Democratic members have continued their unrelenting attacks on the Supreme Court and its conservative majority. This week, Senate and House members have introduced a bill to impose term limits, regularized confirmation schedules, and other changes. In introducing the legislation, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.), and others have left no question that this is just the latest effort to change the balance of the Court in favor of a liberal majority. Such comments make the bill seem like little more than legislative graffiti.
The legislation, The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would impose an 18-year maximum period for service on the Court. After that point, they would be forced to take “senior status.” It would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election.
It is no accident that, under this system, the first to go would be Clarence Thomas (on his 30th year) followed by Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito when they reach the limit.
Even if the bill were able to secure a majority (which is highly doubtful), it would face immediate challenge since it adds new limits on the life tenure provision under Article III.
Any challenge would have a record full of self-defeating statements from the sponsors who leave no doubt that their true motivation is to get rid of the conservative majority in response to rulings that they oppose.
Many continue to assert that the adoption of a constitutional interpretation that they oppose is, as stated by Rep. Johnson, “a legitimacy crisis.” When the Court rules in a way that is approved by these members it is a constitutional triumph. When it fails to do so, it is a constitutional crisis.
Rep. Johnson went further to emphasize that the illegitimacy is also due to the fact that five justices were appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump: “Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on the American people, who do not want it.”
So, they are demanding this radical measure “as a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained majority on the court.”
House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) also supplied golden material for future challengers, saying that the changes are designed to combat “all the harmful and out-of-touch rulings from the Supreme Court this last year.” He added that without changing the Court “we will be left with backwards-looking majority for a generation or more.”
Other co-sponsors include Reps. David Cicilline (RI), Shelia Jackson Lee (TX), Steve Cohen (TN) Karen Bass (CA) and Ro Khanna (CA).
It also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court commonly voiced by Democratic 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.
The concern over this legislation is not whether the legislation will pass (it will not) but how it reflects a fundamental attack on both the Court and our constitutional system. There was a time, not long ago, that such raw partisan attacks would have been denounced by other members of both parties. It is now not only acceptable but popular to call for packing the Court with your political allies.
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.
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.”
“The legislation, The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act . . .” (JT)
The D’s wish to *amend* the Constitution merely by passing a bill?!
Please tell me that I’m missing something here.
You’re not. With Dems/libs/progressives, if you don’t agree with them your racist, misogynistic, homophobic, a white supremacist, et al. Deep down they’re no different than any other totalitarian regime in history. Like Orwell’s ‘1984’ they are redefining words, history, science, gender, etc., attacking the legitimacy of any institution that gets in their way, willing to do anything to win, destroy every institution they perceive as opposing their effort for one party rule (there can be a second party, but only if it parrots their beliefs and ideas), and accuse anyone or any institution that opposes them of everything they are.
Nazi-friendly Hungarian leader Victor Orban is going to be speaking at CPAC in TX next week. What a surprise (sarc).
Orban is no Nazi. Hungary supports Israel far more consistently than France, Italy, Germany and certainly more than Belgium which is about to release Iranian terrorists.
He’s Nazi friendly per his recent speech.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220727-holocaust-survivors-condemn-race-remarks-by-hungary-s-orban
Either you don’t know what a Nazi is or don’t understand what Orban said.
Additionally, the media has little credibility, so one should read the speech in Hungarian, not English. Since most of us can’t nor do most understand Hungarian history, one might easily misinterpret what Orban said. The media sees that we intentionally misinterpret what people on the right say.
I think the Holocaust survivors in that article understand Nazis better than you do.
There was no Holocaust survivors commenting on the Nazis in the article. You are a pretty foolish guy.
Terming Orban’s speech “stupid and dangerous”, the International Auschwitz Committee called on the EU to continue to distance itself from “Orban’s racist undertones and to make it clear to the world that a Mr. Orban has no future in Europe.” The speech reminds Holocaust survivors “of the dark times of their own exclusion and persecution,” the organisation’s vice-president Christoph Heubner said in a statement sent to AFP.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the International Auschwitz Committee or missed the reference by Heubner to “the dark times of [Holocaust survivors] own exclusion and persecution” by the Nazis.
Heubner, I believe is German and wasn’t a Holocaust survivor. The article talked about non-specific people, similar to the anecdotes from WaPo that are mostly wrong or out of context. You are ignorant. Maintaining cultural identity is important to Hungarians but that doesn’t mean they persecute others. Orban protected his country from illegal immigrants crossing his borders. You and many left-wingers don’t like the idea of a country’s sovereignty.
Hungary is not like other European nations. Even the root of their language is different. I have had plenty of interaction with Holocaust survivors. You are worthless, offensive, and detestable.
Heubner was speaking on behalf of an organization of Holocaust survivors.
Orban was not speaking about illegal immigrants, but about all immigrants arriving from outside Europe, most of whom are legal immigrants. He criticized “a world in which European peoples are mixed together with those arriving from outside Europe. … We are simply a mixture of peoples living in our own European homeland. … We are willing to mix with one another, but we do not want to become peoples of mixed-race.”
Zsuzsa Hegedus, a Jewish sociologist colleague of Orban’s, who was also his special representative on social inclusion and modernization, resigned in response. Hegedus’s parents survived the Holocaust. She, too, said the speech was a ”pure Nazi text” and the discourse was one of clear ”racial hatred.” She called it not only discriminatory, but ”completely unacceptable.”
You may be a Jew, but you’ll excuse Nazi sympathizers. As always, you project your own negative characteristics, “worthless, offensive, and detestable,” onto others.
“Heubner was speaking on behalf of an organization of Holocaust survivors.”
In other words, you lied, ATS. You took a person’s anecdotal statement and expanded on it. Most Holocaust survivors are dead, and it wasn’t Holocaust survivors you referred to rather your information was second-hand. Much of Europe is upset because Orban closed his borders to migrants that flooded Europe causing problems. That is the basis of your argument.
“Orban was not speaking about illegal immigrants,”
You don’t know what Orban was speaking about. You create your dialogue and lie. You extract one translation of what Orban said which may in part be spin. This is your modus operandi, lie, lie and lie.
“Orban was not speaking about illegal immigrants, but about all immigrants arriving from outside Europe, most of whom are legal immigrants. “
They weren’t legal in Hungary so stop lying. Orban blocked the immigrants from entering Hungary’s borders just like the US should block the flow of illegal immigrants coming in from our southern border. That is what most of what Orban is trying to prevent.
You like illegal immigrants all over the United States, including MI3, rapists, terrorists, etc., so you are satisfied with uncontrolled entrance into our nation. Orban doesn’t want that, so you slime him. You are a liar.
Some people resigned. We see people resigning all around Biden, and you say nothing. It is normal for people to resign, and sometimes those people might not like the policy. But you brought in Nazism. You are ignorant of what it is. Nazism is not what Orban is pushing. You are trying to do the same thing here as Soros does everywhere. You are anti-American.
“You may be a Jew, but you’ll excuse Nazi sympathizers.”
You are the Nazi. You have the characteristics of a Nazi. Your authoritarian nature is the nature of a Nazi. Your desire to punish is the nature of a Nazi. Your reverse racism is the nature of a Nazi. Your lies and sympathies with the cancel culture are the nature of a Nazi.
A black person that wishes to maintain his cultural identity is not a Nazi.
Orban, who wishes to maintain the cultural identity of Hungary, is not a Nazi.
You are a Nazi/ fascist/ socialist. You want and support the power-hungry. You are “worthless, offensive, and detestable.
ATS – isn’t that the same Hungary and Orban who reportedly asked G Soros to leave Hungary?
Margot, you are right and ATS is a jerk. Soros destroys nations and ATS likes to follow in his footsteps, but has nothing to offer except his inability to tell the truth.
I do not know much about Orban, though I have heard him speak once and he said nothing that was national socialist.
I doubt you know anything about him either.
If you wish to persuade others that Orban is a Nazi or some other evil thing.
Do so using his own words and actions – no yours or those of others.
Orban like all of us is defined most by what we do, an to a lessor extent what we say.
Not be what others say about us.
“The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.”
Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the pursuit of happiness. This phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence, but I have never run across it in the Constitution during any of the numerous times I’ve read it. Is it one of the unenumerated rights? If so, has SCOTUS ever addressed it as an unenumerated right?
Good point. I guess we need to de-platform Ben Franklin.
The Declaration of Independence, like the Federalist Papers are often anchor points in SCOTUS decisions. Those documents are part of what we call, “founding documents”. Even a private letter written by a Presiident, has been a huge part of SCOTUS direction, even though it has no relevance. “Separation of Church and State, is not found in the Constitution, or Constitution adjacent.
The “pursuit of happiness” reference means that every American endeavor, except security and infrastructure, is to be conducted in freedom by free individuals engaged in free enterprise in the free markets of the free private sector.
Great! Now you’re beginning to comprehend that the government is severely, did I say severely, limited and restricted and infinitesimal, while free individuals enjoy maximal freedom in every aspect and consideration, without interference or intercession by government. If there is regulation of an industry, the industry itself must do it. Government cannot conduct central planning such as forcing the purchase of solar panels and electric cars. Government cannot weaponize the tax code to effect central planning.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
_____________________________________________________
The SCOTUS has no authority to exceed the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
The SCOTUS needs no other evidence than the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
The SCOTUS has no power to legislate, modify legislation or modify legislation by “interpretation.”
If the matter is nonjusticiable, the matter must be returned to Congress.
The SCOTUS unconstitutionally manufactures positions of its own bias, favor and desire, as Roberts commingled the definitions of the words state and federal to illicitly support wholly unconstitutional Obamacare.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
I believe it is time to get down to the true issue—we need a national vote whether we keep our current constitution or write a new one. Surely the majority will vote to keep it. Then we begin to teach it in schools and enforce it in government.
Its called a Convention of the States. Article V power of 35 state legislaters to by-pass Congress and add amendments or deal with congressional dysfunction.
It is working its way through State legislation, with about 15 states having passed the necessary legislation. 2/3 of states required.
Not at all strange that the Constitution returns often to the States to address issues. Such is the Constitutional power of States
If you think we need a national vote – then get behind efforts o call another constitutional convention.
The provisions to do so already exist in the existing constitution.
Left or right – we already have in place what is needed.
There are several ways to amend the constution,.
We are also free to call a new constitutional convention.
Until we do so – the constitution we already have is the supreme law of the land.
Exactly as written.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
RE:”If you think we need a national vote – then get behind efforts o call another constitutional convention.” You’re asking that of a generation raised on the need for immediate gratification?!?!? Apple announces a new iPhone and they’re camping out 24/7 a week in advance like it was the premiere for ‘Dune’ We are in the era of the Moody Blues’ “Children’s Children’s Children,have seen the enemy…. and it is us.
Yes, I am asking instant gratification children of all ages to behave like adults and do the hrd work necescary to get what they want.
I expect they will fail – because their views are NOT shared by the majority of people.
There are several constitutional amendments I would like to see.
I have a far better chance of seeing those than a national popular vote amendment.
And my odds are small.
but I am not trying to make an end run arround required changes to the constitution by twisting the courts of congress to accomplish my wishes illegitimately
RE:”If you think we need a national vote – then get behind efforts o call another constitutional convention.”…..You’re asking that of a generation whose parents raised them on immediate gratification!?!?! We are in the time of the Moody Blues’ ‘Children’s Children’s Children’. We have seen the enemy……and it is us.
Interesting that Turley is silent about last night’s news that the DOJ is going after the people involved in the fake electors scheme. Here’s a subpoena shared by Kelly Townsend, an AZ legislator involved in the scheme:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120985-kelly-townsend-subpoena
Another lawyer looking at this noted “experience suggests we likely got to see [the federal investigation’s subpoena requests] bc this is how the potential defendants can safely communicate with each other.”
More info: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/
Maybe Turley doesn’t want to talk about the left defecating on itself.
The fake electors are Republicans.
The left is defecating on itself no matter how you choose to refer to electors.
You do understand most state constitutions lay out a process to file an alternate slate of electors if they cant certify the accuracy of the vote?
You do understand that every state did certify a single slate of electors, and no state legislature approved a fake electors slate, right “retard”?
The evidence showed the ballots were compromised enough to have the Legislature, using their power, to decertify the election for cause and submit an alternate set of electors.
This is what was in play in Florida 2000 election. The recount (ordered by the Florida Supreme court that had zero power to order a recount) was not going to be completed in time for the certification. Throwing the selecting of electors to the Florida House. If counties in Arizona decertified the election, the legislature would have stepped in, selecting an alternate slate of electors.
A bi partisan committee would have explored these truths and you would not be so easily led about by your nose by Cheney and her cabal of TDS sufferers.
The legislature didn’t step in.
They’re fake slates of electors. Several of the fake slates of electors lied on a form where it’s illegal to lie, and then they doubled down on the crime by sending it through the USPS.
One of the lawyers even referred to them as “fake” electors in an email.
This has nothing to do with Cheney. This is the DOJ, not Congress, “retard.”
All I’m saying is, an alternate set of electors is provided for.
Working toward that goal is not a crime, illegal, immoral, or fattening.
Depends entirely on the manner in which they worked towards that goal. Some of them — but not all of them — did it in an illegal way. Perhaps you’re ignorant about the differences between those two groups.
They’re fake slates of electors. Several of the fake slates of electors lied on a form where it’s illegal to lie,
They were working all the pieces at the same time. There was not enough time to advance one piece, before working on the next step. All the pieces had to come together at the same time.
Again working toward the goal is not a crime. But when Garland threatened parents going to school board meetings, a crime is not really required for a good persecution.
They committed the equivalent of perjury, lying on a form where it’s illegal to lie.
Now you introduce new false claims about Garland.
You want Justices like Kavanaugh to be protected from those who make death threats, but you don’t want school board members protected from those who make death threats. Got it.
“The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.”
Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the pursuit of happiness. This phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence, but I have never run across it in the Constitution during any of the numerous times I’ve read it.
We have many members of Congress who are old. Biden will be 80.
Let’s have an age doctrine. Over 25 and termed out at 65.
So Ben Franklin didn’t know what he was talking about? Got it.
There is no “life tenure” under article III of the constitution.
“ 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.”
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour…— that’s not a life tenure. The entire premise of this “life tenure” is based on behavior rather than an explicit definition of “life tenure”.
A justice behaving badly violates that provision. So who determines what kind of behavior is not deemed good?
There’s nothing in the constitution that prohibits congress from setting term limits. Setting term limits makes the court accountable and less partisan when they are replaced every 18years. Conservatives are afraid of a truly fair and ideologically balanced court. The hate that and they will make sure it never happens. They want to keep their ability to force their “values” on everyone else.
Congress “determines what kind of behavior is not deemed good,” via impeachment.
But the definition of good behavior is quite ambiguous. Are treason, bribery, and other misdemeanors the opposite of good behavior? Who ultimately decides what is bad behavior? Trump was impeached on essentially that point and apparently even that wasn’t enough.
Congress decides what is good behavior.
Changing the wording of the question, will not get a answer more to your liking.
Svelaz, the definition is whatever Congress chooses, ****via impeachment and a removal trial****. Judges have sometimes been removed. That Trump was not removed has zero implications for the impeachment and removal process.
Wow, that comment sure made sense.
“Good behavior ” is life tenure. EXPLICITLY,
You can impeach a member of the court for actual misconduct.
Anything else requires changing the constitution.
The constitution did not condition they tenure of judges on anything by good behavior.
You can not add a new condition without changing the constitution.
“A justice behaving badly violates that provision. So who determines what kind of behavior is not deemed good?”
Congress, Judges can be impeached – individually, for bad conduct only.
“here’s nothing in the constitution that prohibits congress from setting term limits.”
Except the very clause YOU cited. The only condition on a judges tenure is “good conduct” .
You can impeach judges, there is no other means to remove them aside from death or retirement.
“Setting term limits makes the court accountable and less partisan when they are replaced every 18years.”
False, it actually makes them more partisan.
The justices are already accountable – you can impeach them.
“Conservatives are afraid of a truly fair and ideologically balanced court. ”
Correct – the courts should not be “fair and balanced” – the courts are NOT a political body – that is YOUR fetish.
They are bound by the law and the constitution AS WRITTEN.
So long as they adhere to that – you can accomplish everything you wish without fear of partisan courts – by changing the law or constitution as required.
“The hate that and they will make sure it never happens.”
Wisely so.
As is typical, you seek the rule of man, not the rule of law.
“They want to keep their ability to force their “values” on everyone else.”
As do you.
You talk about “new perspectives” – that is literally a demand to force YOUR values on others.
The rule of law is simple.
Enforce the laws we have – as written.
That duty rests with law enforcement and the courts.
If we do not like those laws – change them,
that duty rests with the people and their legislators.
Conform the law to the constitution, that duty rests with the legislatures, and is enforced by the courts.
If that impedes law with broad support – change the constitution.
This is the rule of law.
Anything else is the rule of man.
The rule of law can not exist without following the clear words of law and constitution,
without enforcing the law as it is.
Everything else is lawlessness.
Mr. Turley – these words you wrote are the absolute truth and why this effort is rubbish. “When the Court rules in a way that is approved by these members it is a constitutional triumph. When it fails to do so, it is a constitutional crisis.”
“Such men are dangerous”.
The Congressional Democrats don’t have a problem introducing term limits on the judges of the Court(which I agree) but would they also add Congress members to the same term limits?
I do not agree with term limits for the courts. Regardless, if you want those you must change the constitution.
“ Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric.”
Kind of like what Trump did on Jan 6. It seems that perfectly acceptable according to many republicans.
The court’s most recent appointments by trump negatively affected the court’s credibility and the perception that it’s a neutral body. Trump’s appointees were all chosen for one reason. To overturn Roe. Alito’s interpretation of Roe along with justice Thomas is so convoluted and twisted in its reasoning that the majority of law professors correctly pointed out it’s glaring flaws. The decision to end Roe was an ideological decision rather than a legal one.
Applying term limits is a more reasonable approach to the current problem because the court would have fresh perspectives with each new justice and it would eliminate an ideological monopoly that can harm the nation. It gives no particular advantage to either party and would go a long way to restoring confidence in the court.
Turley supports the expansion of the court. With the caveat that it is done at a glacial pace, but he is firmly on the side of expanding the court. Term limits should be debated and seriously considered.
Svelaz
Not sure if your moral compass is skewed towards “whataboutism” or you just suffer from TDS.
In either case, you would be more interesting if you looked through the windshield of life instead of focusing on the rearview mirror.
Monumentcolorado,
It’s interesting that when similar circumstances and actions are mentioned suddenly it’s a “whataboutism” or TDS. Ironically it was republicans who mastered those concepts when comparing Trump’s views when he was running for office.
The whole point of making such comparisons is to show that it wasn’t actually an issue for republicans either.
Suffers from both!
Every Democrat president nominates justices only for supporting Roe! You want to help “legitimize” the Court by changing it to accommodate the party in power by 4 in the House and a tie in the Senate???? Why not eliminate Justices by having the youngest and least experienced go out first?
“Kind of like what Trump did on Jan 6.”
Do you mean like Trump authorizing 20,000 troops and Pelosi rejecting them?
“The court’s most recent appointments by trump negatively affected the court’s credibility and the perception that it’s a neutral body.”
Do you mean the credibility of some of the Justices on the left that have denied Constitutional authority, thinking their personal histories are more important?
“The decision to end Roe was an ideological decision rather than a legal one.”
You have your head in the wrong place as the decision was not ideological. Overturning Roe corrected an earlier decision on Constitutional grounds. Thankfully even Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote about the poor Constitutional logic used in the Roe decision.
“Applying term limits is a more reasonable approach to the current problem ”
In order to make such an approach apolitical, the results of such a law should not take place while the current President or legislators are in office. However, this approach, under the present madness of the left, shouldn’t even be discussed.
The four flawed statements above demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills.
“ Do you mean like Trump authorizing 20,000 troops and Pelosi rejecting them?”
Trump didn’t authorize any troops whatsoever.
“ Former President Donald Trump never ordered his acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller to have 10,000 National Guard troops at the ready in preparation for January 6 – the date Congress was tallying the results of the 2020 election.
The House committee on January 6 put out a video Tuesday evening focused on Miller’s testimony.
‘To remove any doubt: Not only did Donald Trump fail to contact his Secretary of Defense on January 6th (as shown in our hearing), Trump also failed to give any order prior to January 6 to deploy the military to protect the Capitol,’ the committee’s tweet sharing the video said. ”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-never-told-defense-secretary-to-ready-10000-troops-for-january-6/ar-AA100rl5
“ You have your head in the wrong place as the decision was not ideological.”
It was an ideological decision in search of a constitutional reason, one that ignored the 9th amendment.
Thankfully even Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote about the poor Constitutional logic used in the Roe decision.“
That is true, HOWEVER, it’s not as simple as you want it to be. She still opined that the ability to choose an abortion is a constitutional right. It was not about using privacy as its main argument, she argued it should have been argued under the equal protection clause instead.
“ However, this approach, under the present madness of the left, shouldn’t even be discussed.”
Conservative Republican Governor Mike Huckabee supported term limits for Supreme Court justices. The right has discussed this as well.
Trump didn’t authorize any troops whatsoever.
The security failure is not with what was authorized, but with what was requested. Get back to us when it’s proven Bowser and Pelosi had their request for National Guard troops denied by the DoD and the President.
The talking point from the right is that Trump ordered troops to be ready and that Pelosi rejected that. Trump never ordered any troops to be ready. Obviously it was a lie being spread around the right-wing universe and accepted as fact.
Troops were being requested. It was Trump’s lack of action by choice that was the problem. Acting Secretary of defense Chris Miller had the authority to order troops to the capitol without Trump unless it was countermanded him.
Everyone was waiting for Trump to act while he sat twiddling his thumbs for three hours before he did anything. He only chose to tell his supporters to go home when it became obvious he wasn’t going to succeed in stopping the electoral count.
Troops were being requested.
Really!? Now we’re getting somewhere. You may want to contact the January 6 committee so they can schedule another breaking news infomercial.
Once again: Get back to us when it’s proven Bowser and Pelosi had their request for National Guard troops denied by the DoD and the President.
Olly, troops being requested is one thing. Trump and the right claiming he ordered troops to be ready are two very different things.
Trump was never going to honor such a request. His own staff spent hours pleading with him to do something.
Trump doesn’t have to wait for a request to act.
Thst they requested troops is irrelevant. What matters is Trump being able to answer. He was refusing to act even from his own staff. Even if Pelosi requested help it’s clear Trump wouldn’t lift a finger. He was derelict in his duties.
Clearly you need a new crystal ball. The one you are using is 0fer.
The talking point from the right is that Trump ordered troops to be ready and that Pelosi rejected that. Trump never ordered any troops to be ready.
The chain of command has been explained by many in these comments for week…months.
You are the one creating a fake talking point. President Trump cant make a request, without FIRST receiving a request. President Trump communicated to Pelos, and Bowser, his opiinion about Jan 6 security, and Both either Ignored, or sent a message they would not make the REQUIRED request.
This entire line of reasoning is invented by the Jan 6 committee and is just another data point of the phony narrative. Making a statement that is true.(President Trump never requested military assistance) but Meaningless (President Trump never had the authority to issue such a request)
“ You are the one creating a fake talking point. Presidential Trump cant make a request, without FIRST receiving a request. President Trump communicated to Pelos, and Bowser, his opiinion about Jan 6 security, and Both either Ignored, or sent a message they would not make the REQUIRED request.”
“ President Trump cant make a request, without FIRST receiving a request.”
Obviously you seem to have problems understanding the chain of command, retard. Trump doesn’t have to wait for a request. He can issue an ORDER anytime he wants. He’s not some helpless bureaucrat. He’s the commander in chief. Pelosi is not Trump’s superior. He’s the guy at the top. Trump had nearly four hours to order troops to help law enforcement with the rioters. He didn’t have to wait for a request. His own staff was imploring him to do something and he chose not to do anything.
“ President Trump communicated to Pelos, and Bowser, his opiinion about Jan 6 security, and Both either Ignored, or sent a message they would not make the REQUIRED request.”.
He didn’t communicate anything to them. The acting Secretary of defense did and he inquired about the need for troops when it wasn’t expected that a riot was going to ensue. But Trump did. Now that we know he knew he was going to incite the mob to march to the Capitol. He had no intention of stopping the rioting.
The Jan 6 committee showed proof of his intent and mindset.
“Trump didn’t authorize any troops whatsoever.”
The Capitol police and everyone up the chain seems to think so. You don’t and that is your problem. You are uninformed.
“The House committee on January 6 put out a video Tuesday evening focused on Miller’s testimony.”
Did you notice it wasn’t live and there was no cross? Of course not. Why would a person without critical thinking skills think of that? Why don’t you read the IG report? By the way, Milley is not the one that authorizes NG troops but you wouldn’t know that. To know that one has to be able to read and comprehend.
“She still opined that the ability to choose an abortion is a constitutional right.”
But she thought the decision that was overturned was wrong. Do you understand what that means? Probably not.
“Conservative Republican Governor Mike Huckabee supported term limits for Supreme Court justices.”
Bo problem in discussing such ideas. The problem you have is not understanding that if something of this nature is done it shouldn’t be done to directly benefit one party or idea. To understand that one needs a thinking ability far over the ability you have.
“ The Capitol police and everyone up the chain seems to think so. You don’t and that is your problem. You are uninformed.”
They “thinking” he ordered troops is not proof that he actually did. Which was just verified that trump never ordered the NG to be ready.
Show me proof that trump ordered the NG to be ready? Surely you have the evidence since “everyone” thinks he did.
“ Did you notice it wasn’t live and there was no cross? Of course not. Why would a person without critical thinking skills think of that? Why don’t you read the IG report? By the way, Milley is not the one that authorizes NG troops but you wouldn’t know that. To know that one has to be able to read and comprehend.”
Did you notice that it was testimony UNDER OATH. It’s not a trial you dumba$$. There is no “cross examination”. Milley wasn’t talk about authorizing troops. He was talking about not getting any order from Trump to have troops ready as the right falsely claims. You are the one with severe comprehension problems. Trump never ordered troops to be ready. Your claim is a lie.
“ The problem you have is not understanding that if something of this nature is done it shouldn’t be done to directly benefit one party or idea.”
Again demonstrating your atrocious comprehension problem. This isn’t being proposed to benefit one party or idea. It’s to bring the court into an ideological balance every neither part or ideological has a majority. Apparently you don’t understand what that entails.
Your own extreme bias is rotting what little brain matter you have left.
Show me proof that trump ordered the NG to be ready? Surely you have the evidence since “everyone” thinks he did.
You’re scrambling. Even if President Trump was on video stating he did not authorize National Guard troops, that would still not address why Pelosi and Bowser didn’t request them.
So once again: Get back to us when it’s proven Bowser and Pelosi had their request for National Guard troops denied by the DoD and the President.
Olly, Trump didn’t have to wait for a request. He had full authority to order troops into the Capitol to defend it from the rioters. It was an attack on the Capitol and Trump had a constitutional obligation to defend it.
He doesn’t have time ask for permission either. He’s the commander in chief.
Trump has already been shown that he had no interest in stopping the rioters. Only when it became clear the rioting did not succeed in stopping the count and forcing pence to declare unconstitutionally that the votes be “sent back”.
The right has been claiming Trump ordered troops to be ready before the Jan 6 rioting. Obviously that was a lie.
Which set of circumstances should President Trump have acted on? The rioters outside the building, or the tourists being escorted into and throughout the building by Capitol police? 🤔 Hmm Gosh, that’s a tough one. I know, President Trump should send in the National Guard troops per the request of Mayor Bowser and/or Speaker Pelosi. Well that makes sense. Because both had jurisdiction over the immediate events and most certainly would have requested the troops had they believed the circumstances warranted them. He certainly wouldn’t want to be impeached a 3rd time for unconstitutionally violating Posse Comitatus.
So once again: Get back to us when it’s proven Bowser and Pelosi had their request for National Guard troops denied by the DoD and the President.
Olly,
“ Which set of circumstances should President Trump have acted on? The rioters outside the building, or the tourists being escorted into and throughout the building by Capitol police?”
There were rioters inside the building too. They were actively looking for legislators intent on harming and stopping a legitimate congressional administration. They weren’t “tourists”.
Senator Jim Jordan called Trump to stop the rioters. Pence had to be taken to a secure location because of the ongoing threats.
Trump was duty bound by the constitution to protect the Capitol from the rioting. That’s just a matter of fact.
Police officer were being assaulted and harmed by rioters. Legislators were not going to be spared either.
I’ll repeat again the president doesn’t have to wait for a request to order troops to help law enforcement defend the Capitol. He can unilaterally make that order.
Trump deliberately chose to let the rioters do what he wanted them to do. Force pence to unilaterally declare the election invalid. Even if Pelosi or Bowser requested help Trump was clearly not going to oblige. He wouldn’t listen to his own staff. What makes anyone think he would have listened to Pelosi?
Trump was duty bound by the constitution to protect the Capitol from the rioting. That’s just a matter of fact.
You are avoiding answering the obvious questions: Does Mayor Bowser and Speaker Pelosi also have a constitutional duty to protect the Capitol? Did they use their authority to request National Guard troops? If not, why not? If they did and their request was denied, then provide the proof and then the matter will be settled on who failed to provide Capitol security.
This is not that difficult.
This from reporting following the DC riots June 2020
Esper issued a memo on Tuesday reminding Defense Department personnel “we commit to protecting the American people’s right to freedom of speech and to peaceful assembly.”
Milley issued a similar statement reminding troops of their oath to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to peaceful protests.
Those statements by Milley and Esper came after they took fierce criticism for using military planning terms like “battlespace” to describe American protest sites during a conference call with state governors that Trump hosted on Monday, a recording of which leaked.
At the time, the Pentagon was concerned that Trump might deploy active duty troops if the governors did not sufficiently employ the National Guard, the official said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protest-troops-idUSKBN23E0DY
So, 7 months later, Trump learned his lesson. Of Troops were going into DC, Bowser and Pelosi were going to have to be the people in charge.
Trump was duty bound by the constitution to protect the Capitol from the rioting. That’s just a matter of fact.
Trump is Constitutionally prohibited from acting unilaterally to protecting the Capitol.
“Show me proof that trump ordered the NG to be ready? Surely you have the evidence since “everyone” thinks he did.”
Svelaz, you remind me of prior discussions where you keep asking for something that has been provided multiple times. I’ll recopy an old post where you did the same.
—
Svelaz writes: “Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.”
Here are a couple of locations where I mentioned the address of the FDA report. This proves you don’t know what you are talking about.
In the first one, I copied your statement, which is what is being argued about and is completely wrong,
You said: “All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. ”
Below is one of the many FDA postings I made. I believe others have posted FDA sites as well
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-1/#comment-2148321
In the second of the posts, I showed one of the reasons Pfizer might like this legal distinction.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-3/#comment-2148317
I posted other things from the FDA with their addresses, and much of what I said was pure quotes from the FDA.
This proves you to be what everyone knows you to be. You were wrong again, and it isn’t just about Covid. You have been proven wrong repeatedly on a multiplicity of subjects where proof has been provided. You deny the truth and the proof provided even when it is on the same official papers you have posted.
—
This proves Svelaz is not able to learn from past experience or he is a paid troll not worth a dime.
RE:”Svelaz, you remind me of prior discussions where you keep asking for something that has been provided multiple times..” Just goes to support my contention as to the negativity in procedures such as these. One is unable to see the trees because of the forest. Incontrovertible and relevant facts which are ‘accidentally’ brought to light in the course of the examinations are buried under the weight of irrelevant airy persiflage, never again to see the light. Their findings, summation, and recommendations will be bereft of anything contrary to their agenda.
“They “thinking” he ordered troops is not proof that he actually did. Which was just verified that trump never ordered the NG to be ready.”
Since documentation has been provided and both you and Enigma need refresher courses I’ll recopy my response to Enigma that he ran away from. Two birds with one stone.
—
You have a problem, Enigma. You latch on to whatever is given to you by the left and then accept it as the truth and the whole truth. It isn’t. The J6 committee slices and dices video and taped depositions that are held secret. In this way, they can have a TV production that is organized and says what it wants. You are intelligent enough to understand this, but it wouldn’t be consistent with the vision you want to believe.
There is nothing anyone can do to convince a person who only wants to hear what he wants to hear.
This is the timeline for J6 activities by the Capitol Police.
Click to access USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf
The Democrats are on quicksand regarding J6 because the man who supposedly wanted violence authorized 20,000 NG and the ones blaming him are the ones that refused the 20,000 NG. The only reason Democrats haven’t collapsed is that they have the MSM on their side withholding all the information you don’t want to hear and taking out-of-context statements and presenting them in a way you want to hear.
The evidence is quite clear but there is no way to convince anyone with a closed mind.
Start with the 20,000 troops and apply logic to your thinking process.
I will quote Alan Dershowitz who voted for Biden.
“It’s the first time this has happened in my lifetime since McCarthyism, and it’s despicable. The idea that they would interview this witness and allow her to testify to hearsay about the president jumping toward the wheel, without first asking the eye- and ear- witnesses. I’ve never heard of a lawyer doing that in my 16 years of practicing law. … It’s not only unethical, it’s not only unfair, it’s bad lawyering.”
Yet, you jumped onboard Hutchinson’s testimony despite it being pure hearsay and according to sources contradicted by the Secret Service agents involved. The Committee doesn’t want to call them back and publicly ask them what happened because it makes a farce of the Committee.
From the IG: “Mr. Miller and GEN Milley met with the President at the White House at 5:30 p.m.The primary topic they discussed was unrelated to the scheduled rally. GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, ‘We’ve got a plan and we’ve got it covered.”
You can read about it here and elsewhere, though I suggest you initially focus on page 31 and the nearby pages.
The IG report:
Click to access DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf
When you finish, let me know what you think. We don’t have to be adversarial if we both focus on and look for the truth.
SM
Allan just can’t get his head around the fact the ex president he so admired did nothing other than finger pop his butt and throw plates against the wall as his followers ransacked the Capitol and — hopefully — overthrew the government for him.
This sounds like the Stupid guy whose been thrown off the list multiple times. He never got his facts straight and couldn’t talk about things without dirty language.
However, if you think there are any brains in that skull of yours, you can look at what I said along with the sources, and then make an argument that makes sense. Not up to it? I understand.
“Did you notice that it was testimony UNDER OATH. It’s not a trial you dumba$$. There is no “cross examination”. “
You are right it is not a trial. Most of the answers are given in secret and taped so the tapes can be diced and spliced to provide only what your leader wishes you to hear. (They think you are dumb and you are proving them correct. Additionally, we don’t hear cross which is what differentiates a court proceeding from Jan 6. The court is looking for truth while J6 is looking for the desired spin.
RE: “They think you are dumb and you are proving them correct.” The electorate bows to their convictions that they are as these miscreants are returned to office every 2 or 6.
“ Former President Donald Trump never ordered his acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller to have 10,000 National Guard troops at the ready in preparation for January 6 – the date Congress was tallying the results of the 2020 election.
This statement is jiberish. The National Guard must be requested by the Mayor of DC and/or, Pelosi.. Upon that request delivered to the President, only then can the Presiden order Sec Def, to deploy troops
Iowan2, Trump didn’t have to wait for a request. Being that he WAS the president he could have unilaterally ordered troops to the capitol regardless of a request. In fact it was his constitutional duty to do so.
He CHOSE not to do anything because he WANTED the rioters to succeed.
Nothing in the law says Trump can only act when there is a request. The president is the commander in chief of all armed forces. He has the authority to order troops to the capitol unilaterally when the Capitol is under attack. Trump failed as a leader and that failure was deliberate.
Iowan2, Trump didn’t have to wait for a request. Being that he WAS the president he could have unilaterally ordered troops to the capitol regardless of a request. In fact it was his constitutional duty to do so.
The State National Guard is under the control of DoD. But managed by governors, The President cannot call the Michigan Guard to Ann Arbor to quell unrest. Well he could, but its never been done before, without the approval of the Governor nothing would happen.
DC is unique because of overlapping jurisdictions, street by street. Capitol is under control of Congress, Now that is Pelosi. National parks(monuments) are under the interior, DC, the city is Bowser, Bowser controls the DC Guard.
I short you have been snookered by the Jan 6 committee lying to you by omission.
Iowan2,
“ The State National Guard is under the control of DoD. But managed by governors, The President cannot call the Michigan Guard to Ann Arbor to quell unrest. Well he could, but its never been done before, without the approval of the Governor nothing would happen.”
President Trump is commander in chief of ALL armed forces. That includes the DoD. The DoD takes direct orders from the president.
The Governors can make requests if they need help. But the president can act anytime he wants when it comes to the armed forces. He’s the one who has full authority to issue orders without waiting for a request. Trump could easily have ordered the national guard to deploy and stand by for immediate action. He didn’t have to wait for a request to have the ready.
Pelosi and Bowser didn’t have to request help when it was obvious that the capitol was under attack by the president’s own supporters. Trump never intended to help Pelosi or bowser. It’s already clear he would have deliberately ignored any requests. He was ignoring his own staff’s pleas to stop the attack.
Making up your own rules again?
Many quotes from government resources have shown you to be wrong, but you keep spouting the same stuff.
What did Einstein say was the definition of insanity?
Every day, you demonstrate the definition of insanity.
If that is the case you could point it out, but you can’t. Instead we see you being corrected day and night. Maybe if you posted less you would sleep more and make a bit more sense.
Pelosi has no control over either the National Guard or the military. This is a lie. There would have been NO need for any protection but for Trump’s Big Lie and the fact that he had failed to bully, litigate or recount his way into stealing a second election. The decision to end Roe was the reason for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett: it hooks the “unborn baby saving” Evangelicals who aren’t wise enough to even understand how they are being manipulated. The American people have never been more fed up with nor have had less respect for the SCOTUS than they do right now. The SCOTUS is being used as a means by which Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh are forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of Americand who don’t agree.
Pelosi has no control over either the National Guard or the military.
Why do you lie and make stuff up about what others think or say? Nobody claimed Pelosi controlled the NG, She is however incharge of the security of the Capital. Nothing happens there without her approval
Bad for Trump to inflame passions, good for Democrats?
Are there any supporters of a right to abort that think Roe was incorrect? Are there any opponents that think it was correct?
Get your head out of your South end and open your ears and eyes to truth!!
Trump did not call for violence, you obviously did not hear him speak that day! The Jan 6th Committee is a total sham. One side does not reveal the truth! Liz Chaney is her father all over again! CORRUPT as well as the others on that committee. Their goal is to stop Trump because they fear him! Not because he’s a threat to this Constitutional Republic, but because he’s a threat to Democracy! Big difference. Most people that say they hate Trump have no idea why! No rational idea! That’s because they have weak minds and allow others to do their thinking!!
This country under Trump had a great economy. He also had illegals coming into this country at a minimum. He has been “THE ONLY” President to help all Americans and most especially blacks, but all Americans! He did not put up with other countries taking advantage of this country and WE WERE respected by the world under his leadership!! None of the above can be said by this inept and very corrupt President Biden, or his Obama Administration and the Democrats. I’ll even throw in some “Turnecoat” Republicans who have been bought off! As a matter if fact Trump is the only one who did not take a salary, and the only Predident to lose money while in office!! So before you spout more bs, check out facts yourself, and stop allowing your weak mind to allow others to tell you what to think.
His supporters in the rioting mob did take his speech to mean to riot. Testimony from former rioters confirmed the allegations.
His supporters in the rioting mob did take his speech to mean to riot. Testimony from former rioters confirmed the allegations.
🤣 I take your comment to mean you are a child pornographer. Other commenters on this blog confirm that allegation. Using your logic, you should be indicted, tried and convicted.
Prove me wrong.
Olly, the rioters themselves have testified under oath and it on record that they took Trump’s speech to mean they should go stop the count. You can look up the testimony. It’s not hard to find.
“ The accounts of people who said they were inspired by the president to take part in the melee inside the Capitol vividly show the impact of Trump’s months-long attack on the integrity of the 2020 election and his exhortations to supporters to “fight” the results.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rioters-testimony/2021/01/16/01b3d5c6-575b-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html
Can you post proof that commenters confirmed I am a child pornographer as you allege?
the rioters themselves have testified under oath and it on record that they took Trump’s speech to mean they should go stop the count. You can look up the testimony. It’s not hard to find.
Oh my, under oath and on the record you say. Damn, that’s compelling evidence. Wait, what!? It was testimony that they felt, believed, interpreted, were inspired by, understood, took to mean…? Vinny Gambini would have a field day on cross examination.
Can you post proof that commenters confirmed I am a child pornographer as you allege?
First of all, thank you for confirming you post as Anonymous. Secondly, I will swear under oath and on the record that I felt, believed, interpreted, was inspired by, understood, took to mean their comments proved you are a child pornographer. So once again using your logic…you’re guilty.
Wow Olly,
You are on a roll today. It would appear that you have shown that Svelaz is both an Anomaly and a child pornographer.
Svelaz is a child pornographer? I heard that before so it must be true. After all, if we hear something over and over again, it becomes true, right?
I now believe Svelaz is a child pornographer, along with other things.
Olly, the rioters themselves have testified under oath and it on record that they took Trump’s speech to mean they should go stop the count. You can look up the testimony. It’s not hard to find.
And some of the rioters are awaiting sentencing. Talk about witness tampering.
The ones not awaiting sentenceing are awaiting trial.
The court’s most recent appointments by trump negatively affected the court’s credibility and the perception that it’s a neutral body.
Arguing from a faulty conclusion.
No, arguing from a widely accepted observation supported by the outcomes and public perception.
The “mob” on J6 was infuriated by a lawless and likely fraudulent election that had no consequential scrutiny.
Thereis a long list of things that could be done to prevent J6 – none of which involve Trump.
Follow the law. 38 States including 5/6 of the swing states have constitutional provisions requiring secret ballots. That make all forms of voting that are no inperson unconstitutional in those states.
This is not the only lawless action of democrats just the largest.
Next, the court cases you celebrate were an unmittigated disaster for YOU!
You do not seem to grasp that putting your hands over your ears and shouting ‘I can’t hear you” – is NOT an examination on the merits.
You have done to our courts what you did to higher education – censored them.
No court examined election claims on their merits prior to 2021.
No court held hearings, brought in witnesses, examined or cross examined them.
Most of us do not whether you screw one set of plantiffs even the RNC or Trump.
But you are confused when you conflate elections purely with parties and politics.
Trump did not have a right to be heard in court. But Voters had a right to a lawful and trustworthy election.
You through lawlessness and shallow inquiry by courts denied people of that.
We listened to you rant that not counting ballots received a week after the election ended was somehow disenfranchising people.
It disenfranchises every legitimate voter to allow even one fraudulent or lawless vote.
Then you did everything in your power to stop protests.
Whether you like what they had to say the J6 protestors were constitutionally free to “parade” through the capital expressing their displeasure – just as the Kavanaugh protestors did.
In left wing nut world you are allowed to protest supreme court decisions in the bedrooms of justices or at their dinner table,
But not permitted to protest lawless elections at the federal capital ?
Those on the left do not seek Truth, they seek to silence their opposition.
Whether it is within our education system, social media, The so called main stream media, our courts, or at the capital – vioces you do not wish to hear must be silenced.
There are no atleat 14 meetings between VP Biden and clients of Hunter Biden that have been documents – yet claims claims regarding Biden corruption were dismissed as “russian disinformation” – legitimate news was censored by social media andf the MSM and there are still left wing idiots ranting russian disinformation.
The more you seek to silence those who oppose you the more violence you will see and the less anyone will care when the consequences for you are draconian.
I will personally oppose it if Republicans engage in the same idiocy the J6 committee is. Though I will note be able to stop from smiling as you are hoist by your own petard.
But by destroying the rule of law – you destroy your own ability to protect yourself when the worm turns.
We are headed for hell – and it is YOUR fault – whether we get left wing nut totalitarianism, or that of the right is more a question of who has the most actual power (by far the right) andwho is the least moral (by far the left).
We are 6 years past the moment the left should have grasped they jumped the shark overplayed their hand, and needed to move center.
You failed to, and we are all suffering as a consequence.
The largest most negative impact ont he courts credibility was the failure of the courts to thwart lawless elections and to explore credible allegations of fraud.
You talk of court decisions – and presumably you mean the Supreme court – so other than Dobbs what decisions do you mean ?
Dobb’s did not undermine the courts credibility. On the countrary with millions of americans it enhanced it.
Most of us understand that regardless of whether we seek abortion to be legal or not – that it is not a constitutional right.
So what else is it that you think millions of americans think undermines the legitimacy of the courts ?
I would bet that random people on the right could name more SCOTUS decisions they favor, than those on the left can name ones they oppose.
If you wish to make future elections about the courts – you will lose.
The courts are not and never were a “neutral body” – their duty is NOT to politics but the law and constitution.
So long as the courts follow the law and constitution – there is no court decision that can not be overturned by the people, by new laws, ro amendments to the constitution.
The courts become lawless when they do not follow the plain language of the law and constitution.
The further into “interpretation” rather than “plain reading’ the courts go, the less our ability to repair bad court decisions.
If you want a national right to an abortion – pass federal law (though that too would likely be unconstitutional) or amend the constitution.
Every single time a SCOTUS decision impedes your wishes – you are ALWAYS free to pass new law or amend the constitution.
Stacking the court is just more lawlessness, more gamesmanship to get your way by any means possible.
And not doing what the constitution allows for – changing the law or amending the constitution.
And rather seeking to game the system.
The credibility problem is yours.
Please point out where in the constitution there is a right to an abortion ?
There is nothing wrong with Alito’s reasoning.
There is not and never has been a right to an abortion.
Ordinary people can grasp that.
Worse those of you on the left are giant hypocrits.
You claim that you can force others to Vaccinate, to wear masks, to lock ourselves at home, to cease to worship, that we have no right to speak words you do not like.
And after all that you expect anyone to care that the courts deprive you of abortions on demand ?
There is nothing illogical about Dobb’s.
States have had laws restriction abortions since before the founding through to 1972.
No where in the constitution is there a right to an abortion.
Even the penumbra of the 9th amendment does not extend half so far.
It is irrelevant whether you think something is reasonable.
It is not constitutional.
Change the constitution FIRST.
You do not seem to grasp how stupid “reasonable” is as an argument. Most any claim can be appear “reasonable” to the ideologically indoctrinated.
The purpose of lifetime judicial appointments was to immunize the courts from politics. that has actually worked.
Though you rant that the supreme court is somehow political – it obviously is not. Neither Thomas, nor Kagan, nor Alito nor Jackson has any consequential “political” leverage against them.
I do not agree with some of the decisions of some of th left wing justices (and sometimes those on the right), but I do not presume that David Axlerod, or Karl Rove is whispering into their ear.
Every justice right or wrong is free from political pressures for the rest of their lives. They make their decisions based on what they beleive to be correct – even when they are wrong.
The planned democrat actions are not only unconstitutional, but will politicize rather than depoliticize the courts.
We do not WANT fresh perspectives on the court.
You are contradicting your own claims – you think this will depoliticize – yet “fresh perspectives” is litterally politicization.
The Courts should ALWAYS be conservative – ALL courts.
Courts do not exist to make new law, to rewrite the constitution, to make policy or to have fresh perspectives.
The courts exist to follow the constitution and the law to the letter.
When that doe snot produce the outcome we want – we change the law or the constitution.
We do not want a minority perspective or a democratic perspective or a republican perspective.
We want the law as written, the constitution as written.
Nor are these just desires.
They are REQUIREMENTS of the rule of law.
Every supreme court decision should be 9:0 – because the justices are confined to reading the law and constitution as written.
They are not there to decide what is right.
What is reasonable
What the law or constitution SHOULD be
Just what it IS.
We the people have the power to create law and constitution as we beleive they SHOULD be.
The courts should absolutely have an “ideological monopoly”.
That monopoly should be the law and the constitution as they are written.
No more, no less, regardless of whose ox gets gored.
I fault the so called right wing justices – for placing democracy above the actual text of the constitution – constantly.
As written the constitution is one of enumerated powers, strictly defined responsibilities for each branch of government, and near limitless individual freedom.
The right wing justices are far to likely to support claims of limitless government power. And less likely to protect actual individual rights.
But those ont he right pay more than lip service to the constitution as written.
Those on the left are blatantly political – they are NOT anchored in the constitution. They decide as YOU asserted – based on “perspective” rather than the text of the constitution and the law.
When the courts are monopolized by those who would follow the constitution as written, the rest of us can fully trust that if we change the constitution – the same court will follow it.
Turley is wrong on expanding the court.
It is essential that the highest court in the land speaks clearly with one voice as much as possible. The court as it is, is already too large.
It should be 7 members rather than 9.
If we have a problem with cases – and with few exceptions there is no RIGHT to appear before the Supreme court,
Then we need a larger lower appellate court.
Rather than mess with the Supreme court, create a US superior court that is essentially between the district appellate courts and SCOTUS.
You can make that as large as you wish.
What you and to a lessor extent Turley get WRONG, is that the purpose of the Supreme court is NOT to hear myriads of cases, it is to homogenize the voice of ALL courts – to speak with one voice – as best as possible the voice of the constitution, and to bind the lower courts to conforming to that voice.
Everything Democrats, Turley are discussing dilutes the voice of the court and brings us closer to chaos, to the rule of man not law.
If you want term limits – amend the constitution.
Though I find it odd, that the left wants NO term limits for congress, where they are the most meaningful and were there is real political problems, where all the claims you make have relevance. But then wants term limits for judges where this is most harmful and solves the wrong problems in the wrong way.
These people are both stupid and evil. The best anecdote about Mr. Hank Johnson is about the time he questioned the military about the transfer of a Marine Base from Japan to Guam. He literally inquired as to whether the large addition of forces could cause the island to tip over. One could not expect someone with that level of ignorance to be able to comprehend the meaning of the US Constitution. Yet the media has the gall to ridicule only the likes of Congresswoman Taylor-Green. She might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but compared to Democrats like Johnson, she is David Hume and John Locke combined!
Thanks for the insight. I always wondered why we did not send more troops to Guam.
Hank Johnson was not ignorant, that is curable. He is stupid, that is terminal.
As the great philosopher Forest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
When Jeff (apparently now known as Jeff Simpleton) starts with his misquotes of Turley railing against Trump, we should quote Turley railing against the left. ” Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric.”
“ Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric.”
But, but, but, it’s free speech. According to Turley. Nothing wrong with that. Trump failed to moderate the mob and fueled the rage with reckless rhetoric. Turley called Trump’s speech reckless too.
Good. You recognize the left is a mob. Trump authorized NG troops. Pelosi said no.
Turley is an exceptionally proper guy and maintains his left-wing credentials.
Rep. Hank Johnson intends to change the balance the Court so much that it will tip over and capsize.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Nah, just to right it. It’s tilting dangerously too far to starboard. That ship needs to fill its port side ballast tanks ASAP
People like Svelaz had no issue with the “balance” of the Court when it tilted left for decades. Damn hypocrites are sickening.
It did’t tilt left for decades:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
Erroneous interpretation. It shouldn’t be judged based on ideology. It should be judged based on adherence to the Constitution.
It is always judged on ideology. Even conservatives base their views of the court in ideology.
Interpretation of the constitution thru Originalism or living constitution are both ideologies. Even textualism.
The court wasn’t tilted to the left. It actually more balanced than it is now.
Kennedy was the justice that had the tendency to vote either way. Conservatives didn’t like that he wasn’t “reliably conservative”. They didn’t want an ideologically balanced court. They wanted a reliably conservative court.
Kennedy a Reagan appointment was not the conservative everyone in the right expected, but he wasn’t the darling of the left either. He kept the court in balance before Justice Scalia and Ginsburg were gone.
When both parties were often complaining about rulings with that court it meant it was more balanced than it is now.
Good Lord! How long ago did the stop teaching civics in school?
We have a House, elected by purely democratic means. A Senate appointed by the states with equal numbers for each state. LAW MAKERS
An Executive elected by the states in a weighted fashion giving some allowance for but not dominance by larger states. CARRIES OUT THE LAWS
A Judiciary nominated by the Executive and appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. ADJUDICATES DISPUTES.
The Judiciary is not intended to represent the will of anyone or anything other than the Constitution.
So long as the courts follow the constitution and law as written – correcting bad decisions is trivial.
Change the law, change the constitution.
It is idiocy to want justices that rule any other way than by the letter of the law and the letter of the constitution.
THAT is what politicizes the courts.
If you beleive court decisions are wrong – you have the power to correct them. Change the law or the constitution.
You rant about Dobb’s – but Dobb’s is easy to fix.
Dobb;’s did NOT say abortion is banned nationwide.
It said that each state can make its own abortion laws.
If you think that is wrong – change the constitution or federal law.
Every single Court decision you do not like can be fixed by changing the law and constitution – so long as SCOTUS follows the law and constitution.
But the justices of the supreme court become authoritarian tyrants if they rule by “new perspectives” rather than the law or constitution.
Mr. Smith: You win for the best quip of the day!!! I am still laughing!
All this talk of what the dems want to do now. How about an adult converstion among “American” legal citizens about ridding our nation of this infestation of socialist/communist/nihilist/amoral haters of Western based cultures. THAT would solve SO MANY problems that we face. Because “re-education camps” would not only be considered unconstitutional but also fruitless with this bunch, I suggest one-way tickets to any socialist/communist nation of their choice and a fond fare well.(and perhaps a travel bag filled with government cheese and face masks).
Why would anyone take the Democratic Party seriously? They show no capacity for adult behavior or interest in being good faith participants in our legislative processes. They show themselves to be a subversive threat to this country and its people.
Won’t it be an ironic turn of events when the republicans retake congress and the WH and propose to “pack” the court as well as define life time tenure as to be the justice’s natural life. It will be amusing to watch the left-wing extremists in congress twist themselves into pretzels. As for “old Sheldon W.” there is no mistaking his intention to get rid of Clarence Thomas. Whitehouse is a clear racist that has been proven time and again. Perhaps the extremist group on the Hill would do themselves a favor to rid themselves from him.
WR, the first think the Republicans should do is abolish the filibuster, then pack the Court, codify the Electoral College etc etc.
The motives of presidents, democrats, republicans should matter to voters.
They should be irrelevant to properly acting courts.
The democrats transparent motives is NOT relevant here. It is reasonable for the courts to presume and accept as legitimate political motives for law.
After all they were concocted by politicians.
What is relevant is whether they are constitutional or in conflict with other laws.
There are two means a law can be unconstititonal. The first is that it clearly is at odds with the constitution.
The 2nd is that in effect it violates the constitution. The latter can not be determined until the law has actually been in place long enough to have an effect.
I beleive that voters should judge politicians harshly for political blatantly political motives that are at odds with the wishes of the people.
But ONLY the voters. There is no check and should not be inside the framework of government, inside the constitution for actions driven bhy unacceptable motives.
The courts got this wrong under Trump.
They should not make the same mistake here.
Laws are constitutional on their face or as applied. They are not unconstitutional because those who passed them are bad intentions.
“it would face immediate challenge since it adds new limits on the life tenure provision under Article III” — oops, did the Dems forget, once again, to read the Constitution? Dealing with them is like being locked in a room full of 2-year olds in tantrum mode.
The more stupid tantrums of the left the more out of touch they are the better.
The vast majority of Supreme Court decisions that the Left is ranting about disempower the executive.
And disempower leftists efforts to transform the country.
The country is not rallying round demanding a more powerful executive and remaking the american way of life.
As expected, progressives throw a tantrum when they don’t get their way. They should be put in time out. Until they grow up.
They are as “ripe/mature” as they will ever be. There is no hope for salvaging those thus indoctrinated in government schools after 1970.