Congressional Democrats blocked an effort to introduce a constitutional amendment to bar the Court’s expansion, with many members reiterating their demand to pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority. The Democrats insisted the Court is broken and no longer legitimate because of partisan rulings they want reversed by a packed Court. Ironically, the vote came with the release of the latest Harvard-Harris polling showing that Congress itself is still the least respected institution, while the Supreme Court holds higher approval than either the White House or Congress.
Congress is still wallowing at 34 percent approval among the American people. Both parties are equally disliked, with 55% disapproval of the GOP and 53% disapproval of the Democratic Party.
Conversely, the Supreme Court continues to enjoy far greater approval from the public, currently at 49% at “very favorable” or “favorable.”
So which institution is being targeted for elimination or radical reform? Of course, it is the more popular Supreme Court.
Packing the court and other measures are unpopular with the public. Instead, Democrats hope to achieve these reforms through legislation. However, it must then pass judicial review.
Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.
There are now calls for a litmus test for Democratic candidates to pack the Court or get the sack.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) wants to take over the Court to reverse rulings against racial gerrymandering while other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.
They join a growing list of figures demanding the hostile takeover of the Court from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg.
At its base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Court’s role. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” However, the court was meant to be counter-majoritarian to protect minority groups and viewpoints from the majority will.
Notably, this effort is not even popular with the majority. It is a power play to force major institutional changes through Congress, including radically changing a Court that is more popular than Congress itself.
The wretched train wreck of the Biden administration and the sociopolitical and economic detritus that this nation is still in the process of cleaning up is irrelevant to the short memories of low information voters for whom the price of a gallon of gasoline today is far more important. The need for Immediate gratification is what put us into this fix in 2020 and will do so again. The Democrat party, and the Democrat, socialist comrades, In their conversations.have offered no alternatives to immediately remedy the present circumstances which confront this nation, most domestically in internationally. Nothing concrete of immediately. Only pie in the sky rhetoric of what they deemed the people are entitled to. The psycho fans of the ‘Pied Piker’ And those on his leash, will dance to his tune over the cliff like lemmings to their doom and others as well.
The best way to get this to drop as an entire talking point: Republicans and the current admin should start whimsically nudging that they wish they could pack the court with Republican-leaning judges. Would shut the TDS up real quick
Except it will not. All it will do is take away the defense against it and give those that want this the ability to say “See even the Republicans think we should be able to pack the court.”
Usually, but you mustn’t forget the Golden Directive of the Left: Oppose Everything Trump Does. If Trump says to do it, well all of a sudden it is the word of Satan!
Question: if a Democratic controlled Congress and President pack the court, what would prevent a subsequent Congress and President from unpacking the court? It is the life tenure of the justices? If so then the packing of the court is a ratcheting game that might continue in one direction with not current limits.
If legislation is used to pack the court, more legislation can be used to unpack it by expiring the extra seats when the judge vacates through death or retirement.
It seems there is a majority to fix the court a nine members, but not the 2/3 necessary for a constitutional amendment. I would propose that Congress pass the legislation anyway and have the legislation itself declare that future legislation expanding the number of justices shall not be enacted. Of course, a future Congress could repeal that, but then someone might have standing to challenge the validity of the repealer legislation. That could be an avenue to get the issue before Scotus, at which time Scotus could declare the repealer legislation void without having to resort to declaring that Article III fixes the number at nine. I’m not saying this would be foolproof, just that it would declare the sense of Congress and give Scotus one additional reed on which to rest its decision.
I agree with you, but for more than just political reasons, I would suggest the law say that any changes in the number of SC justices cannot alter the number within the same Presidential term, stating that such a change should involve the people. The idea is to make this a political rope for either party to hang themselves.
An eighty-year-old man with severe dementia has started calling common objects different names, a leading expert in cognitive decline said on Thursday.
The expert noted that the confused man had mistaken the names of major bodies of water and a prominent performing arts center in his city of residence.
The fact that the man has reportedly passed cognitive tests during his annual physicals means that “he is not getting the care he needs,” he said.
Calling the man’s dementia “advanced,” the expert said, “He must immediately be removed from any position where he can cause harm.”
The only person with brain issues is biden and you
DustOff,
You are correct.
Further more, no expert can make such a claim without directly diagnosing the patient.
Or, that person is not an expert.
#WeAreEstovir
Can you name this expert? The diagnosis proper? And what authority this expert holds?
Oh wait, it’s just another TDS maroon trying to obfuscate and deflect the conversation to avoid talking about the party he’s pledged his life to crumbling around him.
So ano.
When we could see biden was losing it. You all said. You are not a doctor.
Enjoy eating you’re words.
Just imagine, every American soldier who died for his country—the United States of America—since 1776 actually died for MexAfricAsiArabia without even knowing it.
You said that yesterday. Would you kindly explain what you mean? Thanks in advance.
#WeAreEstovir
You said that yesterday.
Would you kindly explain your stalking, self-assignment as judge, jury, and executioner, and your failure to effectively refute arguments in debate?
That the Supreme Court is the most popular and revered of the three branches is of no surprise given that it is the one branch that cannot arbitrarily seize and then corruptly distribute citizens’ private property. Neither is it the branch that impowers unelected bureaucrats to rule the lives of citizens. Single party rule has the regressive leadership of the Democratic Party salivating over what can be done. For them, 20th Century history is one to be relived. They know what the Communist and Nazi Parties were able to accomplish, but believe they can make it different.
Today’s piece by Turley simply confirms that he is nothing more than a political hack, for hire to the highest bidder.
In recent years Turley has complained about the small size of SCOTUS, and has made repeated demands to increase the size to 19 justices.
Here is what he has written. Everything below are verbatim excerpts from articles written by Turley himself, including from an article in 2017 on this very blog.
“Our highest court is so small that the views of individual justices have a distorting and idiosyncratic effect on our laws. The deep respect for the Supreme Court as an institution often blinds us to its flaws, the greatest of which is that it is demonstrably too small. Nine members is one of the worst numbers you could pick — and it’s certainly not what the founders chose. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices, and the court’s size has fluctuated through the years. It’s time for it to change again.”
“I believe that many of the court’s problems come back to its dysfunctionally small size. This is something that countries with larger high courts manage to avoid: Germany (16 members), Japan (15), United Kingdom (12) and Israel (15). France uses 124 judges and deputy judges, while Spain has 74. These systems have structural differences, but they eliminate our concentration-of-power problem.”
“While the best number is debatable, I believe that a 19-member court — roughly the average size of a circuit court — would be ideal. Appellate circuits are often divided between liberal and conservative judges. Yet it is rare that one or two of those judges consistently provide the swing votes on all issues when they sit as a whole. Appellate courts of this size have proved to be manageable while allowing for more diversity in their members. More important, the power of individual judges is diluted.”
“We treat institutions such as the Supreme Court as inviolate. However, the framers not only gave us a brilliant system of government but the ability to improve it to better meet contemporary demands. The respect that most of us hold for the court should motivate us, not deter us, from reforming it. Just as the philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham called for “the greatest good for the greatest number,” sometimes the greatest good can be found in the greater number.”
The hypocrisy is astounding!!
There are many other op-eds on this theme written by Turley that appear in other forums, but I can only list 2 links.
https://captimes.com/news/opinion/column/jonathan-turley-why-high-court-should-have-19-not-9-justices/article_c3cbd198-d076-56a9-a01a-a85aac92333b.html
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/02/02/how-to-really-change-the-supreme-court-three-reforms-that-could-make-for-a-bigger-and-better-court/
Not only has Turley advocated for a 19 justice SCOTUS, he has done so for the exact same reasons as the Democrats. That is, the court came down with a narrow 5-4 decision with which he personally disagreed.
In 2012 he wrote a piece decrying the 5-4 decision that allowed Obamacare to stand. He stated that he was opposed to Obamacare and that the case was wrongly decided. He advocated a solution of increasing the size to 19 justices.
Here is what he said. The following are verbatim excerpts.
“Once again, many important decisions were the result of a court of one – 5-4 decisions, with “swing Justice” Anthony Kennedy deciding the issue for the nation. Healthcare is just one of a litany of cases that are reshaping the country in an image dictated often by just five members of the court. This has included sweeping changes in the political process from the Bush v Gore decision in 2000 (where the supreme court effectively chose the next president), to the Citizen’s United case (where the court struck down campaign finance limits for corporations).”
“While I support national healthcare, I have long opposed Obamacare on federalism grounds – denying states their constitutionally protected authority over such matters. Most experts are now predicting that the conservatives will likely carry the day in striking down critical parts of the law, or the law in its entirety. Despite being on the expected winning side of that particular case, I still believe that it is wrong for such a small group of jurists to make the decision for the country as a whole. In my view, the supreme court is demonstrably and dangerously too small.”
“Ever since the supreme court rested at nine members, we have repeatedly had problems of 5-4 splits, with one or two swing justices dictating the outcome of cases. With the increasing longevity of justices, such divisions have become stagnant and bitter. We often find ourselves captive to the idiosyncratic views of a couple of justices’ views on privacy, or federalism, or free speech.”
“Our experience with larger courts, both domestically and internationally, suggests that there is a better model for our highest court. Our respect for the court as an institution should not blind us to its flaws. It is time to reform – and expand – the US supreme court.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/27/bigger-better-supreme-court-reform
HYPOCRISY !!!!
“HYPOCRISY !!!!”
What is that, lie number 6 on the same issue? Proving, yet again, that the Left has no moral compass.
Anonymous wrote, “Turley advocated for a 19 justice SCOTUS”
Provide a link to Turley’s blog post where he did that.
PROVE YOUR CLAIM!
Withersooon,
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/02/02/how-to-really-change-the-supreme-court-three-reforms-that-could-make-for-a-bigger-and-better-court/
Never mind, I found it. It was published Wednesday, June 27, 2012.
So let me understand how this works in the mind of a partisan Democrat; it’s considered to be hypocrisy if Jonathan Turley changes his mind over a 14 year span of time for obvious reasons considering the shift that the political left has taken, but if someone who you consider to be a Democrat changes their mind in a year or less then they are “evolving” and it’s perfectly acceptable.
Let me understand this too; if Democrats want’s to stack the court with additional partisan hacks (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has proven that she is a political hack) with the spoken intent to ram Democrat/Progressive/Socialist ideology, mob mentality, down the throats of the citizens of the USA and reverse anything that the leftists don’t like, then that’s fine with a trolling partisan hack like you. The left seems to be heading towards intentionally scuttling the Constitution and individual rights and their only path to achieve that is to make the Constitution irrelevant via a partisan stacked SCOTUS.
The USA was a different place 14 years ago. I don’t care if Jonathan Turley advocated for a larger court 14 years ago, if he didn’t oppose what the lunatic leftist wackos are tying to do to SCOTUS right now with their socialist agenda mob mentality I’d loose all respect for him.
Witherspoon
Apparently you missed Turley’s blog article of 2017.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/02/02/how-to-really-change-the-supreme-court-three-reforms-that-could-make-for-a-bigger-and-better-court/
He still held those views 9 years ago.
I just noticed a detail that’s very important to this section of the comment thread; Jonathan Turley didn’t voice a new opinion about the number of justices on SCOTUS in this blog post that was different than the opinions he has shared in the past, so any claims that Turley is being hypocritical is a baldfaced lie!
Take that you ignorant trolls!
“The hypocrisy is astounding!!”
You are a *pathological* liar. This is about the fifth time you’ve misrepresented JT’s argument, by omitting a critical quote (that I’m not going to repeat).
At its base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Court’s role.
Oh, I don’t believe for one second the Democrats don’t understand the courts role. In fact they understand it so well, that they call to pack it so they can eliminate the one obstacle remaining to their “fundamental” transformation of our constitutional order.
Olly: I don’t think that matters, one way or another.
It is more a simple invocation or mastery of the old idiom/maxim, “strength in numbers.”
But past presidents (including Obama and Trump I) have been disappointed when their ostensibly-political but actually apolitical nominees ruled against them. And Clinton-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the majority to rule against Clinton in the Line Item veto case (can’t remember the caption).
lin, please clarify what you believe doesn’t matter. Every President is disappointed when their nominees rule against them. That is a feature and not a bug. Packing the court is all about eliminating that feature.
Hello Olly:
You extracted one sentence (the first) from this paragraph:
“At its base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Court’s role. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against ‘widely held public opinion.’ However, the court was meant to be counter-majoritarian to protect minority groups and viewpoints from the majority will.”
My point was, irrespective of Democrats’ understanding of the Court’s role, doesn’t matter. Not all their nominees agree with what they purport as “widely held public opinion,” especially those who understand their true obligation/responsibility to identify any conflict with the Constitution. And then I cited examples.
Moreover, the Senate’s role in SCOTUS confirmations has changed with its “nuclear option.”
Sorry if I confused you.
Thank you lin. Better to ask for clarity than to assume something and blast away.
I am waiting for some political cartoonist to create a one-frame cartoon depicting a “packed Court” —- (as in, ‘packed like sardines’ in black robes.)
Alter this image? (which, oddly, counting heads and tails, appears to display nine….)
https://kitchenbun.com/canned-sardines-water-cats-healthy-snack/
(directly below the image of the packed can that I posted ^^^ is the following sentence, “Now, not all canned sardines are created equal. You might find them packed in oil, sauce, or even plain water.”
If the Democrats successfully packed the Court, which do you think they would be packed in?
Lin,
Salt.
In salt it would leech out any legal illegitimacy for partisan ruling: Democrat, illiberal, socialist rulings.
#WeAreEstovir
Correction: *leech out any legal legitimacy
Ha! And leech out any sauciness as well (you know who I mean.)
TGIF today! after another bumper-to-bumper week. Hope the good professor understands my feeble attempts at levity today.
And hope you and wife (and All Creatures Great & Small) are safe from this severe weather.
(remember our first comments exchanges a few years ago?? Update: if I lived near you, for Halloween, I would make snow-angels made of skeletons across your front lawn. As in, skeletons with bat wings.)
One can understand liberal/progressive/socialist politicians frustration with a Supreme Court that has a majority of justices that fall somewhere along the lines of “conservative” or “strict constructionist” or “textualist”, and even sympathize with their desire to add four more Ketanji Brown-Jackson minimes. It would be irresistibly tempting to pump the Court up 13 justices with 7 ranging from deranged to severly mentally challenged.
But down that road lies the complete destruction of any respect accorded to or legitimacy of an Article 3 Supreme Court as a “co-equal” branch of government. Why?
Look down the road. Say the the AOC/Buttigieg (no funny plays on the VP’s name, please) ticket wins in 2028, and with sweeping coattails captures both the House and the Senate, emplacing Hakeem as Speaker of the House, and dethroning Schumer in favor of a new Majority Leader, Elizabeth Warren in the Senate.. And then, presto-chango, four new justices sweep into court in their magnificent robes and three of the four “conservative” justices have retired or expired and been replaced. That gives a 12:1 liberal supermajority on the Court, the common good is the law of the land and everything deed, word, and thought that is not specifically permitted in law is denied/verboten.
It is fairly predictable that the country will be well down the road to hell by 2032 and likely a Republican President will be elected (assuming there actually is a real election in 2032) to take over in 2033 to work with a Republican House and Senate majority. A new “balancing” of the Supreme Court will be required. Suddenly sixteen new justices, at least thought to be conservative or strict constructionist or textualist (whatever the new Republican President’s favorite non-liberal flavor is) will be moon-walking into the Supreme Court chambers resplendent in their new flowing black robes. The “Supreme Court” will then have (13 + 16 = 29) “justices”, and will then be informally known as the Supreme Clown Car, with twenty-nine Clowns. After this cycle is repeated through a half-dozen more elections (assuming that elections survive the periods of liberal/progressive/socialist/full-on communist administrations and nomination/consent orgies that will be interspersed between l/p/s/c resurgences and conservative resurgences and deaths/retirements/replacements of justices, one can easily envision a “SCCOTUS” consisting 22,786 clowns and three co-chief “big clowns” (22,789) who alternate weeks of wearing the robe with the three golden stripes on the sleeves. The SCCOTUS will take over Madison Square Garden to hold court in, with all the 22,789 seats full of clowns and big clowns, (court reporters and stenographers listening, recording and perhaps enacting a “Jeffrey Toobin Toolin” will follow the proceedings remotely in another area). The sparing legal eagle advocates will do their intricate dances in the area where the ring is now (the posts and ropes having been removed and the furniture of course, having been upgraded to match the dignity and importance of the proceedings). [I suppose it is conceivable that in the new SCCOTUS the advocates will actually engage in MMA demonstrations to support their petitions to the Clowns.]
“Proceedings of the Supreme Clown Car of the United States” will be published weekly and form the script for a new television comedy appearing on screen in the following week.
If this scenario sounds good to you, by all means vote Democratic Socialistic in the next election.
It would be laughable at this point, if it weren’t both tragic and potentially lethal, to watch the progs dance like cats on a hot tin roof to avoid offending anyone in their big tent while still protecting their false claim as true Americans protection our democracy (hasn’t anyone informed them, yet, that we are not a democracy – never were)
With all due and sincere respect (and this is the first time I have ever done this), but I would recommend that, in today’s post, the above sentence be changed [or similar] as follows:
“The Democrats insisted the Court is broken and no longer legitimate because of [[what they see as]] partisan rulings they want reversed by a packed Court.”
thanks.
If the Democrats want a packed court, I have no idea why the Republicans can’t comply! They should pack the court now with conservatives
I think the Democrats are going to take one in the teeth over this packing plan. History show that the people do not like the idea and it has been tried before and spurned. The Republicans are playing these cards correctly. Force the vote and force the Democrats to defend the truly unpopular. It may not matter in the deep blue states, but the purple ones….
Thanks to the Professor for the honest piece. It really isn’t surprising though – the dems are no longer an American Constitutional party, and they have no interest in anything but their own consolidation of power, and destroying our way of life. Really: they have become the literal definition of insane as a result. Do not expect anything resembling fairness, ethics, or even common sense from them ever again. Those days are done.
Many of us predicted years ago that with the brazen and open embracing of totalitarianism the party would at least fracture, if not cease to exist due to self-implosion. Looks more these days like power at any cost and in any form by any means necessary is their unifying credo, so – their self-destruction is likely just over the horizon. I feel bad for generational dems that ever thought they were fighting with the ‘good guys’ – you weren’t, at any point. You were hoodwinked, well and proper.
After all is said and done, many of those generationally hoodwinked people will still press the blue button out of fear, insularity, and ignorance. It no longer even borders on prejudice against intrusive facts anymore; that is what it is. Modern progressives and ‘liberals’, with far too few exceptions, are mind-coddled and brain-addled children, regardless of age.
“However, the court was meant to be counter-majoritarian to protect minority groups and viewpoints from the majority will.”
The court was intended to protect a particular minority group. Land owning men. The Constitution didn’t specifically add white, it didn’t need to,
Apart from that, Turley might have noted the approval level of SCOTUS is sliding downward. It’s true they rank higher than the very low bar of Congress and the White House. If they wanted better approval, they might consider:
1. An Ethics code with teeth
2. Stop taking millions in gifts from billionaires
3. Giving press conference and taking questions from others than the people who invite them
4. Require full disclosure about stock ownership and conflicts of interest when refusing to recuse (looking at you Alito)
5. Televise oral arguments
6. Take a look at book sales from speaking events. Staff for Sotomayer and Barrett “recommend” the number of books to be purchased to accommodate buyers at their events. Michigan State University purchased 11,000 copies of a Sotomayor book for incoming students. Barnett reported nine reimbursed events on her book tour. A reimbursed event is an appearance where the organizer pays for the Justice’s travel, lodging, meals, or related expenses — but does not pay the Justice a fee. The wrong justice (Thomas) could spend hundreds of thousands per event.
They might consider not inventing things never intended in the Constitution like unlimited anonymous spending and presidential immunity.
In all that you say you offer no rationalization or justification for increasing the size of the Supreme Court. If nine is bad, wouldn’t thirteen be worse?
I addressed the aspect of Turley’s article that sparked my interest. I was under no obligation to address what you felt I needed to. Now had you just asked my opinion on the size of the court. I might have said the size has changed several times since the original six. Mitch McConnell arbitrarily reduced the court from nine to eight when refusing to consider Obama’s nominee after Scalia’s death. I consider the court to have been rigged from its inception to protect the interest of a small percentage of people. Moving to thirteen while requiring the same process of nomination and confirmation from the same subset of people won’t change a lot. Pushing for thirteen will accomplish little. I don’t care much one way or the other.
@enigma
You aren’t a bad person, Enigma, but you don’t think for yourself. I have never seen you, over years, ever present an original thought or opinion. Not once.
It’s really gotten old, watching you regurgitate, and yes, it is supremely ignorant. You can do better. You may not intend to be troll, but you are a troll. Present something substantive that is your own, even if it’s lacking in the faux intellectualism you were taught carefully means anything whatsoever (pro tip: it doesn’t, not diddly. You share the earth with other humans that also have opinions, and that earth is much, much bigger than your university or neighborhood).
Out of curiosity, what makes me a troll? Do I look for every comment made by certain individuals to insult them or prove them wrong? I generally respond to those of Turley’s post that interest me and not to individual commenters. When I do respond to individuals, it’s usually because I find what they’re saying so ridiculous, (in my individual opinion) or sometimes agree with portions or all of what they say.
As to having original thoughts. I process information and try to generate a fact-based response. You may well have heard some of those facts before (I don’t make them up) and if they lack originality, I’m guilty. I have opinions I hold that are rather constant and what I think on a matter doesn’t change after a 2 am “truth” post tells me what to believe.
Most of my writing is about history, and though I may have original takes on something that occurred, I don’t get to make up what happened. Here’s something I published today that contains nary an original thought but contains a ton of information many would find educational.
https://williamspivey.substack.com/p/presidential-libraries-they-may-not
Here’s another:
https://williamspivey.substack.com/p/who-owned-the-most-enslaved-people
S. Meyer recently suggested he’s far more popular here than I am, which I don’t doubt. I come here neither to be a troll or popular. I have an interest in the opinion of others, even when I disagree. I can’t help but note there is little room here for people that have differing opinions. There are some conservative voices who have left, finding it intolerable. Your criticism of me isn’t about any specific facts you have a different opinion on. You attack the messenger. Correct me if I’m wrong, aren’t you the same James who suggested I may not be Black? What did that add to the conversation?
If you have some specific things you disagree with, feel free to challenge my thoughts and I’ll respond accordingly. Telling me I’m ignorant is a waste of your time and mine,
“S. Meyer recently suggested he’s far more popular here than I am,”
Did I say that, or have you taken a statement and altered the thrust of the comment? You often stretch the meaning of words, which is one of your major problems. We never did a count, which is impossible since we don’t even know how many individual anonymous persons there are.
I do think that more people find my facts and my opinions more credible than yours. Being popular doesn’t concern me, but I find some of your slanderous statements out of bounds.
You actually said it, not that I care. You should take a look at the definition of troll. Here you are again.
Enigma, did I say exactly that, or did you stretch the words to say something different? That is your norm, so we can’t trust you without a citation.
Troll: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
That is you. Here is one of your comments, paraphrased. “Trump is a racist because 20 years before he was born, his father was in the vicinity of the KKK, who hijacked the city-sponsored annual Memorial Day parade” It was a BS, inflammatory, irrelevant, and offensive comment made by you and repeated. That is lying and trolling at the same time.
I commented because my name was brought up by you. Once again, you concluded without proof.
Here you are posting something you acknowledge I didn’t say, knowingly lying to make some point. I’ve repeatedly posted the story where I referred to Fred Trump’s arrest along with Klan members represented by the same lawyer. I won’t bother posting it again but for anyone wanting to look it up, it’s titled “Sins of the Fathers” about Donald and Fred Trump and Ted and Pablo Cruz by William Spivey. I call Trump a racist, not based on his fathers arrest but because he wouldn’t rent to Black people, labeling their rental applications with a “C” for Colored. Who needs fake reasons to call Trump a racist?
“Who needs fake reasons to call Trump a racist?”
You do. You have severe TDS with amnesia. You then accused Trump of racism based on your mistaken statement about Fred Trump by saying, ‘the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.’
“I call Trump a racist, not based on his fathers arrest but because he wouldn’t rent to Black people, labeling their rental applications with a “C” for Colored.”
After years of trying to “get” Trump and the waste of millions of dollars and time, there was no proof Trump did that. I posted the link to the settlement. Virtually all the landlords in NYC were labelled as racists for the same reason, even black landlords. They picked on Trump because he was in the limelight. The truth, however, was somewhat different. The most racist landlord in the city was the City of NY, which, in public housing. placed people in buildings based on race and ethnicity.
As an employer in NYC’s private housing industry, Trump had one of the most diverse groups of people in management positions, if not the most diverse.
There is proof, documented statements to the FBI which someone not as lazy as you could pull up. Your other excuse seems to be that everyone else in New York was racist so it’s okay. How about this. Someone who spends an inordinate time defending racism, is racist himself.
“There is proof, documented statements to the FBI which someone not as lazy as you could pull up.”
Facts already exist. Your refusal to produce the FBI documents you say you have read is nothing more than innuendo and your continued attempts at slander. The sorry thing about you is that innuendo is the name of your game.
“Your other excuse seems to be that everyone else in New York was racist so it’s okay.”
I point out that Trump having more diversified upper management than other private NYC developers isn’t an excuse. It’s a statistical reality. The laziness is on your part. You refuse to look at any data that doesn’t prove you wrong.
“Your other excuse seems to be that everyone else in New York was racist so it’s okay.”
I do not find racism acceptable. My mother had to change her name to get a job, and my wife lost a job due to racism. What is even more chilling is that my wife’s parents were in the concentration camps, and both of our families suffered losses due to racism, leading to the murder of members of both our families. But where we differ is that I recognize real-world obstacles, address them, and don’t let them rule my life.
“How about this. Someone who spends an inordinate time defending racism, is racist himself.”
That rule fits you perfectly, because you actively preserve racial bias while complaining about it.
You push for lower standards, embedding an assumption of inferiority. Your fixation on identity continuously reduces individuals into demograpic categories, causing even more division. You manipulate data to fit a narrative, and rely on tawdry moral posturing instead of confronting the actual root causes of inequality. By your own thoughts, you are the one defending the system.
“Mitch McConnell arbitrarily reduced the court from nine to eight when refusing to consider Obama’s nominee after Scalia’s death.”
Your opinion attempts to conflate two different reasons for the number of SC on the bench. The last true change was somewhere right after the Civil War. The faux change is something that can happen because of political maneuvering. A good example of such maneuvering happened during the Reagan Administration: pure politics.
“The court was intended to protect a particular minority group. Land owning men”
Try explaining Kelo and City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, and countless others. I don’t think I need to mention the many Supreme Court cases in favor of minority groups like yourself. For example, the Bakke decision on affirmative action.
How can the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the freedoms, opportunities and the nation continue to exist with the democrats? How many times have you heard them accuse others that they are a “danger to democracy”?
Congress should refuse to administer the oath of office to elected officials who have renounced the constitution and our republic as they should not be allowed to swear to “support and defend” an idea they don’t believe in. They should not be seated!
Another issue is the dual citizenship on congress members.
We haven’t heard enough about this but it how to keep anti-constitutionalists out of Congress
The refusal to seat an elected member of Congress who has gone on record as favoring abolishment of the Senate, having the President be elected by the House of Representatives, have the government take over the means of production among other socialist mobocracy ideas would certainly make for an entertaining Supreme Court challenge. Pleadings could be televised by pay per view and have the proceeds go to reducing the national debt.
The House denied Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. His House seat but SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional to do that and he was seated. So while the thought is ideal, it won’t happen. The most that the House can do is deny them seats on any committee and assign them “offices” in the basement. The old phrase “sent to Coventry” comes to mind.
Record-High 89% in U.S. Say Government Corruption Widespread
Substantial majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents agree.
A record 89% of US adults say government corruption is widespread – which is up 10% from last year, and far above the average 72%-79% between 2010 and 2025, according to a new Gallup poll.
By: Benedict Vigers – Gallup ~ Sep 02, 2026
https://news.gallup.com/poll/713933/record-high-say-government-corruption-widespread.aspx
—
Stephen A. Smith has some words for Democrats as he makes his 2028 plans clear
“The minute I announce that I’m running, I would be taken off the air,” Smith said in an interview on The Conversation with Dasha Burns. “I wouldn’t be able to work, and I would lose a contract that I worked my entire career for, you know, and I’m not giving that up.”
He left no wiggle room: “As long as the rules are what they are and they can’t be circumvented, it’s not something that I’m going to think about.”
By: Jalen Beckford – Politico ~ 09/03/2026
[Link] politico.com/news/2026/09/03/stephen-smith-2028-plans-01062872
Video:
https://players.brightcove.net/1155968404/r1WF6V0Pl_default/index.html?videoId=6404505605112
FuQ’n commi dims AND uniparty members forget Americans have +85M weapons. AND a large part of population +15M are ambulatory Veterans. Kiss my grits foolz.
MAGAA1st
11b