“How Much Does The Current Structure Benefit Us?”: AOC Questions Role Of Supreme Court In Defending Court Packing

It often seems that our politics of rage has created a new age of berserkers, warriors revered for their blind destructive fury. In order to distinguish yourself from the rest of the mob, you must show a willingness to lay waste to any structure or institution on the path to victory. That type of blood-lust politics was on display this week when House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey , D-Mass, and others unveiled a raw court packing bill to add four new justices to the Supreme Court to give liberals a one-justice majority. Not to be outdone, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. not only endorsed the court-packing scheme but appeared to question the very basis for Marbury v. Madison — the case laying the foundation for the Supreme Court in our constitutional system.

AOC challenged the role of the Court in overturning laws. She questioned “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” She then added “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

That current structure is called judicial review. It is the very thing that prevents authoritarian rule. Notably, there is little difference in nine or the proposed thirteen justices overturning laws “hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” Unless she is suggesting requiring thousands of jurists to review laws in equal numbers, her problem appears to be with the concept of judicial review.

In the 1803 Marbury decision, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.” Part of that right to review is the challenging of unconstitutional federal laws.  Marshall noted that “[t]he powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.” He then wrote most famously: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

AOC seems as emphatically convinced that a small number of jurists should not stand in judgment of the demands of thousands.  There is a term for that type of system. It is called ochlocracy, or mob rule. Another term, most associated with John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty (1859) is “tyranny of the majority.” Mill explains that “the will of the people […] practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people.” Framers like John Adams referred to this form of tyranny and it is precisely what motivated figures like George Mason to demand a Bill of Rights protecting individual rights against the government – and the will of the majority. You do not need a First Amendment to protect popular speech. It is designed to protect the unpopular views of an insular and even despised minority.

What was an enlightened view in the Eighteenth Century is now reactionary in the Twenty-First Century. The Court is an impediment to progress. Indeed, the privileged few justices – whether nine or thirteen – is intolerable for those who seek transform our society.  This however is only a tyranny of the majority by the smallest margin. These structural changes are being pushed through despite an election that left the Senate in a 50-50 tie and the House with a now two-seat majority. It is really “tyranny of the mere majority.”

What is most chilling however is AOC’s question “How much does the current structure benefit us? It reflects a crisis for faith. No constitutional system can long survive with a type of leap of faith by the govern – faith not only in the system itself but each other.  That faith is now gone. Instead, we have the rise of the berserkers, politicians promising to yield to no institution or tradition that does not “benefit us.”

Back in the age of Vikings, berserkers would throw off their armor and even bite their own shields in pure rage. Accounts of the time describe a type of trancelike state called berserkergang that could describe many in our current politics: a “shivering, chattering of the teeth, and chill in the body, and then the face swelled and changed its color. With this was connected a great hot-headedness, which at last gave over into a great rage.” Norse leaders used the berserkers for their own ends. However, the berserkers had other plans and soon their lust for destruction threatened these leaders themselves. In 1015, Norway officially outlawed berserkers.

President Joe Biden has continued to stand mute as these figures rampage through his party and now the country. He is clearly unwilling to confront them directly and risk AOC or others asking how Biden “benefits us.” Indeed, he is enabling them by refusing to denounce court packing or other extreme demands. These extreme forces could be useful in maintaining Democratic control in the 2022 and 2024 elections. However, if the White House hopes they will serve as Biden’s berserkers, history shows they won’t be for long.

219 thoughts on ““How Much Does The Current Structure Benefit Us?”: AOC Questions Role Of Supreme Court In Defending Court Packing”

    1. This was posted as a reply to Enigma’s 1:14 PM comment. It got decoupled for some unknown reason.

  1. I wouldn’t say she’s empty headed or stupid but I question who is “Sandy the Bartender” puppet masters?

  2. Sadly, AOC is simply a narcissistic, histrionic, self aggrandizing sycophant whose ignorance of economics, history and political theory is only marginally outweighed by her bullying behavior.

    Thank god for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution which keeps any majority from running over individual rights as if they’re nothing but a speed bump. There are many laws that the majority call for on the state level and federal level that the Supreme Court has overturned because those laws conflict with individual rights.

    I feel sorry for AOC because she is embarrassingly bereft of reason and critical thinking.

    1. AOC is indeed “embarrassingly bereft of reason and critical thinking.” But that doesn’t make her any less dangerous.

      She’s a narcissist and also a tool. Whose tool is not entirely clear but she’s a major driver of the agenda of open borders, packing the court, eliminating the EC, etc.

      If anyone studies her voting record, it’s clear she is also a fan or Adam Schiff, the CIA, and regime change wars.

      Biden just caved to her on the refugee cap—all the while leaving the southern border “relaxed,” if not totally open. It’s not racist to say the U.S. needs to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration drives down wages and undermines labor power. Legal immigration is great. So many progressives don’t seem to understand that Wall Street and Big Business love open borders and benefit from it.

  3. You’ve got to be kidding. If anyone thinks this empty headed bar keep has ever thought about Marbury v Madison, then you are as demented as she.

  4. I can’t imagine they haven’t met but Turley acts like he’s totally unaware of Mitch McConnell who has done more to pack the Supreme Court and Federal Courts than any other human.

    1. McConnell did not “pack” the court.

      He followed existing norms to acheive a conservative supermajority by legitimate and accepted means.

      He absolutely did so politically – but he also took a significant gamble.
      Trump could have lost. Hillary could have picked Scalia’s replacement.

      What is currently proposed is not merely blatantly political – it is outside of norms.

      It is essentially saying – you won following the norms – so we are going to change the norms.

      Every republican president since Eisenhower could have assured a conservative court – by packing the court.

      Democrats can go forward and do this. No one can stop them but themselves.

      If they do – that will become the norm.

      Nor will it be limited to the courts.

      IF you want to increase the political divide. If you want more bitterness.
      If you want violence – go ahead do this.

      1. “He followed existing norms to acheive a conservative supermajority by legitimate and accepted means.”

        You are ignorant or lying. It was not an existing norm for the Senate Majority leader to personally hold court vacancies open without allowing nomination hearings because he disliked the nominees, and he did that not only for Garland, but for many lower court vacancies.

        “Hillary could have picked Scalia’s replacement.”

        LMAO that you think McConnell wouldn’t have immediately held confirmation hearings for Garland if Clinton had won.

        1. An opposing majority can block a President’s pick for Supreme Court. The only reason you’re attacking John is to change the subject from court packing, which is not unconstitutional, but definitely an attack on the integrity of the Court. You make nothing into something so you can hide the truth.

          1. McConnell is not a majority. McConnell is a single person. He is the Majority Leader, but he is still just one person. Had all of the Republicans voted on the things that McConnell did all by himself, I wouldn’t be making the argument that I made.

            Can you deal with my actual argument?

            LMAO that you think addressing quotes from John constitutes “changing the subject.”

            “You make nothing into something so you can hide the truth.”

            No, McConnell’s actions are something. In fact, he’s gloated that his actions with respect to the courts are the actions he’s most proud of. You don’t say what “truth” you think I’m hiding. Please do say. I’m especially interested to see whether it’s really a truth or is just your opinion.

            1. Ari Berman, author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America

              “The real court packing was when Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland 8 months before election but confirmed Amy Coney Barrett 8 days before election when 65 million had already voted”
              https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/1380898087414157316
              “a majority of those [Supreme Court] justices were appointed by Republican presidents who came to office after losing the popular vote and were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. … No one has benefited more from minority rule—and done more to ensure it—than Mitch McConnell. For six years, he presided over a Senate majority representing fewer people than the minority party, the longest such stretch in US history …”
              https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/the-insurrection-was-put-down-the-gop-plan-for-minority-rule-marches-on/

              1. So false equivalences are arguments ?

                Why do I care what Ari Beriman tweets ?

                Majority rule is tyranny – move on.

            2. “McConnell is not a majority.”
              No his is the majority leader.

              Pelosi and schumer do the same things all the time.

              “Had all of the Republicans voted on the things that McConnell did all by himself, I wouldn’t be making the argument that I made.”
              If they wanted to they could have.

              “Can you deal with my actual argument?”
              Can you make a valid argument ?

              “McConnell’s actions are something. In fact, he’s gloated that his actions with respect to the courts are the actions he’s most proud of.”

              I did not vote for Trump. But I think that Trump’s judicial appointments are the very best thing of his presidency.
              Trump can be proud of that.
              McConnell can be proud of that.

              Many millions of americans are happy about that.

          2. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and-the-senate-helped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/

            McConnell is proud of having prevented Obama from filling judicial vacancies. He’s gloated about it in interviews.

            Hannity: “I was shocked that former President Obama left so many [judicial] vacancies and didn’t try to fill those positions.”
            McConnell: “I’ll tell you why. I’ll tell you why. I was in charge of the -, of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration. [creepy laugh]”
            Hannity: “I give -, and I will give you full credit for that. And, by the way, take a bow.”

            That’s at the end of the video below, where McConnell also confirmed in advance that if there were a SCOTUS vacancy in the summer before the 2020 election, he’d have hearings to get Trump’s nominee confirmed, contrary to his argument after Scalia died.

            You don’t want to call this court packing, but it’s a form of court packing.

            1. “McConnell is proud of having prevented Obama from filling judicial vacancies.”
              Yup, as are many republicans – and some of us who are not.
              Obama’s appointments were attrocious.

              “You don’t want to call this court packing, but it’s a form of court packing.”

              I do not care about the world games.

              This is a typical problem with you left wing nuts.

              False equivalences.

              While it is improper use of english to call what McConnell did “court packing”.

              It is not the specific words that matter.

              What is critical is that McConnell very successfully did what has been being done for our entire history.

              Democrats are currently trying to do what has never been done before

              Your word games do not matter.

              These two things are NOT the same.

        2. “IF you want to increase the political divide. If you want more bitterness. If you want violence – go ahead do this.”

          You ignore John at your own peril. People already doubt the voting. Make them doubt the courts and it’s over.

          1. They already doubt the courts.
            Jan. 6 would not have been possible if the courts were trusted.

            Trust in government is at an all time low.

            Change is always slow – except when it isn’t.

            We may be at a moment when the left has undermined trust in government – including the courts sufficiently that change occurs suddenly – not over time.

            Did you expect the collapse of the USSR ?

            The victory of Solidarity in Poland ? The disintegration of East Germany in a flash ?

            I doubt the british expected the Boston Tea Party – or Lexington and Concorde.

      2. McConnell spent years blocking Democratic nominations to the Federal courts to the tune of hundreds during the Obama years. Then when Trum came along he rushed through unqualified candidates based purely on ideology. The only reason not to acknowledge what he did as court-packing is because you like the result.

        https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/news/2019/04/03/468234/conservative-court-packing/

        https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and-the-senate-helped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/

        1. “McConnell spent years blocking Democratic nominations to the Federal courts to the tune of hundreds during the Obama years.”
          Yup – that was a tactic used by BOTH parties for decades.

          “Then when Trum came along he rushed through unqualified candidates based purely on ideology.”
          False.
          The federalist society vetted most of the candidates – of hundreds of appointments few were “unqualified” – far fewer than the norm.
          There are a number of leading left legal scholars that have noted that the Trump appointed judges are going to be a huge problem for the left – because they are very good. They were disproportionately well qualified. These were near uniformly people who had gone to the best law schools, who had clerked for federal judges, federal appelate judges, and supreme court justices in numbers far higher than the norm for political appointments.
          These are NOT the typical political appointees – they are ideological to be sure – the same ideology that our founders shared and wrote into the constitution.

          You have no problems with political appointments and unqualified appointments, and ideological appointments – when it is YOUR failed ideology that is being advanced.

          “The only reason not to acknowledge what he did as court-packing is because you like the result.”

          False.

          Lets dispense with the word games. Delaying appointments, or advancing appointments – can be political.
          But it is within the norms of the almost 250 years of this countries history.
          Increasing the size of the supreme court purely for partisan advantage is outside the norms of 250 years of this countries history.

          Nothing in the constitution precludes doing either.

          But you are accusing McConnell of being just like every other senate leader for 250 years.

          You are being accused of violating norms that have never been violated before, and were roundly condemned last time they were tried.

          You can do this. If you do, it will be the first time it is done. It will not be the last.
          You can do this. If you do, you will bring us one step closer to the point that the people withdraw their consent from government and alter or abolish it.

          You and your sources are pushing a false equivalence.

          Everything that is political is not the same.
          Everything that is constitutional is not normal.

          Why are you even arguing ? You have the power to do as you please.
          Why do you need the consent of your victims ?

          Do it – and face the consequences – or don’t.

          Frankly in this and numerous other idiocies – the left is being stupid.

          They are proposing to do extreme things – terrifying the electorate and burning the bridges underneath them on the road to 2022,
          Then they are not going forward – thus inflicing most of the political harm with none of the political benefit.

          So keep it up – keep pushing this extreme stupidity.

          Your making republicans very happy. Your sewing the seeds of your own destruction – and not having any fun while you are at it.

          You are also confirming every extreme thing that has been said about you.

          1. You miust not be paying attention. Republicans aren’t very happy. There’s a huge gap between the increasingly imaginary conservative Republican that wanted small government and to control the deficit. The elected leaders have sold their souls to a clown and the party has generally followed while becoming unable or unwilling to distinguish the truth from lies. People identifying as Democrats has reached a record high while the Republican party is shrinking. Not that either party has a legacy to be proud of. You sound like one of those convinced Trump won the election. I hope he is the candidate in 2024, if he can stay out of prison that is.

            1. “You must not be paying attention.”

              More of this mind reading.

              “Republicans aren’t very happy.”
              True. There are and have been internal squabbles. But the only potential defections are neo-cons.

              The rest of the panapoly of different flavors of republican have no where to go – because democrats are worse.

              “There’s a huge gap between the increasingly imaginary conservative Republican that wanted small government and to control the deficit.”

              How do you have a huge gap with something imaginary.

              Regardless, you are correct – Fiscal conservatives are not happy with the spendthrift nature of Trump’s last year.
              I am not happy with it either. But where are they going to go ? Even morderate democrats are more spendthrift than any republican.

              “The elected leaders have sold their souls to a clown and the party has generally followed while becoming unable or unwilling to distinguish the truth from lies.”
              Is there an actual fact in that entire sentence ?

              “People identifying as Democrats has reached a record high while the Republican party is shrinking.”
              Last I checked RCP has the generic ballot at D+3.1 – given the self gerrymandering of democrats – that would be a republican house blow out if the election were held today.

              Regardless, 10M more REAL people got off their assess went to the polls in 2020 and voted republican than ever before.

              At best Democrats can say they cajoled enough couch potatoes to vote to win. And that begs the question of how many democrat votes were real.

              Democrats did incredibly bad down ballot. And all of this required an impossible to repeat set of dependencies.

              “Not that either party has a legacy to be proud of.”
              Soemthing we agree on.

              “You sound like one of those convinced Trump won the election.”
              I have zero doubt that Trump would have easily won a lawfully conducted election.
              I think it is slightly less than 50:50 that Trump won this election if we could eliminate the fraud.
              Trump needed 45K votes in 3 states to win. There is likely 45K of fraudulent votes in those three states – even without having a mailin election.

              Those on the left hide from the fact that election fraud is real. It is small in inperson elections – but much more than large enough to tip the scales in close elections. At is atleast 10 times as large with mailin voting.

              regardless, whether Trump won – and whether the election is trustworthy are completely different. The first is actually must less important than the 2nd.

              If people do not trust elections – they do not trust govenrment. And without trust government is not legitimate – no matter who won.

              “I hope he is the candidate in 2024”
              Not if your smart.
              I doubt Trump will run in 2024.
              He will be 4 years older. It will be hard.
              Biden will likely be dead or in a home.

              “if he can stay out of prison that is.”
              Right – when pigs fly.

              There is little that could harm democrats more – so go for it.

      3. There is no “conservative supermajority”. At best, it is evenly split, but it probably leans a bit to the left.

    2. So says the beneficiary, nay, personification of dependence through forced busing, unconstitutional and unfair “Fair Housing” laws, unconstitutional and discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, generational welfare, quotas, affirmative action, food stamps, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

      America fought the War on Poverty and Poverty won!
      __________________________________________

      “[Merit]? We don’t need no stinking [merit]!”

      – Manolo, Blazing Saddles
      ____________________

      Charity and alms will do nicely.

      1. Please describe the housing laws (redlining, steering, refusal to make loans, etc) that existed before the Fair Housing Act. How about the G.I. Bill that only applied to white veterans? How equal was separate but equal in reality. That you can even suggest that any other group was an unfair beneficiary is a tribute to your feelings of supremacy. Affirmative Action wasn’t a bonus, is was a cap to say this much (which you will share with white women) and no more. I’d say, “Bless your heart” but that would infer you had one.

        1. What total nonsense.

          Life is not fair – get over it.

          If you were born in the US – you won the lottery of life – the poor in the US are the top 1% of the world.

          We are not equal.

          We are not equally smart.
          We are not equally beautiful
          We are not equally talented.
          We are not equally healthy.

          That is life – you can not fix it.

          If you came to me for a job – I would not hire you – because you are an idiot.
          You would likely do the same.

          That is discrimination – and it is not only legal it is an important tool.

          I have had to hire people – I have gotten at least 100 applications for one job.
          I reject the majority of applications with little thought.
          The paper is crappy, the spelling is poor, the presentation is too weak or too strong,
          or the resume just does not cal to me.
          Of 100 applications 85 will probably end up in the circular file without being completely read.
          15 will get phone interviews, of those 5 will get in person interviews – and then I will have to pick.

          There is almost never a “Best person for the job” Nearly always it is a choice between several people each of which have flaws as well as attributes that the others do not.

          Further I know from real world experience – I am NEVER going to pick the best person for the job.

          I do not need to. Most of the time I just need good enough. Often conscientiousness is more important than anything else.

          Regardless, the point is life is not fair – and it can not be made fair.

          I have had people I rejected come to me and tell me how wrong I was – and they may well be right.
          But it does not matter.

          I discriminate all the time. Another name for discriminate is CHOSE.

          Anyway – you are not entitled to a job, You can not even reliably earn it.
          Merit is a factor int he real world – but so is random chance.
          And there is nothing that can be done about that.

          Is there “white privilege” – sure, and male privilege and the privilege of intelligence, and beauty and talent, and luck and …
          And none of us earned any of that.
          But that is still life.

          If you want equality – first you have to lobotomize everyone – because that is the only way you can acheive equal intelligence.

          Finally – humans are not Ants. If we were all truly equal – our society would collapse. we need our differences to thrive.

          1. Learn the difference between equality under the law, which is what Enigma raised and you should support but apparently cannot bring yourself to address, and the kind of equality that you’re talking about.

            Jim Crow — the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine codified in Plessy v. Ferguson — did not in reality treat people equally under the law.

            1. “Learn the difference between equality under the law, which is what Enigma raised and you should support but apparently cannot bring yourself to address, and the kind of equality that you’re talking about.”

              Enigma addressed several things that have nothing to do with equality under the law.
              And infact things that directly contradict equality under the law.

              Equality under the law requires that the issue addressed is government actions – not private actions.
              Equality under the law require that government is blind to our differences.

              I absolutely support both of those. But that is almost never what the left is talking about.

              Jim Crow ended long before I was born. Is there anyone alive today that lived under Jim Crow – I doubt many.
              The last vestiges of Jim Crow that remain are Minimum wage laws and things like Davis Bacon – which were explicitly imposed because of their racist impacts – that remain today.
              And here we are with democrats pushing a $15 Minimum wage which might as well be called the create massive minority unemployment act.

              Further as the left seem ignorant of the facts. Jim Crow was GOVERNMENT enacted laws to FORCE private businesses that were not discriminating to do so. Jim Crow laws came about because in the post reconstruction south private discrimination was insufficient to sustainably oppress southern blacks.

              Affirmative is and always has been racist. You can not end racism by legally codifying racism.

              Plessy was overturned in 1954. That is the good news. The b ad news is that the racial disparity in education is if anything worse today.

              I will vigoruously oppose “separate but equal” – but our legal efforts to end racial disparities in education have been an abysmal failure.

              The only exception to the bleak picture regarding education as a whole and the dreadful condition of minority education has been charter schools. Minority charter school performance generally matches state and national averages. While other minority public schools are at the bottom of their states in performance.

              Redlining – which Enigma referenced is NOT a government act.

              Progress was being made against unfair housing laws in the early 20th century – but that was thwarted by the new deal which radically enhanced the power of government and legitimized Zoning laws and other land use laws which have proven profoundly discriminatory in application.

              The racist consequences of Minimum wage laws – were intended – even if their proponents today pretend that is not their history or the results even today.

              The intended and unintended consequences of the majority of regulations is racist. ‘

              There was discussion within the Obama administration of trying to tackle the demonstrably racist impacts of zoning and land use laws.
              The obama administration was certainly correct. Ultimately I am glad they took no action – because there is really only one actions that will correct the problem – find as required by the constitution, zoning and land use laws unconstitutional.

              Government actions have a long history of usually intentionally but sometimes unintentionally creating more racism.

              I have zero concern about private discrimination. That works itself out.
              As noted even in post reconstruction south – LAWS – Jim Crow laws were required to sustain private discrimination.
              In an actual free market all discrimination ends naturally – and usually quickly – because it is not profitable.

              I will as an example support Master Cakes right to sell cakes to whatever clients they choose.
              I will not buy a cake from them.

        2. Enigma, you are never going to get George to respond sincerely. He is an extreme bigot. He is a white nationalist, misogynist, … who thinks only white landowning men should have the right to vote, who wants to send Black Americans to Africa, who insists that neither Obama nor Harris are natural born citizens, …

        3. How were any of those things harmful? Steering is not harmful unless blacks are terrible neighbors. Why would anyone imagine anyone need a loan from a bank? Just use seller financing. That’s inconvenient for sellers and potential sellers, but that just means housing was more affordable for blacks.

          1. “How were any of those things harmful?” We have a winner for the stupidest question of the month. You automatically qualify for entry into the Stupid Question of the Year Contest and I think you have a good shot. You obviously are beyond having a reasonable conversation with so I will just ignore you from now on, unless of course you win are crowned the winner for the year in which case you’ll be notified of your prize.

            1. The free and non-violent choices of private individuals – even if they are actually discriminatory do NOT harm anyone.

              If I have $10 to lend – and I choose to loan it to person A rather than person B – I have not harmed person B.

              Neither A nor B were entitled to a loan from me.

              IF my choice of A over B is a poor one – I will suffer. If it is a good one I will benefit.

              Each of us NEEDS, air, water, food. We will die without them. No one is obligated to provide them.

              Everything else is a WANT, not a need.

              No one NEEDS a loan. They WANT one. People often want things that will make their life better, or even things that will prevent bad things from happening. But WANTing something does not entitle you to it.

              The Constitution bars specific forms of discrimination by GOVERNMENT.

              There is no constitutional bar against private discrimination.

              Private discrimination can not be stopped by government. Baring private discrimination requires knowing why people made specific choices. Absent people telling you, you can not know.

              I discriminate in hiring and renting all the time. Discrimination is just another word for CHOSE.

              When I hire – many people apply – they are not equal. They are also rarely directly comparable.

              There used to be rhetoric about hiring the best person for the job. That is unknowable.

              The same is true of renting apartments. I get 50 people every time I list an apartment.
              While it is possible to rule alot of them out.
              It is not possible to determine which is the best choice.

              If there can not be an objective standard for a choice – how can you determine if I discriminated in a way that is legally prohibited ?

              That said the FACT is private business discrimination is rare. Jim Crow laws PROVE this. Southern democrats had to FORCE racial discrimination by LAW. Because there was little without law.

              1. Your view of history is distorted by your belief system. To claim discrimination isn’t harmful is not only incorrect, it’s frankly stupid. To suggest the government doesn’t and hasn’t discriminated is wrong as well.
                Let me give you the example of the G.I. Bill. White veterans were given the opportunity to purchase homes with 0% down in cooperation with private lenders. Black veterans couldn’t get those loans. Home equity helped build the middle class. Black families were denied the opportunity and a much higher percentage were relegated to poverty. I’m sure you can see how this discriminatory policy helped white Americans. Do you sincerely think Black Americans weren’t harmed?
                That’s just one policy among many where government supported racist policies. The states were/are worse which is how we get gerrymandering/redistricting/voter suppression all designed to reduce or weaken minority voting strength.
                Your suggestion that private companies didn’t discriminate is silly as well. The largest grocery chain in the South; Publix. At one time didn’t allow Blacks to work or shop there. SInce they started hiring Black employees, almost all of the gains in terms of equal pay and promotions came as a result of lawsuits, not corporate good will. The same is true throughout the nation not just the South.

                1. “Your view of history is distorted by your belief system. To claim discrimination isn’t harmful is not only incorrect, it’s frankly stupid.”
                  Why do you spray such trivially refutable nonsense.

                  Discriminate is synonymous with CHOSE.

                  How are you harmed by the free choices of others absent force ?

                  If I go to a care dealership and choose between 50 cars – are the 49 cars I did not choose harmed by my choice ?
                  How is that different when you substitute people ?

                  If I am seeking to rent an apartment – and I have several prospects – all equal on paper (something that never happens), one mexican, one asian, one indian, one black, one irish, one polish, ….

                  How does picking the asian, or the mexican harm the others ?

                  If I make the worst choice – if I pick a person with a criminal record, and a history of violence, one that has been repeatedly evicted – how does that harm the ones I did not pick ?

                  You seem to think there is some right to control the free choices of others.
                  You seem to think you are harmed when someone choses someone other than you.

                  This is not about history.
                  It is about facts.

                  You can not have morality kind when people are not free to make choices – including choices you do not like.

                  There is no moral scheme that does not require the freedom to make your own choices. Including choices others do not like.

                  Your arguments are those of someone who has never had to make choices that involve other people.

                  Have you ever had to hire anyone ? Fire anyone ? Rent to anyone ?

                  Have you ever had to make choices between different people ?

                  You seem to think that you can feed applications into a computer and get out the magical best choice.

                  You do not seem to understand what a choice is.

                    1. “The people discriminated against don’t have choices.”

                      Of course they do – though even that is not relevant.

                      I owe you only the following:

                      Not to use force to take from you your life, liberty or property.
                      To honor any binding contracts we mutually agree to
                      To not cause direct actual harm to you.

                      That is all.

                      No one owes you food, water, shelter, a job.

                      A man said to the universe:
                      “Sir, I exist!”
                      “However,” replied the universe,
                      “The fact has not created in me
                      A sense of obligation.”

                  1. John say, “ Discriminate is synonymous with CHOSE.”

                    Again ignorance plays a big part in your reasoning. Discrimination has multiple meanings depending on the context. Your own rationalization proves that when you state that “discrimination is synonymous with choose”. The key word here is “synonymous”. It means it is similar to. Not directly meaning what you think it means.

                    1. “John say, “ Discriminate is synonymous with CHOSE.””
                      Yup.

                      “Again ignorance plays a big part in your reasoning. Discrimination has multiple meanings depending on the context.”
                      Nope. Discrimination ALWAYS means chose.

                      I chose to hire you. I chose not to hire him.

                      “Your own rationalization proves that when you state that “discrimination is synonymous with choose”. The key word here is “synonymous”. It means it is similar to. Not directly meaning what you think it means.”

                      Not rationalization. Actual dictionary defintions.

                      “syn•o•nym sĭn′ə-nĭm″►
                      n. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.”

                      The same or nearly the same meaning.
                      In this case the same.

                      The only difference between “Chose” and “discriminate” is conotation, not denotation.

                      Discriminate USUALLY has a negative connotation – though sometimes it has a positive connontation – as in “discriminating taste”.

                      We discriminate constantly in life – dozens possibly thousands of times daily.

                      George Bush discriminates againts brussel sprouts. I discriminate against incompetents.

                      Even in your world Discriminate litterally means “I choose the white person instead of the black person”

                      Discriminate means CHOSE.

                      Laws against private discrimination are violations of out right to make our own choices – even bad ones.

                2. “To suggest the government doesn’t and hasn’t discriminated is wrong as well.”

                  When you misrepresent me – that is LYING.

                  I explicitly stated that Government has through law harmed others by restricting free choices by force.

                  “Let me give you the example”

                  I do not need your example. I gave you an example – Jim Crow was a series of LAWS that FORCED private actors to limit their free choices.

                  People are actually harmed when FORCE is used.

                  When government interferes in free choices – that is an ACTUAL HARM.

                  When government dictates that a grocery can not sell to blacks – that harms the sellor. It limits their free choices it limits their markets.

                  We can see from the way Jim Crow actually worked that stores wanted to sell to blacks.
                  They actually created black water fountains and rest rooms and separate entrances.

                  Jim Crow laws did not require that stores sell to blacks. Only that if they did so, they had to segregate blacks and whites.
                  Stores did so BECAUSE they wanted black customers.

                  When people make free choices on their own – you are not harmed because you are not chosen.

                  No one has a right to be chosen by another.

                  You can not make any system that actually works where there is a right to be chosen.

                  You can not even make a system that works that forces us to always make the best choice.
                  Because the best choices is almost never actually known.

                  By your nonsensical logic if I have 50 applicants for a job or an apartment – every single time 49 will be actually harmed.

                3. You keep saying that I “suggested” things that I did not.

                  Again you keep LYING about what I said.

                  Do not claim I made “suggestions” – Cite what i said.

                  I have never said that private actors did not chose whites over blacks (or in some cases blacks over whites).

                  That inarguably happened – in many places it was THE LAW – government FORCE.

                  You seem to think that Jim Crow was the free choice of private actors.
                  It was NOT it was a system of laws because private actors did not choose whites over blacks to the satisfaction of government.

                  If you do not like choices of others – you can make your own choices not to do business with them.

                  Just are you are free to hire whoever you wish at your store. I am free to choose what stores I buy from.

                  The nation is in bitter conflict at the moment because the police often kill people in their enforcement of the law.

                  Get a clue – that is how law works. Law is force. Eric Garner died because he refused to comply with a law that prohibited him from selling lose cigarettes. Laws are imposed by FORCE. Some people will RESIST, will refuse to comply. Whether the law prohibits murder, or sugary drinks. All law is imposed by FORCE, ultimately by KILLING, when someone such as Eric Garner refuses to comply.

                  Any law you create that you are not prepared to enforce to the point of killing those who will not obey, never should have been a law in the first place.

                  Are you prepared to kill people over the choices they make ? If not, do not make laws that restrict those choices.

                  You have infinite numbers of ways to influence the choices of others without resorting to force.

                  1. You seem to be saying the giovernment made poor innocent white people implement Jiom Crow? No offense but that’s stupid as hell. White people, thru their representatives in the government tried their best to replicate slavery since the moment it ended. Long before Jim Crow was the Black Codes. Slavery was ended with the Fourteenth Amendment with the exception of criminals. White people made almost everything Black people did a crime. Violating a curfew that only applied to Blacks, congregating in groups of three or more. (If that sounds familiar, it’s because Florida just passed a law saying three or more protesters can be guilty of a felony and lose the right to vote). Jim Crow didn’t happen until after 1877 when Republicans and Democrats agreed to remove the federal troops from the South in order to let the Republicans win the contested Presidential election. In 1878, Posse Comitatus was enacted by Republicans (supposedly the good guys) to ensure they never came back. Jim Crow was implemented immediately afterward in the North and the South. It wasn’t generally federal law it was state by state and by individual cities and county’s. The Klaw was surging and it’s members included both law enforcement (the former slave patrols) and local business leaders. The government wasn’t imposing something on the people (white people). They reflected the will of the people. You should never try to explain history to anyone due to your ignorance.
                    After Jim Crow which by law was mostly eliminated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. New rules and laws sprung up to try to replicate what was true under Jim Crow, the Black Codes, and enslavement before that. The primary factor that caused change in private corporations after Jim Crow was lawsuits against discrimination and Affirmative Action (which was used to cap employment and school admissions at lower levels than the percentage of the population instead of free stuff).
                    “You seem to think that Jim Crow was the free choice of private actors.”
                    Like most rules and laws, it was specific private actors who got them implemented through their influence to maintain a cheap labor force and control them. Your sorry defense lets white people off the hook by blaming it on the government. That’s almost as stupid as saying it did no harm to Black people because they still had some choices.

                    1. “You seem to be saying the giovernment made poor innocent white people implement Jiom Crow?”

                      I am saying that Jim Crow is the direct result of Government violating peoples rights.

                      You keep using terms like “white people” – as if there is this monolithic block with only one mind.

                      Jim Crow laws applied to ALL – white, Black, Rich, Poor. The majority, the few.

                      They exist specifically because some “poor innocent white people” refused to act in the way a “majority” wanted them to.

                      “White people made almost everything Black people did a crime.”

                      No – Government did that. Individuals white or otherwise do not get to decide what is a crime. Only government can do that.

                      You fail to grasp – we do not make laws to force people to do things they are all doing naturally.

                      Jim Crow laws were opposed by businesses and railroads as an example.

                      Businesses did not want to provide separate facilities for blacks and whites – that is expensive.

                      You do not seem to grasp the extent to which self interest drives us, and the extent to which self interest is ultimately virtuous.

                      “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

                      ― Adam Smith,

                    2. “Jim Crow laws were opposed by businesses and railroads as an example.”

                      You know railroads were among the largest owners of slaves? They benefitted from Jim Crow. Self-interest did drive the process.

                    3. You note the election of 1878 – you should look into that more thoroughly.

                      It was much like the election of 2020.

                      Massive voter fraud. Ballots were handed out like candy and interest groups twisted the arms of consituents to force them to vote as they required.

                      The 28 state constitutional amendments that REQUIRE secret ballots – something that no mailin system can provide were all adopted after the 1878 election.

                      The left is ranting about a GA election law that is less restrictive than most of new england.

                      Yet GA – which has a constitutional amendment requiring secret ballots – is STILL allowing voters To possess ballots outside courthouses and polling places and to deliver them to unattended drop boxes.

                      If you have a blank ballot in your possession outside a courthouse or polling place – that is NOT a secret ballot, and you can be induced or coerced to vote as someone else wishes and that party can KNOW that you did ask they asked.

                      That is precisely what was fraudulent about 1878, and a problem we re-introduced in 2020.

                      GA’s NEW election law violates the GA state constitution. As did the 2020 election.

                    4. You are too ignorant to converse with. Enjoy your day.

                      BTW, the contested election was in 1876, they Compromise of 1877 that decided it the following year and Posse Comitatus in 1878. Facts matter.

                    5. “You are too ignorant to converse with. Enjoy your day.”

                      I am not the one who conflated slave owning railroads before the civil war with the railroads after the civil war.

                      “BTW, the contested election was in 1876,”
                      Correct, I was off by two years. My Bad, I should have googled it rather than cited it from memory.

                      Still does not change the facts.

                      “Facts matter.”

                      They do. Sometimes dates matter alot – such as anytime before and after slavery. Even a one year error on some issues can be huge.

                      Sometimes they do not. A two year error in the election of 1876 is not consequential.

                      Further the withdrawl of Union forces from the south was inevitable – it was expensive and unsustainable.

                      You can infer racist motives to Pose Comitatas, but it was inevitable and wise.

                      The occupation of the south proved that.
                      You rant about what happened after the soldiers left. How long should they have stayed ?
                      What was going to change things ?

                      It took a century to change the south – do you think that Afghanistan would magically become democratic faster ?

                      No one is defending Jim Crow or the post Civil War south. But the least you could do is get the facts correct.

                      I do not think there are many people who would not like to wave a magic wand in 1865 and suddenly have all racism end.

                      But there is no such magic wand. I would be happy to discuss some better way we could have dealt with reconstruction.

                      But long term occupation of the south was not a solution.

                      You do not seem to grasp that it is incredibly hard to change the world through force – even when you are on the side of goodness and light.

                      Scholars have estimated that any law that over 10% of people oppose to a degree that they will not obey it – even when faced with force, that law will not survive.

                      There are 350M people in the country. There are about 1M in law enforcement. Do you really expect to impose your will on 350M people by force ? How about 35M ? how about 3.5M ?

                    6. “You should never try to explain history to anyone due to your ignorance.”

                      I am well aware of the history you cite.

                      It completely supports my argument.

                      The long list of historical evils you cited were ALL imposed by government.

                      I would note that some of the “bad things” you rant about were struck down by the courts in the early 20th century,
                      On the basis that government was NOT free to interfere in the free exchange between free people.

                      A1S10C1
                      No State shall …. pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

                      I can choose to contract (buy or sell) to whoever I please – but no state can constrain my right to contract freely with whoever I please.

                      The Contract clause was used from the early 20th century through to the middle of FDR’s term to strike down state and federal laws such as Jim Crow laws, and redlining laws that infringed on our right to freely contract.

                      But then Wickard V. Filburn decimated the contract clause and re-invigorated jim crow.

                      Regardless, you are constantly imputing to individuals and entire races the conduct of government.

                      Accept that the power of government is limited, and laws such as Jim Crow laws never exist.

                    7. So you are actually arguing that it is really evil republicans that foist Jim Crow laws on us all ?

                      Why should half the country have to engage in military occupation of the other half ?

                      Why is it a bad idea to bar the use of the military against its own citizens ?

                      You constantly seem to think that more force makes things better – when the lesson of history is that more force makes things worse.

                    8. No, I would say the slippery slide of the Republicans began in 1877 when they disregarded their founding ideals and made a deal to win a Presidential election that effectively ended Reconstruction and ushered in Jim Crow. I’m not even suggesting Republicans were more responsible than the Democratic Party that was purely evil. I am saying they looked the other way to win the Presidency and then closed the deal with Posse Comitatus. Republicans had a history of which they could have been proud which they lost the right to invoke right along with the Southern Strategy, Willie Horton, Citizens United, their version of voter suppression which is not just blatant with their current nationwide attempt.
                      You distinguish what the government does from what people do when the government reflects nothing but the will of the people. Some much more than others.

                    9. Still stuck badly in reconstruction.

                      The 1877 deal was not about winning the presidency – fundimentally.

                      The military occupation of the South was not popular – not in the south or the north.
                      The war was over for more than a decade. No one wanted to pay for the occupation of the south. No one wanted to send their sons to occupy the south.

                      Further the north had shed the blood of its own sons – Northern deaths alone were likely over 300K. And more than double that including serious injury.

                      We have currently been in afghanistan for nearly 20 years. We are likely leaving. The consequences for the Afghani people will likelhy be bad.

                      Is that our fault ? Do we have a moral duty to save the afghani’s from themselves ?

                      If not now – they why then ?

                      There is no magic want to make the south work. It took 100 years. Those were hellish years, but republicans did not cause that.

                      You seem prepared to impose on americans moral responsibility for everything bad in the world – even if they did not cause it- you have made them morally obligated to fix it.

                      China is engaged in genocide against Uighurs right now – must we fix that ?
                      My daughter was born in china and tossed away at the side of a road – over the course of about 40 years of the one child policy – china aborted – which often meant murdered at birth more children than there are people in the US today.
                      What was our moral obligation ?
                      What of My daughter – and the millions like her – abandoned ?
                      What is our obligation to them ?

                      I fully support any individual charity you wish to perform. I support your choice to act in whatever causes you wish – rather than those that matter to me.

                      You can work for the poor in the US – while I focus on impoverished children arround the world.

                      But you are no more free to force me to act to address what matters most to you, than I am to force you to act as I would prefer.

                      The moral failures of the world that matter to me – need not be those that matter to you.

                      Whether you like it or not – northerners after the war did not have a moral obligation to occupy the south forever.

                      Republicans had a history of which they could have been proud which they lost the right to invoke right along with the Southern Strategy, Willie Horton, Citizens United, their version of voter suppression which is not just blatant with their current nationwide attempt.”

                      God not this nonsense.

                      Lets start with the “southern strategy” – the ONLY southern democrat to switch parties was Strom Thrumond.
                      Republicans did have a strategy to win the south. And they succeeded. The replaced racist democrats with conservative republicans.
                      I would note that souther democrats were NOT conservative.

                      Did Coolidge win the south ? Hoover ?
                      1972 was the first election in which Republicans won the south – and Nixon won every state except Massachusets.
                      In 1984 Reagan nearly repeated this.
                      But it was not until the 21st century that the South reliably republican.

                      You seem to think the “southern strategy” was evil. How so ? Should Republicans have refused to contest the south ?
                      Just leave it to evil democrats ?

                      And what about Willie Horton ? Dukakis made a mistake as governor. Bush took advantage of it,
                      In what world do you think it is a good idea to get a person serviing life for murder a weekend furlough ?
                      Regardless. Horton proved why that was a bad idea committing a rape and armed robbery on is “furlough”.

                      Further we are talking about the same time as Biden’s crime bill. Both parties have fallen all over themselves to be tough on Crime.
                      I would love to piss all over republicans for burning the 4th amendment to the ground in the war on drugs – but Democrats fell all over themselves trying to do the same. I found it absolutely hilarious that democrats just elected the biggest still living Drug warrior while pushing “Blank Lives Matter”

                      What is your problem with Citizens United ? Democrats have benefited from it far more than Republicans.
                      Regardless, in whatr sane world do two people acting in concert have less rights than one person ?

                      The entire left Corporations and businesses have no rights is nonsense. Of course they do. People own corporations and businesses.
                      People have rights. They do not lose rights when acting jointly. The left is cheering on The DVS defamation lawsuit against Fox and Powell.
                      That is only possible because businesses can be defamed exactly like people.
                      The Entire left wing not CU argument was idiocy. It would have required over turning 20 years of supreme court precidents and wreaked havoc accross the entire legal landscape.

                      You seem to think that just because some argument was popular on the left that it was ever credible.
                      While there was a dissent in part with 4 justices, the bulk of the decision was 9-0.

                      And can we stop the idiotic language games.
                      Voted ID laws are NOT voter supression. That entire argument is RACIST.
                      But then so many leftist arguments are racists.
                      Blacks are not incompetent idiots unable to get a job, a loan, a drivers license or other ID.
                      Claiming otherwise is just stupid – and racist.

                      Nor is any law trying to prevent fraud in elections.
                      Whether you like it or not election fraud is incredibly common – both world wide and in the US.
                      You can not pretend it does not exist.

                      YOU fixated on the election of 1876 – where Fraud much like what has been alleged in 6 states in 2020 resulted in the election being thrown to the house of representatives.

                      We would all prefer than never happens – but it is a perfectly constitutional remedy for a lawless election such as we just had.

                      Rather than ranting – why not work to fix the problem.

                      YOU are NOT entitled to vote from your couch. You are not entitled to vote by mail. You are not entitled to drop your ballot in an unsecured drop box.

                      Worse still are you actually stupid ? Is it beyond your immagination to understand how trivial it is to Fup an election conducted like the 2020 one was.

                      You want to leave Ballot Drop Boxes unattended all over the place ? How are you going to deal with it when someone tosses Molotov cocktails in them ? Or 10,000 fraudulent ballots ?

                      You do not have a right to a convenient election.

                      But ALL of us have an absolute right to a trustworthy election.

                      I can demand and by law dictate – if I can get a legislature to do so, That you can only vote on election day at a polls, and that all votes must be counted by hand by midnight or they do not count.
                      That is perfectly constitutional, and would radically improve trust.

                      Every congressional district in the US has about 750K citizens. Typically each has a few hundred precints.
                      To the extent there is any “voter supression” in our current system it is that those people – republicans – who live in rural areas have to travel farther and spend longer to vote. If you live in NYC and can not walk to your polling place – then vote out your local government – because they are incompetent. Regardless, it is neither washington, nor the rest of the countries responsibility to unF the mess than YOUR local government causes.

                      Absolutely urban government in this country is expensive, corrupt and dysfunctional. It is not those of us who live in places with more functional government who must pay to fix your messes.

                      We have the same problems right now with the rioting over police shootings.

                      If you want to be stupid and defund YOUR pollice. If you want to be stupid and start jailing police officers because an addict takes a 3 times fatal overdoes of Fentanyl and dies of a heart attack while waiting for EMTs – then it is YOUR problem when the only people you can get to be police are criminals. Monorities are murders, raped, assulted, robbed in large numbers every day – mostly be other minorities.

                      If you are black and you are afraid of being killed by a police officer – you are clueless about the real world. You are almost as likely to be struck by lightning.

                      Regardless, it is necescary that we allow bad policies to FAIL, and those who fostered those bad policies to experience the consequences of that failure.

                      That is how we learn.
                      Bailing out failure is a MORAL HAZARD.

                      “You distinguish what the government does from what people do when the government reflects nothing but the will of the people. Some much more than others.”

                      Absolutely. Majority rule is tyranny. We have a constitution for a reason. All those Jim Crow laws you rant about violate the contracts clause of the constitution. And late in the 19th and early in the 20th century the courts started applying that. And continued until the new deal packed court gutted the contracts clause – pretended it was not there.

                      Just because a majority or any other group that has managed to secure power wants something and has the votes to get it, does not make it right or moral.

                      You are the one pissed at Jim Crow, The left is also selling majority rule.
                      Jim Crow was majority rule. And the perfect example of why we can not have pure majority rule.
                      Why we have individual rights that Trump majorities.

                    10. It is incredibly clear that you have been very poorly educated.

                      You should sue your public schools and whatever college you attended.

                      Many of the issues that you raise turn on things that were debated and resolved more than a century ago – some much more.

                      None of my arguments are new. You can find many of them in John Stuart Mills’ on Liberty, or In Thomas Paine, or Voltaire or myriads of the seminal thinkers of the past several centuries are more.

                      No one precludes you from questioning their wisdom. but tossing centuries of critical thinking aside because you do not wish to hear arguments against your immature ideology is idiocy.

                    11. The blame for laws is ALWAYS First and foremost with government.

                      But I will agree with you – those who voted FOR those laws – share culpability.

                      Those who voted for Jim Crow – are immoral.

                      Anyone voting to expand the use of force to restrict the freedom of others without justification is morally culpable for those laws.

                      That would be nearly all law post new deal.

                    12. For the most part I agree with you that most of these new anti-riot laws are stupid.

                      They are much like hate crime laws and domestic violence laws.

                      They recriminalize what is already a crime and do little more than say “we the legislature really really mean it”.

                      The fundimental failure with respect to the BLM riots – was not the inability to charge actual rioters with crimes.
                      It was not the inability of police to arrest those committing crimes.

                      It was the failure of prosecutors and courts to impose the sanctions for those crimes.

                      We see a clear disparity in how Trump supporters at the Jan. 6 protest were treated and violent BLM protestors accross the country.
                      Or Kavanaugh protestors in 2018.

                      nearly 200 kavanaugh protestors were arrested. Ultimately all charges were dropped.

                      Thousands of rioters were arrested over the summer – all but a very tiny portion of charges were dropped.

                      I would strike down many criminal laws. Such as out drug laws as unconstitutional infringements on our liberty.

                      But I would still agressively enforce those that are left.

                      If you commit arson, assault, burglary – you should go to jail – possibly for a very long time.

                      Almost no state in the country permanently bars felons from voting.

                      I have no problem permanently barring violent felons from voting.

                      Regardless, while we have criminalized too much conduct that should not be crimes.
                      That which is should have consequences – and that includes losses of rights – possibly permanently.

                      If you commit legitimate crimes – as opposed to much of the nonsense of criminal law today – you should expect serious and possibly life long consequences.

                      You should expect to be jailed.
                      You should expect that society will not trust you when you are released.
                      You should expect to have difficulty getting jobs and apartments.

                      It is unfortunate but most of us learn from failure. We do not learn when failure has no consequences.

                    13. If you trap a person in a vehicle on a road – you should expect that you may be harmed as they try to escape you.

                      We saw people in cars trapped in mobs, Drug out of cars and beaten, or had their cars pummeled.

                      When people are trapped in a violent mob – they are free to use violence to extricate themselves.

                    14. Jim Crow laws had little to do with a cheap labor force.
                      Blacks in the south were free to flee – and many did to the north in the great migration.
                      If southerners sought a cheap labor force they would have thwarted that too.

                      Cheap labor force laws would have been Davis Bacon and Minimum wage laws – again pushed by southern democrats with entirely racist objectives.

                      Oddly Davis Bacon and MW laws still exist, are still racist, and are still pushed by democrats to punish minorities.

                    15. This Enigma guy totally misunderstands economics. It was PEOPLE who wanted segregation. Not the moneyed interests. Railroads wanted an end to slavery and big business always wanted an end to Jim Crow. It has always wanted more cheap labor and more customers of any race and has never cared about any race per se. The only color to corporations is GREEN.

                      We see this today, even as they appear to favor blacks with all this BLM stuff. That is fake. It’s just about fooling the credulous black consumers and taking their spending money. Oh, and also cramming down the rebellious white crackers who oppose global capital. Kind of like the civil war, when they installed the railroad lawyer Lincoln as despot to win the war against the vestiges of the feudal order down south.

                    16. Has someone argued that Southern Railroads did not use slaves prior to 1865 ?

                      Jim Crow typically started 20 years LATER. There were no slaves.

                    17. There was the equivalent, the Black Codes immediately after the war made existing illegal (slight exaggeration) and the penalty was to be sent, sometimes to the very plantations they once worked at. Jim Crow was the same, substitutes for slavery still exist when com bining mass incarceration with chain gangs.

                    18. You have argued that the north should not have removed troops from the south.

                      While I do not agree – though I fully understand the argument, permanent military occupation of the south was impractical.

                      That said from the end of the Civil war through to the withdrawl of troops there was a black Renaissance in the south.
                      Mississippi had a black republican Senator in 1870 and another in 1875.

                      There were innumerable black congressmen from the south through to 1901 all republican.

                      The south Carolonia legislature was majority black in 1868.

                      Just about every state in the south had significant numbers of black legislators until northern Troops withdrew.

                      I have no argument with the claim that northern troops occupying the south substantially improved conditions in the south for blacks.

                      Just as I am sure that women in Afghanistan are dramatically benefiting from the US presence there and that is likely to change when the Taliban moves in.

                      Just because the result of occupation is temporary good, does not make it sustainable.

                      If you have a magic way to transform the south (or Afghanistan) instantly rather than over the course of a century – please share.

                      Regardless, my POINT is that from the end of the civil war until the departure of union troops the South was a very different than before the war or after the troops left.

                      In addition to blacks having meaningful political power, they also had opportunities for trade.

                      Certainly reconstruction was racist and repressive compared to today.
                      But it was 1000% better than the slavery that preceded it and the dark eras that followed.

                      You are constantly arguing that history – particularly southern history was uniformly homogenous – when that clearly is not true.

                      This is actually extremely important. Today we have the left demanding reparations, and claiming that racism today is systemic and pervasive. When the reality is no one alive lived in slavery – and that has been true for a long long time. Most blacks in this country are many generations removed from slavery. Further Blacks are actually moving back into the south.
                      Few white americans have ancestors that owned slaves. Most arrived here after the Civil War.

                      And if we are going to do black reparations – what of the Chinese americans – they were contained in tiny enclaves in the US through to 1965. Or Irish americans ? They were visciously discriminated against, or Italian americans or ….

                      I would note that white immigrant groups were near universally democrat within my lifetime. Now most are republican.

                    19. “You did argue that the railroads were against slavery and Jim Crow when they were among the biggest beneficiaries.”

                      False. You have conflated Slavery and Jim Crow. These were not the same thing. You are confusing the timeline – and it is hard to beleive you are not doing so deliberately. YOU made the arguments about Pose Comitatus and the departure of troops from the south it is extremely hard to beleive based on the many accurate things you have said about the era, that you are unaware that the reconstruction era was a veritable renesaince for southern blacks – atleast by the standards of the day, or measured against what preceded or followed.

                      Here is an econlib article on the reality of railroads and jim crow.

                      Railroads fought Jim Crow and lost.

                      https://www.econlib.org/jim-crow-more-racist-than-the-railroads/

                    20. And here is a book by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker on the economics of discrimination.

                      The short version.

                      To the extent that some workers, firm owners, or consumers have a “taste for discrimination” firms will try to discriminate–say, by hiring only non-gun-owner types or by not selling cakes for certain occasions. But the competition of firms for customers and employees will oblige those who discriminate to support the cost their discrimination–in higher prices or in reduced wages or profits. Markets will converge to trade-offs that reconcile the preferences of all actors, consumers and producers (owners and employees). If you don’t hire people on the basis of competence only or choose not to deal with certain people, you pay the price.

                      https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo22415931.html

                      Free markets are brutal for all businesses. I would suggest reading Schumpeter’s work on creative destruction.
                      But they are even more brutal when businesses make choices for reasons having nothing to do with delivering more value are lower cost.

                      That was true in the 19th century, it remains true today.

                    21. enigmainblackcom, John Say is often found contorting history in grotesque attempts to justify pure ignorance. He couches the obvious as you pointed out by stating “the government” instead of recognizing who created that same “government”. The whites who always had a choice and didn’t really “want” black customers or patrons. The level of BS heaped on by John say is nothing short of blatant attempts at revisionism.

                      It’s easy to create nonsensical word salads with euphemistic jargon to hide a poor argument.

                    22. “John Say is often found contorting history in grotesque attempts to justify pure ignorance”
                      Then you would be able to demonstrate that.

                      You have had numerous opportunities. You have failed.

                      Enigma correctly pointed out that I was off by 2 years on the 1876 election. I do not think that error is important. But he is free to argue otherwise.

                      Conversley Enigma somehow managed to have railroads onwing large numbers of slaves AFTER the civil war.
                      That was a ludicrously stupid argument.

                      “He couches the obvious as you pointed out by stating “the government” instead of recognizing who created that same “government””.

                      The error here is yours. Government is never what ALL the people want. It is frequently not what a majority of the people want.
                      Quite often a majority of the people want bad things.

                      Regardless, “the government”, those who created it, those who voted in the current government, are all DISTINCT.

                      Our founders were all long dead before Jim Crow. We can speculate that many might have supported it – but that is speculation and they are distinctly different people. It should be noted that Jim Crow laws did not come about prior to the civil war when there were free slaves.
                      But after, when there weren’t.

                      Those who voted for any government bear some moral culpability for the resulting government. But the core moral culpability rests with those IN the government itself.

                      Government is FORCE – voters are not. Even if they fail morally and vote to use force unjustifiably.

                      WE have constitutions and limited government specifically to preclude majorities from doing whatever they D well please.
                      As I noted Jim Crow laws violate the constitutions contracts clause – and during the late 19th and early 20th century the courts were finding exactly that.

                      But the contracts clause is NOT about racial discrimination. It is about limited government.

                      “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”
                      ALWAYS.

                      “The whites who always had a choice and didn’t really “want” black customers or patrons.”
                      And so long as they did not use force they were free to try to get what they wanted.

                      White customers were free to patronize only stores that catered to whites.
                      I am sure some did. But prior to Jim crow that was not sufficient to produce the desired result.

                      You have to be brain dead to think that Jim Crow laws are a reflection of what people want.

                      People get what they want to the extent that what they want actually matters to them without laws.
                      If White customers wanted segregated stores badly enough – they would have them.
                      It is that simple. They did not. Therefore the only way for those who did want it badly enough to accomplish their wish was through law.

                      All you have done is pointed out a common failure of majority rule.

                      It allows a minority to impose their will on a majority in a way that would not happen naturally, when the preference of the majority is not strong.

                      One of the reasons for limited govenrment is that it precludes strong minorities or weak majorities from acting stupidly.

                      “The level of BS heaped on by John say is nothing short of blatant attempts at revisionism.”
                      Facts, logic, reason – make your case.

                      “It’s easy to create nonsensical word salads with euphemistic jargon to hide a poor argument.”
                      The word salad is yours.

                      If something is nonsense – you can make an argument supporting that.

                      What euphamisms have I used ? I am pretty blunt in my language.
                      I do not hide what I am saying – like you and those on the left.

                      What Jargon do I use ?
                      I deliberately try to keep my language simple and free of jargon.

                      If you think I have used euphamisms and jargon – point them out.

                      Otherise the “word salad” is yours.

                      YOU throw arround arguments – without actually thinking about what you are saying.
                      Just like this one

                      You say nonsense – as if saying it makes it true.
                      You say “word salad” – as if saying it makes it true
                      You say euphamism – as if saying it makes it true
                      You say jargon – as if saying it makes it true.

                      “It’s easy to create nonsensical word salads with euphemistic jargon to hide a poor argument.”
                      Absent more than mere assertion for each of these words – the “word salad” is yours not mine.

  5. Many people are saying that Biden formed the Commission on Courts as a pretense to avoid court packing but I totally disagree. Please name one time where Biden has gone the moderate route since January 20th. On every issue Biden has gone further to the left than anyone expected, see the border, the spending bills, the rhetoric on GA’s voting laws and Jim Eagle, even having a “Commission” on Courts, on Iran, on the Pipeline, on racial rhetoric, his choice for Ambassador to the UN and so on and so on. It seems as if Biden is incapable of staring down the radical staff he (someone) put together to make his decisions for him. I don’t know if it is Rice, Jill, Kamala or any of the young radicals, but whoever it may be they are certainly far left.

    Biden will be cajoled into accepting the “Commission’s” decision to pack the Court. This is why Pelosi went bananas over Nadler and Markey’s moronic court packing bill…she knows they don’t have the votes and their only hope is the fig leaf cover of the “Commission”. A “Bi-partisan Commission” that is 2-1 far left!!!

    1. Hullbobby, the Supreme Court just gave the commission a very good reason why the court should be expanded. When they completely abandoned stare decisis in juvenile sentencing of life without parole. They gave democrats the very reason why expanding the court is necessary.

      1. I support the sequence of SCOTUS decisions eliminating the death penalty for Juveniles and making life sentences for Juveniles difficult.

        I further would have prefered that SCOTUS had decided the most recent case differently.

        The argument that Juveniles are not fully developed is correct – and in fact important aspects of the human brain that effect criminality are not fully developed until the late 20’s.

        But science and human development are NOT valid arguments for courts.

        Further, there is not a Stare Decisis issue with this decsion. This was an effort to expand on the prior two decisions.
        That has been stopped.

        I generally support long sentences for violent crimes.
        That said sentencing accross the country is horribly inconsistent. You can easily end up with life sentences for violent crimes in my community, and an hour away end up with 5 years for the same offense.

        That is a fundimental equal protection of the law problem. But the courts are not biting.

        Democrats can respond to this as they please – but I doubt you will find that the general population is highly supportive of short sentences for juvenile murders.

        1. John say, “ Further, there is not a Stare Decisis issue with this decsion. This was an effort to expand on the prior two decisions.
          That has been stopped.”

          False. The blatant violation of state decisis was the issue that gives democrats the very reason to expand the court. Justice Sotomayor pointed out using justice Kavanaugh’s own words supporting the fundamental importance of stare decisis and the court’s need to honor it.

          Kavanaugh’s opinion directly ignored the law itself when the law clearly required that judges consider the undeveloped state of such a young person. Science and human development ARE valid arguments. You admit as much when you recognized it when you said, “ The argument that Juveniles are not fully developed is correct – and in fact important aspects of the human brain that effect criminality are not fully developed until the late 20’s. You state it is correct, but then dismiss it by claiming science and human development are not valid arguments. If it’s correct why wouldn’t it be a valid argument? You make no sense.

          1. “The blatant violation of state decisis was the issue that gives democrats the very reason to expand the court”

            Svelaz – there is not a stare decisis issue – saying otherwise does not make it so.

            I would greatly prefer that the courts expanded the efforts lead by Brian Stevens – who I have met personally, to punish juveniles less severely than adults. That makes perfect sense.

            But making sense and being constitutional are not the same thing.
            Further like it or not this decision does NOT reverse the prior decisions.

            Therefore Stare Decisis is NOT a factor.

            This decision does not even NARROW prior decisions. It merely refuses to expand a line of decisions.

            This decision is wrong – in the sense that juveniles should be treated differently than adults.
            But it is both constitutional and consistent with prior rullings.

            ‘Justice Sotomayor pointed out using justice Kavanaugh’s own words supporting the fundamental importance of stare decisis and the court’s need to honor it.”

            Stare decisis is important – though not sacred. But it is not aplicable to this decision.

            “Kavanaugh’s opinion directly ignored the law itself when the law clearly required that judges consider the undeveloped state of such a young person.”
            That is a STUPID and false argument. The LAW does NOT require that. Prior SCOTUS decisions require that in specific instances.
            This case was an effort to increase the number of instances in which SCOTUS requires the juvenile’s development to be considered.

            “Science and human development ARE valid arguments.”
            They are – but they are not valid legal or constitutional arguments.

            The courts are not there to adjudicate the science.
            They are their to apply the law as written and to determine constitutionality.

            “You admit as much when you recognized it when you said, “ The argument that Juveniles are not fully developed is correct – and in fact important aspects of the human brain that effect criminality are not fully developed until the late 20’s. You state it is correct, but then dismiss it by claiming science and human development are not valid arguments. If it’s correct why wouldn’t it be a valid argument? You make no sense.”
            There is a difference between a valid argument and a valid argument in court.

            Courts are about law and constitution – not science.

  6. AOC is like a lot of people who are not MAD CONSERVATIVES veryvery very ANGRY.

    For all but the top 0.1% the US system does not work.

    I fully expect that in a little under 2 years the Republicans will be back in power and will be able to purge the voter rolls with sufficiency that only the final collapse of the USA will remove them from office.

    1. Why do you expect Republicans to be back in power in 2 years ?
      Might that be because people are very angry at democrats ?

      You rant about purging voter rolls – federal law requires that.

      Personally I would eliminate voter rolls entirely.
      Voter ID laws eliminate the need for voter registration.

      Bring your warm body to the polls. Show up with photo ID that matches you.
      With an address withing the precinct – and you can vote in person.

      Otherwise no.

      You seem to think that purging registration rolls prohibits legitimate voters from voting.

      It does not. In virtually every state you can vote with proper ID even if you are not on the rolls.
      Even if you do not have proper ID.

      What purging rolls prevents is the millions of fake names – dead people, people who moved, people who do not exist, from having ballots cast in their name.

      1. John Say, “ You rant about purging voter rolls – federal law requires that.”

        That’s not true. Also there is no proof that there are “millions of fake names, dead people etc etc.

        Those claims have been trotted out for years without proof.

        “ In virtually every state you can vote with proper ID even if you are not on the rolls.
        Even if you do not have proper ID.”

        Again not even remotely true. You can vote INITIALLY without ID which requires you to fill a provisional ballot. In order for your vote to count which is the most important part you still have to produce a valid ID.

        You HAVE to be on the rolls in order to vote. You HAVE to register in order to be on the roll. Your vote will not be counted unless you’re verified name is on the roll.

        Purging rolls does prevent legitimate voters from voting. Your ignorance on the subject is massive.

        1. “John Say, “ You rant about purging voter rolls – federal law requires that.”

          That’s not true.”

          Of course it is. There have been numourous court cases forcing localities to purge their rolls.
          Judicial Watch has won several of them.

          ” Also there is no proof that there are “millions of fake names, dead people etc etc.”
          Of course there is. Current low estimates are there are 20M names on voter registration rolls for people who do not exist.

          Gulliani had great fun with this in the assorted court cases that you fixate on.
          His problem is that just because we know that the rolls contain fake names, we do not know if they voted – until usually about 6 months after the election – though there has been an effort to stall the release of actual voters in 2020.

          “Those claims have been trotted out for years without proof.”
          There is plenty of proof. You just ignore it.
          There is plenty of proof of actual fraud. You just ignore it.

          In in person elections that fraud is small – but not so small that it could not have flipped innumerable elections this year.

          Fraud in mailin voting is infinitely easier. We do not know how large the actual fraud in 2020 was – Democrats refuse to allow anyone to look for fraud. Though we may get some idea from the AZ and NV audits.

          “” In virtually every state you can vote with proper ID even if you are not on the rolls.
          Even if you do not have proper ID.”

          Again not even remotely true. You can vote INITIALLY without ID which requires you to fill a provisional ballot. In order for your vote to count which is the most important part you still have to produce a valid ID.”

          False, Provisional ballots are for people who are not on the rolls who are trying to vote. the model voter ID law – which nearly every voter ID state follows, requires that you fill out an affadavit saying that you are who you say you are before you can vote without ID. Your vote is then counted. But the Affadavit is under penalty of law, and they usually take your picture. So you will be prosecuted if you are lying.

          “You HAVE to be on the rolls in order to vote. You HAVE to register in order to be on the roll. Your vote will not be counted unless you’re verified name is on the roll.”

          In Most states that is how things work. But there is no reason it has to be that way. There is no reason for Voter Registration today.
          The only people it serves are political parties. When you register – you must pick a party affiliation. In most states you can not vote in a primary if you are not registered with that party.

          Solving this all is trivial. The states have ZERO business in Primaries. Political parties can run their primaries however they please.
          States should not pay for them, nor run them.

          States should have criteria for getting on the ballot for the general election. Meet that criteria and you are on – regardless of party.

          Now there is no need for voter registration – vote in person – other at the polls or absentee at the courthouse, and provide ID and you are done. No need to register at all. A government issued ID with an address in the jurisdiction you are voting in is all you should need.

          But No mailin ballots. No Ballots ever outside the oversight of election officials. We should never ever ever have ballots in the mail. Ballots in homes, ballots in unsupervised ballot boxes. Only the voter – under the supervision of election officials, and election officials should ever have their hands on a ballot – filled in or not. EVER.

          “Purging rolls does prevent legitimate voters from voting.”
          That is an actual myth. There is a complex process for purging voters from voter registration lists.
          Typically anyone who has voted in any of the last 3 election cycles can not be purged.
          Federal law requires that voters are notified at the address in the voter registration records before they are purged.
          I beleive they are required to be notified twice – that is 2 additional election cycles. If they respond OR they vote, they can not be purged.
          So basically you have to not vote in any election for 10 years AND ignore 2 requests to confirm you wish to remain registered.

          Then and only then can you be purged from the rolls.

          You are opposed to purging voter registration rolls. How are you planning on getting dead people, fake people, people who move off the rolls ? There are plenty of them on the rolls. A couple of million people move every year. How are you removing them from their old precinct ? Magic ? About 3M people in the US die each year. Given it takes 10 years to purge the rolls of dead people and that 50% of people are registered – that alone means 15M people are likely on the rolls at any time who are dead.

          “Your ignorance on the subject is massive.”

          Nope, I have been paying close attention to election processes and laws since Bush V. Gore in 2000.

          The various assertions I made above MAY have minor variations state to state. Regardless, YOUR claims are false.

          Actual purging of voter registration rolls is not commonplace. When democrats control a district, the rolls rarely if every get purged and federal lawsuits tend to be necescary to force purging. Regardless purging rolls is both required and common sense.

          Remember in most places Voter Registration data is names, addresses and maybe date of birth. There are no SS#’s – federal law bars states from using SS#’s for most purposes.

          This is also why democrats complain bitterly about database purges. Because there is not enough information in a voter registration database to remove a person when they die.
          The primary means by which dead people, people who move and fake names are removed is by purges.

          It therefore should not surprise you at all that there are lots of errors.

          1. John say, as usual you clearly show your lack of understanding. You stated “ You rant about purging voter rolls – federal law requires that.”

            That’s not true.”

            Of course it is. There have been numourous court cases forcing localities to purge their rolls.”

            You claim federal law requires that. That’s completely false. Only states have the power to purge rolls due to the fact that states make their own voting rules. There is no national requirement to do so as your claim-“federal law requires that.” If there is why don’t you produce the federal statute that requires voter rolls to be purged?

            Numerous court cases, as in STATE and municipal court’s interpreting STATE LAWS. Not federal laws.

            “ You are opposed to purging voter registration rolls. How are you planning on getting dead people, fake people, people who move off the rolls ?”

            Dead people don’t vote. It’s pretty simple. There are instances of people who voted and died prior to their votes being counted. That’s not saying dead people vote. Fake people can only vote once. If a person used another’s name to vote the system catches it before votes are counted.

            People who “move off the rolls” due to moving to another state or municipality still don’t vote in that state or municipality. Just because their names are on the roll doesn’t not mean they are actual votes. The only thing that matters is the vote itself. The majority of systems in place prevent voting twice. Plus there are safeguards in place if someone tries to vote with another’s name.

            None of TVs issues you bring up amount to significant measures of fraud to affect an election. The majority of fraud that does occur is unintentional due to voter confusion.

            Your ignorance is indeed well deserved. You claim federal law requires voters rolls be purged. Nope. If you disagree, then prove me wrong by citing the federal statute requiring voter rolls must be purged.

            1. 52 U.S. Code § 20507 – Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration

              “Only states have the power to purge rolls due to the fact that states make their own voting rules.”
              False. The election of state and local officials is the sole domain of the states.
              But election to federal offices is set by the constitution as the domain of congress and the state legisilature.
              Not the governor, not the state courts. Regardless, the federal government has SOME role in federal elections.
              That role is SLIGHTLY different between other federal offices and the president.

              ” There is no national requirement to do so as your claim-“federal law requires that.” If there is why don’t you produce the federal statute that requires voter rolls to be purged?”

              Please read.
              https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/california-and-los-angeles-county-to-remove-1-5-million-inactive-voters-from-voter-rolls-settle-judicial-watch-federal-lawsuit/

              “Numerous court cases, as in STATE and municipal court’s interpreting STATE LAWS. Not federal laws.”
              Federal law – Federal courts.

              “Dead people don’t vote.”
              And yet they do – in election after election.

              “It’s pretty simple. There are instances of people who voted and died prior to their votes being counted. That’s not saying dead people vote. ”
              There are numerous instances of people who died 100 years ago who are STILL voting.
              You are really ignorant with respect to voting.

              “Fake people can only vote once.”
              Nope, happens all the time. It is rare in “inperson” elections – but it still happens.

              ” If a person used another’s name to vote the system catches it before votes are counted.”
              Nope, the only verification of a voter is are they on the voter registration list.
              Once a name gets on the list it remains until it is removed – when voting rolls are PURGED – that happens every election cycle – by federal law.

              “People who “move off the rolls” due to moving to another state or municipality still don’t vote in that state or municipality. Just because their names are on the roll doesn’t not mean they are actual votes. ”
              Most don’t. But so long as your name remains on a voter registration roll you are free to vote in that state/municipality.

              You seem to think there is some magic other system for validating voters – there is IN SOME STATES – voter ID.
              That is it.

              If you show up claiming to ba a voter on the voter registration rolls (or mail in a ballot where legal) at a polling place, and your name is on the voter registration database – you can vote. Iff you manage to get on the rolls in several states – you can still vote.

              If you show up claiming to be someone who is dead – you can vote if you name is in the voter registration database.
              If you show up claiming to be someone who does not exist – you can vote.

              The reason for Voter ID laws is specifically because there is no check on the validity of names in voter registration databases.

              ‘The only thing that matters is the vote itself.”
              FALSE – only living breathing citizens who legally reside in the municipality they are seeking to vote in – are free to vote.

              Only LEGITIMATE votes count – not every bollot that gets into the box.

              “The majority of systems in place prevent voting twice.”
              Within a municiplaity – yes. Within a state – in some states. Within the country – NOT AT ALL.

              “Plus there are safeguards in place if someone tries to vote with another’s name.”
              The only “safeguard” is that if you get caught you MIGHT go to jail.
              It is very unlikely and very hard to prove even if caught.

              “None of TVs issues you bring up amount to significant measures of fraud to affect an election.”
              As noted, it is near certain that voter fraud tipped the 2016 NH senate and presidential election.
              The margin was small and the amount of likely fraud about double what was required.

              One of the problems with voter fraud is that it is highly unlikely to matter in elections where a candidate wins by 10% of the vote.
              Which used to be common.

              But increasingly elections are won by very narrow margins.

              We are well inside the margin of error for the majority of elections today.
              Most election processes have a 1-3% error rate. But as Turley noted earlier error rarely tipps an election – because even if 3% of recorded votes are in error – real error tends to balance. When error all appears to go one way – then we near certain have fraud not error.

              “The majority of fraud that does occur is unintentional due to voter confusion.”
              There is alot of that too. But that is error not fraud. And it STILL must be eleminated.

              “Your ignorance is indeed well deserved. ”
              non-sequitur, false.

              “You claim federal law requires voters rolls be purged. Nope.”
              Yup.

              “If you disagree, then prove me wrong by citing the federal statute requiring voter rolls must be purged.”

              I did – but I am not required to.

              The sun will rise tomorow – whether I cite that to your satisfaction.
              FACTS are facts. What is actually true is still true even if I do not elect to prove it to you.

    2. The top 0.1% of the country is democrat mega donors.

      Absent the nonsense of the left the system actually works pretty well thank you.

      I am in a lower quintile than my father – but I am more wealthy that he was most of his life.

      I have a few apartments – my tenants are working class. They live better than I did with my middle class parents in the early 60’s.
      They have a nicer apartment, more nice things, more actual wealth.

      You keep throwing on gassoline to start a class war – but the only impediment to the success of most americans is the government – not the 0.1%.

      Jeff Bezo’s has not taken away my liberty.

      Your nonsense reduces it.

      1. “The top 0.1% of the country is democrat mega donors.”

        Yep, it definitely doesn’t include Republican mega donors like Sheldon Adelson, no siree.

        1. Jeff Bezos is worth something like 8 times what Adelson is – After his divorce.

          $15B was spent in the 2020 election – about 10B by democrats, and 5B by republicans.

          Regardless, Republicans are NOT the party that claims rich people in politics is evil.
          That would be democrats – who are collecting the most from rich people.

    3. “I fully expect that in a little under 2 years the Republicans will be back in power and will be able to purge the voter rolls with sufficiency that only the final collapse of the USA will remove them from office.”

      Voter rolls are “purged” at the state level – it’s irrelevant as to who holds power in Congress, unless HR1 passes…

  7. I don’t necessarily agree with everything AOC says but I’m always amazed when “conservatives” go after her and how they do it. When MCConnell blocked Obama’s choice for SCOTUS he made it clear why he did so and it wasn’t because it was an election year but because it wouldn’t benefit him or the Republicans to allow Obama’s choice even to be given an up or down vote! Republicans have made it clear that allowing more people to vote wouldn’t benefit them. Professor, were you as appalled by those “wouldn’t benefit” comments by the Republicans? But hey they get to suppress voting, exclude voters, block appointments to the Supreme Court, try to over turn an election because it wouldn’t benefit them. Please stop the faux outrage.

    The Court as it stands it has already trashed decades of settled law and is poised to destroy the separation of church and state and has already blessed attacks on the voting rights of blacks and other minorities. Just stop. Occasionally you pipe up and try to straddle the line but on balance your fine with all of this destruction and the march back to pre civil war concepts of who gets to participate in our democracy. Republicans want it because it benefits them! In there mind some of us just shouldn’t vote. Why because they know American don’t agree with them. Their comments about the “quality” of the votes not the quantity harkens back to the slave holders of the old South and the mudsill in @ 1856 of Hammond
    It’s appalling and it’s disgusting but benefits them.

      1. He didn’t say that ballot verification is vote suppression. How can he stop lying when he didn’t start lying?

        1. “has already blessed attacks on the voting rights of blacks and other minorities.”

          What do you think he meant? He is talking about voter ID and ballot verification. You can argue the point. Even he can argue the point just to be contrary, but we all know what he meant.

          1. He said “The Court … has already blessed attacks on the voting rights of blacks and other minorities.”

            You ask “What do you think he meant?,” and I think he was referring to things like the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, which did not involve your claim about “Ballot verification.”

            But instead of asking me, why don’t you just ask him “What did you mean by “The Court … has already blessed attacks on the voting rights of blacks and other minorities? What kind of attacks were you referring to?”

            You are inferring that he meant “ballot verification,” but he didn’t say that, it’s just your inference, and he is in a better position than I am to clarify to you what he meant.

    1. Yes, lets have more people vote! – lets have 16 yr olds vote – why stop there, 14, 10, 4, infants.

      Lets let dogs and cats vote.

      Turtles are people too – they must vote.

      Whatever it takes to assure a left wing nut victory.

        1. There are few if any left wing nut arguments that survive reductio ad absurdem.

          And reductio ad absurdem and sarcasm are often the same.

      1. John say, what is wrong with more people voting?

        Anyone who is qualified can vote. Anyone who turns 18 can vote.

        Republicans have made it abundantly clear that more people voting won’t benefit them. Why would they support something that is not beneficial to their goals.

        It only shows that their ideals are really not the majority opinion. It’s easier to maintain a smaller electorate which is easier to manipulate than a larger one that they will have to actually convince. It’s quite telling.

        1. “John say, what is wrong with more people voting?”
          That is an entirely different question.
          What is wrong with less people voting.

          There is not an objectively correct answer to how many people should vote.

          That said those countries with higher voter turnout tend to be politically unstable.

          People turn out to vote – when they have been hyped up – as the media did over the past 4 years.
          That is a bad thing. It is especially bad when both sides are hyped up and the vote is close.
          Those are the conditions that lead to bad things like lawlessness, fraud and civil war.

          “Anyone who is qualified can vote. Anyone who turns 18 can vote.”

          Do can and should mean the same thing ?

          “Republicans have made it abundantly clear that more people voting won’t benefit them. Why would they support something that is not beneficial to their goals.”

          More people voting is a bad idea.

          In markets voting is essentially by free exchange – when you buy a burger you vote – and your vote has a value – the price of the burger.
          Every single transaction in a free market is a vote – but it is more than a vote it is a vote with value attached to it.

          Markets are therefore extrmely goof at measuing peoples real preferences. Every decision in a market has a cost, and most of us have to make choices as to how much cost we can afford and what is more important than what.

          It is extremely well known that people make extremely bad decisions when there is no cost for that decision.

          Any decision where you can impose a cost, but you do not personally directly pay the cost is called a moral hazard.

          Voting is a huge moral hazard. We do not directly pay the cost for those we vote for.

          We see the impact of moral hazard in voting.

          Poll people about universal heathcare – and you get majority support.
          Tell them in the same poll that everyone will have to pay $100 to get universal healthcare – and support tanks.

          Again we have this problem large scale in voting.

          If I could I would arrange to have a huricane in every precinct on election day so that the only people who voted were those who would brave the huricane to get to the polls and vote.

          This is very significant about 2020. At the close of Polls – Trump had a massive nationwide lead over Biden.
          These were REAL PEOPLE who dared to go out in the Covid Pandemic and vote – and they favored Trump by huge margins.

          Democrats knew this would happen and that is why going lawless was so critical in 2020.

          Biden could not possibly have won without massive mailin voting.

          Ignoring the fraud and lawlessness. Biden voters are just not that committed.
          They are not willing to pay a cost to vote – not even walking a few blocks in a city to polls.

          This is an extremely low value vote.

          This is also why when polled 6.4% of Biden voters said they would have changed their vote had they known about Hunter Biden.

          These were all clearly low information voters. Who does not know about Hunter Biden’s laptop ?

          Answer – about 7% of uniformed Biden voters.

          Regardless, the point is that all voters may be equal – but all votes are not.
          The votes of people who are most informed and most motivated and willing to pay atleast the small cost of going to the polls are more valueable than those who do not.

          But we do not have weighted voting of any kind. Therefore we count the votes of commited voters exactly the same as those who gave their vote little consideration.

          “It only shows that their ideals are really not the majority opinion.”

          So ? As has been said repeatedly – this country is NOT a democracy. It is a constitutional republic.
          It is NOT majority rule.

          “It’s easier to maintain a smaller electorate which is easier to manipulate than a larger one that they will have to actually convince. It’s quite telling.”

          False – it is far easier to manipulate a larger electorate – the larger the percent of people who vote. The larger the percent of uniformed voters or weaking committed voters. Those are always the easiest to manipulate.

          If only 10% of the electorate voted – they would be very hard to manipulate. Those are people who know exactly what they want and why they are voting.

          1. John say, every one of your arguments is properly silly. Everyone has a right to vote. The constitution guarantees it. There is no limit on how many can. The only limitation is age.

            We live by a democratic system and a constitutional republic still depends on a majority vote. Every election is dependent on a majority vote.

            When a majority of people want something it is incumbent upon their representatives to honor their wishes. Republicans, ironically, rule by tyranny of a majority when they are in the majority.

            If there are more democrats than republicans and more people vote. Democrats would benefit as the majority chooses their representation. Republicans are all for a constitutional republic right up until they don’t benefit. Hence the need to keep the lowest amount of voters possible.

            Every single person able to vote should, even if it means more than what republicans think it’s necessary because the constitution gives no limit on how many can vote.

            Countries with higher percentages of voters may be more “unstable” but let’s not forget that many Trump supporters specifically voted for Trump because he would have injected instability on the status quo. Having more voters produces the same thing Trump supporters wanted, upsetting the status quo.

            1. “John say, every one of your arguments is properly silly. Everyone has a right to vote. The constitution guarantees it. There is no limit on how many can. The only limitation is age.”
              Please cite where in the constitution a “right to vote” is granted.

              “We live by a democratic system”
              The word democracy is not found in the constitution.

              “and a constitutional republic still depends on a majority vote.”
              Nope. The constitution originally only used majority vote of the people to elect representatives.
              In the 20th century we added senators.

              Presidents are still elected through the electoral college.
              States are free to award their electoral college votes as they please.
              Today that is typically by majority popular vote.

              But there is no constitutional requirement that states elect the president by popular vote.

              “Every election is dependent on a majority vote.”
              Nope.

              “When a majority of people want something it is incumbent upon their representatives to honor their wishes. ”
              False. If the majority of us what to enslave blacks – can we do that ? if we wish to kill jews – can we do that ?

              “Republicans, ironically, rule by tyranny of a majority when they are in the majority.”
              Generally republicans when in power DISEMPOWER government – they reduce taxes and regulation – that does not require majority support.

              Those in power are ALWAYS free to infringe LESS on individual rights – even if the majority opposes.
              They are NOT free to infringe MORE on individual rights – even with majority support.

              “If there are more democrats than republicans and more people vote.”
              Republicans are about 23% of the population, democrats about 27% – that leaves about 50%.

              “Democrats would benefit as the majority chooses their representation.”
              Democrats are not a majority – nor are republicans.

              “Republicans are all for a constitutional republic right up until they don’t benefit.”
              Are many republicans hypocritical – absolutely. Are republicans in power dangers – certainly.
              But democrats are always MORE dangerous.

              “Hence the need to keep the lowest amount of voters possible.”

              Each party seeks to reduce the number of voters from the other party who vote, and increase the number of voters from their own party.
              This is normal politics. Obama beat Romney by getting about 2.8M republicans in the rest belt to stay home on election day through negative campaign adds. that is just politics.

              Each political party is perfectly free to use every means at its disposal to persuade voters to vote for them or not for the other candidate.

              In fact every person in the world outside of US government is free to to the same. John Oliver can try to persuade americans. Vladimir Putin can try to persuade americans. Often we are put off when foreigners express oppinions in US elections – but it happens all the time.

              Only those in government are not free to attempt to persuade. And they certainly are not free to use government power to political advantage.

              And that is what is most wrong about the 2020 election.

              Trump and republicans fixated on Fraud. With few exceptions the fraud is private – it is by private individuals or by political campaigns – that is bad, and our governments have a duty to thwart that, but it is not nearly as bad as government conducting lawless elections.

              If those in government – if election officials put their thumbs on the scales – that is EVIL, immoral and wrong.

              It is not as an example the role of the executive or the courts to ensure that as many people as possible can vote.

              Who can vote and the rules for voting are determined by the law and constitution. In 28 US states their state constitution REQUIRES secret ballots. Mailin voting is not and can never be a secret ballot. In 5 of the 6 swign states their constitutions require secret ballots.

              Any state with a secret ballot constitutional clause that held mailin voting – violated that states constitution.
              They conducted lawless elections. That is 5 of the 6 swing states. Any state with a secret ballot constitutional amendment that their courts allowed mailin ballots conducted a lawless election – worse still with the impramatur of the courts as well as the executive.

              If the legislature, the governor, and the state supreme court all agree to violate the state constitution – it is STILL lawless.

              In fact it is WORSE that should one have the courage to resist.

              When the legislature, the governor and the courts ALL agree to go lawless – expecially regarding elections. That is precisely when the Declarations of independence’s blessing to remove a lawless government EVEN BY FORCE is relevant.

              The more I have learned of the Jan 6 protests – the more I have found failure of government rather than protestors.

              That said – any of us, many of us, all of us are completely justified in thwarting – even through the use of force lawlessness on the part of government – PARTICULARLY with elections.

              When elections are lawless – THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT.

              There is no insurection – merely an uprising against tyranny.

              As Chris Cuomo noted in June of 2020 – there sometimes is a justification for violent protests.

              Cuomo merely failed to grasp when violence against government is justified.
              That is when government becomes lawless.

              “Every single person able to vote should,”
              Nope.

              The freedom to do something includes the freedom to NOT do something. People should vote – only if they want to badly enough to pay some cost. getting to the polls is a very tiny cost – probably insufficient.

              “even if it means more than what republicans think it’s necessary because the constitution gives no limit on how many can vote.”
              In correct – the limit is the number of citizens over the age of 18 who have not otherwise been disenfranchised.
              In nearly every state in the country convicted fellons are disenfranchised – and that is constitutional.
              In most of the country fellons can get the right to vote back after they have completed the entirety of the punishment for their crimes.
              But there is no requirement for that.

              In fact the constitution – while prohibiting specific types of disenfranchisement does NOT grant universal sufferage.

              “Countries with higher percentages of voters may be more “unstable””
              They are, there is no may.

              “but let’s not forget that many Trump supporters specifically voted for Trump because he would have injected instability on the status quo.”
              False they elected him to restore order.

              Your idea of the status quo is NOT the same as stability and order.
              Non sequitur.

              “Having more voters produces the same thing Trump supporters wanted, upsetting the status quo.”

              Trump voters did not seek to “upset the status quo” that is the goal of anarchists.
              They sought to restore order and limits on government.
              They sought to restore stability.

              Trump did alot of that – but not all. He did not restore stability – because democrats and the media are increasingly anarchic.

              If you have not figured it out – bomb throwing and anarchy. Tear everything down and start over ALWAYS ends badly.

            2. Svelaz,

              Those who establish a reputation for accurately reporting the truth need not cite every claim they make.
              Wise people will tend to trust those who have a track record for accuracy.

              Conversely people will not trust those who do not accurately report the truth without providing evidence.

              You accused me of lying about federal election law requiring voter registration databases to be purged of dead, moved and fake voters.

              After repeating this claim multiple times. I provided you with a link to one of the many court cases in which Judicial Watch forced states and localities to follow federal law and purge their voter registration databases.

              Further I cited not merely the law but a specific section of the law regarding purging voter registration databases.

              You owe not merely me, but the rest of the blog an apology for posting false information and for making false accusations.

              You have made numerous other claims – why should anyone beleive them ?

              While I can prove many of them spurious – why should ANYONE have to do so ?

              When you make false claims and follow that up with false moral accusations – why should others beleive you about anything ever ?

        2. Almost everything in my prior post on voting and value is extrmely well supported by market data.

          People make very bad decisions when there is no direct cost to them for those decisions.

          This is also why Experts – and particularly government experts have an actual demonstrable track record of making bad decisions.

          It should not surpise anyone to observe that Faucci is and has been changing his positions on all kinds of things constantly throughout the pandemic.

          The reason is simple – there is no cost to him for being wrong.
          Outside of a few on the right who are livid with him – most people – and the media left Faucci say anything and credit it as nearly written in stone – even when he says the opposite a month later.

          I am picking on Faucci – but this is true of nearly all experts.

          “Bureaucracy is a construction by which a person is conveniently separated from the consequences of his or her actions.”
          ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

          “How much you truly “believe” in something can be manifested only through what you are willing to risk for it.”
          ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

          Do you want oppinions from experts or votes from voters who have no “skin in the game” ?

          I do not.

    2. The Court as it stands it has already trashed decades of settled law . .. .

      You;re on another planet. The Supreme Court hasn’t reversed ANY precedent of significance in recent years, let alone every ruling of the last 30 years as you claim. It continues to push the country further to the left.

  8. And we’ve seen how the WH caved to the Squad on the issue of immigration caps. Meanwhile in Taiwan…

    1. Joe has defrauded centrism. This isn’t unity at all. He intends to flood the country so he can cancel out our votes 2022 using motor voter.

        1. Good question. Unity is not about outcomes. It’s about respecting the process.

          Packing the court makes a mockery of the process.
          Packing voter roles with illegals and dead Democrats makes a mockery of the process.
          Censoring speech makes a mockery of the process.

          I could go on, but you get the picture.

          1. Voter rolls, not voter roles. Anonymous made me so mad it caused me to make a spelling error.

          2. I think that McConnell unilaterally refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Garland also makes a mockery of the process (which should be about Senate approval, not McConnell’s approval). How about you?

            The voter rolls are not packed “with illegals and dead Democrats.” There is a small amount of voter fraud, and both Republicans and Democrats get arrested for it.

            Speech is not censored by the government, and I don’t know what government process you think private censorship of speech mocks. Would you elaborate?

            The picture I get is that whether you consider something a mockery of the process is wholly a matter of opinion and depends on whether you agree with it politically. If I’m wrong about that, please correct me, and give some examples of Republicans engaging in what you consider a mockery of the process.

            1. “I think that McConnell unilaterally refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Garland also makes a mockery of the process.”

              An opposing majority refusing a President’s choice for the Supreme Court is not a mockery of the process. IT IS THE PROCESS.

              Packing the Court is an attack on the process itself. I’m saying this for the benefit of others. You’ll never get it.

              1. “An opposing majority …”

                Again: McConnell is a single person. He is not a majority. He did not allow a vote to occur in order to determine what the majority wanted. I don’t know why this simple fact is so hard for you to admit.

                1. IF republicans wanted a vote there would have been one.
                  Just as if democrats want votes right now – Schumer can not stop that.

                  1. John say, Mitch McConnell alone decides whether there can be a vote. The process requires McConnell to move for a full vote. Individual senators cannot just start voting.

                    1. “John say, Mitch McConnell alone decides whether there can be a vote. The process requires McConnell to move for a full vote. Individual senators cannot just start voting.”

                      False, each house determines its own rules. Even McConnells position as majority leader is a choice of other senators.

                      You constantly see things in the most shallow fashion possible.

                      I would further note tha tGrassley chaired the Judiciary committee – while he could not have forced a vote of the full Senate, He could have held confirmation hearings and decided to vote on those – nor is that decision his alone. Even on defection from the majority would have allowed the Judiciary committed to have hearings.

              2. Packing the court is constitutionally allowed by the majority. Just as an “opposing majority” can decide to mock the process.

                1. Correct, few have claimed it is unconstitutional.

                  Every bad idea is not unconstitutional.

                  But go ahead, see how it works out for you.

        2. Unity is what we should get with a President like Trump who was committed to operating the country as a going concern and making the country wealthier for the benefit of everyone. But the Left was too crazy to accept that. Now we have a President whose every policy is a colossal waste of money and deliberately constructed to be racist against whites.

  9. Thank you, again, Professor Turley, for defending freedom and the Constitution.

    If the Court needed more justices, they would say so. The only thing any of them has said is DON’T PACK THE COURT! That should end the discussion for anybody who is intellectually honest.

    Folks, check out Red Eagle Politics on Bit Chute (he’s also on YouTube but for how long?). This young man has been far more accurate than the bigshots in the MSM. He says the Democrats don’t have the votes, even if they brought it to the floor.

    That is why Joe has created this phony “commission.” Joe knows the votes aren’t there, so the commission’s job is NOT to evaluate court packing. Its job is to SELL court packing. Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and the MSM will be pruning the debate with censorship and fertilizing it with deliberate lies.

    Rasmussen and Red Eagle Politics will give you the best view of how the debate is playing out.

    THE REST IS UP TO US.

  10. It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.

    Edmund Burke

  11. As someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, she and too many of her comrades, want to destroy the very thing that they swore to uphold. There are three branches of government for a reason. That reason is known as “checks and balances,” and that reason seems to have become a problem for AOC and too many other members of her Party. Having a non-political Supreme Court is the only thing that Separates America from most of the world.

    Anyone who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and then undermines it or trashes it, should be removed from office and never again be allowed to run for public office.

    1. “Anyone who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and then undermines it or trashes it, should be removed from office and never again be allowed to run for public office.”

      If you truly believe this, did you call for Trump’s removal and for a subsequent vote that he be disqualified from future office?

      He trashed diverse aspects of the Constitution, such as his false claim that “When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total,” his illegal desire to shut down mosques, his desire “to open up those libel laws” and make it easier to sue the press even when they’re not acting with actual malice, his desire that it be legal to waterboard accused terrorists and murder their families, and on and on.

      1. This guy can never address an issue without dragging Trump into it. The story is about COURT PACKING and AOC disputing JUDICIAL REVIEW…care to opine?

        1. I quoted another commenter and responded to the quote. It’s called a discussion. If you don’t like it, scroll by.

          I already “opined” about your question in my 10:51 AM comment.

            1. I mentioned Trump because his behavior was relevant to Wise Old Owl’s statement. That’s not “dragging” him into it (which implies it was off-topic — Trump was on-topic too WOO’s comment).

              JT gives us the option of commenting anonymously. It’s up to each of us whether to use it. For me, the benefits (including decreased harassment from some of the trolls here) outweigh the disadvantages. If you don’t want people to be able to comment anonymously, write Turley and convince him to use a commenting system that doesn’t allow it.

      2. and make it easier to sue the press even when they’re not acting with actual malice, his desire that it be legal to waterboard accused terrorists and murder their families, and on and on

        Your confusing somethings that President Trump may have said, with what Obama actually did.

        1. You’re confused. Bush is the one who used waterboarding, not Obama. Nor did Obama “make it easier to sue the press even when they’re not acting with actual malice.”

          The Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations all killed family members of terrorists. Whether they were assassinations (aiming to kill those specific people) vs. untargeted deaths (drone strikes resulting in civilian deaths, not of specific people) is unclear to me. I find all of them wrong, but different from the targeted murders that Trump called for. If you think they were targeted, OK, but don’t pretend that Trump merely said what Obama did, as they both did it.

          If you want to discuss it, then be honest about it.

        2. By the way, notice how you omitted part of the quote in order to ignore other of Trump’s statements trashing the Constitution, like “his false claim that “When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total,” his illegal desire to shut down mosques.”

          Obama wasn’t making those arguments. Trump was.

  12. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. This is the very essence of judicial duty.

    Per Justice John Marshall

    Seems like an easy concept to grasp…..why does AOC and those like. her have such difficulty in doing so?

  13. “It often seems that our politics of rage has created a new age of berserkers, warriors revered for their blind destructive fury. In order to distinguish yourself from the rest of the mob, you must show a willingness to lay waste to any structure or institution on the path to victory.”

    I’ll believe that Turley truly believes this when he also criticizes Trump and other Republicans who do this.

    Turley writes AOC challenged the role of the Court in overturning laws. She questioned “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” She then added “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

    But he doesn’t link to the source of his quote, and if you Google just the quote “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand,” the only result is Turley’s column.

    Since his own column is the only search result, his failure to link to the source makes it impossible for us to read her statement in context and hear the rest of what she said.

    I disagree with AOC here. The current structure (where the President nominates and the Senate Majority Leader can block hearings on the nomination or rush another nomination through, where the President is elected via the Electoral College and may not have also won the popular vote, etc.) benefits us in some ways and is bad for us in other ways. In addition suggesting that “hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers” agree on something does not imply consensus, since hundreds of thousands of other legislators, advocates and policymakers may (and often do) disagree. Constitutionality is important, despite our Constitution being imperfect.

  14. “AOC challenged the role of the Court in overturning laws.”

    Of course she did. One nice thing about have an AOC on the scene is that she says openly what others obfuscate. She and her fellow neo-fascists hate the American system of checks and balances. Those power-lusters are angling for a dictatorship of the people — with their cabal as the “voice of the people.” Want to know what happens to dissenters? See Socrates, or the dissidents in Hong Kong, or the tens of millions killed in the 20th century by various “people’s states.”

    (Great post, JT)

  15. Of course, what AOC means, as is unfortunately the case with so many of her generation, is that it doesn’t work for *her*, even though it does, and she’s simply too ignorant/dumb to know that because she believes everything she thinks. It is impossible to take her seriously, and if the dems have any scruples left at all, they will dump the ‘squad’.

    If they were actually in charge, our country would collapse in the space a year or less, just like their attempts at cooking or legitimately volunteering somewhere other than Twitter or voter polls or ‘CHAZ’.

  16. AOC’s question doesn’t so much suggest a crisis of faith as it does sheer ignorance. Too many members of Congress elected in the last five years seem to be trained in the streets rather than the universities. They might make good activists, but their disregard for law, process and civility are frightening. Creeping intolerance and blatant power grabs are signs of a coming totalitarianism.

    1. “. . . trained in the streets rather than the universities.”

      Actually, she and her ilk got their ideas from the universities. Here’s just two: 1) That the ends justifies the means (which is pragmatism). Their end is total power. Their means is whatever it takes. 2) That the American system of individualism and capitalism is evil. And that the only moral political system is some form of socialism.

      1. “That the ends justifies the means (which is pragmatism). Their end is total power. Their means is whatever it takes”

        You describe Republicans like Mitch McConnell here. That’s why he did everything he could to prevent Obama’s judicial nominations from getting hearings, including unilateral refusal with Garland.

        “That the American system of individualism and capitalism is evil”

        AOC doesn’t argue that, and I doubt that you find many arguing it at universities either.

    2. When I read the column, I had the same thought, Giocon1. Apparently, AOC was educated at Boston University. According to Wikipedia, she graduated from BU in 2011 – just ten years ago. From my perspective, she brings little life experience to her current position in the U.S. House of Representatives. Based on her commentary, I’m surmising that she does not have a solid background in the fundamentals of our government. She is bold, but not well versed in the matters of which she speaks. I have to wonder how many other members of Congress are similarly situated. I wonder what percentage of the members of the House and the Senate actually read the bills that come up for a vote. I would like to see basic and continuing education requirements for members of Congress. It’s all very frightening!

      1. Cassidy,

        You said you wondered “what percentage of the members of the House and Senate actually read the bills that come up for a vote,” and that is a question that all Americans should ponder. As someone who was involved in preparing bills for a City, if the proposed law was more than one or two pages long, I prepared a one or two page summary and that is what the commissioners read. I have seen this same practice in County governments and State governments.

        Unfortunately, most of those who vote on the bills are not attorneys and don’t fully understand that it is not the summary that is important, it is every single word in the bill.

        As we have seen in recent years, Congress has been coming up with bill that are in the thousands of pages. If you read them, you will see that these bills in many instances refer to other laws and statutes, etc. For one to fully read and understand these laws, would take so much time and patience, that members of Congress would never have time to go home, relax, get donations, show up for rallies, etc.

        As we have also seen, most in public office spend most of their time, running for re-election and bragging about all the bills they helped pass.

        it is a mess Cassidy, and though “continuing education,” might be helpful, it is doubtful if they would show up for those classes. Most, like AOC, feel that they are the smartest people alive, and have no need for learning anything more than what they already know (or don’t know).

        1. Ah, Wise Old Owl, it’s so interesting that you should mention summaries of the bills. I am planning to write to my Congressman this week to suggest that accurate summaries be prepared and disseminated to constituents. One aspect of the legislative process that is extremely troublesome is the fact that the bills are given names that are inherently misleading. Take HR1 for example: “For the People Act of 2021.” My background is in corporate/securities law. I have worked with the mutual fund industry for decades. Mutual funds are subject to a specific provision under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, which prohibits an investment company from offering its shares under a deceptive or misleading name. In my opinion the name ascribed to HR1 is fundamentally misleading. Why aren’t members of Congress subject to some kind of anti-fraud standard? I can think of names that would be factually descriptive, but I won’t suggest them on this blog.

          I can provide you with one example of unfortunate legislation passed in the final days of the Clinton Administration – and that is an understatement. Here goes: Brooksley Borne was then head of the CFTC, the federal agency that has oversight of the commodities and futures markets. Because she was concerned about the adequacy of regulation of the derivatives markets, she issued a concept release calling for more regulation. Arthur Levitt, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers took the remarkable step of issuing a joint press release opposing her efforts to regulate derivatives. In the final days of the Clinton Administration – December of 2000 – the House and the Senate issued companion bills relating to these issues that were never debated on the floor of the House or the Senate. The resulting legislation “Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000,” which effectively de-regulated credit default swaps, is now regarded as one of the fundamental causes of the Financial Crisis of 2008. When I asked my Congresswoman about this legislation, she had no recollection of this legislation and asked me what a credit default swap was. It’s all very disconcerting to me!

        2. Most, like AOC, feel that they are the smartest people alive, and have no need for learning anything more than what they already know (or don’t know).
          A different way to look at it. AOC and acolytes know they are not smart. In fact they consider it a feature not a bug. They are not constrained by things like the constitutional knowledge, or history. Nothing to clutter their mind. It allows them the think out of the box. Not being hindered by guard rails “frees’ them.

  17. Hgedsubwoman – “my international colleagues are astounded by the “choice” of the American people.”

    The question is was this really the choice of the American people? Those in power don’t want that question asked or looked into!

    1. Exactly. If you see my other comment, most of those folks, at least in my circles, are under the impression we still have a functional system like their own.

  18. Democrats have abandoned reasoned debate. They have a bloodlust for absolute power to match their absolute corruption. They have no respect for the American success that has benefitted the most people ever in the history of the world. Not perfect but a “more perfect union”. I wish more actual moderates could see the destructive nature of the Left.

    But my favorite quote was that “Joe Biden has continued to stand mute”. It is not a continuation – it is who was elected. Biden was never the “sharpest tool in the shed” and produced no meaningful outcomes benefitting the American citizens during his 50 years on the public dole, though he and his family personnally enriched themselves. But since 2019 everyone new Biden was “mute”, merely reciting phrases he’d been taught and now reading words written for him. It is an embarrassment to the US and my international colleagues are astounded by the “choice” of the American people.

    1. My international friends are, too, and no, they aren’t all white Europeans. They honestly cannot understand what is happening in this country. They aren’t intimately familiar with the systems of helicopter parenting and the state of our modern universities, though. In their worlds, kids are still punished, and university is mainly about actual skills. Few if any of our free foreign neighbors have anything quite like Silicon Valley or corporate America in general, either.

      1. James – it is the coddling of the American mind , not my words but an essay written in 2015 and later expounded upon in a book .

        The subtitle is “ How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure”

    2. It seems we went from one “crazy town” to but another “crazy town”.

      I would like to see some polls of people who were independents , moderate republicans who voted for Biden , re- polled today- IMO Biden won the election ( by slim margins) not because of his/ dem policies but simply because he wasn’t Trump.

      IMO , there is a great deal of “buyers remorse”out there .

      1. Deb,

        Unfortunately, thus far I have not seen or heard much “buyers remorse” out there. The only thing I notice, is that on local chat rooms, there is much more quiet about politics than there was prior to the election.

        Perhaps there is buyer’s remorse, but that remorse is not reflected in the media or the social media that those people read, watch and get their news from. I wonder if they even are aware of how this country is being destroyed on a daily basis by Biden and the left. I believe that if the media was not invested in the political remaking of America, and told the whole truth and nothing but the truth, there might be the remorse that you spoke about.

      2. In order for there to be remorse, these particular voters need to be informed about what’s going on. The pace of forced change is furiously fast–one can barely keep up. This scorched-earth jamming has been done under the misconception (or misrepresentation) that the Democrats and Biden have a “mandate.” The mainstream media and big tech are in on the whole game so hide what’s really happening from the viewers and readers.

        1. I voted for Biden. I’m not a fan of Biden’s, but I absolutely do NOT have remorse, and Trump was the alternative. I remain quite happy that Biden is in office rather than Trump, because I think Trump was harming the country more than Biden has.

            1. Of course it’s arguable. It’s an opinion, and if someone else thinks the converser, that’s also an opinion. Opinions are always arguable.

              1. Anonymous – Opinions are arguable but facts less so. Fact: Trump policies managed immigration at the border and Biden policies have resulted in a significant surge of illegal immigrants into our country, overwhelming border enforcement.

                1. No, ma’am, it’s an opinion that “Trump policies managed immigration at the border,” as there is no agreement about what it means to appropriately “manage” immigration. As a simple example, there is no agreement that refusing to allow refugee applicants into the US pending a decision on their application is proper “management,” since it’s legal to apply for refugee status.

                  I’ll also point out that the majority of people in the US illegally did not enter illegally at the border. The majority entered legally, many by plane, and then overstayed their visas. It’s striking that you omit them in calculating the “surge” you refer to.

                  1. “No, ma’am, it’s an opinion that “Trump policies managed immigration at the border,” as there is no agreement about what it means to appropriately “manage” immigration.”
                    False and irrelevant.

                    We need not agree how to best do something to agree that something is currently being done very badly.

                    “As a simple example, there is no agreement that refusing to allow refugee applicants into the US pending a decision on their application is proper “management,” since it’s legal to apply for refugee status.”
                    And yet Biden is reverting to the apply in Mexico policies of Trump.

                    “i’ll also point out that the majority of people in the US illegally did not enter illegally at the border. The majority entered legally, many by plane, and then overstayed their visas. It’s striking that you omit them in calculating the “surge” you refer to.”

                    More leftist nonsense. WHO CARES ?
                    What has that got to do with the SURGE at the border ?
                    In march there were 172000 illegal border crossings.
                    At that rate we will see 2M/Year.

                    In a normal year TOTAL immigration – all legal and all illegal is less than that.

                    You say there are more Visa Overstays – NOT NOW.

                    At the present rate Biden will add nearly 8M illegal alleins before the end of his term.

                    That is like adding an entire NYC to the country

          1. Then you are not paying attention at all. EVERYTHING Biden does is disastrous for the nations’s future.

Leave a Reply