Daily Condemnations with Al Franken: Former Senator Denounces John Roberts and the Supreme Court

YouTube Screengrab

This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts should get up, look into the mirror and declare “I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am an attractive person. I am fun to be with.” That mantra from SNL’s “Daily Affirmation with Stuart Smalley” seems appropriate after the former Smalley comedian (and former U.S. Senator) Al Franken declared Roberts a “villain” and his Court “illegitimate” in the latest attack on the institution.

Now that Franken has turned to a podcast as a public platform, the comforting sweaters are gone and the dark Stuart Smalley has emerged. Call it “Daily Condemnations with Al Franken.”

Franken declared that  “The court is a very divisive entity now, institution right now. And the Supreme Court, to me, is illegitimate.” He added that Roberts is a “villain” for heading such a divisive court.

Roberts needs to keep in mind that Franken may be “a caring nurturer, a member of several 12-step programs, but he is not a [sitting Senator].”

Franken resigned from the Senate in 2017 amid sexual harassment allegations.

He is also not much of a constitutionalist.

The Supreme Court has long been the subject of public ire over unpopular decisions. It was designed to resist the demands of the public or politics to rule according to the rule of law. In other words, it is meant to be “countermajoritarian” — resisting the pressures of the majority of the country to protect constitutional values and rights.

The first Chief Justice, John Jay, was so hated for that he once remarked that he could travel the “country at night by the light of [my] burning effigies.” One editorial declared: “John Jay, ah! The Arch traitor — seize him, drown him, flay him alive.” Crowds burned Jay in effigy, including a Kentucky mob that stuffed its effigy with gunpowder, guillotined it, then blew it up.

Later, Chief Justice John Marshall also was burned in effigy after writing the famous opinion in Marbury v. Madison. During the desegregation period, Chief Justice Earl Warren was burned in effigy and an “Impeach Earl Warren” campaign launched across the country.

Today it is the left that is calling for court stacking and denouncing the legitimacy of the Court.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rendering 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.”

In 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared on the steps of the Supreme Court: “I want to tell you, [Justice] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Justice] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

In addition to controversies over travel and financial benefits for justices, Franken objects to decisions made by the Court that have “divided” the country. It is as comically superficial as his former skit. The country is divided on abortion rights. Yet, Franken believes that the Court was wrong to decide against his side. The earlier division in favor of abortion was perfectly acceptable. It is now “partisan” because it no longer rules with Franken and the left on core issues. Of course, it was not partisan or illegitimate before because it was . . . well . . . right.

What is particularly humorous is that Roberts did not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. He voted alone to preserve the doctrine while adjusting the standard.

Nevertheless, Franken declared “I think the Chief Justice is actually much more culpable for this division than people think. I think Roberts is much more the villain in this than people give him credit for.”

Roberts is a curious target for the left given his repeated votes with the left of the Court in major cases. He is the ultimate institutionalist who has a well-known aversion to the Court intervening into politically sensitive areas. Yet, he is also a conscientious jurist who will vote to do what is constitutionally right rather than what is politically popular.

I often disagree with members of the Court, but I have never questioned their integrity or their institution. Indeed, the public shows the same respect for the Court. It is in our DNA. Despite a constant call to stack or even eliminate the Court from the left on MSNBC and CNN, the public remains committed to the institution despite only half having a favorable opinion of the Court. However, the popularity of the President is even lower and the popularity of Congress stands at just 26 percent.

Despite these divisions and polls, few of us would call the President or Congress “illegitimate.” By these measures, the Supreme Court is a runaway hit with just 48 percent declaring favorable opinions.

Of course, none of this is easy for a Chief Justice who, like everyone, wants to be loved.  That is why the Chief needs to go to the ornamental mirror near his chambers every day and say “I’m going to do a terrific [hearing] today! And I’m gonna help people! Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!”


This column ran on Fox.com

225 thoughts on “Daily Condemnations with Al Franken: Former Senator Denounces John Roberts and the Supreme Court”

  1. So the Left wants more ethics on the Supreme Court — without ever defining the concept “ethics.”

    Haven’t we seen this movie before?

  2. “Despite these divisions and polls, few of us would call the President or Congress “illegitimate.” –Jonathan Turley

    Turley must not be paying any attention to MAGA, or for anyone watching the last several elections (Including George W. Bush, and Donald Trump). He must not watch the commentary of his current and former colleagues at Fox News, which called Obama illegitimate for eight years and Biden gets the same treatment if not worse. The point is the appearance of impropriety and Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Roberts are failing. It’s not okay because you can point to dissimilar but related events regarding RBG or anyone on the left. It is okay to suggest there’s a problem with wives getting hundreds of thousands, or tens of millions from people whose interests come before the court. It’s a problem when the people who determine the rules for everyone else have no rules governing their behavior.

    I used to respect the court, even after the Bush V Gore decision which I thought was right on the law because Florida didn’t have a legal basis for their action though allowing the recount was morally right. Now, it’s hard not to see the majority of the court as anything but the cronies of the Federalist Sociery who spent over a billion to put them there. They’re definitely getting their moneys worth. So are the justices, though Kavanaugh should go on strike for getting so mech less than his cohorts.

    1. Do you live in the real world ?

      There is a huge difference between Calling Obama a poor president – which he was, and questioing his legitimacy.

      The Birther stuff originated – as every single political scandal of the past 30 years – with HILLARY CLINTON
      Just as she sought to use Biden’s misconduct in Ukraine to keep him from running in 2015.

      Fox was hostile to Obama – he deserved it. The MSM was 3+ times more hostile to Trump.
      The same MSM is fawning over Biden. It is only recently starting to ask questions.

      You really want to bring up elections ?
      It is Not MAGA voters that have huffed “Russia, Russia, Russia”

      It is not MAGA that essentially made 70,000 government emails readily available on a basement bathroom private server – about 300 of them classified.

      It is not MAGA that used the DNC to cheat to drive Sanders out of the election ? Nor MAGA that leaked the emails proving not only that. but press collusion with the Clinton campaign.

      It was not MAGA hat perpitrated multiple Russian influence HOAXES in 2016.
      It was not MAGA that challenged the 2016 election, tried and succeeded at getting some electors to change their votes,
      Tried and failed to get congress to overturn the election.
      It was not MAGA that engaged in massive ballot harvesting in 2020.
      It was not MAGA that ignored out election laws in 2020 and since.
      It was not MAGA that has botched elections all over. With long lines and piss poor records.
      It was not MAGA that silenced political opposition through censorship.
      It was not MAGA that colluded with Government to censor political opponents.
      It was not MAGA that baldfaced lied to the american people about his own and his son’s political corruption.
      It was not MAGA that once again sold this “Russia, Russia, Russia” nonsense.

      Need I go on ?

      “The point is the appearance of impropriety and Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Roberts are failing.”
      In what world ? The nonsense regarding these Justices is inconsequential.
      And has been pointed out – though you have missed it – Kagan, Sotomayor, and even Jackson and previously Ginsberg engaged in exactly the same conduct.
      And none of this conduct compares to that of the Biden’s or even the Pelosi’s.

      If you want higher ethical standards for the courts – I support that – lets amend the constitution.
      But it is absurd to pretend the conduct of Justices – ALL of them, is in the same ballpark as the Biden’s.

      “It’s not okay because you can point to dissimilar but related events regarding RBG or anyone on the left.”
      Correct, it is OK because it is legal and conforms to the current ethical rules of the court.

      I do not have a problem with higher standards for judges and the courts. I support that.
      But either you must persuade SCOTUS to impose higher standards on itself, ammend the constitution, or impeach some judges.
      And if you start doing the latter – you can expect republicans to do the same.
      What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

      “It is okay to suggest there’s a problem with wives getting hundreds of thousands”
      You can suggest whatever you want, But I doubt you can address wives – even with a constitutional amendment.
      You can not claim that wives are not mere extensions of their husbands and separately claim they are equal and independent.

      The wives of justices are NOT public servants or government employees. They have their own lives and are free to do as they please.

      “or tens of millions from people whose interests come before the court.”
      Citation, please.

      “It’s a problem when the people who determine the rules for everyone else have no rules governing their behavior.”
      An yet they do. SCOTUS determines the rule of ethics that the courts must follow, just as congress decides the rules of ethics it must follow.

      Further SCOTUS does NOT determine the rules the rest of us must follow – Congress does that.
      SCOTUS decides if the acts of congress or the executive are lawful and constitutional.

      “I used to respect the court, even after the Bush V Gore decision which I thought was right on the law because Florida didn’t have a legal basis for their action though allowing the recount was morally right.”
      Bush V Gore was a mess. I would note the problem was NOT with the recount. It was with the endless and very limited recount.
      ALL SCOTUS decided was that the FL courts had to follow FL law. I think Bush V. Gore was a messy decision that was not well thought out – but then it was all in a rush. I think we can do better. But fundimentally it is a problem for state legislatures – not State courts.
      State courts are required to follow the law that is, and the constitution that is, not the one they wish.

      Since Bush V. Gore we have had more and more razor thin elections. And we are not only doing nothing about that, we are ACTIVELY increasing the odds of that.

      “Now, it’s hard not to see the majority of the court as anything but the cronies of the Federalist Sociery who spent over a billion to put them there.”
      You are listening to too much propoganda. The federalist society is imperfect. They are too Status Quo and NOT constitutional enough.
      Regardless, their choices are MOSTLY a vast improvement over prior republican judges, and certainly far far far better than the idiots Biden and Obama placed in the courts.

      Regardless, as is typical it is the LEFT that has politicized the courts – as they do with everything.

      The role of the courts is to say NO to government overreach. A job that even federalists do badly.

      Quite litterally the courts – all courts are ANTI-democratic. There job is to protect the rule of law and individual rights from the will of the majority.
      The left does that almost never, the establishment right rarely, Federalists – sometimes. No judge does so to a fraction of what is required.

      And this federalist billions stuff is nonsense.
      The entire federalist society budget is 20M/year – and very little of that was spent on securing judicial appointments.
      Most of it is outreach to law school students.

      “They’re definitely getting their moneys worth. ”
      That is true. very little money and a great deal of return.

        1. While there is an enormous amount of Spin in your politico arcticle – after all it is Politico.

          Ultimately it does not actually say what you claim. And it does not support what it says.

          1.6B becomes 1.54M without explanation, and then does not even go through FedSoc.

          And the rest of your article – sans the spin just says that various groups received donations.

          Wow!! Crime of the century!!

          Should we jail everyone Zuckerberg gave money to ?

          So lets directly confront – not your “narative” but basic FACTS that apply left and Right.

          Anyone can give money in any amount to anyone else legally anytime. PERIOD.
          Not only are they free to do so – But YOU are not entitled to KNOW who gave what to who.

          There are tax laws that MAY apply – but those do not restrict who gives what to who,
          And they do not require disclosure. of anything that is not relevant to taxes.
          There are a number of Tax issues – these have nothing to do with whether you can donate to whoever you wish.
          Only whether that donation is tax deductible.

          There are SOME restrictions specific to political campaigns – the most significant are relevant ONLY to presidential campaigns that elect to received federal matching funds. The vast majority of the FEC rules go away if you do not accept Federal Matching Funds.

          I would note that what the FEC does – ANY private donor can do.

          I can offer you 10M dollars contingent on your not accepting donations from ActBlue, or contingent on your banking with Citi.
          I can put almost any strings I want on my donation, and you either accept the donation with those strings binding, or you reject the donation.

          The Politico Article bandies the word Dark Money arround as if that is some kind of Crime.
          Long ago the Supreme court ruled that in speech activities – including donations people are entitled to anonymity.
          NAACP v. Alabama 1958.

          So with very rare exceptions the term “dark money” is pure spin and meaningless.

          The other muddled spin int he Politico Article is the spin to the phrase “political donation”.

          501C(3) organizations that wish to retain their tax exempt status can not engage in election activities that openly advocate for candidates for public election.

          Judges are not election so the whole tax issue is moot.

          Separately as the left is found of saying – everything is political.

          Regardless, there is very little substance in your Politico article,
          And what here is does NOT support your claim.

        2. The gist of the politico article – is that the Federalist society worked to put federalist judges into the courts.

          Everything beyond that is either error, spin or both.

          The core to politico’s reporting is that it is somehow immoral for the Federalist Society to succeed in advocating for Judges that YOU do not like.

          Ignoring that he ridiculous 1.6B figure comes from thin air – and is more than either party spent on the presidential election in 2020, even if by some miracle that figure was correct – SO WHAT ?

          As Noted – Democrats and Republicans spent over a Billion to try to elect Biden an Trump respectively.

          Other people spending money to accomplish purposes you do not liek – is not criminallllllllllll. It is not immoral, it is not unethical.

          In FACT it could very well be HIGHLY ethical.

          And yet YOUR politico article from end to end spins it as something black.

          Republicans Rant about the enormous sums that Sorros spent to elect nut jobs as DA’s accress this country.
          I am deeply disturbed by that – Not that Sorros spent that money – that is is right.
          But first that Sorros picked such abominably bad DA to attempt elect, and second that democrats in those cities are so at odds with their own self interests to elect DA’s that would destroy their own communities.

          But few if any are claiming Sorros was not Free to try to elect whoever he wished with his money.

          Zuckerberg spent half a billion mucking with the election in 2020 – almost entirely in the 6 locations that had unusual results that flipped the election.

          No One is saying that Zuckerberg is not free to spend half a billion to elect whoever he wishes.

          The Question with Zuckerberg is NOT the money spent. It is NOT that he spent money to favor Democrats.

          It is that he spent money taking over the local government administration of elections, and favoring Democrats FROMINSIDE OF GOVERNMENT – using provate actors and private money.

          If as Politico badly tries to spin – spending money to get judges who follow the constitution is illegal – then how is it that ALL political spending is not illegal ?

          The Fed Soc worked entirely OUTSIDE of government. Zuckerberg did not.

          You seem to think that a story that is chock full of both spin and error is consequential – when even if the errors were not errors, the actions taken would be legal, ethical, and moral. Similar groups on the left as as we speak doing exactly the same thing trying to put Left Wing nut friendly judges on the court
          in exactly the same way.

          That is bad for the country. It is a reason to vote against democrats. But it is legal.

            1. “My First Goal”

              Given the MASSIVE amount that YOUR do not accept – and have actively Lied about – why should anyone listen to you ?

              You rant about media like Fox – and then cite sources that have a long history of being left wing propoganda – not truth.

              I read 1/3 of the way into your ProPublica article and there was NOTHING. There are CLAIMS that are not illegal, not supported, and inconsistent with known facts.

              PP Claims there was a 1.6B donation to FedSoc – for a massive media campaign. $1.6B is about as much as a Presidential campaign. That includes massive media buys all over the US, as well and an army of foot soldiers across the country knocking on doors.

              I do not recall Amy Barrett Adds running on TV night after night for 9 months. There were not dozens of flyers in my mailbox.
              There were not ACB workers knocking on my door.

              From a media and advocacy perspective – there was FAR MORE anti-ACB politicking than ProACB.

              So is your claim that Seid dropped 1.6B on FedSoc – which is a tiny organization and it was converted into magical pixie dust that got ACB and Kavaugh and Gorsuch confirmed ?

              Regardless in the first 3rd of your article – there is NOTHING but dark innuendo. There is this claim of 1.6B – with no actual evidence.
              Not that it would matter if true – Wealthy people like Sorros have dropped massive amounts into politics all the time – and while I can decry the negative consequences of Sorros’s political contributions – they are perfectly legal. As would be this effort by Seid if they were actually true.

              It is likely based on REAL evidence that Seid is atleast moderately active in supporting political causes that those of you on the left hate.
              Again SO WHAT ?

              You are badly trying to persuade me of something that you have not credible supported, and that even if True would just means that Conservative Causes get a small portion of the massive donations that mostly go to the left from the uber wealthy.

              SO WHAT ?

            2. You are failing miserably.

              First, I do not CARE if Seid dropped 1.6B on one of many conservative causes. Just like I do not care about the money that Sorros or other drop on left wing causes. It is there money and they are free to give it to whoever they wish.

              I have specific problems with the 1/2B that Zuckerberg dropped in 2020 – not because of the money – but because of what was done with it.
              That money was used to fund a private takeover of government election machinery in 6 key cities in the US. That is illegal in most states, and it is immoral everywhere. And this is a common theme we are seeing from the modern left – either privately infiltrating government functions or having government fund NGO’s to do what government may not do.

              This is mostly illegal, completely unconstitutional and extremely dangerous.

              But next you have not proven that actually occurred.

              From other sources what APPEARS to be true is that Seid has transfered some of his assets to a form of trust that in the future will use the revnue from those assets to provide long term support to some causes he supports. That is little different from the Ford Foundation, the Annenberg trust, …
              And myriads of similar trusts that were setup over the ages that have all ultimately been co-opted by the left. Annenburg went from funding conservative interests to funding people like Obama and Terrorist Bill Ayres in little more than a decade.

              Regardless, The above is not proven, legal if true.

              So ProPublica has wasted thousands of words on WHAT ?

              A claim that some wealthy person MIGHT be funding conservative causes that they do not like ?

                1. You claimed you could prove wrong doing.
                  You can not even prove perfectly legal activity that you do not like.

                  Is that short enough for you ?

            3. You have not proven the amount yet. All you have done is proven that several left media sources have bandied that amount arround.

              I would further note – that you have made a fairly specific claim – that FedSoc received 1.6B. That is just false.

              1. “All you have done is proven that several left media sources have bandied that amount arround.”

                Like the left wing Wall Street Journal? Because you don’t acknowledge it, doesn’t make it false.

                1. You provided no WSJ like, and I saw no WSJ source in your article.

                  On my OWN, I found that Seid moved stock to a Trust. That is Still not giving $1.6B to FedSoc.

                  It is not giving 1.6B to anyone. It apears to be assuring that 1.6B will be available to provide SMALL revenues to causes that he supports after he dies -he is after all 90. And if things progress as they typically do – the Left will control those funds in a decade or two.

                  Regardless, what you claimed was FALSE.
                  I am not so sure that ProPublica actually claimed that FedSoc got 1.6B they merely took facts and allegations and added lost of dark adjectives to spin them nefariously.

                  It seems to be beyond you to grasp that adjectives do not change facts.

                  So lets directly address your allegation without the adjectives in SUNLIGHT.

                  Lets assume what you claim is True.

                  Seid gave FedSoc 1.6B to push the courts with more conservative justices.

                  SO WHAT ? Except for the obvious damage resulting from Sorros funding left wing nut DA’s – how are these different ?

                  Both acts are legal. Sorros’s actions are immoral – because the consequences of those actions were both foreseable and likely intentional.
                  Real people – poor minority communities were actually harmed by Sorros DA’s.

                  Conversely though the appointment of federalist judges has obvious effects – it creates new barriers to your policies.
                  No one has actually been harmed.

                  So all you have is lots of spin.

                  And that ignores the FACT that Fed Soc did not get $1.6B.

                    1. Now you’ll tell me I backdated this. I found it easily in a reply to your comment.

                      enigmainblackcom says:May 6, 2023 at 12:35 PM
                      My first goal is to document the amount which you don’t accept. Once we can agree on the facts, I’ll go to step two.




                    2. “Now you’ll tell me I backdated this.”
                      Please quit putting words in my mouth.

                      Your links have already been addressed. They are not evidence of what you claim.
                      Repeatedly offering something that is not evidence of your claim does not magically change it into evidence.

                      This is what passes for argument from left wing nuts ?

                      The politico article is pretty close to useless spin, it can not even keep its facts straight.

                      The WSJ article says that a 90 year old billionaire is moving his stock into a trust,

                      Where does anything you provided say, much less actually prove, that the FedSoc has received 1.6B ?
                      Where does it say – much less prove, that anyone aside from Seid’s Trust received 1.6B ?

                      There is not even a commitment to receive anything in the future.

                      Next you claim this is “dark money” – if so – how is it being reported ?
                      By defintion Dark money is money that is NOT reported.

                      Next, where in WSJ or Politico does it say that anything DID occur or MIGHT occur that is illegal ?

                      Stripped of innuendo and dark adjectives, all you have is elderly billionaire is setting up a trust likely to be used for political advocacy.

                      All of which is legal, all of which is in the future.

                      None of which is any different from what Sorros does every day.

                      The bottomline is that – You support how Sorros is spending his money, and oppose what Seid is contributing to.

                      One step further:
                      You support political contributions that create anarchy, chaos and violence in democratic cities and Harm minorities.
                      You oppose political contributions that seek to restore the rule of law, and assure that the constitution is read as written.

                      So long as the constitution is read as written. Any group can seek to change government by actually changing the constitution.

                      Nothing Seid or the federalist society is seeking to accomplish precludes a constitution that reflects YOUR wishes.
                      Amend the constitution to reflect your wishes.
                      All groups are on the same level playing field.
                      We can trust that the FedSoc judges will apply the constitution as written.
                      Which means if you change it – they will apply it as amended.

                      That you think that is extreme or radical is damning.

                    3. My only claim in my most recent post is that I did post a link from the WSJ while you said I didn’t. I am amused at how much you can write in your defense instead of just acknowledging you missed it. I haven’t gotten to proving any of the things you deny, because you can’t acknowledge the amount.

                    4. No you said you linked to a WSJ article that proved something.

                      Soes anyone give a crap if you linked to a random WSJ article ?

                      You have made a claim that you were going to make a stepwise effort to start from what was agreed and logically reach your desired conclusion.

                      You fell off the rails at Step one.

                      Logic is unforgiving and unfudgeable.

                    5. “I haven’t gotten to proving any of the things you deny, because you can’t acknowledge the amount.”

                      This is not about “acknowledging” – there is no need to acknowledge things that are actually proven.

                      The WSJ article you linked does not constitute proof of anything.
                      If does constitute a CLAIM that Seid moved money into a trust.

                      That is likely true. I will “acknowledge” it is likely true.
                      I will not “acknowledge” that is is PROVEN – that is a much higher standard and one neither you nor WSJ met.

                      Politico conversely jumps right to FedSoc has spent 1.6B with zero evidence at all.

                      So what you have Thus far is that Seid likely moved 1.6B into a trust that he likely continues to control.
                      That is Likely – based on the name to be used for issue advocacy.

                      That is all that you have.

                      What you Claim – which is obviously false – FedSoc spending is public record.
                      Is that FedSoc spent 1.6B getting conservative justices appointed.

                      If that were True it would still be both legal, and none of your business.
                      Just as your use of your own money is none of my business.
                      NAACP v Alabama.

                      So you want me to get all in a lather about your CLAIMS that are both legal and impropable ?

                      My problem with the political spending of Sorros and Zuckerberg is not that they spent lots of money.
                      It is that they did so in a fashion that inarguably HARMED us.

                      Zuckerbery errodded trust in elections.
                      While Sorros actions are resulting is death and injury to many people.

                      There would be no harm and in fact a gain if Fed Soc actually did as you claim.

    2. This is a very serious legal mind. Two questions:

      – Can you please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession, understanding that secession is ubiquitous globally and throughout history?

      – What was extant immigration law on January 1, 1863?

      Everything Lincoln effected during and immediately subsequent to his administration through his successors was and remains invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional, understanding that reprehensible African, Arab and British slavery must and, ultimately, would have been fully abrogated by legal means and methods in America (Washington’s slaves were freed by his will).

  3. Franken *thought* he was funny, but his errant behaviour didn’t translate well in the Senate. It’s common knowledge that Franken only got elected by hordes of absentee ballots that were discovered later. A trick that was super-sized in the 2020 election by Democrats to fraudulently elect Sleepy, Creepy, China/UKR Biden*.
    Whatever Franken has to say, nobody is listening. A has-been with a big mouth is to be avoided.

      1. If you’re responding from the website rather than email, just click on the comment’s date stamp, and it will give you that comment’s link in your URL bar.

  4. OT (Insurrections)
    Another near insurrection occurred in a state capitol today as Democratic activists interrupted proceedings in the Texas House.
    “Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan abruptly cleared the public from the chamber’s gallery Tuesday, after LGBTQ Texans and parents of transgender kids chanted in opposition of a bill that would ban transition-related care for children.
    Phelan ordered state police to clear the gallery just as Senate Bill 14 came to the House floor and as opponents began their chants and unrolled banners in support of trans kids. As bill opponents started filing out of the gallery, they chanted, “Trans rights are human rights.” ”
    Like the attacks on the Republican appointees to the S. Ct., like the censoring of “misinformation”, like the judicial prosecution of J6 protesters, this is a going to be an ongoing feature of the political operations of the Democrats.

    1. I am sure they organized on SM, texas should charge them with insurrection and sedition.

  5. The Dems have been waging all out war on Scotus for years now. Think of the high-tech lynchings of Thomas and Kavanaugh, Chuck Schumer’s threats that “you’ll pay the price” and “you won’t know what hit you,” the ridiculous efforts to pack the Court, and the equally ridiculous statements from the likes of Al Franken that the Court is somehow “illegitimate” (no reason is ever given for this alleged illegitimacy except that they dislike the Court’s rulings in specific cases).

    Everyone knows they hate it and want to destroy it because it’s the only institution left in America that they can’t control.

    1. I’m on the left. I don’t hate the court or want to destroy it. I do think that its ethics standards should be at least as strong as those for the judges on lower courts, which is not currently the case.

          1. David – it’s built into the Constitution, in the separation-of-powers principle. Congress would never let the Court establish ethical standards for Congress. And rightly so. Similarly, Congress cannot impose a binding code of judicial ethics on the Court.

            There is already a federal code of judicial conduct, and the Court should voluntarily bind itself to that. State supreme courts are bound by state-level judicial conduct codes, adopted by the state Supreme Court and binding on all state-level judges in the state, so why can’t the federal Supreme Court?

            1. “The Constitution creates three independent branches of the federal government, none of which are meant to be unaccountable to the others. … Here are just some of the ways in which Congress has previously exercised authority over the Court: … [gives 9 examples] [I]f none of these moves unconstitutionally interfered with the separation of powers, it’s not obvious why a statutory accountability mechanism imposed on the Justices necessarily would. That’s not to say that the Constitution is irrelevant here; I do believe that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to give some other body the power to review the Justices’ conduct; Article III creates “one supreme court,” not two.
              “But take, as one possible way forward, the bill introduced last week by Senators King (I-ME) and Murkowski (R-AK). Rather than prescribing ethics rules and setting up some kind of external enforcement mechanism, the bill simply requires the Court to formally adopt rules and to create its own internal process for policing adherence thereto (including the creation of an ombudsperson to oversee compliance). The central conceit of the bill is that the Justices can decide for themselves what the rules will be and who will monitor compliance with them; they just have to create rules and pick somebody. …
              “Reasonable folks may disagree about whether the King-Murkowski approach is the best one here; I’m not suggesting that it is. My point is only that the breezy suggestions that even this would raise constitutional problems seem impossible to reconcile with both the rich history of congressional checking of the Court and the need for Congress to have to have some mechanism for being able to establish the factual predicate for its (undisputed) impeachment power. …”


              1. Anon – how could a bill like that ever be enforced? Lower courts can’t tell Scotus what to do. So someone would have to sue Scotus itself, and have the case heard by Scotus – an obvious impossibility.

                  1. I guess it’s theoretically possible all nine Justices could be impeached and removed from office, but that is so unlikely that in practical terms it will never happen.

                    Do you really think they’re so arrogant that they’d refuse?

                    I think they’d consider it unconstitutional and thus not a valid law. The usual way to test a law’s validity is to challenge it in court, but how would that ever happen? And the Justices don’t issue advisory opinions due to the case-or-controversy requirement.

                    1. I think Steve Vladeck, a law professor who has argued before SCOTUS, very likely understands what is/isn’t constitutional better than you do. He’s argued why it would be constitutional, presenting multiple historic examples as part of his argument, and you have not.

                    2. “I think Steve Vladeck, a law professor who has argued before SCOTUS, very likely understands what is/isn’t constitutional better than you do. ”

                      Not an argument. The last time you brought up Vladeck, he engaged in mind reading, hyperbole, and imagination. Shall we seat Vladeck next to Lawrence Tribe, who has gone a bit nuts?

                    3. “I think Steve Vladeck, a law professor who has argued before SCOTUS, very likely understands what is/isn’t constitutional better than you do.”

                      Appeal to authority.
                      I would note that the ultimate authority on the constitution is NOT the supreme court. It is the people.
                      The ultimate authority on government is the people.

                      When government acts to infringe on our rights and destroy out Trust we have the right to alter or abolish it.

                      That is not True merely because the declaration of independence says it is.
                      It is True because it is reality.

                      All of us – including supreme court justices forget that the ultimate authority is NOT the constitution — as important as that is.

                      It is “we the people”. – and not in the democratic sense. Nut in the sense that we lose trust in govenrment that acts outside the law, the constitution as WE understand them.

                      I have debated Lawrence Tribe and Alan Derschowitz – Tribe when he was sane.
                      I respected both of them. I agreed in part and disagreed in part.

                      There experience required me to think long and hard about their arguments.

                      It did NOT require me to accept them. Facts, logic, reality determine what the truth is.

                      Credibility and trust – something I argue the merits of here constantly is very important.
                      But no amount of trust overcomes errors in facts or logic, nor overcomes reality.

                      A persons intelligence is a reason they make fewer mistakes – though even that is not absolute,
                      It is NOT a guarantee of infallibility.

                      My own intelligence does not make me infallible. Nor does anyone else’s.

                    4. I think Steve Vladeck, a law professor who has argued before SCOTUS, very likely understands what is/isn’t constitutional better than you do.

                      I’m a lawyer and have quite a bit of experience in constitutional law. I don’t deny that he’s smarter than me. But his opinion isn’t the one that really counts, is it?

                    5. I don’t believe that there is only one single opinion that “really counts,” and if you’re a lawyer, then engage with his argument. For example, do you dispute any of the historical examples he cites to support his argument?

                    6. I don’t believe that there is only one single opinion that “really counts”

                      I was referring to Scotus as having the opinion that counts.

                    1. Faksem you need 218 members of the house to impeach.

                      You need 67 members of the senate to remove.

                  2. If they refuse to abide by a constitutional law

                    But the law is not constitutional.

                    And, as we have seen with the two phony impeachments of President Trump, Congress needs no high crimes and misdemeanors, to impeach.

              2. There is a difference between oversight and control.
                SCOTUS is subject to the same generally applicable laws as the rest of government.

                I am not aware of anyone saying that SCOTUS is immune for oversight by either Congress or the executive.

                We are not debating oversite. We are debating laws that specifically direct the way in which the courts conduct their affairs.

          2. DB – if congress can craft laws specific to the operation of SCOTUS – then they control SCOTUS.
            That is different from oversite.

            The courts are subject to generally applicable laws – such as bribery laws.
            They are subject to oversite by congress.

            But the constitutionally established powers of the courts can not be infringed on by congress.

      1. Anonymous, here you go again with ethics on the Supreme Court. Several times in the last few days you have brought up Clarence Thomas vacation and his supposed breach of ethics. I posted the following earlier today and you never wrote a letter concerning Ruth Bader Ginsburg doing the exact same thing. When it was Thomas you couldn’t wait to sink your fangs into his jugular. Here it is. For example, in 2018, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took 14 reimbursed trips — the most of any justice that year — including one in which she was “provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn” who “had business before the Supreme Court before” when SCOTUS “handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case.” What say the now Anonymous the all knowing.

          1. While there is merit to disclosure.

            Disclosure does NOT turn illegal conduct legal.
            Nor does failure to disclose turn legal conduct illegal.

            This is acommon mistake those ont eh left make regarding Biden, Trump and classified documents.

            Biden was VP, his posession of classified documents outside of a SCIF as Ex-VP was illegal.
            There is no argument the documets were declassified.
            There is no argument they were Biden’s property.

            Trump was president – his posession of classified documents inside a SCIF as ex-president was legal.
            The caselaw says that Trump’s documents were probably declassified, and his property regardless.

      2. Agreed, but that can not come from congress – unless you change the constitution.

        I would further note – that though I would prefer that some of the conduct of justices did not occur. none of it is illegal, and in fact the only justice that had a clear Conflict of interests was Sotomayor.

        I would like to see draconian limits on the outside funding of everyone in government.
        But that would require a constitutional amendment.,

        And I am not sure that even a constitutional amendment would protect against influence peddling by family.

        I would note there is ultimately another answer here.

        Congress can not dictate a code of conduct tot he courts.

        But they can impeach.

        So the question is does the conduct rise to something that is impeachable ?

        The Trump impeachments have obliterated any objective standard for impeachment.

        Prior to the Trump impeachments – I would have agreed with Turley that Trump’s proven conduct was not impeachable according to the constitution.

        But there is no judicial review of impeachment, and having essentially engaged in a political impeachment congress has opened the doors for future political impeachments. it is not likely we are going back.

        This true of many of the norms the left has breached in the past decade.

        It is a significant factor in the increasing bitterness of political divisions and why that is not likely to go away.

        The norms that have been breached are the civilizing influences.

      3. I do not know what “on the left” means.

        I am libertarian. I have common ground with those on the left on many issues – especially the liberal left rather than the progressive left.

        Where I part ways is the means of accomplishing those goals.

    2. Based on the assorted DOJ arguments in the J6 trials – why can’t Schumer be prosecuted for Sedition ? For attempting to disrupt and official proceeding ?
      For violating 18 US 1507 ?

      Aparently there are only first amendment rights if you are a democrat.
      Apparently you are only allowed to rail against government – if you are a democrat.

      Otherwise you are guilty of Sedition.

      Please explain why Schumers remarks in the midst of a riot in front of the Supreme court are not sedition if those of the various J6 defendants are ?

      Talk about white priviledge.

  6. Meanwhile, in the civil trial in E. Jean Carroll v Trump, where Carroll alleges rape and defamation, Trump’s lawyer confirmed today that Trump will not testify. Because it’s a civil trial, the jury is allowed to interpret that adversely. Trump is too cowardly to testify, or perhaps worried about committing perjury. Not only has Carroll testified about Trump raping her, today Jessica Leeds testified about Trump assaulting her.

    But Trumpists like this rapist.

    1. You go off-topic to call Trump a rapist even though there’s been no verdict or judgment. You hide behind an anonymous label. And then you say Trump is “cowardly”? Wow. TDS strikes again.

      1. Plenty of people go off topic here. I’ve never seen you complain about it when the person who does it is conservative.

        And yes, I’m convinced by the testimony that Trump is a rapist. (Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to the case enough to know the testimony, even though there’s plenty of reporting about it.) I also doubt that she’s the only one he raped — over 2 dozen women have accused him of rape or sexual assault. He bragged about kissing women without consent. He bragged that women “let” him grope them without asking consent.

        And yes, Trump is too cowardly to testify. Choosing not to testify allows adverse inference in a civil trial, and so harms his defense, so why else would he do it?

        Neither one of us is using our real name here.


        1. Choosing not to testify allows adverse inference in a civil trial, and so harms his defense, so why else would he do it?

          I doubt the reason has anything to do with cowardice. Trump may be many things but he’s not a coward. Where money is on the line people act in their economic interests, and in that sense litigation can be compared to chess: the parties make decisions strategically. If Trump has decided not to testify, the most likely explanation is that, in their strategizing, Trump and his lawyers have calculated that the pros are outweighed by the cons. Attributing major decisions in litigation to emotions is a difficult argument to make.

          1. No one in their right mind would choose to testify in this star chamber trial.

            This case should never have gotten to court.
            Since it has the Judge has done everything to hamstrung the defence and advantage the prosecution.

            There is no way Trump can safely testify.

            1. Exactly. How does any man defend himself against a nutjob accuser who cannot even say what year the assault allegedly happened? What year? What month? Totally unjust trial with a corrupt judge.

              1. Same Dem playbook with the total fraud Chrissy Blasey Ford. Don’t know where, when, with whom, how I got there, how I got home, no friends or family corroborated her story, etc. But she did KNOW she had only 1 beer and it was Brett Kavanaugh.

                Total FRAUD.

                1. The problem is not with Blassey-Ford or Carroll.
                  It is with the courts allowing this.

                  Each of us can beleive or disbeleve Carroll, or Reade or Blassey-Ford, or ….
                  I do not think it is likely, but it is certainly possible that they could be telling the truth.

                  But the passage of many years, makes it impossible for them to Prove their case, and impossible for those defending to disprove their case.

                  If I was accused of raping a woman in north Carolina yesterday – I can prove beyond any doubt at all that could not have happened. I was not in North Carolina and I have many many ways I can prove that.

                  Make the same accusation next year – and proving my innocence will be harder.
                  Make it in 5 years and it will be far harder still.
                  Make it in 30 years – and it will be impossible.
                  The records of where I was and what I did will be gone, as will most of my memory.
                  Many of the people I was with will be dead, and those alive certainly will not recall.

                  Compound this with the fact that neither Reade, nor Carroll, nor Blasey-Ford can specify the time and the place the incident took place. deprives me of any possibility of proving my innocence.

                  The fact that Reade, Carroll, Blasey-Ford can not specify the date, time and place and other critical details,
                  does not mean that what they claim did not happen.

                  But it does mean that it does not belong in court.

                  If you wish to beleive Trump raped Carroll – you are free to do so, and no one can prove you wrong.
                  Nor can you prove you are right. And no jury can conclude one way or he other to the level required to either exonerate or convict.

                  Trump has had many claims such as Carrolls thrown out of court – for exactly these reasons.
                  Nor is Trump alone in that.
                  Barring the kind of evidence that is normally present for accusations made in proximity to alleged acts, claims such as these should never get inside a courtroom.

                  As a separate matter – if you accuse someone of a crime, protestations of innocence – even if you are actually guilty should NEVER be defamation. Everyone – even the guilty are entitled to claim their innocence.

              2. Personally I think Carroll is bat$hit crazy and I do not beleive the other witnesses.

                But the issue is NOT Carroll. It is that the courts should not have allowed this case to be brought.

                The constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. That is a wise reflection of the fact that the passage of time degrades not only evidence of guilt, but evidence of innocence.

                These cases degenerate to “he said – she said”, where BOTH memories are legitimately suspect and where corroboration is impossible.

        2. Carrol has said nothing that proves anything. This case should have been thrown out. Why should Trump take the stand? The only reason is you have OCD and can’t manage to reconcile Trump’s good performance as President and Biden’s inability to do anything right.

          1. One of the reasons that we have (had) statutes of limitation is to avoid this nonsense.

            It is not uncommon for juries to have to decide who they beleive where events are fresh in ones mind and there is no other evidence – though defendants are still supposed to get the benefit of all reaonable doubt – which does NOT mean decisions in their favor men the plantiff is lying.

            It means when we do not know – we error on the side of the defendant. The rule of laW, BECOMES THE RULE OF MAN OTHERWISE.

            Once sufficient time has passed – no defendant should ever be convicted solely weighing the credibility of the plaintiff.

        3. I am well aware of the testimony and I am convinced that Trump was never in Bergdorf’s with Carroll.
          Carroll has accused just about every man she has had the slightest relationshop with of raping her – in WRITING.
          And oddly the only one she omitted until recently – was Trump.

          There are so many problems with this story it is laughable.

          Is it possible I am wrong – absolutely. But it is not possible to prove this today.

          That is why we have statutes of limitation – or why we did until left wing nuts obliterated them to “get Trump”

          And just so we are clear – in 1984 My wife was abducted off the street and violently raped for 4 hours.

          Rape is a very serious offense. It is not a publicity stunt.
          With the exception of those who are drugged – such as GHB, it is a destructive event that will take years to recover from – if ever.
          My wife and I lost a decade of our lives and it altered our relationship in good and bad ways permanently.
          It will change you and your relation to the world. It is not something you are unsure of.
          It is not something some one has to tell you occured.

          I do not personally believe that Carroll is credible in ANY of her claims against ANYONE, much less Trump.
          And those who testified purportedly in support of her are precisely what is wrong with the left.
          They are not credible and would say anything to acheive a political objective.
          I would further note that even so – their testimony still added almost no strength to the case.

          We do not know when this happened – not a month not a day not a year.

          That is incredibly important – Carrol should not be allowed into a courtroom without committing to some facts that can be tested.

          If you claim I raped you 30 years ago – but provide no testable facts – how can I even attempt to prove my innocence.

          In every possible way Carrolls story is such that it can not be tested.

        4. Such accusations are quite common for high profile targets like Trump BEFORE he became President.

          That is WHY the courts are supposed to require some evidence for such claims to get into court.

          I would note that not one of these claimants has gone to the police.
          Not one of them has come forth in a way that would have subject themselves to risk if they were lying.

          With respect to what Trump has “bragged of” – when is the last time that you kissed someone that they “consented” ?
          When was the last time that you engaged in sexual activity that the person “consented”.

          Whether you like it or not, While consent is absolutely required. Consent is RARELY verbal, and almost never in writing.

          Do you have a consent form filled out for every time you have kissed someone ?

          When you move your head towards someone – do they move away ? If you put your had on them – do they pull closer or move away ?

          Consent is a dance with cues at each step.

          Contra to your claims – there are actually many many many women who have publicly claimed Trump made advances to them, and that when they said or signaled NO, that he backed off.

          There is even a specific instance where a woman testified that she said “not here, not now, LATER” and Trump complied.

          I do not like Trump.
          I do not like his relationship to Women. It is part of why I have never voted for him.

          But I can distinguish between legal conduct that I do not like.
          And rape, or sexual assault.

      2. oldmandfromkansas – I don’t think they expected a fair trial in NYC, and decided to take their chances in the Court of Appeals.

      3. It is NYC, the judge telegraphed long ago what the verdict would be.

        If you think Trump is going to win this at trial – you are deluded.

        This is just another political prosecution.

      1. George, anyone should still have the right to make an a$$ out of themselves. This is still America.

        1. Certainly, every man shows up in the public square to vigorously exercise his freedom of speech.

          It is known to all who he is and what his opinion is.

          No one knows who anonymous is.

          He could be Dylan Mulvaney for all we know.

          And that would be enormously accretive to understanding his “frame of mind,” shall we say, his perspective and his intent.


      “I’m telling you, he raped me, whether I screamed or not.”

      – E. Jean Carroll.

      “Ms. Carroll says she visited Bergdorf Goodman one evening in the mid-1990s. As she was leaving through a revolving door, Mr. Trump entered and recognized her, the suit says, and persuaded her to help him shop for a gift for a female friend. She has accused the former president of going on to attack her in a dressing room in the lingerie department.”

      – New York Slimes

      What a ——- joke!

      Do I have this right?

      I’m a multi-billionaire and I don’t have women everywhere, women everywhere don’t want to be with me constantly, and I need to rape a woman because I can’t get one?

      Dang! That shore do sound pllllllllausible!

      If Trump were raping you in Bergdorf Goodman’s, would you scream, Anonymous?

      “Trump is too cowardly to testify, or perhaps worried about committing perjury.”

      – So says the coward hiding behind Professor Turley’s approved disguise and shield, Anonymous.

      Make up your mind you ——- idiot!

      Is rape alleged or proven?

      1. It’s proven to me. The trial isn’t over yet, so we’ll have to wait a few days to see what the jury says.

    3. Both Leeds and Carroll confided in me they were making it up. Its a scam to make Trump look bad.
      So we can shut this whole thing down.

      1. Volunteer to testify under oath, like they are.

        Oh wait, no, you won’t do that because you’d be committing perjury.

    4. Even if this was almost 30 years ago and not impossible to disprove claims from eons ago.
      Carroll is not credible. Her own remarks and her publicans and public appearances are irrational.
      She has accused 21 men of rape previously – even though she is unable to distinguish rape from sex.

      Leeds alleges that she was touched inappropriately on a commercial flight 40 years ago. Trump appeared at my brothers gradulation 40 years ago.
      He arrived by Trump Helicopter. When is the last time Trump flew commercial ?

      Can you put Trump on the same plane with Leeds ?
      Do you have any evidence this occured ?
      Do you even no what occured ?

    5. We have been through this kind of garbage with Kavanaugh.

      What I find odd here is that Carroll etc and you get to call Trump a rapist because of something 30 and 40 years ago, and yet, Trump claiming he is innocent is defamation ?

      Tara Reade has accused Biden of raping her – yet your OK with that ? Biden has a long public record of fondling women and girls in public, and sniffing them.
      And there are innumerable allegations that as Vice President he sexually assaulted Secret Service agents or their spouses. Those on his protective detail would not bring there family to socialize with Joe for fear he might molest them.

      If we are going to pretend that we must beleive all old allegations – Biden has atleast as many, they are far creaper, he has been caught repeatedly on camera.

      And his son certainly behaves like Women are cattle.

  7. For example, in 2018, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took 14 reimbursed trips — the most of any justice that year — including one in which she was “provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn” who “had business before the Supreme Court before” when SCOTUS “handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case.” One thing should be understood, the leftist on this blog know that Justices of a left persuasions received gifts from wealthy people but they do what they do anyway. The rope broke on the high tech lynching on the first try so they want to have a go at it again. People of despicable character does even begin to describe it. People in prison who say they didn’t commit the crime have more moral authority than the leftist on this blog. What is amazing is that they never imagined that paid for trips by Judges on the left would come to light. Now that there is just stupid I don’t care who you are. No surprise.

    1. “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

      – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Communist, Traitor, Affirmative Action Injustice

      The Constitution and Bill of Rights are perfect documents which establish self governance.

      Comradette Ruth held allegiance to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” while she swore an oath to support the Constitution.

      She disparaged the Constitution in a foreign country.

    2. TiT,
      Leftists on this blog would never acknowledge the fact that their beloved justices would do the same.
      Just shows how they lack the morals or even integrity to apply the same for leftists as they would to every one else.
      Another reason why so many find them so despised.

      1. I do. And I self-identify as a capital-P Progressive, of the Wisconsin La Follette era, who were of course Republicans in an era where the reformers on the right side of history were frequently Republicans.

        Liberals cut their own justices and leaders too much slack because they think the leaders’ fundamental rightness on the issues overwhelms such considerations. Which is exactly how conservatives have felt. Conservatives, however, have taken this to even more extreme lengths during the Trump era.

        The solution is really quite simple: a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices that *everyone* on the Court has to obey. Clean up everyone’s behavior. Can I get an amen to that, or are we so polarized now that agreement across the political spectrum on anything is impossible?

        1. Condolences, Johnny Knox.

          Americans don’t “reform” their Constitution and Bill of Rights.

          Progressives progress away from the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

          Progressives are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs).

          “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

          – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

        2. simple: a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices that *everyone* on the Court has to obey. Clean up everyone’s behavior.

          What cases have the judges thrown? I don’t see anything to clean up.

        3. If you want a code of ethics for the supreme court – you must amend the constitution.
          Only SCOTUS can regulate itself.

          I would support that. Regardless, an amendment is necescary.

          In the meantime the EVIDENCE is that in most of my lifetime the conduct of justices left and right has been indistinguishable.

          I do not like it, but there is no evidence their conduct has effected their decisions.

          I have no idea what a Wisconsin progressive republican is – maybe you can enlighten us. But 19th century progressive republicans are NOT something to be proud of. Just as all 19th and 20th century progressives – as well as this new 21st century progressivism is corrupt and immoral.

          I am glad that the modern left identifies as progressive – I want to retake liberal – which is supposed to me someone who prizes individual liberty.

          Conservaitism is NOT an ideology. It is a value not a principle.
          It is the CORRECT observation that most change is FAILURE – that is why we are supposed ot have limited government.
          That is why change is supposed to occur within our private lives and within free markets.

          Failure is an inherent part of life. It is how we learn.

          But Government is the one place we do NOT want failure.
          It is also where we do not want efficiency.

          The Nazi’s are what govenrment efficiency looks like.

          Individual failure effects, individuals.
          Government failure harms the world.

          I have no idea what you think extreme conservatism is.

          As a matter of simple odds – on most any random issue – the conservative is always more likely to be right.
          Why ? Because most change is failure.

          It has taken nature 13Billion years of trial and error to arrive at man. That is lots and lots of failure at each step.

          Change is not inherently bad – it si extremely important.
          But failure in government – harms the whole nation.

          I have no idea what you think “extreme conservatism” is.

          As significant portion of the MAGA platform – it is literally in the name – is conservative.
          Make America Great Again is a bold claim that much recent change has FAILED.

          Something both most people and reality agree with.

          Purportedly the Biden admin is desperate regarding the southern border right now.

          While the border is a political problem with no utopian answer. it is trivial to do better than Biden is currently doing.
          Trump proved that.
          I would like to see something different from what either Trump or Biden are doing.
          But what I would like is not an available choice.
          Given the choice between Trump’s far more secure border and Biden’s anarchy – almost no one want anarchy.

          Put simply Biden knows how to do better. But is hoping for a magical way that is better and not what Trump did.
          He is free to attempt that – but the odds are that he will fail.

          Conservative would mean – return to what worked better than what you have.

          Mostly I do not want to return to the past – though there are lots of failed progressive policies we could reverse.

          But this MAGA extremist nonsense is illogical.
          Mostly – the past – a decade ago, or 40 years ago, was worse than today – though not so more recently.
          Butthe past was NOT some totalitarian h311 hole.

          We could revert to the government of the 50’s and though that would not be good, it would NOT be a return to nazism and fascism.

          Whatever you think MAGA extremism is – it is not a regression to some time so evil it was fascist.

          I would further note that historically even the extreme right has never been the threat the left is.

          Pinocette killed somewhere between 300 and 3000 left wing Chileans. The Ortega’s massacred 80,000 nicaraguan aborigines.

          There is no parity in blood between the worst of the right and of the left.

          Hitler was a socialist. But even if you eroneously put him on the left – he is responsible for an order of magnitude less bloodshed than Stalin or Mao.

    3. Key word: DISCLOSED

      “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed taking more trips than any other justice in 2018, totaling 14. She visited Tel Aviv, Israel where she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. Shortly following the award ceremony, she disclosed being provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn.”

      1. No the Keyword is NOT disclosed.

        Judges have been doing this for ages. Including Sotomayor and Jackson who did NOT disclose until it was made public.

        I have no idea if Ginsbergs disclosures were before her conduct was made public – nor do you.

        Regardless, Disclosure dos NOT change whether something is inappropriate or not.

        Where we actually require disclosure – and this is NOT one of those places.
        It is not so we can find out all the perfectly legal things that people have done,
        It is so we can find out what illegal things they have done.

        You are not entitled to know about the private life of people – just because you want to.

        They are not required to disclose their private lives – because you are a voyeur.

        Chosing to satisfy your curiosity does not make them good people.
        Refusing to does not make them bad people.

        Conduct is not magically ethical because you disclose it.
        Nor unethical because you did not.

        I would like to see higher ethical standards for courts. That will require a constitutional amendment.

        But I am not demanding more disclosure.

        It is not disclusure that needs addressed it is conflict laden conduct.
        And for that Sotomayor is at the top of the list.

    4. Why did you leave out of your comment that RBG disclosed these trips? It seems like an important point.

        1. Thomas disclosed too, after amending. Same for RGB and virtually all other Justices. Virtually all public officials occasionally make amendments to their disclosures. The cynical explanation is that they sneakily made intentionally “mistakes” the first time and only amended when they were afraid they’d get caught. No doubt that happens sometimes. But with the sheer amount of information that has to be disclosed, the more probable explanation in most cases is that it was just a mistake, you know, like humans make on occasion.

          1. Thomas failed to disclose what ProPublica reported on, and he’s only amending it now because he was caught.

            1. Apparently there’s room for interpretation in the rules and he asked, and was advised, that he didn’t have to:


              Do you think he’s lying about that? If so, what do you base your conclusion on?

              1. I have no idea whether he was telling the truth, but the fact is that RBG disclosed, and Thomas did not.

              2. BTW, there’s no “room for interpretation in the rules” about the undisclosed property purchase that was subsequently reported on, nor did Thomas say that he’d sought advice about that.

                1. Of course there is room – the rules are voluntary and the Supreme court decides what they are.

                  Regardless have you disclosed who you are ?

            2. And so your position is: whenever RGB, Breyer, Jackson or any liberal Justice amended their disclosures, it was due to an honest mistake, but with Thomas it was intentional and fraudulent?

              I mean, Jackson made multiple amendment just days after she was nominated by President Biden. But that was all just an honest mistake, right? Only with Thomas is it something more sinister, right?

              1. If that were my position, you’d be able to quote me saying it instead of inventing it yourself.

                  1. No, actually, it can’t. That person A infers X doesn’t mean that person B implied X.

            3. ProPublica – that says it all.

              Regardless, this fixation on disclosure is nonsense.

              SCOTUS sets its own rules. The Senate can not set its rules.

              Thus far the only clear conflict has been that of Sotomayor who participated in cases with parties she received substantial payments from.

              It is not failure to disclose benefits that is corrupt.
              It is failure to disclose CONFLICTS.

      1. Because it is far less important a point than you claim and because much of what is raised right and left was NOT disclosed until made public.
        Judge Jeckson amended her disclosure 7 times just before confirmation hearings.

        It is already self evident that judges do not disclose. And that legally they do not have to.

        Again – amend the constitution.
        I will join you in support for this.

  8. “This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts should get up, look into the mirror and declare ‘I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am an attractive person. I am fun to be with.’”

    – Professor Turley

    This morning, Chief Justice John Roberts should get up, survey the expanse of his jail cell and reflect profoundly on the egregious treason of his acts against the American thesis and the Constitution and Bil of Rights of the United States.

    John Roberts should have been impeached and convicted for his brazen abuse of power, usurpation of power, fraud, failure in his sworn-oath support of the Constitution, and his act to support wholly unconstitutional Obamacare by commingling the definitions of the words “state” and “federal” regarding its “exchanges.” Also, Roberts wittingly supported Obamacare as a clear violation of the “Commerce Clause.” Congress may regulate only the “flow” of commerce, to preclude bias or favor by one State over another, not its nature and character. Additionally, Congress may tax for only debt, defense and general Welfare, not individual, specific and particular welfare for one, some or a few, or favor or charity.

    Roberts is a subjective, biased, partial, antithetical, and anti-American social collectivist who adheres to Karl Marx’s slogan: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” while he ignores and nullifies the maximal freedom provided to individuals and the severe limitations and restrictions imposed on government by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    God Bless Professor Turley. I haven’t a legal or jurisprudential clue why he supports the clearly illicit and unconstitutional acts of a criminal of high office, Chief Justice John Roberts.

    IRS Rule Ignores Letter of the Law


    On August 17, 2011, the IRS issued a proposed regulation implementing another key part of the law — Section 1401 — that sets unambiguous parameters the Administration must use to calculate and provide premium subsidies to eligible people buying health insurance in the exchange. Section 1401 of the health care law clearly states that a person may receive a premium subsidy if he or she is “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

    The IRS regulation, however, indicated federal spending would occur not only under the provisions of Section 1311, as set forth in Section 1401, but under another section as well. The proposed rule ignores the law and offers premium subsidies to people under both Section 1311 (state exchange) and Section 1321 (federal exchange).

    Despite multiple warnings that the Administration had no legal authority to expand premium assistance to include the federal exchange, the IRS moved forward anyway. On May 23, 2012, the IRS finalized its regulation allowing subsidies to flow in both state and federal exchanges. The final rule says: “the relevant legislative history does not demonstrate that Congress intended to limit the premiums tax credit to State Exchanges. Accordingly, the final regulations maintain the rule in the proposed regulations because it is consistent with the language, purpose, and structure of section 36B and the Affordable Care Act as a whole.”

    This move bypassed Congress – effectively allowing the Administration to rewrite a provision of the law. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) legal analysis raised concerns that the IRS did not implement the law as written.

    “[A] strictly textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to the conclusion that the IRS’ authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange. Therefore, an IRS interpretation that extended tax credits to those enrolled in federally facilitated exchanges would be contrary to clear congressional intent … and likely be deemed invalid.”

    – CRS

  9. Jonathan: It looks like Donald Trump will not be showing up for his trial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit. Yesterday Trump landed in Aberdeen, Scotland to break ground on a new golf course at his resort. Funny there were no large cheering crowds when Trump landed in his B-757. Only a bunch of Secret Service agents. No bag pipes–no nothing. There were other large crowds in Scotland–to protest Trump’s presence. There was a photo of a large sign in one crowd that read: “Scotland Totally Hates Trump”. Another read: “Beat it ya Big Orange Jobbie”. For those who don’t understand Scottish “Jobbie” means faeces; a piece of excrement.

    There was a rather bizarre video of Trump taking a shovel to break ground at the new site. No welcoming city officials from Aberdeen were apparently present. No ribbon cutting. Just Trump and about a half dozen gruffy looking young men digging in the ground. Trump was having trouble getting his shovel into the dirt so one of the young men dug up some dirt and put it into Trump’s shovel. Probably the only physical labor Trump has ever engaged in. Trump used the occasion to strike out again at journalists: “And we throw it at the press, right in their faces. We throw it right in their faces”. Classic Trump!

    Nothing says “Make America Great Again”, Trump’s 2024 campaign slogan, more than building another golf course in Scotland!

    1. Dennis McIntyre just loves to hate those rich guys. That is of course unless it’s his rich guy George Soros. Dennis McIntyre, I suggest you read George Soros’s treatise on an open society. I’m sure it will be the first time you’ve read it. It’s obvious by your lack of the use of supportive links on this blog that expanding your knowledge by considering different points of view is not one of your strong suits.

    2. Thou Shalt Not Covet

      “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

      – Karl Marx

      “Dennis the Meanass” can’t get enough of that communist “free stuff.”

      “Dennis the Meanass” says: Make America Broke Again (MABA).

      “Dennis the Meanass” says: Make America Small and Weak Again (MASWA).

      You go, comrade.

      Nobody votes for “The Man From Dementia,” Joke Buydumb!

      As dependents and parasites, they vote for wholly unconstitutional “free stuff” including 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.

      “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

      – Karl Marx

      1. edwardmahl: I don’t have anything against Scotland. Why would you think that? My ancestor’s on my father’s side of the family were from Scotland. I love Scotland. I think most Scots are having second thoughts about inviting Trump to their land. Both of Trump’s golf resorts are losing money. John Say says “Biden has snubbed Charles”. Not true. Jill Biden will be attending. No US president has attended a British coronation. It’s more out of tradition rather than politics.

        Trump would love to be invited to Charles’ coronation. I think Trump chose the trip to Scotland to try to take public attention off the E. Jean Carroll’s rape trial. Maybe Trump also thinks the trip to Scotland will provide an “excuse” for not being at the trial or willing to testify in his own defense. Not good optics for the jury. Trump is a coward because he knows if he did testify he would be committing perjury!

        1. “Both of Trump’s golf resorts are losing money.”
          If True that is Trump’s problem.
          Are you opposed to Trump providing Scotts the oportunity to play golf at his expense ?
          To bring in some affluent golf tourism to scottland at his expense ?

          We get this idiocy from you on the left all the time.
          I do not know or care if Trump is making or losing money – that is his problem.
          But I do presume that people who have built their wealth from a few million to a few billion make money far more often than they lose it.
          I do not bet against people who win far more than they lose.

          ““Biden has snubbed Charles”. Not true. Jill Biden will be attending.”
          Jill is not the president, she is not the vice president.
          She is just some doctor of education.

          “No US president has attended a British coronation.”
          The last coronation was in 1952, Eisenhower had just been sworn in. Transatlantic Air travel was still considered dangerous.
          And traveling by Ship would have put Eisenhower out of touch for 2 weeks.

          Today DC to London is a 6hr flight – probably less on AF1.

          “It’s more out of tradition rather than politics.”
          Biden attended Elizabeth’s funeral.
          But then Charles is not Elizabeth.
          And Biden is not really president.

          “Trump would love to be invited to Charles’ coronation.”
          I am sure he would.
          So ?

          “I think Trump chose the trip to Scotland to try to take public attention off the E. Jean Carroll’s rape trial.”
          Having read the testimony – he needed to put a spotlight on it.

          “Maybe Trump also thinks the trip to Scotland will provide an “excuse” for not being at the trial or willing to testify in his own defense.”
          The trial is an inconsequential side show.
          Trump does not show up at most of these harrassment lawsuits.
          The only reason this one is any different – is that you have staked all on it, and YOU have stacked the judge and the jury to “Get Trump”.

          No one cares about this trial.
          No matter what the outcome – YOU will continue to beleive as you do.
          And should Trump actually lose – which he might, though he almost certainly will win on appeal, all that will prove to the rest of us is how corrupt the left has made our justice system.

          This case would not have gotten to court in most of the US. It would have been dismissed.
          It would not have gotten to court 7 years ago – even in NY – as similar lawsuits did.

          Could you defend yourself against a claim that you raped someone 28 years ago ?

          “Not good optics for the jury.”
          There i9s no dealing with an NYC jury. There i no reason to try.
          Reardless, Trump has nothing to say or testify to.
          He has said he was not there.
          There is no evidence that he was.

          “Trump is a coward because he knows if he did testify he would be committing perjury!”
          In what world ? Do you have video ? Bergdorfs had security cameras at time.
          Do you have a police report ?How are you going to prove perjury ?

        2. Dennis – Trump’s mother was born on the Isle of Skye in western Scotland, so it is quite possible that he feels affection for that country and may even want to help the economy there, as he has helped NYC’s economy. If he testified and lost the case, he would not be prosecuted for perjury. No one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped Jean Carrol. The circumstantial evidence (absence of police report, absence of public claim of rape, absence of physical evidence such as torn clothing, absence of any report of other women at the scene, absence of security camera footage, absence of corroborating statements of security personnel, absence of DNA match) points in Trump’s favor. But of course in NYC, who knows? Trump is really guilty whenever he walks into a courtroom. After this treatment, he probably will never return to NYC, and those who sympathize with him will leave the city. That will make you happy, I’m sure.

    3. The guardian reported there were bagpipes and a small crowd and a 10 car motorcade – for a trip that was only announced a few hours before.

      It appears Trump will be in Scotland during Charles Coronation – though he does not appear to have been invited.

      Conversely Biden has snubbed Charles – either that or he is not up to the trip. He set Dr. Jill.

    4. Given that the few points I checked – you were wrong about – I am not sure why I should trust the rest of your post.

      Regardless, if lots of people agree with you about a golf course in scotland – it will fail. If you are wrong, it will do fine.
      Regardless – why do you care.

      As to journalists – What journalists ?

      Was Glenn Greenwald there ? Matt Taibbi ? Anyone who actually does honest reporting ?

      Who cares what Trump says to journalists ? Until they actually start doing their job why would anyone care ?

    5. Having read some of the transcript – the trial is going badly for Carroll – except the part where Trump’s attorney is facing two prosecutors.

      The judge is objecting on his own – to admissible testimony. upholding both invalid objections and objections without any reason.
      The errors are fundamental and all one way.

      Trump’s lawyer is fighting both the Judge and the Plantiffs attorney to get to ask basic questions – such as why are you testifying to something different than your deposition – impeaching a witness with prior contradictory statements is always admissible.

      Carrol is bat$hit crazy and the judge and her attorney are trying to keep her from talking too much and exposing that.
      She has accused 21 other men of raping her – in a published book – why anyone would allow her to claim defamation.

      In her magazine column – including ones written at the time she advised other women about rape and unwanted sexual encounters, but refused to follow her own advice claiming all the reasons that she wrote in her magazine column were untrue. It is clear she was very carefully prepared.

      What we have so far is – there is no one besides Carroll claiming Trump was at the building.
      Trump apparently met her ONCE casually about 9 months before, but does not remember that meeting.

      Carroll can not make up her mind whether she was raped or had consensual sex – a problem NOT limited to her encounter with Trump.
      Aparently depending on her mood all sex she has ever had was either pleasurable or rape.
      The woman has a mental health problem.

      There were bergdorf clerks in the store at the time. None saw trump or heard the encounter. Carrol claimed they were too far away. The judge blocked Trump’s attorney to cross on Carroll recollection of where they were that was too far away.

      The whole thing is a mess, and we are barely into the plaintiffs witnesses.
      With a competent judge this never would have gotten to court.

      Carrolls recollection is remarkably similar to a LAw & Order SVU episode that ran just before she made the First Trump allegation publicly,
      Carroll claims to avidly watch L&O but not SVU, and the judge did not allow cross on the similarity of her claims.

      No did he allow in pattern cross with regard to the allegations Carroll has made against 21 other men.

      Parts of Carrolls media interviews got in, but Trump was not allowed to cross regarding those.

      The judge is pretty much thwarting any meaningful cross examination.

      This is a kangaroo court – and still it is actually not going well of Carroll.

    6. @Dennis McIntyre: ….but FLA’s former Democrat gubernatorial hopeful Gillum IS on trial. A moral and ethical disgrace without whose guidance Florida was successfully steered through the pandemic storm and continues to serve as a port of refuge from those fleeing states being ruined by others of his ilk.

  10. OT:

    “IRS migration data released late last week shows that California lost more residents than any other state, with a net loss of nearly 332,000 people and more than $29 billion in adjusted gross income in 2021. The state with the second largest population loss is New York, which saw a net loss of over 262,000 residents and $24.5 billion in income. Illinois, meanwhile, suffered a net loss of 105,000 people in 2021 and $10.8 billion in income.”

    1. “Florida gained the most residents, with a net gain of over 255,000 people and $39 billion in income, while Texas came in second with nearly 175,000 residents and $10.9 billion in income.”

      1. I saw a meme: Dont Californficat my Texas!
        In short, dont bring or vote for all those moronic and idiotic Democrat policies that you left California for and bring them to Texas.
        Or, like Colorado did. Note, Colorado now has one of the highest crime rates in America. I am sure those who live outside of Denver and Bolder are thankful the crime stays in those two cities.

        1. I like DeSantis but I would rather he stay in Florida and build it to be the envy of the world. He could possibly make an international agreement with Spain to bring back a Spanish empire or make Florida its own country.

          Just dreaming aloud

          1. Estovir….yes yes yes! Florida needs DeSantis…he’s the best thing that ever happened to the state, IMO…and he’s a cradle Floridian, so he genuinely cares about it.
            My dream would be for Trump to choose Vivek Ramaswamy as his running mate….OMG, the Dems wouldn’t know what hit ’em with Donald AND Vivek, a MENSA intellect. In interviews, he’s leaving less educated “scientist wannabes” in his wake.
            Other than his JD (Yale), Vivek graduated SUMMA CUM LAUDE from Harvard with a degree in BIOLOGY. HELLO!! And his passion for our beloved America is as sincere and real as President Trump’s.

            TRUMP/RAMASWAMY 2024!

        2. @UpstateFarmer: Equally so for any Californicators with their eyes on Florida? Stay put and suffer the fools you’ve consistently voted for. Florida doesn’t need or want your kind. Gillum’s loss and DeSantis’ majority over Crist speaks for itself.

          1. Gillum: just wow. He almost earned enough votes against DeSantis, and time has shown that he should not have earned 10 percent of the votes given his broken character. The guy is a fraud, an utter fiasco and a complete disgrace. His wife must either be medicated, blind or in it for money, not that he has any at this point. The DeSantis vs Gillum voter results are a reminder that voters are, well, stupid. Yet, the Miami Herald, Tampa Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, and the usual left wing outlets in Gainesville, Jax, Ft Lauderdale, Palm Beach, Tally, go after DeSantis’ jugular 24/7. As if…

Leave a Reply