The New Authoritarians: How Professors Are Now Calling for Biden to Simply Defy the Supreme Court

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.

219 thoughts on “The New Authoritarians: How Professors Are Now Calling for Biden to Simply Defy the Supreme Court”

  1. Wording is everything

    The Left are bullying, intimidating, harassing, threatening a…..Democrat Member of Congress, a woman, and a minority, and trying to ruin her family business.

    The Wall Street Journal describes the aforementioned in their headline

    New York Times Reports on Nasty Progressives
    “A Democrat bucks her party on student loans.”

    The NYT describes the nastiness by the progressives in the following blasé headline:

    For One Democrat, the Price of Bucking Her Party Is a Flood of Bad Reviews
    “Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez’s automobile repair business has become a target of online trolls on the left after she opposed President Biden’s student loan forgiveness initiative.”

    TL;DR: Democrats are Nazis

    1. So an insurrection is acceptable, that’s what these professors are saying. If Trump were be convicted and it’s not popular, what then? Also, not calling for an insurrection, just pointing out the obvious stupidity.

    2. New Normal. Arizona brewpub hosted Kari Lake to speak about her book and was immediately inundated with threats, swarmed with smear reviews online. They just go straight to terrorism now. The Oberlin College affair as recounted on TheCollegeFix and CampusReform sites is a hopeful note as the business targeted for destruction based on completely false rumors prevailed in court. Very few cases of abuse even get that far as lately “cancellation” is becoming the norm. A recent and disturbing case is 2022 Nobel Laureate in Physics John Clauser who was dis-invited to speak before the an IMF climate “forum” because he dares to question the (unsupported) assumptions of the most extreme alarmists in the field.

      Can anyone cite any climate predictions any of these people have gotten right? My 1977 Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” book said we’re 100% out of oil by 2015 and most other prophets of doom have bee just about as accurate.

      1. A recent and disturbing case is 2022 Nobel Laureate in Physics John Clauser who was dis-invited to speak before the an IMF climate “forum” because he dares to question the (unsupported) assumptions of the most extreme alarmists in the field.

        It is a common observation when it comes to patient care

        Molecular medicine is the new paradigm that is elucidating pathologies like atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, heart failure and inflammatory disorders (e.g. arthritis, lupus, infectious diseases). Within academic circles, many are the triumphalists but few are the workers. I spoke at long length to a cardiac nurse supervisor yesterday who works in a cardiac unit academic setting, who did not have a clue at what is involved at the cellular level before superficial erosion begins. Superficial erosion precedes coronary artery plaque. Worse is that cellular mechanisms are old paradigms. A discussion on the molecular mechanisms involving calcium, DNA, RNA, proteins, lipoproteins, corrosive enzymes secreted by immune cells (neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages), collagen, fibrin, etc, were met with deafening silence. Part of me was bewilderment while the other was compassion, with a sense of “learn this material!” This is how the marxist takeover of academic medicine is killing patients. Clinicians can throw a fist in the air in an act of virtue signaling and “equity”, but ask them what solutions need to be offered to the patient in ICU, and they respond with silence.

        Attention needs to be made to how “woke” Marxist pablum within academic circles is stifling discovery of real concrete, interventionist solutions to real life medical maladies. Every time you hear “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion” consider that the proponents are doing nothing for assisting in the discovery of new medical treatment options because doing so requires hard, academic brain work. If they truly cared about their target audience, they would shut up and get to work on medical discoveries mano a mano to help the “marginalized” people they purport to represent.

        1. This is nothing new. the left has always subordinated science to ever changing ideological dogma.
          We saw this in the USSR and the CCP.

          The left has always subordinated truth to ever changing ideological dogma

          The left has always subordinated everything to ever changing ideological dogma.

          To those of you on the left – you are nuts if you think that what you believe, what is advocated by those you favor will be the same in 10 years – or two.

          The abortion uber ales movement came about in a large part because left wing nuts using garbage science concluded the world was over populated and going to starve to death in a few years – like climate an impending doom that was ever moved forward as it failed to appear.

          Today we have more than twice the population – and they eat atleast twice as well as 50 years ago.

          Today we face a new danger – one that is actually real.

          Population decline. While the population of africa is still rising – and will peak at about 3B people in a few decades.
          Much of the rest fo the world has peaked and some is already in serious decline.

          How long before places like China or Russia criminalize abortion ? How long before they start forcing women to have children ?

          How long before the “greater good” drives the left in the US do criminalize abortion and force women to have children ?
          I have little worries that the insane unreal values and views of the left will last.
          What I am most affraid of is that the left is willing to impose them by force. And they will remain willing to do so when those values change. When the perceived “greater good” is two sexes, two genders, two sexualities – because that is what is required to sustain the species – for the greater good.

          We got a taste of the fascism of the left with Covid.

          Don’t mask and you are evil, we were not far from resist what your betters claim and you will be jailed – some were.
          Betters that proved near universally wrong.

          You would think the massive error of those on the left regarding Covid would be a wake up call.

          How can people who think they are so right, so morally superior be so incredibly wrong about everything ?

          How is it that after being exposed as wrong beyond beleif – nothing has happened. They are still in power, still fully prepared to impose their will on the rest of us by force ?

          That is what scares me.

          It is not the specific errors of the left at the moment that matter, it is that being wrong does not matter to those on the left.
          It is not necessary to actually deliver a greater good, merely promising it makes you automatically the “good guys” and should what is perceived to be the greater good change – should procreation matter more than reproductive of sexual freedom,
          those and any other values of the left are easily sacrificed.

          If you are gay or trans or female or black and you think your future is safe in the hands of the left – you are an idiot.

    1. True !, The intolerance of the left in not getting everything their way and now is sickening. They are more than willing to throw the baby out with the bath water for power & control .

    2. Exactly. And in the Venn diagram of DEMOnCRAT totalitarianism is the totalitarianism of slavery. They want US-ALL “on the plantation.”

  2. It seems to me, a mere layman, that these professors and anyone else advising mentally unfit Joe Biden to defy USSC rulings are anarchists who should be charged with Conspiracy and/or Sedition.

  3. My recollection is that the Southern segregationists were basing their opinion on the Tenth Amendment, which states that all powers not forbidden by the Constitution rest with the states. The academics today have no basis for their opposition.

  4. If these professors ever decide to sell their brains on Ebay, they should demand a premium for the low mileage.

  5. Here we have educators and George Wallace speaking the same language. The solution for the Democrats is to win more elections so that more leftists judges can be appointed. Instead the say don’t bother me with the voice of the unwashed masses. The bedrock of their political foundation is the belief that the people should be ruled by the superiors such as themselves. Sometimes they even say out loud that it is they and only they who are qualified to rule and the Constitution only gets in the way. They are simply telling you that they have been bestowed by fate to be your unquestioned ruler. These are the same thoughts that have been held by such men as Julius Ceasar. Given there way the roads to Washington D.C. would be lined with criminals hung on crosses so that all would see the price to be paid for any resistance to the Emperor. Civilization has been developed but there remains those who would return us to the days of rule by the iron fist if we allow them to do so. Make no mistake, this is the reality of their desire.

  6. “The New Authoritarians: How Professors Are Now Calling for Biden to Simply Defy the Supreme Court”

    – Professor Turley

    “CRAZY ABE” LINCOLN DEFIED THE SUPREME COURT (And he threw the baby out with the bathwater—he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery).

    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln defied the Supreme Court, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by denying fully constitutional secession, which is not prohibited, prosecuting, not a war of common defense but a war of aggression against a sovereign foreign nation, unconstitutionally seizing power, unconstitutionally imposing martial law, unconstitutionally smashing printing presses nullifying freedom of the press, unconstitutionally throwing political opponents in prison nullifying the freedom of speech, unconstitutionally “rigging” or “fixing” the 1864 election, and, ultimately through his successors, improperly ratifying, not one but three near-impossible-to-ratify amendments to the Constitution under the extreme duress of brutal, post-war military occupation and oppression.

    Chief Justice Roger B. Taney told Lincoln flatly that he, Lincoln, had “…no ground whatever…” to “…authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus….”

    To wit,

    “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

    “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

    “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

    – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

    1. Lincoln determined the fate of Union was at stake and most in the North agreed as it truly was. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

  7. These are the same Conservatives that allowed (Conservative) Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty to be blatantly violated with no accountability at all 20 years later. The supreme law of the United States under Article VI of the Constitution. Also federal criminal law designed to restrain presidents and agency heads. Also violates the Oath of Office of every American official.

    The same high court that allowed those that refused to torture to go to prison like CIA field agent John Kiriakou.

    The same high court that made “Citizens United” the law of the land.

    These rulings would have been appalling to the Framers of the Constitution, especially James Madison. Maybe it’s not the Constitution but the Conservatives perverting it?

    1. Here’s a thought: maybe it isn’t left or right.

      The Supreme Court has ruled plenty against both sides – it brought us Roe – and for 50 years the liberals got their way….even beyond what their stated goals were. So now it is back with the states – and people are bitching depending on where they reside on the political spectrum. In my earlier (and left-leaning) years, I wholehearted supported the pro-choice for limited (under 3 months) criteria for pregnancies. It wasn’t because it MADE me happy – but it was a practical choice to allow it for a host of circumstances that women feel are necessary, RIGHTFULLY (rape, incest) and sometimes, not so much (lack of responsible mate selection).

      We know life – the AMA said it was at conception – existed earlier than 3 months and viability happens around 5-6 months . But thereafter, it became HOW LATE abortions could be done. 8 or even 9 months were on the docket. So giving an inch, off the shoddy ruling as the Roe case was based off of, meant the LEFT took a mile.

      I despise Citizen United too. And lo, the LEFT – has taken the most advantage of that ruling. Look at the corporations, the media, the social media, the teacher’s unions, or nearly any other large conglomerate that operates worldwide. It donates substantially to the left. Bring up your Koch Brothers (who align with Soros now), or Murdoch (that Fox is 15% owned by Blackrock and 31% owned by Vanguard & State Street) or Blackstone…and thereafter, the big corporations are all anti-conservative.

      The 2020 election showed a LARGE disparity on funding left versus right candidates. Left has more money – and once more they KNOW it. The LAW FIRMS know it too… and go where the money flows.

      The battle in the courts is a blood sport. It can determine the course of history or become irrelevant. Which if you pack the court – just like FDR attempted (was he a conservative?) – the rule of law will just become a matter of who will impeach the most officials and remove judges in the same course.

      Of course, if any conservative-minded folks fight back (legally), they get the tar-and-feather treatment from the lefties up and down inside the lower courts. Each side has specific Circuits they will bring cases in if at all possible because they know their political makeups and who is paid off – YES – judges are owned, right? Isn’t that what ProPublica et al tried to do on Thomas recently? Thomas, who despises the hell out of Biden, and for good reason, one would entertain.

      Moreover, we do know how few cases SCOTUS will take up, right? And how long it takes to get there, right? During that process, the left will just ignore the rulings….especially since the DC Apparatus does whatever it wants and is now targeted all MAGA people that don’t like the country becoming a 3rd world, shithole, banana republic that even other countries notice.

      NOTE: I hated GW BUSH & his father, and forever wars, and torture. I never voted for a “Republican” until “Business Democrat” Trump ran in 2020 – and that was an easy choice over BIDEN. I voted for Perot…in 1992. And Obama in 2008. So, I am not consistent – but that’s because the US had

      The sad thing is: I actually feel sorry for the left. The doom that is coming down the pike will more than sort out the persevering souls versus the pampered people that need to be told they are special and right ALL. THE. TIME.

      But the left-right shit will destroy this country.
      Exactly as the most divorced from reality want for us all…
      That’s not a conspiracy – it is coming….like the 4 horseman of the Apocalypse.

      2008 was nothing compared to what is going to happen. We might even get a hot war right in our own backyard.

    2. I could be sympathetic to some of what you say if less was just crazy.

      I do not support the US engaging in torture either – though some of what you say is off the wall.

      Citizens United is an entirely different matter. The supreme court did nothing but read the constitution.
      Is a corporation a person ? No, it is MANY people. Individual rights do not cease to exist when we excercise them in concert with others.

      Conservative fealty to the constitution is conditional – that is why I am libertarian.
      But democrats make it up as they go without even lip service to the constitution.

      I do not expect to ever agree completely with a party or politician.
      But I have no problem discerning that the left is 10,000 times more dangerous than the right.


    “I have to walk around [D.C.] pretending like these are serious people.”

    – Emma-Jo Morris, Breitbart

    Lies, bribes and corruption everywhere:

    “61 former intelligence officials wrote in a letter that e-mails found on Hunter Biden’s laptop were Russian disinformation operation.”

    – The Hill

  9. You can not blame these professors or Joe as they have everything at stake.

    Joe appears to be nothing more than a con man thug that will lose everything should he not pay lip service to his fringe base. His ‘normalcy’ is anything that keeps the money coming in, the prying eyes away and the base $ supported Anything that jeopardizes that status quo threatens him and his operation exponentially.

    The professors have everything to lose if Joe is bounced…and they know it. You would not be hearing from them if the stakes were not high. Being a backer, supporter, mouthpiece for a con man running a scam at the highest levels will not go well for those folks. (e.g. After Watergate, did you ever meet anyone that admitted voting for Nixon?) Their only hope is to either change the system or second best, to lock up the system with seeming controversy.

    P.S Will Mr.Tushnet and Mr.Belkin please send all citizens a copy of the ‘popular constitution’ they have developed or will we just have to wait until federal agents show up and notify us that we are being arrested for violations?

  10. We shouldn’t be surprised by this radical interpretation of the Court’s purpose. Going back as far as 2001, Obama described the “radical” Warren court as not being radical enough. Obama’s legacy was always going to be rooted in his reshaping the judiciary. That however came to a screeching halt with the 2016 election and Trump’s own judicial branch legacy. So this is not Biden’s brainchild, but that of the President he served as Vice President.

    Mr. Obama states that his primary criteria in selecting judges is that they show “empathy” for the weak and underprivileged. He voted against two of the Bush administration appointments to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito, because they did not side often enough with those who are powerless. In other words, Mr. Obama wants our judges to have a bias in favor of an entire class of individuals. That doesn’t seem fair-minded. He forgets that in America equality before the law is the cornerstone of our system of justice. That principle undergirds our legal code and our democracy.

    1. Good post and observations there.
      As regards fairness in the legal system, there isn’t any to be found anywhere in it, from the lowest court all of the way up to the USSC/SCOTUS, it’s all about bias and favoritism!! If anyone doubts those words there, then they must know where I can find my written guarantee of actually GETTING a fair trial at any level! Without that guarantee, any fake “trial” is one of two things, either it is a pure gamble and no one knows for sure what the outcome will be, or it is a rigged up scam, and the outcome is known well in advance!! There is no third choice possible there.
      There is no law on any books in any nation on Earth, that says we must make gambles against our will, and no law that says we must participate in any kind of crime, if we do not want to do so. Do casinos anywhere force people in off the streets and make them gamble? I didn’t think so. Is there any law that says we must participate in crimes against our wishes? Again, I didn’t think so.

      1. gearheadedone, as long as the judicial process involves the element of human nature, then there cannot be any “guarantee” there will be justice.

  11. How many times can we write the following” American leftists despise a constitutional republic” and seek to create a totalitarian regime patterned after the CCP?. The academy, the MSM, the entertainment industry has been infiltrated by these vermin and sadly the great unwashed masses will only figure this out after their liberties have been taken away from them. Most will not care so long as they can get to a Taylor Swift concert. But even that could be thwarted as we all know how the USSR and East Germany censured even pop music.

  12. Great pick-up!
    So, I assume you adamantly condemn all entities that do the same? Whether it be a POTUS, a governor, a bureaucrat or a law professor?

  13. The greatest country that has ever existed is under attack by constitutional functional illiterates posing at authorities. Their interpretation(s) of our Constitution which are many are shrouded in deceptions of a utopian nirvana of monarchy, casting aside separate but equal branches of governance.

    I’ll finish by quoting Alexander Pope from: ‘An Essay on Criticism’

    “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”
    “a little learning is a dangerous thing”

    And from Jude: 1-10

    But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

  14. Jonathan: Accusing Pres. Biden and his supporters of being the “New Authoritarians” with “little respect for the Constitution or the courts” ignores the reality right in front of you. It is and was DJT who showed no respect for the Constitution consciously decided to pursue extra-constitutional means to overturn the election. It’s ironic you would accuse Biden of wanting to find a way around court decisions on the eviction moratorium by saying: “White House counsel and most scholars told him [Biden] the move would be blatantly unconstitutional and defy the express ruling of the court. Instead, he consulted the only law professor [Lawrence Tribe] willing to tell him what he wanted to hear and he did it anyway”.

    Now this exact language could be applied to DJT did after the 2020 election. He lost all his 70 court challenges to the election results–the express rulings of the courts. He then decided to ignore those rulings and implemented the plan to appoint fake Trump electors–a plan by John Eastman–the “only law professor willing to tell him what he wanted to hear”. WH counsel for Trump told him the plan was “blatantly unconstitutional” but DJT ignored their advice and went ahead with the Eastman’s illegal scheme to replace the legitimate electors with fake ones. When the fake elector scheme fell apart because VP Pence refused to go along DJT went to the next unconstitutional step–the Jan. 6 insurrection.

    Jack Smith is about to drop the hammer on DJT for all his illegal and unconstitutional acts in connection with Jan. 6. What Joe Biden has proposed doesn’t begin to compare to what the “authoritarian” DJT tried to do to subvert our Democracy!

    1. Whatabout whatabout whatabout. Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump. Yawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzz (wake me up when you have something interesting to say).

      1. The TDS is strong in the elite lieberal posters here. They claim a double standard justifies this anti constitutional bent of theirs. When in fact it is their very own hypocrisies’ and double standards which are the bane of most of this fake crisis they are whipping up. Low energy joe’s clock is running out and this admin and its apparatchik props are pulling out all the stops and dog whistles to paint their insanity in a different light. Thank god its not working !.

    2. It is and was DJT who showed no respect for the Constitution consciously decided to pursue extra-constitutional means to overturn the election.

      That was in retaliation for what Robert Mueller did.

      Of course what happened subsequently was that even years after Trump had safely taken power, the corporate media’s top luminaries continuously used the phrase “hacked the election” to describe the purported actions of Russia on behalf of Trump in 2016. Supermajorities of Democratic voters came to believe not just that Russia “interfered” in the election, but directly installed Trump into power by tampering with voting machines. Now, though, journalists who fostered these blinkered beliefs will feign incredulity that their conduct could have contributed to widespread “doubt” as to the “legitimacy” of that election. And they’ll be aghast at any suggestion that this was inevitably going to generate yet another crazed anti-legitimization initiative in 2020.

      The mad rush to impeach Trump on the ground of his very election being illegitimate began at approximately the moment that all-out “#RESISTANCE” was declared in opposition to him — perhaps when Florida was called on Election Night. It took awhile for the plan to mature, but finally culminated in December 2019 when impeachment was ratified — based on what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said was her view that with Trump, “all roads lead to Putin.” Survey a representative cross-section of people advocating for impeachment during that time and you’ll likely find they struggle to even recall what it was all supposed to be about — something to do with a Ukraine phone call. That’s because the arcane details were immaterial; impeachment was the fulfillment of a deep desire to formally censure Trump using the most sacrosanct and rarely-invoked constitutional procedure. And it all stemmed from a fundamental refusal to accept that he was ever rightfully elected in the first place.


    3. “The 2020 presidential contest is “the most secure election in U.S. history,” acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said Tuesday, while urging voters to be patient for results ”
      Take your booster jab.

    4. “He lost all his 70 court challenges to the election results–the express rulings of the courts. He then decided to ignore those rulings and implemented the plan to appoint fake Trump electors…”

      Wow, he got through 70 court cases before dementia mafia mob mong got sworn in ?
      Your booster jabs are injuring your brain again.

    5. He lost all his 70 court challenges to the election results–the express rulings of the courts

      Dennis you have been called out on this lie.
      One…Name just one case that ruled against Trump.

    6. I’ve have a brother in law named Dennis… could be something about the name. No self awareness at all.

    7. Dennis A big hammer will drop next few months and it will shock the hades out of you as to what the substances will be. A part thereof will be that Kam and J Biden gone. Selah. .

    8. What extra constitutional means did Trump pursue ?

      Every single thing that has been Alleged to have been attempted – has taken place historically and legitimatly in the US in the past – and in some cases successfully.

      It is presumed that what has occured in the past – especially the distant past without even a constitutional challenge is defacto constitutional.

      The fact that you do not like that Trump attempted to overturn a rigged election does not alter his right to try to do so.

      We have had many many election challenges – we have had democreats espouse lunatic constitutional theories that have no history. No one has cried foul over that.

      The constitution BTW binds the GOVERNMENT not the rest of us.

  15. On another Biden Crime Family report

    FBI Told Delaware U.S. Attorney It Had Already Partially Corroborated Biden Bribery Claims, Source Says

    It should be entertaining watching the Democrats heads explode before, during and after Devon Archer’s testimony on Capitol Hill re: Joseph Biden talking on the phone numerous times to Hunter Biden’s associates. Maybe Democrats will appear with harakiri kits?

        1. I recall the uproar when Trump said that he could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th avenue and not lose any voters. Of course he was figuratively speaking about the loyalty of his base. Democrats and their radical left base seem to have taken that as a tide pod-like challenge to show Biden can literally commit high crimes and misdemeanors without losing any of his voters.

          1. Biden will never lose the imaginary voters that put him ahead in the early morning hours of November 4th, Olly. He can count on them over and over and over and over…

            1. JAFO, I seriously doubt Biden has any idea what he has or doesn’t have. Now the communists working behind the scenes to keep this rotting bag of oatmeal from faceplanting do know what they can count on. And they learned it from a different Joe Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. Stalin.

  16. These criminals mostly dem know they will never see a jail sell, and ya wonder why they keep duing it. Daaaa

  17. Remember the 1960’s and 1970’s when the segregationists defied Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), cited in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, No. 20-1199, slip op. at 11 (June 29, 2023)?

    They were not the good guys.

  18. This “Supreme Court defiance” notion is not new, and it’s a fringe viewpoint.

    That said, SCOTUS case precedents are reversible by Congress with new legislation passed and signed by the President.

    As one who has never accepted that SCOTUS can amend the meaning and impact of the Constitution by mere re-interpretation (which fails to begin to meet the rigorous public consensus spelled out in Article V), I would prefer all SCOTUS decisions to be viewed as provisional unless Congress fails to relegislate within one full campaign season plus one full Congressional term. Why?

    Congress needs due-diligence checks and balances on it — to keep law up-to-date with a rapidly changing world.
    Therefore, I support a deadline on Congress to legislate on an issue where SCOTUS has provisionally spoken.
    If Congress cannot act in that deadline by majority vote, then 2/3 vote is needed beyond that to reverse of modify SCOTUS case precedent.

    I call this the Congressional Due Diligence Amendment (#28).

    It says to Members of Congress “Either use your powers in realtime, or surrender them to the Courts”.

    1. SCOTUS case precedents are reversible by Congress with new legislation passed and signed by the President

      Where do you get that? If SCOTUS interprets federal legislation, and Congress is unhappy with that interpretation, Congress can amend the legislation to clarify its intended meaning. Is that what you are talking about?

      If you mean Congress can pass legislation “overruling” a SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, then that’s simply false. If that’s what you mean, then I’d like to know what support you think exists for that concept.

      1. pbinCA only deals with non-sequiturs. It is a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance of Biden Inc.
        Otherwise reality is just too difficult for him

    2. @pbinCA,

      The issue is that to get around the courts, Congress would have to act in near unison.
      Essentially 2/3rds would be needed for a constitutional change.

      That’s not going to happen.

      Joe Biden attempting to act like ‘King Biden’ is only going to go so far.
      Its the mad King where we will end up and it won’t be pretty.

      The Liberal left are attempting to jam up the courts, however… they are about to get a very rude awakening.

      All of those Biden let into the country illegally will end up being a major thorn in his side.

      It would be very straight forward under current law to round them up and deport them.
      It seems that the sanctuary cities are now learning the true price of what they espouse and they are finding they can’t cover their checks.

      2024 will be interesting.
      Trump may win… or not… the GOP primary.
      Biden may survive to run, or not… the one thing we haven’t seen. Anyone in court calling his protection to be a conspiracy.
      That will have certain criminal implications… all of those charges where the statute of limitations were to have run out… will have had their clocks stopped. Hence the cover up is worse than the crime.

      Not only those involved in the criminal act can be charged… but those involved in the cover up or running cover… That would be obstruction.

      The question is if anyone has the stomach to do this and then face the repercussions. It would be political suicide.
      That person would face the wrath of all of those in DC and beyond.

      Trump wins… he doesn’t have the power to make this happen without support from Congress. He’s not that well liked.


    3. Your logic is not logic…its flawed propaganda. Do you even consider the drivel you posted here ?. Its not worthy of further critue its so bad.

Leave a Reply