This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court just issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists. The opinion by Justice Todd W. Eddins is devoid of judicial restraint and decorum. The fact that other justices would join in such an unhinged screed is a disgrace to the court and the Hawaii bar.
The case itself raised an issue of the admissibility of evidence at a criminal trial, which the court found denied the defendant a fair trial due to later scientific developments. The issue raises some interesting questions of the standard that applies to such challenges. (While unanimously vacating the conviction, the court actually divided 3-2 over the standard).
The majority ruled that the false-evidence standard applied under the state constitution when prosecutors knowingly present untrue testimony, holding that all that is required is that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the challenged evidence influenced the vote of any juror.
Reasonable minds can disagree on that standard, but the opinion suddenly veers off into a completely gratuitous and irrelevant attack on the integrity of the United States Supreme Court.
Equally troubling is that legal pundits like Mark Stern (who covers the Supreme Court for Slate) have heralded Eddins as “the one judge who has the guts” to denounce the Court.
Eddins writes a chest-thumping diatribe about how his court “takes no instruction” from the “hubristic originalists” on the Supreme Court. Of course, it has been 210 years since Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) held that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court rulings. It has been roughly 170 years since the Court ruled in Ableman v. Booth (1858) that state courts cannot overrule or obstruct judgments of the federal courts.
Justice Eddins and his colleagues are not declaring a judicial insurrection but rather a form of passive aggression, a pledge to minimize any orders from a Court described as “driven by agenda and intent on swiping power that belongs to the people.”
He was asserting the separate authority under the state constitution to render opposing opinions, presumably when those decisions do not contravene federal rights. Eddins asserted that the majority of justices “systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity.” He proclaimed that their attack on democracy itself “does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution.”
Unlike the Supreme Court, Eddins declares that his court will “follow principles, not agendas” and take “no guidance” from “the Supreme Court’s imperious ideology.” He included broadsides against the Supreme Court barring racial gerrymandering and other forms of racial discrimination, including a disgraceful claim that “The Roberts Court sees only white.”
In rejecting what he claims as his colleagues seeking to apply a standard imported from the demonized Supreme Court, Eddins dramatically declared that this court “needs no part of this. The Hawaiʻi Constitution was built to stand on its own. And so it does.”
It was the most substantive declaration since Sen Cory Booker’s “I am Spartacus” moment. The Hawaii Supreme Court will not truly stand on its own. It is part of a constitutional system that requires adherence to binding precedent, even rulings that Eddins finds obnoxious. Obviously, the state can impose its own constitutional values so long as it does not contravene federal rights and jurisdiction, which are quite broad. The rest comes off as using a judicial opinion to virtue signal.
For some of us who value federalism, there is no question that state courts have the authority to protect state constitutional values that do not violate the federal Constitution. Ironically, it is the conservative majority that is most likely to defend that state authority. However, Eddins could have made that point without the vituperative and injudicious attack on his federal counterparts who hold different jurisprudential views.
Notably, Eddins cited Justice Jackson as the model of true fealty to the law. He is not the first state supreme court justice to do so, as discussed earlier in a case from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from conservative and liberal colleagues.
These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.
Nevertheless, pundits like Stern are lionizing Eddins for his pledge to use his court to resist: “When state judges refuse to carry that project any further than federal law requires, the machinery of judicial supremacy begins to jam. Eddins has shown his colleagues exactly where to stick the wrench.”
Nothing says judicial restraint like a good wrench throwing.
It is not even the Calvinball jurisprudence of Justice Jackson. Justice Eddins reduces our judiciary to the level of Rip Torn’s Dodgeball:
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Secession was not prohibited and was fully constitutional, and America must be placed squarely back on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802.
You are about 160 years too late.
https://www.golocalprov.com/investigations/exclusive-multiple-individuals-charged-with-election-fraud-in-secret-indictment-in-rhode-island
exclusive-multiple-individuals-charged-with-election-fraud-in-secret-indictment-in-rhode-island
(apologies for length, which is mostly excerpt from SCOTUS]
Several commenters have referred to the Left or Democrats as “narcissists” or narcissistic. I do not share that view, (although there is often a certain supercilious haughtiness that comes from them-but I find that compensatory).
I bring this up because if you read the Hawaii Supreme Court opinion that the good professor is referring to, (the Granillo decision), Justice Eddins takes the time to quote himself in previous cases as instructive in this current case (e.g., Zuffante and Wilson, and several concurrences in other decisions). He and SCOTUS Justice Ketanji-Jackson are the newest justices to their respective Courts, and both seem to share a sense of self-confidence and superiority in their jurisprudence.
As indicia of SCOTUS incompetence, and with particular disdain, he further slams SCOTUS in cases wherein Trump prevailed (Trump v. United States, Trump v. Slaughter, Trump v. Barbara) without even mentioning the SCOTUS cases that Trump lost.
Eddins carries a feather in his hat, having ignored SCOTUS in his (Eddins’) Wilson opinion, which was appealed.
This is what Justices Alito and Thomas had to say about holding off on granting cert for the Wilson case:
“In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597
U. S. 1 (2022), we singled out Hawaii’s firearms-licensing
regime as “analog[ous]” to the New York regime we held
unconstitutional. We explained that States can-
not condition an individual’s exercise of his Second Amend-
ment rights on a showing of “special need.” Id., at 70–71.
Yet, the Hawaii Supreme Court ignored our holding in the
decision below [Wilson]. See 154 Haw. 8, 543 P. 3d 440 (2024)…
“All this said, correction of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s
error must await another day. Wilson moved to dismiss only
some of his charges, He thus seeks review of an interloc-
utory order over which we may not have jurisdiction…
[We] agree with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this posture.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-7517_7648.pdf
(oops. forgot to change the internal quotation marks in SCOTUS excerpt.)
No need to apologise, just don’t do it again!
*. So Eddins and Jackson aren’t narcissistic, they’re superior. Ok
So, double down with even more affirmative action?
Ya know, the U.S. fertility rate is in a “death spiral,” and the replacement population is being installed with a vengeance in the absence of women doing their national duty.
Arrest them or let them join China were they belong idealogically.
*. Hawaii has become independent. They’re going through motions most likely for federal money only. They’ll do as they please and what can anyone actually do about it? Withhold money and SCOTUS will disagree.
Scitus is advisory now. No teeth, no enforcement powers.
but the reality is the Hawaii SC screeched, i mean ‘screed’, BECAUSE they are overuled by SCOTUS. Law of the land, sorry Hawaii SC, screech all you want. Bunch of crybabys if you ask me. playing the race card just means they are certified card-carrying leftys.
“SUPPRESS THE REBELLION”
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
________________________________________________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was a Great American President.
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era”; close the border; rescind rebel sanctuary cities; compassionately repatriate all illegal and unassimilable aliens since Jan. 1, 1863; issue mass temporary work permits with no path to citizenship; revoke birthright citizenship; make English the sole official language; commence a war to defeat the rebellion; impose martial law; suspend habeas corpus; “smash” rebel printing presses, networks, podcasts, and social media platforms; and imprison political opponents and rebel judges, all in order to save not the Union but the Nation, eradicate communism and the communist American welfare state, and place America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including absolute freedom, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, and minimal taxation and regulation, alongside infinitesimal constitutional government.
Every person on the planet is a racist. If they could, those Hawaiians would “neutralize,” shall we say, every white person they encountered. Do you think they really enjoy dancing in those grass skirts for white tourists? Get real. It’s life. There are winners and there are losers.
For entertainment, check out Judge Eddins’ Wiki page, which appears to have been written either by his legal assistant or his mother. Both of them are very proud of him.
The Hawai’i opinion just mirrors the feelings of most Americans about the Federalist Society SCOTUS, including the lies told by Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh about honoring stare decisis to get onto the Court and the machinations used by Republicans to deny Obama a SCOTUS pick. Turley is a paid MAGA pundit–and one of his assignments is to defend the Leo Leonard Federalist Society SCOTUS. It just amazes me how Trump and Republicans will lie, cheat, redistrict, gerrymander and do whatever possible to get and hold power and then rant and rave about the lack of respect for the institutions they represent. If you ignore precedent and institutional norms by doing these things to get power, you cannot also command respect–which is earned, not conferred by a title. MAGA and Republicans threw out the rule book when it comes to being truthful during confirmation hearings and in making campaign promises, but Turley wants to keep the part about respect for the SCOTUS and the presidency. Turley raves about “court packing” suggestions to balance out the ultra right wing bent of the SCOTUS–but Americans are fed up with the anti civil rights, pro-corporation, anti-consumer, anti-environmental, and pro business and pro fossil fuel industry rulings. Leonard’s Federalist Society SCOTUS has embraced the Project 2025 unitary executive theory that most Americans oppose. They have given Trump power that no one ever foresaw, including immunity from criminal prosecution. Up to recently, most Americans believed that in a democracy, no one is above the law. Not any more, and we don’t like it. In a democracy where all people are supposed to be equal and subject to criminal prosecution for committing crimes, there is no logical reason why it should not apply to the president.
As to Trump, all presidents have been politicians. That goes without saying, but Trump is different. He is seriously mentally ill and exists to feed his ego. Trump has elevated lying and abuse of power to new, unprecedented levels never before seen or imagined. He is a chronic, habitual liar who promised all sorts of things to convince people to vote for him– like no new wars, lower grocery and energy prices, and denied knowing about Project 2025, which he implemented on Day One. Now, he’s devoted himself to abusing the power he lied to get to feed that massive ego–he keeps ruminating and obsessing about his loss in 2020, despite numerous audits, recounts and lawsuits that found no widespread voter fraud. He forgets what a terrible job he did as president, COVID out of control, the country mostly shut down, the low approval ratings and the polls that all predicted he would lose. He is attacking mail -in voting because, in several states, he was ahead when election day in person votes were counted, but that lead evaporated when mail ballots were counted–something he was told in advance would happen. Therefore, according to the thinking of the petulant toddler that he is, mail ballots must be fraudulent. He railed about states sending ballots to registered voters who didn’t request them–but some states do this routinely and there is no evidence of fraud–these people were REGISTERED to vote. He went on primetime TV on Thursday to repeat lies that have been debunked over and over again. He made up some new ones–like hundreds of thousands of non-citizens allegedly registering to vote BUT he stopped short of claiming that any of them ACTUALLY voted. Between 1999 and 2023 there have only been less than 100 cases of non-citizens registering to vote–and they were caught and never voted. Some underage kids obtained fake IDs from China—to be used to get into bars–but there’s no evidence that anyone used fake IDs to vote. He lied about China and Venezuela being able to manipulate machine vote tabulators–which they can in THEIR countries, but not in the US because such machines here are not connected to the internet. All of this is to try to support a push for federal take overs of the midterms because Trump and Republicans know they are going to lose.
Trump announced that he’s going to show up at the FIFA soccer finals and award the trophy to the winner–WHY????? No one wants him there, but he can’t stand not being in the limelight or to allow those who deserve to be in the limelight their moment of glory without sticking his nose into it. His presence there will mean more inconvenience for the fans due to extra security. Of course, FIFA knows about the Trump retribution if you dare deny him something he wants or criticize him, so they have to grin and bear it. It’s wrong and disgusting. He must think that we’ll all fall in love with him somehow the more he gets himself in front of those cameras. Stunts like this only deepen the disgust most Americans feel every time his face shows up on TV. He’s no Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Kennedy or even a Bush. He does not deserve respect.
Smoking your meds again? Apparently so. Those who believe that the Supreme Court should be a mechanism of public opinion and not a judicial constant are delusional and dangerous and worthy of not only our disrespect but our collective resistance.
^^^Fake news Troll^^^ Created false evidence, and presented it as truthful propaganda. DFTT
Well, after a cursory review, Turley is certainly correct this Hawaii court decision is ‘devoid of judicial restraint and decorum’. .. Age of rage indeed!
Now, answer the damn question .. .
Dysfunction: True or False?
there is not a question – just the announcement of a series of investigations and reports by intlligence agencies and the FBI
You are free to look at the reports and investigations.
Though there is little that should be controversial.
No one on the right questioned that Russia WOULD interfere with US elections if it was to their benefit and within their power.
The question the lunatic claim that Putin wanted trump and the stupider one that Putin colluded with trump when NOW we KNOW that it was clinton working with Russian Spies.
Does anyone doubt that China WOULD screw with US elections if it could ?
Or North Korea or Iran ?
I do not think there is much doubt that Maduro rigged the last Venezuela election – pre-election polls has Maduro;’s oponent as high as 70%
You seem nice.
My My -me think I have found a person suffering with a very severe case of TDS. I have seen others but this is extreme…please seek professional help…
Feelings have no place in a court opinion
Ano
Republicans to deny Obama a SCOTUS pick.
__________________________
Thank God for that. That pick was a wreck for the highest office. He should be in jail.
I’ve not seen anywhere that Hawaii has a law school. That said, what law schools are on Hawaii’s supreme court bench? What oath did those judges take to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States? Hawaii just got Remedial Second Amendment in SCOTUS’S Wolford decision. These judges need a seminar on how the Spirit of Aloha is bounded by being a State in a federal republic, and cannot conflate that role with an independent duchy.
Hawaii has two law schools, I’ll leave it to you to look them up because you won’t believe anyone but yourself. Were you suggesting that lawyers and judges in Hawaii never attended law school? Maybe you also believe people born in Hawaii aren’t American citizens.
Turley was bound to suggest that anyone suggesting SCOTUS did something racist was unhinged. That’s his way of supporting those same acts, like gutting the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
“That’s his way of supporting those same acts, like gutting the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.”
Well, that’s just a little extreme, isn’t it
‘Four years ago we had transgender for everybody . .. now we’re the hottest country in the world’ ~ Trump
What’s the extreme part, that SCOTUS gutted those amendments or that Turley found no fault with that?
Could you please explain how the Supreme Court gutted the 13th amendment. Thanks.
1. The Punishment Clause: The Court Allowed Slavery to Continue Through Criminal Law
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery “except as punishment for crime.”
The Supreme Court repeatedly interpreted this exception broadly, allowing states to recreate slavery through criminal statutes.
Key cases:
Ruffin v. Commonwealth (1871)
The Court described incarcerated people as “slaves of the state.”
This language became the foundation for:
convict leasing
chain gangs
forced prison labor
racialized criminal codes (“Black Codes”)
The Court never overturned this logic — it simply stopped repeating the word “slave.”
Impact:
States could arrest Black Americans for trivial or invented offenses and legally force them into labor.
This was not a loophole — it was a judicially blessed system.
2. The Court Narrowed What Counts as “Involuntary Servitude”
The 13th Amendment bans involuntary servitude, but the Court repeatedly defined the term narrowly, excluding many forms of coercive labor.
Bailey v. Alabama (1911)
The Court struck down peonage laws — but only barely.
It refused to define involuntary servitude broadly, leaving room for:
debt‑based labor
coercive employment contracts
agricultural exploitation
prison labor without pay
United States v. Kozminski (1988)
The Court ruled that involuntary servitude requires physical force or legal coercion, not psychological coercion.
This meant:
threats
manipulation
intimidation
economic coercion
did not count as involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment.
Impact:
Modern labor trafficking cases became harder to prosecute under the 13th Amendment.
The Court’s narrow definition protected employers, not workers.
3. The Court Limited Congress’s Power to Enforce the 13th Amendment
Section 2 of the amendment gives Congress power to eliminate “badges and incidents of slavery.”
The Court repeatedly restricted what counts as a “badge” or “incident.”
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, ruling that Congress could not use the 13th Amendment to prohibit private discrimination.
This decision:
gutted Reconstruction
legalized segregation
allowed private businesses to discriminate
narrowed the meaning of “slavery’s legacy”
Impact:
The Court made the 13th Amendment almost powerless against private racial violence — lynching, Klan terror, employment discrimination, housing discrimination — unless Congress passed separate statutes.
4. The Court Allowed Racialized Policing to Flourish
Because the punishment clause allows slavery “as punishment for crime,” the Court’s Fourth Amendment rulings indirectly weakened the 13th Amendment.
Cases expanding police discretion — including Terry v. Ohio (1968) and later rulings embraced by Justice Kavanaugh — allowed:
stop‑and‑frisk
pretextual traffic stops
racial profiling
mass arrest pipelines
These policing doctrines feed directly into the punishment clause.
Impact:
The Court’s policing jurisprudence created a system where Black and brown Americans could be funneled into forced labor through criminalization.
5. The Court Has Never Revisited the Punishment Clause
Despite:
mass incarceration
forced prison labor
racial disparities in sentencing
documented abuses in private prisons
the Supreme Court has never reconsidered the punishment clause or its own precedents that treat incarcerated people as having diminished constitutional protection.
Impact:
The 13th Amendment’s exception remains the legal backbone of:
unpaid prison labor
coerced labor programs
disciplinary labor
labor for private corporations
labor extracted through threat of solitary confinement
well, I for one am glad you didn’t come here with an agenda
Answering a question asked of me doesn’t make me have an agenda. If I had answered Concerned Citizen’s question about the 13th Amendment by also explaining what they did to the 14th and 15th, that would be having an agenda.
I have no idea if you have an agenda – though you clearly are trying to find things in the 13th amendment that are explicitly not there.
I do not care if you have an agenda – we all have an agenda to some extent.
My proble is you are trying to distort the constitution – rather than change it.
Enigma’s reply contains anachronistic fallacies, typical of one who promotes grievances to soothe his feelings of victimhood, especially when many of the complaints if valid, affect all, not just black people.
I scanned through the list, and that is what I saw, but the list was too long. Enigma provides his proof, knowing no one is going to spend the time rebutting each issue. Maybe there is something we are missing, so I suggest Enigma pull out just a few things that prove his point today, and do not involve the entire population. Maybe he has something, but from experience, I doubt it.
The irony of this comment by the demented Meyer is beyond belief.
Meyer accuses Enigma of promoting “grievances to soothe his feelings of victimhood”, while two days ago he, himself, had likened the supposed exclusion of conservatives from college faculties to the persecution of Jews in the Inquisition and in Nazi Germany.
Meyer lives his entire life as a perceived victim.
What a miserably sad and pathetic little man. He wallows in his own perverse sense of victimhood, and then has the audacity to project that perversion onto others, who are by far his intellectual superiors.
^sounds an awful lot like X/Georgie
“He wallows in his own perverse sense of victimhood”
…And an individual who cannot use a name, though one exists, thinks that ignorant insults make him sound intelligent. Though you think 2+2=5, you should know I never claim victimhood and instead depend on hard work to make myself successful in ways your pea brain will never help you achieve.
You constantly wallow in a sense of antisemitic victimhood.
Just as you did with your comment about college faculties, you somehow manage to perversely twist all your comments in such a way as to invoke antisemitism as the root cause of the perceived injustices of which you complain, when in fact there is absolutely no reason or rational cause to do so.
Your invocation of Jewish persecution in the Inquisition, and by the Nazis, in comparison to the supposed exclusion of conservatives on college faculties is quite simply insane, and does not speak well of your mental health.
And then to turn around and accuse others, such as Enigma, of a false sense of victimhood is peak insanity.
You are a whining, complainer with a one track mind.
Your comments can best be summarized as, “Boo, hoo, hoo, I’m Jewish and everybody hates me.”
It is pathetic that you choose to live your life this way.
I hear you talking, but you are unable to make a factual argument. You don’t even carry a name, hiding yourself from scrutiny,
Enigma engages in absolute victimhood. He does not provide cogent arguments for discussion; rather, he blames the white man, the founders, the courts, the Constitution, and even its Amendments. He deploys a classic Gish Gallop list of grievances to preserve his sense of victimhood.
Because the intellectual activity from your own brain is sparse, you copy his nonsense. There is nothing wrong with discussing institutional failures—whether they are rooted in racist, antisemitic, or anything else. Discussion is vital. A perpetual reliance on victimhood is not
You constantly revert to this absurd notion that since people don’t comment with a name, then their comments have no value, and are somehow not subject to “scrutiny”.
This is a very weird and perverted point of view, that again does not speak well of your mental health.
How can commenting anonymously possibly be a way to avoid “scrutiny”? Just because there is no name attached, how does that stop you from “scrutinizing” what I say?
Of course the answer is that is does not absolve me of “scrutiny”. In fact you have absolutely no hesitation in “scrutinizing” and complaining about my comments at length. You are doing the very thing that you claim to be impossible. This is bizarre, abnormal thinking, and as I have said speaks very poorly of your mental health.
“You constantly revert to this absurd notion that since people don’t comment with a name, then their comments have no value,”
You have no credibility.
“from “scrutinizing” what I say?”
What you say is junk. It’s not my job to separate something that might mean something from the junk. Anonymous has a whole has zero credibility. You can continue hiding under a rock.
You say my comments are “junk”.
That is in fact “scrutinizing” my comments. And yet you claim that my comments cannot be subject to “scrutiny” because I am anonymous.
You continue to do the very thing that you claim to be impossible.
And you claim that I am hiding under a rock.
NO !!!
I am not hiding anywhere under a rock or otherwise. I am right here, out in the open, responding to you.
There is something very seriously wrong with your thinking.
“You say my comments are “junk”.
You got that right!
“that I am hiding under a rock.”
You got that right as well. Imagine that an anonymous troll gets two things correct in a row. Amazing!
EB has only provide specifics regarding the 13th amendment.
All of his 13th amendment claims are explicitly NOT protected by the 13th amendment
Just as religious freedom is not protected by the 13th amendment.
The 13th amendment is perfectly clear as to What is barred and WHO does not have that protection.
It was too much information for you to digest. I get it.
Enigma, I gave you the answer; you provided a lot of anachronistic sh!t, if, in recent times, it ever had meaning. You know you can’t answer my above reply because you were simply trying to hide your ignorance and victimhood. However, in your deluge of garbage, it is always possible that somewhere you might have a point. If you do, we can discuss it. If you can’t find anything, that means you were doing your usual, bullsh1tting.
And this is the standard response of the lunatic Meyer.
Pathetic, childish insults completely devoid of any sense of rational argumentation. Just attack and demean and make false accusations that are in reality simply projections of his own diminished intellectual capacity.
What is wrong with what I said? Let’s hear specifics.
First of all you need to provide some “specifics” of the alleged “anachronistic sh!t” that you claim Enigma is posting.
Why and how is it anachronistic?
If you cannot provide any “specifics”, but instead vague generalities and insults, then what exactly is there to discuss?
You are the one who accused Enigma of providing a list that is “too long”, and that you didn’t bother to read it, and then you demand “specifics” or you will not bother to further the discussion.
Maybe you should take your own advice and provide some of your own “specifics” before slinging your usual insults.
“First of all you need to provide some “specifics”
Why? Enigma posted them. You don’t even have a name so why should anyone even answer your questions
Why and how is it anachronistic?
Which is the reason you are asking?
A You didn’t read his list.
B You don’t know what the word means.
“you didn’t bother to read it”
If you read what I wrote, you will see I read it. When one reads a long list and sees pure BS, one doesn’t pay much attention to it, but you seem to think things are unfair. You and Enigma can cry on each other’s shoulders.
You start off saying that I do not have a name, “so why should anyone even answer my questions”. And then you proceed to answer my questions. Perhaps you could provide some “specifics” about why you are bothering to answer my questions, when you concomitantly say “why should anyone even answer my questions”.
I read the comment by Enigma and did not find it to be anachronistic in any way.
You said it is anachronistic, without providing any “specifics”. I am simply asking why YOU think it is anachronistic. But for some bizarre reason you feel that you do not need to provide “specifics”, while simultaneously demanding that others provide “specifics” for their position.
You did not even read Enigma’s comment. In your initial comment at 6:41pm you said that you simply “scanned” the comment, and now in this latest comment you say that you did not “pay much attention to it”. And yet you have continued to criticize at length, and declared to be “anachronistic”, that which you “scanned” and did not ““pay much attention to”. And all this without providing any “specifics”. And then when you are called out on this insanity, you demand “specifics” for the criticism that you so deservedly face.
You have some very serious mental health issues.
” why you are bothering to answer my questions”
Asking why one should answer the questions from a Troll does not preclude one from doing so.
” Enigma and did not find it to be anachronistic in any way “
Then
A. You didn’t read it.
B. You have comprehension issues.
C. You are ignorant
D. All of the above.
“You did not even read Enigma’s comment.
Then
A. You didn’t carefully read what I said.
B. You have comprehension issues.
C. You are ignorant
D. All of the above.
“you said that you simply “scanned” the comment”
True. Do you understand what the word “scan” means?
did not ““pay much attention to”.
True, by scanning, I recognized the Gish Gallop along with all the BS Enigma was writing.
“You have some very serious mental health issues.”
No. Don’t blame your abysmal ignorance on others. It makes you sound even more Stupid.
The 13th amendment is short and clear and you are reading LOTS of things into it that it could not be more clear are NOT 13th amendment protections.
You are living in the past enigma! You’re hung up on some clowns from the 60’s! (1860’s)
You SHOULD be living here in present day America where we have created the least racist society in the history of humanity, full of opportunity for all, and it’s been that way my whole life!
I am glad for your concerns about slavery and I’m sure you know about all the worldwide history of slavery and all about the present-day slavery that occurs openly in some countries and under the dark cover of criminality in others. Maybe put all that research to good use fixing the ACTUAL problems in the world instead of focusing on where the problem has already been solved.
When the entire foundation was racist, how would America become the least racist society in the history of the world? By undoing all the attempts to make things better. You’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid.
eb – even when america had leagal slavery we were the least racist country in the world.
No european ever enslaved an african – prior to the late Livingston – no european lived more than 6 weeks more than a few miles from the african coast. Africans enslaved africans and sold them to europeans and to arabs
The african slave trade to the mideast was far more brutal than that to the new world.
Europeans did not employ slaves – atleast not in their ow countries – but the transported slaves for profit and they had colonies in the new world with millions of slaves.
In 1800 there were a total of 5000 blacks in England – all free. There were 4 million blacks in English colonies in the Caribbean in conditions more brutal than much of the south. It is primarly the dutch and portugese that bough slaves on the coasts of africa and killed 1/4 of them transporting them almost exclusively to th caribean and south america.
Less than 1/50th of the entire middle passage slave trad came to the north american colonies – 1/50th.
One of the reasons is that the life expectance of slaves in the caribean and south america was very low because slavery there was incredibly brutal.
The US had to fight a war in which 750,000 of us died – and millions were maimed – but we did.
Further – most any history of the american revolution will note that the English did not prevail because they really did not care that much about north american colonies – North America was NOT profitable for England.
India was, the Caribean were. England never committed forces sufficient to prevail in the colonies – and even if they had – they were not willing to commit sufficient forces permanently.
How did Cornwallace get trapped at Yorktown ? Partly because the French Fleet showed up. Where was the British Fleet – protecting the caribean.
The US ended the transatlantic slave trade in 1808 – almost 60 years before the civil war. Further despite still having slavery in the south and the UK had slaves in the Caribean – Both the US and UK navy cooperated in interdicting slave ships almost 60 years BEFORE the civil war.
US treatment of various minorities has been poor – but they are Here. Please name any other country in the world that has ever allowed significant numbers of people of different races. Europe which has stuck its nose up at US racism for centuries is coming unglued over 10% of their populations coming from the mideast.
Regardless Slavery has been the global NORM for thousands of years. a thousand years before the american revolution the vikings were raiding from Ireland and Scottland through france, spain and the mediterainian enslaving whites and for the most part selling them to Arabs.
Even today – very very few countries have consequential real diversity outside the anglosphere.
The treatment of africans in south africa and Rhodesia by the duthch and english was poor – but today it is blacks engaged in genocide against whites. Contra claims of the left there was no consequential thriving society in sub saharan Africa prior to the colonial period – with few exceptions africans were as primative as “native americans” and more primative than incas, aztecs, … European colonialism was not good – but it did raise standards of living – which have for the most part not increased significantly since.
China today has essentiall enslaved the Uighurs. Regardless if you are not part of the 98% of China that is Hahn chinese – you are discriminated against bitterly – you can be of the same race, all you have to be is from a different Tribe.
In Rwanda in the 90’s it was not whites omitting genocide – it was the Hutu murdering just short of 1M Tutsi in 90 days and mostly using machettes.
The US historically has been far from perfect – Just better than everyone else.
You live in what is the least racist moment in history in the least racist country in the world bar none.
And at most any time in US history – that was true – even at our worst and most racist.
Rather than debate dozens of points at a time. I choose to vehemently disagree with your interpretation of one. In 1808, when America ended its participation in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, it wasn’t as many historians like to portray as a step towards ending slavery. It was a protectionist move against cheaper imports which would increase the price of domestic-bred slaves. Maryland, Delaware, and Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia had excess slaves due to ruining the tobacco fields by not following known techniques. They were having to switch to less labor-intensive crops and now had more slaves than needed. Jefferson himself went to wheat and other crops along with a nailery that wasn’t as productive as he hoped. His foreman beat teen slaves to improve productivity. Historian Edwin Betts hid a letter about the beatings to preserve Jefferson’s image.
Ending t=international trade of slaves created one of the worst periods because the demand for slaves was greater than ever. To meet the demand, plantation owners used forced breeding and rape to increase production, which historians called “natural increase.” Slave births as a percentage were higher in America than anywhere. Jefferson wrote Washington a letter describing a 4% annual increase in profits if his slave women produced a child every two years.
That is the American history never taught which is why Americans think they were better than the rest of the world. Forced breeding and rape to increase profitability and calling it natural increase. I’m betting you won’t acknowledge it.
https://medium.com/the-polis/the-arguments-for-and-against-the-thirteenth-amendment-d877012d253c
EB this is all irrelevant and bogus. The 13th amendment is not unclear. The exception is not unclear.
Your claims either – try to get the 13th amendment to do what it explictly chose not to do.
Or try to get the 13th amendment to do what other amendments are their for.
There are good arguments that states have misused their criminal justice system – but those are NOT 13th amendment claims. A few are 14th amendment claims, some are due process claims.
But if you have been convicted you do not have a 13th amendment claim.
If that conviction was unjust – you have OTHER constitutional claims.
@Enigma
Using a lot of words, largely comprised of someone else’s thinking, to say little, does not make the point you think it does. If this is a scholar in 2026, intellectual masturbation has achieved new heights. Can you state your case in one or two clear sentences without citing other people?
The Supreme Court has refused to address to this day the loophole in the 13th Amendment and allowed both mass incarceration and the continuation of slavery by doing so.
EB – it is not a “loophole” it i the plain text. If you do not like it amend the constitution.
But the argument that your article makes is that people are being falsely convicted for the purpose of enslaving them.
The CRITICAL aspect is FALSELY – the 13th amendment has no provision for examining the conviciton.
That is the role of other rights.
https://medium.com/the-polis/the-arguments-for-and-against-the-thirteenth-amendment-d877012d253c
If you were convicted – the 13th amendment does not apply.
If you beleive your conviction is improper – that is hat the rest of the bill of rights is therefore
Further the 13th amendment does not prevent federal or state law extending the rights of those convicted.
But a false conviction is not a 13th amendment issue.
I have not read your article – but I am well aware of abuses that states have engaged in.
Prove those and you have claims under other amendments.
I suppose not reading the article makes it easier to condemn.
Anyone convicted of a crime in today’s America would require the judge to specify the 13th Amendment punishment for it to be part of their sentence. Judges these days rarely sentence anyone to “slavery”. Looks bad.
I am not condeming the article – it is irrelevant.
I am rejecting as obviously stupid the idiotic claim this is a 13th amendment issue.
I am not arguing that SOME people are not having their rights violated, or being exploited by our criminal justice systme.
ONLY that there is no 13th amendment issue.
With respect to the alleged immoral and illegal conduct – each of these must be dealt with individually – NONE of it falls under 13th amendment protection
I some cases the conduct is proper – I have no problems with prisoners working, and getting paid below market wages.
But SOME of what is being done goes beyond punishment or oportunity and is steeply into exploitation.
SOME of that may violate other constitutional right – make the case
Some may be illegal – Prosecute.
Some may only be immoral – change the law.
And some may be perfectly fine
“Anyone convicted of a crime in today’s America would require the judge to specify the 13th Amendment punishment for it to be part of their sentence. Judges these days rarely sentence anyone to “slavery”. Looks bad.”
No they would not.
Regardless if you have a problem – make whateer bothers you illegal – that is far easier than a constitutional amendment
and the 13th amendment doe not BAR states from laws covering prisoners
James
This comment illustrates a staggering level of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.
I notice that you do not level accusations of excessive verbosity on people like the thoroughly demented John Say, who regularly posts completely incomprehensible diatribes of gibberish that go on for thousands of words.
You also do not level the the same criticism at others like Olly and lin who also post exceedingly verbose and absurd comments.
Why don’t you criticize them??
Rhetorical question of course. Those people are fellow cult members who can do no wrong.
You are nothing more than a deeply prejudiced hypocrite with absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
So you’re saying you’re some kinda hypocrite because YOU only criticize one side and defend the other no matter how crazy?
“Why don’t you criticize them??” I’m wondering that about YOU hypocrite!
James, if you were referring to his citation above, he wrote it.
Below, he repeated himself, but after listing his litany of false complaints, he was unable to extract any that were of value.
EB – the 13th amendment is pretty trivial
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The portion you keep reading out is “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”
If you are being punished for a crime which you have been duly convicted the 13th amendment DOES NOT APPLY
If you do not like that – change the constitution.
The court can not “revisit” the 13th amendment.
The court is NOT going to revisit the 13th amendment – because the text is clear – there is nothing to revisit.
With respect to your claims:
“mass incarceration” – the number of people jailed is driven by the number of people convicted.
You are entitled to a fair trial – but that is not a 13th amendment claim.
“forced prison labor” – the 13th amendment litterally allows slavery – if you have been duly convicted of a crime.
There MIGHT be other constitutional challenges – but not under the 13th amendment
“racial disparities in sentencing” – again sentencing is not a 13th amendment claim – you are free to make claims under the bill of rights. NOT the 13th amendment
“documented abuses in private prisons” – again not a 13th amendment claim. If someone has done something to you in prison
that might be a crime or a violation of another right. But not a 13th amendment issue.
In most instances – the 13th amendment nearly explicitly allows everything you think it prohibits.
In SOME of those cases other amendments might apply
But the 13th amendment explicity provides no protection for those convicted and being punished for a crime.
The 13th amendment does not protect free speech either – the first amendment does that.
the 13th reserved slavery as punishment of a crime because it was a more brutal time and we they didn’t do the incarceration we do today, they often hung bad criminals. You don’t see criminal sentencing indicating ‘slavery’ today. The clause just isn’t applied. If it’s a bad idea (it is), someone should be working to get that part amended out as it sets a freedom penalty no longer accepted as proper. Of course, leaving in in our otherwise beautiful Constitution gives enigma a reason to get up in the morning.
The court did NONE of those things – the 13th amendment EXPLICITLY does not apply to people duly convicted.
It is likely I would agree with you regarding some bad conduct of states and prison officials – but it does not violate the 13th amendment.
It might violate other amendments. It might violate state and federal laws. Further it is without a doubt within the power of government to restrict such bad conduct by law – you do not even need a constitutional amendment.
You are free to make specific aspects of the treatment of prisoners illegal – or even brooad aspects.
And again in most cases I likely would join you – atleast partly.
Broadly I support providing prisons the oportunity to productively work. Nor do I think that prison should have to pay a market wage. But SOME of what is being done in some states is wrong. But it does not violate the 13th amendment. We can however – and may already have – made it illegal. Which is really all we should do.
I am strongly in favor of decent treatment of prisoners.
I am also strongly in favor of punishing people who commit crimes.
And I am strongly in favor of giving prisoners oportunities to work.
But none of those are constitutionally required, and none are outside of our ability to impose via law.
How did SCOTUS “gut” the amendments by actually FOLLOWING them .
These amendments – the reconstruction amendment were ALL designed to restrict STATES POWERS – particularly to discriminate.
And to expand the rights of individuals.
That is what SCOTUS has done.
There is no fault to find. These ammendments have been applied by SCOTUS as written – possibly a bit more broadly than written.
If you do not like the result – amend the constitution. We have done that more that once a decade.
You do not “suggest” that SCOTUS did something racist – you PROVE it or shut up.
It is one thing for politicians to “suggest’ vile thing about each other – we have had that throughout US history.
It is radically different when Justices start doing it to each other.
The Hawaii supreme court is free to analyse the HI constitution as it pleases – constrained by HI’s requirements of Justices,
so longs as HI is expanding individual freedom not infringing on US constitutional rights.
HI is free to interpret its state constitution as it wishes regarding Abortion – which had nothing to o with this case.
HI is not free to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of Hawains
No SCOTUS has not gutted any amendments Specifically the 13th 14th and 15th – reconstruction amendments RESTRICT the states powers to infringe on the right of individuals – and that is how SCOTUS has ruled.
The 14th amendment affords all the equal protection of the law – race based government actions are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
@Mike. Unfortunately, Associate Justice attended William and Mary (Virginia) and Hawai‘i’s William S. Richardson School of Law. With this spouting of indoctrination, he has degraded the value of those who share the Indoctrination Certificates(Diplomas) there of the the value of used toilet paper.
I will happily advocate that Hawaii secede and either declare its independence, or be subsumed by its political and philosophical mentor, Red China. California can follow and merge with Mexico. No great loss, in fact, it could be a long-term net gain for the rest of us.
Eddins has done this before. In this case, he holds that the state const of Hawaii (using identical language of the fed const) does not provide an individual right to own a gun and that the state const overrides the fed. It spends several pages denouncing Heller, and because the Hawaii SC disagrees that the Hawaii const rules. https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/State-v.-Wilson-Hawaii-SC-2-7-24.pdf
just reading your comment now (after I posted my own, ^mentioning Wilson.) Agree.
“. . . because the Hawaii SC disagrees that the Hawaii const rules.”
He and his kin on the court are operating on the premise that the U.S. is a League of States, not a Federal Republic governed by a *federal* Constitution.
What are they teaching in those constitutional law courses?
In this very public tear down of the US Supreme Court, I think that there is some missionary work cut out for Chief Justice Roberts. He needs to, behind the scenes, not only explain the courts judicial philosophy but also tamp down intemperate comments from the various benches. I don’t know if he views this as part of his job, but I think it is. I suspect that the various state supreme court justices are watching to see what happens. If there is no response from Roberts, then there will be more bounds of judicial restraint crossed.
“I think that there is some missionary work cut out for Chief Justice Roberts. He needs to, behind the scenes, not only explain the courts judicial philosophy but also tamp down intemperate comments from the various benches”
That kind of namby-pamby HS would probably suit Roberts just fine, but would likely only encourage this kind of defiance. What Roberts ought to do is issue a statement roundly denouncing the unconstitutional arrogance and hubris of the HSC, unambiguously declaring the US Constitution and SCOTUS to have ultimate and absolute authority over articulating Second Amendment guarantees that is not subject to any limitations that state courts or legislatures might seek to impose, and calling upon the Federal government to use force if necessary to mandate that Hawaii honor those guarantees as articulated. That just might get their attention. Unfortunately, that would require a SCOTUS Chief Justice who believes in a textual reading of the Constitution, and who has an actual spine, which is something that we currently lack.
Spot on. Two words would do it. Supremacy clause. SCoTUS rulings Trump all. I dont always like their rulings but they are called the Supreme Court for a reason.
@Arnold Nordsieck. Your comment is thoughtful and invokes consideration. However, there is information known by the inside the beltway (AKA swamp rats, often). Judge by ACTION (decision votes), not by “words”. Chief Justice Roberts is widely known as an activist. His decisions will support “constructionist” in “activist” decisions ONLY when there are sufficient “constructionist” justice votes already for an “activist” decision. The famous “deep state” approach as seen in Bolton, Milley, . . . while maintaining a visual unwarranted appearance of “conservative”.
Unfortunately, while this is an embarrassment to the nation and the Supreme Court of the United states, history will place him on the same bench as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes who ruled the supreme court at Dred Scott v. Sandford. That decision endorsed slavery as property and removed citizenship – the same we are seeing today in the “Sanctuary” politics. In other words, “Sanctuary” means nothing more than creating “Slave Plantations” using “Slave Traders” (AKA Citizenship tourism) funded by future debt of the slaves to the traders and the “Slave Holders” which are the Sanctuary Owners (Urban Politicians) who also promote the loan shark sources and gain favor both through increasing their voting impact (a slave counts as an additional voting strength through district population even if they don’t actually vote), and the ability to “provide economic supremacy” to those slaves in sanctuary profitably to themselves (e.g., my friends and family are awarded NGO grants and benefits with minimum, if any benefits to the slaves). The slave status is actually funded by the actual workers and producers taxation NOT in their district (in other words farmers, manufacturers, and “citizens” outside their power structure). They have created a slave state including slave of those whose assets (taxes, . . .) converting them to slavery owned by them.
Welcome to America.
“I think that there is some missionary work . . .”
Better yet, pull a JFK: The Executive branch sends federal troops to Hawaii, SCOTUS decision in hand. Then declares: Your move.
Data published in the December 2023 edition of the journal “State Politics & Policy Quarterly,” a publication of the American Political Science Association, examined the “party-adjusted surrogate judge ideology” scores (referred to as PAJID) for state judges from 1970 to 2019. Based on 17,912 cases analyzed, they found Hawaii is one of the four most liberal Supreme Courts in the US tied with — Okahoma, West Virginia, and Maryland.
There is a strong correlation between the “party-adjusted surrogate judge ideology” (PAJID) and partisan activism. Yet they claim partisan activism when the Supreme is doing what they’re supposed to be doing — using the ACTUAL Constitution to judge vs the liberal “the Constitution that Doesn’t Exist but we Wish it did Constitution.”
Remember, if you don’t like the Constitution, there is a process to amend it. Plus, it’s been amended many times, so we know it can be done.
So if you have an actual good idea, put it to the test and try to get the Constitution amended instead of lying and perverting everything to push your partisan agenda.
Here is the opinion. The portion relevant to this column runs from page 73-81. https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/SCWC-22-0000740.pdf
No exaggerations in this column
Well stated! As President Trump so famously stated, fight, fight, fight!
President Donald Trump’s public address Thursday night revealed a problem that not even a warehouse full of testosterone earmarked for the military can solve.
Trump seemed very low-T.
I’m surprised that Pete Hegseth didn’t rush over to shoot up the flaccid 80-year-old commander in chief with the elixir of manhood needed, as he put it, to give America ‘the leading edge of lethality”.
Grow up.
If D-IX was good enough for Nazi soldiers, it is good enough for our armed forces. (and the President?)
This proves that far left activists judges have no respect for the law even in State Supreme Courts. I hope this decision gets challenged and the Hawaii Supreme Court gets spanked.
Considering that Hawai’i has elected Maisie Hirono to the United States Senate, this is not a surprise.
Well she and the blue-haired crazy do bring the comedy though, unintended as it is.
The fact that he finds Jackson a justice to emulate and take pride in tells the whole story.
What is happening across our country is now epidemic and scary. In this case, we are seeing accepted revolt even from those judges who should have restraint based upon our form of government. If they go after the Supreme Court, aren’t they next?! When the rule of law breaks down and respect for our laws are not valued, then we are doomed.
The division in this country isn’t not only tainting judgement but aiding our enemies. The Iran war highlights this. If Iran thwarts their agreements as we are seeing, then Trump was right — they are the present and future danger to the world and what he is doing now is stopping a future war and worldwide intimidation. Just imagine if Hitler was stopped before he started. So now the Left is working with the enemy and they don’t even get it! If Iran saw a united country, they would think twice. It might not stop them but they would understand that a united US will NOT give up the fight. As I see the moderate Dems falling under the extreme left’s intimidation (and that faction of the party growing) there will be nothing left of the Democrat party. We need two health political parties but that is not longer the case because winning at all cost, hating Trump instead of analyzing issues, is their mantra. Are we doomed to a Civil War? And then, extinction to this great experiment. Can we live another 250 years as free in mind an body?
“We need two healthy (sic) political parties but that is not longer the case . . .”
Absolutely agree we need at least two politically healthy parties, but I don’t think either the Democrat or Republican party fits that description. Most of the time it seems to me that we get stuck with a choice between the lesser of evils and the evil of lessers. Or, as a colleague puts it, ‘Why, no matter who we vote for, do we always end up with John McCain?’
-g
” Or, as a colleague puts it…”
You are a colleague of Tom Woods?
No, I don’t have that privilege. I didn’t realize that Dr. Woods, and not my colleague, was the originator of that observation; however, it is true nonetheless.
-g
“it is true nonetheless.”
It certainly is.
IMO this is the result of the “democracy” our founding fathers were so afraid of. The reliance on the primary system to decide the candidates give the extremists of both parties the ability to elect the kind of candidates we have been saddled with lately with only a minority plurality. At the least we should eliminate the winner take all primaries, still better would be to bring back the “smoke filled rooms”.
Are there actually any moderate Democrats today? If there are, I fear they will be swallowed up by the Democrat Socialists of America party.
Reading this from Canada. Finally a sitting judge stands up to the fake SCOTUS “judges” and speaks the truth and you swallow the pablum the right-salaried Turley spoon feeds you about the rule of law. Trump and his republican cronies, including the 6 SCOTUS racists, are killing your fellow countrymen and destroying your society, and you think the problem is Democratic Socialists? You and your ilk need cult rehab. It is your sickness that lets this zombie show continue.