it aims to. He criticized the methodology of MQ scores, saying that MQ scores only take into account whether a judge affirms or reverses a ruling, and not the ideological outcome their action supports. In part, “the relationship between the spectrum generated by the [Martin-Quinn] model and the spectrum of policy decisions in the real world is a matter of guesswork. There is no inherent relationship between them.[7]”
With respect, I am not interested in this alogrithim.
But what do I know. I only have a law degree, yet, just another piddly nobody lawyer from flyover, who has read about 500 SCOTUS cases in my lifetime, if not more, and have stood in open court and successfully made constitutional law arguments which had an impact on real people’s fates and fortunes.
How many times have Martin and Quinn argued in court? Andrew Martin is a bean counting professor and college admin, not a lawyer.
Kevin Quinn is a professor in a law school without a law license nor a law degree. but he too is a bean counting expert. But never had a single case.
https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/polisci-assets/Docs/cvquinn.pdf
See how much real lawyers care about bean counters who presume to reduce the law to their absurdities? It’s about the size of one white pixel on this page
So present an alternate measure of judicial ideology.
If you’re simply saying it’s your personal opinion that she’s moderate, my personal opinion is that you’re wrong.
expressions like moderate are relative to some standard
your standard is apparently set by a score developed on a computer by a couple of geeky bean counters who are not even lawyers
and perhaps what some lousy newspapers project as the correct party line on her. it’s fine for you to cheerlead for your side. but don’t expect me to take that algo seriously.
my score is set by decades of study of the constitution.
I also practice in 7th circuit. now i have not argued before her, but many of my peers have. nobody I know thinks she is anything but moderate.
I may be a nobody but this nobody controls his own thought and opinions and I don’t let some geeks running with the trends of “data analysis” and trying to impose them on the law like shoving a square peg into a round hole, influence me.
Sounds like you don’t have a measure, and it’s your personal opinion.
Have you actually read their work? Or are you dismissing it based on 2 minutes skimming a WP page? If you can’t bring yourself to read their work before dismissing it, your opinion about their work is necessarily uninformed.
for free, I’ll suggest a better approach than this simplistic algo, which should be consigned to the dungheap of oversimplifications.
assemble a big data set. let AI parse it. then you will get a much more reliable product.
there is a big difference in data analytics which starts with some predetermined set of values, and applies that mechanistically to a small data set–
versus what can be taken as a result from more current AI Deep Learning applications.
Now then you might find some really useful trends. it conceivably COULD sort out the complexities with some valid predictive results
and trust me– I am not a genius to suggest this. this is already being done in certain venues. IBM’s Watson could probably yield more useful answers than this other thing
“your opinion about their work is necessarily uninformed.”
CTHD, you never know who you are talking to here under a fake name. i may be a nobody from flyover, but Im very active in my profession, and I may be on certain rules committees that have dug deeply into the subject of data analytics and AI and their relevance to the practice of law.
now SCOTUS is above my pay grade, but keep in mind, the law is not really a tall hierarchy. there is a lot less distance between the average licensed lawyer and the top than one might suspect. the most profound differences are often merely those of financial backing on which opinions and “experts” are going to be elevated or not
I have seen how google and other deep pockets information industry players lobby state legislatures. I have seen the sausages made up close. It’s ugly as ever.
And compared to banks, the previous Big White Sharks, they are a megalodon.
And though they may pretend to be all Democrat lefty types, the more power they get, the more they are really presenting a danger of a sort of creeping unseen digital fascism
so anytime I hear some supposed data analytics expert get going on a law topic, I immediately feel for my wallet!
(the female version of that is clutching your purse!)
Kurtz, I made a conditional statement: “IF you can’t bring yourself to read their work before dismissing it, your opinion about their work is necessarily uninformed.” You omitted the condition, and that changes the meaning.
thank you CTHD for introducing an interesting new thing today which i did not know
https://images.app.goo.gl/bMuH6Er8mEYcDJB98
further reading on the subject of the Martin Quinn score algo
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/illlr101&div=62&id=&page=
You’re welcome Kurtz.
Here’s a free copy of the article you just referenced: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=nulr_online
judicial ideology’s most obvious and relevant problem in this context is roe v wade
itself was an act of supremely bold judicial legislation, overturning 47 states abortion laws at once
because– to paraphrase and reverse what one senator said today — “what they could not accomplish via legislation, they accomplished through the courts”
we all know that is true. it’s history.
and yet the SCOTUS nominees are all pressed on will they uphold stare decisis on Roe, ie, by deciding other novel abortion cases in a certain direction
this has nothing to do with judicial ideology about upholding stare decisis or not. because the case in question was ANYTHING BUT STARE DECISIS.
in other words, stare decisis could be applied in either direction, possibly, depending on the facts.
that’s pretty much the substance of what every nominee says when the Q and A gets really hot, of either side of the fence
in other words, is it conservative to apply stare decisis to uphold Roe? why, of course it could be, because then they would be letting the legislatures have at it, or not.
or, it might be conservative, if the facts presented in a case fit for certiorari, it might be conservative to go back to a more Tenth amendment federalist approach of letting states decide
see, you have to take the Tenth amendment into account, or just throw it in the garbage. This was a topic in NY v US a gun control case that gave some life to 10th again.
Democrats did not like it!
Now you could flip this over and ask, what is inherently “liberal” about a court that reverses numerous democratically passed laws that big money does not like, on the regular?
I am talking first amendment cases here by the way. Your big media and big data LOVE the first amendment as it is key to their business models.
Maybe I am a liberal because like Liz Warren I want to punch them in the nads with antitrust law.
And yet they will run to the federal courts and try and stop it! First amendment will be their first tool, if the usual patterns hold.
what’s liberal about a system that allows well financed litigants to always yet their way? If you can’t see that pattern over 2 plus centuries of American law, you’re not looking at the system from a bird’s eye view.
Today’s conservatives run a wide range, from the me of 30 years ago, who was a liberterian, to the me of today, who some people could call a socialist.
These terms are just not all that helpful for a quick conversation. The system which the Constitution projects, and which was further develped by Marbury v Madison– judicial review– is one that most of all, does not actually support democracy– but “protects” individuals against it.
Some people think this is just great and it’s what should keep on happening. Im not so sure of that
Today we can here Democrats talking out of both sides of the mouth. One minute they want her to uphold ACA because it was a democratically passed legislation. The next minute they want her to uphold ROE which was a judicial fiat that struck down 47 validly passed democratically passed state laws against abortion. There really is only a tactical insistence on one position or another, there is very little consistency, unless you fly up really high and look at it all in terms of the actual economic effects over centuries. In short they usually on the net have advanced the interests of capitalism and capitalists, in a nutshell, fully including ROE which was part of a series of changes to society (griswold too obviously) that allowed women to enter the workforce en masse.
And here is where again I may again get into hot water because when I look and talk about these historical processes, I get called a Marxist. Unfortunately some of my patriotic friends do not understand that many of our cherished social institutions like family or church are actually adversaries of capitalist progress, and that in certain moments of history, Marxism applauded the changes to society happening under the engine of capitalism, because they saw it as eradicating old feudalistic structures which stood in the way of the dreamed utopia. Today, this is equally in play with gay marriage and various trans movement type issues that are “breaking down barriers” ie undermining communitarian legal rights that have come down to us with our cherished social traditions, but yet which stand in the way of more and more global profits for boundless nation-hating capitalists.
I remember in law school the day after a murderer had been executed. My crim pro prof argued his last ditch appeal before the State Supremes. Maybe there was a petition for writ of cert in there too somewhere. I don’t know I just remember the day he came in after his client was executed by the state. He gave the most memorable speech I ever heard of from a lawyer in my life.
“it’s true the man the state killed yesterday was a loathsome murderer of many people. And yet. ”
“We counted over one thousand errors in the case and most of them were certainly not “immaterial” according to existing law.”
“Other people talk of loopholes I talk of the law, the laws of constitutions that keeps us all safer if we hold the government to the standard of following the law too”
That state also eventually had to let out several people who were exonerated by DNA evidence including one who was on death row.
In the years to come, we had it proven with incontrovertible proof, that what often seems certain, is not.
I could have cried during that speech. Maybe I did. I feel like crying now. Not sad for the creature who was terminated, but tears of gratitude, for how lucky I was to hear that speech from a real lawyer of flesh and blood who played for the highest stakes. A man not a cipher.
This was before the “algorithm” in question was published in 2002, but my I wonder how today my sincere liberal professors who taught me the constitution would react to the idea that the legal deliberations of the SCOTUS can be reduced to mere bean counting about “ideology”
No one has suggested that “that the legal deliberations of the SCOTUS can be reduced to mere bean counting about “ideology”” If you’re going to discuss it, discuss it honestly. This kind of wild mischaracterization of what the measure attempts to capture — and what it explicitly does *not* attempt to capture — is not productive.
Listen, you wanted me to take your comments seriously and read them and comment. Now, since the quality of your remarks has gone up, I m doing that.
You can thank me for taking your remark seriously enough to look into the factor you introduced. I looked into it, and I consider it flawed. Tha’ts “honest discussion”
Most people would never have bothered. You might have even guessed that if you brough it up, I would be the one to look into it.
so, you don’t need to thank me, but accept that when somebody takes your remark seriously enough to study the thing which you introduce, then perhaps you should consider it productive, even if there is no agreement.
Anyhow, I m pleased that i learned something new from you, even though I dont agree with its relevance as a tool for this subject.
Kurtz, I have no problem with you saying it’s flawed, though I’d appreciate your explaining *why*.
What I had a problem with is your claim that Martin and Quinn suggest “that the legal deliberations of the SCOTUS can be reduced to mere bean counting about “ideology,”” when they don’t suggest that. I don’t know why you think they *do* suggest that. Can you quote something from them that led you to that conclusion? The scores are not about deliberations at all, so it seems to me that you’re projecting that onto them (that it comes from you, not them), which is why I find it dishonest. If you prefer, I’ll soften if from dishonest to inaccurate.
Do you believe that it’s possible to sort Justices from more conservative to more liberal, or do you think that that’s not possible?
CTHD asks a couple valid follow up questions
“flawed, though I’d appreciate your explaining *why*”
I have been round the mulberry bush a few times with the bean counters who apply their nearsighted “logic” to this and that area in law, and I have come to dislike them because they smell bad. everything they touch stinks. the notion of applying data analytics is not a bad one, it’s how they do it that matters. they routinely do it in a way that will get them more GRANT MONEY FROM SILICON VALLEY. thus there results are almost surely structured to confirm the biases of their donors
this is a thing like in medical journals where the big pharma researchers strain to come up with data interpretations which fit their sponsors’ intentions
“t’s possible to sort Justices from more conservative to more liberal,”
of course it’s possible but the question reveals one of the difficulties inherent in reducing complicated things to cogitation by data analytics. first you have to DEFINE THE TERMS.
for these guys operating to please certain unseen masters, ie, those who are always pushing data analytics in these venues, defining these terms is exactly where the “magic” happens
see, if we step back and say, what is conservative? what is liberal? there is no strict definition which can be reduced for bean counting usage.
I just pulled one article that may help illustrate my point. i only read a little but it seems germane
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pamela_Conover/publication/259930179_The_Origin_and_Meaning_of_LiberalConservative_Self-Identifications/links/00b7d52e9276b429d8000000.pdf
I will comment further
start with the origin of left and right. comes from the french assembly
from wiki article ‘left right political spectrum”
I think a quick review of this information will show that many of our labels are not really all that useful
“Origins in the French Revolution
The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left.[6] One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp”.[7]
When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. “Innovators” sat on the left, “moderates” gathered in the centre, while the “conscientious defenders of the constitution” found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered.[clarification needed] When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d’état of 2 June 1793 and the arrest of the Girondins the right side of the assembly was deserted and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However, following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 the members of the far-left were excluded and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would “break up the party groups”.[8] However, following the Restoration in 1814–1815 political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists chose to sit on the right. The “constitutionals” sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left as well as centre-right and centre-left came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.[9]
The terms “left” and “right” were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the “democratic socialists” and the “reactionaries” who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation.[10] With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.[11]
Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms “left” and “right” came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens’ political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms “reds” and “the reaction”. Those on the Left often called themselves “republicans”, while those on the Right often called themselves “conservatives”. The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called “Left” now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs.[12] There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: “When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left.”[13] In British politics, the terms “right” and “left” came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.[14] The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):
The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.[15]
Ideological groupings
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on “ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism” while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on “notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism”.[16] Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[17] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality[21] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[22]
Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries and traditionalists. A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum, including Christian democracy,[26] feminism,[27][28] and regionalism.[27][28][29] Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also “liberal nationalists”.[30] Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form of left-wing populism and right-wing populism, respectively.[31] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[32]”
TELL ME HOW THIS COMPLEXITY CAN BE BOILED DOWN TO A SIMPLE ALGO?> I DONT THINK SO. BS
CTHD- Your remark that Kurtz was not discussing honestly is the type of accusation that used to be seeded through your comments and led to responses that you found offensive. You cleaned it up in the last couple of weeks and several noticed the improvement. But it must be a normal part of your conversation style because you slip back into it unconsciously.
You should return to the improved CTHD.
It shouldn’t be an ideological choice. It should be based on adherence to the Constitution.
The Justices are not supposed to like the outcomes their votes might provide. They are determining constitutionality. The legislative branch is supposed to pass the laws.
If the legislative branch didn’t abdicate its role and depend on the Supreme Court to pass unconstitutional legislation there would be no fight about which qualified judge should serve. If the Constitution is the problem there is a way of amending the Constitution.
Absolutely! Civics is not their strong suit. Their Democrats emotional appeal exposes their lack of a constitutional argument.
Natacha, the only question that remains is how many decades will ACB serve on the Supreme Court?
The Durham “investigation” is merely a distraction. Barr has gone on FoxNews and hinted at serious criminality that would come out. Those of us who are not in the FoxNews bubble knew this entire investigation was a sham “investigate the investigators” that really has gone on throughout this administration.
In truth, if there was something there, Barr and Durham would have released their findings a long time ago. They would prefer to just hint that they have something – that they then never have to prove. The only ones they have fooled are Turley and Trump. They are releasing no findings before the election because they have nothing – never did, never really expected to. This whole thing was a sham from the start – just trying to appease Trump by showing that they were going after the people who were properly investigating him.
REMINDER: People on the Right have been assaulted and murdered by Leftists for four years now and the media not only won’t cover it, they want you to believe “white supremacist violence” is the real threat. (jesse kelly)
In Chicago black drug gangs are responsible for a large number of the record high homicides. Black murderers and black victims, mostly.
I can’t imagine how you could call black dope men, “white surpemists”
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ct-violence-african-americans-glanton-20160907-column.html
“Those of us who are not in the FoxNews bubble knew this entire investigation was a sham”
You must be talking about the Mueller investigation. Documents being released recently are showing tremendous corruption in the IC and corrupt dealings with the DNC. Of course corruption has been suspected of Biden and he has managed to prevent investigation into his and his families affairs with a complicit media.
Turley is still deliberately mischaracterizing the Flynn case with outright falsehoods and misleading narrative that is contrary to the evidence AND his own rationalizations.
He worries about the DOJ reversing course if Biden wins, but according to his own logic the DOJ is well within its prerogative to do so. Turley expresses alarm over things he vigorously defended over the last few years as perfectly acceptable. The hypocritical nature of his criticisms speaks volumes about his credibility. He made no mention about the DOJ admitting they submitted altered evidence to the judge which in itself is evidence of Sullivan’s suspicion and right to review the DOJ’s request for dismissal. As the appeals court noted the DOJ never fully explains its reasoning for dismissing the case despite lingering questions that Sullivan has a right and an obligation to know in order to make his decision.
The DOJ is under no obligation to reveal its inner deliberations as executive branch actors, to the judicial branch. This is simple separation of powers doctrine
it is also simple due process that when the government drops the case, it’s over. Flynn’s matter is the most shameful miscarriage we have seen in 4 years from the federal bench.
Mr. Kurtz, no. The DOJ IS obligated to explain its position and the judge can require more information in order to make a decision. The appeals court ruled exactly that.
The DOJ already had to admit that a key piece of evidence they submitted to justify dismissing the Flynn case was altered and claimed it was an “innocent mistake”.
Even if it was the fact that the unaltered document itself undermines their argument further obligates judge Sullivan to explore further.
The judge can render his decision after the election if he chooses. It’s his prerogative, just as it is the senate’s prerogative to not confirm a Supreme Court until a new president is elected.
This is not a simple case. It’s a case rife with politics.
Trump’s swamp – not surprisingly with 2 Florida locations.
“A New York Times analysis of tax records showed that more than 200 companies, special-interest groups and foreign governments have funneled millions of dollars to President Trump’s properties while reaping benefits from the president and his administration. ….”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/520549-tax-records-show-200-companies-groups-and-foreign-governments
Judge Barrett’s statement has a big flaw here,
“ Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life,” Barrett says in her statement. “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”
“I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. ”
“Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law…”. The judge seems to have shown her hand by admitting something that is not true.
The executive branch enforces the rule of law. The court is only charged with interpreting law not enforcing it. How could she make such a statement as a judge? She contradicts herself in the same statement by declaring that the Supreme Court should interpret the constitution and laws as written. That’s not enforcement. Enforcement is exclusively an executive branch function. Clearly she has other ideas besides what she professes to adhere to. Originalists are only originalist when it’s convenient. Scalia demonstrated that often.
Svelaz. the court DO have a vital role in law enforcement. From bottom to top. For example, a person can’t be imprisoned for a term of years, without a court order which so orders.
When the function of “judicial review” is being exercised, that is whether some law or rule is constitutional or not, the court essentially tells the executive what law may or may not be enforced.
I hope this helps you understand why the use of the term “enforce” is totally appropriate.
Mr. Kurtz. That’s is incorrect.
“ For example, a person can’t be imprisoned for a term of years, without a court order which so orders.”
An order is not an enforcement. It’s a legally binding command.
The definition of an order is an authoritative command, direction, or instruction.
Enforcement is the act of compelling observance of or compliance with a law, rule, or obligation.
A court may only issue an order. It doesn’t enforce it. The only entity able to do it is the police, FBI, or any other DOJ organization which is part of the executive branch.
The court has no enforcement powers. It can only order the “enforcer” the executive to apply the law.
Svelaz. Courts have enforcement powers. Because they give the orders to the sheriffs, bailiffs, marshalls, and BOP who to take and who to let go. This is obvious. You are making a petty linguistic point that is insubstantial.
Now it gets better than that too.
Have you ever heard of a bench warrant?
Have you ever heard of contempt?
Courts have inherent powers of literal enforcement. Trust me, they do. but, go try and make a fuss in a courtroom and find out on your own some day if you want to test your theory.
Mr. Kurtz, you’re still wrong here.
“ Svelaz. Courts have enforcement powers. Because they give the orders to the sheriffs, bailiffs, marshalls, and BOP who to take and who to let go. This is obvious. You are making a petty linguistic point that is insubstantial.”
It’s not a petty linguistic point. It’s exactly the type of distinction a court is in charge of making.
The statement that the courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law is conflating the functions of a court and a police officer. A court has no enforcement power at all. It only has the authority to issue a legally binding order which an officer who is separate from the court’s responsibility is obligated to obey because the law compels him to. If a bailiff, sheriff or police officer refused to obey a judge’s order the judge is powerless to enforce it. A judge can’t order a clerk to arrest someone if a law enforcement officer refuses.
An order is NOT an enforcement action. The court only has the power to order an enforcement which is done by a law enforcement officer, not the court itself. The court has no enforcement power whatsoever.
Law enforcement officers and judges are not of the same branch. The judicial branch doesn’t pay a law enforcement officer’s salary or benefits. You’re confusing the presence of a law enforcement officer in court as evidence of your argument that “ a court’s vital responsibility is to enforce the rule of law…”.
ha ha ok whatever. nobody is confused here
in general there is a valid characterization to be made between judicial and executive and legislative
legislative makes the law
judicial interprets and judges the law on the facts before the court
executive applies and enforces law
so there is a germ of validity in what you are saying, but you are making a mountain out of a molehill where Barrett’s use of the word “enforce” is concerned. the CONTEXT matters. in some contexts ENFORCMENT is ABSOLUTELY part of the judicial process– PARTICULARLY where correcting errant legislation or executive acts are the subject
Svelz, you can think of a better criticism of Barrett than this chasing after a trifling linguistic nuance.
Mr. Kurtz, judges make important emphasis on the meanings of words abs of course context. But Barrett’s statement doesn’t obviously make the distinction you think it does.
Barrett clearly made it a point that a court’s vital responsibility IS to enforce the law. The word “is” leaves no room to argue that it’s in a different context as you suggest. Saying “is” is an assertion that needs no context to clarify the statement’s meaning.
The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings.
Therefore the statement by Barrett that the court’s vital responsibility IS to enforce the rule of law is wrong.
This “linguistic nuance” is actually relevant. It shows an inability to make a basic distinction about what her job is about.
ah. i think i understand what you are saying a little bit better. but you need not worry.
if you are concerned that she is not in focus about separation of powers, have no fear.
trust me she has forgotten more about the distinction you’re alluding to than most will ever learn
the issue with ACB is not at all her legal acumen either as a lawyer or a judge or an appeals judge which she has been and written plenty of decisions now.
ACB is very well qualified. That is not the issue at all.
the issue is do you guys think she will vote to gore your ox or not.
The statement made by Judge Barrett “ “Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law…” is not only wrong it also shows that her view of the court’s role is flawed.
No court has legal mandate to enforce law. It’s not it’s job to do so. It only determines the assertiveness of a law according to what is written by the legislative branch and the constitution.
A judge cannot legally enforce the law on his or her own. It can only order the legal entity charged with enforcing the law to…enforce it.
It’s basic civics class stuff.
“ The legislative branch is made up of the Congress which is the House of Representatives and the Senate. Its job is to make the laws. … The job of the executive branch is to enforce the laws. The judicial branch branch is made up of the Supreme Court and other courts, and its job is to interpret the laws.”
Therefore the judge’s claim that it’s the court’s vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law is completely wrong.
“The statement made by Judge Barrett “ “Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law…” is not only wrong it also shows that her view of the court’s role is flawed.”
Enforcement is not limited to a policeman holding a gun. The courts enforce the law by placing guilty people in jail.
Heres the Michigan State Supremes ENFORCING the law against the Governor Whitmer who far overstepped her bounds!
https://www.nbc15.com/2020/10/12/michigan-supreme-court-denies-whitmers-request-for-extension-of-coronavirus-orders/
they cancelled her orders which now have no continuing effect.
that one is a real tyrant she is!~
Mr. Kurtz, cancelling an order is not enforcement. It’s simply nullification of an order. That’s not an enforcement action in any definitive sense.
If the governor chose to disregard the court’s decision the court is powerless to actually enforce their ruling.
A denial is not an enforcement of anything. They are not ordering the governor to abide by the law. They are only stating her order is not valid.
Svelaz, a dictatorship immediately ends the checks and balances of the American Republic and that is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do.
Mr. Kurtz, again. Courts do not have enforcement powers. They never have. They can only issue orders that are legal authority. They can’t actually force anybody to do anything on their own.
They can demand people in jail, but it is still the police who actually do the enforcement portion of any order. The court’s themselves cannot take custody of people or put them in jail. The bailiff or police officer does that. Absent those officers the court has no ability to do it on its own.
You have a very thin view of how things work.
You write: “A judge cannot legally enforce the law on his or her own.”
Generally he doesn’t and neither does the policeman enforce the law on his own. He needs a judge to order the criminal behind bars.
A course in Civics 101 remedial would substantially change what you say.
It’s jungle ball on the court and has been since the GOP stole a seat from the majority of Americans who elected Obama twice (they did not elect Trump – the EC did).
Claims that the democrats would do it are irrelevant when the GOP is doing it and has been.
Read the Constitution BTB.
Some arguments I agree with:
Dave Weigel: “How come “court-packing” and not “ending the filibuster” became the go-to question for Biden? You don’t get the first one unless you do the second. Unless people think there are a bunch of GOP senators on board to add 4 Sotomayor clerks to SCOTUS.”
Of course, it’s not up to Biden whether the Senate chooses to end the filibuster. Biden is being asked about something he doesn’t control.
Orin Kerr (UC Berkeley law school): “If the politics were reversed, I have no doubt that court-packing would be a major topic on the right to counter an increasingly far-left Supreme Court. It’s a flaw with Article III, I think; Given the SCT’s (modern) role, the Const should settle the Court’s size, but it doesn’t.”
Patrick Rodenbush: “Republicans would *never* change the size of the Supreme Court… unless, of course, they thought it would help them politically.” In 2016, some Republicans threatened “that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the GOP should prevent anyone she nominates from being confirmed to fill the current court vacancy, or any future vacancy”: npr.org/2016/11/03/500560120/senate-republicans-could-block-potential-clinton-supreme-court-nominees
Rick Hasen (Law and Political Science prof at UC Irvine):
“The media focus on Biden’s answers on “court packing” are astounding given that the media has hardly explained how far to the right the confirmation of Justice Barrett will move the Supreme Court. It will affect climate change, affirmative action, voting rights, reproductive rts. The American people do not realize the freight train coming toward them with a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. Here’s my @nymag piece on what that will mean just for voting and elections https://t.co/aZgjeD0Ead And there’s no question that on health care, gun rights, and the clash between LGBT rights and religious liberty, many Americans are going to be profoundly unhappy with what a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is likely to do.”
In 2017, Senator Cornyn referred to Pres. Obama nominating judges to fill existing DC Circuit vacancies court packing:
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2017-03-29/html/CREC-2017-03-29-pt1-PgS2055-6.htm
The National Review also called Obama filling the DC Circuit seats as a “court-packing scheme.”
nationalreview.com/2013/11/nuclear-fallout-editors/
Republicans in the House and Senate introduced bills to reduce the size of the DC Circuit in order to prevent Obama from filling those seats.
Jeffrey Sachs: “The number of attempts by the GOP in recent years to pack or shrink the size of state supreme courts is incredible. ”
He elaborates here with multiple examples: https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1314274900954304512
The Republicans in the Senate also worked to keep a lot of federal judgeships open during Obama’s presidency.
Daily Beast: “The reason there are currently 11 judicial vacancies in Texas is because [Sen. Leahy reinstuted blue slips and] Republican Sens. Cruz and Cornyn refused to sign off on any Obama nominee. The WH eventually gave up even offering names to fill them.” “No Obama district or circuit court nominee in eight years even got a hearing before the Judiciary Committee unless both home-state senators returned blue slips saying “yea.””
Pam Keith (House candidate in FL): “A very weird set of social expectations have set in our politics in which absolute kindness & decorum is expected from Dems, departure form which is an OUTRAGE, and ruthless hypocrisy & cruelty is the norm from Republicans& is unworthy of commentary when displayed.”
Republicans don’t want Democrats to play by the Republicans’ rules.
Again, thanks for the facts and information, and again IT WILL NOT matter to those who wish to be willfully ignorant.
Practically speaking, the POTUS becomes the party leader during incumbency.
During a POTUS election season, the challenger becomes so too.
This is why Joe could legitimately say, “I am the Democratic party now”
However, the way he said it…. had a Stalinesque flourish! I liked the confidence. If he wins, God willing, he will put Nancy in her place!
And I hope the confusion goes away before she can cancel his ticket with her 25th amendment scheme to install VP Kamala. Well, its contingent on winning in the first place, but it sure will be interesting if he does.
“Republicans don’t want Democrats to play by the Republicans’ rules.”
I don’t care for the run of the mill Republican much but if democrats played by Republican rules the honesty factor would climb considerably.
This is the type of thing democrats depend on.
“Brennan Lied About Not Including Steele Dossier In Intelligence Community Assessment On 2016 Russian Election Interference
The new report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed former CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress about whether the dossier authored by Christopher Steele was used in the Obama administration’s Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).”
Democrats weaponize and destroy the good in this country.
Turley forgets that Biden has no real obligation to answer that question, just as trump has no real obligation to show his tax cuts after promising to do so after he got elected.
The only reason why they want him to answer the question is so it can be used against him and Biden knows that.
Turley’s diatribe about court packing being a bad thing ignores the fact that court packing has already been going on for the last three years by republicans.
There’s ample precedence for democrats to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and there’s no constitutional prohibition to do it of the democrats gain control of both houses and the White House. Republicans have made ruling by majority as they please the rationale for ramming thru judges. To complain about the democrats doing what they did is disingenuous and hypocritical.
In fact Turley’s own defense of republicans actions can be used against his own criticisms. That realization will hurt his credibility.
Turley’s credibility was severely damaged by his explanation on what is Impeachment. A blue dress and a lie about a consenting adult affair was impeachable. Endangering national security and holding back funds directly approved by congress was not. That alone makes Turley’s opinions very clear, one side can be held responsible, the side who hires him, not so much. History will not be kind to enablers of Trump.
actually holding back the funds was wholly discretionary act. it is neither a high crime nor even a misdemeanor. Fish, you missed the point on that one.
You refer to Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Certainly there was little or not confusion that a lie under oath is perjury which is a felony, was literally impeachable.
But the Senate jury gets to decide. Like it or not. So. I guess we can say now, as it regarded a sex matter, it was inconsequential enough for the Senators to vote against it in good conscience.
I feel that was an appropriate outcome.
Now if they had found a way to prove numerous other suspected felonies for which they somehow did not dare try, it might have been a different story.
Johnny Rotten would say it this way to you FishWings: “You are daft as a brush!”
Svelaz, voters have a right to know Biden’s position about packing the court because voters can be directly affected by the decisions of those added justices (who would be added to obtain a particular result and would serve for their lifetimes). But voters aren’t affected by Trump’s tax returns. (Note: I assume that you meant to refer to Trump’s tax returns and not his tax cuts–we can all see the tax cuts he gave all workers.)
Turley knows the future of the country is at stake.
Yes, if Trump is reelected, the country is doomed.
This election is a tough call because one candidate was endorsed by both the Taliban and the KKK and the other was endorsed by a broad bipartisan coalition and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Turley thinks the Dems are whacked. I’m glad he’s brave enough to stand up to the loons who hate their own country. I love that he has such a popular blog…you hate it.
Let’s start with some of Kamala Harris’s lies:
1. “The president said [coronavirus] was a hoax.”
This claim has been out there for a while, circulating among liberal news sites — but the Washington Post gave the claim “four Pinocchios.”
“He never said ‘coronavirus, this is their new hoax,'” the Post wrote in March.
“Rather,” the Post found, “Biden’s ad clipped a large part of Trump’s speech to make it seem as though he had. Here’s the president’s full quote (emphasis added to show the omission):
‘Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs, you say, “How’s President Trump doing?” “Oh, nothing, nothing.” They have no clue, they don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No, they can’t. They can’t count their votes. One of my people came up to me and said, “Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.” That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since he got in. It’s all turning, they lost. It’s all turning, think of it, think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country, and because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.’
PolitiFact concluded: “Biden’s video is inaccurate. We rate it False.”
FactCheck.org said: “Trump said that when he used the word ‘hoax,’ he was referring to Democrats finding fault with his administration’s response to coronavirus, not the virus itself.”
2. “The truth and the fact is, Joe Biden has been very clear, he will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year.”
That’s Biden claim, but several analyses have found otherwise.
The Tax Policy Center found that Biden’s “proposals would increase taxes on average on all income groups.”
“Taxpayers in the middle income quintile would see an average tax increase of about $330,” the center said.
The Tax Foundation estimated Biden’s plan would lead to “about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.”
The American Enterprise Institute determined that “households at every income level” would face higher taxes.
3. “We now know because of great investigative journalism that Donald Trump paid $750 in taxes.”
That blockbuster New York Times story broke late last month but was quickly eclipsed by reports that the president had contracted COVID-19. Still, journalists looked into the expansive report, and Brietbart’s John Carney found some interesting facts.
“The New York Times’ claim that President Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 is wrong,” Carney found, “based on a flawed understanding of how taxes are paid. The figures below, drawn from the New York Times’s own analysis of Trump’s tax-return data for 2017, show that Trump paid $7,435,857 in taxes in 2017.”
Carney cited The Times’ story, which said this:
“But tax laws gave him one more line on which to reduce the A.M.T. Mr. Trump had $22.7 million in General Business Credit, much of it carried forward from prior years, that he could apply. The credit is a smorgasbord of tax incentives and givebacks to business owners, and in Mr. Trump’s case they ranged from credits of $322,926 for Social Security and Medicare taxes paid on employee tips to at least $1.5 million related to rehabilitating the Old Post Office in Washington.
The business credit cannot be used to get a refund; it can only be applied against taxes owed. Mr. Trump had more than enough to cancel out his $7,435,857 tax bill. But on the Form 3800 for the General Business Credit, his accountants subtracted $750 from his allowable credit. Why they did that is not clear. But the result was a total federal income tax liability of $750.”
“In other words,” Carney wrote, “Trump paid the full amount of his taxes but spent $7,435,107 of his tax credit and $750 of cash. Both cash and the credit are government liabilities that the U.S. government accepts as payment for taxes. Paying the credit is not the equivalent of not paying taxes.”
4. “The American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. That is a fact.”
Biden is on record — many times — as vowing to get rid of fracking.
In a March debate among Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said: “I’m talking about stopping fracking … I’m talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they are going to stop destroying this planet. No ifs, buts and maybes about it.”
Biden said emphatically: “So am I.”
On Jan. 24, while talking with a New Hampshire voter, Biden said he would stop fracking. A woman voter asked, “But like, what about, say, stopping fracking?”
Biden answered, “Yes.”
Harris herself is on record as supporting the elimination of all fracking, all fracking, saying “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”
5. “In 1864 … Abraham Lincoln was up for re-election, and it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but of the Senate. But Honest Abe said that it’s not the right thing to do.”
With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Supreme Court vacancy popped up just before a presidential election. Trump almost immediately nominated a replacement, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Democrats have demanded that the vacancy be held until after Jan. 20, 2021, when a newly elected president will be sworn into office. So Harris’s claim that Lincoln did so supports their case.
But he didn’t — at least, not out of principle. Lincoln didn’t nominate a replacement because the Senate was out of session (this is, remember, before their were cars). More than that, in the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln was concerned about the political consequences of filling the seat.
The Senate was out of session from Independence Day through Dec. 5 in 1864. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died on Oct. 12.
“As ever, Lincoln was the shrewd politician and in October of 1864 he saw no profit in alienating any of the factions of his political support by making a selection before the election,” presidential historian Michael Kahn wrote. “There is no evidence that he seriously considered announcing his choice before he was re-elected.”
And for the record, Lincoln sent Salmon Chase’s nomination to the Senate the day it came back into session — Dec. 6.
#5 is very close to Anonymous’ heart in the recent time frame. I think he has erred on virtually all of them.
“If Sullivan delays until after the election, it will appear to be a type of president shopping, delaying a sentencing almost three years to wait for a president more amenable to jailing Flynn.”
Biden is on the ticket because if he gets elected he will make sure to cover up all the Obama crimes and corruption. Biden was part of it and knows where all the bodies are buried.
It’s silly to think we can put the genie back into the bottle. Now that he Left’s court-pacing scam has been (debatably) accepted as a possible eventuality the tyrants and their sycophant’s and the radical base who keep them in office will accept nothing less if their side gains power. To the Democrats, packing the SCOTUS is like panacea to cure the “disease” of the Democratic process. IF Joe can steal the election, Democrats will unquestionably start work on this ploy as soon as they gain the WH so they don’t have to worry about having any more elections let alone Republican leaders.
Iconic Sex Pistols Singer Johnny Rotten: ‘Of Course I’m Voting For Trump’
Who cares?
“Yes, of course, I’m voting for Trump,” Lydon said in the interview. “He’s an individual thinker, I’ll give him that for a start. He’s not the most lovable fellow on God’s earth, but I cannot see the opposition as offering me anything by way of a solution.”
The singer, who later headed up Public Image Ltd., added that Trump “really is making the country a bit better.”
Lydon, 64, backed Barack Obama in his two elections and Hillary Clinton in 2016. But he said he supports Trump because of the economy.
“I’d be daft as a brush not to,” Lydon said, according to The Guardian. “He’s the only sensible choice now that Biden is up – he’s incapable of being the man at the helm.”
Johnny Rotten, one of our best immigrants of living memory!~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDwKuZotF3U&feature=emb_title
We need more Englishmen like Johnny to replenish the Anglo Saxon stock!
That’s awesome
What if the Court rules that all mail in votes from a swing state are thrown out?
Then pack the Court.
Turley is purposefully stating falsehoods in his continuous campaigning for Trump – he knows better. If he doesn’t, the below on Trump campaign collusion with thee Russians is from the GOP led Senate Intelligence Committee Report, which dovetails with the Mueller Report, and the conclusions of our FBI and Intelligence agencies, also run by Republicans – and Trump appointees. How does a law professor who presumes to have opinions worth posting every day on our government continually make false claims about this matter. There is a word for it.
“(U) The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
….(U) Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin
Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of
Manafort’s operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort’s primary liaison to Deripaska
and eventually managing Manafort’s office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and
lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond.
(U) Prior to joining the Trump Campaign in March 2016 and continuing throughout his
time 6n the Campaign, Manafort directly and indirectly communicated with Kilimnik, Deripaska,
and the pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine.
Beginning while he was Campaign chairman and continuing until at least 2018, Manafort discussed with Kilimnik a peace plan for eastern Ukraine that
benefited the Kremlin.
After the election, Manafort continued to coordinate with
Russian persons, particularly Kilimnik and other individuals close to Deripaska, in an effort to
undertake activities on their behalf. Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on
narratives that sou ht to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in .the 2016 U.S.
election.
(U) The Committee found that Manafort’s presence on the Campaign at;td proximity to
Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and
acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the
Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska,
represented a grave counterintelligence threat.
(U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was
to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
U.S. democratic process.
(U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump
Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral
prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases,
created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following
thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the
attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and
WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.
(U) Trump and senior Campaign offici.als sought to obtain advance information about
WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain
inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump
and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that
Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more
releases would be forthcoming.
(U) The Committee found that the connection between Trump and the Agalarovs began
in 2013
(U) The Committee found that Aras Agalarov was personally involved in pushing for
both the June 9, 2016 meeting between NataliaVeselnitskaya and senior m~mbers of the
Campaign and for a second meeting following the election, also with Veselnitskaya, that did not
take plac·e. Agalarov likely did this on behalf of individuals affiliated with the Russian
government,
(U) The Committe~ found evidence suggesting that it was the ‘i~tent of the Campaign
· participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, particularly Dortald Trump Jr., to receive derogatory
information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a soui:ce known, at least by Trump
Jr.,. to have connections to the Russian government.
(U) The information that Natalia. Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer, offered during the
June 9, 2016 meeting and planned to offer again at the follow up meeting requested by Aras .
Agalarov was part of a broader influence operation targeting the United States that was
coordinated, at least in part, with elements of the Russian government. That Russian effort was
focused on U.S. sanctions against Russia under the Magnitsky Act. The Committee assesses that
some of the same information used by Veselnitskaya at the June 9, 2016 meeting was also used
in an influence operation earlier in 2016 by individuals in Moscow who have ties to Russian
intelligence and to Putin.
(U) The Committee assesses that at least two participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting,
Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have significant connections to the Russian government,
including the Russian intelligence services. The connections the Committee uncovered,
particularly regarding Veselnitskaya, were far more extensive and concerning than what had
been publicly known
(U) During the 2016 U.S. presidential election cycle, Donald °Trump and the Trump
Organization pursued a business deal in Russia. Michael Cohen, then an executive vice
president at the Trump Organization and personal attorney to Trump, primarily handled and
advanced these efforts
(U) Cohen kept Trump updated on the progress of the deal. While these negotiations
were ongoing, Trump made positive public comments about Putin in connection with his
presidential campaign. Cohen and Sater sought to leverage Trump’s comments, and subsequent
comments about Trump by Putin, to advance the deal.
(U) George Papadopoulos joined the Trump Campaign as part of a foreign policy
advisory team …The Committee found George. Papadopoulos used multiple avenues to pursue a faceto-face meeting between Trump and President Putin. Papadopoulos believed that he was operating with the approval-or at least not the explicit disapproval-of Campaign leadership,
who he kept apprised of his efforts.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
Joe Friday, not sure if you saw this and want to call Allan and John out: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/07/a-means-of-distracting-the-public-brennan-briefed-obama-on-clinton-plan-to-lie-trump-to-russia/comment-page-4/#comment-2012268
Excellent points from the SSCI volume V report that are often and commonly overlooked. Sadly, Professor Turley has really changed over the last several months.
Joe, you’re living in your 2017 Russian Snipe hunt world.
It is 2020. The Snipe hunt ended like all Snipe hunts, and you and your fellow PTS-TDS sufferers were left with empty burlap bags with no Snipe’s inside of them.
Now it is time to grow up, try to act like an adult, and accept the fact that you got completely fooled because you’re very spoiled and emotional, not very bright, and as a result, extremely gullible.
Rhodes, the Senate IC Report quoted above was released 2 months ago. That would be August, 2020.
It’s over, Joe.
You got conned by your team leaders.
Russia had absolutely nothing to do with Trump winning the election, or Hillary losing the election.
Your team lost, and for the first time in your life you didn’t get a trophy. Despite how many times your parents told you that you were important and special, you are not important or special.
Has it occurred to you that the reason the Democrats don’t want Durham releasing his report prior to the election is because they know they are guilty?
Has it occurred to you that if they weren’t guilty of any wrongdoing they would welcome Durham’s findings so that they would be exonerated?
Of course that has occurred to you. But you don’t care. Which tells me all I need to know about you.
Thanks Rhodes. I accept your surrender.
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/plotagainstthepresident
Nice cherry pick. Interaction isn’t necessarily collusion. Governments attempt to influence elections all the time. We do it. All the time. That’s one of the State Department’s primary missions. But, hey, what do you make of the Clinton campaign’s involvement?
Russia illegally interfered in our election, acting in Trump’s favor. I condemn illegal interference in our elections. Will *you* condemn that illegal interference in our elections, mistressadams?
Manafort shared sensitive polling data and campaign strategy with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent. That’s collusion.
I condemn foreign interference. But before you make too much of a fuss about it, particularly if the interference is small, consider the net effect. Will overplaying the perceived advantage in smearing an American candidate as “colluding” with it when he did not, will that actually have the desired effect of the foreign intelligence actors on WEAKENING CONFIDENCE IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS AS SUCH?
Because oh how they have greatly succeeded, with the Democratic party leadership’s nonstep 4 years of crowing about it
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321665/confidence-accuracy-election-matches-record-low.aspx
I have been making this point all along and it seems the RUSSIA collusion narrative cheerleaders never got the point, or never cared.
Again my assertion is that the Russian interference was real, but insignificant, a modest Facebook ad spend, and little more.
Attacking the incumbent for his entire term on falsified evidence was a crime in itself. And one that served your bete noire, Russia, however unwittingly
Russian interference included DNC emails which dominated national news for weeks and also highlighted that our now president is a lying traitor who owes somebody more money than he has, and very likely they are Russians.
The FBI claimed that the Russians hacked the DNC based on a very suspicious investigation in which they did not take possession of computer hardware for FBI forensic analysis, but instead relied upon the opinion of the contractor for the DNC, Crowdstrike
I have so many times described how this is not “SOP” ie Standard Operating procedure for FBI, which ALWAYS confiscated and seizes computer hardware when it contains evidence.
The inferences we can reasonably make from this are several.
1- the investigation was tainted and flawed from the start.
2- hence the conclusion is very suspect
3- political influence of the DNC probably was the operative factor for why FBI deviated from its well known and otherwise thorough procedures.
4- Crowdstrike as the gatekeeper, who had their own interests, and their client’s interests to consider, was clearly biased. This relates to the “why” of the usual FBI sops that were ignored.
5- Perhaps it is true, however, it may also be true, as former NSA systems designer and analyst William Binney and former long time decorated CIA analyst Ray McGovern claimed, that there was an internal leak, likely from some sort of disgruntled DNC worker, who using internal access, physically downloaded the data onto thumb drives. In fact, this is more plausible than the “hack” scenario which suffers from certain technical impossibilities.
6. as long as people keep advancing this bogus investigation, people like me will keep on reminding what a fraud the whole affair seems to have been.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html
The claims that the Russians didn’t hack the DNC emails have been debunked and the Senate IC Report I have posted here was completed 2 months ago and it confirms it was the Russians. By the way, that was a GOP led Senate Committee report.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/mueller-clinton-arizona-hack/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFW974K26Xh0KXKuRKb3Nh_14vLZ8cc5H7V14IvG_5LJVvdFUsRSdMvkmPmIr3O95y5v_8LNqF001eGoqOuM4EIWhcc92Bf2ZUgeHbNUoOzT8dbI5HlS_yUJIRcUPczIHR3N3IwAkBYGQrpD_7JvCvEUecxQs4qRRDRgYkJotIME
Yes Joe I am aware of this. I remain unconvinced.
“In all, some 70 gigabytes of data were exfiltrated from Clinton’s campaign servers and some 300 gigabytes of data were obtained from the DNC’s network.”
MY THOSE RUSSIANS SUCKED A LOT OF GOLFBALLS THROUGH THEM GARDEN HOSES
“
Kurtz,
You do realize that bythebook reinvented himself as Joe Friday so he can reboot his tired and discredited arguments. You should pick up from where book left off…kicked to the curb.
Russia illegally interfered in our election, acting in Trump’s favor.
Yeah, a catering company they can’t prosecute bought a six figure sum in Facebook ads.
Just can’t accept that the left is. Morally bankrupt and relentless in their grasp for power. You are blind. Willfully blind – like most on the left.
call me a skeptic but it didn’t take the Senate Intelligence Committee FOUR years to “investigate”. Therefore, if the Dems had all of this information, why wasn’t it presented during the impeachment hearings ? The Mueller report undercut the blue team’s impeachment case. Now, in 2020, two months before the election, you want me to believe that the Special Counsel and the House Impeachment Committee got it wrong. got it ! In fact, members of both sides of the aisle colluded to influence the past election and then colluded to remove a duly elected president. Having failed miserably at both, we are now back to discussing RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA while in the midst of the current election cycle in the desperate hope that someone is listening.
Biden is treating his candidacy for president as if he’s a nominee to the Supreme Court (or even a lesser judicial position). It’s proper for a judicial nominee to decline a during confirmation hearing to state how one would rule in a hypothetical case. But this isn’t a judicial hearing, it’s an effort to attain high office. One’s plans for the country are the issue. Biden won’t say, because an honest answer would hurt him.
‘Because the real “Biden-Harris” campaign is disinformation + censorship (press+social media+FBI); chaos (“vote by mail” fraud); violence (BLM/Antifa); and back-room deals to steal election. The corrupt and demented Joe and inert and unlikeable Kamala would only get in the way.’ (lee smith)
To remind everyone what the Democrats think of the American voter remember what Jonathan Gruber the ACA Architect said :
‘The Stupidity Of The American Voter’.
Trump has been promising a healthcare plan for 4 years. He still hasn’t produced one. Do you think his supporters are stupid to believe he has one?
Funny. Republicans produced any number of alternatives from the day Obamacare was signed into law. This issue will remain a stalemate until one party controls both houses of Congress again, and/or the RINOs are gone.
They already had the House, the Senate and the Presidency from 2017-2019. They didn’t do squat with it.
Yes Anonymous makes a good point there. The Republicans for example could have delivered on the infrastructure. Why they dithered and the roads and bridges still look like hell.
No they didn’t do squat and that’s why Trump. I have had my fill of Romney-Republicans.
Romney wasn’t even in the Senate in 2017. Trump made no effort to get the Republican-controlled Congress to replace Obamacare, and Trump has no replacement plan.
Obamacare is deeply flawed but addressed the problem in a constructive way. I know my Republican friends hate it, but, I merely dislike it.
It’s true that Trump has produced little better. If he has I wouldn’t know what it was.
The problems that caused Obamacare are little fixed today.
As we who have sucky Obamacare health plans approach re-enrollment, we are reminded of how pathetic the situation has been and still is.
Nonetheless, as an example of a small positive, one little thing that was a low hanging fruit was the government marketplace venue to shop these few sucky little plans.
Maybe the deeper problems of public health, like the diseases that go with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles, obesity and diabetes and heart disease, are the real deep underlying problems that no government plan of any kind can fix.
Except for maybe a DPRK style socialist induced famine, which is perhaps inconceivable now, but it is not entirely impossible. Of course it would bring other problems of its own.
Anyhow it’s a vain hope to place in either party that obesity and diabetes and heart disease will be fixed, so, this is really the intractable element in play.
to put it differently, when courts “COMMAND” a remedy, to use your preferred term, they are by so doing, ‘ENFORCING” it.
In civil actions, awarded remedies are often “executed” wholly by the parties without any further executive assistance.
judgments get paid, injunctions get honored ,etc. if they don’t, they go back to court and then maybe the sheriff gets into it with “post judgment remedies” etc
this difference you are going after is a distinction which is not germane to the context of her remarks
feel free to have the last word on this if you want to kick the ball back again, Im done with the topic
Perhaps if you told Svelaz how to fly his airplane he would get the point. You are a lawyer and he isn’t. His remarks make the distinction obvious. He doesn’t have full command of the field.
Here’s the Michigan State Sups “enforcing” the law by cancelling Gretchen’s overbroad and tyrannical orders
https://www.nbc15.com/2020/10/12/michigan-supreme-court-denies-whitmers-request-for-extension-of-coronavirus-orders/
which are now of no continuing effect.
Little better? Trump has produced NOTHING, NADA, ZIPPO on health care. Like a middle class tax cut, he just tells fools like you it’s coming just before each election and then……You just suck it up again Easy marks.
Come on Book, do you have a problem with President Trump letting you know what his healthcare plan is after the election?
you think joe is book? nah, book always has a better point to make than just insulting someone. he always works in a substantive point along with the insults.
Kurtz take two: “you think joe is book? nah, book always has a better point to make than just insulting someone.”
Kurtz, take one: “Joe, you saying that I am a fool and a mark, is proof positive not of my foolishness, but of your own”
Nah. I’m certain of it.
Olly, despite what btb says I think Trump has told us a lot about the health plan he would like passed. He ended the personal mandate. Opened the insurance field up. Has told us he wants transparency and has been acting tangentially in bringing pharmaceutical prices down.
The problem he faces is there needs to be some unity of thought. There wasn’t with ObamaCare and look at what happened. Creating a good healthcare bill isn’t that difficult but for the politics.
Of course Allan.
Joe, you saying that I am a fool and a mark, is proof positive not of my foolishness, but of your own
You’re also a jerk. Here i more or less agreed that Trump had produced little on health care, and you insulted me
See, the Democratic party cheerleaders ever insult other citizens. Even when we more or less agree!
they have the attitude of the Red Guards in China. Your confession is not good enough! Here comes another beating.
Beatings will continue until morale improves!
As for the tax cut, yes, there was a middle class tax cut. It showed up on my return. Maybe you don’t file one? I know a lot of Democrat keyboard warriors are skating by these days, what with the layoffs and death of small business in the blue states, afflicted by excessive lockdowns and rioting. Better luck next year!
Kurtz, read my lips:
Trump has produced NOTHING, NADA, ZIPPO on health care. Like a middle class tax cut, he just tells fools like you it’s coming just before each election and then……You just suck it up again Easy marks
Can’t the lame duck Congress continue the investigations up to Jan1, 2021?
You need to pass it to find out what’s in it didn’t only apply to Obamacare. Apparently that mentality holds for Presidential candidates and the media will not press the issue. Are we no longer a representative republic but instead a secret society of rulers that run elections for show and nothing more?
“Are we no longer a representative republic but instead a secret society of rulers that run elections for show and nothing more?”
Yes.
All you have to do is follow the money.