Congress, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Politics

The Ninth Circuit Rules That There is no Chilling Effect in Forcing GOP Leaders to Hand Over Phone Records to Democrats

There is an important ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week where a divided panel held that Kelli Ward, the Chair of the Arizona Republican Party and former senatorial candidate, cannot withhold her cell phone records from the January 6th Committee. The impact on political speech could be not just chilling but glacial.

The court’s order denied Ward’s request to enjoin T-Mobile from providing her records to the Jan. 6 committee. What is striking about the ruling is the sweeping language employed by Judges Barry Silverman and Eric Miller. I do not view this as a partisan ruling but rather have concern over the dismissive character of the analysis over legitimate concerns raised by the forced disclosure of political associations under the First Amendment.

The J6 Committee issued a sweeping subpoena that previously encompassed even “Ward’s patient information.” However, it is her political associations that raised red flags.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that such demands for associational contacts are to be subject to “exacting scrutiny.” Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta (APF), 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021). The reason is the chilling effect on the key right “to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas.” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56 (1973). In her dissent to Americans for Properity Foundation, Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged that the decision  “presumes . . . that all disclosure requirements impose associational burdens.”

That was not evident in the majority opinion:

There is little to suggest that disclosing Ward’s phone records to the Committee will affect protected associational activity. Unlike the regulation at issue in Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which required organizations to reveal their major donors, this subpoena does not target any organization or association. The investigation, after all, is not about Ward’s politics; it is about her involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 attack, and it seeks to uncover those with whom she communicated in connection with those events. That some of the people with whom Ward communicated may be members of a political party does not establish that the subpoena is likely to reveal “sensitive information about [the party’s] members and supporters.” Americans for Prosperity Found., 141 S. Ct. at 2384. Grand juries—and, for that matter, civil litigants—routinely employ subpoenas for phone records, and any such subpoena necessarily reveals something about a person’s associations. We do not read Americans for Prosperity Foundation as establishing that all of those subpoenas are subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

To prevail, Ward must therefore identify some reason to think that compliance with this subpoena will burden association. The district court found that there is “no evidence to support [the] contention that producing the phone numbers . . . will chill the associational rights of Plaintiffs or the Arizona GOP,” and it determined that Ward’s arguments to the contrary are “highly speculative.” . . .

That is quite sweeping. It seems axiomatic that the forced disclosure of associational contacts with the head of the state Republican party will have an associational burden. The subpoena had the classic “fishing expedition” scope, including originally encompassing medical information.

The Court simply dismisses such obvious concerns and says “[b]ecause there is no indication that the compelled disclosure in this case would deter protected associational activity, the exacting scrutiny standard does not apply.” The court goes on to say that, if the standard applied, it would not make any difference because of the need to investigate “the causes of the January 6 attack and protecting future elections from similar threats.”

The majority also relied on an adverse implication rationale used in civil proceedings when someone invokes the Fifth Amendment’s Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, an inference that has long undermined this core constitutional right:

When the Committee sought to question her about those activities, she invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer. In this civil proceeding, it is appropriate to draw adverse inferences from her assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege—namely, that Ward’s conduct during the period in question went beyond simple discussions with her political associates, and that those with whom she communicated might have the information about her activities that she refused to provide. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).

The dissent notes that the Committee was not compelled to supply any specific basis for believing that Ward encouraged or participated in the riot: “the Committee has not provided any evidence or plausible reason to believe that Ward’s contacts (whether political associates, family, or friends) were involved in the events of January 6 or explain why information about her communications has any bearing on the Committee’s investigation.”  Instead, the majority relies on Ward’s use of her constitutional right to remain silent.

This does not exonerate Ward for any role that she may have had in this riot. However, the dissent noted that the lack of balance raises serious constitutional concerns over the analysis of the court:

Regardless of Ward’s position regarding the 2020 election, her right to engage in discussions with her political associates remains entitled to First Amendment protection against the government’s compelled disclosure of her political affiliations. Maj. op. at 6–7. We must be vigilant to protect First Amendment rights—even when raised by an individual alleged to have engaged in a nefarious “scheme,” Maj. op. at 6—because “[t]he weakening of constitutional safeguards in order to suppress one obnoxious group is a technique too easily available for the suppression of other obnoxious groups to expect its abandonment when the next generally hated group appears,” Communist Party of the U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 166 (Black, J., dissenting). Because the majority has applied an erroneous legal framework, and the Wards’ claim that the Committee’s subpoena burdens Kelli Ward’s First Amendment rights at least raises a serious question on the merits, I dissent.

I agree that there is a compelling legislative and public interest in the investigation. That is why, while strongly disagreeing with the make up and approach of the J6 Committee, many of us still supported the investigation.  Yet, that clear interest does not wipe away all countervailing constitutional considerations as the Democrats demand the political  records and contacts of their political opponents.

111 thoughts on “The Ninth Circuit Rules That There is no Chilling Effect in Forcing GOP Leaders to Hand Over Phone Records to Democrats”

  1. The San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2016 comes to mind. The FBI sued Apple to unlock the terrorist’s phone data. Apple fought back. In the end Comey’s FBI was able to hack the phone.

    Apple CEO Tim Cook said, “We need to decide as a nation how much power the government should have over our data and over our privacy.”

  2. It’s McCarthyism.

    Democrats, once again, abuse their positions of power in the government to prey upon Republicans.

    Shall Democrats like Biden and Harris turn over their phones in an investigation on the Democrat riots that swept the country for a year? Or would they get their hammers and BleachBit?

    Republicans oppose the Jan 6 investigation because Democrats blocked Republicans from naming their own members, Democrats are abusing their authority to essentially spy upon their opponents’ political activities, making Watergate seem tame, and Democrats are bringing the full power of the government against Republicans who voiced concerns about election integrity and fraud. Democrats have objected to the certification of election results at least 5 times in the past 20 years, that I can recall. They have objected to most Congressional elections they lost. Most notably Stacey Abrams claims she actually won the election. Hillary Clinton called Trump an “illegitimate” president and falsely claimed Russia “hacked” the election, putting their puppet in the White House. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton who paid for Russian misinformation to meddle in the election process and undermine her opponent when Trump won.

    The January 6th Committee is an abuse of power. Turley might wish for a non partisan, unbiased investigation for how protestors breached the White House, but he won’t get it this way. Many of us would like to know why requests for additional security prior to the event were denied, and why Capitol police are on video allowing protestors inside. They were told, “just don’t break anything.”

    1. Seeing what the deluded tell themselves is always instructive. Thanks for going all out.

  3. That is the 9th circuit, aka 9th circus. It’s been over turned more times than a playing card.
    They are incurably inept.
    Which is a good thing to kick up to SCOTUS.

  4. What’s the over under on Turley taking a call from the war room at the hotel previous to the 6th? Bet he’s freaking out about his own phone being taken.

    1. Another baseless, factless smear by Anonymous, who is too craven to post under his own name. Utterly dismissible troll…

  6. Jonathan: You say the 9th circuit ruling in the Kelli Ward case is “not just chilling but glacial”. I don’t think so. When the J.6 Committee issued a subpoena for Ward’s phone records she sued along with her husband, Michael Ward. In an 18 page ruling last month federal judge Diane Humetewa rejected all of the Ward’s claims–including her 1st Amendment claim: “That three month period [Nov. 1, 2020 to Jan. 31, 2021] is plainly relevant to its investigation into the causes of the January 6th attack. The Court therefor has little doubt including these records may aid the Select Committee’s valid legislative purpose”. Now the 9th Circuit has upheld that ruling. Humetewa indicated in her ruling Ward could offer no factual evidence that allowing the J.6 panel to examine her phone records would have a chilling effect on her 1st Amendment rights. There was nothing in the record for the 9th Circuit to find otherwise.

    What you omit from your discussion is that Ward and her husband were both fake Trump electors and signed a bogus document saying Trump won Arizona in the 2020 election. Ward and her fellow fake electors have also been subpoened by the DOJ in their separate investigation of attempts to subvert the 2020 election. When Ward testified before the J6 panel she took the 5th Amendment –so the panel had no other choice but to look at Wad’s phone records. The panel has already received hundreds of phone records from other witnesses.

    So why are you suddenly concerned about Ward’s case? Could it be that Kelli Ward’s T-Mobile records would show she had conversations with Ginni Thomas? We already know Thomas made many calls to GOP legislators in Arizona to get them to put up fake electors. Maybe the phone records will show Ward and Thomas were deeply involved in trying to subvert the election. That’s the part that is truly “chilling”. The fact that the wife of a sitting SC Justice was involved in trying to overturn an election to keep Trump in power!

    The J.6 investigation is not about the Dems trying to get the “political records and contacts of their political opponents”, as you claim, but to expose the perpetrators of crimes and election fraud. Sorry, Jonathan, but trying to turn this into a political witch hunt is just another example of your attempt to distract from the real issues.

    1. The committee is toothless with only a partisan objective in its attempt to frame a political protest over a fraudulent election into an “insurrection”. That entire premise was dismissed by the public long ago.

      The committee is over and has done nothing to “expose the perpetrators of crimes and election fraud”. It is willful ignorance to dismiss the evidence of fraud in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. Setting aside alternate electors has been done constitutionally through numerous disputed elections. Stop pretending like it is illegal.

        1. Like most of the things said by FishWings, he is wrong. This quote was not from Mark Twain. FishWings is a follower of Fractured Fairytales.

  7. Don’t worry. Something tells me that the courts will rediscover this protection and Congressional subpoenas will be much harder to enforce next year.

  8. Jonathan wrote,

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that such demands for associational are to be subject to “exacting scrutiny.” Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta (APF), 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021). The reason is the chilling effect on the key right “to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas.” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56 (1973). In her dissent to Americans for Properity Foundation, Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged that the decision “presumes . . . that all disclosure requirements impose associational burdens.”

    Great and appropriate citations!

    This United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling should be immediately challenged in the US Supreme Court. All signs are that the House committee is intentionally abusing its power in their effort to smear all Republicans in this transparently obvious witch hunt.

    2. witch hunt? What happened on January 6, 2020? A bunch of trump supporters, and a bunch of repo congressman and senators tried to keep a president in power that had just lost an election. He lost the popular vote, he lost the elector college vote. And this is a witch hunt? Get a life.

      3. Baby, your side used the FBI to spy on, lie about and try to sway an election AND overturn it after they failed, so save your angst for deciding what’s for dinner. You fool.

      4. Most Everyday all year long.

        ***********

        Happening Again: Election Drop Box Spotters Catch Man Covering License Plate In Arizona
        By Anthony Scott
        Published October 23, 2022 at 1:12pm
        92 Comments
        Share
        Tweet
        Gab Share
        TelegramTelegram
        Gettr Gettr
        P Share
        Share

        For the second time this week, election drop-off box spotters have caught someone pulling up to a drop box location in Arizona with their license plate covered.

        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/happening-election-drop-box-spotters-catch-man-covering-license-plate-arizona/

        1. It’s against the law to cover up your tag. Call the cops.
          and follow them home.

  9. Will the dems feel the same way when they are asked – OH WAIT – We already know what the dems do, they smash their phones with hammers and use bleach bit… Why aren’t THOSE PEOPLE in jail?

      1. Foolishness. Trump turned over power when the time came. Hillary still thinks she won and she is greatly responsible for attempting a coup against a legitimate President.

        1. “The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie” Mark Twain

          1. Do you not have the ability to discuss what is being said. Instead you quote Twain, but even your quote is wrong. I note earlier another Twain quote that was wrong as well. Thanks for being consistent.

  10. Thank you Professor Turley!
    In her SCOTUS dissent (Americans for Prosperity case), Sotomayor states, “In so holding, the Court discards its decades-long requirement that, to establish a cognizable burden on their associational rights, plaintiffs must plead and prove that disclosure will likely expose them to objective harms, such as threats, harassment, or reprisals.”
    Good Lord, in the present case, such a low burden almost warrants judicial notice!
    Maybe this is why that flagship of neutral jurisprudence (the Ninth Circuit) decided to set aside exacting scrutiny!

    1. Judge Barry Silberman was nominated by Clinton, Judge Eric Miller by Trump. The latter’s nomination was not supported by his state US Senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell withheld their blue slips). Judge Miller went along with the order presumably bc he has his reasons. The dissenting Judge Sandra Ikuta was nominated by GW Bush who stated in her dissent an alarming fact:

      The majority’s view to the contrary is in conflict with the Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, 141 S. Ct. at 2389.
      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23171573-wardjan6rlgca9102222

      So much for SCOTUS landmark rulings.

      Meanwhile a thug’s thug, Nestor Hernandez, is accused of shooting and killing 2 hospital employees, including a nurse, at Methodist Hospital in Dallas on October 22. Prior to the shooting, Hernandez was on parole for aggravated robbery and had an active ankle monitor. The predictable talking points being disseminated by the Twits with the Democrat Nationalist Cultists are “guns”, and this from the same cultists who would decapitate a newborn baby immediately after delivery or euthanize an elderly person because ….reasons. The DNCultists are as credible as KKK members lamenting the death of blacks or BLM mourning the death of police

      The two above cases illustrate the obvious: our judicial system is failing us.

      Eddie Garcia
      @DPDChiefGarcia
      We @DallasPD are grateful for the support and care provided to our officers by @mhshospitals. Our thoughts are with staff and victims of today’s events.We will do EVERYTHING to assist in this investigation.This is a tragedy, and an abhorrent failure of our criminal justice system.

      1. Estovir: Thank you for that information. Please take care of yourself, -who would ever fathom that our medical professionals would come to face such high risk threats in their practice(s),-when they are rarely even the intended targets of such violence.

      2. Kudos to the Dallas Police. Had many officers as patients when I worked at Kaiser years ago. They did place themselves between us and chaos. Very appreciative. Also knew many physicians in the Methodist system. My sympathies to all of Methodist Health System and the nurses they lost.

  11. The obvious response to this overreach is that when Republicans take over the House next January, they will organize a committee to investigate the Left’s stormtroopers (Antifa and BLM) and their roles in the 2020 riots and insurrections against the police and public order. Once precedents like this are set, they are rarely abandoned. This will end badly for the Democrats, (and it should), but I am saddened that the Constitution is no longer our strongest protection for our rights. Instead, it’s the threat of retribution Al vengeance that now fulfills this role. Star Chambers and Congressional Witch Hunts replace Rule of Law. And folks wonder why the Right is preparing for Civil War 2? I do not think it is an accident that the SCOTUS moved quickly to firm-up our Second Amendment Rights in the past year. When constitutional protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights are at stake, the one right that must be protected at all costs is the 2nd Amendment. You know, the one that says “In case of threat of imposition of a One Party Tyranny – Break Glass.”

    1. Black people being upset and rioting at not having the same civil rights as white people is not even remotely compatible to trump supporters rioting to keep a man in office that had just lost an election.

      1. Hey Baby, how many black people do you think are in ANTIFA? How many of the rioters of 2020 were actually white people? Stop trying to save the blacks by destroying their cities, allowing criminals to be freed from prison only to be back on THEIR streets, allowing an open border which will eventually lower the wages of black people first. Your help is killing them…you fool.

    2. Actually the right is preparing for civil war because they don’t understand the lessons of the first civil war and don’t understand that demographics have gotten worse for them since ‘the war of northern aggression’. They couldn’t even take and hold Florida or Texas.

  12. JT says “That is why, while strongly disagreeing with the make up and approach of the J6 Committee”

    Really? The Repos had a chance to be on this committee and chose not to. 2 of McCarthys 5 choices were insurrectionists. When Pelosi rightly refused those, McCarthy took his toys and said he was going home. What an A hole. The Capitol was attached by Trump supporters and McCarthy says he doesn’t want any part in investigating this.

    As Far as Kelli Ward goes, here is an idea. Don’t take part in an illegal attempt to keep trump in office and perhaps your phone records would not be sought.

    1. Attacked is the story you’re going with? Insurrectionists you say!? If it was in fact an attack where is the blood shed (besides the murder of unarmed Ashley Babbitt), where was the gun violence? If conservatives were going to attack believe me when I tell you they would have been armed to the teeth and would’ve been victorious in their efforts as most of them are vets! This is a political witch hunt/smear campaign and McCarthy was right when the committee rejected his choices to wash his hands of it. If you would take your head out of your ass for 5 seconds you would see this to be the truth!

      1. Ashley Babbit was attempting to crawl through a window into the house chamber (I believe it was the House, could be wrong) when she was shot. There was yelling behind her with I believe calls to hang mike pence and where’s Pelosi. Yes Insurrectionists. We have an election in 2 weeks. Let’s see how it turns out. But of course if the R’s loose it is fraud right?

        1. Again you lack knowledge. Babbitt wasn’t crawling and you are unaware of the location. She was murdered and police protocol was not followed. She was not a threat. You don’t know what was behind her or in the room with the officer that shot her. Your comments are ignorant.

  13. The Jan. 6th committee is the McCarthy scandal of its day. Every poll indicates that the American people — at least the saner ones — have no interest in it, believe it’s a partisan hit job, and place no credibility in either of the two so-called Republicans on the committee. Contrary to Pelosi’s intent, it will go down in history as a distortion of justice and, at best, a minor distraction for the Democrats.

    1. What happened on January 6, 2020? This will go down as among the worst episodes in U.S. history, including the south breaking from the Union and the resulting civil war. This was the only time in U.S. History that a sitting U.S. President tried to stay in office after being soundly defeated in an election. Disgusting.

          1. your using multiple sock puppets and having us believe you’re not the same troll that spews malarky on here 25/8.

      2. You start your rant by using the wrong date. It was January 6, 2021. The rest of the rant is even less accurate. He contested the election but still left on time. The British burning down the capitol rated higher and the Puerto Rican Nationalists machine gunning the House Chamber in early 1950’s also. This was a riot, an illegal riot and caused some damage but certainly much less than multiple riots in the summer of 2020. As far as I know January 6, 2020 was just another winter day pre pandemic. I think you imbibed too much caffeine today or maybe you are just a Yankees fan, 0-3 now to the Astros.

        1. Yep, my mistake 2021, But I’m pretty sure you know to which event I was talking about. This was an attempt to keep trump in power after he lost the election. Alternate electoral votes? hang mike pence? hang Pelosi? This was an insurrection, plain and simple. You are willfully blind if you think otherwise.

      3. Mm hmm. *smacks forehead*. If you honestly believe that, Baby, my what a sheltered life you have lived/lead. The junior high school level analyses are really getting boring. Thanks, modern universities, and the people that fund them! What a gift these graduates are. 🙄🙄 One might even call them ‘special’. 🙄🙄

    2. Agree completely. However, it will not “go down in history as a distortion of justice” because of the yahoos writing the history (historians like that idiot Beschloss and the liar Meacham) are unethical, screwy, brainwashed partisans.

  14. There is a great film titled ‘To Live’ from the 90s about Mao’s destruction of Chinese society. It follows a period of about 30 years. The modern American Democrats are indistinguishable at this point from the likes of the communists of that era. I would put us somewhere in the middle of that time frame. The behavior on the part of the media might even be unlike anything we’ve *ever* seen, the run up to this election is absolutely disgraceful (there’s even propaganda in something as innocuous as the November issue of Reader’s Digest) – we have to vote them out while we still can.

    1. Bravo, James! (I am assuming you are referring to RD’s sympathetic story involving a Jan 6 DC police officer? If so, I saw that -but passed over it after I read the first few lines, so I completely agree.)
      But I would add that propaganda in print is not nearly as influential as mass media network TV (NBC and ABC in particular) , -where we have almost desperate attempts to manipulate the views of somewhat captive audiences who just. want. the. facts, ma’am. ALL (both sides) the. facts. Today’s Sunday morning shows by NBC’s Chuck Turd and ABC’s Jonathan Karl (previously caught in a political lie) were truly extreme in one-sided pre-November election presentations. (apologies in advance for my less-than-professional characterizations.)

      1. I agree, traditional media is less important, but never the less, the propaganda is IN there. That magazine had an ‘Anti-racist Workbook’ in their media section not long ago, too 🙄. The point is, apart from independent journalism online, a couple of tv stations, and a couple of newspapers – the dem regime is everywhere. And be certain it is not due to their possessing majority numbers, but rather their wealth and privilege numbers, which likely actually makes them an ideological minority on earth.

  16. This is not “turning over phone records to Democrats”. This is a Congressional Committee investigating the first attempted coup in US history. Knowing the details of who tried to destroy our system of government is vital.

    1. A coup is enforced by the military. The Jan 6 participants that had weapons were FBI plants and Antifa. It was no coup. Where is Ray Epps trial? His is one of the most bizarre “non-charged” cases of Jan 6.

      1. Weapons or violence or military is in no way a required element of a coup. They key part is an illegal attempt to overthrow a government or to illegally stop the transfer of power. That is exactly what Trump did.

        1. “an illegal attempt to overthrow a government”

          What was illegal or not previously done?

          If you don’t know about Shay’s Rebellion or any of the others there is no use listening to your nonsense.

          1. Illegal:
            The VP unilaterally throwing out EC votes.
            Trump pressing the GA SoS to change the voting results.
            Trump supporters submitting fake EC votes (this one is particularly bad).
            A violent attact on the Capital during EC vote counting.

            Not previously done:
            A 2 year (and counting) campaign to lie about the election.
            A president refusing to concede defeat.
            60+ suits trying to overturn the election.
            States suing other states to get their elections thrown out.

            1. “Illegal:
              The VP unilaterally throwing out EC votes.”

              Dumb. The VP didn’t do that.

              Trump pressing the GA SoS to change the voting results.

              Dumber. Trump didn’t do that.

              Trump supporters submitting fake EC votes (this one is particularly bad).

              Do you know what a fake EC vote is?

              “A violent attact on the Capital during EC vote counting.”

              The protest wasn’t violent.
              Some protestors used force.
              Some police killed protestors that were not threats.

              Not previously done:
              A 2 year (and counting) campaign to lie about the election.

              That is Hillary if you add a few more years.

              “A president refusing to concede defeat.”

              Trump left the White House. Was the election lawless? Yes. Were Democrats doing things against the law or regulations? Yes.

              “60+ suits trying to overturn the election.”

              Of the 90 suits only 25 were decided on the merits. Of those 25, Trump won 18 of the cass.

              “States suing other states to get their elections thrown out.”

              Why shouldn’t they?

              In any event you went from Dumb to Dumber and finished as the Dumbest.

              1. Master class in cognitive dissonance, or paid work for the RNC, or both. Thank you!

    3. Sammy is a propaganda parroting internet troll.

      I wonder how Sammy get’s his regular deposit of Rubles converted to Dollars these days without the FBI catching him?

      1. Stevie is a propaganda parroting DNC disinformation specialist. I wonder how Stevie get’s his regular deposit of Trumpbucks converted to Rubles these days without the FSB catching him? Pot, meet kettle. Still eating the crayons from the back, I see.

    4. I guess you forgot about Lincolns murder and the attempted killing of his cabinet members. J6 was a small riot caused by Nances refusal to accept National Guard and instigators. We all have eyes and Cheney lost by 40 points!

    6. Sammy’s knowledge of history is very deficient. However, we forgive that deficiency if he never graduated from high school. Though, not the first, Shays’ Rebellion comes to most people’s minds. Sammy, how can you not know about Shay’s rebellion? Not knowing the earlier coup is understandable because it occurred before the signing of the Constitution, but Shay’s Rebellion???? What is wrong with you?

      1. @S.Meyer

        That’s the thing – I would not be at all surprised if Sammy has a master’s degree. Maybe higher. I also guarantee he/she is white, at the very least upper middle class if not from actual wealth, almost certainly under 40 or even 35, and has never been asked to put themselves in front of a real, existential challenge at any point in their lives.

        Forget about the history of the early 20th century – this cohort doesn’t remember 911 or vets coming home from the first Iraq war, and they haven’t been taught diddly about it or much of anything else in their lifetimes.

        1. James, there is a lot of truth in what you say. I think he belongs to the Svalez School of the Ignorant. That is where people graduate college without learning anything, but somehow make it through life on the backs of others.

  17. Who among us, no matter our political leanings, doesn’t know the 9th Circuit is greatly different than all other circuit courts.

  19. I would be interested to see the responses if a Republican House Committee investigating the 2020 summer riots, demanded the same from Democrats. Or better yet, from journalists, but I repeat myself.

    1. Ti, I see you already have 9 likes, which may be a well deserved record! Cogent, brief, on point and beautifully correct, a grand slam. Keep up the good work.

Comments are closed.