Below is my column in the Hill on the call of professors for President Joe Biden to simply defy the Supreme Court and decide for himself what is constitutional and what is not.
Here is the column:
“I shall resist any illegal federal court order.”
When “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong,” the president should refuse to follow it.
Those two statements were made roughly 60 years apart. The first is from segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D). The second was made by two liberal professors this month.
In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists in calling for defiance and radical measures against the Supreme Court.
In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation.
The use of the affirmative action case is ironic, since polls have consistently shown that the majority of the public does not support the use of race in college admissions. Indeed, even in the most liberal states, such as California, voters have repeatedly rejected affirmative action in college admissions. Polls further show that a majority support the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.
So despite referenda and polls showing majority support for barring race in admissions, academics are pushing to impose their own values, regardless of the views of the public or of the courts.
However, even if these measures were popular, it would not make them right. It is precisely what segregationists such as Sen. James Eastland (D-Miss.) argued, that “all the people of the South are in favor of segregation. And Supreme Court or no Supreme Court, we are going to maintain segregated schools.”
Tushnet and Belkin cite with approval Biden’s declaration that this is “not a normal Supreme Court.” Biden’s view of normalcy appears to be a court that agrees with his fluid view of constitutional law, by which he can forgive roughly a half of trillion dollars in loans or impose a national eviction moratorium without a vote of Congress.
Tushnet and Belkin know their audience. Biden has previously evinced little respect for the Constitution or the courts. Take the eviction case. In an earlier decision, a majority of justices had declared that Biden’s actions were unconstitutional, confirming what many of us had said for months.
Even after the majority declared it unconstitutional, Biden wanted to reissue the national moratorium. White House counsel and most scholars told him the move would be blatantly unconstitutional and defy the express ruling of the court. Instead, he consulted the only law professor willing to tell him what he wanted to hear and did it anyway. It was quickly again declared unconstitutional.
Other commentators and academics have gone from implied to open contempt for our constitutional norms.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks was celebrated for her appearance on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” after declaring that Americans are “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should simply just dump it.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has questioned the need for a Supreme Court.
In a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
So the danger is now “constitutionalism,” as opposed to what Tushnet and Belkin call “popular constitutionalism.”
Many have called for the court to be packed with liberal appointees to bring it back to what Biden views as “normal.” Some of these calls before Biden’s Supreme Court commission echoed the same views as Tushnet and Belkin. Indeed, they cite Harvard professor Nikolas Bowie, who rejected the notion that “the constitutional interpretation held by a majority of Supreme Court justices should be ‘superior’ to the interpretations held by majorities of the other branches.”
The Framers saw the Supreme Court as playing a counter-majoritarian role when it is necessary to protect individual rights and constitutional norms. The alternative is what the Framers viewed as a tyranny of the majority, where popularity rather than principle prevails. For that reason, the Court has often stood with the least popular in our society and, since Marbury v. Madison, has had the final word on what the Constitution means.
Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”
That finality has been essential to the stability of our system for generations. While presidents such as Andrew Jackson taunted the court for its inability to enforce its rulings without an army, it has never needed one. Respect for the court is in our DNA. No matter our disagreements with a given decision, Americans will not tolerate defiance of the institution and the rule of law. That is why, despite the support for court packing by many law professors (including Tushnet, Belkin and Bowie), the public remains staunchly opposed to it.
What is most striking about these professors is how they continue to claim they are defenders of democracy, yet seek to use unilateral executive authority to defy the courts and, in cases like the tuition forgiveness and affirmative action, the majority of the public. They remain the privileged elite of academia, declaring their values as transcending both constitutional and democratic processes.
The problem is indeed “constitutionalism,” and their view of “popular constitutionalism” is a euphemism for “popular justice.”
Tushnet and Belkin show the release that comes with rejecting constitutionalism. They declare that it is not enough merely to pack the court: “The threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.”
In other words, they are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. He is to become a government unto himself.
No doubt a new variation of “popular constitutionalism” would then be crafted if a Republican were ever elected and proceeded to mete out an alternative view of justice.
This is what Tushnet has advocated in “taking the Constitution away from the courts.” Once the courts are removed from constitutionalism, however, we will be left where we began centuries ago: with the fleeting satisfaction of popular justice.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University.
When the leftists tell you they are totalitarians you should believe them.
When Biden ignores the SC and Congress, you should believe he is a totalitarian.
I wonder what law he will ignore next?
“Respect for the court is in our DNA. No matter our disagreements with a given decision, Americans will not tolerate defiance of the institution and the rule of law. ”
The German Jews being German to the core, decided that Germany would never turn against them. They died with that belief.
American DNA is no different. Toleration of authority is the norm, not the exception.
‘In other words, they are calling for Biden to declare himself der letzte Schiedsrichter.’
Brilliant people can be as naive as anyone else.
Meanwhile, Biden et al has their very own Sondergericht vis-à-vis the FISA court. A bit ironic is it not that Biden is criticizing Netanyahu for his “undemocratic” behavior? Two peas in a pod.
Mary, I was a bit confused by “Two peas in a pod.” Who are the peas?
https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2023/01/16/exclusive-kontorovich-dershowitz-is-wrong-about-israels-judicial-reform/
Mary, I am still unclear about what you said. I generally agree and appreciate what you say, so I wanted to ensure we were on the same page. That is why I sent the ink I found where Professor Eugene Kontorovitch might be able to afford a better explanation.
Many wish to call this an act usurping the rights of the Israeli Supreme Court. It isn’t. Instead, it is placing lawmaking back in the hands of the body elected to pass laws.
The Supreme Court seized authority over everything, even the Knesset, and thinks it has the power to reverse any law passed by the people if they ***feel the law is unreasonable***.
Think about it. Anything (I repeat, anything) the Israeli Supreme Court thinks is unreasonable, they can overturn even though the population’s elective body passed a law having nothing to do with civil liberties or the constitution.
Now that I brought up the constitution, let me tell you, Israel has none. That is where the problem arises, and if Israel creates a constitution and the court feels it is losing power, it can call the constitution unreasonable, preventing one from being written.
The Supreme Court of Israel is becoming an oligarchy where they control every aspect of life. The Supreme Court determines who gets on the court, not the Knesset, so it is not the people commanding the government but the Supreme Court.
I want to update the Judicial Reform bill passed by the Israeli Knesset 64 to 0. The left thinks it is undemocratic, but the Israeli people have a right to their opinions rather than the opinions of an oligarchy which is what the Israeli Supreme Court became. That is democracy defeating leftism.
The media in the US reported only the leftist demonstrations. Did they report the hundreds of thousands in Tel Aviv protesting FOR judicial reform? No. Again, democracy won.
The people realized that a “reasonableness” standard in the eyes of a leftist judiciary imposed their views of the world and neglected the majority of the views of the Israeli people. It was also a victory over the Biden State Department, which interfered in the free elections in every way it could. That is the nature of leftism. Do what you tell others not to do.
Of course, the left wasn’t satisfied with a vote (democracy), so they had their people do a type of Jan 6, except some were violent while they blocked roads, airports, and even Knesset members from entering the Knesset to vote.
Let America learn from the Israeli experience. The left (and the democrats of today) are not interested in the rule of law, democracy, or fairness. They are only interested in raw power and obedience.
64-0.
This means even the left-leaning Knesset members feel that the Israeli judiciary needs checks and balances.
True.
Without a direct relationship to your comment, it seems that checks and balances exist in the Israeli Parliament because so many parties exist. That is the reason governments fall so quickly, and it is difficult to pass any laws.
The disturbing thing is that the US government is interfering in domestic policy and possibly paying for some of the opposition’s excesses. Such activities by the US government are harmful to world peace and might lead to a nuclear exchange in the middle east.
Should anyone have a desire for more information on the above subject I am providing a good article.
U.S. organizations throwing in with the opposition to judicial reform aren’t defending democracy. Rather, they are treating the majority of Israeli Jews with contempt.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
https://zoa.org/2023/07/10448173-adl-ajc-jfna-who-support-opponents-of-israels-judicial-reform-are-opposing-majority-of-israelis/
Still though, only a few professors of the thousands have taken the stand of calling for an “all-powerful” Democrat president.
These are the ones we know about.
Based off of other articles and reports of professors calling for various woke leftism policies, they are not some statistically insignificant minority group.
Agree. And as I stated elsewhere, we have heard nothing from the so-called majority of professors who are claimed not to be in accord with these authoritarian professors.
@Steve
That is simply not true. Additionally, toss the images you may have of scholarly intellectuals imparting knowledge on campus – modern professors are the people you see on Tik Tok, and this is rampant from top to bottom in our educational system. My wife is an educator and used to attend the NTCE conference annually, she stopped during the dem lockdown; the modern event catalog for the conference is plenty telling. These are not exceptions, everyone needs to realize it, and SOON.
Mr. James:
Sure, I am aware that professors lean left, but that does not mean they are in support of what Prof. Turley has written about here.
@Steve
With these folks, there is no leaning, they are full blown radicals. There really isn’t any such thing (our host excepted with a sliver of others) as a ‘classical’ liberal in modern American academia anymore. Those days are long gone. It is much worse than you appear to think, and then even worse than that, and it is a part of every level of education at this point. Again, these are not rare examples, they are honest to goodness representational.
James,
Well said.
As the good professor has pointed out time and time again of these radicals are not just some kind of one off or fringe minority but a majority of faculty at most higher educated (cough, cough) places of learning (cough, cough).
We also saw similar authoritarians during the COVID lockdowns. Many of which have in the recent time been proven to be wrong or lies propagated by MSM for a narrative that was clearly not only un-Constitutional but totalitarian.
Which is what the rest of us normal and sane people are seeing.
I am aware that professors lean left, but that does not mean they are in support of what Prof. Turley has written about here.
Steve, that is a dangerously naïve view of the current political and cultural landscape we find ourselves in today. Not much different from the captain of the Titanic ignoring the hidden dangers in the north Atlantic. If Leftist’s are boldly exposing their radical views to the public, it is reasonable to assume they are the tip of the iceberg lurking below the surface.
“. . . only a few professors . . .”
All revolutions start with “only a few.”
Silence is complicity. Let those you claim are a majority speak up. From where I sit, read, and listen, it has been crickets.
The Left is following the playbook of Stalin and Mao. For these dictators, Constitutions were mere impediments to total dictatorship and a leftist form of state fascism and total population control. We shouldn’t be surprised at their illogic and irrationality — their silly pronunciamentos are reflections of their mental illness and disordered state of mind. IMHO these people are vaccine injured. Some of the Covid batches were tainted from poor manufacturing (some of the vaccines came from China and were sold in the US) and it is known that the spike protein gets past the blood-brain barrier. I feel sorry for these people rather than angry. Their insanity will never be accepted by the majority and they will go to the darkness, wailing and gnashing their teeth.
Source: https://newsroom.uw.edu/resource/covid-19-spike-proteins-may-cause-neurological-issues
“Some COVID-19 patients have long-term neurological issues in addition to respiratory problems. New research published in Nature Neuroscience shows that COVID-19 spike protein, the red arm of the virus, can cross the blood-brain barrier. Dr. William Banks, professor of medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, says this strongly suggests the virus enters the brain, as well.
He explains how the viral proteins that detach from the virus can cause issues such as brain fog.”
re: Kbigg
Democrats must have learned that from George W. Bush. The Bush Justice Department essentially adopted the playbook of East Germany during the Cold War [our enemy during the Cold War – the Communists].
Bush not only re-established Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics (today being used against some Republicans) but went full totalitarian with the “Bush Preemption Policy” – possibly modeled after Tom Cruise’s movie “Minority Report”.
Bush – like the Communists – created local blacklisting centers called “Fusion Centers”.
For over 200 years, the American system was based on “past” crimes supported by real evidence and a court warrant. Bush created a system to blacklist and punish people that might commit a crime in the future – just like Communist Stasi during the Cold War.
The irony is, Republicans were painfully silent when Bush destroyed America’s constitutional justice system. Now that system is pointed at many Trump supporters. Thank George W. Bush, don’t blame Biden!
Well of course the Republican party is corrupt! That’s supposed to be news? The difference between Reps and Dems is that most Reps know their party is corrupt. Changing the subject, I was appalled at what the Dems did to RFK at that hearing. It was a Maoist/Stalinist struggle session. Like spoiled adolescents, the Dems kept interrupting and slinging ad hominem attacks against one of their own. Not one of the Dems denied even one of RFK’s statements. Independents like me are going to swing the election in ’24. If any were watching, that performance is going to turn off a lot of voters.
“Their insanity will never be accepted by the majority and they will go to the darkness, wailing and gnashing their teeth.”
Don’t be so sure. The majority of the German people were either complicit or remained silent, which is a form of complicity.
Beware of people espousing the “living constitution” theory. That is just a code word for “we can interpret the Constitution to say whatever we want it to say.”
“Beware of people espousing the “living constitution” theory.”
That theory is written in the Nazi German language. It is the desire for power and the ability to do anything they want.
Here are the rulings inspiring these so-called “law professors” to advocate that POTUS overthrow the American system of government: (1) the Equal Protection Clause actually does outlaw racial discrimination; (2) the Constitution, which allocates lawmaking power to Congress, does not allocate it to the executive branch; (3) the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression means the state cannot coerce artists to express ideas they disagree with; and of course (4) the Constitution, which says nothing about abortion either express or implied, leaves that issue to the states.
Wow . . . so radical, the Court is actually reading and applying the Constitution as it is written! In today’s twisted age, that apparently is what counts as “not a normal court.”
“the Constitution, which says nothing about abortion either express or implied, leaves that issue to the states”
So any private action not protected by the Constitution can be criminalized by any state?!
That’s a very long list that blasts the door wide open for state and local tyrants. If you need a taste of that premise in action, see the Covid usurpations.
So any private action not protected by the Constitution can be criminalized by any state?
Under the Tenth Amendment, yes but only to the extent such regulations are permitted by the individual state’s constitution and fall within the state’s so-called “police powers” – which has nothing to do with police officers, but refers to a state’s authority to regulate conduct in the interest of public health, safety, welfare, and morals. Generally speaking, in addition to the state constitution, the federal due process clause (of the 14th amendment) also puts limitations on such powers. If you’re interested in learning more, see this link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers
As for limits on “state and local tyrants,” the best bets are: (1) state legislation; (2) state Constitution; (3) the 14th Amendment, and (4) the ballot box.
“Under the Tenth Amendment, yes . . .”
You are dangerously mistaken about the nature and purpose of the Constitution, as conceived by the Founders.
It was *never* intended to articulate an exhaustive list of individual rights. That is one reason why there was such a contentious debate over including a Bill of Rights.
Your attempt to invoke 14A is an obvious contradiction.
Sam – I don’t know what you mean. The federal Constitution sets the structure of the federal government and includes a list of enumerated powers of that government. These powers were relinquished by the states as the price of entering the union, but the states reserved all other powers – which included (and still includes) their general police powers. It is black letter law, which every 1L is taught, that unlike the federal government the powers of state governments are general and not enumerated. It is true that those general powers are limited to some degree by the Fourteenth amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, but that doesn’t mean states only have enumerated powers. Are you a lawyer? And did you read the link I provided?
Old Man, were you a law school professor or CLE instructor? I sure wish I had had someone like you or the sagacious Prof. Turley for Constitutional Law.
Mary – haha, thank you, but no. I just paid attention in law school is all. Also, I was fortunate to have a Con Law prof who actually made us read the Constitution and make efforts to interpret it according to its text. From what he said at that time, that was growing increasingly rare at American law schools.
Wow. “fortunate to have a Con Law prof who actually made us read the Constitution and make efforts to interpret it according to its text. From what he said at that time, that was growing increasingly rare at American law schools.”
I note your name and shudder at the current year. I heard near all the assistants to the SCOTUS members are left wing activist freaks, and I heard that a decade ago.
“I don’t know what you mean.”
I was pretty clear. But will repeat it.
Statements such as the following prove that you do not understand the nature and purpose of the U.S. Constitution:
“the Constitution, which says nothing about abortion either express or implied, leaves that issue to the states.”
That statement is false. That a right is not listed in the Constitution, is not a justification for a state to usurp it.
What you’re peddling, at least to rationalize criminalizing abortion, is the abomination known as “states’ rights.” That is a statist theory, used by both the Left and Right, to justify the usurpation of rights.
Are you a political philosopher? Have you read The Federalist Papers? Do you know that the Constitution is a limit on government power — any government, whether federal, state, or local? Do you realize that in the American system as conceived by the Founders, no government (federal, state, or local) can limit *private* action, unless expressly permitted by the Constitution?
Well, Sam, I see discussion with you is useless. You clearly are not a lawyer, and you clearly don’t know the first thing about how the law works, as reflected in the following false assertion that any first-year law student would recognize as a howler: “Do you realize that in the American system as conceived by the Founders, no government (federal, state, or local) can limit *private* action, unless expressly permitted by the Constitution?”
I’m not “peddling” anything. I was trying (nicely) to explain an elementary concept in the law, namely, the police powers. Yes I’ve read the Federalist Papers, which are not law. I’ve also read state constitutions, which are law, and which you evidently have never read.
For example, have you ever bothered to ask yourself where is the “express” state constitutional authority for state-level criminal laws, to take but one example? Or the welter of state-level civil laws regulating other aspects of private conduct, such as probate codes, domestic relations codes, juvenile codes, vehicle codes, insurance codes, collective-bargaining laws, environmental regulations, zoning laws, professional licensing laws, eminent domain codes, amusement codes, banking codes, labor laws, liquor laws, mechanics’ lien laws, mental health codes, navigation codes, mining regulations, real-estate laws, commercial codes, workers’ compensation laws, and on and on and on.
All of those laws restrict private action. You think all that stuff is “expressly” authorized in state constitutions? It’s not. I provided a link that explains the concept of the state’s police powers, but obviously you didn’t bother to read it. It’s from Cornell Law School, not exactly a fringe “statist” source. Feel free to wallow in your abject ignorance and to publicly flaunt that ignorance – but, as noted, future discussion with you is futile. Have a good evening.
The Constitution only limits states if there is an express constitutional provision limiting state power. Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, these were the only U.S. constitutional restrictions on state power.
“Prior to the ratification . . .”
To this day, otherwise good people do not grasp the Founders’ radical revolution. Prior to the Founders, the prevailing view of government was essentially this: Government (including its agents) can do whatever it wants, unless expressly prohibited by some type of written document.
After the Founders: Government (*any* government withing its geographical boundaries) can only do that which is expressly *permitted* by the Constitution.
In other words: Individuals exist by right. Governments exist by limited permission.
The Constitution originally let the states do as they pleased save for a few specific exceptions. Of the Section 10 prohibitions, the ionly one’s that restricted a state’s power over people were the prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto law.
The 14th Amendment changed things, placing many more restrictions on states.
“You clearly are not a lawyer . . .”
No, but I know appeal to authority and ad hominem when I see it.
You’re focused on the bark (state codes) on the trees in the forest. I’m focused on the trees — the big picture, the *fundamental* purpose of the U.S. Constitution.
But you are correct. Discussion between those different types of minds is futile.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buck v. Bell undermine the argument that the Constitution protects a right to bodily autonomy.
“. . . undermine the argument . . .”
Where in the Constitution does it grant government the power to control an individual’s body?
The federal government is no longer in the business of abortion. It is now up to the states that have the power to regulate abortion. The states have their own constitutions, so laws will vary from state to state.
Exactly. As usual, Old Man, you hit the nail on the head.
How would Biden et al have felt about the repeal of Plessy?
Tushnet, Belkin, AOC, and everyone else trashing the Supreme Court are the real insurrectionists here. They keep yelling they are “saving democracy” so voters will by their BS. Who knows. Maybe with the 24/7 help of the mainstream media it might work ??? Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
And these learned lights of liberality and progressivism called the January 6 rioters “insurrectionists”. Basically what they are spouting is treason. The Supreme Court , until FDR, was a very conservative, non interventionist court. It did however make mistakes, primarily in Plessy v Ferguson, and Dredd Scott and a few others. Then FDR replaced, over 12 years, 7 of 9 of the Supreme Court justices and with Truman and then JFK / LBJ it became activist and meddled in every facet of American life. Some acts such as Brown v Bd of Education and others needed in civil rights were appropriate but it could not constrain itself and went off the reservation into almost everything in American life and created rights and actions not seen before and tried to become a super unelected legislature. It argued for almost total submission of the people to the administrative state and rules when congress sat on its ass and abrogated its responsibility to legislate. Leading to the monstrosity sized federal government we have now. These liberal progressive groups cannot fathom “limits” and it is beyond them that we have a designed government of limits.
These people are almost like the Bolsheviks and when they don’t get their way, they preach a coup. Which is exactly how the minor fraction of Bolshevik’s took power in post Tsar Russia. Followed by a long and bloody civil war, leading to the succession of Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and a close call in Ukraine. Do these liberal lights have any concept of what they would unleash and what they would not likely survive.
“popular constitutionalism.”
Isn’t that clever.
Translated into English, that means: Let’s have mob rule. With us as the Voice of the mob.
-AUDIT- Them. Of the two this article mentions, Harvard (Mark Tushnet) and San Francisco State University (Aaron Belkin).
Audit the University’s Classes that these two Professors are responsible for to establish the Value and Merit of that Claims:
What Students actually showed up for Class,
What Students were required to take the class,
How many Students took the class as an elective,
What percentage of Clauses did the Students attend,
What percentage of classes did the Professors attend,
What was the Ethnic demography of the Students attending class,
What was the Ethnic demography of the Collage.
Based upon that data:
If there is a ‘value’ in not compiling with the SCOTUS then present the findings and defy the Order.
If there is not a ‘value’ in compiling then de-fund the Collage for defying the Order.
The Professors may have valid Claim for their intended actions, from Their perspective.
Audit it and find the Truth of the matter, the Value.
So now that the court is no longer reliably Leftist, the disloyal Left has come out full bore for a dictatorship, in the hands of the emptiest suit that ever occupied the White House.
The Left has always been the fascists. Now the Democrat party and these profs are just tools of it. Here’s the description of fascism/Democrats:
– Centralization of authority under a tyrannical/extra-Constitutional executive (as these professors want)
– Who uses a centralised government to make a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls (covid shutdowns/excessive regulation/federal agency rulings)
– And implements violent suppression of the opposition (Anti-Fa riots/ CLimate hysterics gluing themselves to tarmacs/ Maxine Waters and Dems saying Rep’s should be harassed/ Schumer screaming “you have released the whirlwinds and will pay the price”)
– While using the government agencies (FBI, FISA, IRS, Federal Courts) to stop all political opposition – no examples required because it’s just too obvious!
I dare any liberal to show me any different.
Another nice summary of Democrat values in today’s US that nicely align with Fascism:
• Destroy religion and the traditional family
• Confiscates Guns from law-abiding citizens
• ID’s its political enemies and persecutes them
• Controls mass media and communication – like the 92% of US Press that votes Democrat
• Disdains individual rights in favor of the needs of the state
• Uses the schools to indoctrinate children
• Attacks free speech
• Controls and manipulates elections
This may have some temporary “surprise” value but that’s all. The core of this country’s ethos is toward following our revered constitution, the secular bible that underpins our faith in our country and its fundamental goodness. Just as there are renegade sects that design their own bibles to support their own proclivities, we will have those from time to time who can think they should do the same with our constitution. They will pass into the dustbin of history with nothing but a brief flash of controversy. The coming tsunami of corruption charges against President Biden and his family once again will surprise, shock, and alarm us but also will provide an opportunity to cleanse the body politic of these occasional distractions.
time to end all federal aid and loans to colleges…they have become Democrat indoctrination centers.
Also time to tax all non-profits where anyone gets $100k…like Colleges…which pay millions to coaches.
Let colleges GO BACK TO TEACHING…not funding people like Biden and other Democrat staffers(eg Huma Abedin) with Millions for NO-SHOW jobs!
We may need a Supreme Court, but not this one. The members in its majority are corrupt. Its majority is illegitimate, moreover, given the Garland situation. So yes, at this point it represents a distinct majority view in this country by a combination of happenstance and corruption.
I realize the situation is what it is but that is only because we let it be so. In Israel, the people are revolting over their court and changes are being made.
Please tell us which decisions would have been different with a “non-corrupt” SCOTUS.
Look, a SCOTUS majority decision does not include Sotomayor and kenji simply means that it is the correct Constitutional choice, not the political one. How anyone cannot see that is laughable.
when the obamas come out of one of their mansions to decry a decision, you know that racism was not enforced or some other discriminatory policy was shot-down.
Feel free to revolt here over not becoming an apartheid state here, like obamma and tribe and the rest of the racists in the dem party want.
The left is up in arms over the supposed corruption going on at SCOTUS (no evidence to support the claims of corruption), but left wingers are not troubled at all by all this Biden family corruption – millions in payoffs being paid to Biden family members to get Joe to do “favors” for the people paying Biden’s son, brothers, grandchildren, in-laws, etc. etc.
This is precisely the Supreme Court this country needs – one that reads and applies the Constitution according to what it actually says, not according to what left-wing ideologues wish it said. Contrary to your assertion, this is the most legitimate SCOTUS has been in 60 years.
You must be unaware that the present government wants the Supreme Court’s powers to be more like the US Supreme Court under many justices including Earl Warren. Currently the Israeli Supreme Court can strike down laws only by saying they are unreasonable, and there is no recourse for the people. The judges on the court elect the new ones so they develop one idea. The basic change would be for the government elected by the people whether right or left be the ones to provide the candidates for the court. As currently arranged the Israeli Supreme Court is authoritarian and the people have no say. That court decides about 12,000 cases a year.
Politico, since you chose a name that would make one assume you know what you are commenting on, I suggest you read the Israeli Constitution. When you do that you will be VERY surprised.
The California professor, who is upset if the US Supreme Court sounds like a real bright light. He may not be aware that his own California constitution prohibits affirmative action, and this incidentally, was passed through a vote of the people of California!!!
Dems HUNGER for Drugs, Insanity, Suicide, Illegals, crime and Fascism! Against Free Speech!
USSR Redshirts,
German Brownshirts,
Italy Blackshirts,
China Redshirts,
Globalists/US Democrats Rainbowshirts
SAME FASCISM!
Germans were GOOD people…well till..you know!
Democrats are fascists, using government and business…to destroy opponents and America!!!
GOP gives them the money to do it
Time to CUT DC’s power…cut 50% of Federal Spending and move 75% of government OUT OF DC!
A whole article about people without power discussing defying the Supreme Court with no mention of the Alabama legislature actually doing it by refusing to redraw their districts as directed. Partisan much?
you are comparing some leftist 3 judge panel to the supreme court?
The actual Supreme Court left the ruling in place, that was a decision.
The Supreme Court threw out the most powerful part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, the requirement in the Voting Rights Act that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get the federal government’s approval before changing the way they hold elections?
I agree with a part of thatb decision. It wasn’t fair to only hold several states and jurisdictions accountable when the whole country is biased. Preclearance should be required everywhere, rather than states like Alabama, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, and Mississippi putting unconstitutional laws in place and it taking several years to wind through the courts to get overturned.
I’m amazed when people try to spring basic facts on me like I have no idea. How about the Casual Killing Act of 1669 if you need something to think about.
1669
YHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The Alabama Constitution requires the Legislature draw the legislative districts. Does the Alabama Constitution provide for federal court approval?
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4102476-proposed-alabama-district-map-rejects-supreme-court-mandated-second-black-majority-district/
Enigma, you you are six days behind.
More whataboutism deflection. Why don’t you discuss the actual issue at hand? Pathetic.
This is the exact issue, about following Supreme Court rulings.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4102476-proposed-alabama-district-map-rejects-supreme-court-mandated-second-black-majority-district/
No, the issue you raised was that Professor Turley is supposedly partisan by not mentioning it. That’s different than the issue he raised, which was that law professors at elite law schools are recommending POTUS ignore the Supreme Court. IOW . . . a deflection.
But as I’ve discovered in my previous exchanges with you, trying to get you to actually engage with ideas is a fool’s errand. When you don’t like a particular idea you go off topic. It’s so predictable.
Enigma, you repeat yourself over again despite being proven wrong.
False. Alabama’s legislature did not “refuse to redraw its districts as directed.”
The district court said that Alabama needed a second majority black district “or something quite close to it”.
The map approved by the conference committee after the court’s ruling would have one district (District 7) that is a majority black district, The percentage of the black voting age population would be reduced from 56% before the map was redrawn to 51% in the new map. The redrawn map increases the black voting age population in District 2 from 30% to 40%.
Redrawn District 7 clearly complies with the court’s ruling. District 2 has been redrawn to increase black representation from 30% to 40%. Whether that is “something quite close to” a majority depends on how one interprets “quite close”.
What we know with certainty is that your statement that they refused to draw the districts as directed is not true. They made an attempt to redraw the districts in accordance with its interpretation of the court’s order.
Your whine ought to be with court’s vague ruling. To insinuate the legislature defied the court is not factually true.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4102476-proposed-alabama-district-map-rejects-supreme-court-mandated-second-black-majority-district/
I proved your assertion wrong by referencing the actual language in the district court ruling upheld by SCOTUS.
You respond by linking to a “so called journalist” hit piece. OK
———-
If you care about the actual truth, the language I referenced is in the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 6 of the district court opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1087/211738/20220128173144861_Caster%20-%20Appendix%20Volume%201%20of%202.pdf
Well, you settled it. I was being lied to again by a radical racist spin monger, thank you.
With 7 districts and only 27% of the population having a single district to “the blacks” is already giving them too much.
Apparently the idea is have enough segregation that the segregated blacks can vote in one big racist block, so that their SKIN COLOR is represented.
I find the entire thing as crazy as it gets. The math itself is the problem, along with the goofy pick some mega segregation maps so “the color” gets the affirmative action vote for “their color, like racists do”.
Enigma, you make yourself untrustworthy and inaccurate. The final decision is yet to be made, but what do you care? To you, mistruths are appropriate when your brand of social justice is being promoted. (I take no sides on this decision, one way or the other, but I know when people are lying).
“Next month, the newly drawn districts will go back before a federal court to determine whether they comply with the Voting Rights Act.” _ABC News July 23, 2023, 4:05 PM
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4102476-proposed-alabama-district-map-rejects-supreme-court-mandated-second-black-majority-district/
Enigma, you are repeating yourself while being six days behind in history. You are always looking backward because the forward direction almost always proves you wrong.
You had a chance to review your information in addition to what many articles clearly explain. There is a process and though you don’t like the road taken by Alabama, they are following the process and followed it in the past.
Once again you prove yourself untrustworthy and didn’t bother to read or understand:
““Next month, the newly drawn districts will go back before a federal court to determine whether they comply with the Voting Rights Act.” _ABC News July 23, 2023, 4:05 PM
Take a blind bag of 100 markers, 27 of them black (percentage of blakc in the state in question) and the rest the other color.
Mix em up and draw out 7 piles blindly.
Guess what, you aren’t getting even one black majority pile by chance, let alone two. I can happen that you get one, rarely. Two is ultra rare.
What these people want is special segregation maps when they want more power as a racist mass (specifically “demoncrat votes” in reality) and they want to use racist means to get there.
If you pull the 100 tiles, you need over 7 black ones (14.28 tiles per pile, 7 district piles) in a “demoncrats win a black district majority” pile.
The whole thing is insane. Having one majority “blacks” district means segregation is huge, and only one is reasonable even with that.
And yet, those same people called TRUMP a dictator.