Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has introduced the “No Kings Act” with great fanfare and the support of most of his Democratic colleagues. Liberal groups have heralded the measure to legislatively reverse the ruling in Trump v. United States. It is obviously popular with the press and pundits. It is also entirely unconstitutional in my view. The “No Kings Act” is not just a cynical abdication of responsibility by Democrats, but would constitute the virtual decapitation of the Constitution.
I have previously written about the false claims made about the Supreme Court’s decision by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other leading democrats. The press and pundits have reached a new level of sensationalism and hysteria in the coverage with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow even claiming that it was a “death squad ruling.”
The Trump Decision
The Court actually rejected the most extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower courts.
As it has in the past, the Court adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. Chief Justice John Roberts cited Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled against President Harry Truman’s takeover of steel mills.
In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative authority between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied authority from Congress. In the second, he acts where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area). In the third, the president acts in defiance of Congress.
In this decision, the court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.
Where the coverage has been wildly inaccurate, the No Kings Act is cynically dishonest.
To his credit, President Joe Biden was at least honest in proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision in Trump. However, that was dead on arrival in Congress since under Article V it would require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses and then ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The Democrats are seeking to circumvent that process with simple majority votes with the No Kings Act.
The bill is being presented as a jurisdiction-stripping measure, not an effort to dictate outcomes.
Congress does have authority to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That authority was recognized by the Court itself in Ex parte McCardle (1869). Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled that it did have the authority “to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court.”
However, Chase also emphasized that the law did “not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised” so that prior decisions would remain fully enforceable.
Moreover, shortly after McCardle, the Court ruled in United States v. Klein (1871), that Congress may not use its authority of court jurisdiction to lay out a “rule of decision” for the Supreme Court, or effectively dictate results in court cases.
The No Kings Act
The No Kings Act does more than just strip jurisdiction and makes no secret of its purpose in dictating the outcome of future cases.
It purports in Section 2 to “clarify that a President or Vice President is not entitled to any form of immunity from criminal prosecution for violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.”
That is a rather Orwellian view of “clarification” since it directly contradicts the opinion in declaring in the very next section that “[a] President, former President, Vice President, or former Vice President shall not be entitled to any form of immunity (whether absolute, presumptive, or otherwise) from criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress.”
Schumer and most of the Democratic senators actually believe that they can simply instruct lower courts to ignore a Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the Constitution. It would undermine the basis of Marbury v. Madison after 221 years.
To be sure, it is stated in strictly jurisdictional terms. Yet, it crafts the jurisdictional changes to mirror the decision and future immunity claims.
The bill declares that federal courts “may not consider whether an alleged violation of any criminal laws of the United States committed by a President or Vice President was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President unless directed by Congress.”
But the Democrats are not done yet. Section 4 actually removes the Supreme Court from such questions and makes appellate courts the effective highest courts of the land when it comes to presidential immunity:
“The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction, on the basis that an alleged criminal act was within the conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority of a President or Vice President or on the basis that an alleged criminal act was related to the official duties of a President or Vice President.”
Notably, this is one of the wacky ideas put forward by the President’s Supreme Court Commission. After all, why pack the Court if you can just gut it?
Of course, some sponsors like Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) want to both pack the Court and strip it of authority. Presumably, once packed, the authority to act as a court would be at least restored with the liberal majority.
By making the D.C. Circuit (where most of these cases are likely to be litigated) the highest court of the land on the question, the Democrats are engaging in the rawest form of forum shopping. The D.C. Circuit is expected to remain in the control of Democratic appointees for years. (The Act expressly makes the D.C. courts the only place to bring a civil action in this area and states that “a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be final and not appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States.”)
The Supreme Court of the United States shall have no appellate jurisdiction to declare any provision of this Act (including this section) unconstitutional or to bar or restrain the enforcement or application of any provision of this Act (including this section) on the ground of its unconstitutionality.
But wait there is more.
The No Kings Act reads like a fairy tale read by Democratic senators to their grandchildren at night. Not only would the evil conservative justices be vanquished by a lower court controlled by Democratic appointees, but the bill is filled with other wish list items from the far left. It would strip the Court of the ability to take other cases, to dismiss a criminal proceeding, to suppress evidence, and to grant a writ of habeas corpus, or “the Great Writ” that is the foundation of Anglo-American law for centuries.
The Democrats even legislatively dictate that any review of the law must meet a standard of its choosing. They dictate that “[a] court of the United States shall presume that a provision of this Act (including this section) or the enforcement or application of any such provision is constitutional unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that such provision or its enforcement or application is unconstitutional.” Thus, even the clear and convincing provision of the Act must be subject to a clear and convincing evidence review.
The Death of Marbury?
Again, Democrats are insisting that they are merely changing the jurisdiction of the Court and not ordering outcomes. However, the sponsors make clear that this is meant to “reaffirm that the President is not immune to legal accountability.” Sponsors like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) declared that “Congress has the power to undo the damage of this decision” by a “captured Court.”
The greatest irony is that the Democrats are practically reverting to the position of critics of Marbury v. Madison, who argued that the Framers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the law means. That principle has been the touchstone of American law since 1803, but the Democrats would now effectively revert to the English approach under the guise of jurisdiction stripping legislation. Before the Revolution, the Parliament could dictate what the law meant on such cases, overriding the courts. On a practical level, the Democrats would regress to that pre-Marbury approach.
Marbury introduced a critical stabilizing element in our system that contributed greatly to the oldest and most successful constitutional system in history. Democrats would now toss much of that aside in a spasm of partisan anger. Calling the No Kings Act a jurisdiction stripping bill does not conceal its intent or its implications for our system.
It is all a rather curious position for the party that claims to be defending the rule of law. The No Kings Act would constitute a radical change in our constitutional system to allow popular justice to be meted out through legislative fiat.
Sponsors like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., previously promised a “revolution” if the conservatives did not rule as the Democrats demanded. They have now fulfilled those threats, though few expected that they would undo the work following our own Revolution.
Just to be sure that the sponsorship of this infamous legislation is not soon forgotten, here are the senators willing to adopt this Constitution-destroying measure:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Angus King (I-ME), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA).
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
OT
“NEVER-TRUMPERS FOR TRUMP!”
– OMFK
__________
God’s Country
Blake Sheldon
I saw the light in the sunrise
Sittin’ back in a 40 on the muddy riverside
Gettin’ baptized in holy water and ‘shine
With the dogs runnin’
Saved by the sound of the been found
Dixie whistled in the wind, that’ll get you Heaven bound
The Devil went down to Georgia but he didn’t stick around
This is God’s country
“Democrats would now toss much of that aside in a spasm of partisan anger. ”
It isn’t a spasm of partisan anger. It is an intentional use of any means necessary to establish a totalitarian state controlled by Democrats.
Don’t you just love those giant rallies that JD has? Look how big this venue is for his Michigan rally
https://x.com/CraigDMauger/status/1821158502087135735
Interesting tidbit about Walz and trump…
https://www.alternet.org/tim-walz-trump-minnesota/
Jonathan: DJT is nostalgic for the past–the recent past about 3 weeks ago when he thought Joe Biden would be his opponent. Now it’s Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and DJT would like it otherwise. Here is his latest post in part:
“What are the chances that Crooked Joe Biden…CRASHES the Democratic National Convention and tries to take back the Nomination, beginning with challenging me to another DEBATE? He feels that he made a historically tragic mistake by handing over the U.S. Presidency, a COUP, to the people in the world he most hates,…”
“Handing over the Presidency” is a Freudian slip by DJT–maybe admitting he is in trouble facing Harris and Walz? DJT has once again demonstrated his complete detachment from reality. Joe Biden will not “crash” the DNC and reclaim his nomination. But now DJT lives in an alt universe where facts don’t matter. He longs for the past when he could control things and when Hannibal Lecter is a real person. Now the past has caught up with the present and DJT has lost control. It’s not only JD “Shady” Vance who is “weird”!
“But now DJT lives in an alt universe where facts don’t matter.”
DJT has been in that alternate universe for a very, very, very long time.
People keep saying Trump can’t handle Kamala, because he hasn’t damaged her in the 18 days since she became the de facto nominee.
But… common, think this through.
If you’re Trump, and have public videos of Kamala saying crazy stuff (like, e.g., “give free medical to illegals” or “unburdened”) or doing crazy stuff (e.g. letting 10,000,000+ immigrants openly violate 8 USC 1325), what would you do?
Put them out now? The Democrats already ditched one candidate and allowed an oligarchy to select Kamala. If Trump does it now, the can swap out Kamala.
Smarter play: wait until she is the official nominee. Then run a massive ad blitz every day while dropping bombshell after bombshell that keep her chasing her tail. Then taunt her into a debate after 2-4 weeks. Effectively turn the debate into an October surprise. “Surprise, she can’t handle Trump’s words, how will she handle Putin, Xi, or Jung pointing nuclear missiles at your family.”
Obama recounted his “burden” and performance of human rites as a wicked solution, and now Harris pines to be unburdened a la American Civil Liberties Unburdened (ACLU).
“@OwenGregorian
The Harris campaign is colluding with China to rig the election.
Multiple social media influencers have sounded the alarm that the Harris campaign is offering money to say bad things about Trump online.
The Harris campaign buys the fake opinions, and China can send them viral.”
TikTok.
“China can control American elections with TikTok.”
I agree that is a reasonable assessment, but alarmingly, I still don’t think that would sway many dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. They will continue to sheepishly vote Democrat out of habit or because of mainstream media brainwashing that has produced the seemingly incurable Trump Derangement Syndrome.
If the choice is between weird and cowardly, I’ll take weird.
Here’s what cowardly looks like:
https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz
One must wonder why Schumer actually did this. He might have been trying to intimidate the Supreme Court but that was unlikely to be realistic with this group of conservative justices. If anything it would seem he is laying out the game plan for the democrats in the future or telegraphing his move.
The Democrats still have the power of impeachment if they control the house but that did not go their way the 1st time because it was such a weak case and a set up and the snap impeachment with the second try was a fiasco and might have succeeded if they had done their work first and followed the standard route but they elected not to.
They are telegraphing their future moves. Simple logic would suggest you not do that because, if you lose, the other side might preemptively strike.
What would constitute a pre-emptive strike if the republicans win both houses and presidency.
1-Declare Puerto Rico Independent-audios amigos and no 2 new senators
2-Give DC back to Maryland just as the Virginia side of DC was given back to Virginia
3-Change the boundaries of the present Circuit Court to metropolitan DC
4-Create a new Circuit Court of the new Federal District which encompasses the White House, Capitol (House and Senate) Federal office buildings and Federal parks and the Supreme Court Building. This circuit court would have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the acts of congress and president and executive depts and the military. All brand new and staffed with republicans. You know just a change of jurisdiction done by congress
5-Supreme Court would still have appellate review of the new Circuit Court
6-Since DC would now be a part of Maryland, no more talk about senators from DC
7-Voter ID in all states for federal elections effective at time passed.
8-Trash the filibuster in order to pass it all
It’s the only way to be sure.
I really like your suggestions here. If only the GOP had not become the Washington Generals of politics. They are paid. Professional. Losers. Prove me wrong. Ex: June 4, Congressman Chip Roy and others sent Mayorkas a letter and their questions were ignored. July 11, Congressman Chip Roy and others sent Mayorkas a letter and their questions were ignored. Wanna bet their next move is drafting another letter? Do you see Garland shaking in his boots about being held in Contempt of Congress, when Bannon was imprisoned for the same thing? The GOP are a bunch of weak dix and part of the problem. They are unable to take action (NEWS FLASH: a 3rd or 4th letter is not action when the first two were ignored.) What are they going to do when Biden gives illegals the vote on Nov 1? Yeah, I don’t think another letter is going to do it guys. Fight for us, or go home. So, if the GOP were to control the House and the Senate, and had a clear path to implement your excellent suggestions, would they? Of course not. Too many airports to rename. Not fighters. Losers.
Republicans are pre-Southern Strategy Democrats.
“The GOP are a bunch of weak dix and part of the problem. They are unable to take action”
Are you assuming that the Repugs actually WANT to take action, and create a status-quo-threatening manure maelstrom, as compared to issuing just enough anti-Demon rhetoric to keep getting re-elected, and remain on the gargantuan government gravy train? Do the Washington Generals really WANT to threaten their livelihood by going on a 10 game winning streak against the Globetrotters?
Steaming turd ^^^^^
Yes, you are. Thank you for confirming that.
Steaming turd ^^^^^^
I can see the possibility of gerrymandering the Federal court districts for more favorable results. I doubt very much that PR would be declared independent,; far too many people (including Repugs) quietly skimming too much moola from there (PR keeps, or is kept, out of the headlines, which strongly attracts political criminals who cannot afford those). For similar reasons, I don’t see proposals for its statehood going anywhere, either. Re giving the rest of DC back to Maryland, that will not happen. Federal politicians, bureaucrats, and staff strongly tend to consider themselves as greater or lesser Gods, and Gods must have a Heaven from which to rule. That tendency is somewhat more pronounced among Demons than Repugs, but it is hardly an exclusive delusion.
While this may be a bad idea, the concept of it is one whose time has come. No government official should have qualified immunity for violating the laws in the course of their duty. Nor should governments have sovereign immunity for violating their own laws or the constitution. If a police officer violates more than two decades of established precedent to make an arrest because of their blind belief in a so-called victim’s claim of wrongdoing that they ignore numerous warnings and evidence pointing to a false accusation and make an unlawful arrest of a person regardless, this should not be protected conduct. If a judge rubber stamps an arrest warrant without asking pertinent questions or awards property in an ex-parte order without due process and clearly outside the relief specifically allowed by law, this should not be protected conduct subject to immunity. If a prosecutor fails to timely produce exculpatory evidence or, under their special duties as a prosecutor, fails to supervise the investigating agencies or timely dismiss charges they know are not supported by probable cause, this should not be protected conduct. The fact is, there DO need to be serious reforms regarding immunity in this country. From the president on down. This too should be applicable regardless of party. Obama ordered the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and in return killed his son, also a US citizen and not suspected of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. All should be forced to face the music for “official” acts that color outside the lines of the constitution and for unofficial acts. That said, I disagree with the idea of stripping the USSC of original jurisdiction in any matter regarding the constitution. Once we start farming out various responsibilities for interpreting what this thing means or that thing means to more malleable institutions – we won’t have a rule of law at all.
So, then, we can prosecute Harris, Biden and Mayorkas for breaking their oaths and violating the constitution and failing to enforce our border laws. In that case, I’m for it.
Rather prosecute Trump for stealing military secrets and sharing them with people who have no clearances.
Like clinton and gore were prosecuted for their sharing, nay selling, of military secrets to people without (US) clearance – I presume you mean CCP clearances do not count.
The border situation was exactly the same under trump. Should he be arrested as well?
Every Senator has immunity; every member of congress has immunity; every Article III Judge has immunity; every Governor of every State has immunity; every police officer has immunity; every member of the federal government has (some degree of) immunity.
The President is no different than all the above federal and state government officials that generally have some immunity. It’s a no-brainer question we never had to ask for ~250 years until Democrats decided Trump was a “threat to Democracy” and any means of taking him out was acceptable.
Name a politician who said the Constitution needs to be suspended.
Lincoln
FDR essentially stuck citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps during WW II without any due process or even niggling evidence of any crime or criminal intent.
None of those has criminal immunity other than Congress in very limited circumstances.
Wanna bet? Where have you been, sammy. SCOTUS ruled.
Why do you deny reality?
Anonymous 1:02PM
I think your note shows some sound logic. I am concerned about immunity also but there has been little done to really delineate what immunity should be and what the parameters are for dropping immunity.
Practically the president has to have some significant immunity because he has to deal with nations and non-state actors who have no adherence or respect to our laws. Those official actions of the president should be determined as well as possible and then placed in a constitutional amendment but it would be a difficult undertaking. Congress has immunity for official acts committed on the floor and in committee much more so than anything given to the president.
If the president or congress had no immunity then nothing would get down.
In a way term limits of presidents, congressmen, senators and judges are a preemptive way to limit immunity. Appellate review is also a way to limit immunity and gregarious acts. It forces us to use the law.
I would rather be stuck with a left wing judge or a right wing judge than a partisan bunch of elected hacks. And I prefer our present system. I did not go screaming for change when we had a left wing liberal court. I ascribed to win elections, appoint conservative judges and hope for a more balanced outlook.
Presidents get zero criminal immunity. Easy. It has been like that since 1789.
Correct.
Presidents are subject to immediate impeachment and conviction for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Those in high office may be impeached, convicted, and removed for crimes, subsequent to which, they will be subject to prosecution.
Joe Biden SHOULD BE IMPEACHED and CONVICTED for treason, bribery and other high crimes.
WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
Biden gets to just step aside as a deposed, demented, puppet and walk away?
Oh HELL no he doesn’t.
Impeachment is a political tool and is completely different process than criminal prosecution.
Says Sammy Metamucil, who has been sleeping thru the political criminal trials
I’m not at all convinced it is a bad idea. The qualified immunity doctrine seems to assume that officials are discharging their duties in good faith, absent incontrovertible proof to the contrary. MAYBE that was more true than not in the very beginning of the Republic (I am skeptical even of that proposition) but it has been substantially false to fact for quite some time. Question: is there legal precedent for dismissing violations of the oath taken to preserve and protect the Constitution under the doctrine of qualified immunity? Maybe that is the point at which to begin imposing accountability on our public “servants”…
“Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald
So the person who came very close to blowing Trump’s head off was just some wayward 20-year-old with no political views or online footprint, and it almost happened because of absurd ‘errors’ by the Secret Service?
And now we’re done with that story for the next 2 decades or so?”
DID THE CORRUPT BIDEN REGIME MEMORY HOLE THEIR ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT?
Now we all know with near certainty: IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
Satan loving, communist, traitors all. All will stand for their FAIR, 3 minute tribunal for their lifes and civil estates.
And Obama would be first to do the perp walk as he, as an official act, ordered the execution of an American citizen.
OBAMA himself is a TRAITOR who should be perp walked right into GITMO.
Obama will never be a “natural born citizen” and Obama will never be eligible for the office of president.
Obama was ensconced by the communist American Deep Deep State “Swamp” Regime.
See below as Dennis the Draft Dodger goes “all in” on another piece of dead in the crib legislation from the fascist left.
LMAO he was also “all in” on Fani. How’s that working out?
Jonathan: I’m all in for the “No Kings Act”. No President is a “King” who can engage in criminal acts and be immune from prosecution. In giving DJT immunity for so-called core “official acts” the right-wing of the SC had to invent its three-pronged test that can be found nowhere in the Constitution. Congress can override SC decisions with legislation to make sure Presidents are not above the law. And that is what needs to be done now!
Of course you are. You’re a mindless automoton.
Go all in, idiot. It has no chance.
Wanna go all in on the FAIL? sounds about right for you, Denny
Tell that to Joe Biden. His actions are actually getting people killed. Not just our own citizens with his lawless open border, but our soldiers are getting killed due to Biden’s incompetence & arrogance. Biden’s corruption is responsible for his preventable wars in Ukraine killing upwards of 4-500,000, also the chaos in Middle East.
IT IS BIDEN WHO SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.
No need to sugar coat it. Biden has been so catastrophically wrong about war & peace for so long, I think he’s the definition of a ‘mad King’ .. . and the epitome of malfeasance.
*’uneasy lies the head that wears a crown’
ARREST NANCY PELOSI!
“Congress can override SC decisions with legislation”
I reject your reality and substitute my own—Dennis and Benson the spastic idiots
Whether somebody (even a majority of citizens) likes a Court decision or not is begging the question – the actual question being whether dissidents can or should rewrite the Constitution and its most treasured, centuries-old holdings and settled understandings to satisfy Democrat senators’ likes and dislikes. This is dangerous, dangerous shenanigans, and, if Schumer isn’t smart enough or patriotic enough to realize that, that is genuinely frightening. I am afraid, though, it represents the anti-Constitution, anti-American state of his party. Schumer’s stature (“reap the whirlwind”) shrinks daily.
Dear Prof Turley,
Sen. Chuck ‘Roper’ Schumer would eliminate the SCOTUS and cut down all the laws to get after the devil. .. Apostle Trump & the Hillbilly Elegy.
According to Sen. Schumer and Racheal Maddow ‘the CIA has six ways from Sunday’ to get that devil. .. live on MSNBC.
Ironically, if the ‘No Kings Act’ prevails, there will be no place for Biden to hide, chewing his cud, when the strong winds blow.
Kings come and go. .. all’s well that ends well.
respectfully,
dgsnowden
Ruler of a small country .. . and the Count of Appalachia
This proposed bill is a start, although it needs considerable work before it is sensible and suitable to become law.
Remember that Article I comes before Article III and that Congress can do whatever it d*m*ed pleases with the so-called Supremes.
That last paragraph may be the dumbest thing you’ve ever said. And that’s saying a lot.
Articles in the Constitution aren’t listed in order of importance.
DBB explains the concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government as only he can.
Benson the Brilliant says “1 comes before 3”, as if that is relevant to anything.
Professor my ass.
I have his IQ at slightly above Svelaz.
Schumer has gone from power mad, when he used to lean over Harry Reids’ shoulder to make sure that Reid hadn’t skipped reading the notes that Shumer had given him, to completely bonkers, standing on the Capitol steps, and threatening the Supreme Court Judges. His alignment with Pelosi, who gave him half of his ideas, has elevated his thinking that he alone runs the Country. Get him out of there, then get him some professional help! This bill is DOA in the House.
Get him out of there? Yes. Professional help? Cell at Gitmo. This guy is off the rails…I’ll trade you 2 squad members for one Schumer and the country still comes out ahead.
The burning question is: What’s dumbe, Chuckie or a rock?
For the moment, at least, they do not have a majority. This November, let’s make sure they never do.
I have to ask who of the Democratic Party is directing this travesty of constantly assaulting the Constitution. Is it a conglomerate of clowns running about professing their superior pathways into the future by modifying existing accepted norms of language, laws, morals, and so much more? These defected cretins have no idea where the antithesis of norms will end; just that they have this vision of a Utopian Paradise with Strawberry Fields Forever.
They must be voted out/ PERIOD!
GW…remember, Obama, Jarret, Rice, and their fellow entrenched comrads in Deep State can’t be voted out. They’ve already succeeded in their coup to oust Biden. They’re no longer hiding their commie agenda. As others have mentioned many times already, it night be best to load up on ammo and chickens…in case Team Blue doesn’t allow an election in November or accept the results when The People say, “ENOUGH!!”
*LORETTA
Where is it coming from? It’s origin? On the face of it, Hell?
Because all Western nations are affected (infected) it must be a global government?
Putting the 2 paragraphs together it must be from the Starz.
I have been told many times in discussions with Democrats that their ruling ideas are so good that it justifies anything they do to gain power so they can rule.
The insurrection is happening from within.
No offense Mr. Turley, but this does a wonderful job of making my point that The Law is simply a joke. The Law was always a mechanism intended to guarantee Justice. It has, however, become a game played by lawyers and egomaniacal despots in black robes. In this case the political agenda of the Democrat Party is being expedited by an attempt to legislate the framework for an aberration of Justice by crafting a Law that can be weaponized. Once weaponized, it can be placed in the hand of a despotic judge who can hold the Law high and state with authority that “The Law” must be honored. This is horrific.
*LORETTA
I’m not qualified to have a comment here. Marbury v. Madison is worth exploration.
I remain deeply concerned about the qualifications of people in congress.
People who ——-> bleached blond bad body and baby girls and false eyelashes ,too, and others saying we’ll get you Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and your little dog, too.
Wicked witch must be in the mix.
Thank you, Professor T.
*SENATOR KEELEY
It’s good opportunity to at least know about Marbury v. Madison and Chief Justice Marshall. An opportunity to become familiar with American history and principles and the ordained Constitution.
The Colorado case and Trump off the ballot was fabulously fun, too.
As always, thank you , Professor T.