We have been discussing political figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioning the need for a Supreme Court or media figures calling for the Supreme Court to be abolished because it is not ruling the way that they demand. Such extremist views have always found a place in public discourse, but what is alarming is the degree to which legal academics have joined in this reckless rhetoric. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justices “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Now the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman is questioning the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Faigman, who teaches constitutional law, ignores the entire thrust of the opinion in returning this question to the states in declaring “those with religious objections to abortion do not have the right to impose them on others.”
While the decision does not make abortion illegal and most states are expected to protect it, Faigman states that “this decision turns back the clock not just to 1973, but to a century when women did not have the right to vote and were, largely, treated as property . . . the world today is so much less generous and inclusive than it was just yesterday. I tremble for my granddaughters.”
The point is certainly valid that the decision returns women to the constitutional position of 1973 in the sense that this is now again a state, not a federal, issue. However, to suggest that the decision in any way harkens back to a time of treating women as chattel is baseless and inflammatory.
Dean Faigman also claims
“Just the obvious inconsistencies between the rationales of today’s decision in Dobbs and yesterday’s decision in Bruen striking down New York’s century-old restrictions on carrying concealed handguns outside the home raise serious questions of institutional legitimacy.”
That is an objection that is being made by many in the media despite being entirely divorced from any constitutional foundation. There is an obvious difference between the two cases. Gun rights are expressly protected in the Second Amendment and the Court has previously held that it is an individual right. One can disagree with that view but it is an express right. Even when Roe was handed down, many academics criticized its implied basis on privacy, including liberal academics like Laurence Tribe who called it “a smokescreen.”
Again, there is a good-faith claim that the right to an abortion is found in the Constitution. However, to ignore the obvious difference between the two cases is a disservice.
Faigman then adds “As a dean and professor of constitutional law, this opinion—and, indeed, the composition of the Court itself, which is a product of political gerrymandering—raises basic questions regarding the legitimacy of the Court itself.”
I understand Faigman’s deep-felt opposition to the opinion and his specific complaint against Justice Clarence Thomas’ broader questioning of the cases dealing with same-sex marriage, contraceptives, and other rights. However, he omits the countervailing points of the opinion.
The Court expressly and repeatedly stated that this decision could not be used to undermine those rights: “Abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.’” The Court noted:
“Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.” The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a “potential life” as a matter of any significance.”
Justice Thomas also emphasized this point:
“The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
My greatest objection is to a Dean telling law students that the legitimacy of the Court is in question. I was one of those who objected to Merrick Garland not receiving a vote in the Senate. However, there was nothing unconstitutional in the composition of the Court. Nor is pursuing a conservative view of the constitutional interpretation an illegitimate act.
What is most striking about this statement is that it is being made in Faigman’s position as Chancellor and Dean. This is the type of position that would have been more appropriate from Faigman as an individual rather than as the representative of the school as a whole. While there are few conservatives or libertarians on law faculties today, there are likely some students at Hastings who agree with this decision. The Dean’s message only adds to the sense of liberal orthodoxy at such schools. It also reflects the sense of license today in deans using their positions to voice inflexible and one-sided views on the law.
The silence of the faculty in a dean making such controversial and contested claims in his official capacity only highlights the lack of diversity on faculties. David Faigman has every right to make these claims, but to do so as Chancellor and Dean creates a chilling effect on others who hold opposing views at Hastings.
142 thoughts on “Hastings Chancellor and Dean Questions the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court After Dobbs”
Thank you, other Anonymous, for agreeing with me on Ukraine! It’s about time that someone did. It means a lot to me.
The Constitution no more protects the right to an abortion than a right to refuse vaccination, nor a right to refuse forced sterilization.
and yet, the same side that wants to pretend that privacy somehow covers the right to an abortion is the same side that argued that the Second Amendment only protects a collective right.
The same side that was arguing about choice and privacy and bodily autonomy with respect to abortion threw that out the window when they enthusiastically supported requiring bars and restaurants to turn away patrons absent proof of vaccination.
Private entities like bars and restaurants can issue any general regulations they want for patrons safety, for decorum, etc., as long as they’re within the bounds of the law (e.g., it is illegal for them to reject patrons on the basis of race). The former is just a variant of “no shirt, no shoes, no service.” If you don’t like their business decisions, the appropriate response is to refuse to use their business establishment.
On a legal blog, it’s foolish to ignore the difference between constraints carried out by the government versus those carried out by private entities.
When it comes to government constraints, the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy should not be so flippantly discarded.
So you side with the cake bakers. Good to know.
Depends on the cake-baking issue. As I said: as long as they’re within the bounds of the law (e.g., it is illegal for them to reject patrons on the basis of race).
If you would like to read other reports like this, write to: firstname.lastname@example.org
SUPREME COURT GREENLIGHTS THEOCRACY
For Kathy, friend, mentor and wife. Stupor Mundi.
Copyright ©2022 A. J. Reffes. All rights reserved. Published by Progress Publishers, Berlin, Germany.
Seismic waves are disturbances which travel through the earth’s layers and are caused by earthquakes, landslides, explosions, volcanic eruptions and magma movements. These disturbances are enormous in their proportion and effect and can cause massive damage to natural and man made structures. The deadliest earthquake in history occurred in 1556 in Shaanxi, China, and led to the deaths of 850,000 people and the generation of seismic waves recorded throughout the world. Students of history have observed the detonation of an explosion whose cultural and political repercussions will be recorded for all time to come. They have observed the eruption of an earthquake whose seismic waves have toppled the world’s fortress of liberty and caused the traditions and institutions of Western liberal order to tumble to the ground. On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overruled the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which recognized, under a substantive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, a constitutional right to obtain an abortion under the right to liberty. In the new case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court has upheld a Mississippi law which bans abortion after fifteen weeks of pregnancy, asserted that the constitution does not protect a right to obtain an abortion, and given state legislatures the right to ban the procedure. At the basis of the court’s decision is the religiously inspired assertion that an actual human person appears at the moment of conception. This assertion is as absurd and unempirical as it is a symptom of a detachment from reality and a descent into psychosis. The precepts of sanity affirm that what appears at the moment of conception is a potential human life as opposed to an actual human life. The counsels of science affirm that what appears at the moment of conception is a prehuman life as opposed to an actual human person. The judgment of common sense affirms that what appears at the moment of conception is a possible human being as opposed to an unborn human being. A potential human life or a prehuman life possesses no constitutional rights. A potential existence is an actual nullity and possesses no actual legal protections of any kind. There is no moral question presented by abortion because a potential human person possesses no actual, legal, moral existence: ”The Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much. (Casey). Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed ‘potential life’ and what the law challenged in this case calls an ‘unborn human being.’ None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. Accordingly, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.” (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, decided June 24, 2022, majority opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito). In its decision, the court asserts that a claimed right which is unenumerated, not specified in the eight amendments to the constitution, must be rooted in the history and traditions of the nation in order to be protected by the constitution. This opinion flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s constitutionally mandated function. In addition to interpreting the meaning of laws passed by Congress, the function is to guard and interpret the constitution. The text of the constitution says what it says, and the words of the constitution mean what they mean, independently of the history and traditions of the nation. Nowhere in the constitution is it written that a right must be grounded in the history and traditions of the nation in order to be protected. The fact that abortion was a crime when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and continued to be a crime when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, is irrelevant to the court’s function of guarding and interpreting the constitution. A historical understanding of liberty has no bearing whatever on a textual understanding of liberty and the court is charged with a textual understanding of liberty independently of the nation’s history or traditions. The Fourteenth Amendment protects a person’s rights to life, liberty and property, and life, liberty and property mean life, liberty and property. A means A. Because an actual human life does not appear at the moment of conception, a woman has a property right over this potential, prehuman life and has the right to abort it: ”The Court examines whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of ‘ordered liberty.’ The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for liberty—has long been controversial. The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition’ and whether it is essential to this Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’ (Timbs v. Indiana). The term liberty alone provides little guidance. Thus, historical inquiries are essential whenever the Court is asked to recognize a new component of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In interpreting what is meant by liberty, the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been ‘reluctant’ to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. (Collins v. Harker Heights). Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.” (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, decided June 24, 2022, majority opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito). In its decision, the court asserts that the doctrine of substantive due process has been subject to reasonable disagreement by constitutional scholars and is far from settled in their eyes: ”The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for liberty—has long been controversial.” (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, decided June 24, 2022, majority opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito). In point of fact, the doctrine has been anything but controversial in the eyes of constitutional scholars. The doctrine rests upon the fact that, in nonfiction literature and texts, the use of a word entails its reference to reality. The clause in the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from depriving a person of his ”life, liberty or property without due process of law” refers to the existence of, and therefore the rights to, life, liberty and property. On the left hand side of the conjunction without are the words life, liberty and property. On the right hand side of the conjunction is the phrase due process of law. The words on the left hand side refer to the existence of the things named. The phrase on the right hand side refers to a fair and impartial adjudication process for depriving a person of his rights. This clause no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law would not be found in a communist constitution, because such constitution would not recognize the reference of the words, life, liberty and property, and therefore the existence of the rights to which the words refer. The words life, liberty and property may only be found in constitutions which govern free societies. The doctrine of substantive due process was enshrined in American jurisprudence in the landmark Supreme Court decision Lochner v. New York in 1905. In its decision, the court ruled that a New York state law which set maximum working hours for bakers violated the right to liberty under a substantive interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Nineteenth Amendment: ”The law constitutes an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract.” (Lochner v. New York, 1905, majority opinion by Associate Justice Rufus Peckham). The fundamental symptom of a civilization in decline is the rejection of reason. Since the early decades of the twentieth century, America has been under attack by the two flanks of a fearsome pincer movement. These flanks are manned by religious movements which reject reason and seek to impose their dogmas upon society. One flank is manned by materialists who advocate communism. They celebrated their first Supreme Court victory in Nebbia v. New York in 1934. In its decision, the court rejected the substantive component of the Due Process Clause, rejected liberty of contract. and stated that ”due process demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.” The other flank of the pincer movement is manned by spiritualists who project the primacy of a supernatural dimension. In 2022, they celebrated their first Supreme Court victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which authorizes states to ban abortion on the grounds that human life is a supernatural substance which mystically appears at the moment of conception. The worshipers of a god called Society and the worshipers of a God in Heaven have closed in on America and killed off the soul of reason.
The powerful countries need to grow some gonads and stop worrying how a weaker country like Russia might react. Russian bear should be turned into a bear-skin rug.
Western leaders do a lot of posing in photo-opportunities. Why don’t they send their bombers and fighter jets to eastern Ukraine to bomb the Russians? It’s so simple. It has been done before. Have they forgotten how to bomb from the sky with aerial bombs? Is that not a thing anymore? Doing so would bring a quicker end to the war than an artillery duel would.
The problem with your theory is that the war is over.
The Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America support legal abortion. It is not right for these religious organizations to be forcing their pro-choice views on the rest of America.
“It is not right for these religious organizations to be *forcing* their pro-choice views on the rest of America.” (Emphasis added)
I did not realize that those churches have law enforcement agencies. Do they also have swat teams and jails?
Learn the difference between choice and government compulsion.
Is it cruel not to help the Ukrainians more?
Ukraine is the door into Russia through which a civilized world needs to subjugate Russia in a manner similar to the way Japan and Germany were in 1945. Establish a military tribunal to lead Russia into the civilized world; conduct war crimes trials as appropriate. Bonus: China gets to see it happen.
Deos the United States have the power to stop the war in Ukraine?
Presumably, Dios does have the power to stop the war in Ukraine.
The question is, Why does he not?
“So should Fagman resign…”
Hey, Darren, the civility rule states:
“we have had a few people who simply want to foul the cyber footpath with personal name-calling, insults….”
Are you going to enforce it or not? I’m giving you 24 hours to do your job.
Or what ? You shoot your own head off ?
I would prefer less insults. But if we banned everyone who posted an insult no one would be here.
I would not ban anything but spam. But that’s me.
But I would call out those who can do nothing but insult, and I do.
“if we banned everyone who posted an insult no one would be here.”
Nonsense. It’s actually quite easy to create a website where diverse people comment but personal insults are not allowed. You just warn the person the first couple of times they post a personal attack directed at another commenter and remove the comments with the personal insults without banning the person, and you tell the person they’ll be banned if they continue to break that rule. Plenty of people can control their desire to post personal insults when it’s clear that they won’t be tolerated.
An example of such a website: https://www.madinamerica.com/posting-guidelines/
Nonsense. People like you can not even tell the difference between ad hominem and criticizing and argument.
If I say that “Your argument is idiotic” – is that insulting you ?
Bet you got that wrong.
Further the “process” you seek to impose is labor intensive. And it is going to heavily favor those with thin skin.
We already see that on social media.
The right is constantly noting the double standards – people on twitter are openly advocating violence about abortion without consequence,
But try to define a woman and you are kicked off.
Few humans are capable of objective decision making in any field – much less objectively determining what is insulting and what is not.
The first amendment is not just a right, it is the only scheme that works.
Those like you think that being proven wrong is being insulted. And in some ways it is.
If you ban insults, you are ultimately banning disagreement.
Regardless, how in a world where we have he obvious examples of the failure of social media to do what you claim is easy,
can you continue to argue that what you wish is even possible ?
As Justice Brandeais noted long ago – the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence”.
But you are ignorant of history. And seem to think that approaches that have never worked have suddenly become easy.
One of the many problems with your approach is “who decides ?”.
There is not trusted accurate arbiter of everything.
I certainly would never trust you to decide what is and is not an insult.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Darren: Silberman is upset that Margot misspelled the Dean’s name in her comment. The spelling she used is so close to how the Dean actually spells his name that it is impossible to know if Margot’s misspelling was an innocent typo, she misread his name, or if it was intentional. We all know why Silberman is super sensitive about perceived homosexual slurs – real or imagined.
There can be no doubt that Silberman referring to Margot’s comment as “vomit” is meant as an insult. That’s a clear violation of the blog’s civility rule.
Are you going to enforce the blog’s civility rule against Silberman or not? Silberman is giving you 24 hours to do your job. Or else.
I’ll be happy for Darren to take down my post along with Margot’s. Will he? Nope.
Deleting Margot’s comment is unfair.
The facts are there is no evidence Margot’s comment violates the civility rule. She is guilty of misspelling the dean’s name by one letter. You pretend to know the misspelling was malicious. For that you demand she be punished.
Bizarrely, in making this unfounded demand you yourself unambiguously violated the rule by insulting her.
These are the facts. They are indisputable.
IMO, unfairly accusing someone of guilt without sufficient evidence and demanding they be punished is evil. For that, and for the undeniable truth that you yourself violated the civility rule, YOU deserve to be punished.
A. Margot did it deliberately.
B. Taking her post down is not punishment
C. Darren is oblivious
Mommy! Mommy! He was Bad!!! Who has the time to monitor the blog like this unless they are paid or are devoted to supporting it like Darren? Supportin g the blog isn’t on Jeff’s mind. Obviously, Jeff either has no clients or has one big client who funds his whining here.
If you really must know, I am lucky that I have no other tasks than such as I like to give myself; leisure to contribute to this blog uninterrupted by the cares of business.
My understanding is that Darren has been given the undeniably unenviable task of scrubbing the filth from Turley’s blog. It would seem though that he has a higher tolerance of incivility than does Turley who apparently will remove violations which do not offend Darren’s sense of decency. That’s a shame.
jeffsilberman — I opine that your understanding is mistaken.
So you have a trust fund.
Naturally, I’m a spendthrift and an idler!
You are on the right track. Behind this superficial character, there is a mommy and a daddy.
Like the people highlighted in this article by Prof Turley, causing the biggest stir, they profit from the hidden hand. Am I the only one that notices the connection?
“Are you going to enforce it or not? I’m giving you 24 hours to do your job.”
At the end of 24 hours he will run and yell like a crazy man all over the place and then return to his home in Marin County.
Southern Marin County to be precise. I can see the Golden Gate Bridge from my house!
So what? The problem is that real estate prices are high in Marin so the house you get isn’t so great.
Tell me about it….
Right. The trap…. living poor in a rich neighborhood.
I have a painting of Sausalito in my office. It looks like the Italian Riviera. It makes me happy every time I glance over. Bar Bocce is wonderful.
I’ll go there on your say so. Thanks.
Get the firepit seat! And the mushroom pizza.
Is it odd how the anti-tyranny crowd wants to see tyranny prevail in Ukraine?
Are there Ukrainians who are of such character that they deserve to be defended by the U.S. military before many selfish, entitled American douche bags do?
One silver lining in the gun and abortion decisions is that unlike George here all the justices implicitly accepted and recognized the validity of the 14th amendment.
noted. the talking points for the DNC is the 14th Amendment.
Alas your paid handlers are elitist rich liberals who are out of touch with everyday Americans who cant buy groceries like they did under Trump, cant afford gasoline, are watching in horror the violence that Democrats have encouraged, spurring hispanics and blacks to buy guns, and the collapse of our US borders.
Word to the Democrats:
its the economy, you idiot Marxists!
Is tyranny bad? Is Putin a tyrant who produces a tyranny? Should tyrants such as Putin be opposed, defeated, and eliminated? Is it inconsistent and pointless to condemn tyranny without wanting to topple tyrants?
Let’s get this straight Mr. Warmonger: How exactly do you compare Putin’s tyranny vs. the USA’s BFF/our bed mate forever the Al Saud Krime Syndikat? A few weeks ago the Synkikat beheaded 81 persons in the town square in one day. Who is the worse tyrant between those 2 governments? Inquiring minds want to know.
Perhaps I can help you understand the difference. The Saudis’ culture is their culture. It’s not ours. They’re un-nice deeds were done inside their own borders. They didn’t send guys with machetes into neighboring countries to lop off heads. Hope that’s helpful.
It is rich that the Dean runs a school that rejects the First Amendment and yet….he is wishing to be taken seriously about constitutional rights. but of course!
The silence of the faculty in a dean making such controversial and contested claims in his official capacity only highlights the lack of diversity on faculties
we Cubans have a better word: lack of cojones, just like Dean Faigman. This is no time to be mixing metaphors. Speak plainly. Do not show cowardice in calling evil to its face.
I’m glad you posted this. It is very revealing. I am opposed to this kind of unruly demonstration by Liberals. When I watch this, what springs to mind are the “Lock her Up” chants at Trump rallies. The difference between you and I is that I WILL condemn such conduct on the Left but you will not condemn those MAGA people who chanted at Trump rallies.
If I were in the shoes of those law students, I would listen to what that professor was saying. I may have asked a question or two. On the other hand, had I heard enough of what he was saying to decide that it did not deserve a question, I would have quietly walked out of the room which act speaks louder than words.
You have a problem with that?
My problem is that past experience leaves no reason to beleive you.
Far more often than condemning those on the left – you make excuses for them.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
There is no “think I said” in any of this.
What you have written now and in the past is available for all to read at their pleasure
You are responsible to make sure that what you say is what you meant.
This is all more of why we do not rest arguments or law heavily on our quessess regarding peoples thoughts.
But judge them by their ACTIONS.
And we judge arguments by the broadly accepted meaning of the words – not by guesses as to what you MEANT to say.
When I say that your past writing proves you untrustworthy, that is what I mean.
I have no clue what you MEANT to say in the past.
Nor is your trustworthyness based on present claims regarding what you MEANT to say.
It is based on what you actually said.
It is YOUR responsibility to say what you mean.
Rather than fixating on who to defame, why not address the arguments ?
That might actually get us somewhere.
We can not resolve all the problems of the world through logic and rational argument.
But the domain of government – the legitimate institutional use of force is sufficiently narrow that it can be completely addressed though logic and rational argument.
“It would be helpful if you . . . stopped encouraging the trolls to commandeer the blog.”
We got the message 10 comments ago:
Only those who spout religious dogma are permitted to speak.
George is the most prolific troll here, and is an extreme bigot (racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, …) to boot.
It would be helpful if you, Iowan2, Ollie, and others stopped encouraging the trolls to commandeer the blog.
Let it go!
And I bet you thought by citing this Forbes article and the follow up cartoon, that it would go unnoticed that you are actually engaging in the same behavior as the trolls. I would encourage you to avoid the topic altogether. You’ve proven yourself a truly valuable contributor on this blog in many other ways; especially in the area of medical science.
Have you not noticed that each time you quote more than is allowed under fair use, your comment is deleted?
Why do you keep doing it?
You seize the moment to mix apples and oranges in order to carry on your never-ending war against Trump. There’s hardly an equivalence between the hallowed Halls of an academic Institution and that of a public rally particularly where the study of law is concerned and the constitution in particular.
“You seize the moment to mix apples and oranges in order to carry on your never-ending war against Trump.”
Apples and oranges are both fruit, round an delicious, dude.
Make me the king of America and I will make things how they ought to be. But first I need a pedicure.
They cried about the electoral college, too. The biggest threat to democracy are people who fail to understand that, in a democracy, you win some and you lose some. You can’t always get your way.
The biggest threat is lawlessness.
Winning and losing are meaningless when the process is rigged.
No one is expected to accept defeat in an unfair contest.
Democrats repeatedly demonstrate their disdain for the rule of law.
Everytime you say – But Biden or whoever won the popular vote – you are saying – I get to change the rules to get the outcome i want.
When you use Covid to abrogate election laws and violate state constitutions – you make it clear that the rule of law does not matter to you.
The rule of law is not about good times, it is there especially for bad times.
If you can not act in accord with the rule of law in bad times – you are lawless, and untrustworthy.
In a REPUBLIC, which Ben Franklin et al. “gave” Americans, only “entitled” people are allowed to vote, for very good reason.
How can you be OK with Ukraine getting pulverized? Would you want to see Virginia reduced to rubble?
Would you want to see Virginia reduced to rubble?
Unless you have the power to make it happen, why taunt us?
NoVa, Norfolk, Richmond are the most liberal regions in VA, run by Democrats.
Richmond and Norfolk are the two most crime ridden cities in VA, also run by Democrats.
Last I checked Ukraine was not a US state.
Ah, the children of the Death Cult are angry. All must be destroyed; all must be changed to make them happy again! Seriously, I do love these liberal meltdowns –tears flow, stupidity spews and tempers rage. Then like the punch drunk klansman wannabes they are, they traipse off to the Capitol to decry Trump for Insurrection. Never in the course of human history was so little owed by so many to so few.
No doubt. At this point I’m thinking Pelosi is either drunk/medicated in a way that rest of us only fear/dream about, or she really is a legitimately unstable/psychotic person. I struggle to think of a single thing over the past 30 years that has elicited this kind of response from non-Dems, not even necessarily Republicans, though they have certainly had their villains. This has for the entirety of my life on earth been a leftist thing; if you don’t like what you hear go out and destroy something, or someone(s). What began with the hippies whose solution to the challenges of life was running away and sequestering themselves, meanwhile resolving precisely and absolutely nothing, is finally bearing idiotic and destructive fruit in a way that most people can’t ignore anymore. And even that was based largely on a very much white, culturally appropriated, third grade level understanding of Eastern philosophy.
It is literally impossible to believe that West Coast universities used to be the bastions of free speech or justice after a long era in which equality was metered out to a select few (that would largely be the Democrats, FWIW). If you are the wrong set of preconceived ideas, forget it, and that is rich coming from the folks that, decades ago, used to endorse opening and expanding of the mind. Now their former espousal of such things basically amounts to a sad coping mechanism in the face of existential stress most of us just take in stride everyday.
I think mainly the people protesting at present are pissed that now they actually have to pay attention get off their butts and participate rather than letting mommy and daddy government simply make sure they have what they *think* they want, though the chances of them encountering it in real life from their ivory basements is probably virtually nil. Even that is a disconnect – none of these privileged fools will ever have abortions; it is the province of the aristocratic left to presume and project. This did not end so well for the aristocracy in France, ages ago. Though I personally believe we are past the era of Robespierre (this stuff is happening now on networks flitting through the air, not town squares with guillotines), the sentiment, and ultimate outcome, are the same. We don’t need them when we can hunt, grow our own food and build our own structures. This is not the 1790s, even if the woke young idiots have tried to drag us backward to then or further in their gobsmacking ignorance.
“Now the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman is questioning the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. ”
You just can’t make this up, can you?
Sadly, I could not get in to this law school. Got accepted at UCLA, but upon visiting Westwood, the people there were a bit too superficial I thought. I prefer Northern California- less make-up and cooler temperatures.
“The dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman is questioning the legitimacy of the Court.”
– Professor Turley
The Supreme Court just reestablished the dominion of the one and only Constitution in the United States, as it struck down stare decisis, precedent and “settled” law.
Opponents and enemies of the Constitution illicitly, unconstitutionally, falsely and fraudulent held dominion for 50 years on abortion.
Opponents and enemies of the Constitution continue to hold dominion on the unconstitutional American welfare state.
The enemies have been defeated on abortion; the dominion of the Constitution has been reimplemented on that issue – the Supreme Court has much corrective yet to be taken.
Either the Constitution holds absolute dominion, or the Constitution does not exist.
The Constitution of the United States of America is all David Faigman needs to know.
Article 3, Section 1, is all the eminent dean of an enemy institution of propaganda and indoctrination needs to consume and comprehend.
David Faigman challenges the authority of American fundamental law, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which hold dominion.
In Great Britain, in recent centuries, challenging the authority of the King, who held dominion, constituted treason, and the penalty for high treason was drawing and quartering.
David Faigman challenges the authority of the documents that hold dominion in America.
David Faigman is in league with enemies of America, adhering to their principles of communism, giving them aid and comfort.
David Faigman is committing treason.
A nation, by reason, must not harbor enemies within its borders.
David Faigman, his ilk et al. are direct and mortal enemies of the United States.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
– Sir Issac Newton, Third Law of Motion
Article 3, Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The left-wing and marxist extremists that we’re witnessing almost daily from representatives, senate and the WH is extraordinary and serves but one purpose, to foster hate, discontent, undermine government and the rule of law. So many of these mutts are completely ignorant of our own form of government, how it works and yet they are representing constituents. Complete stupid process to allow the inmates to run the asylum.
“The left-wing and marxist extremists that we’re witnessing almost daily from representatives, senate and the WH is extraordinary and serves but one purpose, to foster hate, discontent, undermine government and the rule of law.”
Are you speaking for Turley? Is that your takeaway from his article? Perhaps, you are reading too much into what he said because I didn’t read any of that into his criticism.
“Are you speaking for Turley ?”
Where does that come from ?
Unlike you most here do not claim to speak for turley or be able to read his mind.