There is an interesting contrast developing in two controversies. We recently discussed how legal experts demanded that Joe diGenova be disbarred for recently saying that Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency head Chris Krebs should to be “drawn and quartered” for his failure to protect this election. Krebs has filed a legally dubious lawsuit against diGenova. Yet, in Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other Democrats have defended Rep. Cynthia Johnson who called out for “soldiers” to “make [Trump supporters] pay” for their criticism and harassment of her. Those who insisted on disbarment and other measures for diGenova are conspicuously silent about such overheated rhetoric from the left.
From the outset, I do not agree that Johnson should have been removed from committee positions. I took her video as yet another example of hyperbolic excess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5fRClLdj7s
The Michigan Attorney General has condemned both Johnson as well as those who threatened her in the past.
For her part, Whitmer called for “a little bit of compassion and grace” for the lawmaker because she “has been through a lot.” She was referring to the highly publicized voter-fraud hearing with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and having someone close to her contract Covid-19.
The fact is that such rhetoric reflects our rage-filled politics. We need to apply a certain benefit of the doubt on whether such comments are real or hyperbolic demands. In torts, courts developed the doctrine of mitior sensus, which was used to assume the innocent meaning of works in defamation when two different meaning (one harmful and one innocent) is possible.
In this political environment, however, such allowance however is notably denied to those on the right. Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest.’” No rational person. The Washington Post’s Randall Eliason seemed to dismiss that this was “just a colorful metaphor.” Professor Steve Vladeck declared “Lawyers who make these kinds of threats should be disbarred. Full stop.”
Johnson is not a lawyer but there is a striking different treatment given such statements. Where Zaid maintains that “no rational person” would think that calling for someone to be “drawn and quarter . . . and shot” is a joke, there is ample understanding afforded Johnson and others who have used alarming rhetoric. Obviously, diGenova was joking. Many of us condemned the comments immediately as reckless, but Zaid’s claim reflects how current debate are often untethered from any legal or factual reality.
I do not think that either Johnson or diGenova were calling for violence. Free speech must allow room at the elbows for reckless or hyperbolic language, but the allowance must be consistently applied.
This is an easy one. In the words of the Brave Masked Wonderful Warriors of Antifa (TM); “Your speech is violence and our actions against you to stop it are self-defense. Our violence is free speech because we are fighting fascists.”
antonio
Antonio, Saloth Sar has replaced Comrade Kurtz. Mistah Kurtz, he dead
Please share with our friends the moral imperative we now have to resist federal tyranny by refusing to pay income taxes
This is a viable and nonviolent means of protest, which enough people do it, will cause the federal regime to struggle with servicing its debt, and if enough join the cause, the day of the long expected federal debt default will come that much faster
Here is a resource with many good ideas:
https://www.warresisters.org/war-tax-resistance-organizations
Saloth Sar
Which side is substance and which side is hyperbole?
CBS News: “Paxton, the Texas attorney general, filed his lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday, alleging officials in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan unlawfully changed their voting laws, leading to election irregularities and skewing the results of the election. He is asking the Supreme Court to delay the December 14 Electoral College vote and block the four states from casting their votes in the Electoral College for Mr. Biden.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-106-house-republicans/
Howe writes: Four states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – urged the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon to reject Texas’ efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Using strong language rarely seen in Supreme Court filings, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the justices that they should “not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/states-tell-justices-to-deny-texas-request-to-overturn-2020-election/
Turley tweets: “Filing with the Supreme Court is the very antithesis of sedition. Seeking judicial review is not subversion of the Constitution or a call to rebellion. It is using the constitutional process. If going to the courts is “seditious,” going to church must be atheism. It is hardly compelling for Attorney General Josh Shapiro to argue that a filing is reckless and unfounded by using reckless and unfounded rhetoric. Such hyperbolic language may thrill the base but will not likely thrill the Court.”
How will SCOTUS defuse the situation?
Give me a break Jonathan. One side is trying to take the vote from 4 states because they don’t like their results. Surely you don’t support this and vigorously oppose it as a most corrupt and anti-democratic act.
if you understood the complaint, you would see that the argument is fundamentally democratic: the corrupt state officials circumvented the state voter laws with various tricks, to circumvent the legislatures, and justify their illegal mass mailed unsolicited ballots schemes
officials can’t be allowed to ignore state voter laws at their own whim based on a contrived “emergency” that they presume gave them powers which did not previously exist in their offices
this lawsuit is righteous democracy in action. the courts must take it seriously or the entire system is unmasked
indeed I predict the case will be rejected by SCOTUS and then our TAX RESISTANCE will be even more justified than it already is
https://www.warresisters.org/war-tax-resistance-organizations
Saloth Sar
At what stage and on what grounds do you predict SCOTUS will reject the case?
Jonathan, they will find a way. It will simply not get certiorari in time, if ever.
The 11th amendment may provide them with an excuse.
The system is and has been corrupt for quite some time now. If wtc7, only hit by falling debris, could burn on a few floors for a half hour and then collapse on its own footprint in 11 seconds– and they have told us that was not a controlled demolition, voices in unison, for two decades now, then every other lie is that much easier, culminating in the endless series of frauds perpetrated on us in 2020.
Saloth Sar
Might AG Barr, US Intelligence agencies and the UN Security Council have correctly decided that 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation would ignite World War III?
From ProPublica:
Months after President Donald Trump promised to open FBI files to help families of the 9/11 victims in a civil lawsuit against the Saudi government, the Justice Department has doubled down on its claim that the information is a state secret.
In a series of filings just before a midnight court deadline on Monday, the attorney general, William Barr; the acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell; and other senior officials insisted to a federal judge in the civil case that further disclosures about Saudi connections to the 9/11 plot would imperil national security.
But the administration insisted in court filings that even its justification for that secrecy needed to remain secret. Four statements to the court by FBI and Justice Department officials were filed under seal so they could not be seen by the public. An additional five, including one from the CIA, were shared only with the judge and cannot be read even by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Barr insisted to the court that public discussion of the issue “would reveal information that could cause the very harms my assertion of the state secrets privilege is intended to prevent.”
What the various security agencies are trying to hide remains a mystery.
https://www.propublica.org/article/attorney-general-barr-refuses-to-release-9-11-documents-to-families-of-the-victims
None of that happened doofus, which is why your team is 1-55 in the courts
Is that really how you think SCOTUS will handle the case, Joe?
At issue are jurisdiction, standing and merits.
Will it reach the merits?
“On the merits, this amicus brief defends the constitutional authority of state legislatures as the only bodies duly authorized to establish the manner by which presidential electors are appointed, one of the central issues in the pending litigation. As members of the federal legislature, these amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in determining the manner by which states choose their electors.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163403/20201210153048641_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20106%20Representatives.pdf
the 11th amendment is hard to understand on its face, and the cases are even more confusing
the bottom line is that federal courts have to show some deference to state judiciaries because they are co-sovereigns
if they want to get rid of it then they can just say it’s a matter for the state courts, and look the other way
it will give them an out if they want it Jonathan
tax resistance is the only nonviolent way left to the workers and middle class to register their discontent
https://www.warresisters.org/war-tax-resistance-organizations
Saloth Sar
I don’t support or recommend tax evasion, Anonymous, but conscientious objection to military taxation is another matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objection_to_military_taxation
What do you think of H.R.4169, the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4169/text
https://nwtrcc.org/resist/how-to-resist/ is an existing list of antiwar tax resistance ideas that seem legit to me. morally so. i am not talking about what is “legal”
government officials care very little about what is “legal” now so neither should we
but I recommend only nonviolent resistance and this is the most effective means at hand
there is no separating the military taxation from the rest of it. if there is any licit reason to resist paying taxes, in one’s mind, then now is the time to do it
as for that bill i had not seen it before. it is an interesting idea but one that would essentially co-opt war tax resistance. one supposes that mostly it has been ignored– because the numbers have not yet mattered
Now we can make the numbers matter. Now it is fully, clearly, wholly licit to deny them our taxes NOW
Saloth Sar
Jonathan, THERE ARE NO MERITS!!!
It’s loser tripe with false and stupid arguments asking to get the right wing court help the hapless GOP who can’t win a popular vote for the presidency to save it’s life, and has now given up on democracy before our eyes. Do you need a flash light or a road map?
How about California sues your state to throw your vote away. You cool with that? Want to hear the arguments? I hope not or you’re gone with the other zombies.
You jumped to the merits argument, Joe. Are you admitting or denying jurisdiction and standing?
If SCOTUS is compelled to grant jurisdiction and standing, mustn’t it hear the arguments, zombie hyperbole aside?
Will it hurt or help the nation to delay the Electoral College vote until the end of next week, in that case?
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf
SCOTUS is not charged with defusing political situations. They are charged with ruling on legal issues according to the Constitution. There is no constitutional basis for Texas’s suit. If SCOTUS is willing to hear a suit from Texas filed against other states simply because TX doesn’t like state laws in other states, when those laws have not been ruled unconstitutional/illegal by the states themselves according to their own state constitutions and laws, then the same is true in reverse, and Texas will soon find itself on the receiving end of suits from states that dislike TX state laws.
SCOTUS should take a strong stand against such suits as shameful political stunts that have no constitutional basis.
Thanks for the input and hope you are well, CTHD.
Even if I am inclined toward a Biden presidency, I don’t quite follow why you think SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction, Texas lacks standing, and/or Texas fails on the merits.
This said, what do you think of Tom Goldstein’s editorial over at SCOTUSblog? Do you agree with Goldstein that this is a good way and time for SCOTUS to help defuse an explosive political crisis?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-dont-just-deny-texas-original-action-decimate-it/
“Texas’ attempt to bring an original action challenging the election results in four states is not a serious legal claim in a legitimate procedural posture, for reasons that many people have already given and that I will not repeat here. The easy thing for the Supreme Court to do is simply deny Texas permission to file the complaint (and deny the motions to intervene as moot) and be done with it. No fuss, no muss.
But the court should do more. It is perfectly ordinary and appropriate for the justices to write an opinion explaining the various reasons why they are rejecting Texas’ request. Indeed, the minority of justices who think that the court is required to accept original actions like Texas’ may well write short opinions of their own or note that they think the case was properly filed. So there is nothing overreaching if a majority of the court explains why the case is meritless.
A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.
In a time that is so very deeply polarized, I cannot think of a person, group or institution other than the Supreme Court that could do better for the country right now. Supporters of the president who have been gaslighted into believing that there has been a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election recognize that the court is not a liberal institution. If the court will tell the truth, the country will listen.”
I didn’t say that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction. If you inferred that from what I wrote, then you misunderstood and perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. They have jurisdiction (for one discussion of the jurisdiction issue from a law prof Turley mentioned above, which also addresses why SCOTUS was unlikely to choose to hear the case: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336329901859688451).
I see that you’ve already seen the news that SCOTUS determined that Texas lack standing.
Even aside from standing, there were plenty of problems with the merits. Here’s one discussion of the nonsense in their claim about the odds of Biden winning those states:
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09/more-on-statistical-stupidity-at-scotus/
I haven’t read the defendants’ briefs, but assume that they also point this out and note other weaknesses in the suit.
But mostly my comment was that just because there are strongly diverging political views about this, that doesn’t mean that SCOTUS needs to hear the case. Their duty is to uphold the Constitution in judging legal issues, not to defuse political situations.
I think the point raised by Goldstein was not that SCOTUS needed to hear the case in order defuse a political crisis, but that SCOTUS had an opportunity, if not a duty, to fully explain its decision in rejecting standing, in view of that end.
Goldstein writes: “A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation.”
Can you explain why Texas lacked standing?
I can read why Texas felt it had standing:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163498/20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf
But as to the reason why SCOTUS rejected Texas’ argument, I am not as clear.
My understanding is that State X doesn’t have standing to challenge State Y’s laws if those laws regulate something totally internal to State Y. Texas doesn’t have standing to challenge PA’s voting regulations, just like PA doesn’t have standing to challenge Texas’s oil regulations. But, that’s not the unanimous view. Alito and Thomas think the Supreme Court is required to hear suits between states rather than it being discretionary jurisdiction.
If you want more arguments against TX having standing, my guess is that you can find them in the briefs filed by the states of PA, GA, MI and WI, though I haven’t checked.
I see that The Texas GOP has responded to the SCOTUS decision with “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” Sounds like a call for secession.
Rep. Pascrell has an interesting response:
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1337497069834133505
Heard about Pascrell’s response. Interesting!
Elvis Bug
Thanks for the Texas GOP and Pascrell updates, CTHD.
I will have to consult defendants’ case against Texas’ standing, which otherwise seems compelling.
I can understand the grave frustration of the Texas GOP and reject any suggestion of secession.
Why is it not more seditious of Rep. Pascrell to attempt blocking the seating of the Amici? What in their brief is treasonous?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163403/20201210153048641_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20106%20Representatives.pdf
“These amici appear as 106 Members of Congress and respectfully request that this Court uphold the plenary authority of the state legislatures to establish the manner by which electors are appointed, and determine the constitutional validity of any ballots cast under rules and procedures established by actors or public bodies other than state legislatures.”
“Because the Framers recognized elections could be corrupted or stolen, they created the Electoral College as a safeguard and empowered state legislatures to ensure the integrity of our unique election system. Yet before the 2020 election, rationalized in some instances by the occasion of the novel coronavirus pandemic, the constitutional authority of state legislatures was simply usurped by various governors, state courts, state election officials, and others.”
“Due in large part to those usurpations, the election of 2020 has been riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities. National polls indicate a large percentage of Americans now have serious doubts about not just the outcome of the presidential contest, but also the future reliability of our election system itself. Amici respectfully aver it is the solemn duty of this Court to provide an objective review of these anomalies and to determine for the people if indeed the Constitution has been followed and the rule of law maintained.”
Jonathan,
As a factual matter, I don’t agree that “the election of 2020 has been riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities.” Rather, there have been a small number of serious cases of fraud (e.g., the guy who was arrested in PA for trying to obtain an absentee ballot for his dead mother), which is typical rather than unprecedented, and it has been riddled with a large number of baseless allegations that have not been substantiated with valid evidence. What’s unprecedented is the number of post-election lawsuits seeking to overturn the results.
As a matter of the merits of the lawsuit, had they truly been concerned about executive orders and court rulings, they would have filed suit in a timely manner before the election. Neither TX nor any of the other states that joined the suit did that, nor (as far as I know) did these amici argue for that before the election.
They are looking for a pretextual reason to disenfranchise the voters in other states because they dislike who was elected, Trump is malignant narcissist who wants to remain President despite having lost, and Trump has taken over the GOP and they believe that signing on serves the Party and/or them personally.
Pascrell describes what he considers an attack on the Constitution and the rules of the House. I think the third to last paragraph captures the heart of his argument.
I’ll point out that some of the Congressional amici are Reps. from the states of PA, GA, MI, and WI. Not a single one of them suggested that another vote be held for **their** seats, despite them having been on the very same ballots that are being challenged in the suit. Moreover, PA, GA, MI, and WI are not the only 4 states with executive directives or court rulings related to the election. So why are the litigants and these Reps. focused on those 4 states? Not because they’re honestly concerned about the role of state legislatures, in which case they’d be arguing that many more states be defendants (including Texas), but because they either hope to overturn the election or cynically think it serves them politically to play at doing so. Think about what they’re arguing in favor of: disenfranchising millions of voters in multiple states because they don’t like who those voters voted for. Why isn’t Texas also a defendant in the suit? After all, the TX legislature didn’t approve drive-through voting, but that was allowed in Harris County, Texas, per a court order.
I consider the suit’s argument deeply dishonest and the Reps. disingenuous.
FWIW, you don’t need to post individual motion URLs for me; they’re all listed on the main docket page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
Note my follow-up question on jurisdiction in italics, CTHD:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf
Pg. 8: “I. Texas’s Claims Do Not Meet the Exacting Standard Necessary for the Court to Exercise its Original Jurisdiction”
In rejecting Texas’ motion on standing, did the Court also reject all of Pennsylvania’s arguments against Texas meeting “the exacting standard necessary for the Court to exercise its Original Jurisdiction”?
I’m not sure why you’re asking that question. The Court didn’t voice an opinion either way on Pennsylvania’s specific arguments.
Good idea.
Let’s just have the Supreme Court “take a strong stand” against all conservatives, against everyone who is not a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO), starting with the American
Founders, and then nullify their products, the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution.
One fell swoop, comrade, one fell swoop.
Let’s just impose the Communist Manifesto and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and brook no utterance of opposition to the communist party line (the indoctrinated “Stepford citizens” will never know the
difference).
You’re a thinker, comrade, you’re a thinker!
Wait, doesn’t the Constitution require that each Justice swear an oath to support the Constitution and, presumably, all that flows from it?
“BREAKING: The Supreme Court has denied Texas’ last-ditch effort to overturn the election results in four battleground states that voted for Joe Biden.”
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1337540965771452416
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
thanks for the news Jonathan
sadly this is what i predicted
the illusion of judicial relief has now evaporated and the matter is now wholly political
continue it by other means
Saloth Sar
Judicial relief existed in state courts. It’s not an illusion. Trump and his allies simply have no good legal argument, and they’re losing on both standing and merits. Judges throughout the political spectrum are eviscerating their briefs for their crappy arguments and lack of evidence.
It went as you predicted, Anonymous.
CTHD: “Did interstate judicial relief with respect to the question of Pennsylvania’s alleged disenfranchisement of Texas voters exist in the state courts?”
This ultra sensitivity is getting out of hand. Say I told a female friend, go kiss that Yellow Frog, great fortune and a lifetime of happiness will be yours. She does and dies from the poison on the frog’s skin. Should I be prosecuted for her death? Did she not have free will? Regarding diGenova and Johnson neither should face any consequences for their statements as they did nothing wrong. If someone does act on their statement(s), they and they alone should face the consequences. The dissembler(s) of these extravagant statements should take a deep breath and step back before inserting foot in mouth. I leave with these lyric from “Froggy Went a-Courtin” Written by Tex Ritter to illustrate the absurdity of limiting speech and just for fun! ————————————————–
A frog went a-courtin’ and he did ride, M-hm, M-hm.
A frog went a-courtin’ and he did ride,
Sword and pistol by his side, M-hm, M-hm.
He rode up to Miss Mousie’s door, M-hm, M-hm,
He rode up to Miss Mousie’s door,
Where he’d often been before, M-hm, M-hm.
He said, “Miss Mouse, are you within?” M-hm, M-hm,
He said, “Miss Mouse, are you within?”
“Yes, kind sir, I sit and spin.” M-hm, M-hm.
He took Miss Mouse upon his knee, M-hm, M-hm,
He took Miss Mouse upon his knee
Said “Miss Mouse, will you marry me?” M-hm, M-hm.
“Without my Uncle Rat’s consent, M-hm, M-hm,
Without my Uncle Rat’s consent
I wouldn’t marry the President.” M-hm, M-hm.
Uncle Rat, he laughed and shook his fat sides, M-hm, M-hm,
Uncle Rat, he laughed and shook his fat sides
To think his niece would be a bride, M-hm, M-hm.
Then Uncle Rat rode off to town, M-hm, M-hm,
Then Uncle Rat rode off to town
To buy his niece a wedding gown, M-hm, M-hm.
“Oh, where will the wedding supper be?” M-hm, M-hm,
“Oh where will the wedding supper be?”
“Way down yonder in the hollow tree.” M-hm, M-hm.
The first to come was the little white moth, M-hm, M-hm,
The first to come was the little white moth
She spread out the tablecloth, M-hm, M-hm.
The next to come was the bumblebee, M-hm, M-hm,
The next to come was the bumblebee
Played the fiddle upon his knee, M-hm, M-hm.
The next to come was a little flea, M-hm, M-hm,
The next to come was a little flea
Danced a jig with the bumblebee, M-hm, M-hm.
The next to come was Missus Cow, M-hm, M-hm,
The next to come was Missus Cow
Tried to dance but didn’t know how, M-hm, M-hm.
Now Mister Frog was dressed in green, M-hm, M-hm,
Now Mister Frog was dressed in green
Sweet Miss Mouse looked like a queen, M-hm, M-hm.
In slowly walked the Parson Rook, M-hm, M-hm,
In slowly walked the Parson Rook
Under his arm he carried a book, M-hm, M-hm.
They all gathered round the lucky pair, M-hm, M-hm,
They all gathered round the lucky pair
Singing, dancing everywhere, M-hm, M-hm.
Then Frog and Mouse went off to France, M-hm, M-hm,
Then Frog and Mouse went off to France
That’s the end of my romance, M-hm, M-hm.
And fascists are actually right of center – so all you fascist take a look at yourself in the mirror!
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy
So authoritarian leftists are what? Lockdowns with penalties are strong regimentation of our society. and are destroying the economy.
ah, but lockdowns only benefit billionaires who have got the Fed to pump up financial markets due to the COVID excuse.
thus there is no thought of benefitting the nation let alone any “race.” all the workers are suffering now, of any race.
at the hands of corrupt officials and bureaucrats all of whom are in the pocket of the billiionaires
So what we have emerging is not fascism, it is capitalist globalist totalitarianism
the workers and middle class must resist with nonviolent refusal to pay federal income taxes. that will work and they will hear once our numbers are large enough.
https://www.warresisters.org/war-tax-resistance-organizations
Saloth Sar
Wolves are waiting to fill the power vacuum if you achieve your goal of crashing the system. Crashing the system is not an act of resisting war; it would become a precursor to it.
The qualities that define Fascism equally apply to the radical left: Totalitarianism is the end sought despite the directional description.
Anna–“And fascists are actually right of center.”
***
Odd to hear that. The original Fascists, those of Italy, said they were socialists and, in fact, came from socialist traditions. Mussolini was a famous and influential Italian socialist and union man at the time he fashioned a more robust form of socialism that he called Fascism, then an Italian expression for unionism.
Hitler insisted that the word socialist be included in the name of his party, the National Socialist German Workers Party a/k/a Nazis. A historian of the the time who was there, William Shirer, was surprised that so many socialists and Communists ended up joining the Nazi party.
Look at the behavior of Fascist Brownshirts in the Germany of the Thirties and compare that to what one can see of Antifa and BLM today. They are indistinguishable.
What you are repeating is nonsense from school. If you do your own research you will learn more.
Oh, let’s be honest. there’s plenty of difference. the fascists were in support of the nation and the regular people
blm and antifa are lumpen agitators, tools, nothing more
“blm and antifa are lumpen agitators, tools, nothing more”
***
So were the Brownshirts. When they were pest than benefit Hitler ordered The Night of the Long Knives to get them under control.
“there’s plenty of difference. the Fascists were in support of the nation and the regular people”
In what way were they supporting the regular people? You realize Nazism is a type of Fascism, don’t you. The difference between the Fascism of Germany and Italy was the racial element. You realize the rights of the regular people came secondary to the state, don’t you? You realize the state was run by a dictator with a whole bunch of elitists at his side including the largest companies in Italy, don’t you? You realize the media supported only one party and that was the party of Fascism and Mussolini, don’t you? You realize the common man that you think they supported had to do what he was told, don’t you? Yes, Mussolini made the trains run on time and did a few other good things, but in the end was it worth it for the people of Nazi Germany or Musollini’s Italy?
I took note of the fact that Anonymous has been posting but despite very good explanations of things he knows little about he runs away from all seldom responding to the facts on the table. When he does he is mostly incorrect.
Instead I note that his insults and rash behavior continue.
Plain and simple, anonymous is an ignorant coward who is unable to have intelligent debate.
“there’s plenty of difference. … blm and antifa are lumpen agitators, tools, nothing more”
Nothing more Anonymous? Check out the rise to power in history because what you seem to do is take the facts, blenderize them and add the particular spin you desire without understanding what the players stand for or what the game is all about.
I see some list members have been trying to provide you with a wider view of the world around you. It seems you have little understanding of ideologies and who the players were and are.
Early on people were not concerned about the Brownshirts. They were just “lumpen agitators, tools, nothing more” Which are your words.
However they were instrumental in the Nazi power grab losing power after the Nazi’s got what they wanted.
Young, it is amazing that these individuals are unable to break down ideologies into their prominent elements so they can figure out what the ideologies stand for.
JT, you’ve gone NUTS. Looks as though you have lost all your credibility among your colleagues at GW. I’m sorry, it could be time to hang up the blog because your followers are filled with hate and that is a problem within our society. No worries, the Age of Aquarius is upon us and things are about to shift in a progressive direction with upwards of 40% of the worlds population looking at the grass from the wrong side. Bummer dude.
The Fascist left rears its ugly head.
Fascists are right wing, Allan.
At this point, it is liberty versus tyranny. Quibbling about right vs left keeps us divided and distracted from the wider, non-partisan problems needing solutions.
Then I assume Prairie that you are most alarmed by the actions of one of our 2 major parties to pursue taking away the votes of states where they didn’t like the results. Most of the state governments the party controls politically and half it’s House representatives have endorsed this act while almost all the Senators of the party have sat silent watching. If ending democracy is not tyranny what is?
the lawsuit aims to rectify the illegal circumvention of state legislatures by corrupt officials
it is supremely democratic, actually, as against the corrupt election fraud
Saloth Sar
They lack standing, and if it weren’t just a political stunt, they would have filed suit months ago.
You’re so full of s… your eyes are brown Kurtz. You’ll believe anything if it makes you feel better.
Pennsylvania’s GOP legislature wrote the law extending mail-in ballots and also refused a request to allow counting votes as they came in, rather than waiting until election day.
Every case brought has been thrown out but one on a minor procedural issue. That’s 1-55 at this point.
We get that you’ve managed to win one popular vote since 1992 (1 out of 8) and have given up on democracy. Move to Russia.
I am a native born here and my family’s blood soaked the soil with their blood in the war of independence and the civil war
I’ll never leave. I thought about it but I changed my mind.
I’d have gone to Vietnam anyways not Russia. But travel plans are all cancelled now.
Saloth Sar
Joe Friday,
I don’t think this is left vs right, liberals vs conservatives or Democrats vs Republicans. Perhaps I am too cynical; it feels like something else is playing out. I fear the elites have the high ground.
https://youtu.be/hL82JEQhYAo
Prairie, there are ZERO Democrats trying to throw out the election results in states they lost.
What are you talking about?
The magicians have you focused on their selected spotlights of attention while their legerdemain is conducting something else.
Prairie Rose, there are non-partisan problems and there are also partisan problems in the US. I see no reason to ignore the latter, and it’s impossible to resolve the partisan problems if people simply shift the meanings of words and ignore history to suit their partisan purposes. “Fascist” has a meaning and history.
Anonymous,
“there are non-partisan problems and there are also partisan problems in the US. I see no reason to ignore the latter, and it’s impossible to resolve the partisan problems if people simply shift the meanings of words and ignore history to suit their partisan purposes. “Fascist” has a meaning and history.”
I agree. However, it seems even the discussion of ‘Fascist’ is being used as a partisan bludgeon. Right now, the non-partisan issues that will affect Americans of all stripes are being attacked while, namely, the securing of our liberty–especially the First and the Fourth. However, even the functioning of our republic, as enumerated in the Constitution, has its sly detractors. The road to hell is soft underfoot and without signposts, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis.
To solve problems, they must be prioritized in a hierarchy. Right now, those things which we have enjoyed as AMERICANS are threatened and those threatening them are keeping us divided by making it appear as though the attacks are from the Left or from the Right, but it seems to be from a sideways position.
Prairie Rose, what term do you use to name those who are threatening our democratic republic?
Anonymous,
That is a good question. I haven’t thought of a good, umbrella term for this eclectic bunch that cannot easily be put into a “camp”. They are the Influencers, Manipulators, Bernays-style plus. There are smatterings of the members of the Media, the Deep State, Big Pharma, Big Business, Think Tanks, the MIC, feuding cliques of politicians and others in the government, members of Academia, perhaps people listed in Jeffrey Epstein’s little, black book, etc… The cast of characters could have been attendees at any of Bernay’s lavish parties, were he still alive–though I’m sure others have stepped up to take his place…but there are others, too, striving to undermine what is already fraught. The partisanship angle is an easy means to distract and manipulate.
I’ll hazard to say more, with some trepidation…
There are competing and opposing narratives we are meant to perceive and a narrative that is. The narrative that is is playing out behind a scrim.
I feel like I’m watching Magicians.
To lightens things a bit, maybe a bit like this:
Dummy excluding the crazies that have been on both sides of the aisle
Fascists: Large government
Democrats and left: Large government
Right: Small government
Nazi tribalism: Kill non Aryans
Democrat and left tribalism: Place minorities in plantation communities
Right: All Americans are Americans.
Fascists. Big business billionaires and government work together
Democrats and left: Big business and government work together
Right Help the working class [the left used to be more active in this area but gave it up to the Right]
Fascists: Limited speech rights
Democrats and left: Limited speech rights
Right: Free speech.
I just provided stupid anonymous with some of the major features of the ideological positions. Anonymous is too stupid to understand them. They were provided before and he ran away because he was humiliated.
Allan again resorts to some of his go-to strategies for trolling:
Lie.
Insult.
Pretend to read someone’s mind and attack the person on the basis of his made up attribution.
Attribute his own failings to others.
Make claims about what someone did in the past without linking to any evidence for his claim.
People can look for themselves at whether I “ran away” –
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/05/its-going-down-the-justice-department-charges-two-women-on-terrorism-charges/comment-page-1/#comment-2033287
I stopped responding because Allan was trolling and because he could not admit to a statement about Nazis from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Anonymous, when I recently responded I remembered someone else’s posting on a parallel course so I searched for it out of pity. To prove your adroitness you referred the blog to a prior debate . You stated that you didn’t run away rather responded. That is unimportant, but if you didn’t run away your response demonstrated your lack of mental acuity. It would have been better for you to have said nothing and hope most people wouldn’t remember that you ran away.
You never thought of asking yourself what makes any ideology right or left wing. Instead of defining right wing in a fashion different from the right mostly used in respect to our two major parties you stated someone agreed with you. But what was their definition that they based that agreement on? Certainly not the ideology commonly associated with the two parties. You really are clueless.
Anonymous broke down some of the most important elements that distinguishes Fascism, Nazism and Communism from the political right in the US. I will copy a bit,
“Nazi = big government
Nazi = control over businesses
Nazi = the state supersedes the individual”
You couldn’t manage any of these three important markers that tell one where an entity belongs on the spectrum. You couldn’t because that would make you appear to be a Nazi, Fascist or Communist.
What that tells us is that you don’t know what you are and you never made a choice. People told you what you are and told you what Nazi’s are, but no one ever defined the concepts involved so you remain ignorant to this day.
If you wish I will work with you in defining these terms without expecting you to agree with my political philosophy but at least you will know who and what you are and you will better understand the people on the political right. They are definitely not Nazi’s
“I stopped responding because”
Face it Anonymous you stopped responding to substantive debate because as I just mentioned you are an ignorant coward.
Believe what you want, Allan. I believe you’re a troll.
This:
“Anonymous broke down some of the most important elements that distinguishes Fascism, Nazism and Communism from the political right in the US. I will copy a bit,
“Nazi = big government
Nazi = control over businesses
Nazi = the state supersedes the individual”
Is content not trolling. What you do is trolling. You troll because you are unable to deal with complex situations and you need something to fill up your ego. You fill your head up with your imaginary armies and imaginary battles against imaginary people.
You are an ignorant coward.
LMAO that you compliment yourself on one of your sock comments.
Yes, Anonymous, you ran away. Of that we are all certain.
Your head is about to explode with all this Allen nonsense.
Nah. It must be your own head that’s feeling that way.
We can tell your head is full of junk because that is all you write anonymous.
I don’t think either Johnson or DiGenova meant their statements literally. But I also don’t think that either was joking. To suggest that those are the only two possibilities is a false dichotomy. I believe they meant it seriously but not literally, and that it should be condemned because saying things like this escalates the harmful rhetoric and creates risks for people. People are getting death threats because of “jokes” (according to Turley) like DiGenova’s. Or look at a crazy person like Cesar Sayoc who mailed pipe bombs to people Trump had criticized. The rhetoric matters.
Turley says “In this political environment, however, such allowance however is notably denied to those on the right. Mark Zaid declared that ‘no rational person’ who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot ‘would have taken it as ‘jest.’’ No rational person. The Washington Post’s Randall Eliason seemed to dismiss that this was ‘just a colorful metaphor.’ Professor Steve Vladeck declared ‘Lawyers who make these kinds of threats should be disbarred. Full stop.’”
First, Turley presents a counterexample (Eliason) to his claim that “such allowance however is notably denied to those on the right.” There are plenty of such counterexamples. Second, neither Vladeck’s nor Zaid’s comments were limited to those on the right.
Somehow, society has to figure out how to dial the rhetoric down and disagree with people civilly.
+10
Elvis Bug
Things will quiet down considerably when the Mango Mussolini hits the road, and we are almost there.
I’m looking forward to a boring president.
billionaires, whom Comrade Joe sadly esteems, will enjoy having a total puppet in office too.
that’s precisely what they want. Trump was a maverick. Too accommodating to the billionaires, it is true, yet a maverick who often opposed their agenda
he should have made open war on them and not stopped short as he did, just by fiddling with trade
Saloth Sar
When the last time someone was drawn and quartered? 1782 When was the last time a Trump supporter was shot? Two in the last six months. All need to choose their words wisely and calmly.
Trump was seen this morning outside the White House wearing a crown on his head.
We have a King!
Turley insists everyone knows diGenova was just joking about drawing & quartering Krebs. Krebs is now receiving death threats. His crime? Announcing an extensive investigation verified the 2020 election is the most secure election in US history. That triggered diGenova’s attacks on Krebs. Turley gives diGenova the benefit of the doubt & says Trump’s attorney is simply exercising his free speech rights.
Georgia’s Governor Kemp, Secretary of State Raffensperger & their families are also receiving death threats for the same crime: Confirming a hand count of every ballot in Georgia revealed no voter fraud like Trump & his attorneys are alleging. Trump called Raffensperger the enemy of the people & says Kemp is finished as governor. Kelly Loeffler & David Perdue demanded Raffensperger resign for certifying Biden as the winner in Georgia after 3 recounts.
The man Trump just pardoned wants Trump to invoke martial law, temporarily suspend the Constitution, & order a new election. Flynn refuses to accept Biden won the election.
Turley’s reaction to comments like these by Flynn, Trump, Loeffler & Perdue? “Free speech must allow room at the elbows for reckless or hyperbolic language.” If leads to death threats, that’s just unintended consequences, right JT?
“Turley’s reaction to comments like these by Flynn, Trump, Loeffler & Perdue? “Free speech must allow room at the elbows for reckless or hyperbolic language.” If leads to death threats, that’s just unintended consequences, right JT?”
**************************
Sure because we’re responsible for the actions and words of every crackpot out there whether they heard what we said or not. Your argument looks like swiss cheese on steroids especially your assumptions on causation, personal responsibility and just plain logic. Please tell me you’re not advising people.
” Your argument looks like swiss cheese on steroids …”
Please tell me you aren’t advising anyone based on the use of cliches like this.
Race, with Turley it’s all about conservative victimhood. He’s like America’s leading chronicler.
Krebs was lying, as is obvious to anyone with the capacity to think critically. Krebs has no clue as to the “security” of past elections. He deserves to be criticized and mocked.
William,
A lie is a knowingly false statement told with intent to deceive. What’s your evidence that it’s false, and that Krebs knew it was false and his goal was to deceive?
Keep in mind that Krebs wasn’t the only one to make the statement; it came from a bipartisan group: https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election
Are you accusing all of them of lying?
Res ipsa loquitur! Are you serious? Some clown makes an assertion about things he can’t possible know, and you don’t think he’s lying?
And, yes, anyone who made the same statement would be lying.
Yes, I’m serious. It doesn’t actually speak for itself.
You assume that he cannot possibly know. You haven’t provided evidence of that or any argument for it. Are you saying that it’s impossible for anyone to know? (If so, what’s your evidence/argument?) Or are you only saying that *he* can’t possibly know, even if someone else might? (And if so, why can’t he?)
Moreover, even if he doesn’t actually know, he could mistakenly but sincerely believe that he does know. If that’s the case, he’s not lying. Again, lying is making a knowingly false statement with intent to deceive. You not only have to show that his statement is false but that it’s *knowingly* false and that his goal is to deceive others.
Again: What’s your evidence that it’s false, and that Krebs knew it was false and his goal was to deceive?
In the private section, we would be fired for doing what that witch from Michigan said. She was inciting violence against innocent people. Megan Kelly got fired for SAYING that she thought dressing up in “blackface” as one of your idols was common during Halloween, and she didn’t see anything wrong with it….Yet elected Politicians can incite violence, and you think she shouldn’t have lost her committee seats?? She should be indicted. This is not the time to incite your little Brown shirts to commit more hate and violence.
Whitmer once again proves she and other Democrats are more disgusting and smell worse than a pile of sheep dung.
Still, if she stared at you for a couple seconds, you’d pop a rod.
“Free speech must allow room at the elbows for reckless or hyperbolic language, but the allowance must be consistently applied.”
I quite agree.
In light of this sentiment, here’s something that could be added to the conversation:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9033021/Elementary-school-principal-tells-fired-sharing-anti-Biden-conservative-memes.html
Yeah, I know, The Daily Mail. But, I *looked* for local news on this. Nothing. Interestingly, that elementary school does have an interim principal.
Jonathan, GFY you phony concern troll. This isn’t a one street you’re looking at, and aiming one column after another at Democrats while adding a throw away line about how much you oppose all violent rhetoric – and more than rhetoric with the Michigan right wing – is propaganda. No, you don’t condemn all violent rhetoric, just the side that gets you on Fox News again.
friday:
Once again with you GFY comment (I guess that sort of language appeals to you if you use it twice so quickly).
You claim that you came here to debate.
BS, you come to insult and spew your bile from the safety of a pseudonym.
I am developing a real contempt for you.
I drew a picture of Trump with an ink pen on paper the size of a letter page. I used a pair of sizzlers and cut it into four eual pieces. I taped the pieces on the front fence.
That is “drawn and quartered”
Free speech for me not thee. While I agree with the sentiment that one side is strangely quiet, Johnson was punished. That may be enough of a deterrent to ramp down some of the over heated rhetoric.
I worry that some lunatic fringe will actually attack someone due to some of the language out among the populace. Then we shall see what happens.
The right wing lunatic fringe already fully planned an attack in\ Michigan with intent to murder.
It would help immensely if the GOP had not become an anti-democratic force intent on stealing elections from voters and giving it to politicians.
Too much to ask?
one of the beer swilling bozos entrapped by federal informants and provocateurs was ANTIFA. he had those disgusting black hoop earrings and an ANTIFA flag on his wall. but you keep calling them right wingers,. ok whatever
ok fine. whatever. and I am a leftist now and support the war resistance organizations that since 1923 have lead conscientious objectors to RESIST PAYING INCOME TAXES AS A NONVIOLENT PROTEST AGAINST FEDERAL SCHEMES AND TYRANNY
https://www.warresisters.org/war-tax-resistance-organizations
Saloth Sar
Cynthia Johnson… in Cuba, during the Castro revolution, they called people like her the termites of the underground”, that were eliminated after its triumph.
I drew a picture of Trump on a letter size piece of typing paper with an ink pen. I cut it in four pieces and taped the pieces on my front fence.
Yes Trump was drawn and quartered
Why did you not burn them and then piss on them to put out the fire?
The Xichigan legislature has the right to police it’s own body. It has chosen to do so in this case. However, censure might have been a more appropriate punishment.
One can only hope that they continue to apply those rules equitably to all parties. While I can understand a free speech argument here, the legislator is not really being deprived of any property (unless committee seats are now considered property), nor is she muzzled. She can continue to express her opinions as she wishes.
Most of the heated/violent rhetoric seems to come from the left (as a microcosm, just compare the postings on this blog – the left is far louder, angrier, and ruder than most of the conservative posts).
Seems to me that the left as a group are angry, unhappy people.
No idea what these lefty posters do in real life, but given the number of posts (by Anonymous, Jeffrey S., Joe Friday, Natasha, etc) this blog seems to make up a significant percentage of their lives.
And their comments suggest that they have taken emotional ownership of the blog – look at the number of times that they tell Turley to change his tone, write something else, or moderate his language.
Sad how the left has let their TDS leak over into other activities. Doesn’t make for happy people – or people that most of us want in our lives.
No,
Both sides are playing game. Right now the left side is a bit louder. This is not a new phenomena.
She lost all her committee assignments and is under state investigation. di Genova is enjoying a bourbon and a cigar. Who cares what this Philistine thinks, does or says. She’s irrelevant. Same goes for Vladeck.
Vladeck argued before SCOTUS this year, and it’s not the first time he’s done so. He’s won significant cases, he’s published peer-reviewed legal articles and op-eds, he’s a law prof. in a named chair, he’s an editor on legal blogs. He’s a much more successful lawyer than you are. Yep, between you and him, he’s definitely the one who’s irrelevant.