House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides. With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob. This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.
After the recent gains by far-left candidates in states like Minnesota and the near victory of Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, Jeffries came out to reaffirm his intent to radically change the highest court. According to the Washington Times, Jeffries declared, “There’s a variety of different options that are on the table, and I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.” He added that the “conservative, right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party.”
He promised to make far-left Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) the driving force behind changing the Court, including possible 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and expanding the Court to create an instant liberal majority.
Notably, none of these figures were claiming that the Court was fundamentally flawed until it ruled against them, particularly in cases that impacted their political power such as declaring racial gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.
What is interesting is that the liberal justices reject this narrative, reminding citizens that the Court has delivered major losses to the Trump Administration. Indeed, President Trump has routinely attacked conservative justices for ruling against him and his Administration.
In addition, polls show that the majority of the public supports virtually all of the recent major rulings, including the ban on racial gerrymandering. It is only the Democrats who oppose those rulings and are now demanding a hostile takeover of the Court.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has called for packing the Court because it does not follow her views and those of “widely held public opinion.” I have pushed back on that rationale, given the Court’s function as a countermajoritarian institution. However, these polls even challenge the flawed rationale for court packing.
So Jeffries is promising that the work of James Madison will be undone by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren. To have these calls on our 250th anniversary is crushingly ironic. Other leading Democrats have lined up to pledge to fundamentally change the Court, which has played a key role in making this the oldest and most stable republic in history.
It is simply about power. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
I have called it the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob. Of course, some of these measures would be challenged if done without constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would then have to rule on the effort to pack or limit its members. The expansion can be done by legislative vote. Although most Americans oppose court packing, Democrats view control of the Court as essential to pushing through a radical agenda to change the political system to their advantage.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
In Federalist 10, Madison discussed the destructive im
pact of factions in forcing through opportunistic changes to advance their interests:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
We are witnessing the same factional politics being pushed by leaders who believe that they can ride a rage wave into power. They have a greater likelihood of causing lasting damage to our system than guaranteeing their own lasting power. History is not on their side. Today’s revolutionaries are often tomorrow’s reactionaries in an age of rage.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The polls say. The polls say! The polls say!!!
The polls said that Hillary was going to win.
The polls said that Kamala was going to win.
The leftist want us to believe that the polls are not politically biased.
The polls exist to make money and the makers of the polls will attract those who reach for any strand of hope to ease their troubled minds. Put more succinctly, the suckers.
The polls also included the margin for error, which was larger than the lead Hillary Clinton led by. Part of the problem was Conservatives lying to poll takers, as well as the FBI pushing a lie about Hillary Clinton just a week or two ahead of the election.
So we got the Mad King who recreated the events of The Masque of the Red Death and led to over 1 million Americans dead. Inflation, an explosion of the national debt, a turning away from science and towards the cult of MAGA and MAHA.
Justices Now Live Far Longer
The U.S. Supreme Court stands alone among high courts in the universe of constitutional democracies in lacking either term limits or a mandatory retirement age. In fact, it stands virtually alone in our own country: 31 states and the District of Columbia have some form of mandatory retirement and almost all states establish terms for high court justices ranging from 6 to 14 years.
Term limits weren’t necessary when the Constitution came into being. Life expectancies were nowhere near where they are now. Up until the late 1960s, the average term for Supreme Court justices was 15 years. By contrast the average tenure of justices who have left the court since 1970 has been roughly 26 years, and for some, three or more decades.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/constitution-allows-term-limited-supreme-court-justices
………………………………..
This another issue where fundamentalists are stuck in the 1780s.
The life tenure is in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with “fundamentalists,” whatever that is supposed to mean.
The model this particular Chinese bot is using is not very good. Apparently it does not yet know that in the US there is this little thing called the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.
Estovir, the constitution is currently whatever Federalists say it is. And this court believes it is ‘so enlightened’ that it can simply plow over any precedent.
Typical ignorant comment from commie troll. The Federalist Society was founded in 1982. The Supreme Court said the thing about life tenure in 1955, almost 30 years earlier.
“…the constitution is currently whatever Federalists say it is….”
Wait!
Secession was not prohibited, therefore, secession was prohibited.
All Lincoln ever had to do was pass a law in Congress to abolish slavery but he said to he– with the Constitution, picked up guns and started killing people as a tyrant and dictator to have his way and to forcibly impose his will on a free country of laws.
Congress cannot tax for anything other than debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” that is, police, fire, water, electricity, post office, basic infrastructure etc., therefore Congress has taxed for welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, etc., and called it all general welfare, which it is not.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
Based on your interpretation of the general welfare and commerce clauses, how would a law enacted in 1861 banning slavery be constitutional?
The general welfare clause is not considered to be a delegation of power, it is like the millitia clause in the 2nd amendment, it is an explanation or justification, not a delegation of power or the declaration of a civil right.
John, I don’t think what you are saying about the general welfare clause is consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Helvering v Davis (1937).
And people are living longer too Anonymous. According to your logic all workers should be forced
To retire after a certain age. You got your racism down. You got your sexism down. But your ageism doesn’t
score so well. Next you will be telling us that people over a certain age should not be allowed to vote.
Search as I might I can’t recall you ever saying the Alzheimer Joe Biden should step down.
You were one of the strongest deniers of Joe having a problem. Keep Joe in office to maintain political power.
Get rid of Supreme Court Justices to get more political power. You think we won’t notice but we understand that when
looking through one of your ears we can see out the other.
Etovir (Thinkthrough), do we want Justices hanging on until they’re senile?
When Scalia died it was revealed he couldn’t sleep without a special breathing machine. And Ginsberg didn’t think she’d ever die even though she was obviously past her expiration date.
I friends wife developed alzheimers in here early 50’s Milton Friedman and Ronald Coase died in their late 90s as sharp as ever if not more so.
Yes actually senile or incompetent people should retire.
The fact that Scalia and Ginzberg had health problems says ZERO about there ability to do the job
I do not care if they were handicapped of dying. They were both inarguably competent
TIT: you MAGAs do NOT speak for “we” or “us”, meaning most Americans. You MAGAs are, at best, no more than 30% of voters. As to retirement for judges, in many states, including the one where I live, there is a mandatory retirement age for all judges. It’s not “ageism” to set a mandatory retirement age for so important a position as judge, especially on the court of last resort, and it’s not just me–most Americans WANT term limits and mandatory retirement for the SCOTUS. Why should there be a lifetime appointment in the first place, with removal only if the Justice decides to retire or is impeached? The older people get, the more health problems they have–ergo, the more they are absent from the bench because of those health problems. However, the biggest reason is to get fresh blood from time to time, a fresh perspective, and to prevent entrenchment and acquiring too much power. That’s the same reason why many churches, including the Catholic Church, move around ministers and priests. Joe Biden did not have Alzheimer’s–but Trump probably does. There are many other jobs in which there is a mandatory retirement age, such as airline pilots, air traffic controllers and foreign service officers. Many medical practices have policies about older surgeons only doing office work and not performing surgeries over a certain age.
You speak of “political power”–that’s exactly what the majority of the current Leo Leonard Federalist Society SCOTUS does when it decides cases, including making a new law giving Trump immunity for any crimes he might want to commit. This is not just what I think, but what most Americans think. Based on their political persuasion and ignoring precedent and cases that previously challenged Roe, they overturned a nearly 50-year precedent in which a previous SCOTUS held that there was a Constitutional right to privacy and liberty that protected a woman’s right to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability. Three of the most-recent judges lied in their confirmation hearings about honoring stare decisis. They were chosen by the Leo Leonard Federalist Society precisely because they were willing to overturn precedent–and most Americans do not like it.
gigi has obviously reached her age of retirement from the comments section. We need to retire her before she either blows up with her “pottyness” or simply implodes into her own muck. None of her contributions show balance or maturity. Just juvenile insults and pretend superiority of mind.
Women were not allowed to vote by the creators of democracy in 508 B.C. in Greece and by the American Founders in 1789.
Smart people never allowed women to vote – women were far to involved in bearing and educating children.
Ditto illegal alien invaders who are not “Ourselves And Our Posterity.”
Most workers are forced to retire earlier than the SCOTUS has done by employers looking at higher medical insurance costs, increasing wages and accumulation of vacation time, and that new workers are more easily manipulated to work free overtime or ignore certain laws to favor the billionaire class.
What is wrong with Supreme Court Justices remaining on the bench for long periods, where memory is preserved, potentially reducing the fluctuations that occur with replacements?
It leaves a gap when the very old are replaced with the very young – that memory is not passed on and is, instead, wiped out.
I think your mathematics is flawed.
There are nine judges, so if one or two retire in a year, there are seven more to provide that memory.
Shorter times on the bench shorten memory.
More red meat for MAGA devotees. Here’s what polls from various organizations say vis-a-vis the SCOTUS:
“Recent surveys show that 50% of Americans approve and 50% disapprove of proposals to add justices to the Supreme Court, indicating a deeply divided public on this issue
scotusblog.com
Support is strongly influenced by political affiliation: 59% of Democrats favor expansion, while 70% of Republicans oppose it. yougov.com
This polarization reflects broader partisan debates over the Court’s role and perceived power.
While Americans are split on adding justices, there is broad support for other reforms:
Term limits for justices: About 79% of Americans favor term limits, with strong bipartisan backing—89% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans support limiting the number of years justices can serve. yougov.com
Ethics reforms: 78% of Americans support creating a formal ethics code for Supreme Court justices, allowing investigations into ethical violations.
Brennan Center for Justice
Maximum age limits: 74% support age limits for justices, reflecting a desire for periodic turnover. Pew Research Center
Key Takeaways:
Court expansion is politically polarized, with Democrats generally in favor and Republicans opposed.
Other reforms, such as term limits and ethics codes, enjoy widespread support across party lines.
Americans’ views on the Supreme Court are also shaped by perceptions of its power and partisanship, with many believing the Court is too involved in politics or favors certain groups.
yougov.com
In summary, while most Americans do not uniformly support adding more justices, there is strong consensus for reforms that limit tenure and enforce ethical standards, suggesting that public appetite for change is more focused on accountability than on increasing the Court’s size.
Turley claims Democrats want to “radically change” the SCOTUS–the SCOTUS is ALREADY “radically changed”–thanks to Republican shenanigans. AND, there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the number to nine. Obama was denied a SCOTUS pick by McConnell refusing to allow Garland’s nomination to go to the floor, allegedly because of the proximity of the next election, but after Ginsburg died, Barrett was shoved onto the Court with an even shorter time before the next election. Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh all lied about their position on stare decisis settling the issue of a Constitutional right to abortion, and Turley’s cherry-picked list of decisions that Americans allegedly agree with does not include Dobbs, which most Americans oppose. Republicans cut off further witnesses who wanted to testify about Kavanaugh’s escapades, so Turley is wrong in claiming that no one complained about the current SCOTUS until it ruled against them.
Fifty percent of Americans support adding more justices–which is an even split. Turley claims that the “majority” of Americans support recent SCOTUS rulings–the piece he cites to back up this claim says that there is 47% support–which is NOT MOST Americans, and the list of rulings does not include Dobbs.
Turley cites the Washington Times–which is a MAGA publication.
Big difference between a lame duck making a lifetime appointment, and a candidate actively campaigning for re-election, where his SCOTUS pick could well sway voters one way or other.
OK then, no President can make an appointment in the last 4 years of their term. Someone might run against them.
Lets introduce legislation to keep the scotus at no more than nine, and if the democrats dont vote for it then trump should pack it now
Usage of a Poll destroys your argument in the first sentence.
Agree. I don’t think gigi is smart enough to even look at the sources of the polls……
The FACT still remains that the constitution and the majority of people both oppose court packing.
As to the rest – much of it requires changing the constitution.
No the court is not radically changed. As Turley noted – most all scotus decisions have popular support.
But even more importantly they are constitutionally well founded.
That is absolutely critical.
We can change SCOTUS decisions that are not popular – by amending the constitution when justices follow the constitution.
WE can not fix decisions that are bad or not popular when justices follow their politics.
So, firearms need to be confiscated from law-abiding citizens. but a brandished baseball bat in the hands of a posturing thug are fine?
I read in an account yesterday that, among other things, this idiot (Jeffries) is promising that a Democratic-controlled Congress would institute 18 year term limits for SCOTUS justices. I guess he must be anticipating not only a majority in House and Senate in 2026, but also majority control in the legislatures of 38 of the 50 states, because that would be the minimum requirement to pass an Amendment to change Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution: “…The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” Which, for the illiterate Marxist Morons who pollute this comment section, means that, absent successful impeachment and conviction proceedings (for other than “good Behaviour”) , a Federal judge may remain on the bench as long as he or she wishes to serve. Or maybe this thug is planning to threaten them with his bat to get them to resign?
Estovir, (Don Whatever):
Nothing in the Constitution says Justices serve to they’re dying day or until senility becomes too obvious.
I guess you have not read the constitution
Article III
Section 1
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour
To remove a judge or justice prior to their choosing to resign or retire, you must impeach them.
If you do not like that – change the constitution.
Regardless before saying stupid things you might try reading it.
“During good behavior’ doesn’t mean ‘lifetime appointment’. The Constitution would say, ‘Lifetime appointment’ if it actually meant that.
Nope. During good behavior means for life unless and until the judge engages in bad behavior (as demonstrated through impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate). Maybe learn the English language before commenting.
This is what Scotus says about it:
The “good Behaviour” Clause guarantees that Art. III judges shall enjoy life tenure, subject only to removal by impeachment. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 59, 102 S. Ct. 2858, 2865 (1982).
Article III provides for the establishment of a court system as one of the separate but coordinate branches of the National Government. . . . These courts are presided over by judges appointed for life, subject only to removal by impeachment. U. S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 15-16, 76 S. Ct. 1, 4 (1955).
It means during good behavior – for however long that lasts.
Including the rest of your life.
Some 50’s year olds are not suited to be supreme court justices, while many 90 year olds are.
Regardless, if you think a judge is not behaving – the constitution provides for impeachment.
You are correct the constitution would say life time appointment if that is ALL that good behaviour meant.
“Good behavior” means MORE than a lifetime apointment – it means that congress can terminate your appointment when they no longer find you to be fit.
You or some other anonymous proposed numerous changes – commissions reviews, etc.
These already exist. The house and senate can conduct oversight on the courts.
And if the house feels for whatever reason that removal is warranted – they can impeach.
Making a new but unconstitutional law to create a power that already exists, is typical of they left.
If you have a problem with the ethics or behaviour of a judge – Impeach them.
No new laws necescary.
I absolutely oppose going beyond hat is in the constitution already.
The last thing we need is another stupid independent agency or commission doing a political job that is the responsibility of congress.
Congressmen are elected – they are answerable to the public. The last thing we need is more appointed bureaucrats excercising powers not given them in the constitution.
I have no problem with congressional oversight.
It appropriately is a double eddged sword
A likely major factor in Trump’s 2024 re-election was the democrat lawfare against him.
Democrats Claim Trump is doing the same – so far the public does not appear to buy that.
But you are free to try to convince them.
And that is how it should be.
The Constitution is not the inerrant word of god.
But surprisingly only to the left – it already has most of what is required for good govenrent if only followed scrupulously.
Again – “during good behavior” – gives the people all the power they need to remove justices when there is an actual problem.
When you seek laws to do what you already can do – YOU are the problem.
Well – if you guys hadn’t elected and then defended a lying, cheating, corrupt orange dotard who started a needless war and bulldozed half of the White House – who’s popularity is somewhere around 35%, you wouldn’t need to worry about a Blue Wave. But – you did – so there we are….
Trumps approval is about 20pts higher than democrats, and higher than Bush, Obama and Biden at the same point in their term.
And no one on the left has any standing to malign Trump voters – YOU elected biden who actually was senile 4 years BEFORE 2020, and who is inarguably the most corrupt and worst president in US history – and who actually started a truly needless war in Ukraine that is killing millions.
I have no idea what 2026 will bring – and increasingly I doubt anyone else does. In race after race polls have been WILDLY off.
Almost universally to the detriment of the far left.
There is little doubt the country as a whole is moving away from the left.
But the party in power usually gets slammed at mid-terms.
Purportedly Democrats have more energy and more likelyhood of voting.
Trump voters particularly tend not to show up when Trump is not on the ballot.
But what appears to be the cause of the screwed up polls is that increasingly Centrist democrats are showing up to defeat DSA candidates.
Regardless Democrats have atleast two significant factions that are at each others throats and it is likely one or the other will not show up in november – or worse still will show and vote republican.
Again – I do not have a crystal ball – but if the primaries are a clue – Democrats are deeply divided, and the two major democrat factions are very unhappy with each others candidates.
While the divide among democrats is evidence from the primaries.
That does not explain the way off polling. It is common for polls to underestimate republicans by as much as 8pts distant from the actual election, and 2pts by immediately before the election. It is not common for polls to be 20pts off in a primary.
John Say apparently believes that “Biden” is the code name for Vladimir Putin. How else could Biden start the Russian war against Ukraine?
Meanwhile, the Republicans are united to elect Trump to a third or fourth term, a man who stared at the Sun to show he is the true and powerful God of the world, and started a war with Iran that Iran does not appear to be losing. Iran has taken physical damage but the US is bleeding cash and arms with nothing to show for it but turning dust into finer dust. When God Emperor Trump finally dies the Republicans will similarly explode into dust trying to blame each other for following the Mad King.
Your support for Islamists and communists is cute but not sustainable. Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Socialists seem immune to experimental results. Over 50 Islamic countries prove sharia law oppresses women and LGBTQ. Islamic traditions of marrying cousins produce whole countries of average IQs in the low 80’s. The US is unlikely to knowingly vote for these outcomes. Frances Hong lost the Democrat primary in Wisconsin.
You truly are a delusional idiot aren’t you?! It’s not an act, you’re fking crazy as a portalet rat.
According to the American Founders, Ol’ Ima’am Hawky would never have been admitted to become a citizen.
Whatever happened to law in America?
____________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
Prof. Turley addresses this question in how “Rage and the Revolution” book.
The philosophical framework behind the founding of our nation was Natural Rights…that freedom/individual autonomy was an inborn right of all people. Clearly, the abolitionists like Franklin and Adams were absolute that black Africans were human beings and thus possessed of natural rights. The southern state founders held to the same lofty principle, but carved out philosophical room for slavery by classifying black Africans as property, not human beings.
That legal slight-of-hand was doomed to fail on economic grounds starting around the 1820s. Importation of slaves was outlawed beginning 1808, and growing demand for field labor in the South was met by slave reproduction. The selling of children taken from their natural mothers and fathers was viewed as a vile and repugnant human abuse, and an affront to God and Natural Law. But the economics of slavery were beginning to fail, as mechanized equipment was being invented, and the housing and health-care costs falling on slave owners were increasing as standards of living and medical info increased.
Black Americans proved themselves loyal Americans during the Civil War, Reconstruction, WWI and WWII.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1960 grew out of the self-esteem acquired by black WWII warriors returning victorious to the same old racist discrimination — as if their national service was unworthy. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
So, the concept of Natural Rights prevailed over an awkward, expedient distortion called chattal slavery.
It would be funny to watch you spout off about your views face-to-face with LeBron, Shaq, Steph, ofr Byron Donalds. Or, Candice Owens. You would melt in embarrassment, and I would enjoy your dressing down.
Every single person you named is a black multimillionaire. Seems America worked out pretty well for each of them. Tell us all what a bunch of nasty racist white people we are.
You did not argue against the Naturalization Acts which were duly legislated.
You did not impeach or abrogate the laws that legalized slavery – its origin.
__________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Massachusetts was the first North American colony to legally authorize slavery through statute with the passage of the Body of Liberties in December 1641 (Section 91). While Virginia courts and assemblies previously established legal punishments and distinctions based on race in the early 1640s (such as the 1640 John Punch ruling), Massachusetts was the first to formally codify the institution into law.
When even one of these dsa children appears on the floor of Congress, we will long for the simple days of this moron with his baseball bat. It is going to happen, at least once. We had better be prepared. And anyone still supporting the dnc – what in the name of Zeus is the matter with you?
Estovir (James), the DSA is simply MAGA in reverse. It’s like, “Yeah, we can get even crazier”.
Trump lowered the bar to sanity in politics. That’s why we have the DSA.
You could not be more wrong.
MAGA, we can define what a woman is.
We know biological men do not belong in women’s locker rooms, bath rooms or sports.
We know “gender affirming care,” is not care but harm.
We know secure borders are a good.
We know no-cash bail is a bad thing.
We know defunding the police is a bad thing.
We know from history socialism is not a good thing. It usually ends quite badly. For nearly everyone.
We know all this. And the Democrat party was in support of this insanity before we knew what the DSA was.
Upstate – well said. Only a thief thinks everyone else is a thief. Only the insane think everyone else is insane.
“Only the insane think everyone else is insane.”
Maybe that is required to think that literally everyone is insane. However, I would contend that the voting results from far too many jurisdictions provide prima facie evidence of the insanity of a majority in those places to all who have remained sane.
Good point. There does seem to be a mass psychosis in deep blue pockets. One piece of recent evidence: Massachusetts where the governor signed a law, to the cheers of those standing by, allowing baby killing through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatever. Massachusetts law already allowed such abortions where there was a serious health problem for the mom or baby anyway, so this new law is nothing more than a blood-soaked macabre license to kill for no good reason. Yet you had all those people who, from the outside looked ordinary, cheering it on and thus demonstrating to the world their insanity.
Old Man and Don Whatever are both Estovir.
Estovir (Upstate), Trump’s war on renewable energies is bat sh!t crazy. Trump doubles down on oil, then starts a war that rocks oil markets. How dumb is that??!!
Trump pardons a series of big time frauds while claiming he’s highly concerned with welfare fraud.
Trump mindlessly alienated all our allies while treating Putin with great deference.
Trump keeps constantly turning on his own political allies. Last week, Trump turned on Jenine Pirro because she she couldn’t make that bogus prosecution stick.
Everything Trump does is insane. And that’s what drives the DSA. It’s the Humpty Dumpty theory: ‘Once everything’s smashed to pieces, you can never put it back like it was before’.
Pardoning people falsely targeted by the let is not antithetical to going after Fraus.
Trump is not at war with renewables. He is just ending government putting its finger on the scales.
Renewables need to succeed on their own merits as judged by consumers – not government – as should be true of Everything.
Free markets give you a vote in everything and allow you to change that vote anytime you wish.
Government pretty universally gets it wrong.
In the midst of a war that purportedly has 20% of the worlds oil choked, Gas prices are 20% lower than during Biden.
Absolutely starting a war for no good reason is a bad idea – as Biden did in Ukraine.
A war that is likely to end Iran’s nuclear threat and her exporting terrorism and destabalizing the region is NOT for no good reason.
Nor is it dumb. Every single US president since carter has said that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
Iran has admitted that they have sufficient U235 to make 10 nuclear bombs in short order, and several times that over a longer period
A nuclear Iran will destabalize the world.
Putin, Xi, and Kim un are effectively enemies, but they have no death wish.
Iranian leaders CLEARLY do. We have wiped out the top levels of the ayatolah’s their government, and the IRGC and they KNOW that we can continue to wipe out their replacements and still they refuse to commit to ending their nuclear aspirations.
Putin is unlikely to start nuclear armagedon – even backed into a corner, nor is Xi and surprisingly neither is Kim Un.
But Irans zealot leaders have demonstrated that they would rather die than be at peace with the world.
That makes them the worlds most existential threat.
How dumb would it be to allow people seeking martrdom to hold a nuclear sword over the world ?
Trump is being good to Putin ? Do you mean by isolating Russia ? By cutting off the 40% of their munitions coming from Iran ?
By toppling Russian Allies like Venezuella and Cuba ? By radically reducing China’s support of Putin ?
All of which has resulted in the reversal of fortunes in a war of attrition – it is now Russia that can not win this war long term,
Not Ukraine – and with enormous respect for the accomplishments of Ukraine, that is primarily because Trump has slowly chopped Putin’s support out from under him.
And why exactly should the US care about the EU ? They do not allow us to trade fairly with them.
They do not pay for their own defense.
They do not protect their own commerce at sea.
They are toddlers dependant on the Might of the US for their existance.
They are not allies – while they wisely did not have that much involvement in the debacle that lead putin to invade Ukraine.
Still it is Europe that Putin threatens not the US – and they have done very little to assist in addressing that threat.
Mideastern oil goes to China and europe – not the US. The US gets more than it needs from the western hemisphere.
The US is a net exporter of energy. So where are Europe and China in dealing with Iran ?
Defanging Iran is in Europes interests – not the US.
Protecting Gulf oil is in Europes interests – not the US.
The DSA is absolutely anti-Trump – on everything.
But far ore importantly they are pro stupid on everything.
The humpty dumpty comparison is apt.
We do not kno how much longer Biden’s war in Ukraine will last.
But the inevitable outcome BECAUSE OF TRUMP is not favorable to Putin.
We do not know how much longer the conflicts in the mideast will last.
But the prospect for a broad mideastern peace is very real, and even if Trump falls shy – he will have done more to make the mideast more peaceful and stable than any US president ever.
The balance in the Mideast has shifted radically – Whiile all mideaster nations are not ready to jump into bed with Israel – pretty much all have far stronger ties than ever before.
Hamas has almost certainly been defanged, Israel and Lebanon are negotiating a peace deal that requires defanging Hezbolla.
All the gulf states have military cooperation agreements with Israel.
Iran is thoroughly isolated.
There will be a peace deal with Iran – regardless of how long it takes.
In the mean time deal or no deal the US have gotten everything it has required.
If US forces left the Gulf today – Iran has been set back decades in its ability to terrorize the world.
Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Voting for socialists is dumber than Wiley Coyote repeatedly buying Acme products that injure him.
Your support of Iran’s regime is touching. Iran has been the biggest state sponsor of terrorism for over 40 years. Iran was within weeks of obtaining a nuclear weapon. Your position is that we should have done nothing about Iran so we could keep gasoline cheap. Brilliant!
ATS – democrats lowered the bar for Sanity long long ago.
There is not a GOP candidate for president in my lifetime that has not been called a Nazi.
No MAGA and the DSA are not even close to the same.
There are two major components to MAGA – the first is essentially conservative – they are coming out to vote because democrats in power keep imposing unpopular and failed policies that are costly and infringe on liberty. And that is supposed Normie Democrats – not the far left DSA loonatics.
The other component to MAGA is that working class voters have increasingly come to recognize that democrats do not and never really have had their back.
Neither of those are “extreme” nearly all “MAGA” policies are just the undoing of left wing nut policies,
Nearly all MAGA policies are Normie policies that have supermajority support.
The DSA is way out on the fringe – they are popular with very young adults who have been horribly miseducated, But they are unpopular with anyone who has actually had to make a living.
People who have jobs, who have to work, who own cars, and homes, who have to pay bills, who have children, who have spouses, overwhelminingly oppose this far left nonsense. And they overwhelmingly support MAGA policies.
While the extreme insanity of the left is new – as is the democrats ability to get young adults to actualy vote, Something they have been unable to do through my lifetime. It has always been true that people under 35 lean way to the left.
Of course what lean way tot he left means has changed over time.
The radical left from the 60’s dramatically expanded free speech.
Today the radicals from the left are the most extreme supressors of free speech in US history.
Regardless MAGA is normal – it is not extreme.
The left wing of the democrat party is very much extreme
James
We have already had a couple of the pieces of excrement on the House floor. Think Squad, AOC, Pressley, Omar and Talib. Every single one of those harpies is an anti American hell bent on destroying our country and Constitution. Arm up is more likely.
Pressley grew up in public housing while attending one of the t
One of the two most prestigious — and expensive — private schools in Chicago.
It’s always the left who does this.
___________________________
Washington — The top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., said a woman has been arrested and faces two felony charges related to vandalism of the World War II Memorial in the capital.
Melissa Farris has been charged with depredation against property of the United States and destruction of veterans’ memorials, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said on X. Pirro said Farris is in custody.
“Vandalizing our World War II Memorial is a despicable attack on a sacred monument honoring the Americans who fought and died for our freedom,” Pirro said.
“Pirro said Farris is in custody.”
While I support this arrest, I also suspect that Pirro is trying very hard to avoid being fired after declining to prosecute the alleged reflecting pool vandal.
Turley Writes:
The “conservative, right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party.”
…………………………………….
Yes, at least half the public believes this.
Every Federalist-Conservative on the court was selected by Leonard Leo, the Chief Federalist. The Federalists are essentially a political machine sponsored by Koch money. Their mission is promoting Libertarian values whether the public wants them or not.
Though strangely Libertarianism gets tangled with traditional Catholic values because Leonard Leo is also a Catholic activist. ..Go figure..!
^ Chinese Communist Party bot (not human) ^
In 2021, Chicago businessman (and former bar mitzvah boy) Barre Seid gave his company, Tripp-Lite, to a charity managed by Leo. He sold it to corporate tax escapee Eaton Corp, for well over a billion dollars.
ATS – contra your claim – no half the country is not up in arms over the supreme court.
They have a far higher aproval rating than the democratic party.
Before Biden blocked Bork from even being voted on every Supreme Court nominee was judged on their competence not their political affiliation. And we also know Nixon’s removal was a CIA coup. The crew that broke into Watergate was mostly CIA operatives. Also I don’t believe for a second that DeepThroat is who they say. Deep Throat was a member of Nixon’s cabinet and the same person who erased self incriminating evidence it the tapes.
Black THUG TRASH.
Right on! Thank you
The question I have is do these people really believe in what they are proposing?
Or is there entire platform the hate and rage rhetoric, “We are not Trump!” or “We hate Trump!” or “We are going to do everything opposite of Trump!”
That seems to be the extent of their strategy going into the mid-terms. Gotta keep up the rage to 11 for the next 80 some odd days!
How exhausting.
Yes, Estovir, everyone hates Trump. No president has worked harder to be hated than Donald Trump.
Mental illness is the defining feature of the left. Trump is hated by all the right people – the people who hate America and are mentally ill. It’s good to be hated by the side aligning itself with evil. It means he’s doing the right thing for the people of America.
Estovir, right now Trump is hated for starting a war he can’t finish. Iran is becoming a vastly bigger embarrassment than Afghanistan.
vastly bigger embarrassment than Afghanistan
That’s exactly what I mean about mental illness. Only the mentally ill would actually believe such silliness. The number of troop deaths in this entire war is about the same as Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco. And while Afghanistan went back to the way it was, Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been set back decades, and the Islamo-fascist regime is severely weakened. That you would actually believe what you type makes you look like a complete stooge.
Estovir,
Yeah, the troop deaths are far less than Afghanistan. But the ramifications are more serious. Trump and Hegseth have shot our wad in terms of munitions. Plus all our Middle East allies now know the U.S. can’t protect them. That’s a big deal in terms of future influence! Plus Trump is finished as a credible world leader. Everyone knows he’s disconnected from reality. Yet tragically for us, Trump still has 2 years to go.
Good analysis of the situation. NOW explain what policy would have prevented the Iranians from getting a nuke. And what policy would the US have followed the Israelis nuking Iran.
“Trump and Hegseth have shot our wad in terms of munitions.”
If true a very short term problem. BEFORE this started the US has been very actively working to not just increase munitions production, but to exponentially increase the production of slightly less capable but far less expensive weapons.
There are a dozen Defense contractors working to deliver a new generation of cruise missles with 2/3 to 1/2 the range and 1/2 th size warhead but at 1/50th the cost in very large numbers. These new standoff weapons are interchangeable with existing weapons.
They can be loaded onto B2’s and B52’s or dropped from C130’s in Rapid Dragon arrangements.
The US grasped long before Trump that while our weapons were unequaled we were on the wrong side of the cost curve.
These are due to become available this year in large numbers.
Further out energy weapons and rail guns are back in development. Even though the US mothballed rail guns – the Japanese did not, and they have solved most of the problems that we were stuck on Functional rail guns are likely many years out.
but the problems are engineering not fundimental science. and All new and many current US ships are already setup for them as soon as they work. We actually have a containerized railgun system that when the bugs are worked out can be dropped onto about 1/3 of US warships.
Absolutely the Ukraine and Iran wars have exposed weakenesses in the US military but overall performance has been much better than expected and the problems you are fixated on have had solutions in the works and in many cases near ready for deployment
I would further note that we are not actually running out of weapons – just expensive standoff weapons.
We long ago wiped out Irans air defenses. We can fly B52’s with conventional iron bombs anywhere in Iran we want and we have massive stockpiles of dumb bombs. We also have kits to put dump bombs on F15’s and make them smart.
B52’s and F15’s are higher risk but much lower cost ways to deliver blows to an enemy – but once air supremacy is acheived – which it was long ago – the risk to B52-s and F15’s is very very low.
Further our actual allies int he Gulf – like the Saudis – do not have US cruise missles, but they do have US F15’s and dumb bombs fitted with smart packages. So long as the US maintains air supremacy over Iran they we do not even have to send in US airmen.
“Plus all our Middle East allies now know the U.S. can’t protect them. That’s a big deal in terms of future influence! ”
Correct. This is with near certainty the last Hurah of the US in the mideast.
Not just Trump but even Bush and Obama and Biden have been telegaphing to mideastern countryies and the EU that the Mideast (and Europe) are increasingly NOT in the US interests, and that the US expects more and more the countries int he region and Europe to start policing their own interests.
The #2 military power in the mideast – unequaled by any but the US is Israel. We are seeing large numbers of military cooperation agreements with Israel and the Saudi’s and other mideastern nations.
EVERYONE with a brain knows that the “mission” is to have the US significantly degrade the Iranian threat to the region and to Europe and after that to significantly reduce our involvment in the region.
The mideast has NOT been a US national security interest for a long time.
The writting has been on the wall for our departure.
The US is a net energy exporting country – we do not need energy from anywhere else in the world.
But even if we did – Canada and Mexico are far more important, and after that Venezuela and Brazil.
US foreign policy has been slowly shifting through the 21st century away from europe, the mideast, africa, and to the western hemisphere, the pacific rim and the anglosphere.
That will happen no MATTER WHAT
The Europeans are way way way behind in preparing for this.
But the US has already diminished Iran to the point where the gulf nations and Israel without Europe are capable of dealing with future threats.
That is actually really bad for Europe.
Trump is doing fine as a world leader.
Trump did not determine the gobal realignment of US power I address above – he is just moving on it faster than Bush, Obama and Biden. It is happening regardless.
And the rest of the world has KNOWN this for a long time. They have just failed to do anything about it.
Regardless increasingly most of Europe matters very little to the US. We can do without europe in myriads of ways – they can not do without us.
Again US focus is shifting first to the north american, then the western hemisphere, then to the pacific rim and then to the anglosphere.
Wrong again. After Iran’s ability to defend itself was removed we switched over to simple munitions dropped from planes c
while without a doubt if the US just went home right now – Iran would be far weaker overall for decades.
The damage to their nuclear program is not certain. What e KNOW is that the enriched U235 that the Iranians had in June 2025 is not easily accessible to them today.
But if they directed significant resources to getting a nuke and not rebuilding their country they could have nukes in a year or two.
Iran can not concurrently
Develop nukes
rebuild its missle program
rebuild its drone program
rebuild exporting munitions to Russia.
export terror
destabalize the region
Threaten Europe
Rebuild its economy
solve the myriads of problems that nearly lead to the overthrow of its leaders in January.
….
Absent massive outside assistance, the above would take decades.
But Iran can pick one or two of those and accomplish them quickly.
And that is the major reason we need a deal.
This war is unpopular – SOLELY because it has raised gas prices.
This is not Vietnam. Disagreement with Trump over this war is NOT driving people to vote against him or his candidates.
Further so long as casualties remain low and the end result is a defanged Iran – people will quickly forget their tepid opposition.
This is not even close to Afghanistan. Fewer US sodliers have been killed in total, than in one day under Biden in kabul.
Don;t xonfuse I would prefer vanilla to chocholate with I would rather east $hit.
The “war” so called by the press is unpopular because the press declares it so c
Iran doesn’t even rise to the level of a police action, it’s more like bombing practice. And we are not using Million dollar cruise missiles just simple munitions dropped from planes
We did burn through alot of very high tech and expensive weaponry.
But that is not the huge problem that it sounds like.
Over time we must replace those long rang high power standoff weapons.
In a perfect woeld we would not have had to do this until the newer cheaper weaponry was available – which is very soon.
but you do not get to fight a war with the tools you wish you had, but the ones you do have.
You are correct that to a significant extent we are now relying on lower tech and cheaper weapons – of which we have lots.
But we had to degrade Iran’s defenses sufficiently to make that possible, and that required many things – including very expensive powerful long range standoff weapons.
In Gulf War I and GWII US carriers moved much closer to Iraq – into the gulf.
Today it is too risky to send a US carrier into the gulf.
Carrier Battle Groups has a 7 layer defensive net. This net is layered primarily by distance. The more distance the harder it is to overwhelm defenses.
The Phalanx is an incredibly automated relatively cheap close in defensive weapon.
But it is not up to handling a drone swarm. If only a few of a barage gets to the last mile – Phalanx has a huge probability of destrying them
Regardless, A carrier Battle Groups defensive success increases with the distance the defense systems have to take out threats.
Inside the gulf today that distance is too short.
On the offensive side standoff weapons
Mean we can attack an enemy safely from a distance at low risk.
The carrier itself is a standoff weapon.
Cruise missles are a standoff weapon. Smart bombs – even dumb iron bombs with cheap cuidance packages are standoff weapons.
Dumb iron bombs alone are not really a standoff weapon.
Regardless the closer you get people to the target the greater the odds of success, but the greater the odds of casualties.
The US spent trillions of dollars to go from 55,000 causulaties in Vietnam to a dozen fighting Iran.
The question I have is do these people really believe in what they are proposing?
You and I are both “people of color” (eye roll), and are supposedly the targeted audience of these namby-pamby charlatans. You’re probably like me in that I expect more from minority leaders. I expect them to be on the level of Condoleezza Rice. NB: if you have not read her book, Extraordinary, Ordinary People: A Memoir of Family do so. I read it in 2 days, was enthralled with her grace and elegance, and yet her background was tough as nails.
Hakeem is a buffoon. I cringe when I see him speak. He is inarticulate, truly a lesser among Whites, while possessing presence, masculinity, attractiveness and penetrating eyes. Yet the moment he starts to speak, it’s such a disappointment. Think of Thomas Sowell as an orator while Hakeem is better characterized as a missed opportunity.
I have always felt that minorities have to do it better than the next guy/gal. Forget the victim, trail of tears, pity party that typifies much of the shitck of blacks and not a few Hispanic leaders. Seeing Hakeem with a baseball bat and making promises about changing SCOTUS truly betrays all Americans but especially minorities.
US health care is a disaster. Ask anyone with an MD, RN, PharmD or a patient on the receiving end of health care: we are all in agreement that the US health system is corrupt, revenue driven and screws all participants – except third party payers (insurance companies), pharmacies (eg CVS = pure evil), and medical devices/pharma industry types. Congress could fix health care in one legislative session. That Hakeem is acting like a street thug with a baseball ball, instead of breaking up the health insurance plans and the retail pharmacy giants (who own pharmacy benefit managers) is reason to give Hakeem the middle finger. He is owned by industry. Republicans are no different.
Americans today are literally afraid to talk to each other. I live in the country but commute to the university medical center. It doesn’t matter where i stand, people just don’t trust each other anymore. Gone are the days of friendly greetings, people showing deference (like we did in college in the Deep South in 1980s), and children playing in the neighborhoods with not a concern that anything will happen to them. Crime is front and center in the minds of most Americans. Witness Hakeem’s baseball bat theatrics.
Congress can do so much to address the real concerns that most Americans have. Instead Hakeem acts like a pet monkey on a chain, heeled by his masters on the Democrat Plantation, trying to please the George Soros family and the Democrat extensive Chinese financiers, instead of fighting for Americans. Juxtapose that imagery to someone like Condi Rice.
Hakeem should not be cut any slack. Americans of all types, but especially minorities, should denounce him as a bigot, a paid prostitute who ignores their needs. Americans deserve far better than Hakeem the bat boy. He is a waste of hot air.
” That Hakeem is acting like a street thug with a baseball ball, instead of breaking up the health insurance plans …”
Health insurance should never have been tied up with the federal government, but it has been since WW2 when the government involved itself by means of the tax codes. Every step of the way, we have made things worse in the long term. We do not need the government to break up healthcare; we need the federal government to extricate itself from healthcare policy and leave it to the states.
Over the last few years, and under several topics, I have posted multiple comments on this blog regarding my admiration for Condoleezza Rice and my wishes that she would run for office. I also believe that FOX’s Harris Faulkner is one smart woman and I like the way she handles herself. Instead, we get Jasmine Crockett and Rashida Tlaib. You often cite your religiosity in your comments. Why is God punishing us? (smile)
I believe you are speaking of PBMs (pharmacy benefit mangers). Congress helped shape the legal and economic conditions that made consolidation profitable and harder to breakup.
Congress created very large, routed-through-PBMs prescription markets (especially Medicare Part D). When prescription coverage became a major federal program with centralized drug benefit administration, PBMs were positioned as the go-to intermediaries for administering formularies, claims, and pharmacy contracting. Medicare Part D (launched in 2006) is a major driver of PBM scale because it routed huge federal dollars through private plans that used PBM services. Congress did that.
Regulatory/legal structure limited states’ ability to rein in PBM practices. Federal ERISA preemption (the general rule that often limits how states can regulate employer health plans) reduced state leverage over PBM practices when PBMs were operating for employer-sponsored coverage. The Feds castrated states legal power.
Contracting and rebate structures created incentive to keep leverage inside one integrated group. A core driver of PBM power is the role PBMs play in rebate negotiation, formulary placement, and network terms—functions that can be tied to dispensing channels (retail mail order/specialty). Congress enabled this structure by creating the programs and rules where rebates and plan formularies are central via encouraging a business model where scale and vertical integration could translate into more leverage. Again, Congress enabled this.
Expecting Congress to breakup anything they created is expecting the impossible. Blow them all up and start over (US health care, not Congress)
So what? Boo hoo that the MAGA SCOTUS may come to a premature end. What Jeffieries wants to do is legal and less bad than Mitch denying Obama is court pick.
@Sally
That you use the term, ‘MAGA’, discredits anything else you say, instantly. Just a pro-tip for progressives that are now trying to hide their intentions.
Sally
The good news is that NONE of your nonsense is in the least likely.
mamdani is already failing catastrophically.
LEts assume that Democrats take the house and Senate in the midterms.
You need 2/3 of both to overcome a trump Veto.
Any legislative agenda you have is DOA – and that is if you can get your own to support it.
Further the people will expect you to start behaving like responsible adults, not petulant toddlers.
Those of you on the left has shown over and over that you are incapable of governing.
The absolutely best thing for GOP dominance in 2028 would be Democrats to spend the next two years with Power F$%King up.
You can not even get along with yourselves.
I am not sure the Democrats radical left problem has a solution. In many many many places democrats can not get elected without the support and votes of their far left flank And increasingly independents and democrat moderates are jumping ship the more power that left flank has.
You are between a rock and a hard place.
Worse still Contra Rut Tiexiera and the inevitable democrat majority postulated 2 decades ago that even Ruy is warning democrats is a lost cause
Democrats not republicans are increasingly the party of over educated under performing disgruntled priviledged whites.
Minorities are shifting to the GOP. Republicans do not yet have majorities among jewish, black, asian and hispanic voters – but they get closer with every cycle.
And even your own let flank – while current voters under 35 are far more left leaning than in the past and worse for republicans more likely to vote than in the past, the long term patterns still hold.
Get a job – move right.
Buy a home – move right
Get married – move right
Have children – move right.
The GOP has a white women problem – but it is very specific to unmarried young women – married women vote Republican and more so if they have children.
But worse still the next younger generation is appalled by the leftism of their older siblings – the coming generation of young people is the most conservative ever seen.
You have a bubble that while it might win elections in deep blue enclaves where you consistently Fail
It will not get you power anywhere else.
While many of us are afraid of the damage that those on the left can do in those places they dominate.
That is not nationally, and that is not most of the country.
The out migration from blue cities and states is slow – though accelerating. but most importantly – though the extreme left is winning in deep blue enclaves those enclaves are of diminishing national and even statewide importance.
Increasingly the left is a threat primarily to itself.
Jeffries, Warren, Bernie, Schumer, AOC et al need to read your book, “Rage and the Republic.” Maybe they can learn (probably for the first time) that the mob always eats its own.
Where is the dividing line between mob sentiment and “the consent of the governed”? I defy anyone to present a clear line of demarcation. Obviously, mob zealotry is disastrous and must be kept at bay. But, those in power benefitting from the status quo can easily paint over reasonable grievances as mob rumblings, and that is equally dangerous.
This is the pitfall of “us vs. them” factional identity politics. The immediate association of a reform idea with “them” closes the mind to meritocratic consideration of the reform.
Not every Supreme Court reform suggested by Hakeem J. is unhinged mobocracy. Keep the black robes to 9. The idea that every Presidential term gets 1 appointment, and that Justices serve for a fixed term has the a stabilizing effect. The death or retirement of a Justice would need to be addressed with an interim appointment to complete the term vacated. In practice, if we had a 20-year term, Presidents would appoint 50-60 year-olds in good health, and unfinished terms would be rare.
What I object to is rejecting any idea voiced by Jeffries because he’s Jeffries. Each idea deserves its own rational, dispassionate contemplation. It’s only with that meritocratic mindset that America can keep moving forward straddling a cauldron of bubbling conflict.
Detecting when reasonable dissent turns into a violent mob – like indecency, perhaps it’s easier to detect than to put into words. We know it when we see it.
And we are seeing it. Calls to eat the rich, defund the police, promote socialism and communism, abolish prisons, abolish the Senate, abolish ICE, open the border, put men in women’s sports, pack the Supreme Court, “get up in their faces,” chase them out of restaurants, smash them with a baseball bat, and generally whip up an assassination-chic culture in which attempted assassinations and actual assassinations take place. That’s what’s happening on the left. At this point, it’s definitely a mob.
Hopefully, the voters will “know it when the see it”. Or else, we’ll have to live thru more Mandamis before wising up.
You claim to be a lawyer? Try reading Article III, Section 1? When do you expect the required Amendment to be ratified? You are a joke, and not a particularly funny one…
You frame the problem wrong.
We have a system that delivers to people as optimally as possible what people want even when they do not want the same thing – so long as what they want is not simply control of others.
That system si called the free market. That is the solution to your dilema.
We should not ever provide through govenrment anything that we can provide outside government.
Because providing things outside of government addresses your dilema and many others.
Your voice on any issue int he free market is based on the way you choose to direct your resources.
The resources you have are based on your degree of success. Musk can direct my resources than you can because he has been more successful. Regardless everything gets a vote on everything – or everything the chose to vote on. And if peoples preferences change – the results change automatically.
So what determines what is inside and what is outside govenrment – When FORCE is required.
Most people do not murder others, but some do. Precluding the chaos that would result if we allowed murder as a means of influencing the operation of the market – requires FORCE. We must use FORCE to catch, and punish those who initiate force against others.
That in a nutshell is our criminal justice system There are a few other places where FORCE is required.
Adjudicating disputes is one of those. Whether the issue is a contract issue or holding someone accountable for the harm they have done,
you can not arbitrate or mediate disputes unless you can compel those in conflict to accept an outcome.
The domain where the use of force is necessary is the domain of government – the regulation and implementation of that use of force so that it is as neutral as possible and as consistent as possible is “the rule of law, not man”
You assume literacy where it is questionable…
including possible 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices
That would be struck down in a heartbeat as in violation of Article III, Section 1 – “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour . . .” The holing of ofrice during good behavior precludes fixed terms.
The bigger threat is court packing. Which is why the Keep-9 amendment is needed now more than ever.
You didn’t say whether the 18-year fixed term would be good if brought in with a Constitutional Amendment?
What are the merits of a fixed term? Detriments? I mean, thinking beyond the present makeup of the Court?
If brought in with a constitutional amendment, then it’s the will of the people and so be it. Whether I personally would favor that? I haven’t really thought it through – you’re the first person I’ve seen propose it as a constitutional amendment – but I can see some merit to the idea. It would rejuvenate the Court, and people would know ahead of time when a POTUS would get a Scotus pick when deciding who to vote for. But I would also want the amendment to have a “Keep 9” section.
“If brought in with a constitutional amendment, then it’s the will of the people and so be it. ”
Jeffries and his comrades know very well they cannot get any such Amendment ratified. Their fallacious claims of a MAGA-dominated Supreme Court majority are a mere projection of their goal, which is to create the mirror image of that claim, only in reality. They hope to leverage their rhetoric to gain House and Senate majorities in the 2026 midterms. That will (in their feeble minds, at least) allow them to make certain that a “fellow traveler” is installed as POTUS in January, 2029. Immediately following that prospective event, they plan to pack the the Supreme Court with a cr@pload of 20-something justices to ensure that they will control that institution for the next 30 to 40 years or longer. Once iron-clad control of SCOTUS through Marxist justices who have no regard whatsoever for the Constitution (or the rule of any other law, except possibly Sharia) has been established, they can finish molding (i.e., destroying) our culture at their leisure, with minimal concern over who might subsequently occupy the White House or Congress.
The most common failure of those on the left is to try to change myriads of things at once and to replace systems that have operated for decades or even hundreds of years successfully.
Today we see onside disgruntled by the way a system that has been in place for 250 years operates.
But that system has worked for 250 years. That alone is a strong argument for not replacing it willy nilly.
Would 18yr terms work ? How do you propose we test that for 250 years to provide a baseline to compare ?
Further they choices made in the US constitution even when simply expressed behave with significant comlexity over decades and centuries.
As an example the democrats significantly weakened the fillibuster. That was good for them for 2 years and has mostly been bad for them since.
Often what we think of as the flaws in what we have are just the ways it precludes us from instant gratification.
We are nearly always better off when we pick the solution that optimizes outcomes over the long term rather than the short term.
I can not tell you that life terms are inherently superior to 18 years. And you can not tell me why they are better.
At the very best your arguments or mine optimize for a subset of all values that you or I personaly weight heavily.
And often these are short term values and weights not long term.
What we currently have does not have massive flaws – it has worked for 250 years. Contra the left there is little reason to beleive that a different arrangement will perform as well or better over the long run.
50 years ago the left was fighting strongly for free speech and freedom generally. Today the modern left is more restrictive of expression than Jack Valencia and the MPAA or HUAC or Joe MacCarthy. None of us can KNOW what our individual, much less collective or group values will be in 50 years.
Again this is why we experiment with change in free markets not govenrment.
Free markets will respond instantly to our change in values and the weights of those values.
Government can not.
I’d like to see a rational debate about 1 – appropriate number of justices, 2 – term limits for justices and 3 – number of justices that a president can nominate in one term. When that’s done set it in concrete with a constitutional amendment so that future political games are eliminated.
“When that’s done set it in concrete with a constitutional amendment so that future political games are eliminated.”
Do you have any real idea of the difficulty of getting a Constitutional Amendment ratified, particular one plagued by any degree of controversy? I suggest that you review the history of the “Equal Rights Amendment”. That was formulated in 1923; passed Congress in 1972; but was not ratified by the 38th State, Virginia until 2020, after the statutory expiration of the previous ratification by several other States. Joe Biden unsuccessfully tried to declare it ratified in 2025, 102 years after it was created. It remains a ratification failure today.
BTW, if that didn’t convince you, the most recent Amendment that was actually ratified, the 27th, was submitted by Congress to the States for ratification in 1789, but was not ratified until 1992, 203 years later. The political differences between the States have increased, not decreased in the interim.
So ? Changing the constitution is hard – it is supposed to be.
Many amendments failed to get ratified – there is nothing wrong with that.
You can not eliminate political games.
Lets presume two political parties – though everything works similarly with more than two.
These parties are competing for power. The out party must alway endeavor to highlight even make up the failures of the out of power party.
Whatever party is out of power – must go looking to find areas of disagreeement – otherwise it has no hope of regaining power and no reason to exist.
You can not eliminate political games.
Hakeem Jeffries = milquetoast
A bag of wind with no action. He is trying to incite others to do his dirty work.
Apparently, the concept that one of the purposes of the Supreme Court was to AVOID having “the will of the people” destroy the system developed 250 years ago isn’t a good thing anymore. Lynching’s are just one example of “the will of the people” gone wrong. Some people don’t learn from the mistakes of others-at least where their path to power is concerned.
‘I have called it the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob.’
Yup. No thought to the lasting damage, consequences, or reality afterward. I can only conclude that these are not smart people; if I were to be truly severe – these people are simply not well. Jeffries is a total clown and a tool, but he perfectly embodies his party’s modern iteration, dsa or no dsa. The ‘educated’ class. Stop voting dem for everything, even the local PTA. You might as well vote for your dog, and they would likely be more sensible and kind.
Even the Washington Post had an editorial against Schiff and Court packing today. That’s how radical and dangerous it is.
Btw, I do not subscribe to the WAPO, I read it on RealClearPolitics today. I would never financially support any left wing media outlet.
I guess in theory, if we elected better people in all forms of govt that followed the Constitution, we wouldn’t need a Supreme Court.