Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review of the presidential immunity question, but set an expedited schedule for the review of the question with oral argument scheduled for April. Former president Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.” As I mentioned last night in the coverage, legal scholars are hardly doing a conga line in celebration. Indeed, this morning had the usual voices attacking the Court as “craven” and partisan for granting review in the case. Despite the Court (including three Trump appointees) repeatedly ruling against Trump and conservative causes in past cases, the same voices declared that the Court was a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles.
MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow was outraged on the air and denounced “the cravenness of the court.” She noted that the Court took a whole two weeks to consider the question, ignoring the usual schedule of months of such deliberation. She added:
“Obviously, pushing all of the cases that they can push to a point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases. Got it. It is the timing…This is BS, and you are doing this as a tactic to help for political friend, partisan patron. For you to say that this is something the court needs to decide because it is unclear in the law is fragrant bullpucky and they know it and don’t care that we know it. That is disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court.”
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner dismissed the review as a political effort to do Trump “an enormous favor.” Kirschner also said that it was “clear” the court “sold American democracy down the river” to help Trump.
Mary Trump, the niece of the former president, declared that “the Supreme Court of the United States just reminded us with this corrupt decision that the insurrection did not fail–it never ended.”
In other words, the Supreme Court itself is now part of the “insurrection.” It is that easy. Once you start to remove people from the ballot by declaring a riot an insurrection, even courts become insurrectionists by allowing for a review of lower court rulings.
This is the type of rhetoric that enrage viewers, particularly when they hear no alternative views.
For years, liberal law professors and pundits have filled the media with dire predictions that the Supreme Court was about to carry out a long-planned “coup” and “power grab” — one even wrote that the court could be on the brink of establishing “one-party rule” in the United States. These commentators often ignore the countervailing cases where conservative justices voted against conservative causes and immediately return to these sensational claims whenever the Court is seen as a hinderance of their agenda, even in the simple act of granting review of a long-debated constitutional question.
Just in case you wanted to read this insurrectionist order, here it is:
The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.
The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 19, 2024. Respondent’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 8, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, April 15, 2024.
There are a variety of reasons why the Court could have put this on the calendar for further argument. While I still believe that Trump will not be able to secure a majority on his sweeping immunity theory, some justices may be concerned over the D.C. Circuit opinion and the lack of clarity on when a president is protected for actions taken in office. It is possible to uphold the lower court in its outcome but change the rationale or analysis.
The Court has not been particularly eager to reenter this area of constitutional law, but it may now be prepared to lay down new precedent and bring greater clarity for future presidents.
This is bizarre. We just sat thru an awkward Oral Hearing Monday where the case has not yet developed a fact base at the District Court level. Jack Smith is being impeded from putting the factual evidence into the record, and jurors acting as finders-of-fact. Most journalists think there are no new facts that Trump has been able to keep hidden from the public, but Mark Meadows knows them because he was part of the Willard Hotel war-room staffed by Steve Bannon, Bernie Kerik, Rudi Giuliani and others.
SCOTUS is foolish to delay these facts being established. It’s very hard to explain taking things out of order this way, and it reeks of gaming by entitled elitists. It shows a disrespect for a jury of 12 average Americans to be given the concealed truth and make a common sense decision. It’s as if the small people don’t matter. It’s a beat-down of legal institutions, only this time 4+ SCOTUS Justices are the aggressors.
Under the guise of intellectual bipartisanship, the typical severe partisanship of pbinCA is clearly seen. She needs to understand what it means to put the shoe on the other foot and what the rule of law actually means. She can only think one step at a time, neglecting how almost all Democrats would be in jail if her partisan ideas were followed.
S. Meyer,
Well said.
They cannot see the larger picture other than, “Get Trump.” And for that, then any means necessary is totally legit. They never consider if that same mentality was applied to a Democrat.
But, when have they ever cared about the rule of law?
Upstate,
I think the calculated gamble by the Dems is to retain power by any means so that the “other side” never gets a chance to implement their tactics against them. We will see if they are able to achieve this come November. This is why the 2016 election is probably the most important one we have had in our history. We would be on the other side of the tipping point had Hilary selected the SCOTUS.
“This is why the 2016 election is probably the most important one we have had in our history.”
Jim, Obama’s second term was what I considered the most crucial election. His first term moved America in a dangerous direction, and his reelection meant the American public didn’t recognize the threat at a vital time when additional threats appeared in the technology sector that would alter the fundamental characteristics of our individuality and understanding of the rule of law. Post-Obama, the environment was set for a new type of America.
Even today, I don’t think many Americans woke up. Many rightfully or wrongfully dislike Trump and consider a third party. Alone, Trump (or any other candidate offering similar leadership) can only stop the trend toward autocratic rule after many years of consistent leadership. Our bellies are full, so there is no stimulus to help us get where we were pre-Obama.
The outlook for the free-thinking American spirit is poor, but in such a prosperous nation, the losses will be tolerated in our decline.
“Appeals” decided president’s don’t have absolute immunity, yes, but without any precident or former case law on the subject. It ruled only the theorhetical “what if he did these other actions”, NOT on any of the evidence that hasn’t yet been presented in the District Court. SMITH put the cart ahead of the horse. Not Trump. Not SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not wrong to want to hear the merits of the Appeals Court decision to opine only on the theorhetical.
The D.C. Court of Appeals in its lengthy decision apparently did not consider points that Chief Justice Roberts and several of his colleagues thought should have been addressed. The Constitution is unambiguous as to how a president or vice-president is to be held responsible for acts committed while in office. The remedy is impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. If convicted by the Senate by a two-thirds majority, the accused may be removed from office, indicted and punished. One of the questions before the Court is, if not convicted by the Senate, can the accused be indicted and tried by a regular court or would this amount to being tried more than once for the same crime in violation of the Fifth Amendment? Trump was acquitted by the Senate for the same offence – insurrection – for which the special counsel later indicted him. Both the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch have absolute immunity when performing their official duties. It is long overdue that the Executive Branch, consisting of the president, be afforded absolute immunity for official acts performed while in office. Apparently, the Court of Appeals did not address this issue sufficiently to convince the members of the Supreme Court that voted for cert.
Do you even understand that the DC case is NOT charging Trump with fomenting the Jan. 6th “insurrection”?
He’s being charged with the lawyer-gaming of the Electoral College, all plotting that took place before Jan 6th.
The case is about the attempted soft coup, not the riot that took place as the coup was fizzling out.
So your “double jeopardy” defense is a wide miss.
Thank you pbinCA for your comment. according to the media, “On August 1, 2023, a grand jury indicted Trump in the District of Columbia U.S. District Court on four charges for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack: conspiracy to defraud the United States under Title 18 of the United States Code, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and conspiracy against rights under the Enforcement Act of 1870.” As you note, some of the “plotting” took place before Jan 6th. My point is that before Jan 6th and until the inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump was president and that his official acts while in office should not be subject to judicial review if already settled via the impeachment process. As this matter shows us, if allowed such post-office reviews can be manipulated to threaten and corrupt future holders of the office. The charges levied by the special counsel in the Trump case are, at best, a stretch and prove this argument. When you have to resort to a 150-year old statute, and one designed to prevent the shredding of papers under subpoena, and an ambiguous fraud statute to shoehorn charges against someone you dislike simply because you dislike him, that doesn’t exactly sound like Justice, now, does it?
“his official acts while in office should not be subject to judicial review if already settled via the impeachment process”
SCOTUS rejected the double jeopardy argument in framing the question, which is solely “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Anon: Thank you for your comment but I don’t see what you’re asserting in the Supreme Court’s response. Yes, the Court certainly might rule as you suggest but that goes to resolving the uncertainty of the word “whether” that leads off the statement by the Court. The double jeopardy issue simply becomes yet one of several considerations and nothing appears ruled out at this point.
That’s the sole question that they asked be addressed. They did not ask the parties to address the double jeopardy issue, so that will not be a part of their ruling. They are ignoring it as not worth addressing, so the DCCA ruling on it stands.
Anonymous has, with poor logic, inadvertently argued against the position of PbinCA. If one reads the quote carefully, one notes that Anonymous admits clarity doesn’t exist for this case, and the DC circuit indictment muddled the law even further. In order to come to a legal conclusion, first, the law needs to be known, and that is what the Supreme Court is presently doing.
You do have a point that Trump’s coup attempt was much more then J6, and that is a point that must be made continuously. However J6 was part of the coup attempt.
There was no coup attempt. It is a delusion that you have to cling to in your TDS rotten mind.
“He’s being charged with the lawyer-gaming …The case is about the attempted soft coup,”
PbinCA, how much closer can one get to a soft coup than ballot trafficking by the Democrats?
The legal system has evolved so that lawyers are involved when there are disagreements. Lawyer-gaming is a meaningless accusation and is poorly used when one doesn’t have a crime yet wishes to indict an innocent person.
“attempted soft coup”. If objecting to the certification of electors is a criminal offense, why were Barbara Boxer and Jamie Baskin not charged?
There is no serious legal argument that the President is immune from criminal laws. This is a delay tactic that the Republican Court is supporting. It is long standing law that double jeopardy is only for the same criminal crime in the same jurisdiction. Impeachment is a civil political process independent of the federal criminal system.
Jack Smith is the one who brought the case before the SC.
Not that Rachel Maddow is a legal scholar, I do understand that it her job to comment, but Mary Trump? I did check. It doesn’t look like she even attended law school.
It’s a bit hypocritical to admit having attended Law School – But if Hunter Biden (Yale Law School), Abbe Lowell (Columbia Law School), and Michael Cohen (Thomas M. Cooley Law School) is any measure of what a Law School qualifies you for, Then Mary Trump is Summa Cum Laude of Layman.
Don’t forget, Willis, Wade, and Bradley. My son has never taken a law course and would come across as Clarence Darrow and Henry Campell Black (Blacks Law Dictionary) compared to these “lawyers” (that do a scary amount of business in $100 bills)
Rachel, it is because of this compromised group of lickspittles and their predecessors that you and other of your ilk can spew your puckfuddle or whatever you called it. Whatever the ultimate decision of the Court is I’m sure it won’t please you and other CBDLFs on MSNBC or CNN.
Once again, Turley writes a superficial column mostly complaining about liberal TV personalities.
Compare his choice with that of law professor Steve Vladeck, who instead took time last night to answer his readers questions about it: https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/tonight-9-et-live-thread-on-the-courts/comments
correction: readers’
How in the world were able to find a lawyer argues the opposite side of the law? AMAZING!
Do you even pretend to understand the law by definition is adversarial?
Turley is clearly right that the current Supreme Court has repeatedly voted against conservative causes. Trump loudly denounced SCOTUS when they ruled Texas had no standing in their lawsuit to invalidate millions of legal mail-in votes in 4 states Biden won.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has been totally incompetent and weak on the massive Election Fraud that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election…If we have corrupt elections, we have no country!”
-Trump, Dec. 26, 2020
Turley insists Trump’s niece Mary called SCOTUS part of the insurrection, but avoids citing reactions from conservative legal experts. Michael Luttig didn’t call SCOTUS partisan for granting this review nor did he declare the Court was a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles. Luttig simply said “There was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this case.”
Professor Turley remains particularly unmoved that public approval for the Supreme Court has plummeted. A poll last week showed 60% of the American public disapprove of the Supreme Court. Only 28% of Independents approve of the Supreme Court.
But Turley is likely right that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule against Trump’s claim that a President has total immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office.
Luttig is no conservative, he is now an MSNBC payroll who*e.
He’s a never-Trump conservative, whether you can admit it or not.
Like Liz Cheney is a conservative.
There is a test for that. The results for Cheney came back negative.
Yes, Cheney is another never-Trump conservative.
Cheney is a President Gas waiting in the wings
Ceney’s political slant is decided by the voters. The saw through here posturing. Kinzinger, Amash, and several others are Democrats, running as a Republican in their heavily Republican legislative districts. They last when their votes against Conservative Platforms finally cannot be double talked away.
Professor Turley remains particularly unmoved that public approval for the Supreme Court has plummeted
No serious person considers public polling serious. Almost all polls are commissioned by some entity that needs validation, to advance their prefered narrative.
Aside that fact. Of the 60% that look poorly on SCOTUS, 99% of those would fail an 8th grade Civics test.
Suffice to say, opinions of the uniformed are worth less than the time spent to consider.
iowan2, you’re right about the credibility of polls. Turley regularly cites polls which purportedly bolsters his point of view. We should all take them with a grain of salt.
In a country with a population of 330 million people, MSNBC has a viewership of considerably less than 1 million people. These viewers populate the leftist lunatic fringe of the democrat party and must be fed regularly with lies, conspiracy theories, falsehoods and anti American propaganda. MSNBC hosts, commentators and writers serve these needs with their back to back clown shows. Quoting anything said on MSNBC is similar to quoting anything said on the TV show The View by hosts who act like girls in junior high school. Unfortunately these shows and these people and these viewers are given too much attention.
MSNBC is an insane asylum with cameras.
I look forward to the precedent. There’s no real downside. Bad news for Trump in this case means worse news for Biden. A republican DOJ is far less likely to let him off the hook because he’s a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”
we need to jail criminal democrats by the thousands…they are FIGHTING A CIVIL WAR against America
Republicans have to STOP being NICE and turning the other cheek.
Democrats are TRUE Fascists…using Business and Government to control and destroy all opponents!
Cry harder.
Said Wally through tears.
Let’s make sure that we are getting this right. The party that did an attempted coup and now is arguing that the president gets absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, including assassination of their opponents is NOT the fascist party, and the side resisting them is?
There was no attempted coup. It is a lie you have to keep repeating or your twisted version of reality would fail in the face of facts.
If you don’t like the term “attempted coup”, then what term would you use to describe a weeks long effort to illegally disregard the results of an election and install an unelected president?
What?
You mean challenging the results like Democrats have in the past? And when they do it, it is patriotic.
Oh. That is right. When it is Democrats doing it, it is okay.
When anyone else does it, it is an “attempted coup.”
Your lack of critical thinking skills is amazing.
Sammy – I would call it Gore-Lieberman.
𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐍𝐍: 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐨𝐱 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐬 𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬
The White House is formally calling on Fox News to walk back its coverage of bribery and corruption allegations against President Joe Biden.
By: Oliver Darcy, CNN ~ 12:14 AM EST, Thu February 29, 2024
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/media/white-house-fox-news-informant-claims-biden-hnk-intl/index.html
, a top White House spokesperson, noted that the ex-FBI informant who was the source of the bribery claims has now been charged by federal authorities for allegedly fabricating the story.
The “request” leads with the lie.
The source of the Bribery claims = 150 Suspicious Activity Reports, dozens of Shell corporations, $25 Million of income, with no product or service contracted, Multiple off shore bank accounts, IRS whistle blower statements. etc.
Also, there is no evidence the Source has lied.
Thank You iowan2 for drawing that detail out.
The original intent of the Post was to show that the White House is actively engaging in Censorship.
SCOTUS is responding to the Request from Jack Smith. Not Trump. Smith got exactly what he wanted
It’s certainly better for Smith for them to grant cert than only grant a stay. The issue is that the schedule is not sufficiently expedited. Compare this schedule to the expedited schedule on the 14A s3 case.
And the requirement for speed is what exactly? You seem to forget it is the accused that is guarenteed a speedy trial. NOT the government.
Both the defendant and the public have a right to a speedy trial.
So that’s why it was OK to sue Trump for rape 30 years after the alleged act.
He got a speedy trial from the date that the suit was filed.
A statute of limitations serves similar interests as a “speedy trial” – the survival of physical evidence and witnesses, and the freshness of memories. After 30 years have passed, there is not really much point to a speedy trial.
Nobody wants a 30 year statute of limitations. That swings power to Government, and infringes on the Rights of the accused.
Not much of a surprise you side with the Government, and against the Constitution
you’ll need a cite for that nugget.
These people are the greatest danger to American freedoms, they are the seditionist. I can never remember an attempt by anyone, any group or political party to prevent Americans from determining who will or will not represent them as President. Socialists, Marxist, Communists call them what you may but Dangerous would be the most accurate.
So your memory does not go past early 2020? Because Trump did try to prevent Americans from determining who will or will not represent them as President
Trump did no such thing.
He challenged the results just like Democrats have done in the past. But when they do it, it is patriotic.
What we have now with all the lawfare, the attempts to keep Trump off the ballot, charges brought by biased DAs who ran on “Get Trump!” biased judges passing down fines while smirking, DAs who have recently got caught conducting the same charges they are accusing Trump of, changing the SOL laws just to “Get Trump,” call all of this what it is, Election Interference.
I am constantly amused by the comments of Democrat talking heads that somehow they had a right to delay charges for 3 years and try to schedule a verdict to have maximum impact on the election, but then complain that a SC review of presidential immunity, demanded by their prosecutor, is somehow unfair because it messes up their schedule. It fits right in with trying to punish Trump for “insurrection” when neither he, or any J6 defendants were even charged with it, much less convicted of it. It is not even a “double standard” of justice, it is just a two-year-old’s temper tantrum.
Super Tuesday 2024, Cometh Sooooooooooon !
It’s unfortunate that the court will simply be ruling on presidential immunity in general because I don’t see how it can be upheld. I think the larger question that is not being addressed anywhere is how prosecutors can break over 200 years of precedent to go after one individual for a riot after he had told people to go home peacefully. If presidents do not have immunity, however, “Joe Biden” should be shaking in his shoes. I’m pretty sure the family of Laken Riley will be interested in the court’s conclusions.
That’s not what he’s being charged with in the DC case. It’s trying to pull off a soft coup using lawyers, public lies, fake electors, and extra-Constitutional maneuvering….all of which took place before Jan 6th.
In the 240 year history of this country, there has never been attempt by a major party to jail a former President, to forfeit his assets and businesses, to prevent him from operating his businesses, to set up a monitor to review his business operations on a daily basis, or to control what he says outside the courtroom to the public. Yet, this is what Democrats and their synchophants view as the new normal. Obviously a two party system cannot operate if one of the paries holds a veto power over the candidate selection of the other. Indeed, that is a police state in all but name.
At least four justices have recognized that obvious truth.
In 240 years of this country we’ve never had a president who tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
In 240 years of this country we’ve never had a president who tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
Beautifully stated Wally. 👏 🤣 With those supportive words, President-elect Trump should invite you to his inauguration.
Wally – do Vice Presidents count?
Keep spreading that lie.
Are you serious?! The deliberate undermining by the Obama administrations and the Democrat party of the Trump administration certainly does not fit the definition of peaceful transfer of power. The Russian collusion hoax originated with the Obama CIA and the Clinton campaign. The constant delaying of the confirmation of Trump appointmebts, effectively kept Obama operatives in place, who obstructed from within. The special counsel investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia (that as the FBI knew did not exist) spread out over 2 years may have costed the GOP the House (many believed something must be wrong otherwise Mueller would have finished his report much earlier). With the House under control, the Dems could further obstruct Trump’s agenda. We have witnessed 4 years of deliberate undermining of the Trump administration, 4 years of not accepting the outcome of the 2016 election (Hillary has still not acknowledged that she lost). There is your case, Wally, of preventing the peaceful transfer of power: it is very recent history. Moreover, in the present, the civil and criminal cases all brought by Democrat prosecutors are an effort to prevent Trump from accessing the office of president again, i.e., to prevent any transfer of power to him.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to rule in Trump’s favor.
How about in favor of the rule of law and adherence to Constitutional principles.
I am not rooting for or against a person. Thanks for self selecting
Edwardmahl,
Dont forget, actually changing the SOL law just so they could “Get Trump.”
I’ve been listening to Alan Dershowitz talk about how maladministration is not grounds for impeachment based in the constitution. One would think that both parties would support presidential immunity because Congress enjoys it as do judges. If presidents are not immune from prosecution why wouldn’t every president be prosecuted as soon as they leave office for their errors including those that cost American lives? Biden would prosecuted for the open border, the soldiers who died in the Afghanistan withdrawal and every other bad choice he made. The cases would be brought in red states. We already have chaos so I hope SCOTUS sees fit to acknowledge that presidents have some level of immunity.
No one has immunity from criminal prosecution. Judges and Congresslosers do get charged and convicted.
Can I sue my congress person for voting for an unconstitutional law?
No, you lack standing.
When the law is applied unequally, the rule of law no longer exists.
In all my years I’ve never witnessed so much anti-freedom, pro-Marxist crap as what I see ‘democrats’ push against Trump and America…more than alarming, this creep of communism is alarming to say the least. How did these people get so brainwashed?
“How did these people get so brainwashed?”
I have been asking myself that question for a couple of years. The true-believer Democrats are patently crazy nowadays. There was a time when they were merely wrong on basic issues, but then they went off the rails. Rather than just call them crazy, I wanted to figure out what was at the core of it. It had to be something big, and important to them, and something where Reality b!tch-slapped the heck out of them. The only issue that fits is their narrative that “Racism and external forces are responsible for the lack of progress in the black community.”
In a non-crazy fashion, Bill Clinton recognized this mistake, and hence his “Let’s Kill Welfare!” legislation in the mid-1990s.
“Drafted by Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio) in a GOP-controlled Congress, the act ended welfare as an entitlement program; required recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits; placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds; sought to encourage two-parent families and to discourage out-of-wedlock births; enhanced enforcement of child support, and required state professional and occupational licenses to be withheld from undocumented immigrants.
In his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton pledged to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton administration spent much of its legislative energy on a vain effort to enact universal health care; no plan emerged on welfare reform.
Clinton found the legislation that emerged from Capitol Hill more conservative than he would have preferred. However, with his reelection campaign in high gear, he decided it was too politically risky for him to veto yet another welfare reform bill. As he signed the measure into law, Clinton said that it “gives us a chance we haven’t had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives.
Three assistant secretaries at the Department of Health and Human Services, Mary Jo Bane, Peter Edelman, and Wendell Primus, resigned to protest the new law. According to Edelman, the welfare reform law destroyed the federal safety net by increasing poverty, lowering income for single mothers, moving people from welfare into homeless shelters, and leaving states free to eliminate welfare entirely.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/22/clinton-signs-welfare-to-work-bill-aug-22-1996-790321#:~:text=John%20Kasich%20(R%2DOhio),and%20to%20discourage%20out%2Dof%2D
===========
In other words, the Democrats knew the system was not working, and frankly, things were getting worse. The programs did end a lot of cash payments, but the out-of-wedlock birth rate continued to climb, and the crime rate worsened, and the externalization of the source of black problems, never went away. In fact, the Democrats began to double-down on the victimology stuff. The push intensified, both by true-believer Democrats and by cynical “keep blacks on the plantation” Democrats. Plus, there are some very mentally ill Democrats who can not imagine living unless they are playing White Savior to downtrodden blacks.
That is what happens when people try to assuage Cognitive Dissonance – they invent new and more fantastical theories to explain away what they do not wish to recognize – that they were simply wrong in the first place. I thought that I was alone in this belief, but it looks like J H Kunstler arrived at the same conclusion within the last year or so.
I wrote you a good answer to “how did these people get so brainwashed” but it disappeared into the spam filter. In brief, I wrote that the Democrats experienced extreme discomfort from Cognitive Dissonance from their externalization of the source of problems in the black community. This was and is a major core belief for them, and IMHO, their biggest and oldest cored belief. It has to be a big, core belief to drive them this bonkers. Rather than simply admitting that they are wrong, some people invent new, fantastical explanations to try to save their whatever the incorrect belief may be.
So here is what J H Kunstler said in The Jewish American Dilemma:
“But then something happened. Several things. One was that not all of black America necessarily regarded the Civil Rights movement as the great moral victory it was touted to be. A lot of black youth in the 1960s opted out early on and went their own way in black separatist movements of various kinds. As a practical matter, it also slowly became obvious that the new Civil Rights laws did not raise up the black underclass out of poverty and misery. Jewish liberal apostates would even argue that the vast federal social safety-net program largess that accompanied Civil Rights Inc. only made the condition of poor blacks worse.
Another poorly understood byproduct of this failure to repair the world is the guilt and shame secretly experienced by the American liberal Left over the apparent failure of the Civil Rights movement they fought so hard for, and the subsequent failed efforts to tweak it and save it (still more tikkun olam). Thus, we see the absurd racist “anti-racism” of the universities, and so many other affronts to common sense and reality itself.
But the worst byproduct of all this tragically misguided tikkun olam is that the main political vehicle for it, the Democratic Party, has gone so insane that it now devotes itself fanatically to the utter destruction of what remains of our country. This is most particularly true in the law, which might be considered the backbone of America. Lawfare attorneys such as Marc Elias work tirelessly to turn American election law upside down and inside out so it becomes increasing impossible to know who is voting and if the ballots are legitimate.
Odd, I was going to ask you the same question.
Here is another example of the Liberal class being faced with Reality – and they can not handle it. This, from England:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/labour-mp-says-millions-white-men-beat-or-murder-women-uk-every-week
Who still believes Rachel Maddow about anything?Russia Russia Russia etc. But, anything to distract from Biden’s mental issues, and the whole bribery thing. And stores closing in high crime areas. And the upcoming CRE problems. And inflation. etc.
There are good reasons for SCOTUS to make a decision on this. But none of that matters to the propaganda class.