In Monty Python’s film, “The Life of Brian,” the lead character hangs hopelessly on the cross when a small army arrives to rescue him. His relief is short-lived as Otto, the leader, promptly announces that they are the crack suicide squad trained to kill themselves “within 20 seconds.” The scene came to mind yesterday as eight Republicans joined Democrats to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy. It was a moment that perfectly captured our politics of chaos and disruption, including the refusal of a single Democrat to prevent the House from going through a week of unnecessary turmoil. There was a time when opposing members would oppose such moves in the interest of House as an institution. This is not one of those times.
The most telling aspect of the ouster was that there was no plan other than vacating the chair. It had all of the logic of Monty Python’s Judean People’s Front Crack Suicide Squad. Eight members rushed forward and committed ritualistic suicide.
This is the first time in history that a speaker has been ousted despite the fact that McCarthy had all but eight of the Republicans supporting his retention. It is telling that we have gone through wars, economic crises, and social upheavals without resorting to this type of nuclear option.
These members have valid objections to the use of continuing resolutions and the dishonest process used for years to steadily increase our debt. I get that. What I do not get is how vacating the chair will change anything.
Speaker McCarthy did make major changes in returning to regular order. There was more transparency and empowerment of members. It was far more democratic after years of almost autocratic rule by the leadership. Rules were changed as promised and greater amendments allowed on the floor. Ironically, it was the Democrats who embraced the all-powerful speaker model with reduced ability for members to read, let alone challenge, bills.
Notably, in his farewell remarks late last night, McCarthy said that Nancy Pelosi had assured him that he could return to the rule allowing any member to seek to vacate the chair because she and the Democrats would stand with the Speaker. If so, that was a statement consistent with the long values of the House. There were certain acts that were deemed as beyond the pale. Vacating the chair to make a statement was viewed as inimical to the institution. Despite decades of fierce political divisions, there were times when partisanship would be set aside.
As Democrats profess alarm over government shutdowns and the lack of legislation on key issues, this vacating of the chair will only delay business in the “People’s House.” It was certainly a thrilling moment for many, but few would argue that it was good for the institution. Indeed, they are more likely to get an even more conservative and strident speaker than McCarthy.
As for Republicans, they will now have to negotiate with Rep. Matt Gaetz and the other seven members to be able to resume business. In the meantime, much of the business on the border, the budget, and the impeachment inquiry will have to wait in abeyance.
At the same time, the chaos could well cost moderate Republicans their seats as the media portrays the GOP as careening and unable to govern effectively. That would then hand the House back to the Democrats in 2024. McCarthy was credited with raising a huge amount of money to reelect Republicans and coordinating a strategy to take the House majority.
The new speaker will face the same realities in dealing with a Democratically-controlled Senate and a Democratic White House in getting anything through Congress.
This effort would have been far more convincing if there was a cognizable plan and preferred alternative at the outset. The over 200 GOP members supporting McCarthy are not going to materially yield their positions to eight members. I simply do not see how the ouster will make a material difference while costing the GOP in terms of both time and optics.
The comedian Steven Martin once said “chaos in the midst of chaos isn’t funny, but chaos in the midst of order is.”
He is right. There is nothing funny in the chaos in Congress.
Trump has dropped his lawsuit against Michael Cohen. Perhaps he was afraid of being deposed.
He cut a side deal with Schumer and Biden to fund the war in Ukraine ahead of border security. He scammed his own party. He had to go.
Worse yet, the Democrats voted as a block to hose him. Just a little collateral damage in the battle to divide the Republicans.
Mr. Turley,
If you really believe Gaetz only had 8, I would be disappointed. I’m confident you know there was more. There was a great deal of frustration with McCarthy, and for any of the positives you noted, he allowed himself to get backed into a corner by democrats resulting in a pretty favorable CR for the Democrats. The only person in the house who could “kill” the speaker, was Gaetz. Instead of turning to Gaetz, he turned to Pelosi. And as many of us have known for years, she has never been trustworthy. I am reminded of the Frog and the Scorpion. McCarthy forgot that.
As for turmoil, Jordan will be put into the speakership rather easily; Pelosi has made Gaetz even stronger than he was before which will drive more GOP spine to the entire faction. Moderate GOP members in strong Red States are now in danger of being replaced by more strident republicans and there will probably be regular order budgets on straight partisan lines, quickly sent to the Senate before year’s end, completely blowing up the House can’t get things done narrative. Pelosi took a gamble I guess because internal DC polling on Biden is atrocious, so they are trying to amp up democrat turnout, if having Trump as the likely opponent isn’t enough. Subsequent spending will be less than democrats are going to want an in areas will they get much less than they would have wanted. And in losing the Senate in the next cycle, the dems will have allowed Gaetz to force through the first step in reigning in the federal bureaucracy.
“to make sure DJT is behind bars before he gets a chance to implement his fascist state!”
This IS the purpose of these prosecutions, isn’t it Jonathan?
Maybe someone should fill our resident experts in that nothing going on right now can or will prevent DJT from becoming 47th President of the United States.
Sorry.
Losing the 2024 election can and will prevent DJT from becoming 47th President of the United States.
Bwahahahaha
According to you, the American Founders implemented a fascist state, that being the conservative effect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which DO NOT engender any of the principles of communism that you espouse and seek to compel on once-free Americans. You are a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
Jonathan
Rather than copy and pasting from Teen Vogue, perhaps the resident expert could provide more of his “pizza topping” legal advice.
Yesterday I attempted to respond to some erroneous, false, non factual, and misleading information posted by a self proclaimed “expert” in the field of law. And although this “consultation” was pro bono, and worth exactly what was paid for it, my response apparently was removed for civility violations? Hopefully, by avoiding any names whatsover, or speaking directly to you alone, I can inform your “loyal followers” as to the truth they are probably already aware of, being able to read.
It was argued that the constitutional right to a trial by jury is somehow left to a box that is checked on some nebulous form, as though one were ordering toppings on a pizza from Domino’s online. Common sense alone tells us that this juvenile assertion is just a talking point from the DNC, and not reality. I note that no one has yet produced the aformentioned form, and it has even been admitted that no such “box on a form” exists, by those previously claiming that it does. Instead, references were made to a textbook with rules for federal procedure, as if that is even applicable in a state proceeding. Note that no reference was shown that the NY statutes follow this “rule”.
I asked to take a deep dive into the differences between equity and law trials in civil proceedings in New York State and of course received no response. Without getting too far in the weeds for your “loyal followers”, this can determine, among other things, whether or not a person can receive a jury trial. In instances of equity in NY law a defendant MUST accept the ruling of a Judge. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of this, but it is what it is.
Important to note is that the determining factor of whether a proceeding is equity or law, is the type of relief sought by the plaintiff. In this case it is disgorgement, ergo it is equity ergo no jury.
I suspect our esteemed “experts” have gotten their opinions from google searches and CNN articles. Perhaps a few more “law” classes at night school is warranted.
Nevertheles, I believe that the whole to do is just theater. Abba has calculated that having this Judge, a lawless cab driver with kandy korn for teeth is the perfect opportunity to receive a favorable ruling on appeal. He has stated on camera his penchant for side swiping the constitutional rights of Americans, as well as his inclination to make rulings based on his emotion.
An emotion that was apparently displayed in his statement made that Trump is a bad guy and she should go after him. From Yahoo News:
2/17/22 A Manhattan judge Thursday called Donald Trump “just a bad guy” in a scathing rebuke to a lawyer arguing that the former president was being unfairly singled out for investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“If Ms. James has a thing against him, OK, that’s not in my understanding [of] unlawful discrimination. He’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”
This would seem to indicate a bias or prejudice, to ANY reasonable person. I won’t get into the fact that he looks like he just came from his Vietnam War protest march, or the sidewalk in front of his house, where he was offering popsicles in his basement to little girls passing by.
He is also incompotent. He has already made a finding of fault on counts filed by the inept attorney general that were beyond the statute of limitations, and embarrassingly had to throw them out the next day, when it was pointed out by a second year clerk in his office. He also based his ruling in the Mar-a-Lago count, on a tax assessment of $18-26 Million, even after being told by Palm Beach county not to use that number. Why, because a patch of dirt, 2 acres size, is on the market a block away for $150 Million. Mar-A -Lago sits on 20 acres and has 38 bedrooms and an operating club who’s dues start at $2000/mo. All estimates have it worth between $500M and $1B.
Engoron is a dirtbag moron with a chip on his shoulder, who has Trump in his sites. I’m no fan of Trump, and certainly he has cried “persecution” every time someone disagrees with him, but its impossible to argue otherwise in this case. He will win on appeal.
I suspect as the other trials of Trump get closer and begin, we will see these same abuses of power come to light. This is the problem with “show me the man and I will show you the crime”.
Turley said he previously wrote about his reservations that there were “serious ethical problems with a prosecutor really trying to secure office on the pledge to nail one person.”
A google search will turn up all manner of videos of Leticia James campaigning for AG on the promise of “getting Trump”, and “searching every dark corner”. This type of conduct is not only unethical, it is deeply troubling with respect to violating fundamental Fourth Amendment rights. Yet, no one seems to care, because it’s Trump. What it also is, is a warning to any businessman considering public office as a conservative. If I lived in a blue state, I would not.
Thanks for posting, Dick Head. One thing is for certain, if I ever do find myself in need of a civil attorney I won’t be looking in the phonebook under Mc.
Jonathan: In 2017 The New Republic declared “Donald Trump, Neo-Nazi Recruiter-in-Chief” after DJT praised the neo-Nazis who paraded and rioted in Charlottesville. There is new reporting that conforms TNR’s headline.
MTN is now reporting (10/3/23) that “Trump Echoes Hitler: Migrants ‘Poisoning the Blood of our Country'”. The article quotes DJT from a recent interview he gave to National Pulse at Mar-a-Lago:
“Nobody has any idea where these people [migrants] are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We
know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen
anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country”.
“Poisoning the blood of our country” is a phrase used often in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In Chapter 11 Hitler wrote: “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning”. In Mein Kamp Hitler painted Jews and migrants in Germany as “poisoning” the Aryan race.
Where did DJT pick up the language of “poisoning”? Ivan Trump said DJT kept a copy of Hitler’s auto biography by his bed. In 2018, DJT told John Kelly, his Chief of Staff”: “Well, Hitler did a lot of good things”.
DJT is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination next year. If he regains the presidency we know what it will look like. An authoritarian state led by someone who has praised Hitler. He will suppress the press and try anyone he accuses of “treason”–like former Joint Chiefs Chair Mark Milley. The Constitution and Congress will be empty shells. This is why the criminal trials are so important–to make sure DJT is behind bars before he gets a chance to implement his fascist state!
“If he regains the presidency…”
And there is the whole thing in a nutshell, isn’t it.
Too bad. He is going to. He leads by 9 points. For a republican, that factors to about 490 Electoral votes!! Ouch!!!
This explains all the whining and gnashing of teeth.
Oh, and all of that crap has already been debunked as AI generated. Abba is preparing a lawsuit already.
You see, people getting ready to vote next year, don’t need to be lectured about who DJT is. They all know. They also know now who Joe Biden is.
What’s precipitating that 9 point lead is what each of them did for the country. And everybody here can chime on in with their two cents about what that is, but these numbers tell the story of what Americans think.
Sorry. You lose.
And in case he doesn’t win you can say it was RIGGED
The New Republic
OMG what is next, sourcing “news stories” from The Antifa Travelers Guide to the Universe?
Can we not be serious here for one lousy day?
True.
Here is the problem that the low info liberal commentors here just can’t seem to grasp.
Every one of these opinion rags parading as news outlets, and even the news outlets parading as news outlets, gets 91.5% of their information from DNC emails. That is why you see the EXACT same wording used over and over and over and over again in their “reporting”. Then they use the circular reporting scheme where they quote each other, to give the illusion of credibility. The rest is the infamous “reliable sources”.
CNN actually claimed a “Senior GOP aide” called the first impeachment hearing “an unmitigated disastor”. Really??? Who actually believes that? Name the mole, because he obviusly isn’t working for the “GOP”. It’s rubbish on it’s face and lapped up like purina dog chow because it fits the narrative.
These tactics go seemingly unrecognized, and so the commenters just keep using these ridiculous “sources”. It’s sad and it’s laughable. It would be like a conservative commentor saying “Hannity says…!!!”, or “Greg Gutfeld did an expose”.
It truly is Animal Farm
Let me guess….Dennis is Squealer
Dennis, this discussion might interest you: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/10/05/donald-trump-normalizes-political-violence-in-america
Jonathan
Yesterday I attempted to respond to some erroneous, false, non factual, and misleading information posted by a self proclaimed “expert” in the field of law. And although this “consultation” was pro bono, and worth exactly what was paid for it, my response apparently was removed for civility violations? Hopefully, by avoiding any names whatsover, or speaking directly to you alone, I can inform your “loyal followers” as to the truth they are probably already aware of, being able to read.
It was argued that the constitutional right to a trial by jury is somehow left to a box that is checked on some nebulous form, as though one were ordering toppings on a pizza from Domino’s online. Common sense alone tells us that this juvenile assertion is just a talking point from the DNC, and not reality. I note that no one has yet produced the aformentioned form, and it has even been admitted that no such “box on a form” exists, by those previously claiming that it does. Instead, references were made to a textbook with rules for federal procedure, as if that is even applicable in a state proceeding. Note that no reference was shown that the NY statutes follow this “rule”.
I asked to take a deep dive into the differences between equity and law trials in civil proceedings in New York State and of course received no response. Without getting too far in the weeds for your “loyal followers”, this can determine, among other things, whether or not a person can receive a jury trial. In instances of equity in NY law a defendant MUST accept the ruling of a Judge. Now, we can argue the constitutionality of this, but it is what it is.
Important to note is that the determining factor of whether a proceeding is equity or law, is the type of relief sought by the plaintiff. In this case it is disgorgement, ergo it is equity ergo no jury.
I suspect our esteemed “experts” have gotten their opinions from google searches and CNN articles. Perhaps a few more “law” classes at night school is warranted.
Nevertheles, I believe that the whole to do is just theater. Abba has calculated that having this Judge, a lawless cab driver with kandy korn for teeth is the perfect opportunity to receive a favorable ruling on appeal. He has stated on camera his penchant for side swiping the constitutional rights of Americans, as well as his inclination to make rulings based on his emotion.
An emotion that was apparently displayed in his statement made that Trump is a bad guy and she should go after him. From Yahoo News:
2/17/22 A Manhattan judge Thursday called Donald Trump “just a bad guy” in a scathing rebuke to a lawyer arguing that the former president was being unfairly singled out for investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“If Ms. James has a thing against him, OK, that’s not in my understanding [of] unlawful discrimination. He’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”
This would seem to indicate a bias or prejudice, to ANY reasonable person. I won’t get into the fact that he looks like he just came from his Vietnam War protest march, or the sidewalk in front of his house, where he was offering popsicles in his basement to little girls passing by.
He is also incompotent. He has already made a finding of fault on counts filed by the inept attorney general that were beyond the statute of limitations, and embarrassingly had to throw them out the next day, when it was pointed out by a second year clerk in his office. He also based his ruling in the Mar-a-Lago count, on a tax assessment of $18-26 Million, even after being told by Palm Beach county not to use that number. Why, because a patch of dirt, 2 acres size, is on the market a block away for $150 Million. Mar-A -Lago sits on 20 acres and has 38 bedrooms and an operating club who’s dues start at $2000/mo. All estimates have it worth between $500M and $1B.
Engoron is a dirtbag moron with a chip on his shoulder, who has Trump in his sites. I’m no fan of Trump, and certainly he has cried “persection” every time someone disagrees with him, but its impossible to argue otherwise in this case. He will win on appeal.
I suspect as the other trials of Trump get closer and begin, we will see these same abuses of power come to light. This is the problem with “show me the man and I will show you the crime”.
Turley said he previously wrote about his reservations that there were “serious ethical problems with a prosecutor really trying to secure office on the pledge to nail one person.”
A google search will turn up all manner of videos of Leticia James campaigning for AG on the promise of “getting Trump”, and “searching every dark corner”. This type of conduct is not only unethical, it is deeply troubling with respect to violating fundamental Fourth Amendment rights. Yet, no one seems to care, because it’s Trump. What it also is, is a warning to any businessman considering public office as a conservative. If I lived in a blue state, I would not.
Yea duh, he said the County tax assessor said $18M. He also quoted the County as telling the Court not to use that number. Do you think it’s worth $18M? Why don’t you do a quick zillow search for that area and let us know what you find. In the meantime, do you have anything new to offer?
“but could be mistaken.”
Nothing unusual there.
No, property tax assessments do not include the contents of a home, so, bad assumption.
Yea
Bwahahahahahaha
And thank you for agreeing the judge is too incompetent to do a zillow search.
Bottom line…incompetent judge. Win on appeal. Bigly.
Bye now!
The House Democrats voted as a block – 208 to 0 – to oust McCarthy. Not a single Democrat broke ranks. Talk abut iron discipline. You’d think they are the Supreme Court or something.
Open your eyes about how it has been “working”, as in it hasn’t. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3P-n72PjWQ
Also from “Life of Brian”
Foreshadowing, anyone?
https://youtu.be/Dgp9MPLEAqA?si=OKne0mmsNGM0CHN1
Personally, I think delaying the business of the House was the point – inquiry go *poof*. I am honestly beginning to believe we are not ever getting our government back. These are mighty sad times, and the modern dem party are absolutely reprehensible. Expect more of the same all the way through November of 2024.
I wonder if there is another Republican stupid enough to attempt to become speaker while the ridiculous “Group of Eight” anarchists (i.e. Gaetz et al) are holding the other 200 Republicans hostage.
I don’t think Trump will be, or wants to be, Speaker, but do you think he would go along with this nonsense? McCarthy wanted to be Speaker too much.
So $34 trillion in debt and $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities are constitutional, beneficial and sustainable?
Of course, not.
Holy Stockholm Syndrome, Batman. Please tell us of this ‘nonsense’ you are whining about. Whose ox is going to get gored and how will that impact your (our) lives? Are you a Ukrainian Nazi sympathizer, a German coal-plant investor (profits are going up, btw), a CCP tool, …who exactly do you represent and how will your life change?
It is an excellent move and finally we have 8 House members whose spines are not missing. I hope it keeps happening while the whining criminals keep demanding our dollar be taken down to mincemeat while they applaud.
Seldom does Dennis get anything right.
Democrats Try to Knock Out No Labels
They want to engineer a Biden-Trump rematch by killing an alternative.
Every poll shows that Americans are all but screaming at the two political parties to offer a presidential choice other than a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The group No Labels has been working to get ballot access for an alternative to meet that market demand, but Democrats in particular are trying to kill the effort in the crib.
President Biden said in a rare recent interview that No Labels has “a democratic right” to do this, but “it’s going to help the other guy.” Now comes a Super Pac trying to raise millions of dollars to assail No Labels, according to a fundraising pitch to prospective donors. What do these folks have against democracy?
Citizens to Save Our Republic, or CSOR, wants donations “to build bipartisan support for a campaign to get No Labels to stand down,” its solicitation email says. “If No Labels moves forward with a third-party effort we will wage a vigorous campaign in swing states, including millions of dollars in advertising, to show voters that No Labels equals Trump and the end of our democracy.”
So a group trying to give voters a democratic alternative is somehow a threat to democracy? We’ve repeatedly keelhauled Mr. Trump for his dereliction on Jan. 6, 2021, his fraud delusions, and much else, but it’s strange to say democracy will end if voters in 2024 cast ballots and elect whomever they want. Perhaps the hyperbole is no surprise, since CSOR looks like a Democratic operation. Its frontman is Dick Gephardt, who spent nearly three decades in the House and ran for President in 1988 and 2004.
Truth in labeling would be to call CSOR the Coalition to Save an Old Retiree, namely Mr. Biden. What the group wants, it says, is to “make the 2024 election a clean referendum on democracy, with one pro-democracy candidate running one-on-one against Donald Trump, the anti-democracy candidate.” It’s doubtful that Mr. Gephardt and company would breathe a sigh of relief for democracy’s sake if Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley ended up as the GOP nominee.
A slide deck to donors lays out the CSOR proposal: Raise $3 million as a budget through December. Try to persuade potential No Labels candidates, including Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Larry Hogan, to rule out the idea. If No Labels picks a presidential ticket anyway, then the plan is to raise millions more and go to war.
The reality exposed even in the CSOR poll is that 21% of the country is unsatisfied enough with Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump to contemplate taking a flyer on a ballot line that’s still in the process of being born. There will be third-party candidates regardless of whether No Labels fields one, as Cornel West is already declared and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems to be moving that way.
The opening for this is the fault of the Democratic and Republican parties, not No Labels. Either party could gain an advantage by nominating someone new. If they fail to heed the obvious signals, blame them.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-labels-citizens-to-save-our-republic-donald-trump-joe-biden-third-party-dick-gephardt-b683094c
The idea that if Trump wins it means the end of democracy is deranged. If he wins it will be because people voted for him, the very definition of democracy. They are fear mongers who are transparently trying to boost one political party using dishonesty. A-holes.
Commies and fascists in the US mean ‘the end of democracy’ just as those in these places would: People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria,
Democratic Republic of Kongo,
Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste,
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, …
If he wins, it will be because he got enough Electoral College votes, which is not democracy by design of the EC. He’s already lost the popular vote twice, and that’s not going to change.
What a spooge laden, senseless comment. The electoral college was designed to prevent EXACTLY what you want. 51% exercising dominion over the 49%, when they have many different wants, needs and values. You wanting it abolished only proves the brilliance of its design. This is a Republic, made up of the several states, NOT a Democracy (mob rules). Sorry if you dont like that.
“He’s already lost the popular vote twice, and that’s not going to change.”
Talk about denial. He’s up 51 to 42, and thats only gonna get worse.
The communists’ (liberals, progressives,socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) “democracy” is one man, one vote, “dictatorship of the proletariat,” aka dictatorship of the penurious hired help.
The democracy of the American Founders and Framers is manifested by a severely restricted-vote republic; turnout was 11.6% in 1788 by design.
You don’t seem to grasp why Gaetz did what he did. Gaetz and others agreed to support McCarthy for speaker but demanded, as a precondition, three things; at least 72 hours to read and analyze any bill prior to a vote on the bill and propose changes; no more continuing resolutions or omnibus bills (into which lobbyists get their goodies and other terrible things inserted) which are then voted on up or down; and term limits (which I actually disagree with because I think they’re unconstitutional). McCarthy agreed to these 9 months ago but recently breached the agreement. Gaetz is laser focused on reducing spending and weakening the outside influence of lobbyists. We are now $33.5 trillion in debt. If we don’t make fundamental changes now and reduce spending now, the entire financial system in the US could collapse. But you don’t seem to understand this point.
Craig : well said. If all the things the prof cites are inimical to the institution and to orderly governance, even more inimical to both is the $33T debt and yearly $2T deficits adding to that debt. The ousting was indeed unprecedented, but this level of debt combined with unabated reckless spending is also unprecedented . . . and more of a threat to the nation. Compared to that the goings-on in the House are mere niceties.
Jonathan: Well, it looks like DJT bailed out at halftime. He team was behind 38 to 0 so he decided he had had enough. I’m not talking here about a football game. I am talking about the 3rd day of DJT’s civil fraud trial before Judge Engoron. At midday DJT left court saying he wanted to get back to the campaign trail–which I call the “The Campaign Trail of Tears”. DJT won’t be required back in the courtroom until/unless he testifies. So the fireworks are over for now. But the trial in Manhattan has shown one thing. It’s not about the “art of the deal”. It’s about the “art of the steal”. And I think DJT knows he is going to lose BIG TIME. He has already lost the right to do business in NY and soon will be required to disgorge–perhaps billions in ill gotten gains. It’s equivalent to the business death sentence for the former real estate mogul.
As DJT left the courthouse today he got even worse news. Forbes has taken him off it’s list of the nation’s wealthiest people in America. That must really hurt. DJT has obsessed for years about getting on the Forbes list. Michael Cohen says one reason DJT inflated the value of his properties was to be honored by Forbes. That’s all gone now. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
“It’s about the ‘art of the steal’.”
You are correct.
It is the Left’s attempt to steal an election, by criminalizing its leading opposition candidate.
Or: Trump committed the crimes he’s been charged with.
Which still wont stop him
Awww, where did DJT touch you denny? did he make more money than you, despite you being sooo much smarter? Did that cause your mother shame? Do you think you’ll be able to type with one hand as you look into the mirror if DJT wins in 2024? I worry about you denny…this seems personal, did you lose on the apprentice? LOL, nope, you’re just a lefty tool that can stand the fact that you did as you were told and came up short, who now lives hoping to keep it up with schadenfreude. Please tell us how you are better off now that FJB is in charge (except for the fewer ‘hims’ needed while typing with one hand). Your mom still knows your truths.
Jonathan: I’m constantly amazed by some on your blog who know nothing about the law. But yet they pontificate like they do.
For example, “Sandmann”, the self appointed authority on the law, claims the following: “He [me] keeps repeating the DNC talking point about ‘checking the box’, which is a complete and utter falsehood. Constitutional rights, as anyone knows, do not rest on ‘checking a box’. Constitutional rights must be waived, not claimed” (10/4/23@2:31).
I think you need to disabuse Sandy of his lack of understanding of the law. First, checking a box is not a “DNC talking point”. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, something Sandy would have learned about if he had gone to law school, Rule 38(b) says: “a party may demand a jury trial by: (1) serving the other party parties with a written demand…no later than 14 days after the last pleading…; and (2) in accordance with Rule 5(d)”. Under subsection (d) “a party waives a jury trial unless it’s demand is properly served and filed”. Meaning a party must “check a box” demanding a jury trial–otherwise the right is waived. That’s what Alina Habba negligently failed to do–she didn’t “check the box” and why her client is so upset.
I just hope sleepy Sandmann is never a party in a civil case in federal court. If he is he should make sure his lawyer “checks the box” marked “Demand for Jury Trial”. Otherwise, he could find himself, like DJT, in a bench trial–having waived his constitutional right to a jury trial. Just a word to the wise, Sleepy. No charge for this consultation Sleepy.
Dennis the retard flunked elemantry civics. That’s where the teach the mind numbingly simple concepts.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are just that. Govt created rules.
A trial by jury is an enumerated constitutional RIGHT. The govt. (the entity the constitution is protecting the people from) cannot strip citizens of their constitutional rights by REQUIRING the people ASK for enumerated rights.
Iowan2: This is Civics 101–apparently a course you never took in school. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right of criminal defendants to a public speedy by an impartial jury. The right applies to both federal and state courts. But a criminal defendant can expressly waive the right with the consent of the judge and the prosecutors. The 7th Amendment applies to civil cases but, again, the right can be waived (See, e.g., Calif. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 631(f)). You are right that the government cannot “strip citizens of their constitutional rights” but parties can expressly waive those rights. Got it now? No doubt you have a community college that offers courses in civics. You ought to sign up before you get back on this blog and show your ignorance.
“the right can be waived”
“expressly waive those rights”
like selecting toppings on your pizza, right Dennis? where’s that check box, liar?
Sneaky little twit coming in the next day as usual to drop a deuce and leave.
“You are right that the government cannot “strip citizens of their constitutional rights””
Not in equity civil cases in NY, Denny boy. One night class short of a law degree, what a shame.
But ooooh, look at the Constitutional scholar, teaching us the difference between the 6th and 7th. It’ Dennis, from Schoolhouse Rocks!
Sandmann
WRONG. The case was brought under 6312 SO THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A JURY DUMMY. NO BOX CHECKING MAKES IT HAPPEN.
Here is what I expect to happen. In each and every speaker vote, the Democrats vote for Jeffries unanimously, and the GOP always comes up short by 1 or more votes. The Speakership will remain vacant until Nov 17 – when the CR runs out. Then the pressure is on. The clock is ticking. Sometime in early December, 5 Republicans will throw in the towel and vote for Hakeem Jeffries. There will be no actual deal with the Democrats. Rather, 5 Republicans will cave because a prolonged lapse in appropriations is intolerable.
$34 TRILLION! Was $34 trillion in debt, not including $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, for the wholly unconstitutional communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) welfare state the breaking point?
Where the —- is the Supreme Court with its sworn-oath “support” for the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution which allows Congress to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and general Welfare, and which, inversely in turn, prohibits Congress from taxing for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor and charity? Communism is unconstitutional. The entire communist welfare state is unconstitutional. Judicial Review was revealed and established in 1803. What the —- is the Supreme Court doing? As soon as they have been passed and completed, review all acts of legislative and executive branches from the federal to the state level. Supreme Court, do your job, get to that centuries old Judicial Review.
That’s not how it works. The Supreme Court’s job is not to review every act of Congress. Its job is to rule on cases brought before it by someone with standing to sue the federal government and to rule on constitutional matters.
ALL ACTS – Judicial Review in the United States.
Annotation
The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.
Abstract
The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
ALL LAWS AND ACTIONS (I.E. COMPLETED, PASSED, RATIFIED, ETC.) – FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL
The Power of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions. The Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review. It arises instead from an 1803 decision known as Marbury v. Madison.
Under a clause in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court received original jurisdiction over “writs of mandamus.” These may be issued to order a government official to comply with the law. When the plaintiff in Marbury asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus, though, the Court refused for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case.
– Justia https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/the-us-supreme-court-and-judicial-review/
George, You are mistaken in your views about Supreme Court review — see Cases and Controversies language in article 3, section 2 of the Constitution — and the general welfare clause — see Supreme Court decision in Helvering v Davis (1937) that held Social Security was constitutional.
The Supreme Court of 1973 was clearly totally corrupt in its totally wrong decision on the constitutionality of abortion. The Supreme Court of 1869 was totally biased for the ongoing Lincoln “Reign of Terror” in declaring secession unconstitutional when secession is not prohibited and the 10th Amendment makes it clear that
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Clearly the right and freedom of secession is not delegated to the United States and is not prohibited to the
State and is, therefore, reserved to the States and is clearly constitutional. Lincoln was high criminal and wrong and everything he did after his initial crime continues to be invalid, illicit, criminal and unconstitutional.
You are so uninformed, nay, ignorant. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would like to say few words facilitating your edification. 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
What, they teach U.S. Constitution 101 in Mexico?
THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECLARE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ACTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Marbury vs. Madison
The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.
– Library of Congress
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program//bib/ourdocs/marbury.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20case,legislative%20and%20executive%20acts%20unconstitutional.
George, In order for the courts to exercise judicial review of laws, they need a case or a controversy brought to them. See linked cases and controversies language in article 3, section 2.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/