United States Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Voting Rights For D.C.

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (and the later denial of a motion for consideration) in rejecting the much touted lawsuit to give residents a vote in Congress. Some of us have repeatedly said that the lawsuit would not succeed despite various law professors filing a brief supporting the underlying claims. What is most striking however is the coverage in the Washington Post, which reported on the summary affirmance but only quoted supporters for the challenge, including a strikingly misleading take on the lower court ruling upheld by the Supreme Court.

I have written about D.C. statehood and other voting proposals for decades and, as noted in a recent column, I believe that the best interests of both the country and the district residents is found in retrocession, not statehood.

As I stated when it was filed, this lawsuit has the same flaws as the argument used previously in Congress to secure a house vote for the district. It is at odds with the language and history of the Constitution. The D.C. Circuit wrote a detailed decision taking apart the constitutional claims and rejecting the challenge “because Congress’s District Clause power does not include the power to contravene the Constitution’s express provisions, and because the Constitution by its terms limits House representation to ‘the people of the several States.'”

There has long been a problem with the one-sided coverage of these challenges and past unconstitutional proposals in Congress. Stories often present a distorted account of the constitutional debate in echoing the views of those advocating for judicial or legislative intervention to give D.C. residents a vote in Congress without statehood.

The Washington Post article downplays the significance of this loss while repeatedly insisting that it does little to undermine further efforts at legislative interventions. It quotes advocates for the rejected challenge and then adds this observation:

“The ruling has little bearing on the ongoing fight for D.C. statehood, however, and does not preclude Congress from passing a law that would grant the District a vote in the national legislature.”

Obviously, this decision would not impact D.C. statehood. It had nothing to do with statehood. However, the statement that it “does not preclude Congress from passing a law that would grant the District a vote in the national legislature” ignores the strong language against any legislative measure other than statehood.

Yet, the Post repeatedly spins the decision as “only affirm[ing] the finding, by a three-judge panel made up of federal judges in D.C., that Congress is not constitutionally required” to give D.C. residents a vote. Again, the lower court went well beyond just saying that Congress was not required to give a vote. It repeatedly stressed that it cannot do so even if it wanted to because the Constitution limits votes to “the people of the several states.”

The Post then made the same misleading point by adding this statement from Walter Smith, executive director of the D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice:

“Smith was heartened, however, that the ruling the Supreme Court affirmed mentioned that Congress could legally grant voting rights to D.C., even though it is not constitutionally required to.”

However, again, the Court makes repeated reference to the bar on non-state residents in voting. It merely states the obvious that Congress can grant statehood:

“The point we underscore is that the constitution of Congress was the considered result of extensive debate, and in the absence of any evidence that the Framers intended something other than what they wrote, it is not the place of either Congress (acting via the District Clause) or this Court to revise the results of the compromise that was so central to the formation of the country as it is.”

The opinion is a scathing review of any arguments other than statehood for voting rights in Congress.

It is also worth noting that the actual opinion affirmed by the Supreme Court was the denial of the motion for reconsideration, which was an even more blistering rejection: “The Motion is not a picture of clarity, such that we are not entirely certain under what theory Plaintiffs are proceeding. … Returning now to the trailhead, we need only take a few steps along the second path before concluding that this way, too, is a dead end.”

In rejecting a new statutory argument, the Court again reaffirmed the fundamental rejection of this claim: “It was that premise – that residents of the District qua residents of the District are not among “the people of the several States” – that informed our conclusion that Plaintiffs’ equal-protection law claim was pretermitted by the Constitution’s own dictates.”

None of that was even intimated, let alone recognized, in the Post coverage. As with past coverage, the suggestion was that this was not a major loss and there are still grounds for legislatively securing a vote.

There is of course another option that is legislative: retrocession.  I testified five times in the House and the Senate on this issue in Congress, particularly on the effort to simply give the District a vote in the House of Representatives.  I encouraged the Congress to avoid such flagrantly unconstitutional measures of a vote as a non-state entity and instead focus on a vote of statehood or retrocession.  I proposed a “modified retrocession plan”, which was also discussed in an academic work. See, Jonathan Turley, Too Clever By Half: The Partial Representation of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives76 George Washington University Law Review 305-374 (2008).  Under my proposal, the mall and core federal buildings would remain the District of Columbia (as is the case in this legislation) but the remainder of the District would retrocede back to Maryland (as did the other half of the original District to Virginia). In this way, residents would receive full representation while receiving the benefits of various Maryland educational and other opportunities.  I argued that such retrocession offered the fastest course for not just full representation but improved social and educational programs for the district residents.  I laid out a phased retrocession plan that began with immediate and full representation.  This could be done by congressional vote.

Absent retrocession, there remains only statehood. Again, that constitutional option has never been in doubt and never debated.

Notably, this is simply a failure to report the actual tenor and holding of the lower court decision that was summarily upheld by the Supreme Court.  It is a recurring problem. One such example is the misrepresentation of an emoluments ruling by the Post’s Jennifer Rubin, which still has yet to be corrected.

Court reporting today is increasingly marked by one-sided accounts that ignore countervailing views or even judicial holdings. That only tends to fuel the anger of readers who were never fully informed of contested claims or the weight of opposing precedent. They then assume that it must be raw ideology or the bias of the courts when these claims fail.

105 thoughts on “United States Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Voting Rights For D.C.”

  1. In respect to statehood as an alternative to retrocession, Turley writes “…there remains only statehood. Again, that constitutional option has never been in doubt and never debated.”
    I’m uncertain ho to interpret the assertion “that constitutional option has never been in doubt”. If he means that the option of statehood would be a Constitution slam-dunk, I must disagree.
    Article I Section 8, PP 17
    “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;”

    and. more particularly

    23rd Amendment, Section 1
    “The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

    A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”

    Both texts create special conditions for the “seat of government” that seem to clearly contravene the rights, obligations, and very definiton of a state. I think it highly likely that statehood for DC would require, at minimum, revocation of the 23rd A., and quite possibly ratification of a new Amendment specifically directed to modify A. I, S. 8, PP 17.

  2. Turley concludes:

    “Court reporting today is increasingly marked by one-sided accounts that ignore countervailing views or even judicial holdings. That only tends to fuel the anger of readers who were never fully informed of contested claims or the weight of opposing precedent. They then assume that it must be raw ideology or the bias of the courts when these claims fail.”

    I agree.

    Say what you will about the Post ignoring countervailing legal views, however, it is NOT subject to a billion dollar defamation lawsuit as is Turley’s Fox News for deliberately or recklessly broadcasting outright *lies* about the election being rigged or otherwise hacked. As bad as the Post is, it has not sunk to the depths of Fox News.

      1. Interesting. I think it is welcome that defamation lawsuits are being resorted to check lies and false narratives. Good speech alone is failing to discredit bad speech. Defamation, boycotts and public shaming are far more effective in deterring bad faith lies and reckless false statements.

        1. Public shaming has no effect when they have no shame. Repeating the lie works for the cult and they know it. Example……Mitch McConnell and the debt ceiling.

          1. “Public shaming has no effect when they have no shame. Repeating the lie works for the cult and they know it. “

            When dealing with the left, your words are true.


    Wait! Stop the presses!

    “Supreme Court Learns How to Read the “Manifest Tenor” of the U.S. Constitution”

    Just in time, eh?

    Now, why don’t all you communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) Justices, have a look at Article 1, Section 8, wherein Congress is provided the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” not individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity, and wherein Congress is provided the power to regulate ONLY money, commerce and land and naval Forces, then proceed to the 5th Amendment right to private property which is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, providing only owners of private property the power to “…claim and exercise dominion…” over related private property.

    The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc. All of these eminently noble and honorable pursuits may and must be pursued in the free markets of the private sector.

    Apparently, the only ones who have not yet got the memo are the Justices of the Supreme Court.

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

  4. Imagine the conflict of interest when Congresspeople, many of whom live in DC, vote on matters pertaining to a state of DC. Instead of just 2 senators living in a state in question, all 50 of them would, at least part time.

    More and more, the Left seeks to create The Hunger Games, complete with districts rendered powerless with a popular vote, and a Capitol of Panem.

  5. If this was really just about the residents of DC having more of a say, then retrocession would answer. Making what is essentially a city a state is ludicrous. It was just a ploy to get more Democrat votes.

    Retrocede all the land except for that upon which the White House, Capitol Building, and Supreme Court rests.

    1. “Making what is essentially a city a state is ludicrous.”

      Why? More people live in DC than live in the state of WY. More people live in DC than in the state of VT.

      “Retrocede all the land …”

      This cannot happen without the consent of MD, and most Marylanders oppose this.

      1. “This cannot happen without the consent of MD, and most Marylanders oppose this.”

        One doesn’t have to look to far in DC to see why Marylanders might want to oppose.

      2. Anonymous:

        The only industry of DC is politics. As it stands, only 2 senators would live in any state that a bill or funding pertains to, at least part time. Were DC to become a state, then all 50 senators would live in that state, at least part time.

        It would make the Seat of Government its own state. This prospect disturbed the founders, which is why they created a federal city.

        There are more people living in Los Angeles, CA, than many other states. Should LA become a state? Should every major city in the United States become new states? Follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion – a massive power grab by deep blue cities, which already have enormous power.

        While I agree with you that the people of Maryland need to agree for a retrocession to happen, the people of the United States should also agree if a new state should be created out of DC. And they don’t.

        Maryland Democrats don’t want Baltimore to play second fiddle to DC. However, I don’t think it would. The federal buildings would remain the property of the federal government, and Baltimore would remain the capitol of Maryland, even though more people live in DC. The other reason Democrats oppose retrocession is because they want 2 more Senate seats from a new blue state.

        Maryland Republicans don’t want a tidal wave of Democrat voters from DC. However, MD has voted Democrat in presidential elections since 2008. Adding a further 2 senate seats to the Democrats would be more self defeating than welcoming back the land it ceded.

        1. “The only industry of DC is politics”

          That’s not true. How much time have you spent in DC?

          “the people of the United States should also agree if a new state should be created out of DC. And they don’t.”

          DC can only become a state if approved by Congress, which is the way in which the people of the U.S. either approve of it or not.

          “Baltimore would remain the capitol of Maryland”

          The capital of Maryland is Annapolis, not Baltimore.

          1. Anonymous, I used to live in VA, and my Dad worked at the Pentagon. Granted, I was a kid, so my perception of its industry might be skewed. The only industries I can think of are tourism, car dealerships, stores and shops. It’s just a big city, about 68 square miles.

            I’m laughing, because you’re right about Annapolis. You totally got me. Believe it or not, I briefly lived in MD as a baby. Even so, I’ve been forgetting my state capitals since grade school. This reminds me of an argument I had with a Californian that West Virginia is its own state, not just the western part of VA.

            Baltimore is the independent city.

            1. Yes, tourism/leisure/hospitality is a big sector in DC, so are education (including GWU, where Turley works), finance, healthcare, technology, and international business. Lots of Fortune 500 companies have offices in DC, and so do lots of non-profits.

              1. Anonymous:

                This doesn’t make any sense. DC is basically a city.

                Are we going to start converting cities to states now?

                Retrocession gives the land back to the state that donated it. It does not give undue power to a city, or to the seat of government. It does not give 50 senators a conflict of interest.

                Statehood for a city is a naked power grab by the Democrat Party, an attempt to expand the Senate just like they want to expand the Supreme Court. This is about power, not representation. Otherwise, retrocession is the logical answer. But the Democrats both in MD and in Congress oppose retrocession because they want those 2 additional seats.

                It is not reasonable to turn a city into a state. This isn’t ancient Greece.

                1. In general, a state is geographically larger than a city. Beyond that, what would you say are the significant differences?

                  1. ATS–” what would you say are the significant differences?:

                    Law.and politics.

                    This would not be an issue if DC were predominantly Republican and it actually made or grew things.

                    DC was set aside for a specific federal purpose. Shall we make Yosemite a state? How about Guantanamo? Alcatraz?

                    Given how it is run it makes more sense to destroy DC as a city than to make it a state.

                    1. The bulk of the land in DC does not serve a federal purpose, and the bulk of the people in DC do not work for the federal government. DC was set aside at a time when almost no one lived there. Times change.

                      Yes, the law that applies to states vs. non-states differs significantly. So does representation in Congress.

                    2. “and the bulk of the people in DC do not work for the federal government.”

                      Stated by one who does not understand economics or political economies. Everyone that works for the federal government or lobbies for the federal government has needs that are met by other people who do not work for the federal government directly. If the federal government suddenly shifted a thousand miles away, many non federal workers would be out of jobs. Prices for homes would fall and the infrastructure would collapse.

          2. Marylanders long had the sense to keep their capital away from the big city. Part of the reason it was once called “Land of Pleasant Living”.

        2. The only industry of DC is politics.

          Well there is crime and Democrats like Muriel Bowser take all credit for growing that industry.


          There’s A Reason Gunshots Panicked A Ballpark And Took A Child This Weekend, And Her Name Is Muriel Bowser

          Mayor Muriel Bowser, the most progressive mayor in the District of Columbia’s history, has overseen the total reversal of our hard-fought, declining crime rate.

          1. I am unsurprised that you’re commenting on Turley’s blog but can’t manage to think of the DC employer that employs him.

        3. The District of Columbia was also envisioned as a Federal city, akin to Australia’s Capital Territory (Canberra), but where residency would be TRANSIENT, subject to one’s tenure in Federal office, and only with the necessary persons to support their Governmental functions. For it’s first 100 years or so, Washington, DC, was more or less a sleepy Southern town, and not even in the top ten of US cities, and certainly not the center of commerce or culture, unlike most capitals of other countries. In many ways, it was simply a “company” town where the “company” was Uncle Sam.

          There’s no reason to make DC a state on its own, it doesn’t have the characteristics of an independent state, but rather a Federal entity. Making it a state of itself would be oxymoronic. For purposes of giving its residents full representation in the Congress, just as the VA side was given back, outright, to Old Dominion in 1846, where exists Arlington and a great deal of present-day Alexandria, so the CITY of Washington, excluding the actual Federal facilities themselves, can likewise be considered both an independent city within the State of Maryland and part of that state, with apportionment of Congress persons and ability to elect Maryland’s senators as well. Being an independent MD city would retain Washington’s autonomy, while being part of MD would give its residents that Congressional voice they’ve lacked for some 220 years.

    2. Exactly. This is a never ending ploy by one political party to try and gerrymander permanent win with numbers in this scheme to defraud and get around the constitution. A constitution of which they wholeheartedly despise because it does not allow them the instant gratification they deem themselves worthy of. Can you name one anti constitutional move Pres trump made ?. We can name several Obammy did , and by god more so for lord senile darth biden of chyna…. his handlers have pushed the limits like no other !.

  6. If WDC becomes a state, might that not be a source of conflict with other states given that the national government is in WDC? Might WDC be fighting with the other states for resources and advantages instead of acting in a non-partisan manner to benefit all states equally?

    1. Do Easter Islanders pay taxes? People in DC do. Funny, but I recall the phrase condemning “taxation without representation”.

      1. You are soooooo right!

        I do recall hearing that America is a society of laws.

        Looks like “…people in D.C….,” squatters from the South, aren’t supposed to be in D.C. at all, but in their country of origin, as freed slaves must have been deported per immigration law in 1863 requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)….”

        Looks like the law has been ignored for a very long time; looks like this may be an historic “cold case.”

        Don’t you just love law?

      2. Making D.C. a state has nothing to do with taxes. It’s about giving the democrats 2 more senators and at least one more congressman. That’s it nothing more, nothing less.

      3. Nurse Practitioner – Attorney Natacha asks

        Do Easter Islanders pay taxes?

        Only on Festivus Day

  7. This issue highlights’ the pervasive Modus Operandi of the left, half truths or lies to fulfill their Utopian view.

    A new State and what to call it? Let’s call it REDATAPE.

    What should be its motto?

    ‘Between the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers we preach ascendancy to our directorate. We worship Hegemony, and the Prepotency that residency in the State of REDATAPE brings to its Citizens. We trust in Bureaucracy and all the benefits of centralized control. We hold the Truth: State before Citizen.’

    The Capital of the United States should sit on sovereign land, without affiliation to a singular State. So what to do with the Citizen of the District? Lampooning: all adults could be distributed individual citizenship in one of the 50 states for Congressional Representation and maintain the current local Governance.

  8. Just how fast would this SCOTUS give 2 Senators to DC, if it was a haven of republicans. They would find a way, that much is certain.

    1. No, FishWings, that’s what a Supreme Court expanded and packed with far Left ideologues would do to get more Democrat Senators. Conservatives are generally originalist.

      Stop projecting.

      1. Karen: you’re not qualified to opine about SCOTUS matters, especially what it means to be “originalist”, so stop trying to lecture others are “projecting”. You are just repeating something you heard on Hannity. Republicans packed the Court with far right-wingers who don’t reflect the values of the majority of the American people, and did it by cheating, like they do everything, beginning with Trump cheating to get into the White House in the first place despite losing the popular vote, McConnell then denied Merrick Garland a seat on the SCOTUS allegedly because of the proximity of the election, only to prove himself a total hypocrite when the same factual scenario arose and he had a chance to shove Covid-Barrett onto the Court. Republicans denied the American people a full hearing on Kavanaugh and his conduct, and this was for a lifetime appointment to the court of last resort in this country. Gorsuch, Covid-Barrett and Kavanaugh were nominated PRIMARLY due to their far-right ideology, after vetting by the Federalist Society, and are there to curry favor with Evangelicals who live in a fantasy world in which they’ve been led to believe that by voting Republican they are saving “unborn babies”, which are blobs of tissue can’t live outside the womb.

        And, Karen, for the last time, you are NOT a conservative because you are a Trump worshipper. YOU are an ideologue.

    2. Fishflaps…you are so one way there is nothing to you that is not an oxymoron. Like a broken record bruh….really get a new act.

  9. “I believe that the best interests of both the country and the district residents is found in retrocession, not statehood.”

    But you ignore that it cannot happen without the approval of the state of Maryland, which does not share your belief, and you are silent about what is in the best interests of the residents of Maryland.

    “the remainder of the District would retrocede back to Maryland (as did the other half of the original District to Virginia)”

    The land that came from VA was ~1/4 of the total, not 1/2.

    “I argued that such retrocession offered the fastest course for not just full representation but improved social and educational programs for the district residents.”

    It is not fastest, because it cannot occur unless Maryland agrees, and Maryland does not agree to it.

    “I laid out a phased retrocession plan that began with immediate and full representation. This could be done by congressional vote.”

    But it cannot be done with congressional vote alone. It cannot be done unless the Maryland legislature agrees to it.

    1. I wonder why Maryland wouldn’t want a retrocession plan. I think Maryland is mostly Democrat and DC is definitely Democrat. Do Democrats not like their own or the results of their ideology?

      1. I wonder why North and South Dakota don’t choose to become a single state. They’re both mostly Republican. Do Republicans not like their own or the results of their ideology?

        1. Anonymous:

          Why would any 2 states wish to merge? Why not New Hampshire and Vermont?

          North and South Dakota were made out of the vast Dakota territory. They are two separate states. There was more growth in the north of Dakota territory, which was why the capitol was moved from Yankton to Bismarck. There was a big kerfuffle between people who lived in the south and the north of the territory, over where the seat of power was going to be. When discussions began in earnest as to whether to create one or two states, it became clear that 2 would be the only way to appease all sides.

          They even had monuments marking the border, called the Dakota Marker. That’s the origin of the football trophy.

          Simply having 2 states together who are currently a red majority is not a reason to join them into one state, thus diminishing their Congressional voices. This would be also true about any 2 adjoining blue majority states.

          It’s just machiavellian.

          1. I was pointing out that the question posed in the 10:18 AM comment was a foolish question, as simply having a majority of voters belonging to the same political party is not sufficient reason for two separate political entities to want to merge. There’s nothing machiavellian about echoing someone else’s language to make a point.

            “North and South Dakota were made out of the vast Dakota territory.”

            Yep. But it’s irrelevant that the territory is vast. Their combined area is smaller than Texas, smaller than Alaska, smaller than California, and about the same as Montana. Among the reasons that they were admitted as two states rather than 1 is that it gave them more clout in the Senate.

            1. Anonymous – thanks for the explanation. I had not originally noticed that you were responding to a post.

              Many have wondered why the Democrats of MD have opposed retrocession, since it would provide them with a supermajority of voters in the state. It would seem to be a political advantage.

              Retrocession is not combining two existing states, as you posited. It’s a false equivalence. Those 2 states were equal entities, and there would be no reason or advantage for combining 2 existing states.

              However, there are reasons for retrocessions:
              1. To give DC representation, which is supposed to be the core problem
              2. That was originally Maryland’s land that was donated
              3. The only other alternative proposed of which I am aware is to turn a city into a state, which is both unreasonable, and a power grab

              The District currently has no federal representation, which is a valid problem. 2 states neighboring each other with similar current political behavior is not a problem in need of a solution.

              1. I wasn’t seriously proposing that ND and SD be combined, only trying to illustrate the silliness of suggesting that the only thing that matters is whether the adjoining entities have the same party majority and that if they object, it’s because they don’t “like their own or the results of their ideology.”

                1. “entities have the same party majority”

                  You conclude, and then you create arguments. That is why when the conclusions change, your arguments conflict with one another. By picking and choosing what sounds good for today, you aren’t seriously proposing anything. Tomorrow you might choose the opposite. That is why most of what you say is worthless.

          2. Oh, now we’re back to Karen’s big word parade: “machiavelllian”. Can “hegemony” and “zoonotic” be far behind?

            1. I bit you must feel great now that the DOD open source report has confirmed the mRNA Gene Therapies are continuing Redruming & injuring the heck out of people taking it & Shedding to others the mutations?

                1. Yes, the Docs & Scientist I’m listening to continue to call them “mRNA Gene Therapies”, not vaccines.

                  You’re welcome to change your electronic dictionaries meaning of the words like “Vaccine” however many times you people wish, I’ll keep all my hard copies real paper print dictionaries.


                  It can likely be a waste of time even with a Louiville slugger to some people’s knees to get them to focus outside their Stockhom Syndom? I can’t help the sheep.

                  But just wait for the Nuremberg #2 Trials.

                  You can Ck the Naturalnews site 1st for the DOD link, but the rest is damning as well.


                  et al:

                  I encourage everyone to find the time to review these 2 links about Covid 19 & mRNA Gene Therapies, & pass them long.

                  These have to be game changers or most everyone is screwed:


                  (Natural News) The Biden regime’s claim that we are currently in the midst of a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is a bald-faced lie. New data from the Department of Defense (DoD) shows that we are actually facing a pandemic of the fully vaccinated, who represent at least 70 percent of all new Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) infections.

                  Humetrix, JAIC, and Project Salus put together a slide presentation of the latest statistics, which paint a starkly different picture than the one Tony Fauci and his mainstream media lackeys have been portraying.

                  It turns out that the sickest people in society right now are those who took the jabs thinking they would provide protection against disease. Many of these people are developing “breakthrough” cases of the Chinese Virus that are serious enough to send them to the hospital.



                  Monday Night Emergency Broadcast: Video Emerges of Fauci and HHS Plotting TO Stage Massive Health Scare Using “New Virus”


                  Oct 4, 2021

                  The Alex Jones Show

                  Alex Jones breaks down three clips which are the smoking guns which prove the COVID pandemic was planned and carried out Big Pharma, the UN and corrupt government officials.



                  ** “Mein Fuhrer, I can Walk!” **

                  Plenty more available.

                  1. “the Docs & Scientist I’m listening to continue to call them “mRNA Gene Therapies””

                    That may be, but you listen to total nuts like Alex Jones. The fact that someone you listen to says “it’s a gene therapy” doesn’t mean that “it’s a gene therapy” is true. They aren’t gene therapies.

                    “Humetrix, JAIC, and Project Salus put together a slide presentation”

                    OK. It’s not a “DOD report,” which is what you’d initially claimed.

                    Their claim that “It turns out that the sickest people in society right now are those who took the jabs thinking they would provide protection against disease” is false. First, they’re only looking at people 65 and older. But even within that group, less than 3% of those who were vaccinated had breakthrough infections, and only 1/5 of those with breakthrough infections (i.e., less than 1% of the total group) needed to be hospitalized.

                    Their claim that “In the following slide image, you will see that as more people have gotten injected, the proportion of vaccinated infection cases having to be hospitalized has gone parabolic” is a total misrepresentation of what that slide actually shows. They’re relying on people accepting their lie. You don’t have to accept their lie.

                    1. Has The Vaccine Mass Death Begun?



                      Oct 6, 2021
                      War Room With Owen Shroyer
                      War Room With Owen Shroyer

                      Robert Barnes joins Owen in-studio to discuss the shocking uptick in COVID deaths since the introduction of the experimental COVID vaccine.

                      Save up to 50% on our hottest items during the Inf


      2. Maryland is not a majority Democrat state by area. The main areas of population, which are adjacent to the District of Columbia, are Democrat strongholds due to the majority of their inhabitants being employed by the federal government. The further you travel from Washington DC and Baltimore, you will find that the areas are mostly conservative.
        Maryland used to primarily be a tobacco farming and fishing state. Now it’s major exports are federal workers and crime.

        1. I can’t say whether you are right or wrong without doing a detailed search, but my understanding is that Maryland is a split state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans. I think the state voted for Joe Biden.

          You can correct anything above you think is wrong.

        2. “Maryland is not a majority Democrat state by area.”

          Land doesn’t vote. People vote. The majority of voters in MD are Democrats.

    1. See how fast you would yell and cry if you had to pay Federal taxes, and not have federal representative power.

        1. Just like living in upstate New York. Held hostage by the lunatics in that cesspool at yhe bottom of the state.

        2. Wen Bars, tell me about it. I live in CA. Most areas of CA are Red, but the cities are deep Blue. Unfortunately, the highly populated cities have the votes to rule the rest of the state, and fuel the water wars.

        3. NJ has voting representation in the House and Senate. You may disagree with your members of Congress, but that’s distinct from not having a vote.

          1. Technically, 1 vote out of 101 votes is the deciding vote…the other 100 votes, if split evenly, didn’t really matter. 50 votes offset the other 50 votes leaving one vote for the decision. It’s the same effect as urban vs. rural. For every rural vote there may be as many as 5 or more urban votes in the same state. So while every vote should be tallied, not every vote decides elections. Neither rural vs urban should ‘rule’ over the other.

            Want to make popular vote have more meaning in Presidential election? Tally electoral votes by each House district’s popular vote result. If total state popular vote is two-thirds or more, two more electoral votes to the ‘winner’. Less than two-thirds margin, top two popular vote total candidates get one electoral vote each. That’s a lot closer to each person’s vote ‘counting’ in a presidential election compared to the largest city in the state overwhelming the rest of it’s citizens.

      1. These people CHOOSE to live where they do. Representation for them is just across the border. No one is holding them captive.

        1. So you CHOOSE to be held by lunatics, but the good people of DC CHOOSE to have elected representative officials. Read their car license plates.

            1. Did this parasitic, criminal, foreign invader, hyphenated illegal alien just say that it/they were going to VOTE an American Senator out of office?

              Sounds about right for the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

              What happens if actual Americans ever get mad about their nation being stolen?

        1. So in the United States in your view, people that live and work in the US, may or may not have representatives in government depending on where they live? That sound about right given how the trump cult party thinks.

            1. Kyrsten Sinema is pathetic. She doesn’t even know how to dress professionally–low-cut, sleeveless dresses and pantsuits showing her cleavage, flabby arms and armpits, with loud, gaudy colors and prints. Then, there’s the 6 inches of black roots showing. She takes huge donations from Big Pharma. She can’t even articulate why she opposes various bills. She doesn’t represent Arizonans very well.

          1. FishWings, actually, what many of us think is that retrocession is the logical answer. DC already ceded land back to Virginia in 1847. Originally, it was considered unwise for the seat of government to have a say in government equal to the states. DC is far more like a city than a state.

            It might prove dangerous to make DC a state, because the minuscule state would have politics as its only industry.

            If all you want is that residents have representation in government, then retrocession should satisfy you. The land would go back Maryland. This would provide federal representation to all residents of the former District of Columbia.

            The only land that should remain under federal control should be the White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, and National Monuments.

            Does this satisfy you, or do you really just want more Democrats Senate seats? If you do, just say it, and quit pretending all you want is representation.

          2. Fishflaps …. you sound like you pine for office in the swamps of DC. Is it your lust for power that drives you to be so anti constitutional in your pining for a fijord in DC with appointed politicos like REAL states have ?. Your stark mad raving gobbledygook on this is so partisan , so out of step with the constitution…. it’s apparent you can not accept that. Typical Marxist.

      2. FishWings, you made about 4 comments in close proximity, one more stupid than the other. There is a reason DC exists as it does, but that is too far above your pay grade. That is why you always provide such foolishness to the blog. Don’t worry. No one knows who you are except those you meet in real life. Hopefully, you are a bit smarter there than here.


        1. Allan the Abusive (aka S. Meyer / SM) once again chooses not to restrain his desire to denigrate those he disagrees with.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, I guess that means you fully agree with FishWings comments. Her comment in response to me was thin and lacking in knowledge,, it is hard to restrain oneself. However, I am glad you are FishWing’s friend. Two peas in the pod together, satisfying two mindless beings.

  10. The land was taken from Maryland and should be returned to MD. After all, the part of Virginia that was taken from that state to form part of D.C. was eventually returned to VA. Why should MD residents be the only ones left holding the short end of the stick? It doesn’t seem that the interests of MD residents have been considered in all of this. Leave the Federal government area (Federal Triangle District) as D.C., and return the residential parts of D.C. to Maryland, AKA “the Free State”!

      1. The Democratic MD politicians don’t want it back because they want DC to become a state and create two more Democratic Senate seats. But if put to a vote, the MD taxpayers will want their land back.

          1. I’ve lived in MD for the past 16 years. I wasn’t polled and never heard of any poll. Maybe the pollsters were Democratic politicians who only polled their supporters?

              1. DC is a Democratic stronghold, why wouldn’t Maryland want retrocession?

                I have heard several ideas, none of them good ones.

  11. Court reporting today is increasingly marked by one-sided accounts that ignore countervailing views or even judicial holdings.

    The left loses on the battlefield of ideas. Their only option is disinformation.
    That the reason polling shows people think the court has become more political as more justices have been appointed by Republicans. The media lies about SCOTUS rulings. Just like this ruling will be viewed as a political decision, despite the ruling adhering faithfully to the Constitution.

    1. “Court reporting today is increasingly marked by one-sided accounts that…only tends to fuel the anger of readers who were never fully informed”.

      Only ‘some’ readers. Many Leftists quite enjoy their ‘blissful hatred’ (for lack of a better term) of being cocooned by their journalists and welcome a government that promotes using force against the other half of the population who disagree with their viewpoint, you know, “for their own good”. If they were ever to be fully-informed, one must leave room for the possibility more of them would figure out government is not really in their corner at all.

  12. The biggest fact, people make a choice to live in the city of Washington DC. People make a choice to have no representation in the federal government.
    I have no problem with Turely’s solution to just absorb the residential porttions of DC into the respective states. It allows all are represented in the federal government.

    As is the standard for leftist, allowing DC resident a vote has never been the goal. The goal has nothing to do with representation, it has to do with adding 2 additional Senators.

    Where to we go to stop WAPO from publishing disinformation?

    1. The truth….which the WaPo has an aversion of, is the State of Maryland does not want those District Residents becoming residents of the State of Maryland and bring all their problems with them to the State.

      Maryland Democrats would not benefit enough to offset the downside of those folks becoming yet more Democrats in the State.

      The Democrats want the Congressional Votes….not the social welfare expense.

      1. “The truth….which [Turley] has an aversion of, is the State of Maryland does not want those District Residents becoming residents of the State of Maryland”


        1. D.C. is divided into four quadrants. Northwest and Georgetown are very wealthy and Maryland would clearly benefit by that tax base. SW DC is a total crime-infested dog pile – much like Baltimore. NE and SE are mixed. Traditionally low-end but undergoing rapid gentrification. Overall, MD would benefit from getting its land back.

  13. “Court reporting today is increasingly marked by one-sided accounts that ignore countervailing views or even judicial holdings. That only tends to fuel the anger of readers who were never fully informed of contested claims or the weight of opposing precedent. They then assume that it must be raw ideology or the bias of the courts when these claims fail.“
    Just a part of the demoralization process of our Marxist press as a prelude to destabilization. We were warned about this decades ago but ignored it.

  14. Retrocession is the best answer, but that would not give the D’s 2 more Senate seats, which is all they are after. Constitution/clear intent be damned

    1. The district is populated mainly by ignorant black people and woke white leftist who give aid and comfort to black grievance and victimization politics. They do not deserve statehood while they embrace victimhood.

Leave a Reply