Below is my column in the Hill on the leaking of the draft opinion on abortion from the Supreme Court. While lionizing the leaker, media and political figures have ratcheted up their rhetoric to “burn down the Court” or to pack it with reliable liberal votes. Because these pundits disagree with the constitutional interpretation, they are now suggesting that the entire institution is illegitimate.
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick wrote “we need to be focusing on the legitimacy of the court itself” while CNN’s chief political analyst Gloria Borger suggested that the Supreme Court Justices were “just a bunch of politicians in robes.” Historian Jon Meacham declared “If you had any reservations about the system’s capacity to deliver justice, they have just been affirmed.” Because the Court has adopted an opposing constitutional interpretation, we are once again deluged from calls ranging from packing the Court to burning it down. In this environment, the White House could not even muster enough courage to denounce protesters descending on the homes of justices to harass them. While the legitimacy of the Court is questioned, the targeting of justices and their families is not.
Here is the column:
Five seemingly perfunctory words from the Supreme Court — “The Court has no comment” — hit like a thunderclap late Monday night. Politico had just posted a draft of a majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and its progeny in the blockbuster abortion case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Most court observers surely must have hoped this was an elaborate hoax, that someone had not shattered every legal and judicial ethical rule by leaking a draft opinion. But there was no denial from the court.
The draft opinion is subject to change and may indeed have already changed in both its analysis and support. Draft majority opinions have a nasty habit of becoming dissents or fracturing into pieces as justices work through the details on a case.
The opinion was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. If unchanged, it would declare that “Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Such a ruling would return the question of reproductive rights to the states. Most would likely continue to support the right, but it would become a matter for each state to resolve through their own democratic process.
The indeterminacy of the draft and uncertainty of the future did not stop instant, dystopian predictions. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) immediately declared: “So, this would appear to be an invitation to have, you know, Handmaid’s Tale type anti-feminist regulation and legislation all over the country.”
The final language and meaning of the decision is literally yet to be written. What is clear is that the court itself has been hit with one of the greatest scandals in its history, and certainly the greatest crisis faced by Chief Justice John Roberts in his tenure.
Even in a city that traffics in leaks from every agency and every corner of government, this was an unspeakably unethical act. The Supreme Court deals with transformative cases that drive to the very heart of our political, cultural and religious divisions, yet justices and clerks have maintained a tradition of strict civility and confidentiality on such drafts.
So what changed?
We changed.
We do not know what motivated this leaker other than to unleash a public and political firestorm. The assumption is that the individual wanted to pressure the court to reconsider its purported path, and to push Congress to pass pending legislation to codify Roe. Yet, this act is such an attack on the very foundation of the court that it is dangerous to assume a specific motivation other than disruption.
What is clear is that the court has become a tragic anachronism in our age of rage: an institution that relied on the integrity and ethics of its members and staff at a time when such values are treated as naive. It relied on justices and clerks alike remaining bound to the institution and to each other by a constitutional faith.
But we are living in an age of constitutional atheism, so it is only surprising that it took this long. For years, politicians, pundits and academics have called for reckless political action against the court.
Many Democrats in Congress have pledged to achieve political goals “by any means necessary,” including packing or gutting the court. Democratic leaders have hammered away at the court and its members, demanding that the court adhere to political demands or face institutional disaster. The threats have grown increasingly raw and reckless as politicians sought to outdo each other in their attacks. In the age of rage, restraint is a lethal liability.
The message has been repeated like a drumbeat: The ends justify the means.
Recently, Roberts even went public with a warning over “inappropriate political influence” affecting the court. Yet, the day before this leak, the court itself defied critics who portrayed it as hopelessly and dysfunctionally divided with another unanimous decision. It ruled in a major case on speech that Boston could not discriminate against a religious organization that wanted to hoist a flag outside of its city hall. It spoke with one voice in defense of shared constitutional values.
Given the relentless calls from political leaders, we may have been naive to think that a staff member or clerk would not yield to the same “ends justify the means” rationale. Former Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “Our government … teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
With our leaders continually expressing utter contempt for the court and its traditions, it is hardly surprising that such traditions lose meaning for some working in the court itself. That did not happen overnight, and it really cannot be dismissed as the act of a single rogue employee. It was a collective effort by those who bred contempt for our legal institutions and values. This is not a crisis of the court. It is a crisis of faith.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“The indeterminacy of the draft and uncertainty of the future did not stop instant, dystopian predictions.”
No need to predict, we already have a dystopian present.
Here is Louisiana’s new embryonic/fetal personhood bill, which LA House Republicans just voted out of committee 7–2 and is scheduled for floor debate next week: it declares that “‘Person’ includes a human being from the moment [sic] of fertilization,” would make abortion a crime of homicide “from the moment of fertilization,” and would allow prosecutors to charge patients with murder.
https://legiscan.com/LA/text/HB813/id/2549012
I wonder: do they understand that this would outlaw any IVF treatment in which some blastocysts are discarded rather than placed in utero? Would they start investigating all miscarriages to determine whether they were spontaneous or elective abortions?
Then there’s Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R), who “introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/abortion-travel-bans-emerge-as-next-frontier-after-roes-end
Let’s be clear: anti-abortionists don’t just want Roe and Casey overturned. They want abortion outlawed in all US states.
“Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick wrote “we need to be focusing on the legitimacy of the court itself” while CNN’s chief political analyst Gloria Borger suggested that the Supreme Court Justices were “just a bunch of politicians in robes.” Historian Jon Meacham declared “If you had any reservations about the system’s capacity to deliver justice, they have just been affirmed.” Because the Court has adopted an opposing constitutional interpretation, we are once again deluged from calls ranging from packing the Court to burning it down. In this environment, the White House could not even muster enough courage to denounce protesters descending on the homes of justices to harass them. While the legitimacy of the Court is questioned, the targeting of justices and their families is not.”
*************************************************
Proof positive the Leftists (and their apparatchiks in the press/punditry class) are crazy, malicious and dangerous. As for the WH, it isn’t a lack of courage that stops them. It’s the adminstration’s ecumenism with the violent Left. Let’s call a spade a spade.
Another side effect (and perhaps tangential intent) of the truly astonishing leak: an advance-WARNING for women who were contemplating abortion but whose window of opportunity under current law could be gone by the time of a formal opinion/decision (originally anticipated in June)? In other words, “Hey, this is coming down….do it now or forever hold your peace..you can’t crybaby later (no pun intended) because you were warned.”
“the White House could not even muster enough courage to denounce protesters descending on the homes of justices to harass them”
Protesters at the Justices’ homes should have to stay the same distance from their entrance as protesters at abortion clinics.
With rare exceptions, “reproductive freedom” means being able to have unprotected sex without concern for the consequences. Although nobody will say it, that’s what it is all about. There are those who want to tear this country apart for that “right” and seemingly nobody who insists that rather than shred the Supreme Court or terrorize the Justices we should demand that those who have unprotected sex change their behavior. After all, personal responsibility is so 1950s.
Amen, brother.
They aren’t “rare” exceptions.
Every year, year after year, thousands and thousands of women have abortions because the pregnancy creates a serious risk to their own health or because the embryo or fetus is diagnosed with a serious condition that may lead to later miscarriage, stillbirth, or death shortly after birth, perhaps with painful experiences for the newborn before dying.
Here’s one couple’s story of getting such a diagnosis with a wanted pregnancy, from Will Adler. Note that this abortion would be illegal under many state laws if Roe is overturned:
[note to Darren: this is an uncopyrighted Twitter thread — there is no copyright violation in copying the entire thread]
“In February, my wife Sarah and I decided to terminate our wanted pregnancy, at 24 weeks. I’ve since realized how common stories of pregnancy loss are, and how important it is to tell them. @AFettersMaloy’s piece — https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/04/26/tfmr-pregnancy-termination-for-medical-reasons/ — inspired me to share our story.
“The 1st trimester was great. Sarah was tired, but she would be up for the occasional karaoke night, even after a long day of teaching. She ran a half-marathon at 11 weeks and bought a commemorative half-marathon onesie for our baby—she felt they crossed the finish line together. But things went south in January when we learned that we were both carriers for a rare, severe blood disorder (CAMT-MPL). We each carried one good allele and one bad allele for this particular gene.
“There was a 25% chance that our baby inherited both bad alleles, and therefore had the disease. Sarah was 19 weeks pregnant when we learned this. To find out if our baby had the disease, our doctor did an amniocentesis, withdrawing a sample of amniotic fluid to be tested.
“That same day, we did a detailed anatomy scan. The ultrasounds were stunning. Sarah cried as she watched the monitor above our heads, moved by the incredible life inside her, and devastated by the possibility that there might be something horribly wrong, despite the normal scans.
“We were told that the genetic testing of the amniotic fluid would take 2-5 weeks. That’s a lot of time to wait and wonder if your baby has a potentially fatal disorder. We took short trips each weekend to keep ourselves busy. We tried not to go down dark rabbit holes researching CAMT—after all, there was a 75% chance that everything would be fine. “Those are good odds,” people kept telling us. We went on hikes, went to weddings, and told friends about our agonized waiting. Sometimes, we’d burst into tears, imagining the worst. Old favorite songs took on new resonance.
“4 weeks after the amniocentesis, I got the call. We were unlucky—our baby inherited both copies of the mutated gene and therefore would be affected by the disease. “I’m so sorry,” the genetic counselor kept repeating.
“We lit a candle. We sat on the floor of our living room and cried for hours. We called our parents, and their hearts broke too.
“[statistical sidebar] My wife and I are Ashkenazi Jews (AJ). About 1/75 AJs carry our specific mutation. If you randomly draw two AJs and they make a baby, the odds of the baby having our version of CAMT is 1 in 22,500. This was some sh*tty luck. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21489838/ [A founder mutation in the MPL gene causes congenital amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (CAMT) in the Ashkenazi Jewish population – PubMed]
“We took leave from our jobs to focus entirely on our crisis and figure out what to do. At this point, we were hit with a sudden and firm desire to imagine our baby as a particular person. We found out the sex: male. We’d previously wanted to find out at birth. And we decided to give him the name we’d picked out in week 18, just before everything unraveled: Jordan.
“We went down the rabbit holes we wouldn’t let ourselves go down before, in order to figure out what to do. We spoke to a CAMT scientist in Germany and pediatric specialists around the country.
“We read up on CAMT. We talked to scientists about what life with CAMT would look like. We found out that we had the worst variant of the disease—a nearly-complete inability to produce platelets. haematologica.org/article/view/9816
“Without platelets, blood cannot clot. Any minor injury could have devastating consequences. Jordan would need a central line put in his chest soon after birth to facilitate platelet transfusions about every other day, until he could get a bone marrow transplant. And without a bone marrow transplant, he would “absolutely die,” one scientist told us.
“So we talked to bone marrow transplant specialists to see what the transplant process would be like. If you locate a marrow match (which is likely but not guaranteed), the process is brutal. We’d be living in the hospital for 6 or more weeks with a 6-month-old infant going through chemotherapy. Many potentially fatal side effects are possible. And even if the transplant went well, we wouldn’t be out of the woods. For about a year, there would be a risk of transplant rejection.
“After taking days to collect information, process, and talk to friends and family, we made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. For our sake, and for Jordan’s. It was the hardest decision we’ve ever made in our lives. Sarah was 24 weeks pregnant.
“We have always been firmly pro-choice, and are even more firm today; that doesn’t conflict with our experience of Jordan as our child, a child who we desperately wish we could have raised. We took solace in something that one friend said: “You guys are already parents, and you’re doing what parents have to do all the time—make impossible decisions for their children that their children can’t make for themselves.”
“That night, we went to bed and cried, thinking about our little family that didn’t have much time left together. We went to @DupontClinic the next day for a D&E, a 2-day procedure. Although those two days were inherently traumatic, we also received the most compassionate medical care imaginable. Before we met doctors or nurses, we met our doula. The first question she asked us was “What do you need from us to help you through this process?” Imagine if every serious medical procedure began with that question.
“The first step is to stop the fetal heartbeat. We signed forms indicating “consent to induce fetal demise.” We made arrangements with a funeral home to cremate Jordan. I kissed Sarah’s belly, kissing my son goodbye. We entered the procedure room, bracing ourselves.
“With us watching the screen, the doctor conducted an ultrasound. The shapes were unfamiliar and vague—a stark contrast to our last ultrasound, where we could make out an intricate spine, twisting hands, a beating heart, and developing brain structures. He looked concerned. He pursed his lips and asked when our last ultrasound was. “5 weeks ago,” we said. “He’s already passed, probably soon after your last ultrasound.”
“We were stunned. The doctor and the doula left us alone, giving us space to hold each other and cry—Jordan was already dead, and had been dead for weeks. Some people have said things like “at least you didn’t have to actually go through with the injection.” But we got about as close as possible—when we learned that he was already gone, we were probably sitting inches away from a lidocaine-filled needle for stopping Jordan’s heart. But there is some truth in this—we are grateful we didn’t have to experience that particular agony.
“One friend described it in an opposite way: “one last twist of the knife.” For 5 weeks we had waited, researched, and ultimately made an unbearable decision. And there was never any need, because he had been dead the whole time. This friend’s description also feels true.
“We spent the night processing with my sibling Ro @bucket_of_rocks , who had driven out to take care of us for the week. The next day we went in to “remove the pregnancy.” When she came back from the procedure room, Sarah collapsed on the couch. “I miss my baby,” she wailed.
“Ro picked us up at the clinic. Sarah crawled into the back seat of the car and lay under a blanket. For the first time in 24 weeks, Jordan was no longer with us. We contacted more scientists, confirming that CAMT probably caused the miscarriage—Jordan must have gotten a bleed that wouldn’t clot. Miscarriage may have always been likely; of the 0.02% of AJ couples who pass on both bad alleles, many may have late, unexplained miscarriages.
“[historical sidebar] In our reading, we found out that autosomal recessive diseases like CAMT in the AJ population are in part the legacy of Jewish genocide going back to the Crusades, resulting in population bottlenecking and genetic homogeneity.
dnascience.plos.org/2018/11/08/the-genomic-scars-of-anti-semitism/
“We are slowly picking up the pieces of our lives. A month after the D&E, we had a tree planted in front of our house—Jordan’s tree. We look forward to watching it grow. When the tree bloomed with white flowers, we carried out a ceremony that Ro lovingly designed for us. We gathered books and toys that we wanted to share with Jordan and other artifacts of the pregnancy, arranging them in a small bookcase in what would have been his room.
“Several weeks later, when we had the capacity, we went to get Jordan’s ashes. Through tears, Sarah signed her name on a form. Next to “relationship to deceased,” she wrote “mother.” We sat in the car in the parking lot, holding a tiny box. “Let’s bring him home,” I said.
“Walking into the house was devastating. We planned to bring Jordan home in a onesie that Sarah, her brother, nieces, and nephews all wore home from the hospital. Instead, we walked into the house carrying a small cherry wood box. We plan to conceive again through in vitro fertilization; amazingly, it is possible to test and screen 5-day old embryos for this disease, nearly eliminating the risk of a future pregnancy being affected.
“But as hopeful as we are about our future and the family we hope to grow, our grief is boundless. We loved Jordan, and we always will. We will always miss him. We will always mourn the person who he could have been, if not for the one errant nucleotide that shattered our lives.
“People tell us that we seem to be “getting better,” as if we’re recovering from an illness. While this sentiment is well-intentioned, it also hurts. Jordan will always be our first child, a child we loved and lost. “Progress” is not a narrative that feels relevant.
“We wanted to share our story because these stories are kept secret too often. As we’ve shared our loss with friends and family, people have reached out to us, holding back tears as they shared their own stories. But you generally don’t hear these stories until you mention your own. We hope that in sharing ours, we can encourage more conversation and more awareness about families like ours, whose hearts have been broken by the loss of a baby we never got the chance to meet.” [end thread]
At 24 weeks, when they went for that abortion, many fetuses are viable. But even if they’d chosen not to have an abortion and the pregnancy hadn’t miscarried, it’s not clear that their son would have been viable at birth; he might quickly have died from a bleed that wouldn’t clot.
Perhaps you want to force parents in this situation to continue carrying the pregnancy to term. I do not.
I’m generally against abortion after a fetus is viable, but I recognize that some fetuses may never become viable, and I believe that in heartbreaking situations like that, the decision must be left to the parents and their physician. I would not force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term only to watch her newborn die. I also recognize that women still die from pregnancy-related complications, and I believe that situations where there’s a serious risk to the woman’s health must also be left to the parents and their physician. If there is a difference of opinion between the parents, I believe the woman’s choice must rule, as she is the one who is pregnant.
We need to discuss the actual complexity of these issues.
honestlawyermostly:You are sooo correct. Unprotected sex (whether reckless, intentional or not) carries other alternatives to abortion, e.g., the “morning after pill” (now perfected in some forms to be efficacious even up to three days). Why does it get so little attention when it could prevent so many abortions?
Who says it gets “little attention”?
CDC: “In 2006–2010, among sexually experienced women aged 15–44, roughly one in nine (11% or 5.8 million) women had ever used emergency contraception.” By 2011-2015, 20% had used it at least once.
Research on access:
“Since August of 2013, Plan B One-Step has been available over-the-counter (OTC) without restriction by age or gender (and all generic forms have been available OTC since 2014), while ella is available by prescription only, and IUDs must be inserted by medical providers [7, 73]. Studies show that, within pharmacies, barriers to access include consumers being able speak to a human on the phone; misinformation from employees (e.g., age restrictions, ID requirements); keeping OTC medication in a locked cabinet or behind the counter; stock-outs; choosing not to carry ella due to low consumer demand; and barriers to pharmacists’ ability to dispense ella without a physician prescription in 43 states [7, 53, 54, 74,75,76]. Out-of-pocket costs quoted for ella varied widely, ranging from $2.59–$1200.99 with a median cost of $50 [53]. In spite of advances since Plan B One-Step was made available OTC without restriction, systematic barriers still exist that restrict access to emergency contraception [68]. …” [goes on to discuss other aspects of access, including gaps in knowledge, financial barriers, health system barriers, …]
https://contraceptionmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40834-018-0067-8
The average American woman is not reading reports from CDC, or findings in professional medical journals, with her morning coffee or evening preparations for a date or anticipated sex. Can you point me to a recent MAINSTREAM article telling women about this? Thanks anyway….
Again, lin, as of 2015, 20% of American women 15-44 had themselves already **used** emergency contraception. If you look at the 2017-2019 data, that increases to 25%. You think they’re using something but don’t know about it?
If you want to read mainstream articles about it, look them up. I am not responsible for doing your research for you, only for substantiating my own claims.
Are you going to answer the question: Who — other than you — says it gets “little attention”?
Exactly. The original Roe case, if understand it correctly, was based on a woman that wanted to end an unwanted pregnancy. Texas law at the time permitted abortion for cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. She didn’t fit what the law required. So she tried to lie that she had been raped, but there had been no police report or other evidence that was true. So this entire 50 year abortion saga began because a woman made a legal choice resulting in a pregnancy. Rape and incest are violations of the woman’s rights and she should have the choice to restore her rights. If her physical life is at risk from a pregnancy, she should have the right to choose to save her own life. We have no right to be free from the consequences of our irresponsible behavior.
So you would tell women whose fetuses are diagnosed with serious medical conditions — trisomy 18, trisomy 13, total anencephaly, etc. — that are almost certain to result in miscarriage later in pregnancy (which is more dangerous for the woman), stillbirth, or death shortly after birth (possibly with the newborn in pain, or having hundreds of seizures, …), that she cannot choose to have an abortion, because you can only imagine that women choose abortion after “irresponsible behavior”?
WTF. Read up on terminations for medical reasons where the medical reason has to do with the fetus’s condition. In my 10:05 AM comment, I quoted a long Twitter thread earlier written by the husband in a couple with a wanted pregnancy, whose fetus was diagnosed with a rare disorder, and their difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy at 24 weeks. I’ve quoted his story twice — the first time in response to a question that Thinkitthrough asked me — but apparently none of the conservatives here have the cojones to respond.
Apparently you also believe that when a couple uses birth control but it fails, that’s “irresponsible behavior.” Because you’ve implied that abortion for any reason other than rape, incest, or physical life is at risk from a pregnancy is an effort to “be free from the consequences of our irresponsible behavior..”
Let’s also take a moment to recognize that the whole “sent it back to the states” is a lie. Republicans have gerrymandered and voter suppressed in their states so badly that they will “win” the elections no matter what the majority of the people want.
Yeah, because places like Tennessee, Idaho or Wyoming are really progressive bastions that have really been districted into voicelessness by a dictatorial minority, right?
Sammy,
take a look at the gerrymandering the dems tried to impose in NY.
Gettin’ Slammed Sammy:
“Let’s also take a moment to recognize that the whole “sent it back to the states” is a lie. Republicans have gerrymandered and voter suppressed in their states so badly that they will “win” the elections no matter what the majority of the people want.”
*****************************
Yeah, democracy really sucks to tyrants, right? Funny how Leftists only care about the women outside the womb.
“Let each state decide for itself” didn’t work with slavery and it won’t work with any other fundamental right. The majority won’t accept those crumbs from the table. Those days are gone and they ain’t coming back.
TIN:
“The majority won’t accept those crumbs from the table. Those days are gone and they ain’t coming back.”
*****************************
Well, if you won’t talk that leaves only violence. Given the blue-haired, teddy bear clutching beta males the Left produces, it ought to be a short fight.
The only thing today’s fat rednecks can beat is their wives. Any further exertion will kill them.
TIN:
“The only thing today’s fat rednecks can beat is their wives. Any further exertion will kill them.”
****************************
Not my experience so you’ll just have to wait and see then won’t you. My guess is the chicken will set in at the first sign of resistance and the pro-abortion “mob” will just sorta melt away. They talk a good game but like most bullies turn tail and run when confronted.
We can blow smoke all we want, but the truth is, nobody is going to engage in violence and lawlessness unless they have nothing to lose by going to prison. So that rules out the vast majority of Americans. We saw the underclass engage in riots and looting last summer, but they’re not people who care if they get arrested. They have no careers or social standing to lose. Same with the Antifa rioters. The people who demonstrated at the Capitol on Jan 6 were hunted down by the FBI and turned-in by neighbors, ex-souses; even their own children! And most of them did nothing worthy of such intense pursuit, but they were made examples of that the government will leave no stone unturned in tracking down right-wing law breakers. Now if you’re a left-wing lawbreaker, the government will ignore you, and if you’re breaking immigration laws, the government will assist you. Personally, I think criminal laws should be applied fairly and regardless of political persuasion, but that’s no longer the way it is in this country.
“most of them did nothing worthy of such intense pursuit”
They all engaged in obstruction of Congress’s certification of the EC vote, and many engaged in other crimes (trespassing in parts of the Capitol that are closed to the general public, using weapons, injuring LEOs, …)
Not this nonsense again.
We are seeing sometimes violent protests across the country right now over something that has not even actually happened yet – overruling Rowe.
Violence is a problem – protest is not.
Protestors shut down the WI legislature for weeks in 2011 – that was Protest – not crime.
There is no ACTUAL crime of obstruction through protest.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/05/roe-ruling-making-protest-lawful-again/
Legal protest is not a problem. Illegal protest is a problem, and violence is not the only way that protest becomes illegal.
You’re free to falsely claim that “There is no ACTUAL crime of obstruction through protest,” but the US Code says that some forms of protest constitute illegal obstruction of an official proceeding, and judges and juries have already found J6 criminals guilty of it.
Judges also found there was no fraud in the 2020 election – that is self evidently FALSE now.
Judges found there was a basis for warrants to spy on Carter page and those associated with him – even the courts have admitted they are wrong.
The judge and jury int he stone case found him guilty of something that did not even happen and the Jury knew it before the trial started.
Not interested in appeals to authority – especially the bad authority of DC courts.
Even Turley has previously noted that the “official proceeding” claim is legal garbage – that law has never been applied this way before.
Further even the claim just exposes the hypocracy of the left.
There is very little difference between the Kavaugh protests and J6.
yet nearly all if not all the kavanaugh protestors had charges dropped.
Many were violent – one took an axe to a senators door,
Obviously they were interfering with official proceedings.
Further the official proceeding claim undermines the whole claim that the protests themselves were improper because the certification was proforma.
To interfere with an official proceeding – there has to be a proceeding – not a ceremony.
If there was a proceeding – something where the outcome was not predetermined, then the claim that anything short of certification was an unconstitutional outcome is prima fascia incorrect.
Which means that efforts to seek a different but constitutional outcome are legitimate.
You can not have things both ways.
Finally you pretty much always know – right or left, that when laws are being used in highly created and unusual ways – that the law is being abused. Frankly you know that even when there is no political issue. When police officers try to get creative with the law – that is WRONG.
It is no different here.
We saw the same in the Kyle Rittenhouse case – and the judge wisely would not allow it.
It has already been established that the Capital police allowed many people into the capital.
No one can therefore be charged with trespassing or parading or any other nonviolent offense absent proof that person broke in to the capital (a few did).
The appeals to authority that you think of as evidence regarding J6 – are the proof of corruption.
We saw the courts complict nearly to the last in the Collusion delusion. That is an indictment of the courts.
We saw the courts complicit in the lawless manner the 2020 election was conducted – that is an indictment of the courts
You have ranted constantly about this number of cases where the courts purportedly looked at the merits of election fraud claims and found no evidence of fraud.
Yet here we are in 2022 with irrefutable evidence of large scale organized fraud of more than sufficient scale to flip the election.
Again an indictment of the courts.
So you want me to buy your appeal to the authority of hopelessly wrong if not corrupt institutions ?
Trust is earned. The courts burned theirs to the ground.
The root cause of J6 – and ultimately far worse if we do not fix this mess, is the failure of our institutions to behave in a trustworthy manner.
The legitimacy of government rests with the trust of the people.
We do not need to like the outcome of elections.
But we must beleive they are the product of lawfully conducted election free from fraud or significant error.
We must be able to trust them.
BEFORE becoming aware of massive ballot harvesting – the 2020 election was obviously lawless and untrustworthy.
While many with cause beleive it is stolen – that is NOT the standard.
Even if the election was completely free of fraud, if it was conducted such that the results can not be trusted – that is still a huge problem.
Especially with substaintial lawlessness.
Burying the Hunter Biden story – was NOT illegal. it was NOT fraud. But it was immoral and unethical and destroyed trust in the election and therefore the legitimacy of the government.
The Left keeps up the attacks on regular folks and indoctrinating their kids my guess people will fight back first at the ballot box. If that turns more corrupt then folks will become frustrated and then I wouldn’t want to be a Dimocrat in any small town where funny things happen without much recourse. Gradually it’ll move uptown and then cops – then satifactorily demoralized – will have the cases go cold. The feds can jump in but there aren’t enough to quell widespread protests and violence. We’ve got a ways to go before full scale fighting in the streets but the Left keeps calling for it. Careful what you wish for pajama boy, lots of people have no problem taking it to the streets.
HaHaHa, keep dreaming. Yes, French men will fight in the streets over wages. Ukrainians will fight for their country. Americans? It’s all talk and bluster. Being a “man” is driving a big truck. But when was the last time a white American male actually fought in the streets over anything? 1776? That’s been awhile, pal. And the “men” of today aren’t of the same stock. They’re not even of the same stock as the WWII generation. That’s why we lost in Vietnam and it’s been downhill from there.
There is discussion of assassinating a supreme court justice.
Is there anyone that thinks that would go well ?
There are not enough cops in DC.
“There is discussion” by whom?
Again – it would be wise to presume that I do not just make things up the way lefties do.
https://twitter.com/calebparke/status/1522177235377078272/photo/1
you’re confused secession was the issue Lincoln didn’t want to let them go
voter suppression is a myth pushed by the Democrats. there has been no verified examples of voter suppression. that being said we do know for a fact that Democrats do register dead people to vote
“Student headed to prison for registering dead voters for Democrats”
https://wset.com/news/local/student-headed-to-prison-for-registering-dead-voters-for-democrats
while this is only one example it suggests that more may exist
So intentionally having more voter machines and thus much shorter lines in white areas and leaving minority areas to have multi hour lines to vote is not voter suppression?
If that were true, there’s early voting. Or are minorities incapable of it?
A lot of the laws also reduce early voting, especially on weekends.
So ? For 99% of this countries history – as well as for most countries in the world – people vote on ONE DAY.
But the couch potatoes on the left seem to think everything on earth should come to their playstation.
I have multiple jobs. I have voted on election day at my poll every year since I was first allowed to vote.
When I was in college – I traveled home – TO VOTE.
Oh no worries, Democrats had a workaround and they so kindly had mules running around stuffing ballot boxes at all hours of the day and night. See 2000mules.
‘we may have been naive to think that a staff member or clerk would not yield to the same “ends justify the means” rationale.’
Let’s be honest: we are likely talking about millennial staffers, period, IMO. They truly know not what they do or how unfathomably bad the future consequences will be in their quest for ‘comfort at any cost’ in the moment. We still currently do not seem to have the collective cojones to tell them ‘no’ in any type of situation.
My money’s on Ginni Thomas.
AND they are considered heroes to the left…like Bradley Manning is now.
Interesting, that the Term ‘Court Packing’, was coined during the administration of FDR. Famously upset by SCOTUS overturning his legislation to address the Great Depression, which was constantly straying outside the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.
But is is also a good history lesson. FDR extended the Great Recession, because the emergency caused the people to willing give up protections the Constitution afforded the People and the States.
Not unlike COVID. Democrats have been genetically predisposed to use disasters to advance an agenda, they cannot advance under normal legislative process.
“…Handmaid’s Tale type anti-feminist regulation and legislation all over the country.”
Does anyone seriously believe that accessibility will change in the progressive strongholds of the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Illinois, West Coast, etc?
No. This rage is just an excuse to rage – for many it has become fun entertainment, Grindr and Tinder apps usage peaks at these events, orchestrated by the dem party for political purposes. All SC’s possible decision would do is return control of the abortion question to the states. + Science and public opinion are not on the side of unrestricted abortion at any time. Sonagrams show a child in utero is not a “clump of cells” but a vibrant being.
That’s certainly the goal of anti-abortionists nationwide. They want Congress to outlaw it, and if they ever get big enough conservative margins in Congress, they will.
No, accessibility won’t change for anyone who can afford to travel to another state. It will be the poor who will be impacted by the change. It’s rather interesting that the decision came out of Mississippi; the poorest, most uneducated state in the country. What is their motive? Do they think they’re going back to an era of impoverished women living in shotgun shacks and bearing 10-12 children to pick cotton? Is that the future they want for their state? Or maybe MS legislators are so hick that they can’t even envision the social and economic results of their actions.
And whose fault is it that gas is $5/gallon ?
Right now abortions in the US are at a 50 year low.
The poor are far better off than ever before.
if you do not want to become pregnant – take birth control – Planned Parenthood will give it to you if you are poor.
If you can not manage that – there are myriads of other options – condoms, or the morning after pill.
A round trip flight to LA will only cost you a couple of hundred.
Regardless the EVIDENCE is that more restrictions on abortion merely results in women making their choice earlier – when it is easier and less expensive.
Maybe you should wait and see what the social and economic results are ?
It should be self evident RIGHT NOW – that left wing nuts are completely unable to grasp the social and economic results of anything.
In jan 2021 when republicans were saying that they were going to crush democrats in the midterms – I said do not count your chickens.
Biden inherited an economy just raring to get moving. The wind was at his back. I said even Democrats can not F this up.
And yet you did.
Abortion created and finished with pills. Not surgery. No doctor needed. No nurse needed. Just a helper to take out the trash.
The pills could be bought by a wealthy person and distributed across the nation.
the abortifacient pills work best within 24-36 hours (IIRC) of interest course. there can be complications, it is not as simple as you think
Democrats MUST have SCOTUS in their pocket to advance their agenda. An Agenda that often runs full speed into the barriers of enumerated powers of the Constituttion.
Democrats cannot advance their agenda through the legislative proccess. Largely because the Democrat agenda is not supported by the people. (just like abortion on demand)
Bingo. Why they must steal elections, look no further than PBS’s documentary on the Roosevelts for validation of this, where they discuss the dem steal machine and how Eleanor found it distasteful but necessary, and control the courts (by influence or out right threat) to legislate through them.
My money for the leak is on Roberts.
Interesting thread on the possible leaker
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1521685968939630592
Will Chamberlain
@willchamberlain
Meet Elizabeth Deutsch. She’s currently a law clerk for Justice Breyer.
And, in my humble opinion, she’s the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Well if it’s not her, she should sue the people who are dragging her name through the mud. Same with that other clerk who was the “suspect” a few days ago. Neither one are public persons so the standard to sue for defamation is not difficult.
He explicitly states he does not know if she is the leaker. The thread is purported to be based on factual, publicly available information about her. How is she defamed?
The pronoun “He” is referring to Will Chamberlain. How has Chamberlain defamed Deutsch?
You can’t publicly post that “Troll McTrollface most likely embezzled $100,000 from his employer” and list all the reasons leading to that conclusion, but then escape liability with the disclaimer that “I’m just speculating.” You’ve taken a private person and publicly cast him in the false light of likely committing a crime, which will seriously effect his reputation and career. Nor can you get away with it by saying that you’re just reposting what Will Chamberlain posted. That’s defamation, and each poster is civilly liable to the person who’s reputation was damaged.
He claims “in my humble opinion, she’s the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs,” and he then cherrypicks from her professional career and falsely claims “We have a currently-serving Supreme Court law clerk whose career has been almost solely focused on abortion.” She might make a case that his cherrypicking and false claim demonstrates actual malice.
The law clerk doesn’t even need to meet the “actual malice” standard because she was a private person before Will Chamberlain decided to gratuitously out her as the likely perpetrator of a crime. I don’t know her, nor the male clerk that was being accused several days ago and his photo plastered all over the internet. I’m just saying that trashing people with speculation, ruining their reputations, and causing them humiliation and distress for no reason other than to be an officious gossip should have consequences. Let the FBI figure out who did it and stop recklessly defaming people, or risk being sued!
Brandeis has been ignored for a very long time. Our government has become capricious in its enforcement of laws, and our institutions practice deception and fail to represent or protect our rights and values. Its legitimacy is at best questionable. And nothing will be done about this insult.
The left always projects, and they need an illegitimate, politicized SCOTUS in order to get their policies in place because no majority wants their disgusting vision.
The outrage on the left is as predictable as it is boring, just like every manufactured race riot.
The abortion issue is the ultimate debate on personal responsibility and we know where the left stands on that.
I think there is a possibility that this was leaked by a Republican in order to get the Abortionist Party wailing and gnashing of teeth out of the way early in the election year (way before the summer when it would have otherwise come out)… and also to allow plenty of time to
— explain the ruling and
— the fact that it does not outlaw abortion and
— that abortion kills people of color way out of proportion to their percent of the population (tying into the dramatically increasing swing of African- and Hispanic-American voters to the GOP) and
— explain to people that the Abortionist Party position is the same as China’s and Vietnam’s and…
— (long list of winning arguments in this debate given polling on the opposition to late term abortions, etc.)
If it was leaked by an Abortionist Party member, the GOP still reaps all these benefits (although the GOP is the all time winner in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and will likely mess this up too).
As long as we don’t actually know who leaked it anything is possible. Maybe it was the Russians, lol. We don’t need Sherlock Holmes to figure out this came from one of the staffers of the liberal justices.
JT you seem to ignore the very real possibility that the dissemination of this document could have been by or at the direction of one of the Justices.
Probably because it’s a very remote possibility, not a very real one.
Hunter Biden had the draft opinion on his laptop, which he left at a repair shop in Delaware.
The Republicans made overturning Roe a central campaign platform for decades and have blown up norms to do it. Yes JT blames the Democrats for politicizing the court.
Sammy,
Turley stated:
“With our leaders continually expressing utter contempt for the court and its traditions, it is hardly surprising that such traditions lose meaning for some working in the court itself. That did not happen overnight, and it really cannot be dismissed as the act of a single rogue employee. It was a collective effort by those who bred contempt for our legal institutions and values. This is not a crisis of the court. It is a crisis of faith.”
In his conclusion, Turley deliberately did NOT specifically lay the blame at the feet of Democrats. Nor did he not rule out Republicans. He intentionally spoke in general terms to include leaders from BOTH parties.
I agree with Turley that there is too much contempt for our institutions by certain politicians and pundits on both sides. Whether it is the Trumpist charge of an invidious “Deep State” or the claims by some Democrats that the Republican Justices are mere political hacks.
Jeff,
I totally agree with you again!! I admit that we are not from the same side of the aisle, but I respect your opinion. And like you said before, I think we can agree to disagree with respect,
I do notice somewhat of a pattern here. When the Twitter leaned Left, there were no calls for change as far as ” content modification”. A polite way of saying censorship. If I heard
“it is not a 1st Amendment issue” ( it is not) once I heard it a thousand times. Or ” if you don’t like the terms, don’t use it” . Now that it appears that Musk will own it, those two quotes suddenly do not apply. And all of the outrage is from one direction.
When the Court leaned Left, it was sacrosanct institution. Now that it leans Right, it is totally corrupt.
As stated before, I am not for outlawing abortion. I just think that viability needs to play a role. I am not sure when that is. I am not a biologist.
And I see your governor got in trouble for saying only women can get pregnant. I am waiting to see how he squares that circle .What a transphobe!
And how can someone say this new ruling is an attack on women, when no one can seem to define what ” woman ” means?
Maybe he can just say he was holding his breath when he said it and it came out wrong. That excuse seemed to work for Garcetti when he was asked about getting his picture taken without a mask on,.
Do you see a pattern here? The thing you and I hate the most. HYPOCRISY!!
I know it happens on both sides. But ” your side” leads the league.
Paul, re: “When the Court leaned Left, it was sacrosanct institution. Now that it leans Right, it is totally corrupt,” the Court has leaned right for most of the last 50 years.
Here’s one graph to illustrate: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
And lest you think WP is biased, that graph illustrates data from this source, not the views of a WP editor: http://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/measures.php
Anon,
You are correct. I don’t use Wiki for any documentation. It is highly biased. And it’s methods for data collection is ridiculous.
I guess you could interpret the other source as more reliable. But what I saw was that the ” Right ” leaning years were more centrist. I don’t ever recall those on the right calling to ” court packing ” do you? I don’t remember those on the right doxing left leaning members of the Court do you? I don’t remember a Republican member of the Senate calling out multiple left leaning members of the Court in public stating ” we are coming for you” do you?
The ” leaning ” is not the issue. The issue is how one side reacts to a ruling. Or in this case a perceived ruling.
And I stated that Jan 6 was wrong and those who broke the law should be punished accordingly.
Paul, I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say “what I saw was that the ” Right ” leaning years were more centrist.”
The yellow line shows the political leaning of the swing-vote justice, and it’s above 0 — conservative — for most of the last 50 years.
Perhaps you’re looking at the leanings of the justice who is furthest from center? If so, that doesn’t show what’s going on with the court as a whole, since the majority opinions require at least 5 Justices. Also, notice the years at the bottom of the graph. I’m talking about the last 50 years, not the last 90 years, so I’m not including the left 1/3 of the graph.
Anon.
For the sake of argument let’s say that your reading of the graph is entirely correct.
That doesn’t change the crux of my argument.
When the Left doesn’t get it’s way they demean the entity or worse destroy property and threaten. I admit Jan 6 was awful. But $ 3 billion in property damage, loss of life and now doxing Judges in order to intimidate is worse in my opinion.
Jan 6 was one day. And even if you believe the worst scenario, our democracy would still have survived. A couple hundred idiots were not going to overthrow our government.
And judging by what has already happened in L.A. and Portland this is only the beginning.
You did not answer any of my questions. Why?
My guess is that those actions by the Left are indefensible.
Paul, the claim of yours that I responded to is “When the Court leaned Left, it was sacrosanct institution. Now that it leans Right, it is totally corrupt.”
I gave you evidence that that’s false. It has leaned right for most of the last 50 years. What shifted people’s views about whether it was “sacrosanct” versus “totally corrupt” is not whether it leaned left versus right, because it leaned right almost the entire time.
Your claim that “When the Left doesn’t get it’s way they demean the entity or worse destroy property and threaten” is no more true of the left than the right. Some on both the left and the right “demean” when they don’t get their way. Our national LE agencies assess that for the last several years there’s been a greater threat from domestic violent extremists on the right than the left.
Some of the reasons that some Democrats are calling for the court to be enlarged: 5 of the current 9 Justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote, Gorsuch got his seat because McConnell refused to hold hearings for a year on Garland, Barrett’s confirmation was pushed through a month before an election when most Americans wanted the winner of the 2020 election to fill the seat, and now that conservative majority may be overturning an important ruling in a way that narrows people’s rights rather than expanding people’s rights.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to by “doxing Judges.” AFAIK, their addresses are already public. As long as the protest is peaceful, it’s as legal to protest in front of their homes as it is to protest in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic.
“Jan 6 was one day. And even if you believe the worst scenario, our democracy would still have survived.”
I’m not sure that you and I interpret “the worst scenario” in the same way. What do you mean by that? Would you include the assassination of Pence and Pelosi in that? (I would.)
“You did not answer any of my questions. Why?”
Because I was preoccupied with helping you interpret the chart correctly, sorry, I’ll answer now:
“I don’t ever recall those on the right calling to ” court packing ” do you?”
I don’t. But given that the majority of the Court has been on the right for the last 50 years, they haven’t needed to. What the right absolutely did is work to get more extremists on the Court, pushing only nominees approved by the dark money Federalist Society.
“I don’t remember those on the right doxing left leaning members of the Court do you?”
Again, I’m not sure what you’re referring to as doxxing here. I don’t have the impression that Justices’ home addresses were ever not publicly known, and as long as the protest is peaceful, protest on public sidewalks is protected by the 1st Amendment’s “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“I don’t remember a Republican member of the Senate calling out multiple left leaning members of the Court in public stating ” we are coming for you” do you?”
I haven’t heard that specific phrase from Senators on either side. Would you give a fuller quote of what you’re referring to and name the person(s) who said it?
Are you referring to Schumer saying “From Louisiana, to Missouri, to Texas — Republican legislatures are waging war on women — all women. And they’re taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions” a couple of years ago?
If so, he subsequently said “I shouldn’t have used the words I did. But in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing,” and yes, I’ve heard high-ranking Republicans — including Trump — say awful things about some of the Justices.
Anon.
I hate to reply on my phone in my car so this will probably not be my best work.
The fact that 5 of nine were named by a President who lost the popular vote is meaningless. We do not elect our President by popular vote.
Sorry got to go now. I will respond more expensively later.
Paul: Your statement “I will respond more expensively later” provided a light break from the polemics of this topic. …Nope, I think your car phone response was probably more expensive. (Yours are some of the comments I regularly read as worthwhile, thanks!)
Should have been ** expansively** This is one of the reasons I hate posting on my phone from my car.
50 years – convenient. For the prior 50 years it leaned left.
During that period it did some good and much harm.
Actually, John, if you’d simply bothered to click on the link and if you’re capable of interpreting the graphic, you’d find your claim is false.
I have no idea how old you are – but based on your ignorance of reality I would presume you are young.
Regardless, lecturing me about your warped perception of a past much of which I lived through and experienced does not enhance your credibility.
From the 1930’s through the 80’s the court was liberal.
Miranda, Gideon, Brown, Wickard, Times V Sullivan, Brandenburg. Cohen, …..
I would further note that even in the 80’s to the present.
Batson, Lawrence, Obrgefell, Bostock, Jones, Carpenter,Hamadi, Boumediene, Roper, Kennedy v. Louisiana, Apprendi, Graham, Miller, Ramos, Falwell, Texas v. Johnson, Reno
and many many more
Anon,
first thank you for your for your reply.
On the Court leanings: As I said before let’s assume that your graph is true. That was not really my point . But I will give you that one. If I am wrong, I will admit it.
But my real point was that just because you don’t like the outcome, you don’t get to change the rules. Even RBG said that court packing was wrong. She also said that Roe was flawed. I know there is no number stated in the Constitution regarding the Justices. But this court packing option was brought up the minute that Trump won the election. Just coincidence? I think not. And again, I am not a Trump guy. My second biggest fear is that he will run again.
You are correct, both sides demean.
On the LE assessments a couple of things:
I thought LE could not be trusted because it is rooted in racism
And in this day and age I much prefer to believe my own eyes.
Was it those on the right that caused $ 3 billion in property damage during the ” Summer of Love”?
Was it those on the right that set up a ” Zone” in Seattle where LE was warned not to attempt to enter under the threat of violence?
Was it those on the right that tried to burn down a Federal building in Portland while attempting to seal the doors with innocent people inside?
Was it those on the right who murdered David Dorn as he attempted to stop shoplifters?
And do you really think that fencing is being put up around the Supreme Court because those on the right will now pose a threat because a ruling that they have “wanted for decades” if about to come down? That one totally defies logic.
Court enlargements :
Already covered the ” popular vote” answer. It is moot. And there is dark money on both sides.
What happened to Garland in my opinion was ethically wrong. But not in defiance to the constitution.
But you also say that Barrett’s confirmation was pushed through when most Americans wanted to wait until the upcoming election was decided.
Unless you are taking timing into consideration, isn’t that a contradiction?
On the doxing:
Look up 18 US 1507. Comparing ” protesting” outside of a Judge’s home is not the same as protesting outside of a private entity ( Planned Parenthood).
But let’s just say your ” peaceful” description applies. And there is no difference. First we should define ” peaceful”. My next comment is do you want to bet on whether the protests will be peaceful?
I was talking about Schumer. I admit that I did not get the quote exactly correct.
Just so I have this straight. If someone makes a statement that appears to be threatening, and then says ” that is not what I meant”: that means that there is never was a threat?
Thank you again for the respectful discourse. I tried with branching out with Dennis. I will not make that mistake again.
Paul,
I also appreciate the respectful discussion. People have diverse views, and I think the country is much better off when we have good-faith discussions with people whose views are different from our own. I’ll always start off respectfully in the hopes of good-faith discussion. Unfortunately, some here aren’t interested in that.
I wasn’t really talking earlier about whether I agree with court packing. I was mostly disagreeing with your claim “When the Court leaned Left, it was sacrosanct institution. Now that it leans Right, it is totally corrupt.”
Re: court packing, I believe that the size of the court should increase so that there are as many Justices as there are federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, with each Justice assigned to only one circuit (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx). The country has grown over time, the number of cases referred to the court has grown over time, the number of circuits has grown over time, and the court should grow with them. As to how to carry that out, I haven’t looked at the various proposals.
You say “this court packing option was brought up the minute that Trump won the election,” I don’t think so. I think it was brought up then because McConnell refused to allow hearings on Merrick Garland’s nomination. (I think that — McConnell’s unilateral refusal to hold hearings was the key problem. If they’d held hearings and then voted to reject him, that would have been different.) Certainly there have been discussions of increasing the court’s size long before Trump. Turley himself advocated in 2012 that the size be increased to 19: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fate-of-health-care-shouldnt-come-down-to-9-justices-try-19/2012/06/22/gJQAv0gpvV_story.html
Re: “you also say that Barrett’s confirmation was pushed through when most Americans wanted to wait until the upcoming election was decided. Unless you are taking timing into consideration, isn’t that a contradiction?” — what I meant is: most Americans wanted the winner of the 2020 election to be the person to fill RBG’s seat, letting the election occur without any nominee, but instead the Republicans (Trump and Senate) pushed Barrett’s nomination/confirmation through before the election.
Yes, “there is dark money on both sides,” but there is no equivalent on the left to the conservative Federalist Society. All six of the conservatives now on the Court are current or former members of the Federalist Society, and 3 were pushed by Leonard Leo, who is the FS board co-chair.
Re: “LE assessments” of domestic violent extremism, they’re not claiming that there is no violence on the left. But your list omits significant acts on the right, such as the 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue mass shooting in Pittsburgh, the 2019 El Paso Walmart mass shooting, the 2015 mass shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, the 2015 mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, the 2017 violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 Charlottesville with one death, etc. My impression is also that those on the right are more likely to say things like “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”
“do you want to bet on whether the protests will be peaceful?”
I’ve attended lots of peaceful protests. If these protesters aren’t peaceful, I’d want the protesters arrested. I don’t support violent protest on either side.
“If someone makes a statement that appears to be threatening, and then says ” that is not what I meant”: that means that there is never was a threat? ”
I think all of us sometimes misspeak. I don’t think Schumer intended his original statement as a physical threat, only a statement about peaceful political response (voting, etc.).
Anon,
Can’t reply to 11:07 comment today.
I don’t have a problem with the Courts expanding to reflect the number of Circuits. But will you accept that happening when a Republican wins the WH in 2024?
I disagree with your assumption that there is more dark money on the Right. Satan incarnate ( Soros) makes that unlikely.
Your examples of the Right violence with the exception of Charlottesville all deal with one crazed lunatic on a specific and singular day. The examples that I gave were coordinated efforts of riotous behavior over a length of time often culminating in property destruction and death. I don’t see the equivalence.
And the fact that you go to ” whataboutism” means that you would agree that my examples of Leftist violence are true.
Your impression that the Right would more likely say ” True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country” in my opinion is textbook projection. I ask you again, do you think the Supreme Court being protected by fencing is because of the fear of property destruction by the Right because they are finally getting what they have hoped for decades?
Paul,
Re: “will you accept that happening when a Republican wins the WH in 2024?,” I don’t assume that will occur. Perhaps you meant “if,” not when, or were just razzing me. I haven’t tried to read the various proposals about how to carry out enlarging the court, and I’d want to do that before settling on which procedure(s) I’d prefer.
“I disagree with your assumption that there is more dark money on the Right.”
I didn’t make a claim about dark money in general. I said that there is no equivalent on the left to the Federalist Society. Soros is nothing like the Federalist Society.
Re: the violence, I think the more significant difference is that there was an explicit/planned goal of killing people from the right more often than from the left, and they acted on those plans. Our laws distinguish among 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter for a reason. Ditto for distinguishing between murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder.
“And the fact that you go to ” whataboutism” means that you would agree that my examples of Leftist violence are true.”
I don’t agree that my response constitutes “whataboutism.” I pointed out what our LE agencies are saying, you questioned that and responded with a bunch of examples on the left, so I pointed out that you were ignoring widely publicized examples on the right. I’m not saying that there’s no violence on the left. I’m saying that there’s some violence on both sides, but I accept the LE assessments that right-wing extremists are currently a greater danger.
“True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country” in my opinion is textbook projection”
Maybe. People can have different opinions about something without it being projection on either side.
“do you think the Supreme Court being protected by fencing is because of the fear of property destruction by the Right because they are finally getting what they have hoped for decades?”
No, I think they’re concerned right now about preventing damage by pro-choice protesters and about keeping the Justices safe. The fencing is new, but judges and justices getting threats is not new, and historically, the threats come from both sides. Unfortunately, there are some real nuts out there on the right and the left.
“I haven’t tried to read the various proposals about how to carry out enlarging the court”
Yet, you were not talking about enlarging the court until there were 6 conservative justices.
Looking at proposals to enlarge the court now is like nazi’s looking at different ways to deal with the “jewish question”
It comes with the explicit presumption that you are free to do most anything to accomplish your political goals.
The ends justifies the means.
“there is no equivalent on the left to the Federalist Society. Soros is nothing like the Federalist Society.”
Do you even know what the federalist society is, or what they stand for ? One of the most prominent federalist scholars is Randy Barnett,
One of his most consequential works is “Restoring the lost constitution”
Every single person here discussing the 9th or 14th amendments is parroting Barnett.
Soros is nothing like the federalist society, and you appear to know little of either.
“the violence, I think the more significant difference is that there was an explicit/planned goal of killing people from the right more often than from the left, and they acted on those plans.”
Is that so ?
You do know that the FBI had to recruit a bunch of near homeless guys, and manipulate them for over a year to get them to echo FBI talking points about kidnapping Gov. Whitmer – and even then they did not act.
You do know that Smollet PAID two black guys to pretend to be MAGA hatted white guys to fake beat him up.
You do know that at the kavanaugh hearing a left wing protestor took an AXE to a senators door – ultimately charges were dropped and the axe was even returned.
You do know that 137 police officers where murdered last year in the line of duty – and not by anyone on “the right”.
That molotov cocktails were thrown into occupied police cars, that gasoline was poured on officers and then set on fire.
The claim that the right is more violent than the left is stupid beyond beleif.
This is trivial. If there had been an insurection on J6 – the protestors would have come with a couple of thousand AR-15’s and the whole thing would have been over in a few minutes and Trump would be president.
But that is NOT what happened, because those on the right do not YET seek to acheive political aims through violence.
The only time democrats are faced with rowdy protestors at their homes (or in the bathroom) – is when they offend the extreme left.
“I pointed out what our LE agencies are saying,”
No you point out what the same corrupt DOJ and FBI that tried to sell us the collusion delusion say.
There are 10,000 FBI agents. There were more than 10,000 former or current LE agents at the J6 protests.
There are almost 1M LE in the US, they are not only not SAYING the right is dangerous. in many instances they ARE the right you think is dangerous.
“but I accept the LE assessments that right-wing extremists are currently a greater danger.”
This would be the same people who think that parents who do not want their children taught garbage are domestic terrorists.
Citing “experts” that have discredited themselves harms your argument.
Regardless it is ALWAYS true that when “experts” are at odds with reality – reality wins.
“No, I think they’re concerned right now about preventing damage by pro-choice protesters and about keeping the Justices safe. The fencing is new, but judges and justices getting threats is not new”
Actually, such threats are new, or atleast they are now commonplace when they used to be quite rare. Further such threats and more importantly efforts to effectuate them are primarily from the left. It is not republicans or pro-life protestors bashing in the doors of the supreme court. It is not the right that is at the homes of representatives, senators, supreme court justices, it is even extrmely rare for the right to march in front of the white house or to the capital. J6 is not noteworthy for its alleged violence – it is noteworthy because it is incredibly rare for middle aged and older citizens to protest at all. They VOTE – for real, in person,
“historically, the threats come from both sides.”
Saying things does not make them so.
We do not need experts to tell us what we can see with our own eyes.
Paul says:
“Now that it appears that Musk will own it, those two quotes suddenly do not apply.”
Twitter users on the Left don’t want Twitter to degenerate into a cesspool of insults, racism and harmful disinformation. I hope that it will adopt Turley’s “civility rule,” but be enforced by someone other than the likes of Darren.
You say:
“When the Court leaned Left, it was sacrosanct institution. Now that it leans Right, it is totally corrupt.”
I accept the Court’s ruling either way. As it has been said- the Court is not final because it is right; it is right because it is final. It is not corrupt; I just don’t prefer Originalist jurisprudence. I prefer the Living Constitution approach which Turley acknowledges is a good faith interpretation.
Re: abortion. Viability is where I draw the line with exceptions of course.
I did not see what Newsom said, but I am not an extreme Leftist.
You say:
“And how can someone say this new ruling is an attack on women, when no one can seem to define what ” woman ” means?”
I know what a woman is, but I am not married because I see no reason to make someone a partner with my hard-earned money!
Hypocrisy exists on both sides. That much we agree upon, but honestly, there is no way to weigh which side is more hypocritical. Let’s leave it at that.
Jeff, thank you for your reply, I was getting worried that you had an issue with me.
Once again I applaud your fairness. I know you caught a lot of heat from some on “Your side” by criticizing the leak and punishing the leaker.
I prefer the Originalist jurisprudence. For it to become more ” Living” it has a provision. It is called an Amendment. I am not a Constructional expert but I recently took time to read it in it’s entirety. It is really a phenomenal document especially when you consider when it was written.
I get the woman thing but I am sure you have heard of a pre- nup.
We will agree to disagree on the hypocrisy thing. But the fact that Democrats by and large prefer more government involvement in daily lives, not less, which leads to more ” rules” the likelihood of hypocrisy increases. I will leave it at that.
Don’t know if your mom is still with us but if she is ” Happy Birthing Persons Day” to her.
As always appreciate your response, truthfulness and sarcasm.
Dinner offer holds. Don’t know what kind of music you like but Ravinia is about 10 minutes from my home. All genres represented.
Sorry, was in a hurry and didn’t proofread. Should be Constitutional NOT constructional. That is a bad one.
Paul,
I believe this originalist vs living interpretation of the Constitution is a distinction without much real difference. Conservatives as well as Liberals see in the minds of the drafters what they both imagine. Who can honestly know how those gentlemen would have applied their principles to today’s problems. The idea that we should bind ourselves to the values of men 200+ years ago is ludicrous. The Constitution would be written quite differently nowadays. We are stuck with an antiquated one only because we could never agree on a new one to replace it!
In the case of abortion, is it not the Republicans who want more rules not less?
I looked at the Ravinia schedule. Quite an eclectic mix of music. To me, there is only 2 kinds of music- good and bad.
You argument is obvious garbage.
Obviously no one can see into the minds of our founders, or even lawmakers today.
Staturtory interpretation is NOT mind reading. We do not try to decipher the INTENT of the authors.
We START with their WORDS – in the law or constitution. We use the plain meaning of those words at the time they were written – because that method is most likely to produce a SINGLE meaning.
While ONE goal is to “get it right” – an equally important role is just to get a SINGLE clear answer.
The entire purpose of rule based statutory interpretation is to REMOVE the minds of the drafters, and the minds of the judges.
To REMOVE politics and stick with the meaning of the text at the time it was written.
It is irrelevant if founders 200+ years ago can not imagine things today.
If the singular meaning arrived at by historical textualism is not what we want – We are alive.
There is a simple means to correct the constitution or law – if our founders were not enlightened enough to understand today
CHANGE IT.
Numerous lefties here are posting about the 9th and 14th amendments.
That argument – supported by the meaning of the words 200 years ago and the actions of people related to those words 200+ years ago
are Originalism.
These lefties are arguing – correctly and convincingly that Alito’s draft Dobb’s improperly reads the constitution and bill of rights as those who write it meant.
There is only one thing that Alito is correct about – there is no constitutional right to an abortion – not because it is not enumerated, but because never has such a right been recognized.
But there is a right to control of ones own body.
Guesses about intent have no place in statutory interpretation.
Statutory interpretation is the narrow and plain meaning of the law as written. Where the meaning of words has changed over time -the meaning at the time the law was written must be used.
Finally – where there is doubt – the law must be read with narrow government powers and broad individual rights.
If you wish to debate that means of reading law and constitution. Be my guest. But any alternate must increase the probability that many people of completely different politics will always reach the same conclusion bout what a law or constitution says – even if they differ on what it SHOULD say.
Should belongs to us – today. If the law SHOULD say something different – it is our job to change it.
We do not look at past intentions – because we do not need to. We can do whatever we want in the present.
I don’t understand. Please explain yourself more clearly and concisely. Spoon feed me.
I did explain – in fairly simple terms.
1). Your excursion into knowing what others thought is a typical left wing nut diversion.
We are just as able to know what people 250 years ago thought as those today – We Cant. Nor do we care.
2). What matters is what they Wrote, and what they did. That is readily available.
3). Whatever the rules of reading statutes and the constitution – they must consistently produce the same results if followed scrupulously – whether those following them are on the left, right or somewhere else.
We are each entitled to our own views on what the law SHOULD be, but what it actually is must be clear – or we are lawless, the rule of law requires that law is not the whim of individual judges.
If you do not like “originalism” – come up with another scheme that again – regardless of politics when followed results in consistently the same outcomes.
4). Fundimentally the law must be “written on our hearts”.
You and I both know Murder is wrong – but neither of us are going to look up the statute in the hope of discovering we are wrong and free to murder someone.
You can not run a society if everyone must constantly consult the laws and regulations to figure out what they can do.
Big government always fails – regardless of ideology – because the bigger government gets the more inefficient and inconsistent it gets and the more burdensome it gets.
Inefficiency means reduced standard of living – especially when big government pollutes beyond itself.
BTW the more diverse a society becomes the smaller government must be because the less common ground we all have.
5). If you do not like the constitution or the law you can change it. While Alito’s position is as stupid as yours – there is obviously a right to control your own body – which is more fundimental than free speech, there is still several Remedy’s of Alito’s bad opinion
Change the laws in the states where you do not like them.
Change federal law.
Amend the constitution.
What you can not do – which is BOTH the problem with Rowe and Alito’s draft Dobb’s – is pretend the constitution says what you want, or ignore the parts you do not like.
Twitter already is a cesspool of leftists insults, racism, narcisism, and misinformation.
Remarks from the left on disinformation are snorting soda up your nose funny.
You do not want people to insult you ? do not be so incredibly stupid.
I can not get enough of the new misinformation Czar’s supercalafregaklistic video in which she shills some of the most thoroughly debunked leftist misinformation.
If it really were true that the right was drowning in misinformation and faux conspiracy theories – it would still be free speech.
But time after time leftists claims of right-wing disinformation turn out to be efforts to suppress the truth.
If you have posts, tweets, … claiming that:
Trump collusded with Russia,
Biden family corruption in ukraine or China is debunked GOP conspiracy theories
The hunter biden laptop is russian disinformation
Just to highlight a few of the Biggies,
You should NEVER accuse others of disinformation or lying again – you clearly have no ability to think critically.
Real right wing tin foil hat nutjobs – like Qanon or Alex Jones are more trustworthy than you or MSM talking heads.
How is it that people who have been so wrong, so often about so much have the gall to accuse others of lying.
If Twitter was overrun by actual nazi’s it would be a less vile and more trustworthy place than the left has made it.
You litterally used it and other social media sites to SUPRESS the truth, in order to steal an election.
NO ONE TRUSTS YOU.
Say says:
“NO ONE TRUSTS YOU.”
I have found a friend in Paul who trusts me and with whom I CAN communicate. Paul has invited me to break bread with him when I make it to his hometown Chicago.
Why are not more of you Trumpists like good-natured and reasonable Paul?
Jeff,
Libertarian – not Trumpist.
Did not vote for Trump – ever.
Oppose many of Trump’s policies.
But that does not mean I will sit quietly as the left LIES worse tells STUPID LIES.
It does not surprise me that no one trusts the left our our institutions.
What surprises me is how long it took for that Trust to decline.
If Paul trusts you that reflects badly on his judgment – though I do not recall Paul saying he trusted you.
To the limited extent I have seen, he has just been more civil with you than you have earned.
But I am not dealing with Paul – I am dealing with you.
The fact that you think you are trustworthy after the nonsense you have spread exposes your own lack of self awareness.
I get it. You hate me. You have made your point. Why push it?
You keep misusing the word hate.
Regardless, I do not hate you – though I hate some of the things you stand for.
I like you. I like the stupid arguments that you make.
I would prefer you made better arguments – that you were more of a challenge.
But if the best I can get is softballs – that is fine by me.
God and Lord of all creation— by whose might Satan was made to fall from heaven—like lightning strike terror into the beast now
laying waste your vineyard.
Let your Mighty hand cast out this cruel demon. Drive out this persecutor of the innocent.
If you know what a woman is – then how can you support a supreme court nominee that does not ?
As the left has pointed out for decades – abortion is a women’s issue. Having spent the past decade trying to obliterate the meaning of woman, all you do is expose yourself as a fool when you try to talk about abortion.
Regardless, your in the midst of an Orwellian hell of your own making.
Why are you so worried about abortion – can’t a pregnant person just choose a new gender and expect the fetus to vanish ?
Or just wait until the child is born and choose not to identify as a mother ?
Children are just a reflection of patriarchy so just discard them.
Life is short. Time is precious. Don’t waste it. Ignore me. I’m doing you a favor.
Life is short , time is precious, and exposing idiocy like yours is enjoyable mental excise.
Though it would be more enjoyable and more exercise if your arguments were not so poor.
Regardless, you are free to do as you please – but personal attacks and faux advice efforts to avoid real debate only expose your cowardly avoidance of reality.
Go read up the article a tad. JT specifically called out Democrats for criticism but there is no mention of Republicans.
Turley was just highlighting one example of the general decline of political leadership. He has criticized Republicans aplenty in his articles, especially the chronic and habitual liar Trump.
Happy Birthday Jonathan!!
“Even in a city that traffics in leaks from every agency and every corner of government, this was an unspeakably unethical act.”
Or stated another way… this is what we get when the rule of law has been irreparably damaged by a political party that tramples ethics as a rule. Aided by a corrupt media that only sees free speech as what they believe and say…
Unspeakable yes, hypocritical yes, despicable yes..
But unexpected? No
Voice of Truth says:
“this is what we get when the rule of law has been irreparably damaged by a political party that tramples ethics as a rule.”
I couldn’t agree more. Trump has irreparably damaged the rule of law. He was correct that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and he would not loose any voters. Nor would his lying Trumpists convict him of any crimes or impeach him for any high crimes or misdemeanors. Turley condemned him for his pardoning of his convicted cronies. Ethics? Trump? Would Turley have described Trump as a “carnival snake charmer” had he thought Trump had any morals?
The burned out cities and businesses by Antifa and BLM say differently. The little Brown Shirts of the left will burn it all down again…just watch. NO Trump to blame this time.
After your Trumpist and Q-Anon black shirts desecrated the Capitol, I could not care less what you think about BLM and Antifa.
The only desecration was the murder of a woman by a coward.
Turley disagrees with you.
So do Republican and Democratic Members of Congress, who spoke about it on Jan. 6
So do many average citizens.
Sshhh! please don’t tell Jeff that Turley disagrees with him. Jeff spends most of his day attempting to secure credibility by aligning himself with Turley.
I was telling OzarkAggie (not Jeff) that Turley disagrees with him.
Turley considers J6 to have been a desecration:
Among the things that Turley has said about it: “All the images of protesters scaling the walls of the Capitol and briefly occupying Congress will remain seared in our collective memories for decades. Some called it a riot. Others called it an insurrection. Whatever you call it, it was a desecration. The rioters desecrated the most sacred moment of our constitutional system when the nation comes together to certify our next president.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/10/a-crisis-of-faith-why-we-should-be-worried-more-about-a-desecration-than-an-insurrection/
“Many of us remain disgusted and angered by the Jan. 6 riot — but it was a riot. It also was a desecration. These people deserve to be punished, particularly those who went with an intent to try to enter the Congress.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/08/23/the-fbi-comes-up-empty-handed-in-its-search-for-an-insurrection/
FY and the horse you rode in on.
Take your own advice.
Or grow up and refrain from childish comments.
It was a donkey I’ll have you know.
please quarantine yourself from the internet. you have a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Failure to quarantine will result in ridicule being placed on your head
I know, TDS. That joke is getting old, my friend. Be a little more creative.
Not a joke, you can end the diagnosis by ridding yourself of the disease.
You first. Get help with your BDS, that is, “Biden Derangement Syndrome.”
Lead by example.
To be suffering from derangement – my perceptions would have to be at odds with reality.
Am I deceived or is Gas over 4.50/gal ?
Am I deceived or are we seeing inflation unlike anything in 40 years ?
Am I deceived or are my children facing the fear of nuclear war that we all thought faded 30 years ago ?
Am I deceived or has Biden told Huge blatant bold lies in order to get elected ?
Am I deceived or are we facing the serious threat of recession ?
Am I deceived or did Biden completely fup withdraw from Afghanistan and then kill and innocent family to cover it up.
Am I deceived or do we have a president who does not seem to know where he is much of the time ?
on and on and on.
Regardless, this is pretty simple – my views do not actually matter.
By hook or crook, democrats control the entire federal government – whatever happens they OWN it.
This is not about me. You have made a mess. What is it that Depp said ? A grumpy ? or Dumpy ?
You $hit in the bed. it stinks and everyone smells it.
There are not even that meany people trying to pretend it smells sweet.
And nothing is likely to get better anytime soon.
Biden said any president who had 220K people die from Covid on his watch should resign.
JHU has he number over 1M now.
Your mess.
Give way to Christ, you prince of murderers.
You’re guilty, before Almighty God, guilty before his son, guilty before the
whole human race.
It’s the Lord who expels you. He who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire.
“Ethics? Trump? Would Turley have described Trump as a “carnival snake charmer” had he thought Trump had any morals?”
If Turley judged him based on his performance as President, he would consider Trump to be relatively moral and today’s left to be amoral at best.
Jeff can list Trump’s immorality as President, but he won’t. He is unable, and Jeff completely fails when he deals solely with policy.
“Ex-FBI intel chief: Clinton campaign used ‘contrived disinformation’ to deceive voters in 2016
“This is more than just political dirty tricks,” says Kevin Brock. “Political dirty tricks usually have some foundation in truth, but they just made stuff up.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/ex-fbi-intel-chief-says-clinton-campaign-used-contrived?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter