After telling an audience at Mount Vernon that “we saw the outpouring of voters in on Tuesday,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told them that she hoped to see the reversal of various conservative opinions starting with the presidential immunity decision in Trump v. United States.
Speaking at the historic home of George Washington, Justice Sotomayor described her (presumably) conservative colleagues as doing some “crazy things.”
She observed that “There have been some systemic changes in my court’s jurisprudence in many areas of law,” Sotomayor said. “We’ll settle down, too. Not quite sure when. But we will. And a new order will be established that people will begin to understand.”
She then specifically turned to the court’s 6-3 decision along ideological lines that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive immunity for their official acts. In her dissent, Sotomayor portrayed the decision as bestowing imperial power, noting that it made President Trump and his successors a “king above the law.”
She told the crowd that “I dissent a lot. I’m hoping that the court will take back some of the crazy things that it’s done. I’m only joking — maybe not…No, seriously, You know, I’ve spoken openly about this, there’s some opinions that I hope in my lifetime will get overturned. The immunity case is one of them.”
As I discuss in my column on the Democratic effort to effectively nullify the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment, there is a series of changes being sought to impact the 2028 election. With Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito pushing 80, liberals could secure a majority in the next Administration without carrying out their plan to pack the Court.
If that happens, Justice Sotomayor appears ready to reverse a series of opinions that she deems “crazy” from her conservative justices.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The immunity decision was only made necessary because of Biden DoJ overreach on charging Trump for crimes that were at least doubtful. This was an example of bad judgment resulting from political ambition. In my view, the court did a reasonable job in dealing with a question that should never have arisen.
Regarding overturning precedent, Thomas has been the Justice most willing to consider doing so. He has questioned many of the substantive due process decisions, for example, and would prefer that these matters be judged under the privileges and immunities clause. He has not raised Meyer and Pierce in this context, however, so I wonder what he would do regarding the currently available constitutional protections for parents, especially in a public school context.
Daniel: per your note of “political ambition,” there might be an interesting SCOTUS divide in the pending St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy case (whether Catholic schools should lose pre-school public funding for rejecting youngsters of LGBQT parents as contrary to religious beliefs.
This parallels the recent gains of trans political candidates in elected office. https://19thnews.org/2026/11/these-trans-and-nonbinary-candidates-just-made-history/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
This one seems to hinge on whether public benefits can be denied based on a non-discrimination law of general applicability that does not explicitly disfavour religion but has the effect of doing so. Judging from the oral argument, I suspect the court will side with the religious schools here. The question will be how they get there. They could hold that the many exemptions granted makes the law not generally applicable. Or they could hold that a law that burdens religion is covered even if it does not explicitly refer to religion.
Lin – I do not give a crap whether you are gay or straight or trans or whatever. Nor honestly do I think that any of us are 100% anything.
Traits distriute along a bell curve. Most will be at or near the center – but a small number will be at the tails.
I do not care that Trans people were elected – except that there is a near 100% correlation TODAY between trans and left wing moron.
The majority of gay people are not conservative – but many are – ideology and sexuality do not need to coorelate
All that said. I 100% FULLY support the right of people to discriminate against others for whatever stupid reason they wish – so long as that discrimination does not involve the use of FORCE (aka govenrment) to violate anothers ACTUAL rights.
forms of discrimination which have no merit die on their own. leave govenrment out of it.
With respect to the case before SCOTUS – the Govenrment should not fund preschools.
There – problem gone.
Daniel, What is the basis for you saying the bad judgment was the result of political ambition?
I didn’t think the modern left could get more openly fascist than the Biden years, but here we are. Every week their depravity deepens; then again, this is likely who they have always been intrinsically, they just find new lows to stoop to and less inhibition from public declaration. this is *precisely* how the Nazis took power, right up to the promises of ‘improvements’.
The next person that unironically claims the coalition we voted for in 2024 is fascist or ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ – if I were a violent person prone to giving in to rage, which I am not, that is the province of the left – they would get smacked right upside the head. I’m beginning to think a sub 100 IQ is a requirement for being a modern ‘liberal’.
Authoritarianism is remarkably speedy abd efficient at precluding critical inquiry.
James,
Nobody knows whether you are hyperbolic or prophetic. Time will tell.
But How Sad it is, that (because of the condition of our nation) so many people think you are prophetic!
Oh please.
Let us be reminded that it has been the liberal end of the Court, particularly female SCOTUS justices who have done the most, to ethically discredit and reduce respect for the Court with regard to public comments and engagements in partisan politics. We are reminded of Sotomayor’s persuasive lectures to young female students about getting out to vote for certain liberal measures that she favored. Judicial ethics canons be damned. (please Show me where O’Connor or Barrett ever engaged in similar partisan rants.)
And who could forget Justice Ginsburg’s (RBG) terrible PRE-ELECTION trashing of presidential candidate Trump, calling him a “faker” and expressly stating that “I can’t imagine what the country would be . . . with Donald Trump as our president.” https://yalelawjournal.org/forum/politics-and-judicial-ethics-a-historical-perspective
Obama didn’t help when he trashed the Court in front of the whole country at his State of the Union address. And now, we have to deal with little Justice Jackson lecturing her fellow senior Justices…
Oh, and BTW, we constantly have MEDIA, over and over, bringing up and stoking disdain for the Federalist Society and its alleged role in pushing conservative judicial/SCOTUS candidates .….How many times have we seen or heard MEDIA even bring up, -let alone stoke disdain, for the American Constitution Society (ACS), -the parallel progressive/leftist organization that does the exact same thing pushing its liberal judicial/SCOTUS candidates? I bet some of you reading this have never even heard of the ACS.
Lin,
Your false equivalence between the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society (ACS) ignores how judicial pipelines actually operate in practice.
The media focuses on the Federalist Society not out of bias, but because of its unprecedented institutional power. During the Trump administration, the White House openly outsourced its judicial selection process to a curated list provided directly by the leadership of the Federalist Society.
By contrast, the ACS operates as a standard progressive professional network. No Democratic administration has ever publicly handed its judicial vetting apparatus to the ACS in a centralized, formal manner. The media covers the Federalist Society because it achieved an unprecedented level of vertical integration with executive power, not because the ACS doesn’t exist.
Even conservative jurists have routinely engaged in highly public, ideologically charged rhetoric.
Alito in 2022 speech in Rome mocking international heads of state who critiqued the Dobbs decision, is widely viewed by legal ethicists as nakedly ideological extrajudicial broadsides.
Scalia frequently delivered blunt, politically salient lectures to conservative legal groups and famously authored a 21-page defense refusing to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, shortly after taking a private jet to go duck hunting with him.
Justice Thomas’ decades of un-disclosed luxury travel and financial entanglements with billionaire political donors, coupled with the overt partisan activism of his spouse, represent a structural challenge to the appearance of impartiality that eclipses a generic “get out the vote” lecture.
There are plenty of examples professor Turley “forgot” to mention in his attempt to portray Sotomayor’s speeches as particularly “concerning”. It’s par for the course.
I regret that you do not seem able to grasp the things that you lift from your Ai sources (“level of vertical integration” ???)
When the Federalist Society holds university and public debates, it “almost always has representatives of the Left on its panels about substantive legal issues, but the ACS much less frequently has representatives of the Right. At their 2017 conventions, I estimate that approximately 32 percent of such panelists at the Federalist Society were on the Left whereas about 13 percent were on the Right at the ACS.” https://lawliberty.org/why-the-federalist-society-has-more-ideological-opponents-on-its-panels-than-the-acs/
And even your beloved AI and Wikipedia sources describe and acknowledge that ACS as “created as a counterweight to, and is modeled after, the Federalist Society, and is often described as its progressive counterpart…” and “actively works to identify and promote strong judicial candidates for federal and state benches, as well as engaging in advocacy related to judicial nominations. They also support efforts to reform the Supreme Court'”
Lin,
Oh I grasp what I read. Every time. Do you grasp what you cite?
Your citations from John O. McGinnis’s 2018 essay and Wikipedia are factually accurate, but they prove my point rather than yours. They highlight the difference between an organization’s rhetorical format and its institutional power.
Professor McGinnis’s data regarding the 2017 national conventions—showing that the Federalist Society includes more ideological opponents on its panels than the ACS—is a well-documented aspect of its campus and conference strategy. As McGinnis himself notes in that very essay, because conservatives are historically underrepresented in the legal academy, inviting the institutional Left to debate is a deliberate strategy to achieve mainstream academic respectability and notoriety.
But hosting a debate panel with a liberal law professor does not alter the organization’s downstream political impact. The media does not investigate the Federalist Society because of its university debate formats; it investigates it because of its unprecedented role as a clearinghouse for presidential appointments.
Your quote noting that the ACS was “created as a counterweight to, and is modeled after, the Federalist Society” is correct. The progressive movement explicitly tried to clone the Federalist Society’s blueprint.
However, as a lawyer, you know that intent does not equal outcome. Modeling yourself after a successful competitor does not mean you possess the same market share or institutional efficacy. Right?
Silly Silly. You just shot yourself in the foot. again. Why do you think that “market share,” “institutional efficacy,” or “outcome” (over intent) favor the Federalist Society? “You’re not making any sense,” as you like to tell others, but thanks anyway, I’m moving on
(*I guess any good lawyer might express interest in examining the “why”s, n’est ce pas?)
Lin,
To answer your question directly: “market share,” “institutional efficacy,” and “outcome” favor the Federalist Society because they are the standard metrics used to measure political and institutional power.
You weren’t aware of that?
The Federalist Society maintains a near-monopoly on the conservative legal movement’s judicial pipeline. There is no major competing conservative lawyers’ network. Every single conservative appointment to the Supreme Court over the last decade, and the vast majority of conservative appellate appointments, went through this singular pipeline.
That’s why those on the left often criticize the Federalist Society.
By contrast, the progressive legal movement’s “market share” is highly fragmented. The ACS is just one player among many competing for influence under Democratic administrations. Left-leaning judicial selections are heavily decentralized, pulled from labor unions, public defender networks, environmental advocacy groups, civil rights organizations (like the NAACP LDF), and traditional corporate firms. The ACS does not control the market of progressive judicial nominations; the Federalist Society largely controls the conservative one.
I didn’t shoot myself in the foot. You did. You’re just pivoting to avoid the embarrassment of your mistake.
Plus moving the goalposts does not help your argument.
The simplest explanation is that conservatives see participating in liberal events as generally detrimental to their reputation and careers and so they refuse to attend. Liberals, on the other hand, have no such limitation. The liberals are more likely to feel that attending will give them the opportunity to change minds while conservatives attending liberal events see it as an opportunity to “prove” their message is better. The conservatives are selling the false message that liberals are ignoring that message on the grounds that liberals are evil.
It must have escaped notice, but there aren’t any members of the ACS on the Supreme Court while there are 5 direct members of the Federalist Society and one really strong supporter.
And BTW, I don’t remember which Canon it is, but there is definitely one about no Justices speaking publicly on any issues that are likely to come before the Court. Is that what Sotomayor is doing?
Your examples of post-decision speech by Alito, or post-defense of Scalia’s failure to recuse himself have nothing to do with anything. Regarding partisan spousal activities, it’s too bad that two of the three SCOTUS female liberals (Sotomayor and Kagan) are not married, or we might have had more to work with…. thanks anyway.
Lin, again. Sotomayor’s comments are also about cases that already passed SCOTUS docket.
I presented examples showing Turley’s criticism is essentially a non-issue. Because even Conservatives justices engage in the same talk Sotomayor is doing. Neither is wrong. But singling out Sotomayor is just throwing out implied accusations for the benefit of MAGA to rage about.
OMG you clown George! what is the TITLE of JT’s article ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/
You don’t know?????? I thought you knew how to read. My mistake.
You need AI to tell you what the title of PT article is
Sotomayor gets singled out because she is the most partisan and most moronic and least Qualified.
KBJ is bad – but not nearly as bad as Sotomayor. KBJ is also more corageous than Sotomayor.
Please, she’s more qualified than Kavanaugh. She’s also more nuanced. KBJ is more tuned to the common folk than the rest since she’s the only one with actual court experience as a lawyer.
What a stupid comment, X. Not only are you a non-lawyer that pretends to know more than lawyers as well as Turley, but your attempt to replace AI for intelligence has badly failed you. Here is a list of SCOTUS Justices’ COURT experience prior to their appointments.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
Geez your defensive responses get more comical every day
What nonsense.
Is the Federalist society more prestigious than the ACS – absolutely – they earned it. The federalist society has been arround for almost 50 years – working diligently to strengthen the constitution.
ACS is barely 25 and has been trying to destroy the constitution since its inception.
But all that does not matter.
The ABA has been arround far far longer and has shifted from center right to ever further to the left.
Worse still the ABA is a quasi State actor. I would think the same people who oppose private prisons would oppose private groups getting to dictate who gets to be a doctor, lawyer or dentist. But god forbid the left would be consistent,
The power over judicial appointments rests witht he president.
In the past Each President has chosen who they were influenced by. But the decision as always rests with the president.
Trump like every other president likely had lists of potential judges from random people, senators, representatives, left groups right groups.
Trump chose to put more weight to the federlist society.
Just as Obama could have chosen to give more weight to Michelle’s recomendation.
Absent actual corruption – presidents are ALWAYS going to get advice from half the planet and seek advice from those they trust.
There have been some bad federalist judges – no president has ever appointed perfect judges.
But overal Trump[‘s appintments have been significantly better than average.
Personally I would not have picked them – the Federalist society is Not libertarian – though there are libertarians who are also federalists.
John Say, it’s amazing how often you show your ignorance and proceed to confidently make claims that are clearly false.
You claim the ABA acts as a “quasi-state actor” that dictates who can practice law, medicine, or dentistry.
The American Bar Association (ABA) does not license lawyers or dictate who can practice law, nor does it have any authority over doctors or dentists.
They don’t even license lawyers. The government does that. The ABA is no different than any other association. They just make recommendations.
The ACS is a progressive legal organization founded to counter the conservative Federalist Society. Rather than trying to “destroy” the Constitution, the ACS advocates for a legal philosophy known as Living Constitutionalism or Constitutional Progressivism.
Trump has relied on the Federalist Society exclusively for his court picks because he’s too stupid to make the decision on his own. He has no idea who would be a good jurist. He’s just told who is good and accepts it at face value just as he accepts whoever writes his executive orders. He doesn’t give it any thought at all. He’s only focused on getting credit for the pick. Remember, Trump can barely read. There’s absolutely no evidence Trump reads anything that could lead him to make a decision on his own. He prefers to be told. You’ve seen him struggle to read from prepared statements. He reads them like a high school drop out.
The only reason why Trump’s appointment seem better is because he just took whatever appointment was handed to him by someone who made the hard choice of actually picking the candidate for the bench. The man has no idea how tariffs work nor does any of his executive orders. He’s not smart enough for that.
Lin, I still love your comments, keep up the great work.
After eliminating presidential immunity Obama should be the first charged with murder for ordering the execution of an American citizen in a foreign country.
Careful what you ask for, Justice.
“I dissent a lot. I’m hoping that the court will take back some of the crazy things that it’s done. I’m only joking — maybe not…No, seriously, You know, I’ve spoken openly about this, there’s some opinions that I hope in my lifetime will get overturned. The immunity case is one of them.”
Wow, that’s a very…Trump-like statement.
So Sotomayor may be right. At some point this could be revisited. I mean Justice Thomas also made a similar “speculative” quip about revisiting and perhaps reversing Obergefell the gay marriage ruling which Alito would most certainly be glad to overturn.
Just like Roe vs. Wade. Long set precedents are not immune from being reversed or overturned. The conservatives in the court have already shown they are not always going to respect stare decisis.
The correct decision regarding Obergefell was to remove marriage from the domain of the state. Some conservative states were trying that.
The state can certify a union that has specific legal status – and it can not deny that to any two consenting adults.
But marraige has always been a religious institution.
Regardless we have this nonsense from the left all the time.
SCOTUS is not even going to take a case challenging Obergefell. Nor is one likely to get to the Supreme court.
I am not aware of anyone even trying to bring one.
With respect to homosexuality – the culture wars are OVER.
While I am vehmently opposed to public accomidation laws and ALL laws baring private actors from discriminating.
GOVERNMENT may not discriminate. To the extent government is involved in marriage it can not discriminate.
John Say,
Marriage was not always a religious institution. In fact marriage was a secular contract before religion. Marriage was handled by families and civil governments long before religion got involved.
It was never the exclusive domain of religion. Only the right makes that claim as an excuse to deny marriage to those they don’t like. That’s why Obergefell will never be repealed. Not when it’s patently clear it’s way past any sensibility to repeal any laws legalizing it.
FYI, the culture wars are not over. They never will be as long as far-right bigots and racists keep believing in the idea that some are better than others and some don’t deserve equal rights as everyone else.
The presidential immunity decision is never getting revisited.
The only reason it ever took place is lunacy on the part of the left.
The decision as it came from the court was OBVIOUSLY correct.
While I personally think there is a special place in h311 form Bill Clinton – an actual rapist, pervert and sexual asaulter.
I was leary of the SCOTUS decision to allow the Paula Jones lawsuit to proceed while he was president.
While that is not strictly about presidential immunity it was related.
Presidents should be immune from everything but impeachment While president.
For civil mstters – toll the stature of limitations.
For anything else – impeach and remove FIRST – if you can not do that you can not proceed.
I would not even use the narrower scope SCOTUS did. I would throw out the Merchan/Bragg case – because it was for acts that took place whole Trump was president. Even though not related to the job of president even tangentially – still you must impeach and remove before you can prosecute/
Clinton, Trump Obama, whoever.
We can not have this lawfare while president, and we can not have it to punish ex presidents.
And it never would have happened in Trumps case – except that he chose to run again.
No one is going after Biden, or Obama or Clinton. Though there is plenty to go after.
John Say, court decisions can always be revisited. Roe vs. Wade was. The Chevron deference was.
A later court can always revisit this court’s decision and overturn it.
I would love to see both absolute and qualified immunity be thrown on the ash heap of history. Not sure Sotomayor and her fellow travellers realize how much that would expose them, rightfully, to the consequences of their bad behavior.
One would think elected officials, and civil servants, should be held to a higher legal standard. .. if absolute and qualified immunity were thrown on the dung hill of history, I would be a cock who crows upon it.
*also, the dung hill could be used as fertilizer for future elections.
The immunity decision has zero basis in the Constitution and the Constitution has clauses that would refute immunity.
“The immunity decision has zero basis in the Constitution . . .”
The official acts immunity comes from Article II. You might disagree with that argument, but it does have a “basis.”
“. . . the Constitution has clauses that would refute immunity.”
Your comment would be worth considering if, instead of an arbitrary assertion, you provided an argument.
“The immunity decision has zero basis in the Constitution….” Says the person that supports Roe???!?!?
“. . . Democratic effort to effectively nullify the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment . . .” (JT)
Funny, isn’t it, how the Left (with its “compact”) has suddenly become a fan of states’ “rights.”
Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court can’t overturn it! It says what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court said so.
Trump v. United States. The Supreme Court has to overturn it. It does not say what the Constitution says. I don’t care what the Supreme Court said!
Congress can overturn wildly expansive Judicial interpretations of the Constitution, and of course, any prior statutory law. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 countermanded the 1856 Dred Scott decision. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 overturned 1884 Elk vs. Wilkins decision. Congress can overturn Trump v. Barbara.
We just have to elect Congresspeople who are comfortable putting activist plaintiffs and Judges in their proper place (subordinate in power to elected legislators).
pbinca,
If you really think Congress and the President can “overturn” a Supreme Court decision by enacting a federal statute … oh well
Pbinca, can Congress pass a law establishing segregated schools? How about a law banning gay marriage? How about voting rights?
“Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court can’t overturn it!” But in fact they did. 06/24/22.
Anonymous,
Apparently I was not clear enough for you to understand.
I did not express the opinion that the Supreme Court can’t overturn Roe v. Wade, or any other Supreme Court decision. (In fact, my opinion is that the Supreme Court can overturn a previous Supreme Court decision.)
I expressed the inconsistent opinions of those who insist that only Supreme Court decisions they don’t like can be overturned.
@Anon: Please read that decision. SCOTUS didn’t overturn “Roe v. Wade” the decision was basically that SCOTUS was not empowered or entitled to write law – that is the legislative branch.
Perhaps a dummy’s guide to the Constitution would help that there are 3 different (and balancing) powers:
Legislative Branch – make the laws, budget the government
Executive Branch – execute the laws enacted by the legislative branch (including exercise of investigation and prosecution through the Department of Justice)
Judicial Branch – Insure the enacted laws are being upheld and that legislative law is actually compliant with the US Constitution
WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMPOWERS ITSELF TO BE A KANGAROO COURT WITHOUT A JUDICIAL PROCESS OF FAIRNESS AND DEFENSE, WE HAVE ACHIEVED A DUAL STATE AUTHORITARIANISM
What was Justice Ginsburg pushing?
Who could have possibly leaked the Dobbs opinion? Polygraphs for all!
I think the very fact that Sotomayor makes such an obviously and ridiculously biased political statement is proof positive that such will likely never occur. Given a politically minded supreme court the ability to charge a president would not only erase separation of powers, it would place the court above all, and the party through them.
I didn’t know that Courts brought charges.
if you vote Democrat
You hate America.
It is that simple
guyventner,
Please, let’s not be harsh. Democrats say they do not hate America.
All they say they hate is the Constitution, Bill Of Rights, Founding Fathers, American Flag, National Anthem, Martin Luther King Jr’s dream of not judging people by the color of their skin, and 70 or 80 million Americans who voted twice for President Trump.
Actually, those who voted THREE times for Trump.
Who was it that said “never let anyone outside the family know what you’re thinking?“
This was a common saying among “Soviet Union Citizens” who underwent 3+ generations of Slavery, Bigoted Programs, and a Totalitarian state whose basic judicial system was a bullet in the back of the head in the basement of the Kremlin or a luxury vacation to the Gulags.
Those of us who developed friendships with Alayah (Jews who fled the Soviet Union to the US in the 1970’s when allowed) often heard this adage when questioned “how on earth did you survive in that totalitarian state?
Another adage conveyed to me loved even more: “We pretended to work, They pretended to pay us”.
Apology of lack of clarity: That was the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic (USSR)
Trump needs to claim immunity for himself, his family members and members of his staff right now,
I don’t think it matters much when he does it. Probably better that he does it sooner, than later. Congressional investigations don’t really mean anything unless you control the DOJ. No one actually gives testimony during show hearings, they take the 5th. Why would anyone ever incriminate themselves, especially to a body that has no power to prosecute? He will definitely give immunity deals before he leaves office.
This immunity crap has to be put to an end!
Democrats are fascists
DEI is failure
Remove these failures
No one ever believed the the President didn’t have broad immunity for official acts. It’s just that no one ever felt the need to codify it. Who would ever take the job if there wasn’t? The only difference is that Trump’s enemies want the rules to be different for him. No one ever questioned a President’s ability to classify or declassify top secret material either. For what would seem to be obvious reason of, as the highest ranking military official in the country, who’s approval for doing so is a President supposed to obtain? Past Presidents have done it during press conferences without consequence. But for Trump, the rules are suddenly different.
Anonymous 7:53AM-well put. Besides the president is not totally immune. I think there is a little process called impeachment. She also fails to remember that it will also apply to Democratic Presidents and maybe even Supreme Court Justices. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”
Even impeachment has become something of a nothing burger. They’ve made it sort of meaningless. If the Dems want to burn whatever political capital they have on yet another impeachment, go for it. Lawfare was what elected Trump to a second term. They just couldn’t help themselves. Now removal from office would be something else, but they might want to think that one through a little more. The votes probably won’t be there and Vance takes over giving him two years to really screw them good. It would also consume the entire news cycle, unify republicans, and show Dems for what they truly are. For the left, Trump is the gift that keeps on giving, if they removed him, then what? No more crazy X posts?
Oh, there will always be “X” posts. Why would I stop. This is just getting started.
Aparently you can not read. The point was that without Trump you would not have anything to say.
That is obviously error – TDS can be replaced by RDS or VDS.
Regardless I do not want you to stop.
But I do hope you will someday become more rational.
You’re terrible confused John. My arguments don’t dwell exclusively on Trump.
They are also arguments against some conservative views. Arguments against some Republican views. Trump is becoming inconsequential, especially after this election.
Rationality is not your forte John. It has never been. The sad part is you’re not even aware of it. Zealotry tends to blind those who dwell in it to everything else.
GEB, after they take over, they will simply rewrite the rules. Easy peasy.
Biden’s overriding of the immigration laws so as to eventually add Democrats to the voter rolls certainly wasn’t questioned, was it. Mayorkas closed the borders, didn’t he. Dirtbags of feather..
Trump was charged for doing, AS PRESIDENT, what Biden did as a SENATOR regarding classified documents. It is Biden’s DOJ that forced the Court to address this issue.
I ran both Claude and ChaTGpt through historical causes and processes of revolutionary actions then asked them to calculate the chance of a true revolution in the USA should the left pack the court. The results came back at over 90% that there would be a gorilla war dismantling the corruption in government.
As I sit on saQ of freedom seeds, holding my stiQ, it will come to blood. That’s all the other side knows. Buckle up. Somehow, every county in the nation turned blue, sure. Some say MAGA didn’t show up. Nearly the same amount of conservatives voted as the last cycle…. BUT, the blues had an ‘extra’ 20M new voters…. swallow that pill. Governors MUST not certify . full stop
11b
Pretend revolutionaries self-entertain by talking in code.
I would predict that either, a leftist President “packing” the supreme court with four new picks or a widespread move to ban firearms or cause possession to become a crime, would be the kick-off to that revolution. If either or both happened, it would be the obvious signal where things were heading.
Many are saying Conservatives/MAGA did not show up. Wrong, I’ll tell you who showed up, 20M [new] dimocrats… Pondering that as I sit on my sack of freedom seeds….
The remedy is easy, Governors MUST NOT certify fraudulent installations {some call them elections}
@txvet33
I think it was both, personally. The people that didn’t show up woefully underestimated the odds. Had everyone been front and center, it would have been tight. I also think the threats against younger voters who don’t know any better for supporting non-dems worked.
Threats?
Not Democrats. Independents and young first time voters. 18-29 year olds voted in record numbers. Then you have the Hispanic vote in Texas. They turned on Trump after being “misled” about how he would conduct immigration deportations. That’s not what they had in mind and they made it pretty clear in Texas that they were not in agreement with the state’s Republicans and the president’s tactics.
I have yet to see any post election data on voter turnout by AGE. The data from early voting had 18-24 turnout DOWN from prior elections.
Overall turnout is about 2% or more lower than 2022 and 25m votes below Presidential elections.
It is absolutely true that in nearly every demographic voters shifted towards demographics – but without turnout data that means very little.
Both turnout by age and turnout by party affiliation.
If the 18-24 turnout was low and only democrats showed up to vote – that means something completely different from the 18-24 vote was at record highs and voted heavily democrat.
None of the demographics provided so far on voting patterns tell us much useful until we know the actual change in turnout for that demographic.
And you have to be careful about language. I have looked at numerous analysis that say “Young voters turned out heavily for democrats” – but the data provided does not show turnout – it shows the percent of voters in an age group that voted democrat. not the percent of registered voters in that age group who voted or how that percent compared to prior elections.
If the 18-24 turnout was low but 100% of 18-24 year olds voted democrat – that is meaningless as 2028 will likely have approximately 25+m additional voters.
The percent of minority voters that voted republican was way down – especially hispanics in TX – but is that because Republican hispanics did not show, or because they voted democrat.
Oddly though Trump and Vance and you and myriads of others are attributing this to Iran – the AP’s exit polls list that as 5th or 6th on the list of voter issues.
#1 was “the economy” – which should terrify you and democrats. The current perception of the economy is bad – but the actual economy is good and you are not going to be able to hide that for long.
The #2 issue was the nebulous term democracy – which just sounds like angry democrats. Though both sides were claiming “democracy was on the ballot” so it is really hard to decide what democracy as the #2 issue means.
The #4 issue was immigration – with only 14% of voters listing that as a factor – and that does not tell us whether they were pro or anti current immigration policies.
Again REAL data matters – complete data with all factors noted.
There are a few things we do know – more women showed up than men – that too bodes poorly for democrats in 2028.
Total turnout does not appear to be as low as I expected – but it is still several million below 2022.
John Say, I think you’re ignoring the data because you don’t want to admit the truth.
Data from Tufts University’s CIRCLE reveals that national youth turnout (ages 18–29) reached 27%, matching 2022 and marking the second-highest midterm youth voter turnout in the past 30 years (trailing only the 2018 record of 31%). In key battleground states, youth turnout climbed even higher to 30%.
The data invalidates the argument that “only Democrats showed up.” Young voters swung heavily to the left, favoring Democratic candidates by a massive 35-point margin.
According to preliminary data from the University of Florida Election Lab, overall eligible national turnout reached 49%. This is a 3% increase over the 2022 midterm elections, making it the second-highest overall midterm turnout since 1914. Total votes cast reached approximately 124 million, well above the 112 million cast in 2022.
That’s not a “collapse” John. It was a surge. Pretty obvious.
You claim more women showed up than men – that too bodes poorly for democrats in 2028. Nope. That’s not true.
Because women consistently make up the baseline majority of the voting electorate and favor progressive platforms by double digits, high female turnout is a fundamental cornerstone of the modern Democratic coalition. Stating that strong female turnout bodes poorly for Democrats contradicts decades of empirical voting patterns.
The war in Iran an outlier? The data doesn’t support that either.
The 2026 AP Voter Poll by SSRS verified that the economy was the top issue (39%). However, the exact same data shows that voters’ primary economic complaints were spiking gas prices and the cost of groceries. Brought on by…Trump’s war with Iran. A war he promised wouldn’t happen again before he started it. That was a big turn off for MAGA.
The public heavily associated the ongoing war in Iran with the immediate economic pain they were feeling at the pump and the grocery store, directly resulting in voters punishing the incumbent administration. It was absolutely the war that affected the election. In fact Iran bet on it…and won.
No the numbers were not record numbers. OVERAL turnout was LOW – nat historically low but on the low side of normal for midterms.
It is possible immigration was a factor in TX – but as usual you are using incomplete data to draw conclusions that that data alone will not bear.
There was also a high profile incident about a week before the elction in TX where an ICE agent in a car chased down and run over an illegal immigrant.
Unlike nearly every other ICE involved incident – that was a clear criminal act on the part of the ice agent.
DHS turned him over to TX for prosecution.
But we do not know how that effected the election.
Regardless as usual and forgiveably because lots of pundits are doing the same, you are cherry picking partial data and making claims that are either false or not known yet.
AP’s ecist polls do NOT show immigration as a major factor – but that does not mean it was not a factor in TX,
It also does not mean it was not a major factor for those who stayed home. We do not have exit polls for those who chose not to vote.
We know SOME things about those people who chose to vote, but we do not know that much about who did and who did not vote,
and I still have not seen turnout breakdowns by age
But we will see that eventually.
John Say, it’s always amusing how you try to dismiss real factual truths when you can’t prove otherwise.
The 2026 midterm turnout was historically massive, not low.
Talarico won the election long before the Nov. 3 vote. He had more early votes cast in his favor than Paxton did overall. That’s significant.
Final data compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice and the University of Florida Election Lab confirmed that 49% of the voting-eligible population cast a ballot. Approximately 124.3 million Americans voted, up significantly from the 112 million who voted in 2022.
This was the second-highest midterm turnout rate in over a century (since 1914), trailing only the historic 2018 midterms. Describing a near-record surge in voter engagement as “on the low side of normal” is mathematically false.
Age-based turnout data is available John we DO know how they voted.
Data from Tufts University’s CIRCLE tracked youth turnout (ages 18–29) at 27% nationally, soaring to 30% in highly competitive battleground states. Furthermore, in Texas, data compiled by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) showed that over two-thirds of the 400,000 first-time Latino voters in the state were under the age of 30.
That’s HUGE.
Young voters did not sit out. They engaged at near-record midterm levels, expanding the electorate and disproportionately powering the Democratic shift.
Immigration was also a huge factor over 70% voted on the fact immigration enforcement was too harsh. Trump even acknowledged this was an issue. AFTER the election. A little too late to save some seats.
If such a case arose, given this public outburst, should she not recuse herself ?
No. Her opinion was already known from her dissent.
Justices have been known to change their minds, but this statement shows an unwillingness to look at the fact of any case involving that particular issue. Recusal is appropriate