Below is my column on the growing attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court after the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. As the Court ends its term, Democratic leaders are calling for removing justices, packing the Court, and other extreme reactions to the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Here is the column:
For justices, the end of a Supreme Court term usually brings welcomed vacations and speaking engagements out of town. This week it seemed more like the justices were fleeing the jurisdiction with a mob at their heels. Six justices (and their homes) are targeted because they dared to interpret the Constitution in a way that is opposed by many in the political, media, and academic establishment. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many called for impeachments, court packing, and “disciplining” justices. What is chilling, however, is that these calls have not come from extremist groups but political and media figures who are challenging the very “legitimacy” of the Supreme Court.
The Madisonian democracy is based on the premise that, despite our factional divisions, the Constitution creates an interest in all groups in preserving the system. While the Constitution does not guarantee that your views will prevail in Congress or the courts, it has proven the most stable and successful democratic system in history. We are all invested in that system which has achieved transformative changes over time in our laws and our society.
The Constitution is neither poetic nor pretentious in its language. It was written by the ultimate wonk in Madison. It has only one thing to recommend it: we are still here. We have survived periods of war, economic collapse, and social discord that broke other systems.
Politicians and the press have thrived under this system and have historically defended its legitimacy even when demanding major changes in our laws. We are now witnessing a crisis of faith with the political and media establishment declaring the highest court to be illegitimate. All because they disagree with a constitutional interpretation adopted by the majority of its members.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rending opinions against “widely held public opinion.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even questioned the institution’s value: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” She has now demanded the impeachment of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch based on the entirely false claim that they lied under oath in their confirmation hearings. After the Dobbs decision, Ocasio-Cortez demanded “there must be consequences” for the Court.
Other leaders like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., issued a warning to the Supreme Court: Reaffirm Roe v. Wade or face a “revolution.”
The media has amplified these extreme calls. In the New York Times, columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote an outline of how Democrats could rein in the high court in a piece titled, “How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court.” He wrote that the Supreme Court does not exist above the constitutional system and added that the “rogue” court “cannot shield itself from the power of other branches.” Bouie’s discipline includes impeaching or removing justices as well as packing the court.
Notably, like many others demanding radical changes to the Court, Bouie previously advocated the change that is most responsible for creating the Court’s current composition. Like many liberals, Bouie demanded that the Senate kill the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees.
At the time, some of us warned the Democrats that the move was uniquely short-sighted and that they would rue the day that they took such a moronic step. As predicted, the Democrats soon found themselves in the minority without the protection of the filibuster rule and could not block nominees. They gained comparably little from the change given what they lost, including ultimately Roe v. Wade.
Rather than admit that their prior attack on the filibuster backfired, liberals are now demanding even more radical moves like a bad gambler at Vegas who just keeps doubling down in the hopes of winning a hand.
It does not matter that the Court is not as rigidly ideological or dysfunctionally divided as widely claimed. If anything, it has shown fewer divisions in most cases. Before the opinion, ABC admitted that “67% of the court’s opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade.” Yet, after the decision, ABC’s legal analyst Terry Moran described the term as a “new era” of the “activist court.”
This crisis of faith is evident in other key constituencies in our system, including in our law schools. 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.” Most recently, the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman questioned the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Writing in his official capacity, Faigman went as far as to claim 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.” Faigman declared that the “the Court itself, which is a product of political gerrymandering—raises basic questions regarding the legitimacy of the Court itself.”
From Congress to the press to academia, the very foundation of the Court is being challenged. What is notable is that these are also the voices of some of the most powerful figures in our society. Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric. There are good-faith objections to this decision but those objections challenge the legitimacy of the holding, not the institution itself. As Benjamin Franklin noted “The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.”
257 thoughts on “Crisis of Faith: Politicians and the Press Escalate Attacks on the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court”
For someone who likes to rattle off quotes from the Founders, George really misses the mark on some of the finer points of the Constitution.
Waht if a bunch of representatives deemed it Necessary and Proper?
It is mildly entertaining to watch the ‘believers’ argue about which political party is best for this country when it is glaringly obvious that they are designed and used to keep the Oligarch’s power intact, while making the idiotic ‘believers’ fight and take their eyes off of the machinations tearing apart our society.
I keep saying it, but it is important if we ever really want to make change:
Never an R or D Again!
It might be a mess, but if we all took this attitude, things would be different. But do not allow any R or D to enter into any new parties. Any previous association disallows any participation going further.
I also know that this is likely impossible because so many Americans are idiots led by the nose.
Could not agree more! Both parties are comprised of the problem: career politicians. They’re lined up at the feed trough of lobbyists and foreign interests, and usually leave office (except for Pelosi, Waters and a few other octagenarians) much richer than when they took the oath to serve. They are criminals. Ex: Illegal Immigration…both parties have smart folks, both have in recent times controlled all 3 branches at once, yet neither party has “fixed” immigration. If they wanted it fixed, it would be by now. They do not serve us, they serve themselves and the money given for their votes. It’s disgusting and a travesty. We are no longer a Republic. Term limits? Nah, why would they vote to end their own gravy train? Give themselves a raise instead, have their own retirement program and health insurance plans, pretty cushy deal. The solution to this problem will NEVER come from within the system that created it…as you well-noted: R’s and D’s…pretty much fruit of the same tree…and pretty much taking turns screwing us all.
And to prove that point, I suggest you read this very interesting article Turley wrote for the Hill.com:
“Witch hunt or mole hunt? Times bombshell blows up all theories”
I suspect that history may record the events of Trump’s presidency just as Turley describes them. His analysis is very plausible- there was neither a Deep State nor a Manchurian candidate.
Retard, try reading the article. It lays out the corruption of FBI and fabrication of the entire case against Trump. It is also from 2019. More proof emerges daily that shows the collusion between the Democrat Party and the DoJ, State Dept, the IC, and the Five I’s.
Dream? I just read the article. Have a kid read it to.
That article was from 2019. We now know that Trump was correct. The Obama Administration DID spy upon him. Democrat activists in the FBI DID abuse their power, such as when an agent falsified a CIA email saying Carter Page worked for them, altering it to say the exact opposite in order to get a FISA warrant. We now know that not only was the Russia allegation a hoax, but that Obama knew it was a hoax AT THE TIME. We also know that Comey, too, knew the information was not corroborated, and that MI6 had already warned them about Stone’s lack of credibility.
After this article, Turley went on to write additional articles, such as where Carter Page was supposed to go to get his reputation back.
Turley wrote that “back then the FBI did not know all that.” In breathtaking revelations, we discovered later that, actually, they were fully aware that these allegations were false.
Obama himself was briefed that Hillary Clinton was planning to falsely accuse Donald Trump of working for the Russians in order to deflect public scrutiny from her email scandal, in which she kept illegal bootleg servers in her house, in order to circumvent national security and chain of custody of State Department communications. She allowed people with zero security clearance access to that information, and backed it up to the Cloud. She essentially broadcast ALL of her communications to Russia, North Korea, the Chinese Communist Party, and anyone other interested party. Then, while under subpoena, she wiped the servers with Bleach Bit, then she shrugged her shoulders and said, “What? Did I wipe it with a cloth?”
Shame on you for pretending Turley does not agree there was serious malfeasance in the government against Trump and his associates.
I did not claim that Turley does not believe there was malfeasance by some people in government. Rather, to this very day Turley has never indicated that he believed that the DOJ/FBI engaged in a “witch-hunt” as Trumpists scream. He has never used that word in any of his articles faulting certain parties in government. He does not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Jeff you spend your life trying to get into the heads of others – like Turley.
It is not possible,
You are bad at it.
It makes you foolish.
Turley is capable of speaking for himself – and he does.
Without you quoting him out of context or explaining to us all what the mythical Jeff Silberman Turley pupet actually thinks.
“From Congress to the press to academia, the very foundation of the Court is being challenged. What is notable is that these are also the voices of some of the most powerful figures in our society. Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric.”
I agree 100% with Turley. Moreover, the legitimacy of our very government is being undermined by Turley’s Fox colleagues with their “Deep State” conspiracy theories:
“Ingraham: Deep state’s coordinated effort to take down Trump”
“Hannity: Deep state has been plotting against Trump since 2016”
Fortunately, Turley does not believe this “Deep State” nonsense.
People are unfair? Really?
Trump: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”
Trumpists will excuse everything he does, deny any wrongdoing. It’s a cult.
But, Trump didn’t shoot anyone on Fifth Ave. and the ‘charges’ made by the left are lies so there is nothing to excuse.
The ones who are shooting people come from the left while they destroy homes, workplaces, loot and burn. The left excused all of that at the time it was happening.
What the left is doing is accusing the right of doing what the left does daily and the right seldom if ever does.
Trump represents Americanism and the law. You are criminal in nature.
Was tRump telling the truth when he said “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK”?
Or was he lying?
It is unfortunate that you don’t have the literary understanding to recognize the various ways of expressing a thought.
Yes, Trump has loyal followers because he is loyal to the nation and the people.
So tRump was telling the truth when he said “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK”?
As I indicated earlier you don’t understand what the meaning is because what is in your head is closer to concrete than brains.
Trying to define how great America was under Trump to a singleminded woke person, is equivalent to them being inside a house burning down – you yell, “hey get out, the house is on fire!” they would just stand and yell back, “you’re a lying racist white supremacist, in a cult!” Because for them it’s easier to believe the lie, rather than they’ve been lied to. We are still the majority and it’s about to get real in this country.
God bless you patriot, and God bless America [He’s about to, bigley!] ♥️🕊🤍🦅💙
It has been a while since I have posted Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Given the plethora of copy/paste of discredited left wing sources by our resident troll of a thousand sock puppets, Alinsky’s “rules” explain everything. Note, the bolded rules.
TL;DR: we are at war along the lines of psychological ops
“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. “
The 5 who voted to overturn Roe immediately, without any thought to reliance in the short term, acted recklessly.
If they took any responsibility for a successful transition to a political grand compromise in Congress — the only way these abortion-policymaking headaches are going to be extricated from the Federal Courts — they could have sunsetted Roe and Casey as defective precedent by diminishing it to “interim law” until an upcoming federal election and a 2-year Congress give the people and their elected representatives a chance to step into the new responsibility.
What we got instead was defacto legislating policy from the bench, in the context that the Justices well knew — the trigger laws in 12 states would immediately change the law without any debate post-Roe. These laws could be voted for cavalierly before Dobbs was decided as mere “posturing”. Don’t the citizens deserve a new debate now that states actually have to decide the abortion policy?….and be accountable for nasty side-effects of meat-axe lawmaking?
This was a poor performance, and it’s hard to defend. Roe could have been overturned as of an effective date in the future.
They could have sent a strong message of confidence in our nation’s capacity to resolve a 50-year controversy. What they did predictably only pours gasoline on the fire, emboldens militant activists, discourages the moderate middle….and will find state-v-state
proxy abortion lawsuits filling the docket at an accelerating rate.
In many ways, the 5 were saying “We don’t care. We don’t take responsibility for what happens”. Very shoddy work product.
This was a poor performance, and it’s hard to defend. Roe could have been overturned as of an effective date in the future.
They could have sent a strong message of confidence in our nation’s capacity to resolve a 50-year controversy.
Let me get this straight. You believe it is the Court’s responsibility to decide on the constitutionality of case, but they should allow the unconstitutional act to continue until the losing party promises to not burn the $hit to the ground? I tell you what, you go ahead and make your best case for a party trying to restore their rights that were violated by the government, that if they win, they will get their rights restored when the government is ready to restore them.
Olly, the only unconstitutional act they declared took place 49 years ago. They most certainly did not declare legal abortion unconstitutional. What they stated (Alito) was a transfer of authority to make law in this policy area “to the People and their elected Representatives”. But, they defacto established policy by “trigger” in 12 states.
There were abortions scheduled this week that got cancelled at the last minute. That’s not how government acts….unpredictably, hastily, and inconsiderately. All I was arguing for was an “adjustment period”. I wasn’t even arguing for a specific policy. Just time for a post-Roe debate to take place before any change to the law. Is that so unreasonable?
you are defending terminating a life under the rubric of “inconsiderately”.
Let that sink into everyone’s mind for a minute. It is the same rubric that Stalin used in exterminating peasants by starving them, Mao used in eliminating millions of Chinese people, and Nazis gassing Jews, Catholics, homosexuals and dissenters
60 million lives have been selfishly and capriciously ended since Roe v Wade, yet the above commenter characterizes the reversal as “inconsiderate”
Be very afraid.
1) The inappropriate release of the decision provided a buffer of time.
2) The Supreme Court overturned Roe. It passed no laws preventing abortion. If you want to blame someone, blame the states, but abortion is legal in many other states and that buffer of time makes one question what people were thinking. Trains, planes, buses and cars can take people to abortion clinics. I admit it is a bit inconvenient and therefore hurtful, but killing a baby is hurtful as well. People should recognize that.
You do understand carrying a baby to term is not fatal.
Unless it is, which happens more than it should. See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20861%20women%20were,20.1%20in%202019%20(Table).
And the highest maternal mortality rate happens to be in states that now have the most restrictive abortion laws.
Life is a risk. Somewhere north of 300,000 deaths every year are because of medical mistakes.
The fact is, A ban on all abortions saves far more lives than allowing abortion to save the life of the mother. So its good you are advocating a policy driven by a pure body count calculation.
But, they defacto established policy by “trigger” in 12 states.
A SCOTUS decision 49 years ago unconstitutionally “established” a federal policy for all 50 states. SCOTUS is not there to engineer a means to guide a culture that suddenly discovers their lifestyle choices have been aided and abetted by unconstitutional laws. I have little compassion for anyone that has time to “schedule” an abortion, especially after the leaked decision months ago.
All I was arguing for was an “adjustment period”. I wasn’t even arguing for a specific policy. Just time for a post-Roe debate to take place before any change to the law. Is that so unreasonable?
They can have the same “adjustment period” being forced on all of the American people as a result of Biden’s Green New Deal energy policies.
“What we got instead was defacto legislating policy from the bench, in the context that the Justices well knew — the trigger laws in 12 states would immediately change the law without any debate post-Roe.”
So sending it back to the state legislatures to do whatever they will with the issue is “legislating from the bench.” The Justices have no way of deciding for the states. That’s up to the citizens of the states who can strike trigger laws with the stroke of a pen at the next election. Start caring a little more for the females in the womb.
Even if there were American weapons there at the shopping mall, Russia still shouldn’t be firing missiles in a sovereign nation. Ukraine is a soverigen nation that can have weapons from whatever country it wants. They shouldn’t be firing ANY missiles for ANY reason in ANY sovereign nation. It’s absurd that Russia would try to rationalize it. Believing their target to be American weapons doesn’t make it OK.
Democrats are for the Constitution…unless it’s free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and the Electoral College.
They’re for the separation of powers as long as all 3 deploy far Left agenda.
They honor the Supreme Court as long as they like how they rule. Otherwise, they want to expand seats in order to pack it with their ideological majority, but if Republicans did that it would be a Constitutional Crisis. Or they want to abolish the Supreme Court altogether.
They say men should have no say about what women do with their bodies…but Roe v Wade was decided by 9 men. That’s OK. So…men can have a say, as long as they have the correct opinion.
Democrats hate white cis-gendered heterosexual neurotypical men, especially Christians…unless they need enough votes for far Left polices. Then they want those men that they’ve excoriated for years to shush up and vote as they’re told.
Democrats love the legislative process, unless the Supreme Court points out that abortion is not actually covered in the Constitution, and so is up to the legislative branch and the states to decide. Then they say it’s not fair to expect Americans to govern themselves through duly elected representatives. No, they either need to abolish the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, and have a (Democrat only) President just declare abortion can have no restrictions up until birth, or they want to have activists on SCOTUS who will declare abortion was foremost on the Founding Fathers’ minds, and reinstate abortion rights, only again without any restrictions. And then they will do battle forever to keep a conservative or Originalist from ever serving on SCOTUS ever again. They’ll be lining up women to fabricate sexual assault allegations for years.
The Left in America could easily go full Fascist and totalitarian. They already seek to remove individual rights, even the right to apply biological pronouns in a scientifically and grammatically correct way, for the “greater good.” But only they can define what that good is.
Republicans are waging war on women, but Democrats cannot define what a woman is, beyond some intangible and indefinable state of mind. It’s not biological, behavioral, masculine, or feminine. A woman just is, and like God, she can never be truly knowable, even by women.
Do you realize how stupid Sen. Blackburn’s question was? Babies and toddlers learn what a woman is pre-linguistically. Such words don’t depend on definitions for their meaning because woman-ness is well experienced before the word enters the child’s vocabulary. Asking someone to define “woman” shows a lack of common sense about early childhood language learning.
Karen loves dumping on Democrats and then running away from any real discussion.
There is no discussion with your type. One can’t have serious discussion with a liar.
“[A]bortion is not actually covered in the Constitution . . .”
In principle, that view means: X is not covered by the Constitution. So X is not a right.
To value and to defend something, one must first understand it. With such a gross misunderstanding of our Constitution, one cannot claim to be a defender of it.
Ding Ding Ding! Karen got to use one of her big words: “Machiavelian”. Can “hegemony” be far behind?
So. Jonathan Turley, does block people. And he is not as big a champion at free speeches he portrays.
From your mancave to Darren’s keyboard. If only they blocked people. The likelihood of their blocking illegal trolls from crossing the internet bandwidth to cause death of a thousand cuts on this forum, is as likely as Joseph Biden’s handlers blocking illegals from crossing the US Border.
Im feeling rather Shakespearean today.
San Antonio Migrant Deaths in Truck Highlight Rising Toll Along Border
The death toll from Monday’s discovery of dozens of migrants being smuggled in a tractor-trailer rose to 53 Wednesday, according to local authorities, marking a grim addition to what appear to be increasing fatalities among people attempting to illegally enter the U.S. from Mexico.
Estovir, that was such a terrible story. I was grieved when the count was 46 dead.
Illegal immigration causes the rape of so many women migrants, the rape of children, sex trafficking, murder, muling enough Fentanyl to kill everyone in the US multiple times, gun running, money laundering. These are bad people, and they don’t take care of the men, women, and children who pay thousands of dollars to be smuggled to the US. They leave little children screaming in terror in the desert, and some of them don’t make it. They broil dozens to death in hot shipping containers and trucks.
I just cannot understand why anyone supports illegal immigration instead of requiring it all to go through legal channels, with the numbers limited to responsible numbers.
During college I worked summers at a Migrant Program sponsored by the Archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama, in Baldwin County. The migrants traveled in caravans along the perimeter of the US, year round, stopping at agricultural regions to work the agricultural fields. I was part of a staff of workers from my Jesuit college who worked summers in the agricultural fields with the migrants, and me being fluent in Spanish, would target the parents to plead with them. I would ask them to allow us to take their children, under age 6, and teach them English, basic hygiene, basic life skills, care for the infants, toddlers and preschool children, and provide meals and basic healthcare and vaccines during the day. Initially parents preferred to keep their young children with them in the fields, but alas they were killed given the agricultural machinery and manual labor. Their infants and toddlers would be in the dirt as their parents worked the crops. After so many deaths and my relentless supplications, they would give us their children based on trust. The farmers did not care. They resented me bc I was taking children who could pick their crops. I did this for 4 summers. We would drive before sunrise in our Catholic school buses to the agricultural camps at 5:30 am, retrieve the children, take them to the campground on Mobile Bay in Point Clear, Alabama, and keep them until 5 pm. At that time we would return them to their parents at the agricultural fields. Families were crammed 20-30 to a room, one mattress, one light bulb, unhealthy conditions, provided by the farmers to pick their crops.
The story of migrants coming into a country is grim. They come here to work, for any wages, because it is better than back home. The stories told by conservatives online, those who dare not approach these migrants less they smell them and get dirty, are all lies. They do not come for welfare. They come to work
In my clinic, I care for many immigrants, some legal, some illegal. I treat them all. They work 6-7 days per week, jobs that blacks nor whites want, thinking it is beneath them. Ironically, these uneducated immigrants teach me so, so much, not least of which is the value of hard work
“The story of migrants coming into a country is grim. They come here to work, for any wages, because it is better than back home. The stories told by conservatives online, those who dare not approach these migrants less they smell them and get dirty, are all lies. They do not come for welfare. They come to work”
Estovir, I have no problem with immigrants, I’m married to one (and have many in the family), but I want immigrants to be legal. Is that an unreasonable desire?
I’m conservative but have never had a problem with such smells that you recount. I agree most immigrants want a better life, and, in their shoes, I would do the same. However, this is a country with borders. Don’t you agree we should have borders? I think those borders should be respected and have no ill-will toward those who violate them. However, as an American, I respect the right of the people to prevent illegal immigrants from coming here and even remove some that have.
Having already said that most people come here for a better life and jobs, too many are on assistance one way or the other. That is unfair to those Americans wishing to preserve their lifestyles.
Just because you are an immigrant doesn’t make you more empathetic than others, even should they be conservatives (definition is variable.) I think most are more empathetic than those pushing a leftist ideology.
The one thing in common in the immigrants of my family is that all agree America is a great place to live and have left their country to become Americans while maintaining some of their own cultures. None of them express disdain toward immigrants, so you make me puzzled.
I assume you came here legally and recognize that you have benefitted this nation. I welcome you and thank you.
So Estovir was all up with importing slave labor for the farmers. Somehow he equates slave labor with a better life. He gives the details of their squalid conditions and tells us this was a good thing. If they had legally entered the country they would have been required to have the skills to make a decent living rather than being placed in nothing short of concentration camps. Ask Hugo Chavez. What is the skill level of those who cross the border illegally today? Don’t ask because the leaders of the party who are allowing them into the nation will never give you an answer.
I’ve been blocked multiple times here.
Did you post something truly disgusting? Did you post truly racist, anti-semitic, or sexist comments? Did you post something calling for real violence against a person or group of people? Did you post something that may have tripped a Red Flag law?
Those kind of posts, the professor/Darren block.
Or, from a technical perspective, if you are using a VPN and is going through a country that is known for bots (e.g. Russia), those IPs may be blocked.
Upstate, you are an upstanding guy so don’t expect much from eb. I believe he was thrown off the list under a number of aliases. My guess is foul language and things of that nature. You can see that in his reply below.
eb is a jock. I wonder if he was at Penn State and partnered with Jerry Sandusky.