Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows is actually running for governor on her willingness to take flagrantly unconstitutional action. Bellows is touting her removal of Trump from the ballot, an effort that led to a unanimous Supreme Court swatting down Colorado and Maine. Bellows is virtually giddy recounting her efforts to stymie democracy and prevent voters from casting their ballots for the man who ultimately won the election.
Democrats have been running this year on the pledges to launch a virtual roundup of Trump officials and supporters for investigations and impeachments. New York congressional candidate George Conway is pledging to change impeachment rules to secure the removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. However, Bellows, the former ACLU executive director in Maine, is parading her willingness to do things barred by the Constitution.
Campaigning on an unconstitutional act rejected 9-0 by the Supreme Court (including three liberal justices) truly captures this age of rage. It is the equivalent to how mobsters “make their bones” by whacking someone. Bellows is effectively saying that she was willing to do what other Democrats were unwilling to do: violate the Constitution.
Shenna Bellows has long embraced extreme political and historical viewpoints, including denouncing the electoral college as a “relic of white supremacy.” Bellows also declared that voter ID laws are “rooted in white supremacy.”
Bellows previously declared that “the Jan. 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election…The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.” A year after the riot, Bellows continued denouncing the “violent insurrection.”
In her campaign speeches, she is still calling the riot an “insurrection” and heralding her own bravery in seeking to block a democratic vote.
Notably, polls show the public rejecting the claim of an insurrection and neither Trump nor his associates were ever charged with insurrection. Yet, it is certifiably established that Bellows attempted to violate the Constitution and subvert the democratic process.
In its unanimous rejection of the move, the Court declared “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.” Bellows was one of those agents of chaos.
As Bellows relished the national attention for her consideration of cleansing the ballot, some of us argued that the act would be outrageously unconstitutional.
Ironically, Bellows never got very far in her effort. A superior judge enjoined her, and she repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to get the matter before a higher court. In other words, it did nothing but generate publicity for Bellows and was an utter failure that ended in the 9-0 loss in the Colorado case. Bellows did not even get to join Colorado in defending the effort.
Even Maine’s Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden denounced Bellows decision.
The irony is crushing. Bellows is posting videos declaring that she has attempted to instruct Trump on the Constitution, but “The President clearly didn’t get the copy of the Constitution I sent him.”
This is akin to Pete Rose sending out copies of the MLB betting policy.
There is no sense of self-awareness as Bellows proclaims, “there are no kings in America…we have a democracy.” She sought to prevent democracy by blocking the candidate who went on to win the election handily.
In my recent book “Rage and The Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution”, I discuss the rise of the “new Jacobins,” radicals who are calling for the scrapping of the Constitution or utilizing unconstitutional means to achieve political power. “By any means necessary” has become a mantra on the left.
The true tragedy is that this is likely to work in garnering support. Bellows and other Democrats are in a race to the bottom in proving that they are willing to do things that might make others hesitate. While she may be viewed as bonkers by the courts, Bellows is bona fide for the perpetually enraged.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Where do these idiots like Sheena Bellows and Abigail Spanberger come from? It is mind boggling
Well, Spanberger came from the CIA and Bellows from the ACLU. So I guess that is some indication that the country is being taken over from within. I can’t quite see how J6 was an insurrection aimed at overthrowing an election but removing Trump from a ballot, where he was previously elected through a series of primaries, was seen as perfectly fine.
Columbia, Harvard and Berkley.
Yes. Harvard still has students that pay for attending the school, yet the endowment is so high it could pay the tuition and fees for students for the next 25-30 years. If you haven’t looked into how Harvard was created, then changed in terms of ideology, look it up.
From, born in the good ole USA.
I think that there is quite a gap in definitions as to the description of just what constitutes “the good ole USA” Some see it as a continuation of the works of our founding fathers while others are striving to “fundamentally transform” it into something totally alien from what our founding fathers created. I do believe the prog/woke dems are more interesting in tearing down and reconstructing something at would repulse our founding fathers.
Remember it only counts as ‘democracy’ if the permitted candidates are on the ballot and desired result is obtained.
Screw your ‘democracy’.
And s@@tlibs, no, saying this does not make me a -nazi’.
antonio
Yes, “democracy” as in those places formerly or even still known as a “Democratic People’s Republic” and so on, which of course were not democratic at all and represented only the few chosen elite people at the very top. That is precisely the kind of place people like Bellows and Spanberger aspire to create for us.
Turley frames the ballot removal as a “willingness to do things barred by the Constitution,” but state officials argued they were performing a non-discretionary duty. As usual Turley leaves out a lot of pertinent facts when he writes articles liek this.
Maine law requires the Secretary of State to hold administrative hearings if a registered voter challenges a candidate’s qualifications. Maine state law does not grant Bellows the “discretion to choose, or decline to do” her duty based on the complexity or high-profile nature of the case.
While Turley highlights the unanimous Supreme Court reversal as evidence of “flagrant” unconstitutionality, the Court’s ruling was procedural rather than an exoneration of the underlying facts.
The Supreme Court did not overturn the lower courts’ factual findings regarding whether an insurrection occurred or whether Trump engaged in it. Attorneys for the challengers noted that “nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion casts doubt” on the conclusion that an insurrection took place.
In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. However, In New Mexico, a state court used Section 3 to remove a county commissioner, Couy Griffin, for his role in the January 6th insurrection—a decision the Supreme Court declined to overturn. This established that the “insurrection” label has been legally validated at the state level. it’s an odd thing to ignore after declaring that states do not have the power to to so if its a federal candidate. It’s weird. Almost selective.
The Colorado court conducted a five-day trial and concluded that Trump’s actions met the legal definition of “engaging in insurrection”. Now it seems Trump may face impeachment again when Democrats retake the house and the senate for committing war crimes, and leading an illegal war. So many things can be attributed to Trumps lawlessness it would be easy to just pick one thing to impeach him for.
The Court didn’t come down 9-0 because they supported ME’s action, they punted because the case wasn’t something even KBJ wanted to support.
Odd that you use NM and CO court decisions as dispositive while pooh-poohing the Supremes???
Let’s ask you one more time…are you a lawyer? Because I am pretty sure Turley is.
Ah, the classic ‘9-0 means they loved the guy’ logic. Except, if you actually read the concurrences, KBJ and the liberals basically said, ‘We agree states can’t do this, but the majority just invented a bunch of extra rules to protect him that the Constitution never mentioned.’ It wasn’t a punt; it was a 5-4 power grab wrapped in a 9-0 gift box.
And as for Turley? He’s a TV contributor who gets paid to have ‘takes.’ I’m pretty sure the three liberal Justices are lawyers too, and they didn’t exactly sign on to the majority’s logic—they just didn’t want 50 different ballots. But hey, if citing a Fox News analyst makes you feel like you’ve won the Bar Exam, who am I to stop you?
Why would I have to be a lawyer? You’re supposedly one and still can’t produce a rebuttal or argument to add to the discussion that doesn’t involve insults or ad hominem attacks.
9-0 means that the court was unanimous in the holding in its decision.
A concurrance means “I agree with the holding, but either I have more to say, or disagree with some non-holding portion of the majority opinion.
Whether you like it or not all 9 justices AGREED that the constitution and 14th amendment do NOT give the states the power to decide who is qualified to run for FEDERAL office.
This is NOT a precident setting decision. It is the norm for 250 years – which si why it was 9-0.
With certainty several justices would prefer that Trump was not president.
They might be happy to see him in jail – they might even beleive ludicrously there was an insurrection.
KBJ is not able to tell what a woman is, why would it suprise me that she has trouble figuring out that a protest intended to make congress refuse to certify a fraudulent election is not the same as an insurection where men with guns overthrow the government.
“I’m pretty sure the three liberal Justices are lawyers too, and they didn’t exactly sign on to the majority’s logic”
Wrong, the holding which all 9 justices signed off on is that States do not have the power through th 14th amendment or otherwise to disqualify candidates for federal office.
“they just didn’t want 50 different ballots.” – very nearly exactly what the holding is.
If the states do not have the power to disqualify candidates then all qualified candidates will appear on all 50 states ballots.
” But hey, if citing a Fox News analyst makes you feel like you’ve won the Bar Exam, who am I to stop you?”
That would also be one of the top 10 constitutional lawyers in the US today.
“Why would I have to be a lawyer? You’re supposedly one and still can’t produce a rebuttal or argument to add to the discussion that doesn’t involve insults or ad hominem attacks.”
You and your nonsense have been rebutted repeatedly.
AFTER you ignore proof of your errors of fact, constitution and law, THEN you get hit with insults such a to your intelligence.
Because people who clung desparately to claims that have been disproven ARE either stupid, or biased or mentally disturbed.
You SF. Are you a lawyer? Of course, you sound stupid and waste all day here.
@Anonymous
In 2026, they might very well be. That doesn’t lend any credence, wisdom, or cogency to their opinions or the idiocy they post, though. We are at the point where a piece of paper truly is juts a piece of paper.
Really: even in the past a lot of lawyers were just good at passing the bar, they were sh** attorneys. Jonathan has education, wisdom, experience, and a sense of fairness and moral code, and you just can’t give that to someone by waving a magic wand and passing them along over the course of 4 years in their late teens/early 20s. We are all blind at that age; the most recent generations have had their eyeballs removed and stored in a jar like a specimen, and they don’t argue in good faith based on precedent or facts, they just have temper tantrums, insist they get their way, and scream a lot. That, to them, is practicing ‘law’. Constitution? what Constitution? Just another piece of paper to them that they are free to crumple up and throw away, as their parents did with their report cards after they pulled strings.
We would all be wise to acknowledge this, as it is currently infecting every profession, including public service. Be fully and well aware that someday, these cretins could be justices, just as this prissy girl-child could very well be the governor of a state, when she likely doesn’t know how to cook a meal or do her own laundry. This is not hyperbole.
“In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates.” That is why it was unconstitutional. You think that is merely procedural?
Obviously you didn’t understand the ruling or what the concurring opinion said.
Obviously X does not understand the ruling or what the concurring opinion said. What Anonymous said at ^9:39 is EXACTLY what the Court, per curiam, said. BTW, George, there were TWO concurring opinions, and apparently you do not even understand what it means to concur but write separately to ADD something. clown
A concurring opinion CAN disagree with the logic, but MUST agree with the holding or it is a dissent, or concurring in part and disenting in part.
“Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment”
That is the holding – 9 justices agree with the HOLDING.
While the rest of the opinion which has 5-6 justices signing off on, goes further.
All 9 justices agreed that neither the constitution nor the 14th amendment grants the power to the state to establish eligability for a federal election. While the 14th amendment portion is unique to this case,
Nowhere in the constitution – including the 14th amendment has the states every been given the power to determine elegibility for a federal office. This is not a new preecident.
I am looking forward to another impeachment hearing. That should remind the independent’s that the left is incapable of governing and give Vance/Rubio the extra push they need, at just the right time.
All of the above may be quite true. It is also meaningless. The court said that the states DO NOT have constitutional authority to remove candidates for president from the ballot. That power would make groups of states more powerful than the federal govt a direct violation of the Supremacy clause.
A good morning dose of Xlax for digestive regularity…
Ah, once again, and say it with me, No one one was found guilty of Insurrection for events (riot) occurring on 6 Jan 21. Funny, all the people screaming ‘due process’, but don’t see issue with Bills of Attainder.
X/Geeo says, “This established that the ‘insurrection’ label has been legally validated at the state level. it’s an odd thing to ignore after declaring that states do not have the power to to so if its a federal candidate. It’s weird. Almost selective.
X/Geo the know-it-all fails to comprehend the difference between STATE elections and office-holders or FEDERAL elections and the presidency. SCOTUS did NOT “validate” the definition of insurrection==not even the issue here. clown
X
Again – long list of fallicies and errors.
No one not on the left was surprised by the SCOTUS decision.
The fact that it was 9-0 is the proof that CO and ME were falling of the left edge of the world.
Normal people are NOT suprised by lunatic left court desicisions by a few left wing nut courts, in a few deep deep blue locations that make the constitution up as they go – and always to suit their personal choices in winners and losers, not the actual law or the rule of law or the words of the constitution or even what they ruled in almost identical cases a week before where the left wing defintion of good guy and bad guy was inverted.
Despite the 70 cases you claim to have won over he election, Depite two impeachments, despite lawless perosecutions of J6’ers excercising their constitutional rights, despite all your lawsuites through the Biden term, despite your faux convictions in NYC
Or perhaps BECAUSE of those things – Trump was re-elected.
That occured because all the things you cite – the majority of people CHOSE to beleive was vile left wing nonsense.
Citing to bad lawfare that the majority of people long ago rejected as nonsense is NOT a very good aruement.
Further – as lincoln said
You can not fool all the people all the time.
The left lies constantly – they often persuade people – for a while.
Several elsewhere on this blog not that if you repeat a lie often enough – people beleive.
That is NOT completely true. It is only true so long as the lie does not get exposed as a lie.
Once that happens it does not matter how many times you repeat it.
The left SOMETIMES fools people with lies.
But rarely the majority of people and rarely for very long.
There are two reasons for this.
The first is that increasingly people KNOW that the left lies constantly.
The 2nd is that though people as a whole do NOT get this right in the heat of the moment.
They ultimately do get things right when given enough time to ponder.
We do not want democracy – because we do not want the public to decide based on their passion of the moment. We want them to decide after they have given things alot of though. After they KNOW the real costs of things.
When that happens – the left loses – all the time.
Long before Turley posted his first article, SCOTUS established as the constitution says that the evaluations of qualifications for federal offices are the exclusive domain of the federal government – specifically congress.
This is NOT new, and it is why the CO decision was 9-0. The justices with certainty would have allowed Congress to remove Trump from the ballot – 9-0. By prior impeachment and removal or by challenge to the certification of his election on Jan 6 2025. If Congress had refused to certify Trump on jan 6, 2025 because he was an “insurectionist” – just like SCOTUS will NOT take up challenges to what is a “high crime and misdemeanor” SCOTUS would not accept a Trump challenge that J6 was not an insurrection – even though it obviously was not.
This case was a dead bang loser from the start.
The Sec States and AGs an left wing nut judges and left wing nut legal “experts” that though there was merit – were all batshiff crazy.
No state officials were not performing a non-discretionary duty.
The qualification of candidates for federal office are all exclusively in the constitution AND exclusively enforced by CONGRESS.
This is NOT the first time SCOTUS has told states to go F#$K themselves for getting into election qualifications for federal elections – where they are constitutionally barred.
Maine law is irrelevant.
Colorado law is irrelevant.
The qualifications for federal office are SOLELY in the constitution and SOLELY enforced by CONGRESS.
If Bellows – who headed the ACLU did not know that – then she should be disbarred.
“While Turley highlights the unanimous Supreme Court reversal as evidence of “flagrant” unconstitutionality, the Court’s ruling was procedural rather than an exoneration of the underlying facts.”
Correct – CLEARLY ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE.
“The Supreme Court did not overturn the lower courts’ factual findings regarding whether an insurrection occurred or whether Trump engaged in it.:”
CORRECT,
SCOTUS determined that no state court (or federal court) has jurisdiction over the qualifications of a candidate for federal office.
Something that they have held REPEATEDLY for 250 years.
The lower courts did not have the jurisdiction to engage in Fact Finding.
They were way out of their jurisdiction and way over their skis.
But this is typical of the left – when you have schiff for a case – go find the very few judges/venue that would not throw you out on your a$$ for stupidity.
” Attorneys for the challengers noted that “nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion casts doubt” on the conclusion that an insurrection took place.”
Correct – The lower courts had no authority to engage in fact finding.
Everything they did was a nullity. SCOTUS did not even consider their findings of FACT.
The lower courts were NOT constitutionally legitimate finders of FACT for this issue.
“However, In New Mexico, a state court used Section 3 to remove a county commissioner, Couy Griffin, for his role in the January 6th insurrection—a decision the Supreme Court declined to overturn. ”
Because a county commissioner is NOT a federal office.
States are free to make their own rules for State and local elections.
They can have stupid rules. They can reach egregiously wrong conclusions.
SCOTUS will not intervene.
“This established that the “insurrection” label has been legally validated at the state level. ”
No it established that a court in NM was batshiff crazy and that it is not SCOTUS’s jobs to correct states misapplication of the constitution or bad finding of facts in cases confined exclusively to the state.
“it’s an odd thing to ignore after declaring that states do not have the power to to so if its a federal candidate. It’s weird. Almost selective.”
Its as if the constitution was written that way BECAUSE IT IS.
“The Colorado court conducted a five-day trial and concluded that Trump’s actions met the legal definition of “engaging in insurrection”. ”
That they had no jurisdiction and authority to do so, and therefore the entire process is a legal NULLITY
You rant that this is a “procedural” decision – so is Miranda, so is Gideon.
There has long been a debate about substanative vs procedural justice.
All of us prefer everything be about substance. But the FACT is that procedural due process guarantees actual justice almost all the time while also conforming to the “rule of law, not men” while substanative justice is trivially subject to abuse – as we have seen from the left.
You are hear ranting that a court has found there was an insurection.
Yet even you are not stupid enough to beleive that All courts would have reached the same findings of fact.
You just wish to game the system by getting the findings of fact you want in a minority left win loon but favorable court and then pretend that settles the issue.
And that is the problem with substanative justice – we do not all agree on what it is.
What is 2nd degree murder in one state is not in others. Even within my state commit the same crime 40 miles east and you will b charged lower, have lower odds of conviction, and receive a lower sentence after conviction.
We do NOT universally agree and what is justice, what is right and what is wrong.
Now we have unique problems with the left – with communists, socialists and just plain left wing nuts.
Because they wish to throw out thousands of years of work towards actually settling and shrinking the scope of disagreement. The left seeks to amplify disagreement – to throw it all out and start over.
Regardless, even if we managed to get back to were there was less disagreement over fundimental issues,
Even if we did not have those on the left trying over and over to push the same failed nonsense that we tried again and again.
We are still not going to agree on substanative justice.
That is why the rule of law is so important. As Justice Gorsuch said when he accepted Trump’s appointment.
Any good judge has on occasion had to rule AGAINST his own personal values because the constitution and.or the law on the case before them required it.
That is what the rule of law means – it means to follow the law and constitution – even when we do not agree, until we can change them.
It mean s procedural due process IS much more important than substantive justice, because we have fought it out and come to something approaching finality for the moment on the constitution and the law.
But we are still often thousands of miles apart on what Really is justice.
Left wing nuts today in particular carp constantly about what are at best Luxury good injustices.
About not getting a job they thought they should, or people electing the wrong person, or being looked at funny by others because they dress weird or have weird fetishes.
And you are willing to either elevate these to the same plane as rape and murder and theft,
you constantly equate supposed violence in speech with actual violence as if they are somehow equal.
SOME of what the left pushes has happened, and some of it will happen in the future.
The change in attitudes and the law with respect to homosexuality in my life time has been a night and day change, that has happened quite rapidly. But these “culture war” conflicts has NOT gone nearly so far as the left wishes – and often that is because the left is WRONG, or wants to go too far. That it equates the distastes of many for its preferences with the actual violence and murder of minorities that was more common in the past.
Everything is not a fit subject for law. And making is so risks instead of having laws that preclude the preferences you do not like, ending up with laws that preclude the preferences you do like.
That is where the lefts idea of law leads. That is why the left tends to lead the drive to change, but never gets what it wants – thankfully, but often does get some change – change within the existing legal and constitutional framework that builds – that adds “luxury values” while preserving more critical ones.
Because being called the wrong pronoun is not within a million miles of being murdered.
Because some court in NM following NM law reaching a stupid conclusion that must be followed in NM for officials elected to office in NM does NOT have consequential bearing on the rest of the country.
No SCOTUS does not take up every single case where the wrong decision was made.
Nor does it take up cases over which it has no jurisdiction.
In the case you cite – while the court was obviously stupid – something that happens EVERYDAY
evenb without left right politics, the constitution was not violated, federal law was not violated, no constitutional rights were abridged.
A state court just reached an idiotic conclusion that denied someone the priviledge of holding office in that state. Likely the STATE supreme court should have thrown that decision out on State constitutional grounds.
Regardless, it is a local decision with no meaning at the federal level or even in other states.
Myriads of state courts have found exactly the opposite with respect to J6 – in fact nearly all have.
You can not leverage one bad decision by a local court that has no bearing nationally – or a few SOCs in left wing nuts states acting egregiously lawlessly and unconstitutionally into the actual “law of the land”.
I would note that tangentially the Colorado decision actually decided another case – Texas vs. Pennsylvania – that SCOTUS refused to hear – but the issue was fundimentally the same.
Does ONE or TWO states in a federal election get to impose THEIR unique election laws or application of election laws on the rest of the country ?
That was th question that SCOTUS ducked in Texas vs. Pennsylvania.
In the 14th amendment case – SCOTUS decided that NO Colorado can not conduct its federal elections as it damn well pleases regardless of the consequences for the country.
“Trump may face impeachment again when Democrats retake the house and the senate for committing war crimes, and leading an illegal war. So many things can be attributed to Trumps lawlessness it would be easy to just pick one thing to impeach him for”
It is near certain that if democrats take the house in 2026 that they will stupidly engage in more of this Impeach Trump nonsense.
I for one absolutely hope that they do so.
Please continue to make yourselves look like fools to the country.
It is unlikely that democrats will take the Senate. There are more oportunities for Republican pickups than Democrats, and Maine and TX are REQUIRED to take the Senate you need ZERO losses in current close races in democrat seats and 4 wins in republican seats.
You are currently losing in TX and Maine and those are your best hopes.
If republicans hold the senate – Democrat house impeachments will be little more than political theater.
I doubt there will be a Senate trial or if so that it will be more than a quick vote to dismiss.
If by some miracle Democrats take the senate. There will likely be long drawn out impeachment trials – which you will be lucky to get all democrats to vote for removal.
All you will have is 2 years of bad political theater.
And you will likely guarantee more so than at the moment that Vance or some other Republican wins in 2028.
So PLEASE PLEASE keep the stupid up.
They’d bring back the guillotine if they could. Sad. The norms that used to exist are commonly broken; otherwise we would never have a key part of the government not funded during military action. I really don’t think the Democrat leadership believes in the system anymore.
And here I am remembering when Trumpists brough a literal gallows to the Capitol to “hang mine Pence.” But all of those fine citizens were pardoned by the party of “Law and Order.” I guess breaking that norm was ok though? And yes – by all means, let’s fund the military more. We need to bomb more countries – even though Trump and Vance promised they wouldn’t when they were running for office? Is that another ‘broken norm’?
rabble rabble rabble!
You mean the shoestring on balsa wood that wouldn’t even support a Beanie Baby?
And show me where, exactly in what campaign speech of 2022-2024, explicitly WHERE did the ticket promise they wouldn’t bomb countries? I think the line was “no new wars.” He is not starting a new war. He is finishing a war the other side started 47 years ago.
“Finishing?” HAHAHAHA. Here’s how the ‘ceasefire is going as of this morning.’ Iran has complete control over the Strait of Hormuz – and is now CHARGING 2 million for passage through it – a new revenue stream for them. A new regime that is MORE radicalized against America is now in charge. And they are currently bombing Kuwait and UAE. Oh yeah – I forgot – Trump has also now LIFTED all sanctions on Iranian oil – increasing the value of their most exported commodity. WELL DONE DONNIE. He finished this just like he finished his tryst with Stormy Daniels – with an illegal and ineffectual payoff. Americans are wounded and dead – we are poorer and we killed a bunch of innocent Iranians (including a girl’s school) – but yeah – you tell yourself this was a ‘capital V victory – like that drunken rapist Hegseth claimed…..
I think it was made out of cardboard, but go ahead and use the word “literal” like a high school girl.
Actually they brought a rickety facsimile of a gallows with a sign that CLEARLY said “this is art” to a location about 1.5 miles from the capital on the other side of the reflecting pond.
The left is currently running arround with Guilotines
That is offensice. It is also free speech.
It is NOT an insurrection.
No Trump and Vance did not promise not to bomb more countries.
They promised not to start any new forever wars and to bring peace to the world.
We will have to see how this conflict actually turns out.
It is premature to draw conclusions now – though contra the left it is encouraging.
regardless, the defeat of japan and Germany in WWII did bring about peace.
While the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan did not.
If Trumps actions in Iran result in even less stability in the mideast with respect to Iran – something that does not seem possible. Then absolutely Trump will be in deep shiff with his supporters and history.
Though Why Clinton Bush, Obama and Biden are not remembered similarly as war criminals is odd.
But if this ONLY results in an end to Irans nuclear program – that alone is a huge win.
And Iran has purportedly agreed to that.
If the remainder of Trump’s requirements.
Limits on its missle program,
and end to funding terrorist proxies
and endin using the straights of Hormuz as an economic threat to th world are acheived.
This will be a HUGE Trump victory.
If beyond that the Iranian people rise up and remove the weakened regime – that would be an incredibly huge win.
The Democratic Party in general has the mindset of a moron continually kicking a silent but deadly Red State “Come and Take” mentality. I live in the largest, it will blow up first! I dislike the RINOs even less, they are wolves in sheep clothing! The Democrats are willing to allow subversive elements to attack either from within are externally rather than fund DHS. WHAT? They as we know want, lust for power at any cost, liars, demons just like the liberal news which is completely worthless. Our military at the command of Trump is a well oil machine unlike OBOZO, BIDEN, The BUSHES and certainly CARTER, what idiots! The only thing I disagree with Trump on is letting Iran breath. Well, I’m done! If you disagree take your best shot.
If you look at the number of politicians that are calling for arresting ICE agents, calling evictions violence, removing candidates, impeachment and a bunch of other progressive policies you will find one thing. These attempts would never pass as is and would probably lose at the Supreme Court as is. So, if they know they will fail and continue to push these policies the only thing left is pandering. Pandering only works until the public catches on. Look at Virginia’s new governor. Pretended to be moderate then turned far left as soon as sworn in and now at the bottom in 4 months.
I only hope that the younger generations wake up and realize how they are being scammed.
“Democrats have been running this year on the pledges to launch a virtual roundup of Trump officials and supporters for investigations and impeachments.”
Well, to be fair. Trump officials have indeed been breaking the law and violating civil rights. Ignoring court orders even defying them, ICE acting lawlessly, etc. There is plenty of evidence to prosecute or impeach certain members of the Trump administration including Trump.
It’s odd that professor Turley is pointing out democrats wanting to prosecute Trump officials when Trump himself is/has been doing the same thing without success. That does not include the incompetent, bumbling, and sometimes just plain stupid ways to indict or sue Democrats. It’s been one embarrassing fiasco after another and Turley has been silent, almost as if he was exhibiting an ostrich like behavior of sticking his head in the sand when it comes to Trump failing to prosecute his political enemies.
Turley knows what he has to write to sell his books and keep getting hits on Fox News and the New York Post 😉
And silly George does it for free. That’s smart eh?
An attention seeker without portfolio. Or smarts.
Professor Turley is a scholar, a real scholar. His command of history is most notable. He teaches tortes?
He also earns money in fair ways. I have not heard him lie nor use half truths. My only criticism is he may be too kind, too fair, too well mannered, anon. ☺
Teaches tortes? He doesn’t teach tortes. Unless he’s a cook. I’ve heard tortes are delicious.
rabble rabble rabble!
you can’t name one damn court order the administration has defied. This has been the most litigated and litigious admin of our lifetimes.
Just admit your little NWO schemes have failed, georgimus, and that your masters have abandoned you.
What law has Trump broken? What civil right has he denied? What court has Trump ignored? Try answering without feeding garbage into AI.
Why don’t you prove it? Saying so doesn’t make it so. SF.
Show specific examples of this statement (where any laws were broken and/or civil rights were violated), please: “Trump officials have indeed been breaking the law and violating civil rights. Ignoring court orders even defying them, ICE acting lawlessly, etc.”
HAHAHAH TACO DONNY – agreed to a 10 point plan that leaves Iran more powerful than it was before because he was desperate to get out of the mess he made. And all of his sycophantic cultists will claim this to be a MASSIVE VICTORY. Hilarious….
rabble rabble rabble!
Meanwhile, in reality, CNN was caught out with that bogus story LAST NIGHT, and has since retracted it. Hey, fellow ATS, your paradigm of news has lied to you! Given your side’s penchant for ostracizing those who do not follow the party line, how soon will you denounce CNN? After all, they groveled to the administration (and reality) on this!
Insane in the Dem-Maine”
Insane in the brain.
Insane in the Dem-Maine
Insane in the brain.
@Darren
‘Don’t you know I’m loco?’ 😂
AKA “Doesn’t Know Shite from Shinola” Bellows
““The President clearly didn’t get the copy of the Constitution I sent him.””
This is no doubt the Constitution that this dedicated imbecile Bellows sent to Trump:
Constitution (Fundamental law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm
“The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and
instruments of production, firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of
economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the
abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute the economic foundation…”
No doubt = no brains = imbecile.
And in other news, Right wing people just can’t seem to get elected these days. I wonder why?
“Liberal Judge Chris Taylor won a state supreme court race in Wisconsin, defeating GOP-backed Judge Maria S. Lazar by roughly 20 percent. Although the race was technically nonpartisan, Taylor was backed by Democrats and enjoyed a landslide victory.”
Read the good news here folks:
https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-chris-taylor-maria-lazar-fcbe748aced2ea7cdee8e7e75855a21f
Open Rep seat won by Republican yesterday. GA.
But not in Wisconsin, one liberal judge is worth more than 1,000 congress reps from GA. He’s in for 2 years, the judge is permanent. P E R M A N E N T.
“judge is permanent”
Until death is not permanent. Take that any way you damned please…
Someone should point out to Madam Bellows that if voter ID laws are indeed a form of white supremacy, then there is a whole lot of it in Africa and Asia, where almost every country requires voter ID.
At the risk of appearing sexist, I’m delighted she is still promoting unconstitutional actions, as it proves women can be every bit as stupid as men.
What does Asia and Africa have to do with Maine? They’re not part of the USA. You just proved that you are stupider than Bellows.
Anonymous can’t seem to grasp the point that voter I.D. isn’t “white supremacy” if black and Asian nations also use it to secure their elections.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Anonymous is a parasitic moron who has the analytical skills of a 5 year old child.
“I guess what I’m trying to say”. Guessing at what you’re trying to say? Duh? Maybe because you lack a brain. Or sorta like a brain fart? You guess huh? That’s priceless. Small brain = small dick.
Does this great site really deserve to have this level of discourse in it’s comments section? We are all for free speech, or most Turley followers are, but there should be some basic level of debate on this section. As much as I disagree with Mr. X, aka George, at least he tries to make his case. This Anonymous juvenile really does need to go. He will be gone, just as Gigi and Svelaz are gone, but it is taking too long.
HullBobby,
As OLLY and I noted yesterday, their senseless, juvenile comments give us insight into their thinking and mentality.
And as we see, that mentality is that of a child. What is great about it, it reflects on the Democrat party. Want to see a perfect example of a leftist Democrat? Just read the annony comments.
Child huh? Takes one to know one.
Begone, tiresome troll.
Why is it the leftist annonys are so obsessed with genitals?
Because they either don’t have any or if they do they never used them.
There you go again, talking about genitals. Pedo.
Put on in your mouth. Taste good?
HullBobby,
To make the connection between voter ID and black and Asian nations who also use voter ID to secure their elections, is a critical thinking bridge too far for the anonny.
That is a bridge that should be bombed.
By this fellow, I’m reminded of the comment someone made: “Some parents are raising very disrespectful, obnoxious children, calling it confidence.”
Learn to speak English. Do, please.
Why? You’ll translate everything for me and pass laws and the judiciary will legislate from the bench usurping power and won’t have the courage to correct the errors when found. Thanks, chump, for the land and money. Sucka
test
“True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.”
–Kurt Vonnegut
Only in this instance it’s a precocious kindergartner.
OldFish-this is not a precocious kindergartner. This one is of the variety who comes to the kindergarten each day, screaming, and then screams all day while banging her plastic spade against her plastic bucket. Makes the adults and the other children miserable all day. Maybe she should just wander off into the wilderness and scream at bears.
Oh look, an adult has arrived. You come to this kindergarten/blog each day and insult woman and liberal. Small p. Misogynise much?
“Misogynice”? Isn’t that something made by Hellmans that you spread on a BLT or turkey sandwich?
HB
That’s how they spell it in China
Oh oh, booby is pissed. Success!
HullBobby,
HA! Good one!
Insulting a deranged politician who happens to be a woman is not misogynistic, it’s a good thing.
“Maybe she should just wander off into the wilderness and scream at bears.”
I which case I would hope and pray that Maine bears are very hungry after a long, harsh, Winter.
Even animals are smart enough to not approach something so diseased.
“Even animals are smart enough to not approach something so diseased.”
Well, then maybe they could “play” with her for a bit before they decide that…
Bears gotta eat too, same as buzzards.
GEB,
She is the kind that even bears would avoid her.
No doubt. Even Bears have standards.
I have been privileged to know many strong women who were highly intelligent, independent, determined, published , sometimes brilliant, ranging from liberal to conservative. Unfortunately unable to tell the sex of most of the writers here. Labels are not always truthful or accurate. Really does not matter any way. Since we are only dealing verbal fisticuffs, sex should have no bearing. My observation was that generally women were smarter than men. I’ve seen nothing to change that opinion.
GEB,
I served with a numbers of women, both SNCOs and officers whom I admired and respected greatly.
As to if women are smarter than men, I think it has more to do with how each sex processes information. Women tend to look at a problem, issue, situation differently we may not consider. I see that as a plus to the overall society.
Fascist Democrats don’t hide their love of Fascism. They parade it around, and are celebrated by fellow Fascists. They are quite proud of their support for tearing up the Bill of Rights.
So what is fascist about Bellows?
Interceding in an election to remove the opposition candidate from the ballot through an unconstitutional lawfare move.
That would result in depriving at least half of the population of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Gee, what’s fascist about that compared to stealing an election?!
We’re talking about Maine anon, not USA. Its already 90% Democrat, so no deprivation of the half going on there. Let Bellows howl all she wants, she’s just riling reps. and getting results. Look around here.
The quantity only needs to be one. Why am I not surprised that you would not understand that.
Whatever you say dickhead.
Again with genital references. You really have no arguments about anything if you so rapidly descend to fifth-grade playground verbals.
Fascist is a generalized insult. No one knows what it means.
@Anonymous
Yes, we do, and it isn’t an insult, it is a statement of fact in describing the modern globalist left. Call ’em like we see ’em, because we have seen this before going back centuries, and more recently, decades (but that is still too long for the young and stupid who were never taught anything, and we are not discussing perfectly natural naiveté any longer, this is very intentional). It is the reason there even IS a United States of America, in which, the trolls and dissenters seem to miss the fact that they are still perfectly free here to share their hateful opinions with no real repercussions assuming they do not resort to violence.
James,
Well said.
As the good professor has pointed out various times, the level of fascism the far leftists have embraced. They call for censorship of anything that does not fit within their agenda or narrative. Just last week, some leftist bureaucrat in the UK was complaining about how X allowed Britions to express their feelings about migrant crime. Oh! The horror! Having the audacity to speak one’s mind about something like migrant crime! We are also seeing it here in America as leftists try to use “words are violence” to prevent people from speaking the truth. Like, that is a guy in a dress. Or protect women’s sports. Then they try to declare they are living in a oppressed police state. If they were living in a oppressed police state, aka fascist state, they would not be able to express their thoughts at all.
Last week, some leftist took a video of ICE agents at a airport, asking them if they were okay with serving a fascists WH admin. The ICE agents kept walking and one of the began to laugh at the guy. Again, if this were a fascist WH admin, a fascist police state, the guy would not be able to video the ICE agents or voice his opinion.
Shenna Bellows and Letitia James- Democrat Party 2028 President/Vice President candidates!
A winning team! Vote DSL America. Oh the joy!
“Shenna Bellows and Letitia James- Democrat Party 2028 President/Vice President candidates!”
With campaign support from Alexandra Occasional Cortex as a leading candidate for SCOTUS nomination.
Nice column, but you bring up a sports controversy
“This is akin to Pete Rose sending out copies of the MLB betting policy.”
Or
Barry Bonds sending out copies of the MLB policy on steroids.
I go for the latter
What sticks out to me isn’t Bellows herself, it’s that there’s a market for this.
You don’t get applause for bragging about a 9–0 constitutional face‑plant unless a big chunk of your audience has stopped caring whether the power they cheer is actually lawful.
Bellows is just a mirror. The real credential now is not fidelity to the Constitution, it is a public willingness to take a shot at it in the right direction.
You being a relic, lost in the past, wallow in the past, unable to comprehend progress. No wonder old man.
Olly a Supernova !
You a flickering blue flame beer fart special…draft at that.
You actually watch people emit beer farts to test their color?
Gas chromatography…
It’s this thing called science, Myth Busters, episode 22.🤢
Progress implies movement that is positive. Not an existential threat to the republic and the God given rights of its citizens.
Comprehended much Olly?
And Progressivism is what then? Retro-progress? Existential threat is a mental illness of the right? They see boogie men everywhere, mostly in their minds.
OLLY,
Market is right.
I do not know if she truly believes she can single handily undermine the Constitution, but she and her kind have a following of new Jacobins who do readily believe they should.
And they call it defending/protecting democracy.
As the good professor has noted and pointed out, there are those in the Democrat party who have come out and said what they are willing to do to ensure Republicans never win a election again.
And they call it defending/protecting democracy.
That is not democracy. That is tyranny.
Upstate, I do not think these folks lose sleep over whether a move is constitutional. That is old‑timey thinking. The strategy looks more like Iran or Hezbollah firing off volleys. They know not every missile will hit, but every launch forces a defensive response that drains time, money, and focus, and some of it will get through and do real damage. Spanberger is a case in point. She campaigned as the grown‑up in the room, then started launching missiles the moment she was sworn in, and now the middle that trusted the centrist sales pitch is already starting to walk away.
This isn’t just a Democrat problem; it’s the new bipartisan standard. Just as Bellows gets points for a 9-0 ‘face-plant’, the Trump administration often issues executive orders that are swiftly blocked by multiple federal judges for being unconstitutional. For both, the goal isn’t a legal win—it’s a press release that says, ‘I tried to do the thing you want, and the “deep state” or the “corrupt courts” stopped me.
Executive overreach is not new for either party. We have had Republicans and Democrats alike push past the lines and let the courts clean it up later. What feels new in this moment is turning the overreach itself into the selling point. When a candidate campaigns on “I tried to do something I had no lawful power to do” and treats a unanimous constitutional smackdown as a badge of honor, that should disqualify them in a self‑respecting republic.
OLLY,
Quite right. They seem to take pride in the fact they market that they are ready and willing to undermine the Constitution to win votes. And it is not just a few fringe wackos.
Yes, strategically planting judges stalls actions. Judges are permanent if appointed.
“unless a big chunk of your audience has stopped caring whether the power they cheer is actually lawful.”
Olly, you were immediately proven correct by the ignorant voices that followed.
Anti Trump is the platform. Dems have created the Trump totem, the single image of evil. It’s Pavlovian. It triggers votes. It’s mindless. Want to get hurt? Wear a Maga hat or just a red hat.
We wish her great success. Destroy Trump, destroy MAGA.
You mean destroy America. Trump won the election. Your nincompoop lost. STFU.
STFU? How cute. How’s this, make me you laughable old man. Seems you have a hard time thinking old man? Dementia kicked eh? Big mouth, small brain, small dong.
“STFU? How cute.”
How about “eat feces and die”… More to the point, more effective, and probably conforms to your culinary predilections anyway.
Destroy Make America Great Again!
Demowits battle cry!
Idiots
They’re merely thieves. It seems theft is on the spectrum of normal. Humans have knowable antisocial characteristics. Thieves are born and then reinforced by culture. In such cases humans can be trained or educated not to steal.
MAGA has been around long before Trump came along. It will continue to be around after Trump is gone. There has always been a sense of national pride of being an American. There always will. What is great about that sense of pride is it builds. It builds communities. It builds roads and bridges. It builds families.
Quite the contrast to what the Democrats have to offer.
@Upstate
Another big agreement. the current populism we are seeing in retaliation to a left that went over the cliff long ago is not ‘MAGA’, just common sense, and it is party-agnostic, IMO. This is a lesson the modern DNC refuses to learn. It does not matter how they spin, lie about, or repackage their ‘brand’ – we don’t want it. Not now, not ever. It’s the policy and ideology, stupid (them). This is not a communist country, and we will not allow it to become one. These kids (of whatever age) are just going to have to grow up, whether they like it or not and no matter how delayed or protracted their parents made that for them.
If they refuse, the kind of state parenting they will get will be more of the, ‘You’re grounded.’, variety. we will absolutely administer the spankings their parents failed to apply.
James,
Common sense, that right there! Historians are going to look back at this time period and have to call it “The Era Where the West Lost It’s Mind!” Then document the stupid, the crazy and the absurd that ran amuck through the country dominated by the leftists and enabled by the DNC. There will be a closing chapter that notes those of us who did not give in to the stupid, crazy and absurd but looked on with an expression like when you find a container in the back of the fridge, open it and are shocked and surprised at what you see.
I just read about some Democrat candidate proclaiming that when Democrats re-take the government, all MAGA Americans should be banned from the internet. She deleted the video of course.
Why? Are you here only to provoke, or do you think you have something to say?