“The consequences for … popular democracy could be dire.” Those ominous words from Eric Levitz in the New York Magazine are enough to chill one to the bone after a year of alleged insurrections and ongoing plans for a conservative coup. Indeed, the magazine itself has disclosed a Republican strategy to actually kill Americans with Covid-19. So what is now the existential threat to democracy? It’s a new Gallup poll showing that Chief Justice Roberts is the most popular political figure in public life.
The apoplectic response of many in the media was notable with liberals asking “what’s wrong with you, America?” Yet, none was more revealing than the New York Magazine in explaining the reason. After all, it would not seem to take much to be the most popular in a class of public officials widely despised by the public. The three highest ranking congressional leaders remain highly unpopular (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are at 48, 40, and 48 percent disapproval, respectively).
President Joe Biden has a 51 percent disapproval rating — only slightly above Vice President Kamala Harris’ 54 percent disapproval rating. Conversely, at 53 percent approval, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell shows that these polls are hardly a measure of charisma.
So why is the Roberts’ 60 percent approval rating so crushing for democracy? Because, Levitz explained,
“If the Court’s right-wing majority finds that it can continually push the boundaries of conservative judicial activism without undermining its own popular legitimacy, then the consequences for progressivism and popular democracy could be dire.”
Unpack that line for a second. First of all, Levitz is saying that the goals of the left would be scuttled if the Court or its members are popular. For over a year, many in the media and Congress have launched unrelenting attacks on the Court and pushed an agenda to pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority. They know that court packing is widely detested by the public (as it once was by President Biden and many on the left). In order to achieve such a goal, the justices must be demonized like much else in our age of rage. But it is not working if 60 percent of the public actually like the Chief Justice.
It is also worth noting that the stated goal is “popular democracy.” The term is often associated with “direct democracy” where citizens have unfiltered and direct say in government decisions. It was the model expressly rejected by the Framers in favor of our system of representative democracy.
In Federalist 10, Madison wrote:
Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Instead, he created a system by which public passions could be filtered or expressed through a smaller group of representatives, officials who could temper and refine popular impulse.
In addition to our system of representative democracy, we have institutions designed to resist popular impulse or demands. The United States Supreme Court is the principal example. Justices were given life tenure to insulate them from such pressures and intimidation. The court is designed to stand against majoritarian demands and what Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.”
That system has served us well. It was the countermajoritarian role that allowed the Court to strike down bans on interracial marriage, decriminalize homosexuality, and protect the rights of the accused. Those were unpopular acts but the Court followed the Constitution rather than the polls.
Levitz assumes that, if the justices or the institution were unpopular, it would compel different outcomes or changes on the Court. Ethical jurists on both the left and the right reject that notion as the very antithesis of the rule of law.
The left once celebrated the independence of the Court in ordering relief that was denied or blocked in Congress like desegregation. After Brown v. Board of Education, political groups responded with the same anger of Levitz with “Impeach [Chief Justice] Earl Warren” billboards.
This year, extreme groups like Demand Justice have run their own billboards targeting justices like Stephen Breyer to try to push them to retire. With the support of many law professors, they are also demanding that Congress pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority. As in the 1960s, Democratic politicians are issuing direct warnings to the justices to rule “correctly,” or face consequences. Professors have declared that “our Constitution isn’t working” because they are not seeing the outcomes that they deem to be correct. Senators and commentators are now calling for “revolution” and “rebellion” to achieve what cannot be achieved in a system that has worked for over two centuries to preserve stability and freedom for our country. As many on the left attack those who encouraged “insurrection,” such rhetoric is perfectly fine in pursuit of a progressive cause.
After all, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. asked why we should preserve an institution if it is not going to vote consistently with her views and those of the Democratic Party: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
That brings us back to Roberts and his pesky popularity. You cannot achieve a revolution without people getting really angry. Yet, despite a steady drumbeat in the media, it is not working. Indeed, the Gallup poll shows the diminishing power of the mainstream media, which has largely abandoned half of the country with its embrace of “advocacy journalism.” (Levitz is one of the writers who previously denounced those reporters who have been critical of Biden and openly editorializing “against the White House’s policy.”) The result is that all of that advocacy journalism is just “singing to the choir” — independents and conservatives left a long time ago as our media have become more of a series of hardened silos for echo journalism.
With the courts and the public not responding, it is hard to bring about the “revolution” promised by members and commentators. You need an angry populace to tear down institutions that stand in the way. You need to destroy the legitimacy of the court itself. Levitz put it best: “In other words: Even if the Court overreaches on abortion and forfeits its popular support, the conservative judicial project is likely to endure. And given Roberts’s current poll numbers, it’s not even clear that Roe’s invalidation will durably erode public reverence for the judiciary.”
Putting aside the notion of “overreaching” by a court limiting its own authority in favor of the states, the problem is that all of the attacks in the media have not “eroded public reverence for the judiciary.” The scary thought for Levitz is that, if conservative justices are respected, there is little hope for forcing the Court to yield to demands of “progressivism and popular democracy.” Of course, it really does not matter if Roberts is the most popular among unpopular choices. As the iconic liberal statesman Adlai Stevenson once said, “My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.”
No doubt these debates are not unique in American history. We’ve always had those on the attack against our government institutions and those in defense of them. And yet after 232 years, this parchment barrier has done its job, primarily because of the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence. Citizens of this country might be ignorant and oftentimes apathetic to how they are governed. We may not always, as Patrick Henry said: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. but we seem to naturally bristle when the security of our lives, liberty and property is at stake. We bend, but we don’t break. It’s always going to be a fight against tyranny and the DoI will remain as our core guiding document.
Then there is this
Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated […]
This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And it’s caused by the fact that despite America having an unprecedented and successful vaccination program, despite the fact that for almost five months free vaccines have been available in 80,000 different locations, we still have nearly 80 million Americans who have failed to get the shot.
And to make matters worse, there are elected officials actively working to undermine the fight against COVID-19. Instead of encouraging people to get vaccinated and mask up, they’re ordering mobile morgues for the unvaccinated dying from COVID in their communities. This is totally unacceptable. […]
That 25 percent [of unvaccinated people] can cause a lot of damage—and they are. The unvaccinated overcrowd our hospitals, are overrunning the emergency rooms and intensive care units, leaving no room for someone with a heart attack, or [pancreatitis], or cancer. […]
[W]hat makes it incredibly more frustrating is that we have the tools to combat COVID-19, and a distinct minority of Americans—supported by a distinct minority of elected officials—are keeping us from turning the corner. These pandemic politics, as I refer to, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.
We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part and want to get back to life as normal. […]
The bottom line: We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.”
– Joe Biden, the Gaslighter In Chief
People who are vaccinated have a smaller risk of severe disease but they are still vectors for spreading the virus and hence they are part of the pandemic.
This virus is now endemic. Get over it
This virus is now endemic.
Yup.
Citizens of this country might be ignorant and oftentimes apathetic to how they are governed. ….We bend, but we don’t break. It’s always going to be a fight against tyranny and the DoI will remain as our core guiding document.
Faculty, staff and students just received an email from the administrators at my university. The panic porn continues. Last semester I saw something I had not seen in my long academic history of 30+ years: the students are terrified. They see it as Ebola. Thus they are not ignorant per se. They have the data available just like anyone else. They are not apathetic. They do, however, bend and break, though, just like their parents taught them (sin of omission). Snowflakes are more rigid (below 32 degrees F) than these kids. They have no “core guiding document or spirit”. Theyre just weak and brainwashed.
So the funeral march continues, the falling over a cliff, the nailing of the coffin. A meteor the size of Texas hitting our globe would be a blessing at this point.
😜
[These kids] have no “core guiding document or spirit”. Theyre [sic] just weak and brainwashed. — Estovir
This is what materialism looks like… no core principles.
2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery – the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the “material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.” Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them:
He who loves his son will not spare the rod…. He who disciplines his son will profit by him.
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7U.HTM
The fascists started with keeping hospital beds in hard-hit areas available to all. NYC was provided tremendous numbers of new beds for Covid + nursing home patients that were permitted to spread their disease back in the nursing homes. Most of the new beds provided by Trump remained unused or underused. Yet some of the highest death rates occurred in fascist NYC.
The public could understand the need to keep hospital beds available, but watching the science twisted and turned for political convenience is too much for a reasonable person. Snowflakes are not reasonable, but the politics is causing warming, so I expect many of the snowflakes to melt.
Many on the blog, from the start, stated Covid is a respiratory virus that is almost impossible to control. They have been proven correct. Fascists are back to keeping hospital beds open, but most of that is pure manure.
Many on the blog, from the start, stated Covid is a respiratory virus that is almost impossible to control.
I always took a cautious approach. It was an unknown entity, SARS and MERS were worrisome, and Americans are a sick lot. Now, 20 months later, I have evolved.
The Left wants another Bolshevic Revolution, led by not a single Lenin, but a Leninist collective. It will have the same murderous, disastrous, impoverishing result.
Those who will not learn from the repeated failures of socialism and communism are doomed to repeat them.
Those who repeat the anti-capitalist propaganda are doing the bidding of Russia and China, for the goal of destabilizing the US and throwing away its prosperity.
Karen+S,
To me, it looks more like Mao’s Culture Revolution.
Cancel Culture, censorship on college campuses, on social media, where a minority of zealots are silencing the majority with fear, intimidation, and out right threats.
There does seem to be pushback happening.
Direct democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for lunch.
“The Consequences for … Popular Democracy Could be Dire”: New York Mag Decries the Popularity of Chief Justice Roberts
Demonizers gotta demonize.
I think it’s clear that what the New York Mag is trying to do here is throw another dose of faux outrage propaganda at the wall to see if it sticks with the ignorant propaganda consuming sheeple base.
Or….maybe is just an opinion being blown out of proportion. Manufactured rage is not out of the question.
Not likely.
“…throw another dose of faux outrage propaganda at the wall to see if it sticks…”
This is the whole Democratic plan in general these days. We see today that Joe’s covid plan went south, so he’s turning his back on it to try to next throw and splatter.
Where did the comment from the other Anonymous commenter go, the one that was…
There is absolutely nothing in that comment that violates any of the rather loose civility standards for Turley’s blog to warrant it being deleted.
What happened?
Thanks for pointing out this deletion — I don’t understand this decision to delete either. I had a similar situation recently with the inexplicable deletion of 3 comments by 3 different commenters on the diary blog.
Steve, I don’t know where his posts are going. There was one he had about how the founders institutionalized Slavery and limited voting.
I responded with corrections to the phony accusations, quoting from the Constitution. So I don’t know if the thread got eliminated because the premise was just too stupid, any my take down was bland and fact based. No flame throwing
I had responded to Svelaz in that thread with this article refuting his revisionist history. Of course it was removed when the thread was removed. He’s very naive regarding what it takes to move a culture to change. It took 150 years to convince them to fight for independence. It took another 80 years to fight to end slavery. And another 100 years for the civil rights movement in the 60’s. On one said forming a more perfect union would be easy.
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-slavery/
And history is revised.
The American Founders threw off the oppressive dictatorship of the monarchy and established a “society of laws” which lasted 71 years.
Abraham Lincoln was elected with a 38% minority like Hitler and proceeded to seize power, impose martial law, deny fully constitutional secession, suspend habeas corpus, smash presses, throw political opponents in prison, repress the citizenry and force men into military service, fail to obey immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” and “compassionately repatriate” for their own good, or deport, freed slaves, nullify the Constitution and then improperly amend the Constitution under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation – the “Reconstruction Amendments” being illegitimate to this day.
The elimination of slavery was eminently feasible under the Constitution through advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc., all accomplished in the free markets of ideas in the private sector.
Lincoln ended constitutional America; Lincoln was the most barbarous and egregious criminal in the history of America and its Constitution.
In a society of laws, laws must be obeyed.
Sorry for your loss George. Must have been painful to learn how your ancestors died for the cause of slavery and then had to endure the carpetbaggers.
In a society of laws, only just laws must be obeyed.
Olly,
I guess you were attempt to make a joke out of what George said?
I remind you Globalist Bank Trash got what they demanded out of the US Civil War., a Ph’kd up US Central run Govt. that we all still live with today.
LINCOLN WAS THE COMMUNIST WHO COMMANDEERED AMERICA
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
________________________________________________________________
“Reading Karl Marx with Abraham Lincoln” (excerpted)
Utopian socialists, German communists, and other republicans
ON DECEMBER 3, 1861, a former one-term congressman, who had spent most of the past dozen years studying dissident economic theories, mounting challenges to the existing political order and proposing ever more radical responses to the American crisis, delivered his first State of the Union address as the sixteenth president of the United States.
Since assuming office eight months earlier, this new president had struggled, without success, first to restore the severed bonds of the Union and then to avert a wrenching civil war. Now, eleven southern slave states were in open and violent rebellion against the government he led.
…
Amid all the turbulence of a burgeoning Civil War, Abraham Lincoln wanted it to be known that he was unsettled by the rising assumption “that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.”
That false construct could not be allowed to take hold in a free country, argued the president. It must be understood, he concluded: “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
…
“Let the workingman think of this and go to the polls and vote for Abraham Lincoln, who is the true democratic candidate, and not the representative of the English Aristocracy, or their form of government, to be rid of which so many have left their native shores, and which form the leaders of the Rebellion are in favor of, in evidence of which we have the fact that in many of the Southern States no people can hold office but a property holder…” went one leaflet’s class-based appeal, which was critical to building the majority that would allow Lincoln to carry New York and retain the presidency with a decisive national landslide.
From afar, KARL MARX (who corresponded with Dana and other American compatriots during and after the war) cheered on the campaign, writing to FRIEDRICH ENGELS in September 1864 with considerable enthusiasm: “Should Lincoln succeed this time—as is highly probable—it will be on a far more radical platform and in completely changed circumstances.”
Marx and Engels had been busy in the fall of 1864 with the work of organizing the International Workingmen’s Association—the “First International” of the communist movement and its allies on the left. At the meeting on November 19 of the International’s general council in London, Marx presented a letter of congratulation to Lincoln, which the council endorsed. It read:
Sir: We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
…
– ISR, International Socialist Review
https://isreview.org/issue/79/reading-karl-marx-abraham-lincoln/index.html
I just seen this today & ready to save it, it’s a latest list of our modern day newest Slave Masters. They love us long time.
**********
Renee Nal
December 26, 2021
21 comments
6 min read
The World Economic Forum’s goals are far more than remaking the economy. They want to physically alter you and your children.
Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders class of 2021 include the Lieutenant Governor, State of Michigan, a Senior Vice-President at Uber, racist activist Ibram X Kendi and executives at Dow, Pfizer and Merck among many others.
Countries from all over the world are represented in the World Economic Forum’s latest crop of 112 potential globalist leaders. This class join radical left luminaries such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Peter Buttigieg, Emmanuel Macron, Gavin Newsom, Angela Merkel, Jacinda Ardern and many others.
According to their website, the Young Global Leaders consist of “more than 1,400 members and alumni of 120 nationalities”. The individuals are trained to be “[A]ligned with the World Economic Forum’s mission,” to “drive public-private co-operation in the global public interest.” The WEF is known for their annual meeting of elitists at Davos, an alpine resort town in Switzerland.
The World Economic Forum is promoting the dangerous shift of government’s ongoing merger with massive corporations, described as “public-private co-operation”. This “co-operation” is also illustrated in so-called “stakeholder capitalism,” which moves industry from operating on a profit motive. Eventually, such a system would be forced to cave in on itself, but the globalist elitists do not appear too concerned about that.
Anyone can scroll through the list of the Young Global Leader’s class of 2021 by region. Here is the list representing North America:
Daniel Ahn, Global Fellow, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, USA
Peter Biar Ajak, Visiting Fellow and Adjunct Faculty, Africa Center for Strategic Studies, USA
Adriana Cargill, Independent Radio Journalist, USA
Arvan Chan, Senior Vice-President; Chief Operating Officer, International, Centene, USA
Alexis Crow, Global Head, Geopolitical Investing, PwC, USA
Abasi Ene-Obong, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, 54gene, USA
Jocelyn Formsma, Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres, Canada
Garlin Gilchrist II, Lieutenant Governor, State of Michigan, USA
Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, Senior Vice-President, Delivery, Uber Technologies, USA
Megan Greenfield, Partner, McKinsey & Company, USA
Jessica Jackson, Chief Advocacy Officer, Reform Alliance, USA
Gadeer Kamal-Mreeh, Senior Special Envoy, North America, The Jewish Agency, USA
Brian Kaufmann, Head, Private Investments; Portfolio Manager; Member of the Management Committee, Viking Global Investors, USA
Conrod Kelly, Managing Director, Chile, Merck & Co., Inc, USA
Ibram X Kendi, Director of the Center for Antiracist Research, Boston University, USA
Haley Lowry, Global Sustainability Director, Dow, USA
Lukas Nelson, Band Leader, Promise of The Real, USA
Amit Paley, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, The Trevor Project, USA
Emily Serazin, Managing Director and Partner, Boston Consulting Group (BCG), USA
Liam Sobey, Vice-President, Merchandising, Sobeys Inc., Canada
Vasudha Vats, Vice-President, Pfizer, USA
Hitesh Wadhwa, Vice-President, Sales and Strategic Initiatives, Tech Mahindra, USA
David Alexander Walcott, Founder and Managing Partner, Novamed, USA
But the World Economic Forum does not just want to remake the economy, they want to remake humanity.
‘Synthetic Biology’
Synthetic biology is going to remake the world. The tools available to scientists today create the vast potential to do great good or great harm. – Lt Col Marcus A. Cunningham, USAF, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2020
A part of Schwab’s vision appears to be his insane iteration of “synthetic biology,” which has been described as “designing and constructing biological modules, biological systems, and biological machines or, re‐design of existing biological systems for useful purposes.” In essence, Synthetic Biology is an umbrella term that includes a bizarre fringe obsession with transhumanism, or the “fusion of human beings with technology”.
A shocking November 2020 article posted at LifeSite News features Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny, a Professor of Science, Technology and Innovation at the Universidad de San Martín de Porres in Peru. The professor was quoted as explaining that the Fourth Industrial Revolution “is nothing other than the implementation of transhumanism on a global level.”
Indeed, in this 2016 clip, Schwab states that this “Fourth Industrial Revolution” will “lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities:”
https://rairfoundation.com/exposed-meet-klaus-schwabs-2021-class-of-great-reset-soldiers/
It’s good to know that you don’t support the U.S. Constitution, the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of Americans, or America.
It’s all perishable to you.
It’s good to know that you don’t adhere to the laws of society in a society of laws; that dudn’t make any sense.
I hope you are never in a position to require the protection of the law; it would be embarrassing, presumably, for you to accept it.
Thank you for your patent admission that I am absolutely and unequivocally correct.
I very much appreciate and acclaim your concession.
Now that you’ve done your best Silberman impersonation, I can’t wait to see you do Natacha and FishWings.
Oh, my! It seems as if I have hit a nerve!
It’s full ad hominem, entirely bereft of substance or profundity.
Thank you again for your reiteration of your complete concession.
I accept.
😉 You’re welcome. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
You expound in lies and falsehoods on subjects you know nothing of.
The loss and pain were not mine, but America’s (America ended in 1860 and Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” evolved into a Marxist “dictatorship of the proletariat”).
My family started in 1607 at Popham Beach, Maine, and later proceeded westward through the north from Illinois to Seattle/Tacoma, then down to Southern California.
I am not aware of any deaths or, otherwise, participation on either side in the Civil War.
It’s not clear, as you shoot from the hip, how you will be known as anything but a fraud, a liar and a waste of time going forward.
It must be my manifest tenor, or some such inane and too oft repeated phrase.
Keep on truckin’ George.
Spasibo, comrade!
And thank you so much for reading…so much.
You understand, I am certain, that all Americans, as they enjoy the freedom of speech, enjoy the freedom of ignorance.
Imagine, you are not compelled by any law or regulation to read my inane missives, yet you do, often and repeatedly, sufficient to quote me.
I am honored.
Thank you, sincerely.
My pleasure George. God’s peace and Happy New Year.
It doesn’t matter to the Globalist Banking type trash what race or religion any of us are, they plan to just kill us with their GMO foods, mRNA Gene therapies & other means of sterilization of us & kids until only about 500 million people are left in the world & enslaved to them.
Note how above Schwab just as the Fascist Nazis were doing by merging Corporation & Govt’s enslaving all the general population.
Check & study their own books/words/video comments & Acts.
Ted Tuner’s Georgia Guide-stones says as much, so to Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, etc..
Turley– “After all, it would not seem to take much to be the most popular in a class of public officials widely despised by the public.”
+++
And that was my first thought on this subject.
Up next: who’s the most popular gangster?
I don’t think it can be Joe Biden any longer. He has dropped in the polls as people recognized his ethically challenged dealings with our enemies and that he has been the most incompetent US President ever to occupy the White House.
S. Meyer : Biden is “the most incompetent US President ever to occupy the White House.”
+++
With the possible exception of when Wilson was felled by a stroke and the country was secretly run by his wife while he was gaga.
I wonder who is secretly running the country now? Not Biden. I think he would have a chance of avoiding prosecution by claiming he is incompetent to stand trial.
His public record, including pooping his pants in the Vatican and cutting a gigantic loud and long fart at a formal gathering, would almost get him over the legal bar and safely into legal incompetence. Do it in court and Joe is golden.
The best argument that he is not incompetent and demented is Kamala. Nobody wants her. So we continue with the legal fiction that Joe is okay.
Biden…..most incompetent US President ever to occupy the White House.
The photos of him walking his new dog on the beach in Delaware while wearing a mask, while Jill does not…..
Follow the psy-ennse
News report rumored out last week that before the Secret Service wouldn’t release “Another” German Shepard, the young innocent 4+month old pup, to Pedo Joe Biden was that the pup had to be trained to growl & bite if the pedo went to getting handsy with the little kids again.
We’ve had plenty of GS over the years, but not everyone can or will put the time, patience, safety measures for the dogs + (Fence) & the energy into GS’s have to have to make it an enjoyable experience for all.
With that in mind I or someone should call the Animal Abuse Hotline on the Bidens to attempt to save that poor pup.
Having an animal in a cage at the back of of the lot feeding it wal mart kibble once a day & patting on the head once a day isn’t you’ve got a dog, it’s you’re holding a Hostage!
The key words in Levits’ comment are “progressivism” and “popular democracy” which are actually buzz words for Marxist socialism. He’s probably right. “Progressives,” who are actually socialists, see the Constitution and conservative interpretation as their main obstacle to a socialist utopian dictatorship.
The left is so far gone that they are attacking Roberts, a moderate jurist that has rankled conservatives many times and has reached across the aisle as he has kept the Court in the broad middle of the nations political philosophy.
Only the spoiled little lefties of today would be so childishly uninformed as to say Roberts is a threat to “popular Democracy”, whatever the hell that even means.
Hullbobby.
Actually conservatives too have been attacking Roberts. Twice ruling obamacare constitutional and legalizing same sex marriage.
The reason why Roberts seems to have such high polling numbers is because he’s now the swing vote in the court. Conservatives AND liberals can’t put a lot of faith in Roberts precisely because he’s a moderate justice. Conservatives don’t wand a moderate justice and neither do liberals. He seems to be the justice Kennedy of this era.
Svelaz, I think I need to add to my point that conservatives are critical of Roberts over actual decisions and the attacks are based on justified legal arguments against what Roberts has written and decided. Notice that conservatives are not saying to pack the Court, or I should say that even when Roberts led a 5-4 decision against the right they did not say “pack the Court”, they just hoped for future appointments and they finally got them.
PS. To the analytically challenged: Not voting for Garland was NOT PACKING THE COURT, it was using senatorial prerogative to not allow a failed nominee to end up on the Court. What the left did to Thomas, Kavanaugh and especially Bork was much more egregious than what McConnell did with that fool Merrick Garland.
“A new Gallup poll showing that Chief Justice Roberts is the most popular political figure in public life.
The apoplectic response of many in the media was notable with liberals asking “what’s wrong with you, America?”
*********************************
Voltaire: “Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it.”
~Letter to Étienne Noël Damilaville, May 16, 1767
And so He has, again.
I have little to no use for John Roberts or the Supreme Court that can’t Count when it Counts because they didn’t like the way something was phrase & were to busy to deal with the issue at hand because the were going on vacation that day.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-census-idUSKCN1TS1BL
Ridiculousness!
Amen.
Hear, hear, Mespo!
Mespo, your comment with regard to Voltaire is one of the most apt comments I have seen in a long time.
I think justice Roberts is not a good Justice of the Supreme Court. Waif like and weak, he caters and craters to the hysterical political left. He seems to be afraid of them. He allows the Left tantrums dictate his behavior and decisions. i’m not a citizen who thinks he’s popula. What i’ve stated about Robert’s is my same opinion for Kavanaugh. He’s really a scared cat of the Left. The US is hanging on with these two justices when you add in Sotomayer to the mix and snob elitist Kagan, the USA is on a cliff.
Levitz is just another liberal that wants to burn the constitution by any means necessary. It is the mainstream thought in the modern democrat party. JFK and Bill Clinton would have no place in the party anymore.
Question Tony, what would St. Ronnie of Reagan say about todays republican party or January 6th? For sure Ronnie would throw out his 11th commandment about Trump.
Reagan, He’d likely say everyone needs to wait & give the Insurrectionist/Traitors Piglosi/McConnell/McCarthy/the Supremes/etc. have to have a legal trial before we can decide the proper punishment.
BTW: Does anyone know the wear abouts of the govt intel agent provocateurs of/around/after J6?
And who was that man on top of the Scaffold directing the Gmen on into their operation J6?
It is puzzling that Roberts is popular, since he has no obvious constituency. Those on the left view him as mainly conservative, while those in the middle and on the right see him as a trimmer, shape shifting to prevent the court from losing its “institutional legitimacy” by moving too far away from his perception of establishment thinking, even at the expense of constitutional principle.
The oral argument in Dobbs suggests he will do this again, preserving a woman’s right to choose but redrawing the line away from “viability” in favour of some notion of “effective time to choose,” upholding the Mississippi statute in the process, but dooming the Texas one. And leading to further testing of where the line is. So a half-baked measure. The question is whether Coney Barrett or Kavanaugh will join him. Hard to tell.
The vaccine cases represent a more important test of whether Roberts and the others will preserve constitutional norms. Separation of powers and federalism concerns have led them to stress the “major question” doctrine. This holds that when the executive acts in a way that has a major effect on the economy or on the traditional division of powers between the federal government and the states, it may do so only pursuant to a statute that clearly and specifically authorises the action. This is how they overturned the eviction moratorium.
The doctrine could appeal to Roberts because it avoids having to reach two more sweeping constitutional questions: whether there was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority; and whether the federal government has the power at all. On the other hand, applying the doctrine here would deal a clear blow to the administrative state, and Roberts dislikes doing anything clear and potentially decisive. It is possible that he will split the baby, by rejecting the OSHA action while upholding the medical facilities mandate. That would be a typical Roberts way of proceeding: appearing to be a judicial statesman reaching balanced results but in reality acting as an unprincipled politician with an eye to the views of polite establishment opinion.
Well said, and I really hope you are wrong.
I tend to rate all political figures on a scale with incompetent at one end and pure evil at the other. The fact I see him as being on the incompetent side of the scale is a left handed compliment at best.
Turley’s concerns seem more hyperbole than a accurate observation.
He mentions the court as a buffer against the tyranny of the majority by using the Supreme Court’s brown vs board and declaring interracial Marriage unconstitutional. He leaves out the fact that the Supreme Court actually ruled FOR segregation as it was the popular opinion at one time when plessy vs. Ferguson was decided.
Turley opines that tyranny of the majority is a problem because the left isn’t getting what it wants. But he omits the fact that the right want exactly that. By stealing court appointments and stacking the lower courts with conservative judges that share their values and ideals they are doing exactly what many including Turley are complaining about. A tyranny of the majority.
A representative democracy is not truly representative when the right relies on gerrymandering and voter suppression to achieve the majority they seek. The “representative democracy” is not truly what it is when the right is rigging the system to keep only their preferred representatives. That’s tyranny itself.
You could try for the new year to adopt a virtuous life. It likely would mean quitting your job as a troll for George Soros funded Act Blue. However it would make you more attractive, more joyous and maybe allow you to find meaningful purpose in life, maybe marry a nice girl/man, raise a family, contribute to the common good of America. Just saying
😉
We may speak of virtuous acts in two ways: first, under the aspect of virtuous; secondly, as such and such acts considered in their proper species. If then we speak of acts of virtue, considered as virtuous, thus all virtuous acts belong to the natural law. For it has been stated that to the natural law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature. Now each thing is inclined naturally to an operation that is suitable to it according to its form: thus fire is inclined to give heat. Wherefore, since the rational soul is the proper form of man, there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason: and this is to act according to virtue. Consequently, considered thus, all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law: since each one’s reason naturally dictates to him to act virtuously. But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in themselves, i.e. in their proper species, thus not all virtuous acts are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done virtuously, to which nature does not incline at first; but which, through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conducive to well-living.</em
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q94_A3.html
Don’t see St. Thomas Aquinas cited much these days. Nicely done
Thanks. Given your screen name, you might get a chuckle from the following, by John Courtney Murray, SJ, re: Whig and St Thomas Aquinas
Formally and in the first instance this consensus was political, that is, it embraced a whole constellation of principles bearing upon the origin and nature of society, the function of the state as the legal order of society, and the scope and limitations of government. “Free government”—perhaps this typically American shorthand phrase sums up the consensus. “A free people under a limited government” puts the matter more exactly. It is a phrase that would have satisfied the first Whig, St. Thomas Aquinas.
https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/murray/whtt_c1_1954d
At home, before bedtime, we read the second reading from The Office before turning off the lights, which means readings by Sts. Aquinas, Augustine, Bonaventure, Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, etc.
See Office of the Readings:
https://universalis.com/readings.htm
Aquinas: “Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” Not many can muster that kind of insight.
“… By stealing court appointments and stacking the lower courts with conservative judges that share their values and ideals they are doing exactly what many including Turley are complaining about. A tyranny of the majority.”
This is process that is the outcome of officials elected to do just that as part of their job. You are gaslighting here.
“…A representative democracy is not truly representative when the right relies on gerrymandering and voter suppression to achieve the majority they seek.”
You are a great example of projection. I live in one of the most Democratic-gerrymandered states in country. You might have had an argument relating to gerrymandering and tyranny at some level, but when the Democrats are open about stepping on the Bill of Rights at any opportunity, any argument you try to establish is at very best, hollow. At worst—well, after a summer of 39+ dead and billions of dollars in largely working-class losses, we see what your type is at the worst. People are in the process of rejecting your mobile truths.
Slorhs29,
“ This is process that is the outcome of officials elected to do just that as part of their job. You are gaslighting here.”
That putting in the simplest terms possible, but what I stated is not gaslighting. When you are manipulating the process itself in order to consistently achieve the outcome you want it is not true democracy. Republicans have been on record claiming their goal is to ensure a majority that is almost impossible to change.
Gerrymandering IS a problem in both parties and it does NOT allow for a true representative democracy. Gerrymandering is designed specifically to manipulate representation when a party’s true representative majority is much smaller. Turley’s proclamations about its robustness is quite naive in the face of the problem of gerrymandering and voter suppression thru state legislation.
“ Democrats are open about stepping on the Bill of Rights at any opportunity, any argument you try to establish is at very best, hollow.”
What rights are being “stepped on”? I often see statements such as this without an example of exactly what rights are being taken away of “stepped on”.
“…When you are manipulating the process itself in order to consistently achieve the outcome you want…”
Isn’t that exactly the point in Turley’s discussion about the article in question? You are either missing or WILLINGLY IGNORING the main argument here. We are watching in real time Soros-funded DAs refusing to execute their duties in responses to crimes in blue cities all over the country. This includes very serious crimes like assault, robbery, and arson. Now you want to pack the courts. THIS IS changing the system. I would state that generally conservatives, or former Democrats would like to judges appointed that are more assertive in applying laws.
Vaccine mandates are not laws and should not be enforced. I think that is all the response needed to what rights are being taken away.
You have effectively curb-stomped the American Republic and tried to slide your explanation under the door.
Slorhrss29,
“ You are either missing or WILLINGLY IGNORING the main argument here. We are watching in real time Soros-funded DAs refusing to execute their duties in responses to crimes in blue cities all over the country.”
No, I’m not missing or ignoring the main argument. Turley’s arguments is dependent on the magazine’s opinion as a certainty, that it is what the majority of liberals believe. Hyperbole seems to be Turley’s real intent here.
I’m merely pointing out that Turley’s argument is not completely accurate.
What makes you think these DA’s you’re mentioning are all “Soros funded”? DA’s have discretion on what they choose to prosecute just like a any cop can choose to give you a warning instead of a ticket. It’s not an unprecedented issue. DA’s make plea deals all the time. Many charges are not always true based on the fact that police officers do levy false charges on people.
“ Vaccine mandates are not laws and should not be enforced. I think that is all the response needed to what rights are being taken away.”
But that doesn’t state what rights are being taken away? Vaccine mandates are no different than vaccine requirements needed to enroll in schools or even when you’re born. What rights have been taken away from having to adhere to those requirements?
Why can’t you articulate exactly what rights are being taken away? If you strongly believe that you shouldn’t have any trouble stating what those rights are?
Vaccine mandates are no different than vaccine requirements needed to enroll in schools or even when you’re born. What rights have been taken away from having to adhere to those requirements? — Svelaz
The vaccines required for schools are not experimental, have passed years of long-term human trials, and have a track record of efficacy and safety — all the C-19 “vaccines” are experimental with only Emergency Use Authorizations and no efficacy or safety record. Wasn’t Dr. Robert Malone just censored by Twitter for reading, line by line, an official USG assessment of these “vaccines” safety and concluding, in his expert opinion, that the C-19 vaccines cause more harm than they prevent?
I have every right to reject a vaccination which lists death as a possible side-effect.
Slorhss29,
I would add that vaccine mandates don’t force you to get vaccinated. It requires people to be vaccinated, but it gives you multiple options that don’t require that you get vaccinated. There’s the weekly testing option, religious exemption, and medical exemption.
What rights are being taken from you if you choose the weekly testing in lieu of getting vaccinated? Getting tested once a week is no different than having an employer test you for drugs prior to employment, right? What about random drug tests? You can refuse them. Nobody can force you to take them. But your employer CAN choose to terminate your employment if you choose not to get tested. Are any rights being taken if they require you to submit for a drug test that you are legally allowed to refuse?
I’ll address both of your comments here.
“No, I’m not missing or ignoring the main argument. Turley’s arguments is dependent on the magazine’s opinion as a certainty,…”
Once again, disingenuous. This is a fairly consistent argument that is mirrored among many leftist outlets. We have seen how the media parrots these talking points across stations and platforms.
“What makes you think these DA’s you’re mentioning are all “Soros funded”?
I will not provide and exhaustive list, but it’s easily searchable.
https://www.westernjournal.com/exposed-george-soros-donated-408k-kim-foxx-affiliated-pac/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/george-soros-has-bankrolled-da-s-in-cities-with-highest-crime-rates/ar-AARrjGK
“What rights are being taken from you if you choose the weekly testing in lieu of getting vaccinated?”
Once again, disingenuous. The Democrats are beginning with shame and ostracisation as an effective tool to have citizens submit to their edicts. Now, the arrest videos of people in NYC, including a small child, are making their rounds.
I’m calling your disingenuous representation of the leftist overreach lipstick on a pig.
Slorhss29,
“ “What rights are being taken from you if you choose the weekly testing in lieu of getting vaccinated?”
Once again, disingenuous. The Democrats are beginning with shame and ostracisation as an effective tool to have citizens submit to their edicts.”
You’re clearly avoiding the question. You should be able to easily articulate what rights are being taken away from you. You stated democrats are “stepping on rights”. The fact that you are not able to articulate what rights are being taken, denied, or “stepped on” implies you really have no idea what rights are being taken away from you and you’re just stating long worn out talking points.
So Soros making political donations somehow equates to DA’s “not doing their jobs”? It’s nonsensical at best. It still doesn’t change the fact that DA’s have wide discretion on whether to press charges or dismiss them. It’s true of every DA whether they are republican or democrat. One good example,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-buckel-no-charges-20211222-cxvhs5h6e5cs3idtqad23rzm6a-story.html%3foutputType=amp
I’ll ask again, what rights are being taken from you if you choose to be tested weekly? You or anyone else still has the right to refuse. How is that a violation of your rights?
“I’ll ask again, what rights are being taken from you if you choose to be tested weekly?”
Rule of Law. Though discussed many times, you have no understanding of it.
Svelaz, one can start the response by just asking why the vaccinated don’t have to take the rapid test? Of course, you are so confused. The news has yet to reach you that the vaccinated can transmit the virus. Therefore, if you want rapid testing to meet the rule of law standards, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated need to be tested. There are better arguments, but they require more brain-power to understand so that I will leave those arguments for someone with basic intelligence.
S. Meyer, even you are not addressing the question I’m asking and you deflect by asking a different question.
What rights are being taken from you by choosing either to vaccinate or test weekly?
Whether you are vaccinated or not doesn’t address the question. Can you articulate exactly what rights are being taken from you?
Can you not refuse to be tested weekly? Do you HAVE to get vaccinated? Can you refuse to get vaccinated?
“ Therefore, if you want rapid testing to meet the rule of law standards, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated need to be tested.”
But the current rule of law doesn’t require that both the vaccinated and non-vaccinated take a weekly test. You can choose one of either options and you can refuse both.
Those who are vaccinated are not always guaranteed to get infected. It’s still far less likely than those who are not.
“S. Meyer, even you are not addressing the question I’m asking and you deflect by asking a different question.”
I answered you, but you don’t seem to have the requirements to understand relatively simple ideas.
The rule of law. Government officials are being fired or placed on leave when they don’t take the vaccine. The rationale for forcing the vaccine or testing doesn’t exist. Both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the disease.
Now you can explain why the unvaccinated need to be tested, but the vaccinated don’t.
Svelaz is at the same time arguing that Soros is not getting DAs elected and that DAs are just using their discretion afforded to them by their office. Does anyone thing that PROSECUTORS not PROSECUTING falls under discretionary power? Svelaz is actually defending Gascon, Boudin, Kim Fox, Rachel Rollins and Larry Krassner. Svelaz, keep talking and watch the Republicans win 70 seats in the House in November.
While I’ll most likely regret responding to someone who continuously shifts the parameters of every argument with the end result being, effectively, ‘that doesn’t prove…(anything)”, never the less this will be my one and only attempt:
Mandated testing for health status, without probable cause, is prohibited by the 4th Amendment – the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects, including taking samples of bodily fluids or other bodily matter without a warrant – whether the testing is done by the government or private employer. Nor does the government have any authority to compel business to violate a person’s 4th Amendments rights against involuntary medical testing or participation of medical procedures. Testing for illegal drugs in the workplace is about the only exception…whether or not it’s an OSHA recommendation, suggestion, or rule isn’t the point or purpose, business that desire the work being done is in fact being done by sober individuals…well, that’s just plain common sense and good for every business. It’s also been good practice for business to send workers home who have clear signs of being sick – fever, coughing, sneezing, etc. It’s never been common for businesses to presume any worker is sick or infected without those common, clear, signs of infection. Forcing someone to wear a safety line or hat is not the same as probing that employee’s person, no matter how frequent or infrequent, in order to maintain a safe work environment.
Can private businesses, on their own, require health-related testing on an ongoing basis for someone to remain employed? Perhaps. Then again, is the employer willing to continuously spend the resources necessary for constant testing regardless of how often any given employee ‘proves’ they’re not sick after volunteering to be tested indefinitely? Put yourself in that position, you can be either employer or employee, your choice. At what point do you stop testing healthy people as to not interrupt their productivity for your business, or conversely, how many times are you willingly going to allow your self to be physically assaulted (those nasal tests aren’t particularly pleasant) after demonstrating and verbally telling your employer, “Dammit, I’m not sick! Stop presuming, without evidence, that I am!”. Weekly, daily, hourly? Unless you can find people who are willing to be voluntarily assaulted (tested) on your timetable, it’s unlikely your business will survive, regardless of government’s outside influence or suggestion.
Self employed? Perhaps a company can require documentation that you’re vaccinated, but your vaccine status will have no bearing on whether or not you will or will not be infectious. If someone is sick, they will be contagious at some point, vaccine or vaccine-status, notwithstanding. Same question (or burden)…are you willing to be tested, or test someone else at your own cost for every contractor who walks through the door who answers your request for help, on an indefinite basis…will you require proof of flu vaccination or any other (doesn’t really matter which) for the time you’re in business?
Your personal rights are protected, on purpose, by the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments from federal government overreach. It’s the government job, again on purpose, to enforce and protect those rights first and foremost. If you choose to relinquish those rights, voluntarily, oddly-enough that’s your right to do so. But neither you, your employer, nor the government has the ‘right’ to force other people to take medicine nor tests to continuously prove they’re not sick based only on your, or another persons, suspicion.
JAFO,
“ Mandated testing for health status, without probable cause, is prohibited by the 4th Amendment – the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects, including taking samples of bodily fluids or other bodily matter without a warrant – whether the testing is done by the government or private employer.”
It’s not a violation of the 4th amendment as such mandates have been upheld by the Supreme Court and lower courts as well. When smallpox and polio were spreading government mandates were considered constitutional due to the government interest in protecting the not only those not yet infected but the economy as a whole.
Testing for drugs prior to or during employment is the same principle that applies for COVID. Its highly contagious and it can and does affect a business’s productivity and ability to function. The current staff shortages and airlines cancelling flights attest to that.
Getting a weekly test doesn’t have to involve a nose swab anymore. There are other less invasive and quicker tests available. Plus it won’t take any more time to take than browsing on your phone during work hours. So getting tested once a week doesn’t violate any right or take away any right at all.
Many people may not show symptoms and still be contagious. That’s the whole reason why this virus is so difficult to deal with. You could feel perfectly fine and still test positive.
“ It’s never been common for businesses to presume any worker is sick or infected without those common, clear, signs of infection.”
True, but that was before COVID which doesn’t always give clear signs of infection until it’s too late.
The purpose of weekly testing is not to prove your not sick. It’s for prove you’re not infected. Which is far more important in preventing further infection from spreading. The virus takes approximately 4-6 days to render someone infectious.
None of this is a violation of your rights and you still don’t have to get vaccinated. A weekly test is least intrusive option to avoid getting vaccinated.
FYI. Medical testing is already mandated by government when it comes to abortion. Forced ultrasounds and pelvic exams. So there IS precedent to being required to be tested weekly instead of getting vaccinated.
Remember you still have a choice.
Of all the questions I asked, you’ve not answered any of them. Don’t worry, I already knew you wouldn’t, it’s not in your character to do so. Instead you deflect and are the very definition of an open-ended fallacy: an argument, contention, or objective which stipulates attainment of something which is either undefined, difficult to measure, involves changing goals, is impossible to attain, or would require so much investment of resources that the involved costs are not worth the attainment benefits. A method of argument oppression which is used to enslave an opponent under an unresolvable standard or burden.
I consider this a lesson learned on my part and shall not respond any further to your goalpost-moving narratives. It’s clear, you have no desire to consider, let alone recognize or give credit to those who disagree with your opinions, just might be right.
Final thought…while not my own, it’s certainly relevant: “I have no doubt gummy vitamins are safe and effective. But if you lock me in my house, shut down small businesses, claim indefinite emergency powers, and tell me I can’t work, travel, shop, or go to a restaurant without a pass showing I’m fully-gummied, we have a problem.” –Derek Hunter
JAFO, you posed questions that you answered yourself.
“ Can private businesses, on their own, require health-related testing on an ongoing basis for someone to remain employed? Perhaps. ”
“ Then again, is the employer willing to continuously spend the resources necessary for constant testing regardless of how often any given employee ‘proves’ they’re not sick after volunteering to be tested indefinitely?”
I answered this one when I said that testing is rather quick and non-invasive now and it doesn’t hinder productivity.
JAFO, I wasn’t moving the goalposts at all. I addressed every one of your questions, but some you ended up addressing them yourself so there was no point in answering them.
Svelaz seldom remains on point. Instead, he uses old arguments that have already been proven wrong as new arguments to deflect from what he doesn’t understand and cannot defend.
Yes, I’m aware (everyone’s aware except for those new to the blog.)
He/She/Xi? consistently takes the position that everything government does is legal until the Courts say it isn’t. Then the conversation swerves into something akin to ‘but they’re wrong and I’m always right, so there.’ The insistence that ‘their’ question(s) be answered but refusal to answer anything asked back can only lead to an eventual ‘conversation’ consisting of Svelaz speaking to Svelaz.
Again, lesson learned on my part. It won’t happen again. What’s the second half of “Fool me thrice?” lol
S. Meyer, that’s rich coming from you. The majority of your responses consist of points irrelevant to the post you respond to.
If that were true, Svelaz, you would have no trouble proving it on the blog. However, one after the other, say exactly that about you and provide plenty of examples.
Your problem is you think you have average or above-average intelligence so that you can BS your way through the blog. You represent the bottom of the barrel of intelligence on this blog, so you are severely mistaken. Your BS makes you look like a fool.
JAFO.
“ The insistence that ‘their’ question(s) be answered but refusal to answer anything asked back can only lead to an eventual ‘conversation’ consisting of Svelaz speaking to Svelaz.”
I posed the question to you first. Which you were never able to answer and then you asked me to answer yours which I did. You did exactly what you accuse me of.
Svelaz, we are still trying to get an answer from you from the first day you presented with this alias. You don’t answer anything, but you think you did. That demonstrates a lack of intelligence.
JAFO
Your first instincts were right. Trolls have no interest in discussion. All the want is attention. And exposing them as dolts, has no effect on them. They thrive on the attention.
Indeed. Best to look away and let them circle-jerk themselves until they go blind. Have an ok weekend!
“Remember you still have a choice.”
No, you don’t. That notion’s a con game.
When the government *compels* you to do A or B, that is not choice. That’s naked coercion, just as is: “Your money or your life.”
but it gives you multiple options that don’t require that you get vaccinated. There’s the weekly testing option, religious exemption, and medical exemption.
Why are all of those people fired in healthcare, police, fire, Schools?
Because they refused every option. They HAD options. Yet still refused. When an employer exhausts every possible incentive and the employees refuse the employer is NOT required to keep employing them because they pose a risk to other employees and to the employer.
Not true.
Regardless, its all moot now. The CDC has admitted its all been politically, not medically driven.
We are a very diverse nation, that offers many possibilities for how we each choose to live our lives. One of the most common and stark differences among those choices is unban vs. rural, city vs. country. The two are about as different as you can get, with one generally endorsing strong authoritarian government the other giving individual freedom, accountability and responsibility their highest priority. At present it seems that a growing majority of people in our country are living in urban settings. That is their choice, but why should they have the right to foist the way they want to be governed on the those opting to live lives with more individual freedom? That would be an example of “tyranny of the majority”, and ironically, because urban liberals are always clamoring for more diversity, would make our country less diverse.
“…ironically, because urban liberals are always clamoring for more diversity, would make our country less diverse.”
This is the problem with most liberal arguments. Most are poor; many are hypocritical, but even the best liberal arguments tend to claim understanding of all the variables and eventualities. This is arguable. What is not arguable is the outright and plainly authoritarian power grab by Democrats that is going on right now across the country.
As I see it – liberals tend to have simple ideas that sound great but don’t work (e.g. reimagine the police); conservatives tend to have ideas that are more complex (e.g. lowering taxes to raise revenue) but do work.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate. It exists to uphold the Constitution and push leaving the legislative body to pass laws or amendments that satisfy the needs of the people.
“A representative democracy is not truly representative when the right relies on gerrymandering and voter suppression to achieve the majority they seek.”
Of course, to the fascist left, gerrymandering, which is done by both sides, is OK to those non-thinking fascists.
I personally don’t like gerrymandering, but there are good reasons for its existence, but good reasons are often an excuse for political excesses.
Arguing that Republicans use gerrymandering in some sort of nefarious way while ignoring Democrats doing the same is equivalent with the left screaming about money in politics as Democrats outspend Republicans in every election cycle. The left will stamp their feet about Citizens United as the teachers, lawyers and billionaires give untold millions to Democrats.
PS. Having PUBLIC UNIONS giving money to politicians is as warped and corrupt a practice as is possible.
“. . . stacking the lower courts with conservative judges that share their values and ideals . . .”
As opposed to what — appointing judges whose values they don’t share?
The Turley article here is blather.
Thanks for the insight. Does anyone here really care what you think?
….after a year of alleged insurrections and ongoing plans for a conservative coup. Indeed, the magazine itself has disclosed a Republican strategy to actually kill Americans with Covid-19.
Yet they say Christians adhere to fanciful, irrational, superstitious beliefs.
With each passing day, the oracles and high priests/priestesses of Woke Church give Americans reason to consider how America worked under the precepts adopted by the Founding Fathers: the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them
Declaration of Independence
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Folks….instant Left/Right Right/Left attacks shows both posters to be wading in the shallow end of the pool.
Thinkers shall see the real issue at hand…..which is the security and independence of the American Judiciary where Jurisprudence follows the Constitution and the Laws as written.
That notion is the basis upon which this Nation is founded.
Criticism of the Judiciary should be based upon the analysis of how closely decisions followed the Law and Constitution.
If we find badly written Laws…that is not the Judiciary’s fault…..that falls at the feet of those who wrote the flawed law.
The judiciary cannot call for cases……every case must be brought to it by someone…be it a prosecutor or plaintiff.
So….lets us deal with the issues and not lower ourselves to juvenile fussing like a couple of you delight in doing.
We know who you are….and I refuse to even read your posts much less respond to them…..as I do not feed Trolls.
“Criticism of the Judiciary should be based upon the analysis of how closely decisions followed the Law and Constitution.”
The left has been steadily trying to change this perception and undermine this institution, along with the rest of history for several decades now. Did work for Stalin. How about them Tartars?
Ralph says:
“Thinkers shall see the real issue at hand…..which is the security and independence of the American Judiciary where Jurisprudence follows the Constitution and the Laws as written.”
We’ll just see how law-abiding you Trumpists are if and when Trump is criminally prosecuted. I got a a feeling you will reject the American Jurisprudence system as part of the “Deep State.”
(OT)
Biden on Covid:
Then: “I’m going to shut down the virus.”
Now: “There is no federal solution.”
Will the real Joe Biden please stand up.
This now, nor ever been a “real Joe Biden.
He has always been a cipher.
What’s with the animosity toward a man who put the word ‘tax’ into a decision allowing the government to control health insurance when the word ‘tax’, itself, is not in the legislation? And considering Roberts has a tendency to decide more often than expected with the left leaning members of the Court, one would think Leftists would cheer each and every time he sided with them, even as part of the 4-member minority when it happens.
“… one would think Leftists would cheer each and every time he sided with them, even as part of the 4-member minority when it happens.”
Indeed. Your illustration shows perfectly how far left the unhinged, unethical, and undisciplined the party has become. Limbic-driven reactions, global corporation campaign cash, and kneejerk solutions are the methods the narcissistic and hedonistic left (and neoconservative republicans) adhere to these days.
When people get a little more hungry, or when the next gig to cancel cash and install digital credit comes, that might be enough to right the ship a little.
It’s been instructive to watch just how dangerous popular democracy can be, even though we have yet to permanently tamper with federalism and the division of power. Until covid tyranny appeared, I used to think that parliamentary systems of governance worked better than our own. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case. Federalism has meant that some states have been able to go their own way in regard to covid policy. And we are soon to find out if the Court will be able to protect us from the Biden vaccine mandates. And voters still have the opportunity to throw the bums out. That Democrats want to disturb this system that has mostly worked well is the desperate cry of a dying party. I suspect most Americans see that.
“… That Democrats want to disturb this system that has mostly worked well is the desperate cry of a dying party. I suspect most Americans see that.”
Well said, and I am hoping you are correct. But there are many in that party who can barely generate enough brain energy to induce movement in their extremities. At least it’s easy to see whose these people are so you can stay clear and not waste time, breath, or effort interacting with them.
Lefties love to rile up the base, even if they have to lie to do so.
But the Lefty base also loves being lied to.
Look at our left leaning posters here; they are not especially deep thinkers.
Monument,
Lefties like being lied to? Ho, ho, ho! Trumpists have swallowed many more Trump lies! Even Turley has acknowledged Trump’s falsehoods!
silberman: when commenters started criticizing you for attacking Turley, you suddenly became Turley’s biggest defender, friend, and confidante. What a joke you are.
Anonymous, actually Silberman has always defended Turley when it comes to subjects that don’t involve his hypocrisy on his criticism of “advocacy journalism”. In fact he’s on record with agreeing with Turley most of the time. The only exception is his hypocritical position on certain issues.
There something called nuance. It’s a concept that is often lost on those who can’t grasp the idea that not everything is strictly a black or white view.
actually, someone on this blog went back several months and checked silberman’s comments- and he didn’t express any agreement with Turley until after he was criticized. What can be speciously labeled “nuance” is on truth, selective fact argument
Anonymous, that someone clearly wasn’t paying attention. Silberman has consistently stated that he agrees with Turley’s arguments the majority of the time with the exception of his hypocrisy regarding advocacy journalism and criticism of media.
Svelaz, before you attempt to convince anyone of the truth, you have to know what the truth is, have meaningful correct facts, and recognize the definitions of the words you use.
Svelaz,
Thanks for correctly understanding my contentions. I don’t bemoan Turley pointing out the abuses in the MSM, but they pale by comparison with those by Fox, Newsmax, and OAN. Turley is unwilling to undertake questions because his refusal to point out a single fault with Fox, et.al., is indefensible, and he will not allow himself to be confronted publicly with his undeniable hypocrisy. It is too damning.
“Lefties like being lied to? Ho, ho, ho! Trumpists have swallowed many more Trump lies! Even Turley has acknowledged Trump’s falsehoods!”
You need to stop posting. Whatever rational arguments you could offer have vanished due to TDS. Trump is old news. The children who were able to be broken by TDS need to retire to a small space and play quietly.
Slohrss29 says:
“You need to stop posting. Whatever rational arguments you could offer have vanished due to TDS. Trump is old news. The children who were able to be broken by TDS need to retire to a small space and play quietly.”
Trump is in the news. Have you not heard about all the civil and criminal investigations into him? I don’t hate the man; I hate the lying. I’m not alone.
jeffsilberman wrote, Trumpists have swallowed many more Trump lies! Even Turley has acknowledged Trump’s falsehoods!”
Lies are certainly false but falsehoods are not necessarily lies and until you stop conflating the two you will continue to sound like an blithering idiot.
A lie is making an untrue statement with intent to deceive a falsehood is simply something that is, or turns out to be, false without the intent to deceive. There are countless things that Trump said that the left smears as lies that were only false, in fact there was an entire website from the Washington Post that was devoted the site to listing Trump’s “lies” until their false propaganda was publicly pointed out and they had to change the site description from Trump’s “lies” and move the goalposts out of the stadium to Trumps “false or misleading claims”.
By the way; I read somewhere a week or so ago that using the same politically biased criteria that the Washington Post used on President Trump’s “false or misleading claims” listing, the Biden administration is on-par to meeting or exceeding the number of “false or misleading claims” that the came from the Trump Administration and President Biden is an integral part of that listing. But of course; the hypocrites in the political left don’t think they should be judged using the same criteria that they apply to those they disagree with – the political left is driven by blatant double standards, it’s the only standard they have.
Thank you.
Witherspoon says:
“By the way; I read somewhere a week or so ago that using the same politically biased criteria that the Washington Post used on President Trump’s “false or misleading claims” listing, the Biden administration is on-par to meeting or exceeding the number of “false or misleading claims” that the came from the Trump Administration”
History will record which administration lied more. I’m confident Trump will be found to be the more dishonest. And it’s not unlikely that Trump himself will be found guilty of fraud in his personal business affairs as well. Should be an interesting next few months especially reading Turley’s reaction to Trump’s legal culpability. He can’t ignore it indefinitely.
Here are a couple of quotes since August 2021. When discussing the COVID-19 vaccines President Biden has made the following public statements…
Or how about a Dr. Fauci statement during that same time period…
We know for sure without any doubt whatsoever that the vaccines do not prevent the vaccinated from being infected with COVID-19 or any of the variants or prevent the vaccinated from spreading COVID-19 or any of it’s variants to others and we’ve known this since mid 2020. and yet these two leaders have continued to make those false statements.
Here is your test.
So jeffsilberman, were those statements from President Biden and Dr. Fauci lies or were they just falsehoods?
Since we all know that Biden is mentally challenged, his befuddlement may rule out an *intentional* and *knowing* falsehood, that is, a lie. As for Fauci’s statement, it is ripped out of context. I would need to see the entire exchange to make a ruling.
May I list Trump’s innumerable lies or will you take judicial notice that, of course, he is a pathological liar?
“May I list Trump’s innumerable lies or will you take judicial notice that, of course, he is a pathological liar?”
Go ahead Jeff we have been waiting for you to do that. Don’t bore us with trivia. Tell us the lies that are most significant and involve his Presidency and the nation. Skip the opinions, puffery and the errors. Make sure you have context and proof.
jeffsilberman wrote, “Since we all know that Biden is mentally challenged, his befuddlement may rule out an *intentional* and *knowing* falsehood, that is, a lie. As for Fauci’s statement, it is ripped out of context. I would need to see the entire exchange to make a ruling.”
Hogwash Jeff, it a false narrative, they know it’s false and they continue to promote it regardless; they are lying, period. It’s the ends justifies the means kind of lying all done for the greater good.
jeffsilberman wrote, “May I list Trump’s innumerable lies or will you take judicial notice that, of course, he is a pathological liar?”
I completely agree with S. Meyer below….
You could start with his slew of lies about Covid. Some examples:
“We have it [the coronavirus] totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine.”
“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”
In March of 2020: “Anybody that wants a test can get a test.”
“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
“No, I’m not concerned at all.” [That might not have been a lie, but if he wasn’t concerned at all, then he should have been. Also not a lie but terrible: “I don’t take responsibility at all.”]
“I couldn’t have done it any better.” [When asked if his coronavirus response could have been better]
“This is going to go away without a vaccine. It is going to go away.. We are not going to see it again.”
In June of 2020: “At some point this stuff goes away and it’s going away.” “It’s fading away. It’s going to fade away.”
But nothing compares to Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election: that he won and it was stolen from him. Some examples:
“this year they [big tech] rigged an election. They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.”
“we won this election and we won it by a landslide.”
“If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. … He has the absolute right to do it [unconstitutionally refuse to certify EC votes from key states Trump lost].”
“Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft and there’s never been anything like this. So pure theft in American history.”
This is called The Big Lie for a reason.
You are full of it, ATS. No one has been entirely correct where Covid is concerned. Trump’s initial comments followed the line of his advisors like Fauci, but Trump wanted to close the border to China. Democrats opposed him, accusing him of racism. Trump paid for vaccines before they were created. Biden took over control of antivirals and did nothing.
None of his Covid statements were lies though all his responses turned out to be incorrect. No one can predict what a virus will do. We are wrong on the seasonal flu frequently as we were wrong with the swine flu. You don’t have the brains to understand the complexity. Overall, compared to Democrats, Trump’s virus management was good.
The fact is that Democrats destroyed our economy, our children and our grandchildren with lockdowns and are now causing a rise in drug overdose deaths. Biden is killing young people. Trump tried his best to keep these killers under control.
Trump lost the election, but was the election following the rules? No. Look at Wisconsin with 220,000 votes that didn’t comply with election law. We see similar problems in other states and a Democrat party that has tried to prevent investigations knowing they were complicit with illegal actions.
Here is some of today’s news on the election:
Georgia opens investigation into possible illegal ballot harvesting in 2020 election
Secretary of State Raffensperger says subpoenas could be forthcoming.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/georgia-opens-investigation-possible-illegal-ballot-harvesting-2020?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Trump didn’t lie. He probably was correct if election law and other laws were enforced, making the liars in the Democrat camp.
Witherspoon,
I got a better idea. Since you have deemed me a troll, let’s just give each other a wide berth from now on. I won’t comment on your posts if you will ignore mine. I am not insisting that you must do so; I am merely making a suggestion. I have long argued that everyone should discriminate against opinions and individuals with whom they disagree. I certainly don’t want to comment upon your statements if you prefer to ignore me. I ignore some people here because they are either too hateful or too moronic.
So, I ask anyone who wishes me to ignore them to let me know. I will add a couple of names right off the top who *I* already ignore or I know that *they* are not interested in hearing from me:
Darren Smith
Steve Witherspoon
S.Meyer
George
Anyone else? Speak up.
Witherspoon should make whatever comments he wishes about your inept postings. You can’t do the same against Witherspoon because he has substance and fact attached.
I suggest you act like a lawyer and stop libeling people unless you have proof to back it up.
To Anonymous the Stupid who made a comment about libel that seems to have been deleted. Learn what libel is. Spend more time reading and less time talking.
So jeffsilberman,
Based on that comment, how can any critically thinking person deduce anything other than you don’t have the intellectual fortitude to backup your arguments and don’t want others to perforate your thin skinned ideological bubble; that Sir is pure rhetorical cowardice and another trait of an ignorant internet troll.
I really appreciate the opportunity to point out your intellectual failures to my fellow commenters; I consider it a public service.
You’re welcome.
jeffsilberman wrote, “As for Fauci’s statement, it is ripped out of context. I would need to see the entire exchange to make a ruling.”
There is no context where saying the COVID-19 “vaccines prevent getting infected” that can mean anything other than exactly what it states and it’s a known lie. We all know that Fauci is a confirmed liar, he openly admitted to intentionally lying to deceive the public about masks back in early 2020 so the supply of N95 masks for medical facilities wouldn’t be wiped out by overwhelming retail purchases. Dr. Fauci is an ends justifies the means liar.
Witherspoon says:
“We all know that Fauci is a confirmed liar.”
Speak for yourself. I could not care less who you think is a liar when you deny that Trump is a confirmed liar!
jeffsilberman wrote, “I could not care less who you think is a liar when you deny that Trump is a confirmed liar!”
I challenge you to find a comment of mine anywhere on this site where I actually stated that candidate Donald Trump or President Trump is not a confirmed liar. I asked you to prove your claim that he’s a liar and to understand that there is a difference between an actual lie and a false statement.
Bite me you lying internet troll.
In your opinion, does EVERYONE think I’m a confirmed liar?
jeffsilberman asked, “In your opinion, does EVERYONE think I’m a confirmed liar?”
Nope, not “EVERYONE”; however, you’ve shown a lot of people around these threads just how imbecilic and illogical you can be, so you’ve got that going for you.
Well, at least, it’s not EVERYONE! I’ll take that as a compliment!
Ther you go again, everybody is posting about chief justice :Roberts. And you have to dive into Donald Trump.
Independent Bob:
“Ther you go again, everybody is posting about chief justice :Roberts. And you have to dive into Donald Trump.”
I feel your pain. It’s embarrassing to be reminded about Trumpism. Until Trumpists acknowledge his blatant lies, there can never be a reconciliation with the Never Trumpers.
We cannot just “move on.”
Good, then you stay here and the rest of us will move on. Life does go on no matter what.
Turley has pointed out what he believes were mistakes made by Trump, but I don’t think he has accused Trump of lying more than other presidents. In fact, in his most recent op-ed to the Hill, “Biden should resolve to cease the ‘Red Queen’ justice,” he has accused Biden of being the Red Queen convicting people before the facts are in. Jeff, you have a strange aversion to the truth.
Monumentcolorado,
Righties do the exact same thing. They love to rile up their base with scary ideas such as critical race theory, scary illegal immigrants taking their jobs, children being brainwashed, covid is just the flu, etc, etc.
They are being lied to endlessly by right leaning media outlets and conservative talk radio. Rightie posters are never above a 10 grade level of comprehension. Some, a rare few, actually have decent debates or discussions. But sadly they are often marred by the screeching noise of ignorance and simple idiocy.
“They love to rile up their base with scary ideas such as critical race theory, scary illegal immigrants taking their jobs, children being brainwashed, covid is just the flu, etc, etc.”
Poor effort at deflection on your part.
Critical Theory and its perverse offshoot, Critical Race Theory are fanciful Marxist control mechanisms, as self-professed. After a century of failure, it would be great to see the lot of you start a country with these ideals so we can be entertained by the Mad Max style consequences.
Illegal Immigrants are brought here to vote for Democrats. Hence the free stuff. Tell me I’m wrong.
Children are being brainwashed by half-baked power arguments, like CRT. The good side of the scamdemic is that it has exposed a lot of this, and people are speaking up.
Covid is a disease, but not like yellow fever. For many leftists, this whole episode is a perverse “badge of honor” of the tough times that they have lived through and do not want that taken away. People died from covid. People kill themselves through poor personal choices. There will be many broken and left nearly incapacitated as they come to grips with the true nature of this ordeal as it is unveiled in years to come.
“Rightie posters are never above a 10 grade level of comprehension.”
You are the perfect example of the narcissistic leftist who carries no humility and are generally perfect examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. For example, look to the Squid. I mean the Squad. We all have to suffer the ramifications of the cult-of-personality leftists in power. That’s why people are fleeing blue states.
They love to rile up their base with scary ideas such as critical race theory, scary illegal immigrants taking their jobs,
Not even close.
Self governance. That’s the principle at play. Do the people have the power to write the rules they live by? Your example is Parents petitioning the elected school board concerning curriculum. But you are a great example of inventing some controversy where none exists. Who is against parents involvement in their childs education>
Demanding the laws on the books be fully enforced is non controversial. All I want is immigration laws be enforced.
Svelaz says:
“They are being lied to endlessly by right leaning media outlets and conservative talk radio.”
It’s worth repeating.