Politics, Supreme Court

“Remember, Remember, the 5th of November”: Democrats Seem to be Moving on From Democracy

Democracy appears to be losing its appeal on the left. After campaigning on panic politics and predicting the imminent death of democracy, some on the left are now calling to burn the system down in light of Republicans not only taking both houses and the White House but Trump likely winning the popular vote.

Some seem to believe that what happened on November 5th is a license to become a modern version of Guy Fawkes (“Remember, remember, the 5th of November; Gunpowder, treason and plot; I see no reason; Why gunpowder treason; Should ever be forgot”).

Protesters after the election called for tearing down the system as a whole, insisting that “Trump is not an individual. He’s a figurehead of a system that’s rotten.” Even before the election, law professors and law deans called for a break from the Constitution. Those voices will likely be amplified after the massive electoral loss by Democrats.

Others are seeking to evade the results of the election to still bring Harris to power.  CNN’s Bakari Sellers wants to pressure Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resign and replace her with Harris. Former Harris aide Jamal Simmons wants Biden to resign to allow Harris to become president despite the vote of the majority.

It is an ironic twist after Democratic politicians and pundits repeated the mantra that, if we did not elect Harris, this might be our last election. After losing that election, democracy appears to be the problem. The majority of Americans voting for Trump have been called “anti-American” by Gov. Hochul. Other politicians and pundits have called them racists, misogynists, or weaklings seeking domination by strongmen and bullies.

The problem is now with young and minority voters.  Trump won white women voters by eight points at 53 percent. Harris actually fell slightly in the support of women overall. Conversely, roughly 43 percent of men voted for Harris. Forty percent of women under 30 voted for Trump. Even CNN reports that Trump’s performance was the best among young people (18-29 years old) in 20 years, Black voters in 48 years, and Hispanic voters in more than 50 years.

So, it appears that it is time to move on. The call for Biden to simply do what the public did not want to do (in making Harris president) is particularly ironic. Many voters were repulsed by the Democrats simply making Harris the nominee after all the primaries were over. This was the candidate who could not garner any appreciable votes in the prior presidential primaries before being made Vice President by Biden. Now, the idea is that she would be elevated by the unilateral act of Biden.

Without a hint of self-awareness or recognition of the hypocrisy, Simmons insisted that this would “Fulfill [Biden’s] last promise — to be transitional.” Most people understood that to mean democratically transitional in opening the way for the election of new leadership. He did so after he was forced to step aside after winning every Democratic primary and tens of millions of votes.

Nevertheless, Simmons argued that “Democrats have to learn drama and transparency and doing things that the public wanna see is the time.” That would certainly be dramatic as well as anti-Democratic.  Yet, Simmons explained that “this is the moment for us to change the entire perspective of how Democrats operate.”

Indeed, it would. It would confirm that the Democratic Party is an effective oligarchy, the very thing that they just campaigned against.

Sellers is more modest. He just wants Harris on the Supreme Court. At no point in history has anyone suggested that Harris was a leading legal mind. Nothing in her history suggests that she is a competent, let alone promising, candidate for the highest court.

Harris has previously suggested her support for possible radical changes on the Court, including court packing. She is also a decidedly anti-free speech figure in American politics.

None of that matters any more than the results of the election. Harris would be put on the Court not due to any specific talents or skills but because it would be “consequential.” He wrapped up by saying “let Republicans go crazy, ape, I’m even mentioning that option.”

Others are not pushing Harris but are pushing Sotomayor to resign to allow for one of the fastest confirmations in history. Under this theory, a lame duck president would muscle through a confirmation before Trump could come into power.

Of course, that ignores the possibility that you could vacate the seat and then fall short in the sharply divided Senate. That includes the possible loss of senators who might balk at such a maneuver, including outgoing Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

The one option that does not appear to be popular is to listen to the voters and actually return the Democratic Party back toward the center of our politics. The problem is now the voters themselves.

French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau once famously insisted that “War is too important to be left to the generals.” The Democrats appear to be working on a new view that democracy is too important to be left to the voters.

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.” 

346 thoughts on ““Remember, Remember, the 5th of November”: Democrats Seem to be Moving on From Democracy”

  1. OT but good news!
    Since the election, ratings at MSNBC and CNN have dropped like a rock! Like, double digit percentage numbers! A break down of MSNBC,
    Morning Joe 1st hour – down 39.6%
    Morning Joe 2d hour – down 36.9%
    Andrea Mitchell – down 39.7%
    Ari Melber – down 49.6%
    Joy Reid’s Reidout – down 54.6%
    All-in w Chris Hayes – down 47.2%
    Alex Wagner Tonight- down 53.6%
    Lawrence O’Donnell – down 60.6%
    Stephanie Ruhle – down 67%

    After three years at CNN Chris Wallace is leaving, looking into podcast options.
    How much longer can these so-called news outlets continue with no one watching?

      2. Do you have a source for your statistics that ISN’T MAGA media?

        Wasn’t “MAGA media” who suckered you in with the Clinton/Obama/Biden “Trump-Russia Dossier” story. Also wasn’t them who suckered you in with claims that the Biden Bribery Laptop was “just Putin’s election campaign disinformation”.

        Do you have anything other than your claim that having a vagina automatically makes you smart, so people should treat your comments as credible?

        Every one of your posts enforces the reality that you are not handicapped by a sense of shame, self worth, or desire to be worthy of being treated with respect.

        At least when street whores approach people, they’re honest about what they’re trying to sell.

  2. Democrats left democracy long ago. The far Left is, at its core, a totalitarian movement. It is the source of EV mandates, straw bans, and CARB unilaterally increasing the price of gas in California by another $0.65/gallon.

    Democrats who have claimed that every election they lost was stolen, from before Gore lost to Bush, said without a shred of irony that questioning election integrity was “election denialism”. We were told the Left burning America for a year was just “fiery protests”, while the one, single Republican protest on January 6 that devolved into a riot was an attempt to overthrow the entire US government, apparently by the clever use of face paint.

    The same people who said Trump stole the election in 2016, also told us that election fraud was impossible. We were told that sending mail in ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, rolls which were prevented from audits and purges of non voters, was the most secure election in history. I received ballots, which I destroyed, for deceased people who used to own my house, as well as one of their children then, and I still receive those ballots today, and nothing I say to the county can apparently get them to stop sending them out.

    The same people who claimed election fraud is impossible, then tried to strike Trump off the ballot, tried to imprison him on made up charges that were not applied to President Biden, fined him half a billion dollars because they disagreed with the valuation of his assets on a bank form that the bank itself still approves of, and they kept calling him Hitler until there have been several assassination attempts. Biden’s DOJ sued any state that tried to remove non citizens from the voter rolls, such as Virginia, which only sought to remove those who self identified as non citizens and who used immigration paperwork for their identification papers. Again, millions of mail-in ballots were mailed to people who never requested them.

    The Democrat Party has done everything in its power to prevent voters from being allowed to vote for Donald J Trump, and now it has announced it will abuse positions of authority to actively sabotage our duly elected president.

      1. Gigi, Karen crafted an excellent reply, and you simply cherry-picked a sentence and posted it—like a monkey pulling something out of a hat.

        2. S. Meyer: I will admit Karen S. triggers me–she believes and repeats whatever slop MAGA media puts out and tries to throw in big words to look sophisticated, but the net result is MAGA nonsense and deliberate ignoring of facts. She claims Democrats are “totalitarians”, but Democrats didn’t try to shove in unqualified and controversial candidates for cabinet positions by demanding recess appointments like Trump is trying to do. She accuses the “Left” of burning towns–this is the George Floyd riots, and Democrats didn’t start or condone them. She tries to equate the Floyd riots with the insurrection, which Trump DID start AND condone–he is planning to pardon the insurrectionists—and defends the insurrection by claiming that the FBI and/or Antifa really started it and that Trump told them not to riot–ignoring the “fight like hell” speech, the Big Lie and the videos of breaking into the Capitol, plus his refusal to call off the violence for over 3 hours. Trump KNEW his fans were trying to find Pelosi and Pence and kill both of them–and did nothing about it until it was obvious that Pence was safe and wouldn’t leave the Capitol. About 2016, a Republican Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russian hackers did help Trump–who knew he would lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, but found a way to get into office by targeting key districts in swing states, so as to win the Electoral College.

          Trump is NOT a victim of lawfare or of selective prosecution. Karen S. ignores the fact that Trump deliberately stole classified documents–neither Biden nor Pence deliberately took anything and when the issue arose, both of them immediately searched for and returned documents with classified markings–the situations are nowhere near comparable. This is just another example of how Karen S. ignores facts. And, NONE of us could get away with this–stealing classified papers, lying about returning them, moving boxes of them around to prevent detection and then playing the victim when the FBI comes to retrieve them–why should Trump get away with doing these things? As to the civil fraud conviction–it’s not a difference of opinion whether Trump’s 10,966 sq. ft. apartment is really 33,000 sq ft–the fraudulent number he swore to under oath in order to borrow more money and on better terms than if he told the truth. The judge called his misrepresentations “shocking to the conscience”. Democrats had nothing whatsoever to do with those men who tried to shoot Trump–but MAGA media lies about it, and people like Karen S. believe the lie. Trump has used the same verbiage as Hitler–calling migrants “vermin” and “animals” who are “poisoning the blood” of America. Like Hitler, he wants to establish concentration camps for migrants. Democrats have done NOTHING to prevent anyone from voting for Trump, but Trump has done plenty to prevent people from voting Democratic–like lying about the status of our economy, calling Harris vile misogynistic names, claiming she is “stupid” and “a DEI hire”, and his surrogate, Marco Rubio called her “trash”. Then, there’s the lying about migrants stealing and eating pets, and making promises he has no ability to fulfill–like grocery and housing costs dropping precipitiously and personal wealth will “soar”. Yes, the nonsense Karen S. writes seriously annoys me.

          1. “she believes and repeats whatever slop MAGA media puts out “

            Why don’t you copy the slop and tell us what your warped mind has to say? Regarding facts, you are like the monkey at the typewriter.

            “She claims Democrats are “totalitarians”

            Democrats are totalitarians. Trump governs according to our Constitution, and things you complain about have been done by Presidents before. He is law-abiding, while Democrats have proven themselves to be liars and anti-democratic, as demonstrated by Professor Turley’s writings.

            You keep complaining about the papers. Are you unable to process that Presidents can take those papers anywhere and declassify them at will? VPs such as Biden have no such permission, but we don’t expect you to recognize the facts or expect any more than we would expect from a monkey. You keep climbing up the branches of a tree while your facts fall flat on the ground as untrue.

            1. No S Meyer— declassifying classified documents is a process that has a paper trail. It’s not done men. Trump stole the documents, lied about returning them and moved them around to prevent his lawyer from returning them.

              2. Gigi, Presidents can declassify documents at will and even on the spot. He removed the documents during his Presidency. Therefore, he didn’t steal them.

                Biden had documents, and the VP is not allowed to remove or declassify documents unless he classified them in the first place. Did you note all those documents that Biden stole?

                Your mind is warped. You have TDS and need treatment.

                1. S. Meyer. documents are not declassified until that action is properly recorded.

                  1. You’re the same moron who thought the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was in the chain of command. Eat shit, and stay in your lane, Davey.

                  2. David, I’m glad you’re still able to participate in this discussion, but it’s important to recognize where your ability has limits. The President has the authority to declassify documents, even before any formal record exists—he could even do so spontaneously on national television.

                    1. S. Meyer — If so, only because the Supremes recently so misruled.
                      “Top Secret, Secure Facility Only” requires not only personal clearance but Need-to-Know which was and still is almost impossible to obtain.
                      My own security level stopped with “Secret”. And while long since expired, with the content now publicly available, I’ll not tell you what it was about. I worked at Los Alamos.

                    2. “If so, only because the Supremes recently so misruled.”

                      What the fvck are you even talking about?

                      You just love making shit up out of thin air, dont you davey?

                    3. “Top Secret, Secure Facility Only” requires not only personal clearance but Need-to-Know which was and still is almost impossible to obtain.”

                      Here, David Benson, our resident alzheimers patient, demonstrates that he NEVER HAD a security clearance or worked at Los Alamos. Making up these life experiences is a symptom of his advanced dementia, much like Biden.

                      Notice that he conflates “need to know” with “secure facility only”, when they are two very distinct requirements.

                      EVERY CLASSIFICATION LEVEL, from Official Use Only/NOFORN to Top Secret SAP, requires the NEED TO KNOW. Its not “difficult to obtain”, if you have the need to know, its part of your job LMAO.

                      The idea that he doesnt know this simple fact, proves he is a liar on the scale of Joe Biden.

                    4. From “How Stuff Works”:

                      “In 1951, Roosevelt’s successor, Harry S. Truman, issued Executive Order 10290, which not only set up a standardized classification system and markings for documents, but also established an orderly process for declassifying documents that were no longer deemed sensitive. It required the agency declassifying a document to notify any other agency that might have an interest in the question of whether it should remain confidential.

                      The U.S. presidents who followed Truman continued to tinker with the rules. In the interests of greater government transparency, President Barack Obama, issued Executive Order 13526 in 2009, which is still in force. It specifies that an agency classifying information must also set an expiration date for when the information will be automatically declassified. If no date is set, the information will be declassified in either 10 or 25 years from the date it’s classified, depending on its sensitivity. The order also requires that all classified documents must be marked with both the classification level and the name of the official who originally classified it and a “concise” explanation of why it is classified.

                      Who Can Declassify a Document?

                      In 2015, the CIA declassified hundreds of President’s Daily Briefs from eight years during John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson’s presidencies. The President’s Daily Brief is top secret and includes highly classified intelligence analyses, information about covert operations and reports from the most sensitive U.S. sources. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

                      Under Executive Order 13526, documents also must be marked to indicate if the identity of a confidential human intelligence source would be revealed if the document is released, or if documents contain key design concepts of a weapon of mass destruction. These documents are almost always exempt from automatic declassification.

                      Obama’s directive also designates various officials who can declassify a document, ranging from the original classifier and the person’s supervisor, an official assigned to do the review by the agency, and the Director of National Intelligence or the director’s principal deputy.

                      But the order also contains numerous exceptions. An agency head, for example, can exempt a document from automatic classification for a range of reasons, including whether it might reveal information that would “impair the effectiveness of an intelligence method currently in use, available for use or under development” or harm relations between the U.S. and a foreign government.

                      Can the President Declassify Anything?
                      NARA withdrawal notice
                      During declassification projects, documents that cannot be released are removed from the files and replaced with withdrawal notices (like these). The withdrawal notice contains unique information used by National Archives staff to retrieve the withdrawn item if a researcher requests it informally or under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

                      The order, however, doesn’t cover Presidential authority to declassify, or lay out guidelines for the procedure that presidents should follow if they want to declassify a document. The only official guidance on that seems to come from a 2020 federal appeals court decision, in which the judges noted that “declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures.” However, the normal practice seems to be that the president records the declassification decision in an official memorandum.

                      Even Trump, who’s claimed that he could declassify documents merely by thinking about it, followed this practice Jan. 19, 2021, when he issued a memorandum declassifying certain documents related to the FBI’s investigation of links between his 2016 campaign and the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the election. (Trump did accept certain redactions proposed by the FBI.)In 1951, Roosevelt’s successor, Harry S. Truman, issued Executive Order 10290, which not only set up a standardized classification system and markings for documents, but also established an orderly process for declassifying documents that were no longer deemed sensitive. It required the agency declassifying a document to notify any other agency that might have an interest in the question of whether it should remain confidential.”

                      I know that the lie that “the President can just think the word “declassify” and it’s automatic” came from one of the Fox hosts, but it’s not true. The Federal Appeals Court held that “declassification, even by the Prsident, must follow established procedures”. So, please knock off the nonsense. Trump stole the documents found at MAL, refused polite requests to return all of them, returned some of them, kept others and moved around boxes containing retained classified documents to prevent his attorney from returning them as he had promised to do. None of us could do these things and get away with it–nor should Trump.

                    5. “The order, however, doesn’t cover Presidential authority to declassify, or lay out guidelines for the procedure that presidents should follow if they want to declassify a document. “

                      You should read what you copy and then refer to the Constitution. You should also review the history, including that of Clinton and others. When you are done, you can look at Biden, who clearly violated the law. Your ignorance and lack of recognition of what Biden did demonstrate that you are not someone worth listening to.

                  3. David B. Benson tried this! S. Meyer. documents are not declassified until that action is properly recorded.

                    You not only stepped on your dick with that one son – you had to put in the effort to pull your dick out of your pants first and then slam it on the ground so you could step on it.

                    How delicious that it was Bill Clinton and his hidden classified documents that provided the opportunity for you to tapdance on your dick!

                    “Defendant takes the position that plaintiff’s claim based is precluded because the D.C. Circuit determined in Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“Armstrong I”), and
                    Armstrong v. Bush, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Armstrong II”), that judicial review is not available under the PRA.

                    In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.

                    NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.

                    See anything about “properly recorded” related to classification anywhere in that 27 page decision?

                    1. OAD — Go back to properly packing your parachute.

                      Moreover, under the Atomic Energy Act of 195x, certain facts are to forever remaining classified.
                      Some government documents are not ‘Presidential records’.

                2. S. Meyer: You have claimed to be an attorney, so you know that if it were possible to mentally declassify documents that the criminal case against Trump would have been summarily dismissed.

                  Declassification of documents is a formal process involving input from the government agency that classified the documents and there is a paper trail created. No paper trail exists for the documents Trump stole, and some of the documents are among the most sensitive there are. Our allies have expressed concern about sources and methods having been compromised. We have always been very careful with declassification of information involving sources and methods. The argument about “mental declassification “ was laid to rest a long time ago. There is no such thing.

                  1. Cite your source for claiming there is a paper trail when the President declassifies information, Gigenius. Exactly What form does he fill out???

                    Who ISSUES THE PROCEDURES for declassification of documents, Gigenius???

                    As not an attorney, you should learn to STFU, instead of repeating the shit you heard from Rachel Maddow.

                  2. “S. Meyer: You have claimed to be an attorney, so you know that if it were possible to mentally declassify documents that the criminal case against Trump would have been summarily dismissed.”

                    I never said what my occupation or job description is. You can assume what you wish. The President is the head of the executive branch. That gives him powers that no one else has.

                    Your second paragraph displays ignorance. All these departments are below that of the President.

                  3. No paper trail exists for the documents Trump stole,

                    What can we learn from the fact that you NEVER mention the fact that Senator Joe Biden was stealing classified documents and providing him to his crackhead son and corrupt Attorney General Killed In Action Multiple Times son to sell to the Chicoms and Putin for DECADES before he was Vice President – much less Trump running for office?

                    What can we learn from the fact that Trump hating Democrat judges refused to summarily dismiss Smith’s charges, accepted Smith as a valid Special Counsel despite his horrific record of bias and unlawful appointment.

                    But at the same time those brilliant judges needed SCOTUS to plainly lay out to them that the implicit presidential immunity available to all presidents now had to be laid out in detail for them because they were too stupid OR BIASED to understand it also applied to Trump?

                    Oh Gigi, Great Democrat Fire Ho Of Democrat Lies can you come up with something better?

              3. Cite your source for claiming that Trump said he returned them, ya lying skank ass toddler.

              4. No S Meyer— declassifying classified documents is a process that has a paper trail.

                Gigi, The Democrat Fire Ho Of Lies… can you tell us where the paper trail is for the declassification of the classified documents Bill Clinton hid in his bedroom drawers when Bush was elected and took office?

                Just so we can read that paper trail? Were they stolen if there isn’t that paper trail you’re babbling about with spit flying from your lips?

                The media sued to see such a trail and for access to those documents through the Archivist. A Washington DC judge said presidents like Clinton have absolute authority on what they keep, and they can keep them in their bedroom dressers or in offices they share with Chicom agents if they so wish. That judge further ruled that there is absolutely nothing that the Archivist can do about it.

                That aside… did Clinton steal those classified documents?

                How about the document trail for the declassification of the classified documents The Big Guy had in his possession from his decades as a Senator?

                Did Bribery Biden steal those documents to give to his sons to sell to Chicoms and Russians before Obama chose him to be his beard?

                Your family had more respect for you back when you were selling pieces of ass for $5 in back allies.

          2. but the net result is MAGA nonsense and deliberate ignoring of facts.

            This is the Gigi who has been selling the Clinton/Obama/Biden/Harris “Trump-Russia Dossier” for how many years since we learned it was an illegal campaign document commissioned and paid for by that group of unindicted felons?

            Same Gigi who sold the “51 Intelligence agency experts say that isn’t Biden’s laptop; that’s Putin election campaign disinformation”.

            Now she wants us to believe her version of history while she continues screaming Trump is literally Hitler.

            And I encourage her to continue making every single one of these accusations and claims right through the midterms, and all the way to 2028.

            Because it worked so well a week ago today!!!!! Oh, the Joy! that emanates from the Cackle Ho’s acolytes!

          3. I opine that it is the Truth that annoys you. That is probably because you have a huge reserve of Cognitive Dissonance built up. Maybe you should watch some people who used to think like you, but walked away:

      2. You say that as if supporting an America First movement is something to be ashamed of. 😁

        I AM Spartac.. MAGA!

      3. Karen S: yeah, we KNOW you’re a MAGA. You don’t need to keep proving it.

        And we know you’re a lying Bolshevik Bytch On A Broomstick, the embodiment of Communist Useful Idiot, flying straight here to perform as a political whore after your previous tour learning the ropes as a back alley whore.

        You don’t have to keep reminding us of what you are. And so we’ll respond to you exactly as your posts show you deserve.

        BTW, when’s your next scheduled elective birth control abortion for your latest back alley trick that went wrong? Do you keep track with a golf scorecard or something like that?

  3. Never let your opponent frame the argument. I learned this in high school while on the (forensics (competitive debate) team.

    The Left has no standing, no honor, no credibility, has a history of lying and misleading, and lacks the suppport of the US citizens. They also have blood on their hands vis a vis, endless wars, COVID response, etc. To say they are persona non grata is to put it mildly.

    Eliminating the Dept of Education alone will save >80 billions of dollars, which could be offset by what President Trump plans on doing once inaugurated, e.g. deportation.

    The FY 2025 Education Budget Summary and Background Information [PDF, 1.2MB] provides program information and detailed budget tables.
    Overall, the fiscal year 2025 Budget requests $82.4 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education, including a change in mandatory program (CHIMP) and rescissions. This Request reflects a $3.1 billion or 4.0 percent increase from the fiscal year 2024 annualized CR level.
    https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget25/summary/25summary.pdf

    Eliminating many other US agencies frees up even more billions of dollars.

    Department of Energy: Statement by Secretary Granholm on the President’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
    The DOE Budget requests $51 billion in discretionary budget authority for 2025, a $3.6 billion or 7.5 percent increase from the 2023 level.
    https://www.energy.gov/articles/statement-secretary-granholm-presidents-fiscal-year-2025-budget

    Biden’s handlers (aka Barack Obama) had hubris, cold-calculating hubris, in increasing the size of the US Government and with it take more from US taxpayers or worse, export are monies to endless wars.

    The authentic argument that Americans have conveyed is this: Americans are tired of big government and want government to work for them. The US government was used against Americans and their children. Shut it down…all of it

    Obama and his Left wing psychopaths can move to Cuba to get a taste of their own poisonous medicine. We have had enough of it

    1. Estovir,
      “Americans are tired of big government and want government to work for them.”
      Yes! We see our money going to the swamp and not getting much in return and even less over the past two decades or so. When you have a FEMA employee, in a leadership position telling employees to skip over or avoid hurricane damaged homes with Trump signs or flags, something is very wrong.

      1. The Constitution was tired of big government in 1789. Article 1, Section 8, allows Congress to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and general Welfare – police, fire, basic infrastructure necessary for all, the whole, or general – and allows Congress to regulate ONLY the value of money, commerce among nations, States, and Indian tribes (to preclude bias by one over others), and land and naval Forces.

        That’s all, Folks!

        It’s so simple, noncomplex, and infinitesimal, most people can’t grasp.

        1. SCOTUS upheld the right to federal taxation with the ratification of the XVI amendment in 1913. This amendment gave Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the US Census. This was a significant change from the earlier ruling in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), where the Court had declared a federal income tax unconstitutional.

        2. The Supreme Court upheld the right to federal taxation with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. This amendment gave Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the U.S. Census. This was a significant change from the earlier ruling in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), where the Court had declared a federal income tax unconstitutional.

      2. Apparently NotReallyaFarmer’s imaginary livestock continue to fend for themselves today.

        He has spent the entire day here.

    2. Didn’t read all of it. If the fed dept of Ed allocates in the billions cutting State budgets by whom will this shortfall be paid? Perhaps just block grants, no strings attached? Of California will get a huge amount considering its huge population?

      Perhaps States should just pay for education. Right now the feds do not require teaching American history unless that history is attached to abused minorities.

      Yeah, delete the dept of education. Some States may decide to offer no education at all. It’s their choice.

      1. The Department of Education (along with HUD, Labor, Energy, and many others were created by an Act of Congress. This means it takes Congressional approval to force them to go out of business. The President cannot just snap his fingers and **poof** they’re gone!

  4. Wouldn’t it be funny if Justice Sotomayor took revenge on grubby, scheming Democrats pressing her to step down by hanging on long enough to resign while Trump is in office?

    I couldn’t blame her nor would Biden likely complain. After all, Biden maybe took his own revenge on the coup plotters. He crowned Kamala [not the plotters choice] and he and Jill seemed to signal that they voted for Trump.

    Vengeance is in the air.

  5. And then there is this,
    “Former Wall Street money manager Ed Dowd is a skillful financial analyst who said in May the economy was skidding. Now, Dowd predicts the economy is poised to “roll over” and soon.”
    “Real weekly wage growth was minus 2% going into the election. It is also interesting to know that minus 2% number of wage growth was also in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won in a landslide and also in 1992 when Bill Clinton won in a landslide. . . . I have never seen such blatant manipulation of government statistics. There is government spending and government hiring to paper over what is truly a bad economy for the average man. When I was asked prior to the election who do you think will win the election, I said Trump has already won, according to the economic statistics.”
    “The real economy has been rolling over, and we are just waiting for the financial markets to figure this out. When they do, Trump is going to inherit a turd of a financial market crisis.”
    https://usawatchdog.com/trump-inherits-turd-of-an-economy-ed-dowd/

    Save that linky for later. I am.

    1. I just read that, too. I think the poop is about to hit the fan financially speaking. Of course, I have been thinking that since 2008 or so, when Wall Street was bailed out, as opposed to de-leveraging.

      Here is the first part of an interesting analysis. I think this dude is right, that there will be hyperinflation. Just a matter of when.

      1. Floyd,
        Yeah, I have been watching the markets and everything has been pointing to a downturn for at least a year, but they have been able to kick the can down the road with government spending and government hiring. His analysis is spot on. It is just looking for that one trigger that will spark it all to find. Otherwise, investing in PMs.
        BTW, was on the road yesterday, read your update. Good on ya man for your care of the four legged furry friends. If I could throw you a few bucks I would.
        I got two barn cats and two or three strays who show up for a meal. The one was looking very thin, but I was able to slip him some de-wormer.

        1. Thx! I may start a 501(c) next year, but I would not solicit here. I think it would be unseemly. Right now, I am making do, and hopefully I will get some unemployment benefits soon, but if I do, it would be far less than $100 per week. But I could get some cat food reserves built up. I worry more about having to go to a nursing home one of these days. But I have term life insurance for another 10 years! So there’s that. Luckily, the two kittens have a home waiting for them.

          1. Well friend, I think you got more than a few around here aside from me who feel a need to take care of the strays and unwanted furry friends. If you start up your 501(c) do at least post a linky so we can go to your site and make a donation there.

          2. Floyd – do you run a cat rescue? I suddenly had to lay my beloved kitty to rest, and miss him terribly. Those years were not enough.

            1. Karen,

              It is kind of an unintentional cat rescue. There are 6 or 7 cats that I consider to be pets. That leaves about 24 or so cats that are not pets, per se. But, most of those have lived in my house for nearly 6 years. For example, Gertrude. She was a stray cat, and feral. Both her ears are clipped, so she was a released feral. I fed her on my porch for a few years, and then, when a bad cold spell happened, I brought her inside. When I first met her, I could not even pet her. The first time I touched her, she bounced off a dozen different places on my porch, like a pin ball bouncing off bumpers. But over time, I got to where I could pet her, and pick her up without getting bitten. So a few years ago, I brought her in. Now, every night she flops up in my lap, and makes biscuits and sleeps. Same with sick cat, Snookums. I suspect the two are related. I also brought Dixie in, and she has become a cuddle cat too.

              But I don’t really consider Gertrude, Dixie and Snookums to be pets. I love them all, but they are basically feral cats who live inside, and who I take care of. I discovered that a psychopath neighbor killed one of my rescues, so when a sweet little tom cat I call Sebastian came up on my porch one night and started crawling all over me, I took him in. Because the murdered cat was like that, and his friendliness got him killed. I got Sebastian fixed, and he lived inside for maybe a year. But we found a home for him! He is very much loved now and has a friend cat in his new home, who he is very attached to. I hope to do the same thing with Bob, another sweet stray cat who lives on my porch a lot and who has a cubbyhole to sleep in. As soon as I can afford to get him fixed, I will bring him inside to live, and see if he is happy here. Then, try to find him a home.

              The two Immaculate Conception kittens, Skunk and Cole, both have homes waiting for them. Skunk is going to live with someone who took Bug, about two years ago, so she will have a good home, and another cat to play with. Cole is going to live with Sebastian’s new mommie’s sister, who has an eight year old daughter.

              So, in a way, it is a rescue, but some of my cats just live here, and are part of the Cat Herd. I have several feral females that I can not pet or touch, yet, even though they have lived here for over a year. One of them had Skunk and Cole, prematurely, and I do not know how she got pregnant, as all my male cats are fixed. All my giveaways are guaranteed for life, and can always come back home.

              My biggest worry is what happens when I croak, but my daughter assures me that her and her cat rescue friends will take care of them. I still wake up at night sometimes and worry my a$$ off.

      2. Just wipe it out and fire the public federal employees except bare bones essentials. No foreign money in or out. Only wall street exists.

        That ez

    2. I have really struggled with this Democrat message that the economy is booming. I’ve gotten into arguments over this. It’s cognitive dissonance to pay that much for groceries, utilities, and fuel, while being told how great a job Biden did with the economy.

      1. How true. There are things I have had to give up to save money, because the prices went up too much. Eggplant now $2.50 each. Squash, $1.10 each. Iced coffee up to $4.58 per carton, and I really used to love my iced coffee when I first woke up. I am going to have to check out the misfits veggie site again.

      2. It’s cognitive dissonance to pay that much for groceries, utilities, and fuel, while being told how great a job Biden did with the economy.

        Karen, think of it this way. From the beginning of Obama’s Third Term with the Biden/Harris election campaign all the way through until now and the foreseeable future, this can be called the Please Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes Democrat Administration.

        Americans are no long willing to comply with Democrats begging them not to believe their lying eyes. The election, accompanied by tactics like “He’s Hitler!”, showed that a majority of Americans have decided they are going to believe what their eyes are telling them.

        Whether about the economy, police state fascism lawfare, illegal aliens, or assurances that being a DEI Hire certified to have not just a vagina, but a brown one at that, is qualification enough to be the president.

  6. Another excellent piece. And it still isn’t the time to be cocky: inauguration day is two months away, and there will be midterms in two years. This regime has already shown time and again no low is too low (oh, the irony, Michelle 🙄), it is clear that the snakes, rather than reflecting, have chosen to continue to bite and to poison. Stay vigilant, it ain’t over yet. Not by a long shot.

    1. James,
      I am watching what the Trump team is doing and they are trying to hit the ground running. This is a different admin than the first. Trump is pushing for recess appointments to get his people in place to get to work. There is a lot of energy here. But you are correct. Not the time to get cocky.

      1. A president-elect cannot have their cabinet secretaries officially ratified by the Senate prior to their inauguration; however, the Senate can hold pre-inaugural hearings for high-level nominees. This allows the newly sworn-in President to formally submit nominations to the Senate on the day of the inauguration for immediate Senate action.

        I don’t know why the President is pushing for recess appointments since they must occur after his inauguration. The first Congressional recess post-inauguration does not occur until Presidents’ Day on 2/17/25 and that is typically only for a week.
        The next one is not scheduled until Easter Recess which typically occurs in late March – Early April for 2 weeks. Most presidents would want their nominees approved well before Easter Recess.

        A president can make recess appointments during the Presidents’ Day recess, provided that the Senate is in recess for at least 10 days based on a 2014 SCOTUS ruling in 2014 (NLRB v Noel Canning) and as I said previously, the Presidents’ Day recess does ot last that long.

        1. Democrats can hold up Trump’s Senate nominations because GOP lack the 60 votes to over-ride fillibuster. He can use recess appointments whenever the US Senate (e.g. GOP leadership) calls for a recess. It is a very smart move. So come Inauguration, the Senate can call for recess “when it says it is”, and Trump can have his nominations approved in spite of the Democrats. This is why the Left is in full panic mode over Trump’s idea of recess appointments. Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments.

          As Democrats love to repeat: elections have consequences.

          Recess appointments could short-circuit Senate opposition to Trump nominees

          Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments while in the White House; George W. Bush made 171; and Barack Obama made 32, according to the Congressional Research Service. In most of those cases, the Senate was controlled by the opposite party.

          The court laid out guidelines for the process in Canning, noting that the Senate is in recess “when it says it is” and that the Constitution requires the recess to last 10 days or more for a president to be able to fill an open seat.
          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/recess-appointments-short-circuit-senate-opposition-trump-nominees/story?id=115741507

      2. @Upstate

        I don’t disagree; but that is assuming they are permitted to take power in January. The dems still control the White House. There is seemingly no end to their dirty tricks. I will relax in February. 🤷🏽‍♂️

      3. So far not an impressive line up except for Elise Stefanik. No one wants to be black-balled and have their personal lives turned upside down.

        All of the personal life issues should be disallowed by media. If it has nothing to do with the job or there is an actual police record as evidence it should not be discussed. That includes Harris and Brown.

        Until Fani and Nathan are convicted there’s nothing to see unless actual charges of firing an employee or using federal money for vacations is charged and convicted. Elections by rumor…

  7. Whatever Trump’s faults or deficiencies he has moved the Overton Window on amnesty, immigration and many other issues. And we now know what the left really thinks about ordinary Americans who live outside the urban and coastal bubbles.

    THEY HATE YOU, WANT TO DESTROY YOU AND WISH YOU WERE DEAD. IMAGINE WHAT THEY WOULD DO TO YOU IF THEY COULD.

    Anyone remember the forced covid vaccinations, those who wanted to fire you, take your kids or put you in a detention camp (as was done in Australia).

    Trump will not save us but he buys us time.

    I do not want to understand, dialog or reconcile with these people, I want a divorce.

    And no, I am not a ‘nazi’ for writing to above.

    antonio

  8. Several countries are known to be uncooperative or recalcitrant when it comes to accepting their own citizens who are being deported from the United States. Some of these countries include:

    China: has been identified as one of the countries that systematically refuses or delays the repatriation of its citizens.

    Cuba: is another country that has been uncooperative in accepting deportees.

    India: has also been listed among the countries that are recalcitrant in taking back their citizens.

    Iran: is known to delay or refuse the repatriation of its nationals.

    Iraq: is another country that has been identified as uncooperative in accepting deportees.

    Pakistan: has been mentioned as a country that delays or refuses to take back its citizens.

    Somalia: is known to be uncooperative in accepting deportees.

    Venezuela: is one of the least cooperative countries when it comes to accepting deportees.

    Tariffs on Chinese goods should take care of deportation costs of Chinese citizens. Iranian sanctions relief being stopped should offset the costs of deporting Iranians. Applying the costs of deportation of Iranians against that country’s frozen assets in the US is another possibility. Iraq has ordered US forces to leave the country so reducing the costs we provide for economic development assistance would help the US taxpayer. The US has demonstrated incredible largesse to Pakistan — nearly $US32 billion since 2002. It’s easy to apply deportation costs against the aid we provide to Pakistan. The US has provided Somalia $US1.2 billion in assistance during the current fiscal year. It’s easy for the State Department to withhold that support. Indirect support for Cuba via Cubans sending money home to their country should be suspended.

    Incredibly, we import 153,000 barrels of oil/day from Venezuela. This should stop. Just this action alone should convince Venezuela that US aid for development will also be impacted if it doesn’t take its citizens back when deported.

    1. Several countries are known to be uncooperative or recalcitrant when it comes to accepting their own citizens who are being deported from the United States.

      And why would they willingly accept them back? If they were a burden on whatever they called a social support system in their home countries, why would they want that burden back? These aren’t their tradespeople, doctors, human resources administrators, etc. Illegal Aliens are primarily economic leeches looking for a better host for that reason: they don’t have the skills and abilities to succeed in their home countries and move up the economic ladder to their country’s middle classes.

      These countries clearly prefer exporting their society’s problems to the USA with the potential that a bonus will be untaxed income will be sent back to the home country to be spent by citizens still there.

      And when a country gives it’s criminals inside or outside of jail a choice: serve your time in a Guatamalan/Mexican/Russian/ChiCom prison – or potentially serve time in an America jail instead for being an Illegal Alien. Why would those countries who give their criminals an offer like that which they couldn’t refuse want them back?

      If Trump wants to play hardball and is willing to play hardball, they WILL take them back. He could try bribing them to take them back.

      Or flat out say “You will eagerly take them back or I will destroy what you have for an economy and any UN aid you receive”.

      1. I have no problem with applying economic “incentives” to force these select governments to repatriate their citizens. “Bribing” them sounds like an excuse for Dems to start another impeachment. We must admit that there ARE countries (Cuba is but one example) that has withstood economic sanctions for over 60 years yet have not yielded to US pressure. Cuban sanctions for 2 generations have not brought the country out of socialism/Communism. There are just some countries that will not be dictated to, and if they put the military on the tarmac to seal the doors of any flight to return their citizens, there is not much the US can do to force it to comply. They have chosen to languish in poverty under the weight of US sanctions and if they wish to endure them for another 60 years, it’s their call. Just so sad for the Cuban people.

        The US Coast Guard should return all of its cutters from the Middle East and elsewhere to serve as a floating “wall” against those attempting to reach the Florida Keys (or the continental US) by boat.

    2. * They aren’t looking for non criminals to deport. They’re looking to immediately deport criminals and not releasing dangerous criminals. Also, closing the borders without visa and passport. Common sense.

  9. Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers

    “On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”

    “[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Now President Donald J. Trump MUST pull a full “Lincoln” and close the border, impose martial law, prosecute a war against the communist rebellion without a formal declaration, shred the Communist Manifesto and irrevocably extirpate all principles of communism in America, implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights including absolute freedom, absolute free enterprise, absolute free markets, and absolute private property including a fully constitutional dearth of taxation and regulation, eliminate the Departments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, and EPA, issue the “Deportation Proclamation” deporting all illegal aliens, past and present, including those who illegally pursued citizenship as criminal border crossers and “asylum” seekers who all made false and fraudulent claims of phantom, nonexistent persecution as foreign citizens with no U.S. rights, establish coherent voter qualifications by State legislatures per the Constitution, declare English the sole official language of the United States, suspend habeas corpus, smash opposition printing presses, networks, podcasts, social media platforms, etc., and throw anyone and everyone who opposes him in prison to Save the Union until America is placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    1. Not quite possible. While it may be emotionally appealing to have the President take on the authorities of an absolute monarch, it’s application would be struck down by the federal courts. #1: The President COULD close the border under current INS and public health laws. #2. SCOTUS ruled that DoD funds could be used for the construction of the border wall, but it would be preferable for Congress to provide the money to avoid appeals in the courts. #3. The President COULD declare a national emergency and impose martial law along the border (sympathetic governors could do so on their own) leaving NM and CA as the two states being compelled to bow to federal will. #4. Absolute freedom, absolute free enterprise, absolute free markets, and absolute private property including a fully constitutional dearth of taxation and regulation? Hmm. Nobody wants absolute freedom — it leads to lawlessness. Private property rights are best protected by the States unless you are proposing a constitutional amendment. The 16th Amendment ratified in 1913 upheld the right to federal taxation on income (See also Article I, §8 of the Constitution). #5. The federal departments you mentioned were all created and authorized by federal law meaning that only Congress has the power to create or eliminate them. #6. SCOTUS affirmed constitutional rights for illegal aliens in1982 in Plyler v. Doe and in others ruled that the 14th Amendment applies to all persons within the US — not just citizens. Zadvydas v Davis in 2001 held that indefinite detention of non-citizens who have been ordered removed but cannot be deported to their own countries is unconstitutional. #7. The President does not have the authority to unilaterally declare an official language. It requires an act of Congress. #8. Suspending the Writ is constitutionally permitted to an act of Congress (Article I, §9). The only President to get away with it was Lincoln. GW Bush’s attempt to use the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to suspend the Writ for those designated as “enemy combatants” was found unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 2008 in the case Boumediene v. Bush. #9. Smashing printing presses, etc. is a violation of the 1st Amendment and possibly others. #10. Your “suggestions” where impossible without Congressional involvement are also dictatorial — the very accusation leveled at the feet of Trump during the campaign.

      1. And just think, everything Lincoln did was based on secession being unconstitutional, which it is not. 

        I didn’t mean to imply that pulling a full Lincoln would be popular with parasites, leeches, and communists. 

        Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, his entire “Reign of Terror,” the nullification of existing immigration law—the Naturalization Act of 1802—and the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx. 

        SCOTUS is a political body when populated with communists and a judicial body when populated with Americans.

        Shall I remind you that the Supreme Court of 1869 falsely and fraudulently “decided” politically that secession was constitutional, presumably finding that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited? Brilliant!

        Shall I remind you that the thoroughly corrupt Supreme Court of 1973 found that abortion was a federal and constitutional right and that was utterly extirpated by the correct and legitimate Supreme Court of 2022 in its Dobbs decision, placing the legality of abortion with the States and squarely on the Constitution? 

        You spew politics, not law, senior. 

        1. Lincoln also signed the statehood bill for West Virginia, which was in effect seceding from Virginia, after Virginia seceded from the Union, which Lincoln opposed. He were agin it, afore he were fer it. Lincoln was a Union Nationalist, not a Constitutionalist. The issue was resolved at the point of a bayonet. The right or wrong of Lincoln’s violation(s) of the Constitution, resides with each individual’s conscience as to whether or not the preservation of the Union can or should be attained at the expense of the Constitution.

          “Lincoln received the statehood bill on December 15 and conferred with his cabinet about its constitutionality. Despite divisions within his cabinet, Lincoln signed the bill on December 31, 1862. After receiving word that the Wheeling delegates (February 17) and western voters (March 26) had approved the revised state constitution, Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring that on June 20, 1863, West Virginia would officially become a state. After being elected the state’s first governor, on June 20, 1863, Wood County resident Arthur I. Boreman officially declared West Virginia America’s thirty-fifth state.”

          https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/west-virginia-creation-of/

          While a multitude of “what if” theories regarding what may have been if the South had won, or attained a separate peace, have been authored by many historians, it remains that the majority of Americans have come to live more or less peacefully with each other generally believing the Nation to be better off as “The United States”, as opposed to it’s pre-civil war status of “A United States”, despite the generational polarization of the populace which the civil war and it’s outcome tendered.

          At least until now. When once again, the Nation’s populace is fairly split into a 50-50 abridgement of pro and anti-Union sentiment. Though today, that anti-Union sentiment is more inclined to be expressed by radicals seeking to undermine the SCOTUS, or the Constitution, or Federal law, or some other gerrymandering of the political system, with only a few voicing any mention of secession, and even then such talk is commonly centered around disenchanted counties within various states seeking to secede within that particular state, or to another nearby state, from the state in which they have some base disagreement and rather than seek compromise, reach for the nuclear trigger every time there is a cultural or political disagreement.

          The cautionary tale is, the more often political leaders play with fire, the more likely they are to succeed in starting one. A big one.

          1. You are correct in stating that West Virginia was created wholly from land that was part of the Commonwealth of Virginia (in 1863). But this is not unique. If you look at a map of the US as it existed when the 13 colonies became states (or commonwealths for the purists out there), the Commonwealth of Kentucky was created from Virginia’s land holdings (1792), and Tennessee was formed (1796) from land that had been part of North Carolina that had been ceded back to the federal government. Alabama (1819) and Mississippi (1817) came from land that had originally been part of Georgia and also ceded back to the federal government. Vermont “seceded” from New York in 1777. Maine had been part of Massachusetts until it achieved statehood in 1820. The first state to come from land that had not been claimed by any of the 13 original states was Ohio (1803) as part of the Northwest Territories.

        2. You spew politics, not law, senior.

          You spew communism, totalitarianism and racism and then call it law, Tovarisch.

        3. Lincoln did not nullify any existing immigration laws. Instead, he signed the “Act to Encourage Immigration” on July 4, 1864, which aimed to address labor shortages caused by the Civil War and to promote the economic growth of the US by encouraging foreign immigrants to settle here. “The Reconstruction Amendments” (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments): While Lincoln was alive when the 13th Amendment was proposed, he was not alive when those amendments were ratified. Your feelings about SCOTUS are the same as when a liberal Court holds the majority.

          On the issue of secession: SCOTUS ruled on the secession question in the case of Texas v. White in 1869. The Court held that states do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States. The ruling stated that the Union is “indestructible” and that the former Confederate States’ ordinances of secession were “absolutely null”. Justice Antonin Scalia weighed in on the secession question in a private letter. In 2006, he responded to a screenwriter’s question about secession by stating that there is no constitutional right to secede. Scalia mentioned that if there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. Put another way, the outcome of the War of the Rebellion dictated there was no other verdict possible.

          SCOTUS reserves the right unto itself to reverse its own decisions. They can be viewed as political by some, but sometimes reversals happen because of changes in the law, treaties, or even public pressure (such as declaring no capital punishment can be imposed on an individual who committed a capital crime when under the age of 18, or when Brown v Board of Education reversed Plessy v Ferguson).

          I hesitate to agree that Roe v Wade was “corrupt” — although I would say it was morally incorrect. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor played a significant role in upholding abortion rights during her tenure on the Supreme Court. Although she personally found abortion offensive, she believed that personal moral views should not dictate legal decisions. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O’Connor helped lead a majority that reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade. She stated, “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code”.

        4. In the event you are confused: The proposal for some areas of western Oregon to “secede” from Oregon and join Idaho (often referred to as the “Greater Idaho” movement) would not be secession in the strictest sense because the number of states left after such an action would not be diminished. In such a case, the outcome would be re-drawing state boundaries which would require the approval of both states’ legislatures and Congress.

  10. This young girl is smarter than all of the Left put together:

    There is an extreme and bizarre sense of entitlement and narcissism coming from American women who, contrary to popular belief, will not be losing a single right. Meanwhile, they were silent when Israeli women were gang-raped in front of their loved ones on October 7 by Hamas, many of whom are still held hostage to this day. They were silent when Iranian women started being murdered in the streets if they chose not to cover their hair, or abide by the dress code that men had set for them. There are Afghani women who have essentially been completely erased from society, and aren’t even allowed to speak, not even to other women, and you are silent about that. You see, there are women who truly have no rights in this world, but you want to sit here cosplaying oppression because you want to feel special.

    https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1856070848823603570

  12. Now that the American people have made their voices heard, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats will justify opposing policies designed to address the concerns of those voters. As the saying goes FAFO!

  13. Illegals ordered deported should have the cost of their apprehension, prosecution (and defense costs) along with the cost of their detention and repatriation (airline flights) be deducted from the amount of support that country receives from US taxpayers as well as have visas into this country restricted. This would also eliminate the projected cost of $88 billion/year/million deported from the US national debt.

    1. The 88B number is made up – now a talking head on CNN is claiming 96B.
      What is REAL is that it costs the federal government 152B/yr in emergency benefits for illegals.

      ICE regularly deports over 400K/yr – on their current budget.
      Estimates are that could easily grow to 600K without significant additional resources
      During Obama’s first term 2.9M people were deported.
      With a peak close to 1.4M people.

      What is more important is that as the border is shutdown, and as actual deportation becomes more likely,
      very large numbers of these people will just leave.

      There are already signs of that.

      If you are deported – you will NEVER be allowed into the US.
      If you voluntarily leave – you can apply for asylum which you have a near zero percent chance of getting, or you can apply to legally immigrate to the US – which after waiting several years you MIGHT get. But not if you are deported.

      I would note that Trump has said that he supports MORE legal immigration.
      And that is actually a necescity. The US has approx 1M legal immigrants a year – we need atleast 2M to avoid demographic problems with out current birth rates.

      I would like to see a secure border.
      The removal of criminals.

      New immigration law that both makes it much easier to come to the US and provides absolutely no guarantees of assistance to those who do.

      That is how Open Borders actually worked in the 19th century.
      You can not have both large scale immigration and guaranteed govenrment checks.
      It is called MORAL HAZARD.

      Worse it makes immigrants look like lazy welfare queens when most are not.

      My suggestion to Trump and republicans is change immigration laws to allow more ivetted legal immigrants
      but without any claim to public resources.

      Then tell the existing illegals that they can leave on their own and apply for LEGAL immigration with a much greater chance than in the past of getting it.
      Or they can stay and get deported and they will NEVER be allowed back.

      Do that and you will only need ICE to round up the crooks.

      1. “ ICE regularly deports over 400K/yr – on their current budget.
        Estimates are that could easily grow to 600K without significant additional resources
        During Obama’s first term 2.9M people were deported.
        With a peak close to 1.4M people.”

        Your figures are of Obama’s two terms, that’s 8 years. You are including apprehensions AND deportations as deportations. The most number of deportations in a year under obama reached 407,000. Far more than Trump ever did.

        ICE does not “regularly deport over 400K/yr. That’s a lie. They deport less than that a year. That does not account for returns and apprehensions.

        Under the previous three presidents no removals exceeded 400k. Only Obama achieved that level and that was over an 8 year period. Trump has only 4 years to deport 11 to 15 million if he is going to keep his promise. That’s not going to work and it is going to cost a lot more.

        ICE budget for 2023 was just $8 billion with an additional $300 million for extra resources. That’s just to deport remove just under 300k a year.

        Deporting a million in just one year will definitely cost more than the entirety of ICE’s budget.

      2. * don’t forget the illegals were encouraged and funded if it were known by the Biden group, Obama group etc. Whether a republican voted for it or not you’re an accessory to that crime. Every American is.

        It was allowed and Americans continued to vote dems in as people were being killed or died or murdered. The southern border is the most dangerous border in the world not considering Israel Gaza border or Ukraine Russia. And they still voted dems in?

        Does ANYONE want to be associated with this atrocity?

    2. That’s not gonna last long. We don’t spend $88 billion on those countries. Not even close. That’s just for 1 million. Keep in mind that many of those illegal aliens also pay taxes towards social security and Medicare. Removing them will affect revenue sources from those programs as well. It will reduce spending on the economy since they also buy things like cars, houses, groceries, services, etc. It’s largely a myth that they all rely on welfare and government services. These people work and see government services as shameful.

      1. In order to pay taxes toward SS and Medicare, they would have to be on the payroll, legally. They are not. They get paid cash. Many of them then send part of their pay back to family in their home counties. They do not buy cars or homes. At one time, like when my grandparents came to this country, legally, it was shameful to take government handouts. Not any more.

        1. “ In order to pay taxes toward SS and Medicare, they would have to be on the payroll, legally. They are not.”

          You would be surprised that many are on payrolls. As long as they have an IRS Tax ID number they certainly pay taxes like everyone else. A few may be paid in cash, but they also pay property taxes, sales taxes, buy homes and pay taxes through mortgages, etc.

          “ They do not buy cars or homes.”

          They certainly do. Because it’s not illegal for them to do so. They can legally buy a home or a car or anything they want. You didn’t know that? It’s perfectly legal for an illegal alien to buy property in the U.S. with a IRS issued tax ID number issued to them.

          How do you think large companies like meat processors and farms manage payrolls? They use IRS tax ID numbers which are legal and allows them to pay taxes like everyone else. That’s how large farms and other corporations reliant on immigrants legal or not legally file THEIR taxes.

          1. “You would be surprised that many are on payrolls. As long as they have an IRS Tax ID number they certainly pay taxes like everyone else.”

            We would be surprised if George wasn’t once again lying to us again. Just as it’s a lie to claim it will cost more to deport Illegal Aliens than what it costs to have them remain here.

            The latest estimate from Congress is that the Biden illegal aliens have cost American taxpayers $460 BILLION, at a minimum. It isn’t just the luxury of scheduling chartering airliners go pick them up in foreign countries and fly them in comfort over the border into the interior of America to hide their entrance as illegal aliens.

            Just because they’re on somebody’s payroll doesn’t mean it’s a payroll where the employer subjects wages to government deductions.

            It’s a felony to employ illegal aliens. There are employers willing to repeatedly commit that felony. While doing that – and illegally paying lower than minimum wage and overtime rates, why would they not commit the additional felony of a second set of books without tax information and government deductions? They suddenly become law abiding when it comes to keeping books that serve as proof of their criminality?

            They want to show any auditor books that prove they’re committing the criminal act of paying less than minimum wage, no overtime, etc?

            And how, if they actually do have a tax number, how did they get it legally without furthering their criminal activity in America?

            18 U.S.C. § 911 (False Personation of a U.S. Citizen):
            Illegal aliens presenting themselves as U.S. citizens. For example, an illegal alien claiming U.S. citizenship while applying for and/or after being employed. A felony,punishable by up to five years in jail.

            18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Fraud and False Statements):
            Illegal aliens making false statements to the government or on official documents. An example would be completing and submitting the I-9 Employment Eligibility form. A felony, punishable by both a fine and up to five years imprisonment.

            18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and Information):
            Otherwise known as “false ID” like a false Social Security card to provide to support for an equally fraudulent I-9 Employment Eligibility form. Simple possession is enough. A felony, with up to fifteen years in jail as the penalty.

            42 U.S.C. § 408 (Social Security Fraud):
            This offense occurs when an illegal alien provides a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job. A felony, punishable by both a fine and up to five years imprisonment, as well as the court possibly ordering restitution.

            So many excuses regularly put forward to defend the presence of these Illegal Alien Guest Democrat Voters.

            1. Many are working and then stiffed for the pay. Can they speak up? I certainly hope so.

  14. Statement by Putin aide, Nikolay Patrushev:
    “To achieve success in the elections, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”

    Translation:
    “Urine trouble if you don’t do as I say”

    1. The “forces” Trump has an obligation to are the 5M voters that elected him,
      and the obligation he has to them is to deliver on his platform.
      It is way early – but so far so good.

  15. [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qviErMdYEA?si=_C13zXmQ_fXdGVka&w=560&h=315%5D

    “REPORT: State Department Holds “Cry Session” Following Trump’s Dominant Election Victory”
    –by Cullen Linebarger Nov. 11, 2024 7:00 pm

    “The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that the Biden State Department organized what is being described as a “cry session” on Friday. This sad meeting was put together by the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.”

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/report-state-department-holds-cry-session-following-trumps/

  16. Better than Clemenceau here – Brecht’s famous “Die Losung”: “Would it not be simpler at this point to dissolve the government and elect a new people?”

  17. Republicans in Congress tend to have more internal divisions compared to Democrats. According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis, there are more distinct voting clusters within the Republican Party than within the Democratic Party. This suggests that Republicans are less likely to vote as a block compared to Democrats, who have more cohesive voting patterns.

    So says AI.

    Despite having the majority in the House, it is quite possible (and even probable) that internal divisions may make it difficult to govern there, testing the leadership of the Speaker and the Whip to corral wayward members into voting for the Trump agenda. We may even see the Speaker tossed out in another leadership fight, further cementing the belief that Republicans can’t govern — even with a majority.

    Moving on to the border: Trump can seal the border by declaring a national emergency and using the appropriate provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Section 212(f)), and the Public Health Service Act (Section 319). He would probably also be successful in getting the appropriations to finish the border wall and federalizing border states’ National Guard to assist in enforcing the border. All this, combined with pressure on Mexico and other foreign governments that permit (if not encourage) illegal migration would also be preventive steps.

    The problem with deporting illegals is a much tougher nut to crack. The US needs to massively increase the number of asylum judges to clear the backlog of those with asylum claims. 20% of all asylum claims historically have been found valid — the rest are not. Those ordered deported should be held in confinement pending the outcome of appeals. Families that risk being divided should have the option of returning to their country of origin with the deported family member.

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to those born on US soil is an impediment to deportation. Trump cannot — without amending the Constitution — deport those born here. An extreme level of vetting would be to deny entry into the US of any woman found to be pregnant at the border for the duration of their pregnancy. This would decrease the ability of “anchor babies” being used to affect immigration policy. It would do nothing to affect babies conceived inside the US during the asylum process, however.

    The US is a party to several international conventions that “might” put the brakes on the deportation of illegals. It is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Refugee Convention which defines who is a refugee, their rights, and the legal obligations of states to protect them. The United Nations Convention Against Torture obligates states to ensure that no one is subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It includes provisions for the protection of individuals who fear torture if returned to their home country. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the rights of individuals, including the right to seek asylum from persecution. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols provide comprehensive rules for the protection of individuals in times of armed conflict, including provisions relevant to the treatment of refugees and asylees. US domestic laws such as the Refugee Act of 1980 form the legal framework for how the US handles asylees.

    Refugees/asylees are just as much a child of God as any American citizen and deserve the respect in their personhood just as a citizen does. Anyone who mistreats an asylum seeker should be prosecuted.

    There are a number of nations (usually more autocratic ones) that refuse to repatriate those ordered deported by US courts. In the Western Hemisphere these include countries like Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, and to a lesser extent, Brazil. If alternative countries will not receive them, the US may be forced to release them under supervision into the US.

    There is the possibility that the US could be accused of rendering individuals stateless through deportation orders. If the US deports individuals who do not hold citizenship in any country, it could be seen as rendering them stateless (especially pertinent in the cases of countries refusing to repatriate their citizens). Those lacking proper documentation and ordered deported can result in statelessness. Many of those claiming asylum left their official documents/passports on the Mexican side of the border to gain advantage of stateless status. The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons — depending on the actions US officials take — could result in the US being accused of violating international law.

    If the US wishes to withdraw from any of these agreements, it usually takes 6 months at a minimum to come into effect.

    Trump has cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as a means to detain and deport illegals without a hearing. This Act gives such authority to the President when non-citizens enter from a hostile nation or government during times of war or when there is a threat of invasion. He relies on the interpretation of “invasion” heavily here, and whether the States or the federal government can successfully argue what we are seeing is an “invasion” as understood in the late 18th century will be a matter for the courts.

    When the President speaks of putting US military forces on the border, it’s a bit tricky. The Insurrection Act of 1807 would allow this when suppressing civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion. Invoking this Act would supersede the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878; therefore, declaring a national emergency (with or without a martial law declaration in counties within 50 miles of the Mexican border), along with the Insurrection Act (as long as his concept of “insurrection” is accepted by the courts) would be the best way to go about supporting deportation efforts.

    Lastly, outlawing sanctury cities and states and reforming the asylum laws are critical.

    1. Republicans do have more divisions than Democrats. But most of those divisions are far less deep.

      Republicans already had leadership battles – and there is a big one right now over replacing McConnell.
      We will see how that goes.

      But GOP internal differences at the very best will make the difference between large scale and rapid implimentation of the Trump/GOP platrorm and a mkore slow and measured implimentation. There are no left wing nuts in the GOP. The biggest division will be over Ukraine aide – which will be solved by a peace deal which is likely before legislation is rolling.

      Historically asylum claims are approved at less than a 2% rate – not 20%. The requirments to get asylum are in the law and they are very strick – it is REALLY difficult.

      The left has been encourging illegal asylum claims – the law REQUIRES you to make a claim at the first safe US consulate you can reach – NOT after crossing the border illegally.
      In the past if you crossed illegally you could be deported in less than 90 days without even listening to an asylum claim.

      Asylum is for people who will likely be killed, imprisoned or tortured by their government if they remain. It is not for economic immigrants, it is not for chaotic countries.

      Asylum claims and asylum grants under Biden spiked – but not to 20% levels.

      Our Asylum laws do not need reformed – they just need FOLLOWED.

      I would note this is a massive problem with the left.

      Who would have imagined that a president would have given millions of illegals amnesty through an executive order.

      The Biden administration is the culmination of the lefts project to destroy constitutional govenrment.
      Democrat presidents and courts just ignore the laws they do not like.

      Those problems can not be solved with more laws.

    2. You are correct that you can not deport a child born in the US. But you can deport the family and the family can voluntarily take the child with them – which is what usually happens.
      That child retains US citizenship and can return as an adult, and will even get priority for the legal immigration of family members.

      Regardless this is a problem but not a HUGE problem – there are at most 21M NEW illegals in the US.
      significantly less than 50% are women, significantly less that 50% of those are in child bearing years. With a fertility rate of 56/1000 that is a large number of children who are now citizens – but it is tens of thousands NOT Millions.

      We do not want a policy that will not deport families with children born in the US – or we will see the fertility rate of illegal immigrants go through the roof.
      But we can move more slowly through the process of deporting a family with a US citizen child.

    3. There is no extreme level of vetting required to deny entry.

      There is no right to enter the US. It does not matter whether you are pregnant or not.
      If you do not have a visa or US citizenship you can be denied entry period. And normally you will.

    4. We are short judges, but that is NOT the big propblem – we already have a backlog of 1.3M people with final deportation orders issued that have not been deported.
      There is a solid years worth of work jus deporting people who have already been ordered deported.

    5. JaJaun62.

      Everyone is a child of god and entitled to human rights.

      But there is no right to live in the country of your choice.

      The illegal immigrants we are dealing with right now – are not asylees or refugees.
      They do not qualify under US or international law.

      I would also ask why you have more sympathy for them than the remaining 7+B people in the world – atleast 10% of whom would come to the US if they were able ?

      The US is not taking the 750M people who want to come here.

      Once you accept that merely wanted to come to america does not convey a right to be here, now you MUST decide how you are going to choose who can come and who can not.

      We have existing laws for that.
      I do not like those laws – I would prefer more legal immigration with no guarantee of assistance when you get here.
      But that is NOT the law.

      We are a nation of laws – or we WERE.

      I do not get to decide because I do not like current immigration law that if I am in government I can chose to ignore it.

      I expect that Trump will fullfill his campaign promises

      AND follow the letter of US immigration law in doing so.

      I could not vote for a Harris or a Biden or an Obama or a Clinton, because they only follow the US law they like.

      I expect Trump to follow the existing law – whether he likes it or not, to try to change it if he does not like it,
      and for the courts to require him to follow the law as it is – not as the judges wish it was.

      I beleive I have a far better chance of that with Trump.

  18. I was wondering what the Left’s next slimy tactic would be. Now we know —

    Spread unsubstantiated fears:

    Deportations will costs billions and billions. Inflation will skyrocket. Produce will rot in the fields. Trump will sign a nationwide abortion ban. The economy will collapse. MSNBC hosts will be disappeared. . . .

    The Left rules by fear. And when it can’t rule, it destroys by fear.

    1. Sam,
      I would say,
      Encourage the rumor that all criminal illegals will have their hands chopped off, their genitalia removed to encourage all those violent illegals to voluntarily deport themselves.
      Inflation is going to skyrocket more so than it has under Biden?
      Actually, when comparing Trumps secure southern border to Biden open border, wages have gone down for minorities and Green card holders as the illegals undercut native workers and Green card holders.
      No.
      There may be a recession but only due to Biden policies of out of control spending and government hiring to make it appear the economy is doing well.
      MSNBC hosts disappearing? Only because their audience did and they are off air and out of jobs. I mean how out of touch are you when that Morning Joe guy did not know butter was going for $7 a lbs and his own wife had to correct him, on air.

    2. There are 2.4M farm workers in the US. The majority – not all, are immigrants, of those 1/3 are not legally authorized to work in the US.

      i.e. about 400K.

      We could deport illegal immigrants at a rate of 2M/year for a decade and not get to the 400K illegal farm workers.

      1. I do payroll for some companies in the construction and service industries. Many of the employees fail the SSN verification. As Trump and Homan prioritize their deportation agenda, they will have a long way to go before they start looking at illegal immigrants not committing other crimes.

        1. If they focus on criminals and national security threats, and those already ordered deported – that will take atleast 2 years to work through.

          It will take a LONG LONG LONG time to get to illegal immigrants that are actually working.

          Longer than Trump will be alive.

          1. “ It will take a LONG LONG LONG time to get to illegal immigrants that are actually working.”

            No, it won’t. Not according to Homes. They will target those working as well.

            You seem to forget that in order to apprehend a million people a year according to your assumption. It will required not just more resources, but also infrastructure. More immigration judges, they may be illegal but they are still entitled to due process as long as they are within our borders.

            Chartering flights, Buses and building detention camps run by private companies like CoreCivic will exponentially increase costs well beyond ICE’s current budget.

            Apprehensions alone are only one component of what will be costly, housing, and transportation will certainly be expensive. That’s in addition to Billions on completing a wall.

            People seem to think it will just be a matter of catching illegals and send them off on a bus to the border. That’s not even close to realistic. We still have to follow asylum laws and grant them hearings to state their cases. That takes time, resources, and money. Lots of money.

      2. “ We could deport illegal immigrants at a rate of 2M/year for a decade and not get to the 400K illegal farm workers.”

        No, we could not. At that rate we would not be able to afford it or implement the resources to make it happen. You assume illegal farm worker will stay at their jobs until they are deported. Most will rather leave or quit before that happens and farmers will be left with a severely diminished worker pool. Americans won’t take those jobs. Your optimistic assumptions seem based on mere guesswork instead of solid data.

  19. Go for it

    Ask Ashli Babbitt, the patriot that validated sanctioned government killings of unarmed civilians if you don’t believe it, oh wait you can’t because she was murdered.

      1. A travesty of justice. Consider George Floyd, dies of a drug induced heart attack after committing a felony and every LEO there goes to prison. Ashli an Air Force veteran and solid citizen is executed after being ushered through to the inner workings in protest of a rigged election, murderer exonerated of all liabilities. Regardless of Trump, people with cognitive thinking abilities recognize fraud when they see it. Mail in ballots outside of State legislatures, ballot harvesting, stopping the count, bureaucratic interference of Bidens’ bribery and corruption are all proven examples. Trump will soon have the bully pulpit and the ability to display his collective evidence unimpeded by partisan courts for ALL American to view. The reason for the doubts in our elections is due to the maneuvered cheating on display, one vote, one day, paper ballots, the quicker it is effectuated the less rotten it is.

        1. Traveler,

          Too true. By the way, look at the top of Page 2 of Floyd’s autopsy. It says “no life threatening injuries.” Below that are findings of no injuries to neck and no indication of asphyxiation. So how did the police kill him? Magic?

          On the other hand, he apparently had Covid infection, a lethal dose of Fentanyl, an enlarged heart and up to 90% obstruction of some arteries.

          I think the cops were lynched in a pantomime of a judicial proceeding.

          But the burning of cities and the burning of the reputation of our legal system was no pantomime.

          1. Fentanyl was 3 times the lethal levels. He also had methamphetamine are 2 times the levels required to kill him.

            And his blood oxygen levels were normal – which is surprising as his head was near the tailpipe of a running police car,

            Floyd was only restrained because 4 officers could not get him locked into the back of a cruiser.

            Worse still paramedics were called by the police IMMDIATELY and depite being based 6 blocks away did not arrive for nearly 20 minutes.

            Floyd would have likely lived had he received Narcan quickly enough.

            1. John,

              The longer video of the Floyd encounter shows the police being careful and patient with a big, strong criminal who resisted being placed in the squad car. He was actually in it for a little while but they couldn’t close the doors.

              That video which speaks well of every officer there has been suppressed from some sites where I have seen it before. I think it can still be seen on YouTube but only after going through two barriers.

              The on shoulder restraint technique was approved and taught by the police department and illustrated in their training manual. The illustration looks exactly like Chauvin’s restraint. The judge wouldn’t let the jury see the illustration in the police manual. We used to be able to see it online but it has disappeared from most sites. He who controls the past controls the present and future–or tries to do so.

              Watch Liz Collins’ “The Fall of Minneapolis” on YouTube if you haven’t already.

              A long, and I think noble, legal tradition was established when John Adams defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre prosecution. Courageous lawyers have since stepped up and ethically defended unpopular or despised defendants to insure a fair and just legal system. It makes one proud of the profession.

              But in the Floyd prosecutions the noble tradition was turned upside down when private lawyers joined the prosecution gang (perhaps including the judge) pitted against one lonely defense attorney. I can think why they did and it disgusts me.

  20. For over 200 years, the American model of government has been a “Constitutional Democratic Republic”. Please not “Republic” is the noun!

    That means “Democracy” must operate within “Constitutional” out-of-bounds. Voters can only expect constitutionally legal outcomes from their votes.

    Once “Democracy” passes through the “Constitutional” filter, those filtered demands are sent to Congress, a state legislature or town council (“Republic” part) – to remove emotion and impulses from the mix.

    James Madison, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, warned about the dangers of “Pure Democracy”. Appeasing voters’ short-term demands without the “Constitutional” and “Republic” filtering.

    When anyone speaks of “Jim Crow” laws and practices, that is “Pure Democracy” on the local level. Closer to Afghanistan than James Madison. Local tribal chieftains perceiving themselves as the law, contrary to their Oath of Office where they must follow the U.S. Constitution.

    Imagine if in the 1960’s, the U.S. Supreme Court had responded to Jim Crow laws/practices with: “just let each state decide” the federal government will not check & balance each state. Each state can violate any constitutional right, if citizens don’t like it just move to another state.

    The U.S. Supreme Court just did that overturning “Roe v. Wade”. Women have had that right under the 9th Amendment for 50 years. The high court simply “Jim Crowed” women’s rights to each state. Derelict in their top constitutional duty of providing “Judicial Review” (“Marbury v. Madison” and “Fletcher v. Peck”).

    Conservatives should be concerned also. If any U.S. Supreme can “Jim Crow” women’s rights, they can also do that to 2nd Amendment gun rights – just leave it to each state. Don’t like it move to another state!

    1. “The U.S. Supreme Court just did that overturning “Roe v. Wade”. Women have had that right under the 9th Amendment for 50 years. The high court simply “Jim Crowed” women’s rights to each state. Derelict in their top constitutional duty of providing “Judicial Review” (“Marbury v. Madison” and “Fletcher v. Peck”).”

      Not only is that a facile analysis, it makes me think you did not stoop to read the Dobbs decision. Prove me wrong. Please summarize the salient points in Dobbs, please, in SCOTUS’s own language.

      Thank you!

      1. There are “Voter Issues” and “Constitutional Rights”.

        The U.S. Supreme Court has a top duty of “Judicial Review” (overturning “unconstitutional” laws/practices passed by Congress, state legislatures and town councils).

        If a federal, state or local official violates anyone’s constitutional rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to intervene and overturn that law or practice.

        “Roe v. Wade” established a constitutional right for women. Simply deferring the high court’s top duty to each state is derelict in providing judicial review.

        The 9th Amendment not only protects unnamed rights but existing rights. No state, not even a federal agency has the constitutional authority to take away women’s rights.

        At very minimum, the U.S. Supreme Court could have placed women’s rights primarily governed by the 9th Amendment – which would ban states from violating women’s rights. Conservative judges would have done that.

        Conservatives will regret this ruling when this is used against rights they cherish. The high court can defer “political” issues (voter issues) to the states. Not constitutional rights existing for over 50 years.

        1. Nice reply, but you did not do what I asked, and what I asked is not very hard at all. Attorneys must be able to look at both sides of a legal issue to understand how to support or oppose the issue. So YOU do the very basic work, please, of simply stating the Dobbs decision’s salient points, in the language of SCOTUS. I will help you! Here is a link to the case!

          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

        2. Your error is that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution. Roe v Wade erroneously said it was, and Dobbs corrected the error. You seem to believe the Constitution says SCOTUS can never overrule one of its prior decisions. I believe you have no legal training and are getting this cockamamie 9th amendment stuff off of a left wing website that doesn’t know what it’s talking about. I am not surprised you are posting it anonymously.

          1. “Your error is that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution.”

            Your fundamental error (which is a tyrant’s dream) is that the Constitution is a comprehensive list of rights.

            1. Sam – I was only talking about the federal Constitution since that is the topic of the comment I was responding to. State constitutions protect civil rights beyond what’s protected in the U.S. Constitution.

              As for the U.S. Constitution – it is the supreme law of the land. Its meaning is derived from its text. If the text of the US constitution protects a civil right either expressly or by necessary implication, then it’s a protected constitutional right. If not, then it’s left up to the states. Of course, the Constitution can be amended to add rights if there is enough support – the Bill of Rights, the Reconstruction Amendments, and women’s suffrage are examples.

            2. No, that’s what a liberal believes Sam. The Constitution is not a “list of rights” it is a “list of limits on the government” in attempting to remove our God given rights. The government does not give or authorize RIGHTS. Those are from your creator.

            3. Absolutely – the constitution is not a list of all the rights you have.
              But even the 9th amendment liberally read is not sufficient to reach a right to an abortion.

              You should atleast get your constitutional arguments right.
              Roe rested on the right to privacy which is an IMPLIED RIGHT that comes primarily from the 4th amendment. not the 9th.

              Our founders inarguably intended the 9th amendment to be a very broad recognition of rights – though it never would have reached a right to abortion.

              But SCOTUS from the very begining has REJECTED the 9th amendment and its reservation of broad unnumerated rights.
              That conflict continued until the civil war when the priveldges and immunities caluse was inteded to FORCE scotus to recognize unenumerated rights.
              But even that did not work.

              Again see Randy Barnett and restoring the lst constitution:the presumption of liberty.

              You are absolutely correct that our founders intended the 9th amendment to be a broad recognition of rights.
              and an originalist would have to reach that conclusion.
              But neither origialists nor progressives have EVER done so.

        3. ““Roe v. Wade” established a constitutional right for women.”
          The courts can not create a right.

          There is absolutely no reading of the constitution that would ever result in a right to an abortion.
          The 4th and 9th amendment should result in a right to control your own body. A right SCOTUS has NOT recognized and rejected in Buck V Bell 100 years ago.

          Further to my knowledge the court has NEVER recognized a 9th amendment right.

          If you want a detailed analysis of the supreme courts absolute REJECTION of the 9th amendment – or portions of the 14th as meaning what their authors intended,
          Try Randy Barnett’s Restoring the last constitution – the presumption of liberty.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_the_Lost_Constitution#:~:text=Restoring%20the%20Lost%20Constitution%3A%20The,legitimacy%2C%20interpretation%2C%20and%20construction.

          “Conservatives will regret this ruling when this is used against rights they cherish.”
          Highly unlikely – Roe is on a limb of constitutional doctrine close to all by itself.

        4. “Roe v. Wade” established a constitutional right for women. No state, not even a federal agency has the constitutional authority to take away women’s rights.

          You can’t take away “women’s rights” that never existed? Never existing except for a brief period within “emanations and penumbras” that a bare majority of one SCOTUS claimed they saw, while the dissenters and even Bader Ginsberg later said “where did you get THAT”?

          If we use your Soviet Democrat legal sophistry, we can similarly conclude that the Dredd Scott decision settled for eternity that black Americans are merely property, owned by your Confederate Democrat slave plantations.

          Koromatsu then concluded that Americans of Japanese DNA are not actually American citizens with the rights of Americans when government decides the aren’t. Again, for eternity.

          The high court can defer “political” issues (voter issues) to the states.

          You Democrats certainly made elective birth control abortions a “political” issue after Dobbs said abortion (just like permits to carry a concealed weapon) was an issue for each state government to decide.

          You’ve fought national concealed carry laws for decades – despite the 2nd Amendment being clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights (including being the only amendment with the words “shall not be infringed”). Now you demand a national law forcing all states to permit elective birth control abortions up to the moment the umbilical cord is cut after birth.

          The ol’ Democrat Two Different Standards play… nobody ever saw THAT before.

          At very minimum, the U.S. Supreme Court could have placed women’s rights primarily governed by the 9th Amendment – which would ban states from violating women’s rights. Conservative judges would have done that.

          That’s your wish list – accompanied by the lie that conservative/textualist judges would desire to legislate new constitutional rights from the ether (and from the bench like the racist Wise Latina Woman, Sotomayor).

          The enumerated rights of Americans are not specific as to which sex has rights while the other sex doesn’t. They aren’t enumerated, so the Baby Butchers try to create them out of whole clothe.

          Every time somebody tries to tell me about “reproductive rights”, they get stuck when I ask them where we can go read the charter of those rights – and which sections lay out the reproductive rights of men for comparison.

          .

    2. I guess you have never heard of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause? If a constitutional right actually exists, state and local governments may not violate it. Where in the Constitution does it say obtaining an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is a guaranteed right? Hint: the Ninth Amendment does not say that, and Roe v. Wade didn’t change that reality.

      2. Should the creator’s plan be followed?
        1. Half of all pregnancies miscarry and many right after conception. Miscarriages occur during the 1st trimester. Miscarriages most often occur due to genetic damage of the zygote , fetus etc.
        2. If the creator’s actions are followed or imitated medical Miscarriages would happen in the 1st trimester. Medical Miscarriages would also occur if birth defects are present.
        3. When a choice between the mother’s life and zygote or fetus’ life exists who has the better claim?
        4. Pregnancies due to a criminal act are viable?
        5. Food scarcity exists , should a woman bring a new life into certain starvation?
        6. Disease existed, should a woman with active AIDS bring a suffering AIDS baby into her world?

        Does that work considering most women have miscarried knowingly or unknowingly?

        Dreadful isn’t it.

        1. A most absurd demonstration of inability to think logically.

          Huricanes kill people – can we jail them for murder ?
          Or since we can’t is murder legal – even a right ?

          Morality – right and wrong are NOT determined by the behavior of nature.

          The catholic charch has LONG held that the rights of a fetus are greater than those of the mother. Why ?
          Because the mother has already lived. The fetus has not.

          Food scarcity does exist – and those who try to raise it as an argument tend to be morons.

          Food scarcity today ONLY exists as a result of politics. There is not a single country in the world that is incapably of feeding its people from its own land.
          When that does not occur it is always political – war lords and the like.

          Preventing the transmission of Aids to a fetus is not all that difficult.

          1. AIDS in Botswana? Easy? No one can jail God for what he does. People do look for what God does and they do imitate.

            Oh brother, the argument about the mother’s life depends upon catholicism if you’re a catholic or your conscience is such. It ACTUALLY comes from be fruitful and multiply as the biological imperative. Reproduction is what all living organisms do and humans are also to regard that but to presume that the life of a fetus is more than the mother’s is absurd based on a biological imperative.

            There isn’t a way to know if she is pregnant because she is secure in her person and property and medical records are not public records.

            Nope, you can’t jail a hurricane. You can do better than that.

        2. Another atheist communist wanting their cut from Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts butcher shops has suddenly claimed to have found Jesus! How else could Anonymous atheist communists explain “the creator” and that god’s will?

          Should the creator’s plan be followed? Food scarcity exists , should a woman bring a new life into certain starvation? Dreadful isn’t it.

          They invariably out themselves. Nobody, even the socialists was using that new, magical term “food scarcity” during the Depression.

          It just appeared towards the end of Obama’s second term… like magic!

          And there are babies all throughout the USA dying of starvation because their “food scarcity” mothers cannot find any possible means to deal with that

          It’s a dreadfully poor level of pathetic fearmongering and lying.

          1. Not really, it’s not personal with me. ^ anonymous. It’s only personal because of the atrocities.

            A pregnant female of unkn age went into a backyard of a different person and gave birth. She left the baby there in the placenta and walked away. The baby was found dead the following day. Autopsy revealed a live birth.

            The 14th is a period piece btw and it’s been strewn hither and fro.

    4. The 9th Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      Not sure how you get to abortion from that, because the Supreme Court didn’t argue that. They argued 14th Amendment in Roe.

      You’re further wrong because the 9th Amended has yet to be incorporated. IF you believe that the 9th Amendment protects abortion, all the Court would need to do is incorporate it to make it applicable to the States for any reason at all. Then “poof” your legally ignorant and unsound foundation would protect murdering unborn children without the need for federal legislation or even an on-point court decision. It was just apply to all states.

      Also, this bazaar rant reduces a woman down to a uterus. That’s all a woman is to Democrats. A uterus that votes. That is monumentally sexist and disrespectful

      1. There are absolute atrocities happening due to unchecked breeding practices. That’s true.

          1. The truth is a woman is secure in her person. A culture, parents can educate their sons not to engage is such until they’re married with a license. If he transgress that rule he shall be jailed.

            That’ll do it. Males are so much more responsible than females . Males sell their gametes.

            You win John Say.

    5. Jim Crow is moot. The Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, requiring the ultimate compassionate repatriation of all who could not be admitted to become citizens. Secession was never unconstitutional; every act of Lincoln was unconstitutional.

      The most egregious criminal in American history was Abraham Lincoln – Lincoln refused to accept the law, slavery was previously legislated and was fully legal as the law of the land.

      Are we obeying or ignoring the laws?

      In a society of laws, the laws must be strictly adhered to.

      America went from the Constitution to the Communist Manifesto under Lincoln.

    6. The alleged right to an abortion was NOT a 9th amendment right. SCOTUS has NEVER found a 9th amendment right.
      The right to an abortion was through the right to privacy – the right to be secure in our persons, papers and property.

      Further abortion itself can not possibly qualify as a right – there are no POSTIVE RIGHTS

      If you want a right under the 9th amendment (or common law) the right to control of your own body would be the applicable right.
      SCOTUS rejected that in Buck V Bell 100 years ago – one of the most heinous supreme court decisions in history by PROGRESSIVE justices,
      and STILL the law of the land today.

      Even if the courts recognized your right to control your own body a Fetus is NOT your own body – it is IN your own body.
      You would have the right to have it removed – even if its death resulted. But not the right to intentionally kill it.

    7. just to be clear Dobbs was wrongly decided – but so was Row.

      I would be happy to see SCOTUS start to recognize rights under the 9th amendment. It never has. And even if it did they would not be subject to strict scrutiny
      and therefore trivially trammeled by government.

      No SCOTUS can not “jim Crow” 2A rights – 2nd Amendment rights are EXPLICITLY listed in the constitution.

      Abortions rights are “implied rights”, not explicit, and they do not come from the 9th amendment either, they come from the “right to prtivacy”
      That derives primarily from the 4th amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”

      And I would note that even the 4th amendment has NOT ever been read to mean a right to control of your own body – AGAIN – see Buck V. Bell.

      I personally beleive there is a clear 4th and 9th amendment right to control of your own body.
      But the supreme court has not found that – Again Buck V. Bell. 50 years before Roe

Comments are closed.