As Democrats ramp up their efforts for the 2024 election, some are dangling an old enticement from 2020: if we win, we can pack the Court. In the last election, President Joe Biden refused to say if he favored packing the Court. Now the chatter has again started in the same quarters that a Democrat retaking the White House would allow the packing of the Court with an immediate liberal majority to force through sweeping court mandates.
Liberals are again stating that the Supreme Court is not fundamentally “broken” because a majority of justices do not share their views on legal questions. In the name of fighting ideological bias, they demand packing the Court with reliable ideological allies from the left.
This convoluted logic was on display in the Washington Monthly in an article on “how to fix the Supreme Court.” It is a must read for anyone interested in following the new rationalizations for destroying the independence of the highest court.
Author Rob Wolfe explains with alarm how a majority of justices now do not share his or Democratic views on various issues. Even though this Republican majority has repeatedly voted against conservative positions and often ruled unanimously, it is not enough for Wolfe. They have to be packed.
Wolfe rattles off extreme proposals matter-of-factly as all viable options:
Anyone concerned about the Supreme Court today should be working to prise that window open further. And to do so, they ought to draw on the robust and inventive debate that is brewing among scholars in law schools, think tanks, and advocacy organizations over how to fix the Court. Some of their ideas are bold structural changes: dividing the Court into rotating panels, stripping it of jurisdiction over certain issues, or controlling its certification process. Others are practical and based on policies already proven to work elsewhere, such as creating a “Congressional Review Act” for Supreme Court decisions, as already exists for executive branch regulations. What these ideas share is a recognition that the rights-giving 20th-century Court that liberals came to respect, even revere, is gone. Today’s progressives now realize that the high court is not an infallible fount of wisdom, and that it is historically more often a conservative force; and with that understanding comes a question that these scholars will help us all to answer: What is the Supreme Court even for?
That last question has been raised by Democratic members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) who has questioned the need for a Supreme Court.
Once again, packing the Court with reliable liberal votes is being proposed to “save democracy”:
President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders have not embraced this deeper reform debate, perhaps recognizing that the political moment hasn’t yet arrived. When the survival of democracy depends on each coming election, a little short-term thinking is understandable.
But one day that moment will come, and it may come suddenly: a wave election, a string of Senate vacancies, a scandal of new, earth-shattering magnitude, or a series of decisions as harmful as Dobbs. When that happens, reformers need to have a plan ready to go—a plan that will require broad public consensus about what problems need to be solved … and a detailed road map to achieve those goals through nitty-gritty policy…Being ready means spending years on movement building to bring together academics, policy wonks, and regular Americans, all waiting to grasp that perhaps fleeting and unforeseeable opportunity. Either that, or submit to being governed for another 30, 40, or 50 years by unelected partisans in robes.
However, what is most striking about the Washington Monthly article is how Orwellian the logic becomes once you admit that your are packing a court with ideological allies. The argument is now that packing the Court is unpacking the Court.
The Supreme Court needs to be thought of as a neutral arbiter for political disputes, not just another player in them, the law professors argued—and so fixing it today is a question of restoring that aura of public trust. Right away, that goal disqualified the most talked-about idea at the time: court packing. Supporters of court packing like the political scientist Aaron Belkin argue that the Supreme Court has already been stacked with highly ideological conservatives who gained their seats through norm-breaking political brinksmanship, and so to add, say, six liberal or moderate justices would actually be to unpack it.
The article then adds the voices of the most radical elements of academia who support “resistance” by any means, including targeting and harassing justices.
“I want to suggest that courts are the enemy, and always have been,” Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown Law professor of the “disempowering” school, said on an afternoon panel with Doerfler, Sitaraman, and another Georgetown scholar, Victoria Nourse. In one exchange, Chafetz called for retaliation against the justices as individuals, wondering aloud whether Congress should consider withdrawing funding for law clerks or even “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.” The quip drew a faint chuckle from the crowd, but Doerfler, deadly serious, interjected: “It should not be a laugh line. This is a political contest, these are the tools of retaliation available, and they should be completely normalized.” What put us here, he said, is the idea that the Court is an “untouchable entity and you’re on the road to authoritarianism if you stand up against it.”
It is certainly not “a laugh line,” it is a chilling call for mob rule and political harassment of jurists for not ruling as demanded. Harvard Law Professor Ryan Doerfler wants to show that individual justices are “touchable” by harassing them as individuals when they dare to defy our will. He is not alone in such extremist ideology among the “radical chic” of academia.
I previously criticized Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz who supported more “aggressive” protests targeting justices “when the mob is right.” Such voices are common at Georgetown and other law schools.
The Washington Monthly’s article normalizes such extremist rhetoric and dangerous threats against the justices. It is another example of the license of the age of rage.
L. Luppen: “In an ordinary media environment, there would be some kind of pressure for Trump to denounce the bomb threat against the judge in his civil case, urge his rabid supporters to be peaceful, and reflect on the way he inspires terrorist violence. But we don’t live in that world.”
Yes, there’s nothing serious about fairness and justice.
Edwardmahl: Your comment (1/9@2:07pm) misses the point. I do know the number of Justices has varied until Congress finally settled on nine in 1869. Prof. Turley knows that absent an act by Congress to enlarge the Court a president cannot “pack” the Court. A president has to wait until there are vacancies on the Court. That was not the purpose of Turley’s column. He is simply repeating the GOP mantra that the sky will fall if Biden is reelected. His column was not a legal analysis but a political hit job–put fear in voters minds about a second Biden term. The reality is that this year or in a second term Biden will be faced with a conservative majority–unless a Justice decides to retire or there is a death. That’s unlikely to happen. But Turley wants to convince you that in a second term Biden will be “packing …the Court with an immediate liberal majority”. Biden couldn’t do that even if he wanted. That’s the important part you missed!
Even if one of the conservative Justices dies or retires, and Biden replaces him/her with a liberal, there will still be a conservative majority. It will just shift from 6-3 to 5-4.
Court of Appeals and Presidential Immunity
Question from Judge Pan: “You’re saying a president could [. . .] tell SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?”
That (arbitrary) hypothetical is a perfect example of the Left’s favorite trick of deception: Drop the context.
The context of this case is: actions relating to official duties. (I don’t think assassination counts as “official duties.”)
So first you drop the context. Then you spin whatever hypothetical strikes your fancy, i.e., whatever hypothetical is a means to your ends. Then you conclude: See. Presidential immunity is a myth.
(Don’t give me this BS about courts all the time posing hypotheticals. When a hypothetical is completely divorced from reality — as Pan’s is — it should be dismissed out-of-hand.)
Pan has a history. She has ties to the Russian and the Kavanaugh hoaxes.
“What if Trump called up his friends from the Planet Krypton, and had them come down and wipe out all of Congress and Joe Biden too with their death rays, would THAT be ok?”
—-Pan DC super judge
“What if Trump . . .”
That’s a devastating mockery of this fetish with intellectually dishonest “hypotheticals.” Once you inject the arbitrary, it’s anything goes.
If you’re going to quote someone, get the quote right, and don’t cut off the relevant exchange. Sauer agrees with her that Trump’s position is “a President is immune from criminal prosecution for any official act that he takes as President, even if that action is taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose” with one exception, “if the President is impeached and convicted by the United States Senate.”
She’s exploring the implications of Sauer’s argument. She’s exploring official acts taken for an unlawful purpose. She explicitly notes that giving an order to Seal Team Six is an official act (you may disagree, but Sauer did not disagree).
Here’s a longer part of that exchange:
Judge Pan: Can I explore the implications of what you’re arguing? I understand your position to be that a President is immune from criminal prosecution for any official act that he takes as President, even if that action is taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose. Is that correct?
Sauer: With an important exception, which is that if the President is impeached and convicted by the United States Senate in a proceeding that reflects widespread political consensus, that would authorize the prosecution under the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause. So yes, with that exception.
Pan: So it seems to me that there are a lot of things that might not go through that process because it’s quite a cumbersome process that requires the action of a whole branch of government that has a lot of different people involved. And so in your view, could a President sell pardons or sell military secrets? Those are official acts, right? It’s an official act to grant a pardon, it’s an official act to communicate with a foreign government. And such a President would not be subject to criminal prosecution?
Sauer: The sale of pardons example is an excellent example because there were allegations about a sale of a pardon essentially when it came to President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, and the U.S. DOJ carefully for the very reasons we have emphasized in our brief decided not to prosecute President Clinton with that because it raised concerns about whether or not a President could be prosecuted for his official acts, was an op-ed in the National Review.
Pan: Your position is that he can’t be prosecuted for that.
Sauer: As long as it’s an official act. In certain cases, purely private contact in Clinton against Jones, he would be subject to prosecution as long as he’s not in office.
Pan: Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act, an order to Seal Team Six.
Sauer: He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution.
Pan: But if her weren’t, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?
Sauer: Chief Justice’s opinion in Marbury against Madison and our Constitution, and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose that what the Founders were concerned about was not —
Pan: I asked you a yes/no, yes or no question. Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?
Sauer: If he were impeached and convicted first.
“Here’s a longer . . .”
Oh. And they “muddy their waters, to make them appear deep.”
You still have no counter to what I said:
1. Sauer agrees with her that Trump’s position is “a President is immune from criminal prosecution for any official act that he takes as President, even if that action is taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose,” with one exception, “if the President is impeached and convicted by the United States Senate.”
2. She’s exploring the implications of Sauer’s argument. She’s exploring official acts taken for an unlawful purpose. She explicitly notes that giving an order to Seal Team Six is an official act (you may disagree, but Sauer did not disagree).
So don’t lie and claim that “That (arbitrary) hypothetical is a perfect example of the Left’s favorite trick of deception: Drop the context.”
She was not in any way dropping the context. The context is an official act, and Sauer agrees that an order to Seal Team Six is an official act. Sauer agrees that selling pardons is an official act. What you seem not to understand — or understand but purposefully ignore — is that an official act can be taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose.
BTW, it’s laughable that you think a two-minute excerpt from approximately 1hr15min-long oral arguments somehow “muddies the waters.” If you want to understand the arguments, you should actually attend to the entire thing.
“you should actually attend to the entire thing.”
And then to the entirety of the entire thing. And then to the whole of the entirety of the entire thing . . .
The “entire” thing, ad infinitum, is a typical trick of sophists. And it’s a symptom of a mind that cannot think in essentials.
Oh look, a straw man argument where you pretend that I’ve argued something I haven’t argued, and you attack your invented position, pretending that it somehow refutes what I actually said. It does not.
Attending to the entirety of the oral arguments does not muddy the waters. And attending to a two-minute excerpt that more fully illustrates the actual issue that you wanted to focus on especially does not muddy the waters.
Liar. She didn’t suggest that “Presidential immunity is a myth.”
Missing word: “Constitution.”
The good professor continues to post rational commentary which touches a nerve in extreme Leftists such that they continue to pay more and more trolls to post idiot comments here. Fun to see them lose their minds to rational thought.
This just proves it’s the far left who are fascists. All you gotta do is win elections.
Banana fanna fo fanna
Leonard Leo fo fee-o
Me My mo mee-o
Leo
Another steaming turd from turdrunner/lawn boy the banned marxist coward who promised to leave, below. vvvvv
These government charges are bogus on their faces. Obviously election interference. Biden admitted he was going to stop Trump from the presidency. Biden is inciting violence everyday and everywhere.
National Catholic Reporter Profiles Leonard Leo, Executive V.P. Of Federalist Society
For decades, Leonard Leo has been the brains behind a conservative legal movement to take over the judicial branch of government — a project that required millions and even billions of dollars. The 58-year-old has been called “the No. 3 most powerful person in the world,” but until recently many Americans hadn’t heard of him.
As the longtime executive vice president of the Federalist Society, Leo worked behind the scenes to usher in a conservative U.S. Supreme Court that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion. Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr said of him: “No one has done more to advance traditional values, and especially the right to life, than Leonard.”
“Leo’s primary conviction is that democracy will not deliver the kind of conservative values-based government that he believes America must have. He is therefore committed to building an oligarchy of the religious and the wealthy,” said Katherine Stewart, author of The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism. “That involves amassing vast sums of dark money and using it to put ‘right-thinking’ people on the courts and elsewhere in government.”
https://www.ncronline.org/news/leonard-leo-architect-conservative-supreme-court-takes-wider-culture
…………………………………………….
National Catholic Reporter notes that Leonard Leo is a committed Catholic activist. However this feature-length article is not that complimentary. One needn’t read far to discern that Leonard Leo is someone with his fingers in way too many pies.
“She’s got her nose in yo butta”
Home guard dude from Cold Mountain
Ad Hominem is argument “to the person” rather than a debate of the issues.
Rather than ludicrously over the top scare mongering about Leonard Leo why not debate the actual issues ?
The federalist society is on of the oldest legal groups in the country. It has never been particularly controversial.
The name comes from the “federalist papers” – which are the letters/op-eds written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay to explain the constitution to voters prior to ratification. The Federalist papers are one of the most important sources for understanding how our founding fathers intended the constitution and our government to work. The Opponents of the federalists – believed that our founders went TOO FAR, that the constitution gave too much power to the federal government.
Today Federalists are defending an understanding of the constitution that jay, hamilton and Madison would not recognize. The Federalist society while being the closest reflection that we have today of the vierws of our founders is defending a view of federal power that is far greater than Jay, Madison or Hamilton – or those who wrote and ratified the constitution and the bill of rights intended.
And Yet, the Federalist position today is the strongest voice for limited government.
Until the left started attacking the federalist society – the federalist society was relatively uncontroversial.
The majority of lawyer, judges, legal scholars, law professors were members of the federalist society.
Today the great legal debate – one that we thought was over and won 250 years ago is over “the rule of law vs the rule of man”
The federalist society has always been about trying to establish the framework of the rule of law. Past debates have ASSUMED the rule of law, not man was a given. And the federalist tried to determine what were the rules for “the rule of law”.
What are the principles of statutory interpretation. How are the various rules and principles prioritized with respect to each other.
That has been their relatively uncontroversial role until very recently.
Now the federalist society is right on the battle lines of defending the entire concept of “the rule of law, not man”.
What does that means ? Most simply the question is do we determine how to apply the law and constitution – what the law and constitution mean, using a system of rules, that we apply as rigidly as we can, and that we change when we discover they are wrong or do not work.
Or do we just go with our feelings.
Absolutely Leo, the federalist society, and every rational human opposes “democracy” – as in governing by the momentary passion of the people.
Your hit piece on Leo pretends that “democracy” is a word with precise meaning. It is trivial to find quotes from every great western leader ever extolling the greatness of democracy. It is also trivial to find most of them railing about how vile and dangerous democracy is.
How is that possible ? That is easy. Democracy means many things. Some of those meanings are heinous and evil and some are the best humans have ever done at governing.
Leo is absolutely opposed to Democracy – government by the passions of the people. And absolutely behind Democracy – Government by ordered rule based liberty of individuals.
The entire yearly budget for the Federalist society is $20M – that is less than the amount of Money the Biden’s got from China.
The overwhelming majority of that budget is spent on conferences and events where issues of law – and particularly the system of rules by which we read and understand the law are debated.
I am sure that Leo would absolutely welcome you and other critics to join that debate.
The core proposition of the Federalist society is that “the rule of law, not man”, means that we govern ourselves with RULES, not passion.
It is only the far left that considers that controversial. I would note that though there is some disagreement regarding what the rules are and what their priorities are – every single supreme court justice and nearly every judge subscribes to government by rule of law, Not by the passions of the people.
Leo has been highly influential under Trump in getting people who beleive in “The rule of law” appointed to the federal judiciary under Trump.
That SHOULD be a “no brianer”.
But it is Wildly lunatic to presume that these judicial appointments are in anything close to complete agreement.
Robert Bork and Randy Barnett are both leading Federalists – yet there positions are light years apart.
I would note that it is Bork – and later Scalia and Alito that are the strong proponents to deferring to democracy.
Ultimately self government means that the people ARE the final authority on government. Absolutely no one debates that.
The aphorism “the rule of law, not man” is fundimentally
Do we jump quickly to the passions of the people,
or do we strive to govern ourselves by following rules that we have developed and tested over time.
That we change with great care and that we give great though before changing.
That we do not change what works – even if imperfect for the unknown without significant though and debate first.
“The rule of law not the rule of man”
Is about whether we govern our selves through intellect or by passion.
The One is democracy at its best, the other is democracy at its worst.
The former is the best humans have ever done at governing, the latter is the worst.
Banana fanna fo fanna
Leonard Leo fo fee-o
Me My mo mee-o
Leo
Another steaming turd from turdrunner below. vvvvv
Leonard Leo: Master Of Dark Money
Federalist Co-Chair Picks The Judges
Leonard Leo is not a household name in these United States, unless you reside in the household of a conservative billionaire or a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Then you would be aware that Leo is one of the most influential individuals in the country, who has been remarkably successful in serving as a matchmaker between conservative justices and fabulously wealthy conservative Americans. He’s forged a convenient marriage of monetary power with judicial power.
Leo played an outsized role in the installation of the Supreme Court’s six-member conservative supermajority. He cut his teeth working for the appointment of Clarence Thomas. His strong support for all five of the other Republican appointees was instrumental in seating them. Leo also gets much credit for placing a tremendous number of ideologues on the various circuits of the U.S. appellate courts, particularly during the Trump presidency.
Of course, you don’t get that kind of clout in Washington without money, lots of money. The Federalists and Leo seem to have an inexhaustible supply of that corrupting commodity from conservative businesses and individuals. Between 2014 and 2017 alone, Leo collected more than $250 million in dark money for the Federalists and their affiliates. It was reported last year that a trust linked to Leo had been gifted $1.6 billion for his work, thanks to a Federalist contact.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4068448-leonard-leo-an-extraordinary-matchmaker-between-judges-and-billionaires/
I checked, the Constitution gives the power to nominate SCOTUS Justices to the President.
Turdrunner/Lawn Boy, the banned entitled little marxist kunt, gives his finger to society and JT and posts anyway
What, George Soros, not doing enough for you to destroy our country?
Wow, you have discovered that politics exists. Amazing.
As noted before – the federalist budget is $20/year. Very little of which goes to getting particular judges confirmed.
If “money” is your big issue – then it is democrats and the left who are the great threat.
On pretty much everything the left outspends the right by a factor of 2 or 3 to 1.
It is not even close.
The good news for the country is that though money is a factor in many things, it is rarely determinative, and never solely determinative. Further it has massive diminishing returns problems.
It is entirely possible that the quite small amount of money that Leo has any control over has outsized impact compatered tot eh ACTUAL hundreds of millions that is spent in opposition.
Why ? Because ultimately the merits does matter more than money.
Estimately spending to get Biden re-elected in 2024 will be over 2B. Trump will likely spend less than half that.
Yet Trump is leading. DeSantis spent over $200m to try to defeat Trump – and is barely out of single digits in the polls.
one of the massively stupid problems of those on the left is that YOU make everything about money.
YOU are fixated more on many that the alleged robber barons that terrify you.
Yet all over the place we have examples of the failure of massive amounts of money
and the success of fiscal restraint.
We spent $7T and Covid – and in doing so destroyed out own economy and accomplished nothing.
We spent a fortune on vaccines that do not work.
Over the past 50 years we have increased education spending at all levels by a factor of 4, and we are doing measurably worse at all levels than 50 years ago.
We spent $1/3 of a Trillion recovering from Katrina – and still have a mess.
We spent a fraction of that on Rita which did more damage and today you would not know Rita ever occurred.
In 1965 US healthcare spending was below that of Europe and our health outcomes were better.
As the Government has moved more and more into healthcare – US healthcare costs have skyrocketed, and out performance has declined.
PPACA spends an additional 2T every decade – and rising on healthcare with absolutely no positive benefit.
About the only thing it has accomplished is the rapid destruction of small doctors practices and turning medicine from a profession into a factory. Turning doctors from entrepreneurs to skilled labor.
I can go on and on and on.
Money is a lubricant. It makes it easier to accomplish difficult things.
But it does not care whether what is being accomplished is good or bad.
Further as should be obvious to all, there is only so much lubricant that is effective for any problem.
Pound dirt, Dems!!
I tried to read the latest comments but it was so boring that I fell asleep…
Benson, you can sleep and type, an unusual form of multitasking.
That proves your highly touted, superior intellect.
It’s Leonard Leo’s Court
If Americans had heard of Leonard Leo at all, it was for his role in building the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. He drew up the lists of potential justices that Donald Trump released during the 2016 campaign. He advised Trump on the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Before that, he’d helped pick or confirm the court’s three other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But the guests who gathered that night under a tent in Leo’s backyard included key players in a less-understood effort, one aimed at transforming the entire judiciary.
To pay for all this, Leo became one of the most prolific fundraisers in American politics. Between 2014 and 2020, tax records show, groups in his orbit raised more than $600 million. His donors include hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, Texas real estate magnate Harlan Crow and the Koch family.
https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority
………………………………
Leonard Leo is co-chair of the Federalist Society and the most powerful fixer in America. Though amazingly his name is not widely known to most Americans.
Leonard Leo fo fio
Banana fanna bo fanna
Mi my mo fio
Leo
Turdrunner:Lawn Boy the banned troll, keeps on breaking his word to leave
News: Fanny Willis has been having a humping affair with the guy she brought in to prosecute Trump while she paid him nearly 400 grand and he has been taking her on exotic vacations with the money.
Well, isn’t that criminal of the demoncrat, the case is now collapsing, and Fanny is going to the slammer.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The issues regarding Willis are interesting.
I am not sure how consequentially they are legally – though it is probably that one or both must be removed from Prosecuting this case,
It does not effect the abilty of Fulton County to prosecute the case – that it WOULD matter if the case is little more than the political vendatta that most people grasp.
More interesting is Trump’s motion to dismiss in GA.
The left has fdixed on the expected garbage that occurred in the DC court of appeals yesterady.
The motion in GA addresses all of that.
Not only has what has occured with Trump never occured before – it has never occured because from our founders, from the federalist papers, From Marbury Vs. Madison – from the actions of innumerable presidents no prosecutor anywhere has ever considered this appropriate.
Contr4a the DC courts claim – it is NOT that no president has ever done this before – The GA motion cites myriads of simlar actions by prior presidents.
Grant sent troops into the south driven by allegations of election fraud, and directed them to prevent and punish election fraud that they observed.
In thousands of instances the opposing political party has claimed that the actions of the current president were illegal, criminal, treasonous, seditions, …. the Rhetoric of our political parties with respect to their oponents has been over the top for most of the histoyr of this country.
What Jefferson and Adams said about each other when they were in office or running against each other makes the remarks of Biden and Trump look tame.
The Blatantly political actions of prior presidents are more egregious than those today.
There is nothing that Trump did that is particularly unusual – either with respect tot he distant or recent past.
Nor is Trump’s claim of immunity unusual.
Federal judges enjoy absolute immunity. That is NOT in the constitution, but rests on EXACTLY the same clauses in the constitution as presidential immunity as well as the same portions of the federalist papers.
Marbury Vs. Madison. Which is the most significant Supreme court case in US history found that the actions of the president are NOT REVEIWABLE by the courts PERIOD.
There is a long long long list of cases addressing Judicial immunity which derives EXCLUSIVELY from executive immunity,
As well as Legislative immunity which is independent, but based on similar clauses int he constitution and near universally equated in past court cases.
There are litterally hundreds of past cases on immunity.
With respect to judges – whose immunity derives from Executive immunity – there is no sperate immunity in the constitution for the judiciary,
the historic determination fo the courts is that even for Judicial actions OUTSIDE the role of a federal judge, the judge must be inpeached, and convicted by the senate BEFORE they can be criminally prosecuted. This despite the fact that there are BROADER grounds for impeaching a judge than the president.
The motion also points out that Trumps actions are indistinguishable from centuries of presidentical actions that no one has even dreamed about criminally prosecuting.
One of the more recent examples is there has been no effort to prosecute Pres. Obama for murdering a US citizen by Drone in Yemen.
Jonathan
Its not looking good for Fani making it to the end of the Trump trial, unless its dismissed pretty soon.
Looks like she could occupy that cell she had picked out for Donny soon.
Hiring her zero experience lover boy for a cool million the day after he files for divorce
He pays 2 visits to the white house for 8 hours (2 grand apiece) but there’s no collusion
They go on trips to the carribean and napa valley on the slush fund. Just strategy junkets i suppose?
Gee, Dennis is going to be devastated that his unrequited love for Fani may never be requited.
I can still remember when he called that fine black b*tch “the first intelligent black woman in a courtroom”
Trump’s presidential immunity argument – which IS correct, cuts both ways.
Absent impeachment and conviction by the Senate, Biden, Mayorkas, Garland, are NOT subject to criminal prosecution for the means by which they conduct their jobs.
The ability to prosecute Willis is unfortunately similarly barred or at the very least impaired.
The Willis information is damning and undermines her prosecution of Trump and the public perception.
But that is enough.
I found it interesting that Even Anderson Cooper recently admitted that Joe Biden had lied when he claimed in the Debates that is Son had no business deals with China, Ukraine or Russia.
There have been more Rumblings about Michelle Obama getting into the 2024 PResidential race – possibly as a draft candidate at the convention.
All this is a strong signal that Democrats are in very deep trouble, and they KNOW it.
I keep reviewing the polls – Trump is purportedly abotu 2pts ahead of Biden – that is a nearly 7pt gain since the election.
An election that was won by only 44,000 votes.
But more disturbing is that the polls by demographic group are WORSE. I do not understand this – because the some of the parts should match the whole.
But Trump is now winning in EVERY age cohort.
Trump has gained about 20pts in nearly every minority group. Purportedly Black males are running 30-mo% for Trump.
Which is also related to the draft Michelle Obama talk. Harris is hated worse than Biden.
Gavin Newsome is a pasty white male. Democrats can not win in 2024 without reverting large Trump gains among minorities.
Further there is a deep democrat concern – that LIKE the Budwiser shifts, that If Trump’s political gains in various groups are not quickly reversed they will become permanent. The Democratic party has no future if they do not win atleast 70% of the hispanic vote and 90% of the black vote.
Yet for various reasons they are losing ground EVERYWHERE.
Further – While Biden is a boat anchor for the Democratic party. There is no head to head comparison between Biden and Trump that Biden does not lose. There is a bigger problem with the democratic party as a whole.
Voters are blaming Biden for the mess we have today.
But they are also blaming Democrats. This is NOT a Biden only issue.
And that implicates significant down ballot consequences.
Republicans are near certain to retake the Senate this year – even if Biden wins the presidency.
But under normal circumstances should lose the house.
But there are indications that the red Tsunami that fizzled in 2022 is coming in 2024.
Republicans were energized in 2022. But democrats were more energized than expected. Whether By Dobbs or other factors.
The in party was more motivated to vote in 2022 than expected.
But Democrats are increasingly despondent in 2024. Far more than in 2022, and Republicans are if anything more energized than in 2022.
Which again is why the Talk of Michelle Obama. Democrats need a historic superstar to enter the race to keep from getting obliterated.
This election is not about the fate of Democracy.
But it is about the fate of Democrats, and particularly the far left.
“An election that was won by only 44,000 votes.”
John, the 44,000 isn’t a number that correlates with a specific number of actual votes. I believe the Democrats stuffed the ballots until they obtained their margin of victory.
We face that in the next election, and I believe we are going to see AI raise its ugly head and swamp Republicans.
Fauci responded “i dont recall” over 100 times in his closed door interview with Congress
This clown is more responsible for millions of deaths than any Chinese. He is a despicable human being.
As Ron DeSantis correctly pointed out, Trump awarded presidential commendations to Fauci and 51 other people who served on Operation Warp Speed on his last day in office.
BTW, Trump took the 5th amendment against self-incrimination over 400 times during his sworn deposition to answer questions about the Trump Organization’s financial affairs.
Obviously Fauci had a lot of people fooled.
Where the —- are questions about anyone’s affairs in the Constitution? The government can’t tax for anything other that debt, defense, and general Welfare, and the government can’t regulate anything but the value of money, the flow of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, per the 5th Amendment right to private property, only the owner has the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional. The people are free while the government is severely limited and restricted. The “dictatorship of the hired help” is unconstitutional. The Founders got rid of dictatorship when they got rid of the British monarchy.
Where the —- did you go to school, comrade?
Perfunctory and routine protocol.
But Trump. But Trump. Don’t you people have any other form of argument??? Yeesh!
Please provide a citation ?
We get claims like this all the time.
They are so common and so uniformly wrong, I am not longer interested in what an anonymous left wing note posts until they can support that.
What a dummy. A person pleading the 5th can’t choose what he can answer or not answer. You don’t know that and you don’t know what that means. 400, 1,000,000 times or just once is exactly the same thing. The number is only impressive to the fool, YOU!
You don’t think the massive hissyfit Republicans threw over every covid prevention and mitigation recommendation had anything to do with it?
Sammy Metamucil with an unusual nighttime deuce.
I guess he got up to empty his tiny bladder and dropped a turd for good measure.
Anything to do with what?
Yes, Republicans threw a hissyfit over unconstitutional and immoral infringements on our rights that had absolutely no benefit and are proving to have been harmful.
Is there ANYTHING that our public authorities did to thwart Covid that you are prepared to claim was even minimally efective ?
Anything ?
We not only KNEW most of this would not work BEFORE hand, but the data we have gleaned from Covid is undermining many of these things in areas we thought DID work.
We have NEVER EVER EVER stopped an airborn virus once it gets a foothold – NEVER.
No mitigation strategy has EVER worked against virus’s with hald the transmission rate of the original C19 virus.
And the same health expects that touted vaious mitigation strategies KNEW that.
But epidemiological data from the lockdowns is revealing that they did not work – even against other diseases that they SHOULD have worked on. We have from public health data from Covid data on the transmission of non-airborne diseases. That is revealing that the Lockdowns, as well as social distancing, and disinfectants did NOT work against diseases spread by contact – such as gastrointestinal diseases. Not only was the spread of Covid uneffected by our mitigation strategies – but other diseases that we beleived in the past would absolutely be effected by these strategies WEREN”T.
We do not as of yet understand Why these strategies did not work against diseases that we thought they should have worked against – but we KNOW they did not.
The FACT ios that the instances in which top down central planning works in ANY domain are extremely rare, and only very small portions of public health actually benefit from top down solutions.
Dont think for a second this isnt coming here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3LjmQ5Ck7Ik
So many things happened Today that were vitally important to Our Country, Our Constitution, Our Lives.
Yet 99.999% of You were so comfortably numb inside the Matrix Industrial Complex that you did even notice a thing.