This week, the argument before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson captivated the nation as the justices considered the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. For some of us, the argument brought back vivid memories of covering Bush v. Gore almost 25 years ago. While one justice (Clarence Thomas) remains on the Court, the last major intervention of the Court into a close presidential election is a matter of distant history.
As someone who covered both cases, much is regrettably familiar: the deep division in the country and rage of many advocates. However, unlike in 2000, the Court itself appears virtually unanimous in this case. The biggest difference is not the Court but the coverage.
The Trump case exposed the erosion of legal coverage in the media. For millions of Americans, the cold reception of all of the justices to the novel theory under the 14th Amendment came as a surprise. Networks and newspapers have been featuring experts who assured the public that this theory was well-based and disqualification well-established. The only barrier, they insisted, was the blind partisanship of the six conservative justices on the Court.
Twenty-four years ago, I was covering the Bush v. Gore case for CBS. I had just left NBC as an analyst when the election controversy exploded. While there were the usual partisans and some outlets slanted the merits, the legal analysis was overall balanced and informative.
This is not a case of the Court changing. We have changed as legal analysts. The Court itself is deeply divided on some issues. However, the justices gave a fair hearing to both sides. That is not the case with the coverage.
Looking back at the coverage, most legacy media called upon the same legal experts who have previously endorsed virtually every claim made against Trump. They predictably declared Trump as clearly disqualified despite the fact that this theory has never been embraced by the federal courts.
Figures like federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig who called these arguments against disqualification as “revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical.” Others insisted that the argument that the provision might not apply to presidents was “absurd.” That was the argument pushed by Justice Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson.
Many of the media turned to Professor Laurence Tribe despite a long record of constitutional claims rejected by the Court, in some cases unanimously. Tribe assured the public that the theory was “unassailable” and also insisted that the theory (later voiced by Jackson) is “an absurd interpretation.”
It is important that such views are heard in the coverage. The problem is that the media has, once again, pushed this novel (and in my view unfounded) theory to the point that many assumed that it was indeed unassailable.
What was most troubling is the repeated attacks on the Court by legal experts who suggested that the only thing keeping Trump on the ballot was the bias of conservative justices. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D. Md.) declared “This is their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.” It appears that both Justices Kagan and Jackson did not behave like “real Supreme Court justices” in oral argument by objecting to core aspects of this theory.
We will have to wait for the final opinion but most of us are predicting a reversal of Colorado and the possibility of a unanimous or near unanimous decision. The question is whether such a result will change how media outlets frame these disputes in the future. After weeks of portraying the opposition as only resting with the right of the Court, the coverage had a weird disjointed feel as some of the same commentators reported that the justices appeared uniformly unconvinced by this “unassailable” theory.
So if the SC rules against immunity for Trump, then Pandora’s box is opened. Obama provided billions in cash and precious metals to a listed terrorist Nation while America was at war, treason by definition. Joe Biden has more evidence against him in Hunter’s bribery and extortion scams than Disney has queers. Clintons’ and Bushs’ hang on, Let the chips fall where they may.
Obama had the military kill 4 Americans, one of these extrajudicial murders he ordered. No one is above the law.
Obama has an OLC memo justifying it, so at least he has some legal back-up (whether or not you agree with their reasoning). Trump, on the other hand, has zero legal back-up for his indicted actions.
Democrats had their Jim Crow Laws to justify their racist actions
trolls are not what they used to be
And because they had the law on their side, they weren’t jailed, only immoral. Obama is not at risk of being jailed. Trump is.
The OLC
OK I’ll play stupid. Where does the power of the OLC emanate from? I mean you are employing the logical fallacy of, ‘Defering to Authority” So explain where the office gets its power (authority)
If you don’t know the answer to your question, look it up for yourself instead of demanding to be tutored.
I’m sorry, he had a CAPTIVE analyst write him an excuse note… Just like the Torture Memo that Bush found a legal hack to write. The OLC is not exactly independent AND its full of partisan hacks that will come-up with something to justify anything, including torture, illegal imprisonment, murder… So, don’t go there… We know the score.
And Bush hasn’t been prosecuted for the same reason. I didn’t say that you have to like it, or that it means the decision was moral.
Would that be the same “OLC” that just happened to get an advance copy of Hur’s report and fired off a letter on behalf of POTATUS, demanding that Hur delete the descriptions of senility that purportedly justified his dismissal of the crimes? That one?
No. The letter from the WH appended to the report certainly didn’t come from the OLC.
And it was no accident that Biden got a copy of Hur’s report before it was released to the public, just like Trump got a copy of the Mueller Report before it was released to the public.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.”
“And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
– President Donald J. Trump, January 6, 2021
_________________________________________________
Ultimately, Congress oversees the conduct of elections by States.
No act of insurrection occurred or effects eligibility.
The 14th Amendment does not bear.
President Trump did not conduct insurrection, has never been charged with insurrection, and has never been convicted of insurrection.
Colorado has executed a willful, malicious, political, and illicit act, that being the denial of eligibility bereft of any legal basis, for which the Supreme Court must assess a penalty.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Professor Turley states, “It is important that such views are heard in the coverage. The problem is that the media has, once again, pushed this novel (and in my view unfounded) theory to the point that many assumed that it was indeed unassailable.
BRAVO PROFESSOR TURLEY!
And I believe it may be intentional, i.e., -media’s reliance on the likes of Lawrence Tribe, Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissman, etc. Since the Left controls main stream media (MSM), and even major networks like CNN, MSNBC, etc., there is created the impression that the legal views on those networks represent the overwhelming, “unassailable,” educated, enlightened, correct, and prudent conclusion, –spoon-fed to the general public.
This, in turn, creates a win-win for media and the Left:
– if the Court allows Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot, we face a smug population of the Chosen, enlightened ones who will bask in their “we told you so” superiority. –And if the Court rules against Colorado, those same “enlightened” ones will dismiss the decision as being the result of those darned right-wing conservatives on the Court, which accordingly, is why the Nation needs either term limits or an increase in the number of sitting Justices to dilute those unenlightened conservatives!
Right, Lin.
This was an outlandish theory from the beginning, overturning 150 years of settled understandings since Griffin’s case. Yet it quickly became the predominant narrative. (Just as lockdowns suddenly overturned settled understandings of how to handle epidemics.)
The S.C. will shut this one down, either 9-0 or possibly 8-1, though potentially with multiple rationales.
The immunity question is much more difficult. But note that the issue has only arisen because Biden broke the norm since the dawn of the US of not bringing criminal prosecutions against a former president. To avoid descent into the abyss, the Court should expand Fitzgerald and find immunity for official acts and then remand to the district court to determine whether Trump was acting in his official capacity or not.
Had Ford not pardoned Nixon, Nixon would have been indicted, and in my opinion, that would have been better for the long-term well-being of the country. Presidents shouldn’t be committing crimes.
And Biden wasn’t the one who indicted Trump.
SCOTUS should deny the stay and either confirm the DCCA’s ruling or deny cert. Let a jury decide whether Trump is guilty of the alleged crimes.
And Biden wasn’t the one who indicted Trump.
Its a start. Admitting Biden is nothing but a figure head.
I said no such thing. The DOJ indicted Trump. Jay Bratt signed the FL indictment and serves under Smith, and Smith signed the DC indictment. Biden isn’t Bratt or Smith, and Biden did not direct Bratt or Smith to indict Trump.
But don’t let that get in the way of your lying. It’s all you have.
The DOJ works for Biden. And I’m not sure Ford would have broken norms to indict Nixon. In any event he didn’t, and it fell to Biden to destroy norms.
The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. That doesn’t imply that the President dictates the DOJ indictments. Just like Trump didn’t dictate the indictments during his presidency, much as he wished he could.
It would not have been up to Ford, just like it’s not up to Biden or Trump.
Trump’s the one who destroyed norms, not Biden.
The Executive Branch, is the President of the United States
There is no doubt The White House (Obama) is calling the shots.
“Presidents shouldn’t be committing crimes.” This is naive. Almost every President has commited acts that someone could call a “crime”. If the President is popular, those acts are forgotten. Let’s consider some of those acts: suspending habeas corpus (Lincoln); interdicting foreign ships (Lincoln); interning Americans of Japanese descent (FDR); giving weapons to combatants against a country with whom you are not at war (FDR); bombing civilians (FDR, Truman); assassinating foreign leaders (Kennedy); invading another country without a casus belli or declaration of war (G. Bush); supporting one faction in a civil war in a country with whom you are not at war; (Obama, Trump, Biden); using drones to kill civilians, including American citizens (Obama); using the IRS to ruin political opponents (FDR); using the FBI to spy on a political opponent (LBJ, Obama); using the FBI and other agencies of the state to censor ideas and books viewed as unfavorable to the adminstration (Biden); selective persecution of politiical opponents (Biden). There are hundreds of other instances of abuse of power by adminstrations that could plausably be called “criminal” and support criminal proceedings or civil lawsuits. And these are only the well-founded cases. In our day, we see accusations seemingly based on a desire for a big payday (Stormy Daniels; E Jean Carrol), or to assist a political cause (Anita Hill; Christine B. Ford; E. Jean Carrol). If an ex-President is a Republican, any woman could make a charge of sexual impropriety and automatically have the MSM taking her side and keeping the case alive.
“The opinion of the Supreme Court has all the eearmarks of Russian disinformation. The Supreme Court will pay the price for their betrayal of our Democrat Party values.”–Joint Statement Issued by Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
I would like to think that virtually all readers here would understand sarcasm when they read it, without prompting, especially when it’s on the heavier side, as here.
Twenty-four years ago, I was covering the Bush v. Gore case for CBS….the coverage was overall balanced and informative.
You are a few years older than me yet I remember a Leftist, dishonest, agenda driven MSM in 2000, the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. Cubans in Miami were assailed routinely by the MSM as uneducated, paranoid, unAmerican ungrateful wetbacks immigrants who voted along conspiracy driven, anti-Communist reactionary thinking. My father, who could not learn English with a 3rd grade education because he never learned grammatically correct Spanish, knew enough about the Miami Herald back in the 1970s, to place a plain and simple bumper sticker in Spanish, as did most Cubans, on our beat up family car. It read, large black letters on a plain white background:
¡Yo no creo el Miami Herald!
Local CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS affiliates, and the Miami Herald despised Cubans, in the 1970s, beating Hillary by > 3 decades with their sneering “deplorables” shtick. The Miami Herald reminded their readers often that Cubans were vermin. And we happily gave it right back, creating our own local news media outlets in Spanish, which forced the Herald to apologize and local big three networks to hire Cubans so as to grow their shrinking markets.
CNN was well known in the 1990s as the Clinton News Network. Rush Limbaugh, whom I never liked, built an empire in the 90s via radio, on educating Americans that the MSM were the enemy, and still are.
For the life of me I do not understand why you think the MSM reporting has only recently become slanted.
The MSM has been the enemy of Americans easily since the Vietnam War, when Jane Fonda, Hollywood elites and many of their ilk, bashed Americans, bashed the US Govt, the once sacred institutions of society like the extended family, nuclear family, marriage, church and God. Frankly how they railroaded Richard M. Nixon in the 1970s was appalling. Nancy Reagan was scorned by the MSM, Sam Donaldson routinely showed contempt to President Reagan. When Reagan showed symptoms of Alzheimers for his 2nd term, it was a feeding frenzy by the MSM. Biden today gets a pass for obvious cognitive impairment. VP Dan Quayle was vilified for defending the traditional family being led by a father and mother, when feminists and Pro-Abort Democrats lauded single parenting. George W. Bush was skewered ruthlessly by the MSM, except for maybe 30 days post 9/11. The political lies and machinations used by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama individually make Nixon look like a jaywalker.
Immigrants who fled Communist countries will gladly tell you that corrupt governments use the media to divide and conquer. That the nation today is polarized is no accident. That was their plan all along.
Yes, the MSM has been horribly slanted since the 1960s, at least. I am old enough to remember.
You are 100% right. I’m 88 and in the ’60’s I was working at the DOJ in DC. I lived it.
“The question is whether such a result will change how media outlets frame these disputes in the future.”
Let me give you an anecdotal story. Our local paper was bought out by Gannett years ago, but I kept subscribing through all the indoctrination-type stories about homosexuals, women’s rights, civil rights, how bad the KKK was way back when, etc. etc. Last April, after the Nashville tranny went postal and killed a bunch of kids, the paper ran a big story about how Trans People Were The Pioneers of Our Age! There were pictures and everything. I cancelled my subscription. Since then, I have gotten numerous calls for me to renew my subscription. So I tell the sales people, over the phone, why I cancelled and how fed up I had become with all the SJW bullcrap, and the Trans stuff in particular. Almost all of them have said that they understand, because other people are telling them the same thing. So it is not like it is just me. Yet Gannett does not fire the people running the local paper. Their continued presence has to be financially harming the company, yet they continue to be employed.
ALTHOUGH, Gannett has been laying lots of people off and closing papers in other places. Maybe, this is why the media does not “wake up”:
““Macroeconomic volatility” is essentially corporate speak for: Gannett is losing money. In November, the company announced a net loss of $54.1 million in the three-month period ending Sept. 30, compared to a $14.7 million net income in the same time period last year. The company reported a 10.3% decline in revenue year over year to $717.9 million in the third quarter. The company said it expects a total net loss of $60 million to $70 million this year.
Gannett CEO Mike Reed earned $7.74 million in 2021, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings. That is approximately 160 times the median salary of a Gannett worker, according to the national union representing communication workers, the NewsGuild-CWA.”
https://michiganadvance.com/2022/12/17/everyones-just-a-dollar-sign-to-them-gannett-journalists-reel-from-new-cutbacks/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CMacroeconomic%20volatility%E2%80%9D%20is%20essentially%20corporate,same%20time%20period%20last%20year.
———————
So maybe until Mike Reed, and all those like him in the media, find themselves out on the street without a job, nothing will change. And maybe not even then, because these clowns are probably set for life.
Forgive the double dip, but this decision pretty much dictates our future: if we lose our right to vote in good conscience we are literally just another banana republic or dictatorship. That our modern dem party has done this to us, and you’ better believe they have, every one of them, even if just paint us in this corner – 😡 What the modern left has wrought is the kind of thing we used to think was impossible in a free republic. Destroy them. Destroy the modern left.
James: The thought process of disciples is nothing short of stunning. You claim that the MAGA-stacked SCOTUS, chosen by the Federalist Society and nominated by an election cheater “pretty much dictates our future”. You are correct, but for the wrong reasons. Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch all LIED to get onto the bench–they barefaced lied about their position on stare decisis and Roe v. Wade. McConnell refused to allow Barak Obama to nominate a replacement for RBG, allegedly due to the proximity of the election, but when the tables were turned, Republicans didn’t follow their own precedent. Republicans cut off witnesses who wanted to testify about Kavanaugh. This is how “we” got stuck with Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. These are facts.
Where is there any “right” for Trump to run for office after he tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election by spreading the Big Lie and inducing people to storm the Capitol and “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”? Even Trump referred to Jan 6th as an “insurrection”, so apparently, there’s no dispute that it was. You claim “our modern dem party has done this to us”. WHO is the “us” to whom you refer? The MAJORITY of Americans did NOT vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020, which is another inconvenient fact. Gore was denied even one recount–but Trump got dozens of them that all proved he lost, but he still won’t stop lying, and gullibles like you still believe him. You claim the “modern left” …”has wroght” something “we (who?) used to think was impossible in a free republic.” The only threat to a “free republic” is Trump, who is running the Republican Party–a Republican Party that hammered out a bipartisan plan to address border issues that was nixed by Trump because he thinks he can use the border crisis to his advantage in his campaign. This is literally “the kind of thing we (real Americans, the majority) used to think was impossible in a free republic.” You have a wannabe dictator, a malignant narcisssist, an inveterate liar, established defamer if a woman he raped, who tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans, de facto runing the country despite getting voted out of office. And, do you think for one minute that Putin and Xi aren’t watching the fiasco Trump is causing and not laughing their axxes off that there are so many gullibles like you out there believing the lies put out by alt-right media and Trump and Trump’s total manipulation of the Republican Party? A party that stands by and won’t honor America’s commitment to help Ukraine fight off Russia? Destory them–the ReTrumplican Party that will stand idly by and watch Fentanyl flood our country, killing hundreds of thousands because Trump told them to refuse the bipartisan Border Security Bill, a party that wants to enact a nationwide abortion ban, that stacked the SCOTUS with Federalist Society politicians who lied to get on the bench, that wants to take away Social Security and Medicare, and will do anything for power except win fair and square, because it knows that most Americans disagree with their policies and their exalted leader.
No, GiGi, what Putin and XI are laffing their axxes off about is this:
If you actually believe that Garland should be on the Supreme Court, I have nothing but pity for you.
Not even pity here. Renewed determination to crush them.
Puss Puss
When did Trump refer to J6 as an insurrection?
“Where is there any “right” for Trump to run for office after he tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election…”
The “right” exists because it was OBVIOUSLY a stolen election.
The “right” exists because the country did not elect FJB in a “free and fair” election. OBVIOUSLY.
The “mandate” exists because MOST of the country KNOWS Trump won.
the “mandate” exists because MOST of the country KNOWS that Biden was installed as an ILLEGITIMATE puppet hellbent on DESTROYING the country.
Trump 47 “Retribution” cannot come soon enough.
*to clarify: FJB’s puppet masters and handlers, hiding in the shadow government, are hellbent on destroying the country…while FJB gives them cover….and actually believes his own lie — that HE is “healing the soul of the country” as president…hahahahaha…yes, FJB actually believes his own BS….why would he believe this monstrous lie? bc he is delusional. and a criminal. LOCK HIM UP.
According to his own Justice Department, Joe Biden is a criminal who is UNFIT to stand trial.
And as far as America is concerned, he is TRAITOR who is unfit to be President.
I’m resided to the fact that 40% of the country has TDS to the point of the need for institutionalization. It is all projection. We know who the authoritarians are and how they have Sovietized the country.
@Anonymous
You are not wrong. It is bloody clinical. The rest of us are done. Just done.
Professor Turley deliberately neglects to mention that the amicus briefs in Colorado’s 14th amendment case were filed by Republicans & Capitol police officers, not Democrats.
As Politico reported: “Basically no Democratic officials — either current or former — filed amicus briefs in this case. But some former Republican elected officials did, asking the high court to uphold his disqualification…A group of current and former Capitol police officers who are suing Trump for his role on Jan. 6 also filed a brief here, saying that “speech integral to an alleged act of insurrection, like Mr. Trump’s speech on and leading up to January 6, lies entirely outside the First Amendment’s ambit.'”
Turley cites Raskin’s comment about SCOTUS, but presumably gives Trump a pass when he declared “The U.S. Supreme Court has been totally incompetent and weak on the massive Election Fraud that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election. We have absolute PROOF, but they don’t want to see it – No “standing”, they say.”
@Anonymous
Prof. Turley never fails to mention anything; truth be told he can be pedantic o the law, and re the law that is necessary. You are a ridiculous person. Nobody cares.
Making an argument based on the party affiliation of someone who filed an amicus brief? Seriously? Just so you know, that sounds pretty desperate. Laughable even.
I hear ya, oldmanfromkansas. It’s downright laughable that Capitol police officers are suing Trump for inciting an insurrection, right? Hey, why get all worked up about the 140 police officers who were injured on January 6, 2021 & the 3 officers who lost their lives afterwards?
https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/police-union-over-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-siege-NSi5xcpt1sIELYvJ/
I’ve seen some non-sequiturs, but that one’s a doozy.
You nailed it, oldmanfromkansas. Definitely a doozy of a non-sequitur in a 14 amendment case to disqualify Trump for inciting an insurrection to mention Capitol police officers suing Trump for inciting an insurrection!
Suing Trump is a good way to make money, if you are in the right court.
Ok, can we all say, “Never Trumpers”? Excellent, I knew you could! LOL
Well there is the chance the media will change. The increasing losses at The NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times and the increasing loss of MSNBC and CNN suggest that the public may becoming more aware and the MSM will have to adopt or disappear. Their audiences drop and their revenue streams are under severe pressure and now “gasp” there are layoffs. Disney, Bud Light and others in the Market Place have started to see the light (and losses) of this mass hysteria and delusions. Even the “elite” universities are losing gifts from previously reliable Alumni. Nothing focuses the mind like the sudden absence of money..
One wonders what will tumble out if Trump does win and the WH suddenly is no longer funding and pressuring news media to present only the “approved slant” on news and other stories. There could be trickle down effect in many industries, climate studies, CRT, DEI, unions labor relations and immigration. Military, foreign policy and such.
Once the big rock is overturned, no telling what will be seen scurrying for the dark spaces, out of the muck that has accumulated over the decades.
Amazing in such a short time we see the ineptness of Sec Blinken in the Middle East, the total unraveling of the accommodation with Iran and then the President’s wonderful performance before the News Media last nite. I guess he will be confined to the basement for the rest of the campaign season.
When the Supreme Court’s final Ruling does not match the Media’s Delusions, they will quickly pivot to another subject with no apology!
Hoo boy. If we lose our courts, we lose everything. I do not even know what to say anymore.
TDS sufferers, along with the rest of the wokesters and prog/left jihadis will never admit to anything that does not comport with their skewed and agenda-driven ideology. It is getting beyond absurd to even contemplate reasoned, logic-based, fact-based information would alter the indoctrinated fanaticism that has become the cornerstone to almost half of this nation. This could be worse than the intimidated Germans who went along with the nazi propaganda out of fear of retribution, this is a matter of dealing with millions of citizens who have been so grossly misled and who believe with all the ferventness of any religious fanatic that they have the truth and the light on their side. How would it be possible to de-program so many who are so ignorant of their own ignorance? I fear that this will not be doable by any normal means.
It is “beyond absurd” that you characterize “almost half of this nation” as “TDS sufferers,” “wokesters” and “prog/left jihadis” with a “skewed and agenda-driven ideology” that “could be worse than the intimidated Germans who went along with the nazi propaganda,” and “who believe with all the ferventness of any religious fanatic,” yet seem to offer you own views as based on “reasoned, logic-based, fact-based information.”
It is so sad that you cannot recognize propaganda and a fanatic horde whipped to a frenzy by propaganda machines owned by the wokesters and prog/left. Are you, perhaps, one of those so mis-led and indoctrinated that you cannot see your own erroneous concept of what is happening? Perhaps a few history lessons with Thomas Sowell rather than Lawrence Tribe would do you some good.
How bizarre that you think I’d follow Lawrence Tribe.
There is as much propaganda on the right as on the left. There is as much fanaticism on the right as on the left. That you cannot see this speaks to your own indoctrination.
I observe all of this with an eye to the past. As a college educated and degreed historian, I always make comparisons to what has gone in the past as “there is nothing new under the sun” as a wise person once said. If you can recognize the patterns of behavior that reflect other egregious periods in history you can easily assess what is happening here. The only difference, now, is that the entire world is involved because of international travel and communications being so facile that once this woke/prog/agenda-driven fanaticism gets truly rolling we may not be able to stem the tide of a very dangerous and probably destructive direction for the human species. You seem to want to make this an us vs them problem when it is much bigger than that and, for now, I would say that those on the conservative side of things have a far better grasp at what is happening and will happen than those following the indoctrination machines at work in our media/education industry.
“You seem to want to make this an us vs them problem”
LOL that you project that onto me, when you’re the one who started this sub-thread by characterizing “almost half of this nation” as “TDS sufferers,” “wokesters” and “prog/left jihadis” with a “skewed and agenda-driven ideology” that “could be worse than the intimidated Germans who went along with the nazi propaganda,” and “who believe with all the ferventness of any religious fanatic.”
it is the truth about the divided state of our society. parsing words with me will not alter that status. Speaking the plain truth about the fractured, delicate balance that we now have resembles the vitriolic nature leading to our past civil war. Just pay attention to history rather than the talking prognosticators on the payroll of the propaganda machines on both sides. Clear away the detritus of useless “news alerts” and just sift through history to see where we are. I support our founding fathers, that’s all and I have no love for half of the republican party that gave us the likes of McConnell, Romney and others who like the swamp the way it is. And Rutherford B. Hayes had the same situation of attempting to clean up the swamp that was the bloated bureaucracy and he met with the same stolid resistance – corruption knows no side but the dems have taken this to unbelievable levels of snark and absurdity.
Again, you’re the one who falsely claimed “You seem to want to make this an us vs them problem” when you’re the one doing it.
Describing factual data is not “doing it’ but then, when you have no other means of justifying your unsubstantiated assertion that there is not a split down the center of this nation concerning the direction in which the progs have aimed us this past century, you must claim someone is trying to divide us rather than own up to what is becoming more and more apparent – we are 2 distinct and oppositional nations residing within one piece of real estate – only one side of this situation can and will survive – now that is a story for another day.
Oh, kinda like HRC saying that nearly half the country could be put into the “Basket of deplorables”? HRC started it, Whimsical Mama is simply finishing it by stating her opinion of nearly half the country. Hey, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
“like HRC saying that nearly half the country could be put into the “Basket of deplorables”
She didn’t. She said that half of Trump’s supporters (which are themselves less than half the country) could be put in a basket of deplorables. You do understand that half of less than half is less than 1/4, right?
Whimsicalmama,
I say let them wallow in their absurd delusions.
Their narratives either have failed or are failing. The Russia hoax failure. The COVID failure. There is no invasion crisis on the Southern border failure. Bidenomics failure. The EV and to a lesser degree green energy failure. Various foreign policy failures to include the proxy war with Russia. The Hur report Biden is mentally incompetent to stand trial. Something that has been quite obvious to the whole world. Now the possible keep Trump off the ballot fail.
They either accept reality, or continue their delusions.
Us normal people just have to continue to point out the facts to them, even if they do not wish to hear it.
Tragically, the facts are right in front of their blinded eyes. I can think of no logical, constitutionally righteous or other peaceable means of undoing what generations of closet socialist/communist/atheist/racist/delusional forces have done to this society. This will take a revolutionary movement of great force to undo this and I have my doubts if we cannot even admit that our POTUS is a crazy old coot who needs a keeper.
I could not agree more with you. I think we all grew up with the idea that a person hits rock bottom, and then they wake up and get off the booze or drugs or whatever. But as I got older, I realized that some people, and maybe even most people, do not respond to that paradigm, and even though they are hospitalized, revived in ambulances, lose their families, lose their friends, lose their jobs, find themselves having sex for drugs, or sleep in cardboard boxes, they do not wake up. How then, do you wake up someone who lives in a gated community, and still has a community of fellow idiots who believe the same thing? A person for whom life is still good, and does not have to deal with thugs shooting up the neighborhood, or illegal aliens stealing their jobs, A person whose kid is not getting beat up in school, and a person who has plenty of money to pay the bills? They can continue to pretend until a Patton or an Ike forces them to clean up the dead bodies over at the concentration camp, metaphorically speaking. I am not sure even something of that magnitude would change some of the people in this country. But you are right – I think this is how good people became Nazis.
Yup, just like the experts who told us there was evidence of Trump-Russia collusion and that President Trump was going to be removed or sent to prison because of it.
If the SC comes with a unanimous, what spin will they spin?
That this SC is not valid? Not representing the people? That it is compromised? Will we have great legal minds like AOC declaring we do not need a SC, or Constitution, or laws?
@Upstate
Yup. Everything may be on the line with this one decision. I confess, I am at a loss. This is not my country and every single dem is responsible. I am an independent. Do we really have to resort to fighting this fascism with arms? Really?
Anyone who suggests taking up arms against fellow Americans is anti-law-and-order and is fanning the flames of division.
We would not be in this position if woke leftists were not pushing for fascism.
As I have stated many times on the good professor’s blog, a civil war must be avoided at all costs.
However, while I will not start it, I will finish it.
Just who do you think it going to start it? No one on the left is advocating civil war.
If one starts, any sane President will use the military to stop it. Not sure why you think your decision to act unlawfully is needed.
You engage in civil war hourly on this blog. Youd be the first to gas a Trump supporter just like Hillary, Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, and on and on and on….
troll harder cupcake.
Of course they aren’t, because they’d lose. The Detroitization of the nation continues and either the right is going to stop it from happening or there will be ‘right flight’ and the nation will be left just like good ole Detroit, Paris of America.’
If you cannot reason with people and those people utilize lies and deceit to gain power and then claim they are legitimate, there are really few options, and f’ing them up hard is one of those.
The lies, the lack of personal responsibility, the creation of a high regulation, low trust nation is not acceptable.
Yes. The leftists have been advocating for civil war since 2016.
You just call it the “resistance.” Clinton was calling for it three seconds she found out she lost.
Then we see it when other rich elites like Jane Fonda goes on The View and says the solution is to murder them. Of course they play it off like a joke, but looking at her face, you can tell she was dead serious.
Then there were all the calls for children to be removed from their parents if the parents were Trump supporters.
Or how about the re-eudcation camps?
How about the known collusion between the Biden admin and social media sites like Twitter and Facebook to censor anyone who went against their narrative?
The censorship of conservatives on college campuses?
You can call it what you want, but us normal people see it as an attack on normal values, pushing for totalitarian government and society of socialism, Marxism, and then communism.
That is pushing for a civil war.
And if it is the leftists that start the war, would you be okay with the President using military force on all those leftists?
Civil War involves hundreds of thousands (or more) of Americans killed in the battles. “The resistance” is not a civil war.
It’s funny how a “civil war” requires the deaths of hundreds of thousands (or more) killed in battles, but an “insurrection” only requires some elderly people walking through the Capitol Building taking selfies. OK, one guy was wearing a hat with horns.
If you think all of the people who broke into the Capitol were just “elderly people walking through the Capitol Building taking selfies,” you’re willfully blind. Why don’t you start by searching the J6 prosecutions database for “weapons” and “firearms”: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Just going to ignore, 2020 summer of love
Violence originates on the left. History always bears this out
Like all the deplorables that signed the Declaration of Independence.
Has if ever dawned on you that you spend a lot of time trying to invent work arounds to the Bill of Rights? Why is that?
Has it ever dawned on you that you lie a lot? Why is that?
Don’t be fooled-it’s not only Democrats
If the Court rules 8-1 Sotomayor looks like a partisan hack. How’s this for a result: 9-0 in favor of Trump on the ballot case and 9-0 against Trump on the immunity case. If Roberts can swing that, critics of the Court will be silenced and Roberts goes down in history as the greatest CJ since John Marshall.
That will not happen. It is important that Presidents have immunity of some kind upon leaving office or Democrats will be practicing Lawfare against every Republican ex-President. The scope of that immunity will be contentious. That difficult case, if it even arises, is the opposite of this assinine case.
Trump keeps insisting that Presidents must have absolute immunity. His lawyers said absolute immunity against criminal indictment unless first impeached and convicted. Both are ridiculous overreach.
Absolute immunity for any act performed as a part of his official duties as the President. Since the President is responsible for enforcement of all federal law, and there are federal laws regarding fairness and conduct of elections, as long as he was President when he acted it is an official act. If you disagree with his actions, that is a policy issue and there are political, not legal, remedies. Impeachment and conviction would be evidence an act was not allowed within his official duties and thus open him to prosecution under law. Else, his actions are by definition legal.
So far, the courts disagree with you, and with much better reasoned arguments. Time will tell what SCOTUS thinks.
Yep, I predict exactly that will happen. Both 9-0. But each case will see several opinions so that no-one can get a majority view out of them on any aspect of the case. The results, however, will be 9-0 on the issue presented.
The Decrepit Global Communist American Deep Deep Welfare State, 2024
________________________________________________________________________________
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!”
– Abraham Lincoln, 1860
George — Nope:
https://nosweatshakespeare.com/quotes/famous/oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave/
It was Walter Scott.
Figures like federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig who called these arguments against disqualification as “revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical.”
Shame what’s happened to him. He used to be a level-headed, very smart jurist. Now his brain has been rotted out by TDS.
The question is whether such a result will change how media outlets frame these disputes in the future.
Hahahaha! Good one, a real knee-slapper! That’ll happen about the same time hell freezes over, or DM grows a brain cell.
“We will have to wait for the final opinion”
Yup.
“The question is whether such a result will change how media outlets frame these disputes in the future.”
The answer to that question IMHO is it won’t. The media will continue as usual.
Which disputes?
There hasn’t been any SCOTUS case like this.
This is not the SCOTUS “interfering” in an election but correcting such interference. For the SCOTUS to rule in CO’s favor is the same as ruling that it is no longer necessary to be found guilty in a court of law and appeals exhausted in order to imprison, punish, or otherwise deprive any citizen of their Constitutional rights; but they may be punished at the State’s pleasure.
Again:
Which disputes? There hasn’t been any SCOTUS case like this.
Your response seems to have nothing to do with my comment.
You beat me to it. Turley might as well have asked, “Now that Paulus has surrendered at Stalingrad, do you think that Joseph Goebbels will entertain the thought that the Third Reich could lose the war?
Well, not in public. Because Goebbels job is that of a propagandist. Just like our main stream media. Truth is not what motivates them. Truth is not the goal. Same with Lawrence Tribe. He knows better, and he just plain don’t care.
Dennis Prager: “Truth is not a left-wing value.” Stephan Tonsor (one of my college professors): “No Marxist has ever written a book of ethics.’
Too bad that isn’t true… It took me two seconds to find such a book on Amazon (ironically). Ethical Marxism by Bill Martin
But facts be damned
In fairness to Prof. Tonsor, the book you cite was written long after his statement.
It is difficult for a Marxist to discuss morality or ethics (which is a type of morality relating to a specific sub-group in society). That is because Marx asserted that morality is historically related to, if not determined by, class structure. It changes as class relations develop. There is no universal morality. This view makes a serious discussion of morality difficult or even pointless.
Lenin was a good Marxist. He said politics was a question of “who does what to whom.” He also said something like: “Whatever benefits Communism is honest; and whatever hurts Communism is dishonest.” That is the real morality of the Left.
From Wikipedia:
“Marxist–Leninist ethics is dialectical: it maintains that like morality as a whole, each of its manifestations, each standard, and virtue, is in perpetual motion, emerging, developing, disappearing, passing from one qualitative state to another. Torn out of the concrete historical process, morality in general simply does not exist. Each type of morality is socially and historically conditioned—this is the fundamental tenet of Marxist ethics. The objective core of morality conveys the character of definite social relations—relations of ownership of the means of production, the interaction of the various classes and social groups and the forms of distribution and exchange. It follows from this that morality has class content. If the nature of social bonds determines the essence of morality (and in a class society these bonds manifest themselves, first and foremost, in the relations between classes), then the morality reflecting them has a class stamp.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_ethics#Bibliography