Below is my column in The Hill on the calls for a boycott of SEC schools by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries over the Supreme Court banning racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act. The use of such sports legends as Jackie Robinson to fight for a form of racial discrimination shows how politics can outstrip our principles.
Here is the column:
“It’s a Jackie Robinson moment.” That declaration by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries struck a curious chord because Jeffries was calling for Black athletes to boycott SEC conference teams to protest not the existence but the elimination of racial discrimination.
Jeffries was upset that the court had ended racial gerrymandering designed to guarantee the election of non-white (and largely Democratic) House members. It was as if Jackie Robinson were to join a protest calling for the return of race-based discrimination in baseball.
Robinson played his first year in the Negro League with the Kansas City Monarchs before becoming the first African-American player in the Major Leagues when he took the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947.
He ushered in a new era in baseball, in which race had no role in competitive sports. There would be no racial division of leagues, no race quotas and no segregation — just an equal playing field.
Almost 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found that racial quotas in university admissions violated the 14th Amendment. The court later declared all racial preferences to be unconstitutional. Yet, for decades, a form of political affirmative action has persisted under the Voting Rights Act, where federal courts required racial gerrymandering to guarantee the election of minority members to Congress.
That ended with the Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which found that was also unlawful racial discrimination.
The Callais decision brought something long missing from our constitutional jurisprudence: consistency. In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Yet for decades, certain forms of racial discrimination were tolerated in the name of diversity or equity. The Callais decision put an end to this pretense and declared all such racial gerrymandering is illegal and discriminatory.
In response, the NAACP called for both players and fans to boycott SEC teams. MS NOW host Chris Hayes asked whether Jeffries would support the effort. Jeffries declared that black athletes should turn down potential career-making offers from SEC powerhouse teams to preserve political affirmative action. He said that existing students should “abandon SEC schools,” even though such moves might effectively end their careers. “There should be no athletic or sports participation. … You know, this is a Muhammad Ali moment. This is a Bill Russell moment. It’s a Jackie Robinson moment.”
Jeffries acknowledged that such moves will “require a level of courage and character and conviction,” but he added that it would be worth it. Politicians often ask others to make sacrifices that would benefit them, but this was truly the Super Bowl of self-serving political pitches. Some of these young athletes would give up their hopes for an NFL career, just to fight for racial gerrymandering so that Black voters can be either cracked or packed into districts.
It is a system that has yielded Democratic districts for decades. But are these athletes’ careers really worth sacrificing to Jeffries’s all-consuming desire to be the next Speaker of the House?
Self-serving demands are nothing new for politicians. They often ask for sacrifices from others to further their own ambitions. This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called on Californians to boycott Chevron after the company launched a campaign reminding them that they are paying the highest gas prices in the nation. For years, Democrats have added gas taxes to both pay for bloated budgets and to encourage the expansion of public transportation. Environmental policies have devastated the state’s oil and gas industry and increased its reliance on foreign oil.
Newsom’s response was to call for Californians to potentially pay more at other stations, in order to punish Chevron for telling the truth about his policies. “Californians,” he tweeted, “if you’re hitting the road this holiday weekend, be sure to AVOID Chevron.”
In fairness to Newsom, though, asking residents to potentially pay a little more at the pump to punish Chevron for embarrassing him is trivial in comparison to the ask of athletes to derail or discontinue their football careers.
What is particularly dishonest is how the Callais decision has been portrayed by many pundits, professors, and politicians. What neither the NAACP nor Jeffries will mention is that the Supreme Court preserved the original intent of the VRA to ban intentional racial discrimination in the design of electoral districts. Far from being “gutted,” the law will still be used to bar efforts to deny minority voters their equal voting rights. It will also now bar racial discrimination in any form in the design of these districts.
To invoke Jackie Robinson to support racial discrimination in politics is to denigrate his legacy. Ironically, Robinson was a Republican who spoke out against what he saw as the rise in racial politics in the 1960s in the Republican Party. He warned that there is “a new breed which is seeking to sell to Americans a doctrine which is as old as mankind — the doctrine of racial division.”
He added what could be the perfect retort to Jeffries today in the use of his name to support racial gerrymandering: “It would make everything I worked for meaningless if baseball is integrated but political parties were segregated.”
So, maybe Jeffries is right. This is “a Jackie Robinson moment” after all.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
I am constantly confused by the people that rant and rave about others discriminating against blacks, while they call for discrimination against any other nationality. They constantly yell and rave about equality but only for the ones they prefer. Equity is about the work you put out to obtain what you want not what someone else has to give up for you. Inclusion is everyone, again not just the ones you chose deserve to be included.
IMHO it is all pandering to obtain greater power, more money, greater visibility and ego. When people treat everyone as equal pandering won’t be effective.
Today I am remembering my uncle, a U.S. citizen by birth in the Philippines. He joined the army at 17, was booted out and then captured by the Japanese while working in the underground. After being emaciated he was released and joined the Army again. Captured once again he was one of the many in the Bataan Death March. He lost his life fighting for the freedom he believed in. Unfortunately he never set foot on U.S. soil until he was interred at Golden Gate National Cemetery.
For him and all the other’s that have paid the ultimate price, I thank you and your family and hope that the freedom and values that meant so much for them continue past the trials and tribulations of the current political environment.
Jeffries is a solitary fool, elected to office by a larger group of fools living on Manhattan Island in New York. Soon, Jeffries may announce that, like his colleague Hank (“Guam might capsize”) Johnson, Manhattan could capsize too, so people should boycott living there as well. Jeffriws and Johnson ooze the putrid stupidity that now dominates the Democrat party in this nation. Sad.
There are myriad reasons why living on Manhattan Island is a horribly bad idea …, including the stain that the folks there must claim Jeffries as “their” congressman.
Wikipedia says Jeffries was born in Brooklyn, went to high school in Brooklyn, and NY’s 8th district is in Brooklyn.
Jeffries is asking black athletes to give up NIL money some which are in the multiple millions. Why not ask the blacks on professional team’s in the south to boycott their team and forgo millions.
He is asking no such thing. He’s supporting the NAACP boycott of eight schools, just eight. They can go to several other SEC schools like Oklahoma, Texas A&M, or Arkansas as examples. They can go to the Big Ten schools that won the last 3 National Championships. MArk Cuban bought Indiana a National Championship. Maybe can get one for Northwestern?
Hakeem Jeffries holding that bat looks like he ain’t using it for sports. He wants to beat you with it.
Meanwhile Debbie Waaserman-Schultz, a WHITE woman, is running in a majority Black district because of…Jim Crow 2.0 or something.
Newsome, a WHITE man, is going to make sure that Kamala Harris, a Black woman, doesn’t get the nomination. Jim Crow anyone?
In TN the new map eliminates the chance for a white guy to continue taking the seat away from the Black woman he defeated for Congress two years ago. Jim Crow?
Dems are bad people.
“It’s a Jackie Robinson moment.” (Jeffries)
Does Jeffries know that Robinson did *not* boycott MLB? He engaged it. He used his spectacular talent and achievements to show the idiocy of racism.
@Sam
Jeffries uses his lack of talents to do the same. 😂 seems to be a theme in the DNC these days.
This same sort of nonsense went on when many Republicans states in the south and elsewhere started requiring voter ID. The little known fact is the black voting increased after the voter id was required. This was despite Major League Baseball moving the All Star Game out of Atlanta to another state when Georgia passed voter ID. It simply means that the Democrats and some Republicans will have to work harder for black votes. I think some of this is also the fear of the Democratic Party that black voters, just like Hispanic voters before them, are a little more free in their choice of candidates than they once were. There has been a steady rise in Republican Voters in the black community and this may change voting patterns even more.
The Democratic Party needs to realize that we have moved past the 1960’s and 1970’s and black players don’t run to the Big 10 any more because crowds are hostile to them. Every player goes to the place that wins, pays more NIL money, and will likely giver him a greater chance to play. Not something mundane like voting. You know, just like every one else.
I think that the fact that the Big 10 has won the national championship in NCAA Football for the last 3 seasons is more important than the color of your voting.
Voting blocks are a little more complex these days. Job prospects, taxes, growth of economies by state, diversity in employment opportunity matter more.
the black voting increased after the voter id was required. You are 1000% wrong. You are not a credible source. Two highly credible sources say differently:
Black voter turnout did not consistently increase after voter ID laws were implemented; research shows these laws have disproportionately negative effects on Black voters. While one 2015 study noted higher Black turnout in Georgia since its strict voter ID law began, multiple studies indicate that strict voter ID laws reduce turnout among Black, Latino, and other minority voters due to lower access to required identification. For example, a 2024 University of Maryland report found Black and Hispanic participants were twice as likely to report not having a photo ID, and research in Wisconsin linked voter ID laws to a significant drop in turnout that disproportionately affected African Americans. Brennencenter.org.
Barriers such as lack of IDs with current names and addresses, longer wait times, and reduced access to drop boxes contribute to lower participation. In Georgia, absentee ballot rejections and voter ID requirements impacted Black voters more severely, with 70% of registrations placed on hold before the 2018 election belonging to Black residents. Although some analyses show no racial component to suppression effects, the majority of evidence points to disparate impacts, especially after the weakening of the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Ballardbrief.byu.edu.
ATS
Contra your claim – not only have multiple studies confirmed no discriminatory effect, but an actual increase in most cases of minority voting – but you do not need “studies” – there is significant amount fo demographic data gathered on voting.
by the states and localities, by the media, by pollsters.
You do not need a biased left wing university study you can confirm the publicly available data yourself.
Virtually EVERYONE – 80+% of the country as well as 76% of minorities thinks you are NUTS on this issue.
Your claims are RACIST – today pretty much NO ONE does not have ID.
Even the Amish have ID.
All you are doing is proving how hard those on the left work to prove that up is down and left is right and lies are truth.
What claims EVER have you made that are actually true ?
@ John Say,
Your claim that studies proving no discriminatory effect come only from ‘biased left-wing universities’ is factually incorrect. Even right-leaning think tanks and conservative-leaning academic studies have published data showing that strict voter ID laws disproportionately burden minority voters.
Research published by Cato policy analysts has noted that while voter ID laws may not always radically swing overall election outcomes due to shifting voter turnout dynamics, the data clearly shows that lower-income, minority, and young voters are statistically far less likely to possess government-issued photo IDs. Cato researchers have argued that if states mandate IDs, they must make them completely free and easily accessible to prevent government overreach from infringing on a citizen’s right to vote.
The Heritage Foundation’s Own Data: The prominent conservative think tank maintains a ‘Voter Fraud Database.’ When analyzed objectively, their own data proves that in-person voter impersonation—the only type of fraud a photo ID can possibly prevent—is mathematically microscopic, accounting for a fraction of a percent of all recorded infractions.
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): In a widely cited study on voter ID laws, researchers found that strict photo ID requirements create a measurable ‘compliance cost’ that falls disproportionately on minority and low-income communities, who frequently lack the disposable income, flexible work hours, or transport to visit state DMV offices.
Your claim that ‘pretty much no one does not have an ID’ is a personal assumption, not a data-driven fact. According to non-partisan demographic data, millions of voting-age American citizens do not possess a current, valid government-issued photo ID.
Minorities, low-income citizens, students, and the elderly are statistically overrepresented in this category. They are less likely to own a vehicle (meaning no driver’s license) and less likely to travel internationally (meaning no passport).
Getting a ‘free’ state ID isn’t free. It requires underlying documentation like certified birth certificates, marriage licenses, or naturalization papers, which cost money to order, alongside the time spent waiting at government offices. For an under-resourced citizen, this acts as a modern-day poll tax.
You cite polling data showing that voter ID laws are popular. But popularity does not dictate constitutional or statistical reality. A policy can be widely popular among the general public while still carrying a disproportionate, discriminatory impact on a specific slice of the population.
Pointing out that a law creates unequal hurdles based on income and race isn’t ‘racist’—it is basic demographic literacy. Dismissing verified data just because it complicates your narrative is the real attempt to prove that ‘up is down.
Change your name again George?
He goes through sock puppet names with zero shame
But most of them go to a welfare office and to liquor stores, where ID is required, or at least it should be.
@ andrewplll,
Cashiers look at the birthdate on an ID, usually only if the customer appears to be under 30 or 40 years old. If a senior citizen walks into a liquor store, they are virtually never carded.
Federal and state regulations for programs like SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid explicitly forbid offices from turning people away just because they lack a driver’s license.
Welfare offices require proof of eligibility, which means documenting your income, household size, and expenses. To verify identity, federal guidelines allow applicants to use a wide variety of non-photo documents, including utility bills, rent receipts, pay stubs, or even a collateral statement from a neighbor or caseworker.
Where do your stats come from, thin air?
You do not need a left wing nut poly sci department in a left wing nut university to track this.
Every media outlet, every pollster, every local voting precinct tracks this data.
There has been no negative racial impact of Voter ID
Common sense will also tell you that.
Stop any black person on the street and ask if they have ID.
They all do – if anything they are more likely to carry ID than whites
@ John Say,
State data and federal court rulings have repeatedly proven that strict voter ID laws disproportionately exclude minority voters; for example, Texas’s own state database showed Black and Hispanic voters were twice as likely to lack the required ID.
Your anecdote about stopping people on the street ignores the fact that millions of low-income, urban minorities don’t own cars and therefore lack a standard driver’s license.
Even right-leaning think tanks like the Cato Institute acknowledge that these mandates place an unequal administrative and financial burden on minority and lower-income citizens.
Relying on a personal assumption about ‘stopping people on the street’ is a completely flawed substitute for actual state election data. The claim that local voting precinct data shows no negative racial impact from strict voter ID laws is factually and statistically incorrect.
Esquire: Much of what you write is true. In our capitalism system, people at the lower income level are usually “disadvantaged.” But that doesn’t mean that we should avoid common sense requirements that are specifically designed to prevent fraud. Voting without requiring some ID is an invitation for mischief. And in today’s society with unvetted illegal criminal aliens roaming the streets as well as the outrageous Medicaid fraud recently discovered, Americans are rightfully sensitized and believe getting an ID is not nearly as difficult as some politicans claim.
@ Tryingtoclarify,
That voting without a strict photo ID invites “mischief” ignores decades of election data. In-person voter impersonation—the only type of fraud a photo ID can prevent—is mathematically microscopic. Study after study, including data maintained by conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, proves that widespread voter impersonation is a total myth. Conflating unrelated issues like Medicaid fraud with election security is a textbook logic leap designed to stoke fear, not protect the ballot box.
Calling these mandates “common sense requirements” ignores the real-world administrative hurdles that disproportionately burden lower-income Americans, students, and the elderly. While getting an ID might seem easy from a position of financial comfort, it requires underlying documentation like certified birth certificates, marriage licenses, or naturalization papers, all of which cost money to order. Combined with the need for reliable transportation and flexible work hours to visit state DMV offices, these laws function as a modern-day poll tax on under-resourced citizens. Even right-leaning think tanks like the Cato Institute acknowledge that strict photo ID requirements place an unequal administrative and financial burden on vulnerable populations.
Real common sense means protecting the integrity of the vote without creating artificial, discriminatory barriers that strip legal American citizens of their voice.
Esquire: You write about ignoring decades of election data. But i am more concerned about the present – not what took place years ago – where millions of unvetted illegal aliens roam the country and many of whom come from countries where committing fraud was acceptable behavior. A quick look at the requirements for an ID doesn’t really present the onerous challenge that you make it out to be, especially if the states set up systems to help with the process. You close by noting that common sense means protecting the integrity of the vote without creating discriminatory barriers. How does one do that? Aren’t you really setting up an impossibility of performance in an imaginary system?
@ Tryingtoclatify,
Your concern about the present ignores the actual infrastructure governing American elections right now. You are assuming our system is completely exposed, but the legal and technical reality of the present completely disproves your narrative.
You worry that millions of undocumented immigrants can simply walk in and commit fraud because of where they came from. In the present day, it is mathematically and logistically impossible for them to do so.
To vote, an individual must first be registered.
Registration requires providing a verified Social Security Number or a state-issued driver’s license number.
These numbers are instantly cross-checked in real-time against state and federal databases (like the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security) to verify citizenship before a voter is ever added to the rolls.
An undocumented immigrant cannot bypass this digital wall simply by showing up at a polling place. The security happens at the registration level, making an additional strict photo ID mandate redundant for security, but highly effective for voter suppression.
You claim getting an ID isn’t an onerous challenge ‘especially if states set up systems to help.’ But that is the exact problem: the states passing strict laws do not set up those helpful systems. Instead, they actively make it harder.
For example, when Alabama passed its strict voter ID law, it immediately closed over 30 DMV offices, disproportionately shutting them down in low-income, majority-Black counties.
Getting a ‘free’ state ID requires underlying documents like certified birth certificates or naturalization papers. These documents cost money to order, require reliable internet access or transportation, and demand that hourly workers take unpaid time off during strict government business hours. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck without a car, that is a massive hurdle.
You ask how we protect election integrity without discriminatory barriers, calling it an ‘impossibility of performance.’ It is actually incredibly simple, and many states already do it successfully,
States can use signature verification, matching the voter’s signature at the polling place to the one on their official voter registration file.
If a state insists on a photo ID, the state must automatically and proactively issue a free ID to every single citizen at their home address, rather than forcing the most vulnerable populations to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get one.
Esquire: Honestly, you make good points. But they do not cancel out the support I and many others have for ID at the polls. You note that to get registered one must provide a verified SS# or a driver’s license. Of course, this requirement is good and is similar to what can be asked at the polling place. But your solution is to avoid this step and just verify signatures. My own experience with my personal signature gives me pause. It has changed so much the i hardly recognize it. Placing the burden of verifying a signature of an average poll worker seems a lot less secure than looking at a photo on a driver’s license.
Esquire: If you can tolerate one more point in our ongoing dialect, I would submit the following: You, of course, are familiar withe the concept of “avoiding the appearance of impropriety.” Well, in the world of US voting, optics are extremely important. And most citizens do not have a grasp of the technicalities that you laid out. As such, they see a non-problem with requiring voter ID laws, and given all the hype about “stolen” elections, most believe that voter ID would “restore” confidence in our system. Doing just that would be a powerful reason to support ID at the polls.
This piece by Esquire is mostly AI and mostly wrong because it conflates separate concepts to make itself sound good while blending distinct facts in a way that leads to technical error. AI demonstrates logical contradictions when conflicting ideas are forced into the same narrative. This is a reason not to use AI when one doesn’t know what they are talking about.
@ S. Meyer,
Accusing someone of using AI is a lazy shortcut to avoid engaging with the actual historical and legal facts presented. If my argument is ‘technically wrong,’ then you should easily be able to point out a single factual error rather than hiding behind vague buzzwords like ‘logical contradictions.’
Let’s re-verify the exact, indisputable facts of the timeline:
Fact 1: The original 1965 Voting Rights Act targeted overt voting obstacles like literacy tests.
Fact 2: Jurisdictions adapted by using structural gerrymandering to dilute the newly secured minority vote, leading to the 1980 City of Mobile v. Bolden Supreme Court ruling, which required proof of explicit racist intent to strike down a map.
Fact 3: In 1982, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan amendment specifically to reverse that ruling and establish the ‘results test’ under Section 2—codifying that a map is illegal if it mathematically decimates minority voting power, regardless of stated intent.
There is no ‘blending of distinct facts’ or ‘conceptual conflation’ here; this is standard, linear American legislative history. Updating a statute to close a brand-new loophole isn’t a logical contradiction—it is how the law works.
If you have actual data or a specific court case that refutes this timeline, present it. Otherwise, throwing out empty claims about AI just proves you have run out of actual arguments.
“Accusing someone of using AI is a lazy shortcut to avoid engaging with the actual historical and legal facts presented. “
Not when it is true.
@ Tryingtocalrify,
Your concern about signature verification is a completely fair and practical point to raise. Signature drift is a well-documented issue, and relying solely on an untrained poll worker’s visual check can absolutely lead to errors.However, your preference for a photo ID overlooks the critical administrative and financial gap that currently exists in the real world.
The core issue isn’t the act of showing a card; it is how difficult a state makes it to obtain that card. To register to vote, providing a Social Security Number is an administrative step done entirely on paper or online from home.
In contrast, strict voter ID laws often require a highly specific, current state-issued photo ID. For a lower-income, elderly, or rural citizen who does not drive, getting that ID requires taking unpaid time off work, securing reliable transportation, and paying out-of-pocket fees for underlying documentation like a certified birth certificate. If states want to mandate a photo ID, they must take on the financial and logistical burden of automatically delivering a free ID to every citizen’s home, rather than forcing the most vulnerable populations to navigate bureaucratic hurdles just to vote.
Securing the ballot box does not require a choice between unstable signature checks or restrictive photo IDs. There is a highly successful, common-sense middle ground already used by multiple states:
Instead of banning non-photo documents, states can allow voters to present standard, everyday verifications of residency and identity that do not require a trip to the DMV.
These include: Current utility billsOfficial bank statementsGovernment paystubs or check depositsOfficial student or workplace IDsThese documents provide immediate, verifiable proof that the person standing at the polling station matches the name and address on the voter registration rolls.
Let me answer in kind.
Your argument relies on a highly polished structure, yet several key premises collapse when examined against the actual operational and legal realities of election administration. The most critical error is the conflation of proof of residency with proof of identity. Allowing utility bills, bank statements, or paystubs as a “middle ground” fails basic security protocols. A piece of mail proves that an account exists at an address, but it completely lacks photographic verification, biometric data, or secure anti-counterfeiting features. Anyone can intercept or print a utility bill; it cannot prove that the individual standing at the polling station is actually the person named on the document.
Furthermore, the claim that obtaining a state ID imposes an insurmountable financial and bureaucratic burden overlooks established constitutional law. Under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, states are prohibited from enacting a poll tax, which means every single state with a strict voter ID law is legally mandated to provide a state identification card free of charge to any citizen who lacks a driver’s license. To address the logistical hurdles faced by rural, low-income, or elderly populations, many of these states deploy mobile licensing units directly to community centers and senior facilities, bringing the registration infrastructure straight to the voter.
Finally, the assertion that registering to vote with a Social Security Number is a simple administrative step done from home ignores how that data is processed. The state does not just accept the paper or digital form at face value. The backend infrastructure automatically cross-references that data against federal Social Security Administration or state motor vehicle databases to verify the individual’s identity before they are ever added to the voter rolls. Reverting to unverified paper documents at the ballot box removes this entire layer of security, creating a vulnerability that standard billing statements simply cannot resolve.
Rick Scott committed more Medicare fraud than all the Somalians in the country. For his efforts he got over $300 million when forced out of Hospital Corporation of America, became Florida’s governor and is now a sitting Senator.
I do not like how HCA operated when Rick Scott was its CEO. The problem I had with trying to prove fraud against Rick Scott was that I couldn’t find any. He complied with bad law.
When he ran for governor of Florida, I met the devil and his wife, face to face. I think he is an honest man who does his job based on the law. I would choose him to be one of the people to help revamp healthcare in this country because I believe he knows why the laws are wrong.
HCA (then Columbia/HCA) admitted to one of the largest health‑care fraud schemes in U.S. history, systematically cheating Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs over many years. The company’s subsidiaries pled guilty to 14 felonies and related criminal charges, including filing false cost reports, inflating diagnoses and billing codes, disguising marketing expenses as reimbursable costs, and paying illegal kickbacks to physicians for patient referrals. All told, HCA ultimately paid about $1.7 billion in criminal fines, civil penalties, and administrative settlements to resolve the government’s claims. Rick Scott was the founding CEO and ran the company throughout the period when the fraud occurred; he resigned under board pressure in 1997 days after federal agents raided multiple HCA facilities. He was never personally charged, and he insists he did not know about the illegal practices, but the Justice Department and subsequent reporting are clear that the fraud was systemic and happened on his watch as chief executive.
So Rick Scott founded the company and was responsible for implementing all the systems. The company admitted to 14 counts of fraud, but you looked into his soul and found him to be an honest man doing his job.
You answered the question. “He was never personally charged, and he insists he did not know about the illegal practices,”
CEO’s do not always know everything about the company. He was not convicted of anything. The attempt to convict mid-level executives failed. Many of the healthcare laws are ambiguous; blame the legislators. The executive branch can also be blamed for a lack of oversight.
As far is Meyer is concerned, ignorance is bliss.
He is a veritable Sgt. Schultz who “knows nothing”.
Not only did Rick Scott mastermind the greatest healthcare insurance fraud in history, he continued his fraudulent ways after leaving HCA. He walked away from HCA with hundreds of millions of dollars, which he used to build a chain of Urgent Care Clinics across Florida. When he became governor he pushed through a scheme to require that all people who applied for welfare payments under TANF must pass a drug test that they had to pay for themselves. Under his legislation the only clinics certified to do the drug tests were the ones that he owned. Applicants had to pay $35 up front for the test. If it was positive they were refused TANF payments and they lost the $35. If it was negative, as the vast majority were, then the State of Florida reimbursed them for the $35 fee. It was nothing more than a way for Scott to extort money from the state into his own pocket.
When challenged about the ethics of this arrangement he replied that he had no ownership interest in the clinics. This was actually true, because the entire business was set up in his wife’s name, and he had the audacity to claim that he did not profit from this arrangement.
In Meyer’s fantasy world this makes Scott “an honest man who does his job based on the law” and one “knows why the laws are wrong”.
This tells you everything you need to know about Meyer’s outlook, and indeed the outlook of MAGA shysters like Rick Scott.
“Not only did Rick Scott mastermind the greatest healthcare insurance fraud in history,”
Take note, no executive mid-level and above was convicted. What you are saying is that X+Y=Z without knowing what X, Y, and Z are. You sound like a child.
Rick Scott was not personally charged because there was no completely conclusive evidence that he knew about the fraud. That is not proof that he is innocent.
The investigation was primarily a civil action to recover the embezzled funds. In subsequent civil proceedings Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times. He was forced to resign by the HCA board. And I am sure that you are aware that Trump famously stated, “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
It is quite clear that Scott deliberately covered his tracks and isolated himself from the fraud. This behavior is entirely consistent with his subsequent behavior with respect to his Urgent Care Clinics that he used to extort money from the State of Florida. He carefully set up the business in his wife’s name and tried to claim that he had no involvement even though he was governor and had personally pushed the empowering legislation.
His behavior shows a clear pattern of intent to defraud, and hide his involvement in dubious financial arrangements. This is the behavior of a dedicated and skilled fraudster, wouldn’t you agree.
Rick Scott was not personally charged. The laws were ambiguous, but you don’t know what that means.
Once again Democrat politicians and other leftists call for actions that hurt those they intend to help. Short sighted, self- serving foolishness.
Aside from voting, aren’t there many ways that a person is disenfranchised from society by not having a photo ID? I need to show an ID at the bank, to buy cold medicine, to travel on a plane, to pick up my grandson from daycare, to pay my taxes online. A range of small and large transactions that I could not do without one. If I looked younger and were an alcohol drinker, I would also need one to go to a bar or buy a beer! I have often thought that it would be in everyone’s best interest if we could focus on how to make obtaining an ID more accessible, not just for voting.
What is Hakeem really worried about? Is it the Callais majority idea that the voter suppression problem of the southern States is defanged? That a Republican ground game could actually go into an African American neighborhood and find votes to fold into a redistricting? I’d sure like to hear from two citizens who have a big footprint looking after African American youth. Emmit Smith of the Dallas Cowboys, and Pastor Cory Brooks from Chicago. They would give me a better sense of whether Hakeems’s call sees the players as future political donors, or just chess pieces.
Hakeem wants to be Speaker so bad he has already measured the drapes. It is like the kid (or cat) who cries it’s mine. Mine. Mine.
I don’t understand what universities, let alone their sports teams, have to do with this. Why is he calling on people to boycott these universities, and/or these teams? What is that supposed to achieve?
I assume that most or all of the universities are already controlled by the radical left, and are just as opposed to the Callais decision as Jeffries himself is. They’re his political allies. They brainwash students to vote for his party. I’d be happy to see them punished, but why does he want that?
What is that supposed to achieve? Remember what BLM did to America? Disruption… overt racism… all intended to destabilize the nation… put power in the hands of uni. liberals and black youth.
Great questions.
As you point out, the boycott harms their own. (Boycott UT, Austin?!) And per usual, their own are being used a political pawns to sate the D’s desire for power.
That boycott is part of a recent Leftist campaign to marginalize and smear Southern states. (See AOC’s time to “pull up to the South” demand.) Why target the South? Look at an electoral map.
The left remembers the Civil Rights movement – which was anti-thetical to their values
It also took note of the successful anti-DEI boycotts.
And it beleives it can somehow repeat these successes
But it is relatively simple to predict that this effort will fail.
Young black athletes will not boycott the SEC – that is their best hope for a future.
You can get massive number of people to participate in boycotts when there are good alternatives to what they are boycotting,
Where there is little of no personal cost to the boycott.
Getting people to put their personal future on the line for a long shot gamble – one that their target has no real power over,
and one that even if it worked might backfire.
Fans want to watch great football. They do not care about the race of the athletes. Conservative right wing allegedly racist fans will cheer on black running backs from their favorite team or alma mater.
and if those black running backs are missing – they will continue to cheer for their team.
Possibly for a completely different reason but a Black tight end recruit decommitted from Alabama to go to Michigan yesterday. That prospect hasn’t put his personal future on the line, he may have well made more money and went to a conference that won the last 3 National Championships.
The eight schools targeted by the boycott are all state schools ultimately controlled by the same legislators pushing the mid-cycle redistricting and targeting minority districts. In some states it might be a Governor-controlled Board of Regents. None of those schools are controlled by the radical left, all of those schools have been busy eradicating DEI and rewriting and erasing Black history.
Hidden so often in the gerrymandering and racial tirades by the left is who they ignore. The white man who represented the black area of Mississippi, the black woman who lost to a white blond in Virginia, the black SCOTUS nominees who are pilloried. They don’t mean “blacks,” they mean “their kind of blacks!”
IMHOP, when it comes right down to it, the pocketbook Trumps politics. The Black Caucus isn’t going to do squat for elevate these black athletes but a shot at the brass ring just might.
Jeffires is living in bizzaro world.
Some college athlete should call him out and say, “I will boycott the SEC but only if you resign from Congress first.”
Newsome, yeah that was all his own doing and the failed Democrat policies. Their policies are so bad, the governors of NV and AZ wrote letters to Newsome warning their dependence on CA for oil/gas/jet fuel could harm their states too.
Jeffires is living in bizzaro world. As do you farmer.
Do you have an argument ?
Do you have a pen name ?
Jeffries supports biological males in biological women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and in women’s sports. He supports mutilating children and chemical castration of them. He protects criminal illegals.
That is bizzaro world.
I support biological women. I support protecting children from mutilation and chemical castration. I want all criminal illegals deported. I support legal immigration.
That is normal world.
@upstatefarmer,
Governor Newsom’s refinery regulations (Assembly Bill X2-1) were passed to stop oil conglomerates from artificially choking off fuel supplies. An independent oversight division found that an unexplained gasoline premium cost drivers an estimated $59 billion over a decade.
The law requires refineries to plan ahead for maintenance and hold a minimum inventory of backfill fuel. This stops energy monopolies from using sudden “refinery shutdowns” as an excuse to trigger massive price spikes that line corporate pockets while draining the bank accounts of ordinary working families.
While the governors of Arizona and Nevada raised valid concerns about regional ripple effects, the blame belongs to Big Tech and Big Oil, not the regulators. If neighboring states are vulnerable to price fluctuations, it is because multi-billion-dollar oil companies have consolidated the market down to just a handful of operating refineries. Newsom is using consumer protection laws to police corporate greed, while his critics are effectively carrying water for the oil executives who are gouging drivers across state lines.
There is nothing worse than a politician who will twist the facts at hand to create their own narrative, especially when that politician’s conclusions are exactly opposite of the truths they misconstrue to reach those conclusions.
Well said. Trump is the perfect example.
How is Trump the perfect example ?
Saying something is an example – requires actual examples.
KB
All politicians “twist the facts at hand to create their own narrative”
Some offer a narrative close to reality,
others offer narratives with no connection to reality.
Today I can not understand how anyone votes democrat.
Do Republicans have things right ? Not a chance.
but democrats are not even in the same universe as reality.
This suggesstion is the perfect example.
In Alynsky’s rules for radicals, Alynsky encourages actions that are easy, fun, and painful for your political enemy.
Not one that are hard, painful and can trivially be ignored if put into practice
@ John Say,
Your claim that Democrats are uniquely disconnected from reality completely ignores the fact that President Trump’s political movement has repeatedly pushed narratives that are completely fabricated, mathematically impossible, and dangerous to real-world stability.
If we are talking about politicians offering narratives with ‘no connection to reality,’ Donald Trump has consistently taken that to a level unmatched in modern American history. Here are the clear examples,
Trump has consistently told voters that foreign nations pay for American tariffs. This is a total economic fantasy. Importers, retailers, and ultimately American consumers pay the tariffs directly at checkout. Independent economic data from non-partisan organizations, and even conservative-leaning institutions, has repeatedly shown that Trump’s trade wars and universal tariff proposals act as a massive, multi-billion-dollar tax hike on ordinary American families. Claiming China pays the bill is entirely divorced from basic financial math.
Trump’s claims regarding drug prices are a prime example of a narrative totally untethered from reality. He has repeatedly bragged to the public that his administration has slashed prescription drug costs by [“400%, 600%, and even 1, 500%”]. As any junior high student knows, reducing a price by more than 100% is a mathematical impossibility. A 100% reduction means a product is entirely free; cutting a price by 600% would mean pharmaceutical companies are paying citizens hundreds of dollars to take their medication. When pressed on this absurd math during briefings, Trump and his officials have bizarrely claimed he was just using [“two ways of calculating”]. This isn’t simple hyperbole; it is the deliberate invention of a fake mathematical universe to manufacture a false victory.
You mention Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, claiming his tactics are a Democrat specialty. In reality, the modern populist right has mastered Alinsky’s rules far better than the left. Alinsky’s core rule is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Trump’s entire political strategy relies on this exact rule—using nicknames, personal attacks, and manufactured culture wars to turn complex policy issues into easy, divisive entertainment for his base.Both parties spin facts, but pretending that the Republican platform under Trump is grounded in reality while Democrats live in a “bizarro world” requires ignoring a decade of documented falsehoods and failed promises.
I have an idea. Instead of athletes boycotting SEC schools, let’s encourage faculty and administrators to hit the road. I am sure that that assistant professor teaching 18th Century Lesbian Literature would have no problem sacrificing her career to score cheap political points.
ok boomer. just cause you aint smart enough to read about 18th century lesbians dont mean it aint got value. Personally i love lesbians
“. . . Jeffries was calling for Black athletes to boycott SEC conference teams . . .”
If Jeffries truly had the courage of his convictions, he would demand that black *politicians” boycott those southern states and abandon their current offices.
You’re on to something, however not in the way you intend – a complete shut-down of all governments, local, state and federal. Imagine the repercussions. What would it achieve… disaster. Its what liberals think will force conservatives to over react and force marshall law. Blame Trump. Civil war!
The overwhelming majority of state and local governments in the country are red.
Democrats only control those govenrments where super majorities of people are democrats.
If NYC shutdown – most of the rest of us would not care.
@ John Say,
Your claim that the country wouldn’t care if New York City shut down is a totally clueless economic fantasy. First, your math on governance is flat-out wrong: massive, competitive battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin regularly elect Democrats in razor-thin elections, not insulated “supermajorities.” More importantly, you are confusing geographic landmass with actual economic power. New York is a massive “donor state” that generates billions more in federal tax revenue than it takes back, which Washington directly uses to subsidize the roads, farms, and safety nets of rural red states running permanent deficits.
If NYC actually went under, the financial life support for much of the red map would get unplugged. Wall Street and the New York Stock Exchange back-bone every single 401(k), pension fund, and corporate loan in this country. On top of that, major metro hubs are the primary consumer markets buying the crops, livestock, and energy produced by red-state workers. Pretending red counties are economically independent just because they have more dirt is a total delusion—you don’t have to like NYC’s politics, but you absolutely rely on its wallet.
When your local infrastructure and retirement accounts collapse alongside the city, are you going to pay for them with all that extra land?
land doesnt vote
On Memorial Days in the past I have often visited Arlington National Cemetery, which is just a few miles from the home I lived in for many decades. I recall wondering on one of those occasions if there ever was a time in our history when the Cemetery had separate sections for black and white veterans. I suppose that there was, but I never did learn the answer. In any event, I think I can say, with certainty and immense satisfaction, that if that was ever the case it is not now. Truly, we finally have “E Pluribus Unum” there, and we are finally getting there in the living nation as well. Hakeem Jeffries and his ilk are being recognized as the racists of today.
dare one say, you were/are the racist of yesterday, eh white man?
old yes, wise no. arlington was for the Real Americans who fought in the civil war the land was taken from that traitor lee. shoulda hung him and all the other traitors too
Jeffries is asking young black athletes to risk their future. He should set the example. He should resign from Congress as his own Jackie Robinson moment.
Hakeem Jeffries flunks the duck test. In the standard test, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it is a duck. Now Jeffries looks like a black, walks like a black, but talks like a wild-eyed leftist. So, what is he? A self-serving, self-promoting, ambitious socialist, promoting racism to gain power. He’s now willing to sacrifice aspiring young athletes. simply to promote his career.
good one. he will not fail. blacks will take the bait, white libs will encourage them. but what will the big unis. do in response? sports it about money. hurt them where it counts.
Nobody fights harder to preserve racism, segregation and discrimination than the Democrat party. That includes all party leaders, on every level. It is shameful, and should serve as a reminder that National Socialists always turn their focus on race and racial identity.
Here in Columbia SC we are now having black only events, Black Expo, some Black Chef cookoff. I guess next is separate water fountains and entrances to establishments- all brought to you by the NAACP…you know, the ones that called for equality and a level playing field.
Affinity is affirmative: neosegregationism to go with neoracism.