"The Global Consciousness Project, also known as the EGG Project, is an international multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others continuously collecting data from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites worldwide. The archive contains over 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second."
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, November 26, 2023
Gaslighting & Psychological Projection: Pot Calls Kettle Black
Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear some news about the former, 45th POTUS and the myriad legal troubles in which he has mired himself, Federal and State, and his numerous co-conspirators. Naturally, he denies all culpability, and continues telling “THE BIG LIE” — spinning a hypothetical yarn, hoping the too-tall tale of fantastical fiction grousing his 2020 electoral loss to Joe Biden will knit some kind of loosely-fitting garment… albeit one with numerous irreparable holes. It’s a modern version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
“If you say it enough and keep saying it, they’ll start to believe you.” — Donald Trump, July 3, 2021 speech in Sarasota, FL
“I play to people’s fantasies. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.”
— Donald Trump, as written in his 1987 book “The Art of the Deal”
“Stick with us. Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. … What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
— Donald Trump, speech to VFW annual convention in Kansas City, Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Faced with the very real possibility of incarceration in a Federal prison, or State prison, loss of reputation, loss of business license, professional censure, fines, and numerous other penalties, the hard, cold, stark reality has begun to set in for the bad-dream-weaver, and his minions. One by one, the dominoes are falling.
The 45th and immediately former President, a known pathological liar, cheat, and narcissist, recently wrote on his social media website, on Saturday, 25 November 2023, that,“Bob Vander Plaats, the former High School Accountant from Iowa, will do anything to win, something which he hasn’t done in many years. He’s more known for scamming Candidates than he is for Victory, but now he’s going around using Disinformation from the Champions of that Art, the Democrats. I don’t believe anything Bob Vander Plaats says. Anyone who would take $95,000, and then endorse a Candidate who is going nowhere, is not what Elections are all about!”
As others and I continue maintaining, the formerly-Grand Old Party has perfected psychological projection, a manipulative distraction technique designed to draw attention away from themselves (the accuser as guilty party), and place it upon an innocent party (an opponent), by accusing the innocent party of doing the very thing which the accuser/guilty party is doing.
When he tells the “snake story” — the Aesop’s Fable aka “The Farmer and the Snake,” an allegorical tale about a freezing-cold viper that begged to be picked up and warmed inside a coat, the gullible “rescuer,” against better judgement, picked it up, whereupon when sufficiently warmed, the viper bit the rescuer, who loudly exclaimed, asking, “Why did you do that!?!” The viper replied, “You knew what I was before you picked me up.” — he’s talking about himself. And he is the snake. The general public long knew what kind of man he was before he ever campaigned for President. We saw how utterly unscrupulous he was. We saw how grotesquely crass, how utterly without morals, how absent all semblance of good bearing, and wholly devoid of ethics, that he was, and remains. We knew full well who he was before we voted for him.
Psychological Projection (aka “projection”) is somewhat akin to “gaslighting,” insofar as it too, is designed & purposed by the claimant to manipulate & persuade malleable others that something is true, when it is false. Singer-songwriter Phil Collins sang about that in his 1999 hit “That’s All”:
“Just as I thought it was goin’ alright, “I found out I’m wrong when I thought I was right; “It’s always the same it’s just a shame that’s all. “I could say day, and you’d say night; “Tell me it’s black when I know thats it’s white; “It’s always the same it’s just a shame that’s all.”
Analogously, to illustrate Psychological Projection, imagine if Charles Manson accused the Los Angeles County California Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi of masterminding murder by virtue of the fact that he would be facing the death penalty for his crimes.
How perversely bizarre is that?
A SPECIAL NOTE is particularly applicable here:
In this greater ordeal & situation, that being the indictment of the 45th and immediately former POTUS upon numerous Federal -and- State charges, most particularly and especially the whole schema of events leading to the insurrection of January 6, 2021, including its precursors, it should be borne in mind that, just as Charles Manson exercised control over his “family” members (adherents), primarily obliquely, so too does Donald Trump exercise control over his followers (adherents) primarily obliquely. And just as Charles Manson did NOT directly commit the Tate-LaBianca murders, nor order them, his influence upon his “family” of followers was so great and significantly influential, to the extent that he was found guilty of the murders. Donald Trump did the exact same thing with the Proud Boys and other white supremacist militant radicals directly leading to the insurrection of January 6, 2021.
“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by!”
— POTUS Donald Trump, during the first Presidential Debate with Democratic Presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden on September 29, 2020, at Case Western University and Cleveland Clinic, in Cleveland, OH.
In response, Proud Boys leader-organizer Joe Biggs (a now-6-times convicted Federal felon) wrote on the now-defunct far-right-wing social media platform Parler, “Trump basically said to go fuck them up! This makes me so happy!”
“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
— POTUS Donald Trump, tweet December 19, 2020, 1:42AM
Just as Charles Manson preyed upon weak, young abused women to coerce them into his fold and further manipulate them as a means to his end, so too does Trump prey upon the weak, the marginalized, and unsuspecting, and warmly embraces them into his feign flock in order to manipulate them for his own self interests.
“I love the poorly educated!”
— Donald Trump, after victory in the February 2016 Nevada Republican caucuses
In response, respected political observer and polling analyst Nate Silver on his website FiveThirtyEight dot com noted that Trump’s victory in the November General Election was primarily innervated and predicted by “education, not income,” and noted that “educational levels are the critical factor in predicting shifts in the vote between 2012 and 2016. You can come to that conclusion with a relatively simple analysis, like the one I’ve conducted above, or by using fancier methods.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, August 17, 2023
Politico:
In Federal court, Alabama Republicans again defend not creating a 2nd majority Black district.
–//–
Alabama is ALWAYS “itching for a fight” because residents feel as if someone is forcing them to do something against their self-interest, or will, or that they’re going to suffer some kind of loss.
In order to motivate Alabamans, they must feel like they’re against something, that something, or someone, is going to take something away from them. It matters not what — it could be their household garbage — but they will no longer be in control of it, because someone is going to take it away from them, and therefore, they must oppose that oppressive, governmental edict-by-force issued from upon high by an alien enemy power, that they must “draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny.”
The astute will recognize, no doubt, the line uttered by the now-late former Governor George C. Wallace in his infamous “stand in the schoolhouse door” speech at Foster Auditorium in June 1963, on the campus of the University of Alabama, in Tuscaloosa.
Harmony and peace are “adults-only beverages” and Alabama cannot yet drink to the fullest from that wellspring, that fountain of life, a refreshingly cool, bubbling artesian well, and with all its other infantile behaviors, still suckles the teat of insecurity, demanding to be diapered and fed, to have attention given to it regardless, still incapable of sleeping through the night.
Mike Rogers-R,AL3 is restrained by Richard Hudson-R,NC8 from attacking Matt Gaetz-R,FL1 after Mike Rogers confronted Matt Gaetz because Gaetz voted “PRESENT” in the 14th round of balloting for Speaker of the House (SOTH), late Friday night, January 6, 2023. Kevin McCarthy-R,CA20 was finally elected as Speaker of the House (SOTH) on the 15th round of voting.
Alabama loved George Wallace.
They loved him so very much, that they elected him as Governor an unprecedented 4 times… not counting the time he was the puppet master, pulling the strings of his wife Lurleen’s campaign and her brief time in office as Governess.
Wallace was the state’s 45th individual to have served as Governor, and was elected as Governor in 1962, 1970, 1974, and 1982.
Later in life, after suffering near death following Arthur Bremer’s assassination attempt upon him while campaigning for the Office of President, Wallace had been paralyzed from the waist down by a bullet which had lodged in his spinal cord, and claimed to have changed afteerward, to have had a Christian religious conversion experience before he won election to an unprecedented nonconsecutive 4th term in office as Governor. As part of that conversion experience, he expressed contrition for his wicked deeds towards the Negro/Black community in Alabama — which were most notably expressed as bigotry, racism and segregation — directly to the Black community in Birmingham, Montgomery, and elsewhere, from the pulpits of their churches.
They believed him.
Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham examined polling data, voter turnout, and other official records from the 1982 General Election, found a level of support for Wallace among the Black community so very great, so that without it, Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, May 16, 2023
By now, unless you’ve been living in a cave in Tora Bora, or some other remote locale with little-to-no contact with the outside world…
Such as, for example, at ADX Florence, aka United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility (USP Florence ADMAX), in Fremont County, near Florence, Colorado, where, as of April 17, 2023, 326 male inmates reside, among them:
Unabomber/domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski (now aged 80, transferred to Federal Medical Center, Butner (FMC Butner) near Research Triangle area of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill,) etc. [NOTE: Ted Kaczynski died in custody June 10, 2023, 26 calendar days after this was written. ed.]
Following is an excerpted portion of the transcript from the PBS investigative journalism program Frontline — the portion in which is demonstrated that CLARENCE THOMAS COMMITTED PERJURY — while under oath — when he denied allegations made against him by Anita Hill before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was then Chaired by Joe Biden of Delaware.
The “picture painted” of Clarence Thomas in the program is first, as an abused child, ostracized because of the very dark pigment of his skin, abandoned first by his father, then by his mother, and later lived with his grandfather, who paid for him to attend a Catholic school, followed by seminary matriculation, then dropped out because of the verbal abuse he received from his fellow seminarians because of his dark skin pigment, and his speech (Gullah Geechee), etc., and when he dropped out because of such abuse, his grandfather kicked him out of his house for it; and along the way, he was becoming an angry young man who idolized Malcolm X (memorizing many of his speeches, etc.), participated in the militaristic Black Panther movement, rioted, etc.
Clarence Thomas married his first wife because she was the first woman to show him kindness. His life has been one lengthy series of rejection, after rejection, after rejection, until he was named to the Supreme Court, where he is still an Angry Black Man.
Transcript Clarence and Ginni Thomas: Politics, Power and the Supreme Court
Some of the key people in the following excerpts are:
• Clarence Thomas — Yale Law ’74 • Anita Hill — Attorney-adviser to Clarence Thomas who was Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and later his Assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982; Yale Law ’80
• Joe Biden — Senator, Delaware-D, 1973-2009, Syracuse Law ’68 • Linda Greenhouse — The New York Times, 1978-2008
• Marc Fisher — The Washington Post • Jane Mayer — Investigative Journalist, New Yorker
• Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), 1979-97 • Senator John “Jack” Danforth (R-MO), 1976-1995 — Yale Law & Divinity grad ’63
• Jill Abramson — Former Executive Editor, The New York Times • Michael Fletcher — Co-author, Supreme Discomfort
• Orion Douglass, Sr. — friend, born Savannah, GA, (former Holy Cross classmate, similar academic journey as Clarence Thomas, scholarship to HC, law school, eventually becoming a judge) • Gordon Davis — Holy Cross classmate
• Glenn Loury — Friend, Professor of Economics, Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences • Lester Johnson — Holy Cross student & friend
• Lillian McEwen — dated Clarence Thomas during his time at the EEOC • John Bolton — Yale Law classmate
• Angela Wright — Former Director of Communications, EEOC • Randall Kennedy — Professor, Harvard Law School
MALE VOICE [reading news article]:
You’ve heard about Clarence Thomas, but not by name. He is one of the Black people now on center stage in American politics: He is a Republican.
NARRATOR:
Thomas would put himself in the spotlight, making controversial comments in The Washington Post.
MALE VOICE [reading news article]:
Thomas is also a man who has a sister on welfare back in his home state of Georgia, but he feels that he must be opposed to welfare because of the dependency it can breed in a person. “She [his sister] gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check,” he says. “That is how dependent she is. What’s worse is that now her kids feel entitled to the check too. They have no motivation for doing better or getting out of that situation.”
LESTER JOHNSON:
It hit pretty hard. Folks in Savannah, their first reaction was, “Why would you talk about your sister in public?” You know, we don’t do that. That’s not Black Savannah. If you’ve got something to say about your sister, you don’t like what she did or whatever, you don’t publicize that. You keep that in the family.
NARRATOR:
But in Reagan’s Washington, the article propelled Thomas.
JILL ABRAMSON, Co-author, Strange Justice:
Ronald Reagan was famous for denouncing welfare queens. So, wow, here is a Yale Law School graduate who’s African American and who’s talking about how terrible it is that his sister was on welfare. That was like manna from heaven for Ronald Reagan.
NARRATOR:
Reagan elevated Thomas to run the EEOC—the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
GLENN LOURY, Professor, Brown University:
This is a real journey that Clarence Thomas makes, from modest, humble origins to the top of one’s profession and, ultimately, to a leading position in American government.
NARRATOR:
Now, for the first time in his life, Clarence Thomas was in charge. But people who knew him then saw disturbing changes.
LILLIAN McEWEN:
His personality, his aggressiveness, sexually, everything changed. He became a different person after he got that job. He stopped drinking alcohol, so he was not self-medicating anymore, and his mood swings were quite obvious.
ANGELA WRIGHT, Director of Communications, EEOC:
He never really seemed to be anyone who took any particular joy in anything, unless it was Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, April 7, 2023
Becky Pepper-Jackson has presented as a girl since fourth grade. The 12-year-old is at the center of a legal dispute that is at the Supreme Court. Credit: ACLU of West Virginia
Hey, I’m ALL FOR transgender & LGBTQIA folks, indeed, for ALL people — I don’t give a shit about how anybody gets freaky with it, how they present themselves to be, whether they stand, or sit, to pee, or any such nonsense. That’s their axe to grind, not mine… live and let live, you know. If Warren Buffett wants to wear a floral kimono, muumuu, or hot pink mini-skirt, more power to him.
BUT, I DO have a suggestion which I think is meritorious, and most WORTHY of consideration when the topic of gender — NOT SEX — enters the picture when determining whether Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, April 6, 2023
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been on the bench of the nation’s highest court since 1991, has been found, for the past 20 years, to have been receiving gifts worth several millions of dollars from a Texas real estate billionarie, and has failed to report any of them, as required by law.
THIS is an item which, I think, is BIGGER news than the troubles the former, 45th President, finds himself mired in, all of which are messes of his own making. We’ll see how those cakes cook up.
However, with this matter — which I think is a far more serious one for the integrity of our republic — which is the impartiality of equal justice under law — I smell an imminent impeachment of a SCOTUS Justice on the horizon, perhaps even calls to vacate orders in which his vote was a deciding factor. The ties and the links are present which more than lend themselves to the idea that his rulings demonstrated partiality in favor of certain parties with business before the court.
The quick-n-easy answer is “most likely not,” but a more detailed response, which increases ones understanding of the matter, follows. Published 04/05/23 at 8:00 AM ET, author Steven Lubet — the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and coauthor of “Judicial Conduct and Ethics” (5th edition) and many other books — quoted another legal authority on the matter of Justice Thomas’ deliberate failure to report gifts for 20 years, and wrote in part that when asked to whom the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosures applies, replied by writing that, “the “Ethics in Government Act is the ultimate source of these reporting requirements,” and that it applies to “all judicial officers” including “the Chief Justice of the United States” [and] the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.””
However, Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently rejected that idea, i.e., the law, including the authority of the Judicial Conference, by writing in his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary that its “committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards” for the Supreme Court. In other words, he wrote that he, and other Supreme Court Justices are above the law, that the law does NOT apply to them.
There are numerous instances in which SCOTUS Justices have flouted the law with regard to gifts, and Justice Clarence Thomas is by no means the only one, though he may be the most egregious example, who also, for a period of 6 consecutive years failed to list his wife “Ginny,” Virginia’s employment on his disclosure forms, and explained it away by claiming that it was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” For a Supreme Court Justice, a individual well-versed in numerous intricacies of law, to make such a claim is so incredulous, that it borders on preposterous absurdity.
During his last 10 years on the SCOTUS, late Justice Antonin Scalia took over 250 subsidized trips, some of which were related to speeches he made, while others were vacations, and included frequent private jet travel, numerous luxury resorts and lodges stays, many of which he exempted from disclosure under previous, less explicit disclosure and reporting rules. The former Justice Stephen Breyer was similarly a recipient of such largess, and disclosed 185 subsidized trips during the same time period — although both figures may be significantly under-reported.
This problem is directly related to the impartiality that ALL judges, again, as impartial arbiters, are supposed to have, because not only is the lackadaisical attitude toward money and gifts from wealthy donors demonstrative of corruption, so too is the lack of any standard for recusal. The Supreme Court is, quite literally, another example of “the fox watching the hen house,” i.e., that they make up their own rules as they go, all in the name of either autonomy, or self-governance, and essentially think themselves exempt from the law, by refusing to submit to the law’s authority.
There are other observers of the SCOTUS who are also hawks, or watchdogs, on the subject of ethics and accountability on the nation’s highest court, among them, Fix the Court, a website that advocates for reforms to be made to the court to improve integrity and demonstrate unquestionable impartiality, and has a page linking to each Justice’s financial disclosures, for several years back. Sadly, it is painfully obvious, and exceedingly clear that the SCOTUS will not fix their own problems, so external measures must be taken, i.e., laws must be enacted mandating full financial disclosure and compliance, and establishing recusal standards.
This matter, however, is a subset of an even greater national problem, from which both political parties suffer, and that matter is best analogized by acknowledging that football teams don’t get to write their own game play rules, no matter which team is national champion, or not. The Alabama Crimson Tide has not, by virtue of their numerous National Championships, been able to change game rules to suit them, nor has any NFL team ever been able to do so, regardless of how many Super Bowl wins they’ve had, or which team is current champion. So, when politicians select their voters by gerrymandering, they do so in order to give themselves an unfair advantage, and it’s not merely “politics,” per se, it is a matter of corruption, by pretending to be impartial, or just, but instead are openly partisan and denying people of someone who would represent their interests. Politics and law are indeed about being just and impartial, every bit as much as any court should be, including the Supreme Court. Voters are supposed to elect their politicians, not politicians select their voters.
To further aid a direct, grass-roots process, there should be recall and direct petition laws which empower voters to recall politicians who are not representing their constituents’ wishes, as well as establishing a viable legal pathway for citizens to introduce legislation independently of the legislature, when legislators refuse to heed their constituents’ wishes to introduce legislation.
Money in politics is another obviously corrupting influence and power, and the best way to manage it, is to put all donors’ money into one common pot for each office, and divvy it up equally among the candidates, thereby enabling all candidates to campaign on their ability to persuade voters of their ideas, and the value of their candidacy, instead of seeming to purchase the office by the amount of money raised. Such a law which would enable “common pool contributions” AND be equally divided among the candidates for a particular office, would also satisfy the so-called “money is free speech” Supreme Court ruling, and conceivably, could allow more money to be put into the electoral PROCESS, NOT the candidate, i.e., contribution limits could be increased. Conceivably also, because such donations to the PROCESS would be impartial in effect, they could perhaps also be made fully tax deductible.
Ranked Choice Voting would further empower citizen voters to select among numerous candidates for any office, would immediately end costly primary elections paid for by the state, and perhaps even — in conjunction with “common pool contributions” — contribute to a broadening of political parties representing the peoples’ interests, instead of the “either/or” 2-party system which has dominated for so long. Voters should not be forced to choose from a bad or worse candidate.
And when a citizen registers to vote, that individual should immediately, i.e., on-the-spot, be issued a photographic Voter ID. By so doing, it would put to rest the ridiculously asinine and outrageously false claims made primarily by one political party which asserts that voter fraud is rampant. As well, each voter would be issued a number, much like a driver license number, or U.S. passport number, which would then be required to be affixed to, or included with, any absentee, or mail-in ballot, and so done to further reduce any possibility of voter fraud. It would also eliminate the discrimination inherent with, and absurdity of, so-called “exact match” signature laws, because signatures do change over time. As well, by requiring the government to issue a photographic Voter ID -and- a corresponding number, mail-in balloting could be expanded, relatively risk-free, and trouble-free.
Election Day should be made a National Holiday, and employees should get paid for that time off, and Early In-Person Voting should be at least two weeks duration.
To know of SCOTUS Justice Thomas’ corruption is an EXCEEDINGLY stronger, wretch-inducing effluvium — worse even, than the infected, rotting stench of hypocrisy cooking.
Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor
— ProPublica
by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski
ProPublica.org
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power.
Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
Official Supreme Court group photo — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, October 2022
Texas billionaire, GOP super-donor, Harlan Crow in October 201
In late June 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.
Clarence Thomas (tan vest & camera) and his wife, Ginni (in red), front left, with Harlan Crow, back right, and others in Flores, Indonesia, in July 2019. Credit: via Instagram
If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.
For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.
The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.
These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, March 27, 2023
True -or- False?
Things that are not living cannot change.
“There’s a feeling I get when I look to the west, and my spirit is crying for leaving. In my thoughts, I have seen rings of smoke through the trees, and the voices of those who stand looking. It makes me wonder… it really makes me wonder.”
Your mother is hurting.
I guess I was lucky that I didn’t fall tumbling down an almost sheer granite cliff like a rag doll after climbing up nearly to the top in leather-soled cowboy boots en route to Sonora Pass in the Sierras along CA 108 in October ’08. Mom & Dad would’ve been very saddened. Instead, I got to see them die. Well, almost. They were both “on their death bed” when I last kissed them both — Daddy died a few years before Mother. I saw to it that Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, January 18, 2023
Anonymity.
Make ALL applications anonymous.
It’s just… that… simple.
And, it’s EASILY facilitated!
Simply ID the applicant/prospective student by the first letter initials of their name, e.g., ABC, their birth date, e.g., 01022023, and the last four digits of their Social Security Number, or Alien Registration Number, e.g., 1234.
Thus, candidate “Iwannabe Funkybean Gobbledygook” would be IFG01022023-1234, or IFG010220231234, or IFG-01022023-1234, or similarly — even with last name first, GIF01022023-1234, or GIF010220231234, etc. Candidate “Al-Shaz Baraz el Hominy Jones-Smith” would be ASBHJS, ABHJS, or JSASBH, JSABH, or similarly.
It’s just ENTIRELY TOO EASY!
Our brethren in the UK have done so –and– they’ve also made job applications anonymous.
“At the Conservative party conference two weeks ago, I spoke about a young black woman who had to put a more white-sounding name on her CV before she started getting called for interviews. Such racism in 21st-century Britain, I said, was a disgrace, and I committed our party to ending discrimination and finishing the fight for real equality. The audience rose to their feet. It was a significant moment. And it provoked three reactions.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, December 24, 2022
The Right To Bear Arms
A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation
By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86) Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4
[NOTE: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), was first nominated by POTUS EISENHOWER January 12, 1956 to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (often called the “Mini Supreme Court”) to fill the position created by the death of Judge Harold M. Stephens, was confirmed by the Senate 28 March that year, and on 23 June 1969 was nominated to be Chief Justice of the SCOTUS by POTUS NIXON following the resignation of CJ Earl Warren, who was also nominated by POTUS EISENHOWER, and presided over numerous landmark Constitutional law cases and wrote the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Loving v. Virginia (1967). CJ Warren also led the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of POTUS KENNEDY, was Governor of California from 1943-1953, and widely considered one of the nation’s most influential Chief Justices. CJ Burger was known more for his administrative acumen than for his intellect, and in 1974 authored the unanimous decision in United States v. Nixon, which rejected POTUS NIXON’s claim of Executive Privilege in the midst of the Watergate crimes, and eventually chose to resign, rather than face certain impeachment, thereby becoming the first POTUS to ever resign from office.]
Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court, official portrait
Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides — setting a new record for our capital.
The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments — the Bill of Rights — were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.
People of that day were apprehensive about the new “monster” national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment’s guarantees — against “establishment of religion,” “free exercise” of religion, free speech and free press — came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a “national” or “standing” army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison’s proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:
“to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty … Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins.”
We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the “right” guaranteed; in short, it was declared “necessary” in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word “because” was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the “state militia” serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns — rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols — with all firearms, including what are now called Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, December 8, 2022
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
“Does this institution need to change in some way to regain the public trust?”
The short answer is a resounding “YES!”
Now, read on to learn at least one stunning reason why.
There’s PLENTY of brouhaha and he-said-she-said nonsense reported as “journalism” these days, and the same is absolutely true with this most recent matter concerning allegations that a previous decision from the SCOTUS, specifically referring to news that a “leak” about how a decision would be rendered in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., would be rendered.
In short, the 2014 case revolved around birth control, that the defendant, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. wanted to deny birth control to Burwell the plaintiff, and asserted that they had a legal right to do so.
In essence the ruling “permits a closely held for-profit corporation [meaning one that is privately held by an individual, family, or family trust] to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.”
Hobby Lobby is a multi-billion dollar, for-profit, privately held corporation owned by the Green family of Oklahoma City, OK, which has just under 1000 stores nationwide, over 43,000 employees, and describes itself as an “arts & crafts store,” which imports most, if not all, of their merchandise from China, India, Vietnam, and other developing nations. Very little, if any, of the merchandise they sell is American made.
With a net worth of $15.1 BILLION estimated by Forbes, the Green family members are Evangelical Christians, and the company was founded in 1972. In the company’s 50-year history, it, and/or its owners have been criticized for numerous deceptive and questionable activities, and have been found guilty in Federal court in 2017 of smuggling ancient middle eastern antiquities — 5,500 artifacts purchased for $1.6 billion — which were later learned to have been looted from archeological sites, and shipped in boxes deliberately deceptively labeled as “tile samples,” to their Oklahoma City corporate headquarters. For that crime, they were ordered to pay a $3 million fine, forced to return the booty, and forfeited the money which they spent to illegally purchase the loot. From 2018-2020, they also later confessed that fragments of a document which they claimed were portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, were forgeries, though they presented them as authentic in their Washington, DC-based “Museum of the Bible.” And in March 2020, the Greens announced that they would be repatriating 11,500 additional ancient artifacts to Iraq and Egypt.
As the COVID pandemic began to rage and claim lives, dropping humans like so many flies, the company refused to close its stores in numerous locations because Deborah Green, the founder’s spouse, claimed to have “heard a message from God” to keep them open, and further falsely claimed that they were an “essential” service employer which exempted them from compliance with various states’ and local laws ordering businesses closed for public health preservation, to prevent spread of the disease. Later, under pressure from employees concerned for their own safety and welfare, the corporation acquiesced to their employees’ pressure, closed all stores, and furloughed every employee, which led at least two employees to remark, “This has all been so stressful and exhausting. I don’t want to stay home because I’m too lazy to work. I want to stay home to do my part to stop the spread of the virus.” -and- “The line our manager gave us [from corporate] was, ‘The employees got what the employees wanted; the stores were closed.’ My question was, ‘Did God tell them they needed to close the stores and not pay us?'”
In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. ruling, the SCOTUS held that not only can corporations have, practice, and espouse a religion, but that they can also deny healthcare treatment to anyone in the organization who may need a medication which the corporation finds onerous, or objectionable, based upon ostensibly religious grounds.
It’s not about “rights” as the plaintiffs allege, it’s about CONTROL — specifically, control over others in an effort to manipulate them, to force them to abide by manipulator’s beliefs — NOT about individual liberty, or freedom.
This most recent revelation of a much-earlier leak comes on the heels of another similarly related, though much more blatant, and publicly observed leak: A decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a ruling from 6 so-called “conservative,” Republican-appointed Justices — 3 questionable appointments who were nominees by The Federalist Society via then-POTUS Donald Trump — whose combined opinions effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision allowing abortion, and the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey which affirmed Roe. A copy of a draft in the Dobbs ruling was “leaked” to POLITICO, and was later authenticated by CJ Roberts.
see: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf
The 6 GOP-nominated right-wing radicals all attested, under oath, during their confirmation hearings, that Roe was well-established and settled legal precedent of very nearly 50 years, that its rendering was unimpeachable, and unquestionable. Of course, lawyers that they are, they artfully dodged giving a straight-forward and direct answer when asked their opinions of the Roe decision — stare decisis be damned. Naturally, it has led to justifiable moral outrage from many who contend that such deception under oath is an impeachable offense. And, it very well may be.
Naturally, Justice Alito, and others, have denied that any such thing occurred, and further denied that he “leaked” information on how the Hobby Lobby ruling would be made.
HOWEVER…
Rob Schenck, the longtime vehemently radicalized Evangelical protagonist in this matter, goes into GREAT DETAIL describing how he was the one whose idea to duplicitously train of a group of spies to infiltrate the SCOTUS with well-heeled, wealthy couples, to Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, September 2, 2022
Who Wrote This?
“…the woman contemplating a first trimester abortion is given absolute and nonreviewable authority over the future of the fetus.”
. . .
“Roe took from state lawmakers the authority to make this choice and gave it to the pregnant woman.”
READ THAT AGAIN.
“…the woman contemplating a first trimester abortion is given absolute and nonreviewable authority over the future of the fetus.”
-and-
“Roe took from state lawmakers the authority to make this choice and gave it to the pregnant woman.”
Imagine the utterly unmitigated gall, total temerity, and absolute audacity of anyone who would take “from state lawmakers the authority,” the “absolute and nonreviewable authority” — otherwise known as rights under law — and give it to We The People… and to women, at that! Such brazenness! (The reader should detect STRONG sarcasm.)
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, August 9, 2022
Are Physicians Protected by the First Amendment?
Are Patients protected by HIPAA, the Patient Privacy Law?
Can just anybody, or even the state, sue, or arrest and charge with a crime anyone who discussed abortion, was referred for, or had an abortion — even if it was out of the state of the patient’s residence?
How “long” is the “long arm of the law,” and can it actually investigate, charge, prosecute, and punish physicians and/or patients for receiving private healthcare advice and/or services?
Suddenly! Yes, suddenly — as in acutely, and even cataclysmically-like-an-earthquake so — physicians and other healthcare professionals seem to find themselves between a proverbial rock, and a hypothetical hard place.
The reason why, is because 6 GOP-nominated radicals on the still-9-member Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) {Those justices are: Alito, Thomas, CJ Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett.} have completely ignored judicial precedent — which is the “holy grail” of jurisprudence that helps form the foundation of law itself, and thereby give stability to civil society — and overturned at least TWO rulings of an earlier court — Roe v Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) — in their 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).
The Roberts Court, April 23, 2021 Seated from LEFT to RIGHT: Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor Standing from LEFT to RIGHT: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Photograph by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Of course, overturning even century-old precedent has been the characteristic hallmark of the Roberts Court. Since becoming Joker in Chief Justice in September 2005, he has presided over 20 reversals of well-established precedented opinion, some dating as far back as 1911. If, in the law, nothing is TRULY ever settled, and any court now, or in the future, can simply overturn any law or decision with which they disagree — regardless of how long it’s been in effect, and regardless of what their confirmation testimony was — then our nation’s foundation is insecure.
There are numerous Constitutional problems with the 6 radicalized jurists’ decision, not the least of which is that, by returning to the states the ability to decide abortion law (or any other law over which Federal law has presided), it completely ignores undermines and usurps the essential tenet of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which is that Federal law has ultimate authority over any other law by a state, or locality.
“…in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Justice Thomas continued in part by writing,
“That 50 years have passed since Roe and abortion advocates still cannot coherently articulate the right (or rights) at stake proves the obvious: The right to abortion is ultimately a policy goal in desperate search of a constitutional justification.”
He predicates his entire opposition to the ruling in Roe upon but one idea: His distaste for the term Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, July 16, 2022
The United States Constitution has been amended 27 times.
Of those 27 amendments, there is but one solitary matter which has consistently appeared over the years.
And similarly, there is but one matter which has consistently been problematic for the United States.
That solitary matter has been addressed in the Constitution, to be affirmed, confirmed, and reaffirmed, time, and time, and time again.
And that single, solitary matter, is voting.
Exactly 5 of the 27 amendments — or 18.5% — to the U.S. Constitution have dealt with matters related to voting. If by the number of instances in which the matter is addressed is any indication of its importance, there is NO MORE greater matter to civil society, and by extension, to our democratic republic, than voting.
And yet, as evidenced by the corollary to those same amendments, voting has been, and continues to be, the single most abused, and misused tool of those who attempt to wrest power AWAY FROM the people, and accumulate it to unto themselves, and/or their favored political party.
Voting gives POWER TO THE PEOPLE; and that is precisely why some do NOT want We The People to have power, as our Constitutional Democratic Republic mandates.
Here are the amendments to the Constitution, as they read, which have all dealt with matters of voting.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, July 10, 2022
Joker in Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. has presided over THE MOST radicalized Supreme Court in well over 100 years.
Since his nomination by then-POTUS George W. Bush, and Senate confirmation by a 78-22 margin, Roberts has demonstrated, time, and time, and time again, that he, and other radicalized SCOTUS GOPers, have no respect for the legal concept of stare decisis, precedent, or other staid legal matters, the purpose of which is to provide stability to civil society.
What do Robert Bork, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts have in common? To find out more, read on.
If, in the law, nothing is TRULY ever settled, and any court now, or in the future, can simply overturn any law or decision with which they disagree — regardless of how long it’s been in effect, and regardless of what their confirmation testimony was — then our nation’s foundation is insecure.
And like subterranean termites tunneling into a well-built house, practically undetected, it is showing signs that it has been undermined. And just as with termite damage, exactly how extensive it is, how severe it has become, and what repair costs will be, remains to be seen.
Since becoming Joker in Chief Justice in September 2005, he has presided over 20 reversals of opinion, some dating as far back as 1911.
What do Robert Bork, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts have in common? To find out more, read on.
In the Leegin case, the matter brought before the SCOTUS was one of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act through price-fixing by Leegin, which, as the court’s decision stated in the beginning, that, “in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911), the Court established the rule that it is per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer’s goods.”
Further, the court noted that, “on appeal Leegin did not dispute that it had entered into vertical price-fixing agreements with its retailers.”
A “vertical agreement” is the integration of two or more businesses in a supply chain. A “horizontal” merger would be the combining of two or more companies that did essentially the same thing.
Vertical agreements are generally illegal because they tend to eliminate competition, create a monopoly, artificially increase prices and otherwise adversely affect a free market.
And yet, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Leegin.
Why?
This is where matters begin to show the influence of relationship and affiliation.
What is fascinating, and disturbingly telling, is that the Roberts-led radical court quoted a book on anti-trust law authored by Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, June 26, 2022
Today (June 26, 2022), the much-expected, leaked Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392) was publicly released on the Supreme Court’s website [see: https://www.SupremeCourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf], which the unjust Justice Samuel Alito summarized thusly:
“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
The 6 right-wing radicals similarly ignored the Constitution’s 9th Amendment, which is the statement that unenumerated rights exist:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Six Justices, including the Joker in Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and ultra-right-wing radical extremists Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett — all whom were nominated by Banana Republicans — overturned a very-nearly 50-year precedent.
By so doing, they made themselves out as liars, because ALL of the 6 in public testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, asserted that Roe v. Wade, a decision issued on January 22, 1973, was “settled law.”
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, April 8, 2022
Needing an election-year straw-man punching bag, numerous Republicans, including Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Josh Hawley of Missouri — who had three times previously approved Judge Jackson’s three earlier Federal judicial nominations, most recently in April last year to the D.C. Circuit — suddenly falsely accused the judge of being lenient toward child sexual abusers, in effect, not merely being an ideological moral equivalent, but much worse, as a promoter of such crime. Fact-checkers say such malicious slurs are not only fictitious, but deliberately misleading, and that Judge Jackson’s sentencing decisions were 100% in line with her peers on the Federal bench.
Hawley is Blackburn’s kennelmate, her own in-bred ideological offspring.😎🤣🧐😳
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, October 3, 2021
GOP Voters DidNOTWant A Second Helping Of Trump
And, in their estimation, Trump v2.0, i.e., Trump 2024, is 100% OUT OF THE QUESTION.
Comments from the focus group referenced in the article linked below illustrate the GREAT NEED for our nation to be focused upon PROGRESS & CHANGE.
Regardless of anyone’s opinion, or any nation’s actions, catastrophic, or otherwise, tomorrow will happen.
It’s inevitable.
PROGRESS WILL OCCUR.
BUT, we could all do something to PREVENT bad things from happening, and should. We should improve conditions for our residents and humanity, rather than to allow them to suffer by negligence and neglect.
And yet, whether we do, or don’t, the sun will still rise.
Time marches on.
Recall the adage,
“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.”
That quote is by Dr. Jessie Potter, PhD (1922-1994), Founder/Director, National Institute for Human Relationships, Oak Lawn, Illinois; faculty member University of Illinois Medical School, Northwestern University Medical School, who was featured speaker at the Friday opening of the seventh annual Woman to Woman Conference, in an article entitled “Search For Quality Called Key To Life” by Tom Ahern, published in “The Milwaukee Sentinel” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on 24 October 1981; the quote appearing on Page 5, Column 5.
In my estimation, and in the estimation of that focus group’s members, America and American policy – domestic, and international – has REGRESSED, rather than progressed.
Progress supposes improvement. It’s like progressing from 3rd Grade to 4th Grade, or beyond. Progress implies a journey, and ALWAYS supposes improvement — getting from “Point A” to “Point B,” and beyond.
Like the primarily-Republican voters in this focus group, I too, have voted FOR candidates who were neither my first, nor best, choice. Sometimes, you vote for “the devil you know,” rather than “the devil you don’t know.”
I voted for Hillary, though I utterly loathed her for various reasons; besides being a proverbial “lightning rod” for controversy and division, rather than unity, another one being that she demonstrably screwed Bernie, and though what she did was not illegal, it was exceedingly unethical, and that she did it in secret, was very telling about her character. Had she not done that, Bernie would have most likely been the Democratic party‘s nominee – NO ONE ELSE had crowds the size of his – NO ONE.
But, because she had governmental experience, and was the nominee, I held my nose and voted FOR her. Similarly, I voted FOR Biden, though again, I much rather preferred Bernie, because I thought and hoped that Biden would essentially be a “yes man” to the party’s Progressive ideas. And quite frankly, I don’t think he’s ever demonstrated effective LEADERSHIP with ideas.
BIDEN is a conciliator, and after the previous administration, our nation was very ready for significant “conciliation.”
“Boring government” can be a good thing, per se — at least insofar as what it’s compared to in the immediately preceding administration.
Bold new ideas are not Biden’s forte. That’s Bernie’s bailiwick. And, as we all know, sometimes, “you gotta’ go along, to get along.”
We’re not even a year — 8 months 13 days, or; 36 weeks 3 days, or; 255 calendar days – into this administration, and yet, the prognosticators, pundits, and political soothsayers are busy at work. In my way of thinking, that demonstrates a deep longing for CHANGE. Not change from the GOP, but fundamental, wholesale CHANGE in governmental operations, i.e., PROGRESS.
Do we need change in our nation?
You bet your sweet bippy we do!
The colloquialism “politicians are like diapers on babies; both need changing regularly” is not mere hyperbole, it is true.
Consider our income tax system.
No one genuinely “likes” paying taxes – has anyone, ever? Even though it’s a patriotic duty, I don’t think so. But in your and my lifetime, the graduated income tax system in our nation has been highly compressed (there are now fewer brackets than ever), and the top rate for the highest income earners (multi-millionaires & multi-billionaires) has been so significantly reduced, that the net effect is a so-called “flat tax,” in which everyone – the wealthy and the impoverished – pays the same percentage rate, regardless. That’s an inherently unjust system, simply because the wealthy and the impoverished pay the same price for a gallon of milk, or loaf of bread. It just takes a BIGGER BITE out of the poor man’s paycheck, than it does the wealthy… who probably owns the farm –and– the bakery –and– the store that sells it.
It simply boggles my mind to know that Jeff Bezos, by FAR the world’s wealthiest man -and- his corporation Amazon, PAID NO INCOME TAX LAST YEAR… or, the year before, or the year before that. And he wasn’t the only one, not by a long shot. Elon Musk and Warren Buffett are also on that list of shame. Men whose names are practically household words, like Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg all come to mind. They too, paid little, if any, personal income tax compared to the Average American. To my way of thinking, that’s just plain wrong. Maybe you think differently.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, September 20, 2021
One would NOT mention something if it were NOT part of the equation.
It’d be like mentioning Tostitos at a cake-baking contest, the theory of relativity to 3rd Graders, a taco soup recipe to Chinese citizens in Shenzhen, or the merits of a ’57 Chevy during discussion of a cardiac surgical procedure. TOTALLY out of place.
The very fact that SHE — Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett — mentioned it, is sufficient.
“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”
— Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sunday, 12 September 2021, at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, KY, a venue created by Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell
Similarly, one would NOT need to be convinced if a thing, saying, or claim had utterly no credibility. It’d be like claiming (falsely) that “the sun rises in the west.” Any casual observer can plainly see that the sun appears to “rise” in the east, because of the Earth’s rotation upon its axis. That is to say, Earth spins in an “easterly” direction.
But, what else could be said about a court that INCREASINGLY issues “emergency” rulings, colloquially known as the “Shadow Docket,” WITHOUT proceedings, WITHOUT hearing ANY argument?
That tactic DENIES citizens their Constitutional RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN AN OPEN & PUBLIC COURT OF LAW.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, August 28, 2021
As you read this OpEd, initially, it seems to move toward the idea of nation building, but then, directs itself toward more direct involvement Congressional management and oversight of foreign policy, the constitutionally-mandated Separation of Powers, encourages a SCOTUS decision on the extent of Presidential War Powers, and curtailing the use Executive action to enact foreign policy by skirting such oversight, asserting that Executive diplomacy is not a formal treaty, and therefore not subject to Congressional oversight.
In short, while illustrating problems in American foreign policy through Executive action, it places the onus of responsibility upon Congress, where it rightfully belongs, and relegates the President’s role to primarily one of public persuasion in such matters.
Ours is a constitutional democratic republic, and we should act like it, rather than falling prey to “the grandiose belief” … of the “irresistible the siren call of personal diplomacy” by Presidents.A
What Trump’s Disgraceful Deal With the Taliban Has Wrought
by Dr. Kori Schake, PhD
August 28, 2021
Dr. Schake is Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Before joining AEI, Dr. Schake was the Deputy Director-General of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. She has had a distinguished career in government, working at the US State Department, the US Department of Defense, and the National Security Council at the White House. She has also taught at Stanford, West Point, Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, National Defense University, and the University of Maryland.
The American Enterprise Institute is an independent, non-profit, public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world.
The work of their scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in their belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.
AEI scholars are committed to making the intellectual, moral, and practical case for expanding freedom, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening the free enterprise system in America and around the world. Their work explores ideas that further those goals, and AEI scholars take part in this pursuit with academic freedom. AEI operates independently of any political party and has no institutional positions. Their scholars’ conclusions are fueled by rigorous, data-driven research and broad-ranging evidence.
Believing you’re uniquely capable of bending things to your will is practically a requirement for becoming president of the United States. But too often, in pursuit of such influence over foreign policy, presidents overemphasize the importance of personal diplomacy. Relationships among leaders can build trust — or destroy it — but presidents often overrate their ability to steer both allies and adversaries.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had built such a solid relationship that during the Reykjavik summit most of Reagan’s administration worried he would agree to an unverifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. Bill Clinton believed his personal diplomacy could deliver Palestinian statehood and Russian acceptance of NATO expansion. George W. Bush believed he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, and Barack Obama believed he could persuade Mr. Putin it wasn’t in Russia’s interests to determine the outcome of the war in Syria.
But in both hubris and folly, none come close to matching Donald Trump. For someone who prided himself on his abilities as a dealmaker and displayed an “I alone can fix it” arrogance, the agreement he made with the Taliban is one of the most disgraceful diplomatic bargains on record. Coupled with President Biden’s mistakes in continuing the policy and botching its execution, the deal has now led to tragic consequences for Americans and our allies in Kabul.
Mr. Trump’s handling of Afghanistan is an object lesson for why presidents of both parties need to be Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, August 18, 2021
Lawmakers unwilling to admit their own errors, claim to be shocked at the Taliban’s rapid coup of Afghanistan and the fall of Kabul, its capitol city, and a very public takeover of the nation’s presidential palace, are feigning dismay at what they blame as “failures” either by/from the intelligence community, or military, or both.
The “Blame Game” is a long-running, well-known, and popular political pastime among the Beltway insiders crowd. And, if you’re an elected official, regardless your party affiliation, lack thereof, or political philosophy, you’re a Beltway Insider.
I applaud POTUS BIDEN for ceasing the 20-year failed social experiment of the sociocultural-political elites – those with high-powered degrees from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and others (no disrespect to the institutions, or to education) — who built their careers, increased their fortunes, and padded their CV’s playing “nation building” with practically unlimited American tax dollars (we’ve burned a TOTAL of at least $2.6 TRILLION on that good-for-nothing wasteland hell-hole— money that COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER SPENT HELPING OUR NATION, OUR PEOPLE), using the “expendable” lives of men and women from rural America and elsewhere far removed from the ivory-towered intelligentsia, all in the erstwhile hopes that somehow, they could foist upon a people a liberal democracy — by force, if necessary — who have no interest in such a type of government.
Our nation is upon a dangerous precipice, of having fallen sway to the narrow handful of ivory-towered Ivy-Leagued sociocultural-political elites who have Read the rest of this entry »
On that court were Chief Justice William Howard Taft; Associate Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.; Willis Van Devanter; James C. McReynolds; Louis Brandeis; George Sutherland; Pierce Butler; Edward T. Sanford, and; Harlan F. Stone.
Holmes, Brandeis, and Taft are the only names many remember from that group.
Then-POTUS Warren G. Harding, a Republican, nominated Taft, also a Republican, to become Chief Justice (1921–1930) following the death of CJ Edward Douglass White, a Democrat, whom Taft had appointed as CJ in December 1910, while Taft was serving as President (1909–1913). Taft is, to-date, the only individual to have ever served in both positions – President, and SCOTUS Chief Justice.
But, here are a couple interesting facts:
1.) From July 4, 1901 until December 23, 1903, Taft was Governor-General of the Philippines, having been appointed by POTUS William McKinley. Having held that office previously, he should have recused himself from the 1927 case “Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue.” But, he did not.
2.) Edward Douglass White served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War, was a strident segregationist, and upheld racist laws which came before the court, including the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson case which gave rise to the “separate but equal” doctrine, and reinforced racist practices in the United States.
Today, such obvious conflicts of interest would not be tolerated. And I note this with a mark of appreciation: Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently recused himself (did not participate in) from a recent case before the court, because his father held some stock in one company being represented to the court.
Technically, “involvement” at that level exclusively doesn’t violate ethics rules, but having erred on the side of caution – exercised jurisprudential reservation – is commendable. That is because it demonstrates Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, May 24, 2021
Democratic senators say if the Supreme Court strikes a blow against Roe v. Wade by upholding a Mississippi abortion law, it will fuel an effort to add justices to the court or otherwise reform it.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week agreed to hear the Mississippi case, which could dramatically narrow abortion rights by allowing states to make it illegal to get an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
“It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“It’s already driving that movement,” he added.
Senator Blumenthal said it doesn’t mean that a Congress led by Democrats would immediately be able to add justices to the court, but he suggested it would add momentum to reform efforts at a minimum.
“Chipping away at Roe v. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents,” he said.
No one knows for sure when the Supreme Court will hand down its decision on the Mississippi abortion law, but it is widely expected to hear arguments after it convenes in October. That could set up a decision next year.
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said the court’s review of the Mississippi law raises serious concerns.
“It really enlivens the concerns that we have about the extent to which right-wing billionaire money has influenced the makeup of the court and may even be pulling strings at the court,” he said.
“We’ve got a whole array of options we’re looking at in the courts committee,” Senator Whitehouse said of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, which President Biden established by executive order in April.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, March 31, 2021
Today, the NCAA is appearing before the United States Supreme Court today arguing about… money.
Yes, money.
This case verges on indentured servitude, and hypocrisy is open, and plainly evident.
But hey… what else is new when it comes to treatment of the impoverished, females, and minorities?
Meanwhile, the BIG BUCKS go to build lavish facilities for the male athletes, not all of which are for training, to the coaches for their $alarie$ and compen$ation, and to build extravagant stadiums and arenas.
Not even a fraction goes to the athletes.
And none of it goes to the students.
Not one thin dime.
Here’s an idea instead of paying coaches eye-popping salaries, how about capping their compensation, and placing about half of the money toward student scholarship?
It’d be an INVESTMENT in education, for that is the primary (hopefully) reason the athletes chose to become students at the university where they play.
And best of all, it would ALL come from the Private Sector, one of many “holy cows” of the GOP Brahmans.
Take To The Court: Justices Will Hear Case On Student Athlete Compensation
March 31, 2021, 5:00 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
by Nina Totenberg
Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., May 21, 2019. (photo by Allison Shelley)
As March Madness plays out on TV, the U.S. Supreme Court takes a rare excursion into sports law Wednesday in a case testing whether the NCAA’s limits on compensation for student athletes violate the nation’s antitrust laws.
The outcome could have enormous consequences for college athletics.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, February 16, 2021
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), Daguerreotype portrait by Matthew Brady’s Studio c.1844/45
Joseph Story (1779-1845) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, nominated by President James Madison, who served in office from February 3, 1812 until September 10, 1845.
He was also: Republican Congressman from Massachusetts, 1808-1809; Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1811-1845; Acting Chief Justice, 1835-1836, 1844; Professor of Law Harvard University 1829-1845.
The United States Constitution states in part as follows:
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Justice Story wrote about the matter of impeachment at great length, and in part wrote that:
§393. It is obvious, that, upon trials on impeachments, one of two courses must be adopted in case of a conviction; either for the court to proceed to pronounce a full and complete sentence of punishment for the offence according to the law of the land in like cases, pending in the common tribunals of justice, superadding the removal from office, and the consequent disabilities; or, to confine its sentence to the removal from office and other disabilities. If the former duty be a part of the constitutional functions of the court, then, in case of an acquittal, there cannot be another trial of the party for the same offence in the common tribunals of justice, because it is repugnant to the whole theory of the common law, that a man should be brought into jeopardy of life or limb more than once for the same offence. A plea of acquittal is, therefore, an absolute bar against any second prosecution for the same offence. If the court of impeachments is merely to pronounce a sentence of removal from office and the other disabilities; then it is indispensable, that provision should be made, that the common tribunals of justice should be at liberty to entertain jurisdiction of the offence, for the purpose of inflicting the common punishment applicable to unofficial offenders. Otherwise, it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether, consistently with the great maxim above mentioned, established for the security of the life and limbs and liberty of the citizen, a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments. And if no such second trial could be had, then the grossest official offenders might escape without any substantial punishment, even for crimes, which would subject their fellow citizens to capital punishment. [emphasis added]
§394. The constitution, then, having provided, that judgment upon impeachments shall not extend further, than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold office, (which, however afflictive to an ambitious and elevated mind, would be scarcely felt, as a punishment, by the profligate and the base,) has wisely subjected the party to trial in the common criminal tribunals, for the purpose of receiving such punishment, as ordinarily belongs to the offence. Thus, for instance, treason, which by our laws is a capital offence, may receive its appropriate punishment ; and bribery in high officers, which otherwise would be a mere disqualification from office, may have the measure of its infamy dealt out to it with the same unsparing severity, which attends upon other and humbler offenders.
How the cowardly, weasel-like jellyfish of a man “Moscow Mitch, the Bitch” McConnell could POSSIBLY use the word “vindicate” in reference to the United States Constitution is beyond the scope of imagination – however derelict and perverted it may be – and it is definitely most perverted.
McConnell wrote “Our job wasn’t to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate’s first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution.” -and- that “The text is unclear” about impeachment, whether “the Senate can try and convict former officers.”
McConnell had also earlier written a “dear colleague” letter to his fellow Banana Republicans in the Senate, in which he wrote in pertinent part that “I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal…”
His mind is like concrete – thoroughly mixed, and permanently set.
The cases of Tennessee United States Senator William Blount – impeached July 7, 1797, on charges of conspiring to assist in Great Britain’s attempt to seize Spanish-controlled territories in modern-day Florida and Louisiana, tried December 17, 1798–January 14, 1799 – and Ulysses Grant’s Secretary of War William Belknap – who tendered his resignation March 2, 1876 only moments before the House impeached him, was tried March 3–August 1, 1876 – demonstrate very clearly that officials may be tried on impeachment charges after they’re out of office. Or else, it completely absolves any official of any responsibility for any act of criminal wrong-doing while in office. It is the intellectual and moral equivalent of saying “so-and-so doesn’t live in Texas anymore, and moved to Minnesota 10 years ago, so s/he can’t be tried for murder or any crimes committed while residing in Texas.”
To assert as much is so absurdly preposterous that it defies imagination.
It’s an ethically reprehensible, morally wrong and judiciously untenable to deny anyone – including society – justice. And that is, in effect, what has happened with Donald Trump; society has been denied justice for the reprehensible, morally repugnant, and outright illegal acts of Donald Trump while in office as the President.
McConnell claims that Trump can be tried in other courts, and cites Justice Story’s writing that:
“There is also much force in the remark, that an impeachment is a proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person, nor his property ; but simply divests him of his political capacity.” –– §406, chapter X, book III, p289
“And the final judgment is confined to a removal from, and disqualification for, office ; thus limiting the punishment to such modes of redress, as are peculiarly fit for a political tribunal to administer, and as will secure the public against political injuries. In other respects the offence is left to be disposed of by the common tribunals of justice, accord- ing to the laws of the land, upon an indictment found by a grand jury, and a trial by jury of peers, before whom the party is to stand for his final deliverance, like his fellow citizens.” –– §407, chapter X, book III, p290
But, rest assured: Trump is completely free and clear of any charges related to impeachment. However, there are other charges at the state level which he may face for things he did while in office, including most notably, attempting to persuade Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to manipulate the results of the election in that state to throw the election to Trump’s favor. The Fulton County District Attorney, and Georgia State Attorney General are investigating that matter.
1. To clear of accusation,blame,suspicion, or doubtwithsupportingarguments or proof:“Oursocietypermitspeople to sueforlibel so thattheymayvindicatetheirreputations”(Irving R. Kaufman). 2. To defend,maintain, or insist on therecognition of (one’srights,forexample). 3. To demonstrate or provethevalue or validityof;justify:Theresults of theexperimentvindicatedheroptimism. 4. Obsolete To exactrevengefor;avenge.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.)
1. to clearfromguilt,accusation,blame,etc, as by evidence or argument
2. to providejustificationfor:hispromotionvindicatedhisunconventionalattitude.
3. to uphold,maintain, or defend (a cause,etc):to vindicate a claim.
4. (Law)Romanlaw to bring an action to regainpossession of (property)underclaim of legaltitle
5. (HistoricalTerms)Romanlaw to bring an action to regainpossession of (property)underclaim of legaltitle
6. rare to claim, as foroneself or another
7. obsolete to takerevenge on or for;punish
8. obsolete to setfree
(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014)
1. to clear, as from an accusation or suspicion: to vindicatesomeone’shonor.
“Moscow Mitch, the Bitch” McConnell is a Banana Republican from Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader, the biggest weasel in Washington, D.C., and an ardent, though oblique, supporter of the Cult of Trump.
Acquittal Vindicated the Constitution, Not Trump
wsj.com
Sunday, February 14, 2021
by Mitch McConnell
January 6 was a shameful day. A mob bloodied law enforcement and besieged the first branch of government. American citizens tried to use terrorism to stop a democratic proceeding they disliked.
There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone. His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended.
President-elect Donald Trump leaves a meeting with Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, at the U.S. Capitol November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC Zach Gibson/Getty Images
I was as outraged as any member of Congress. But senators take our own oaths. Our job wasn’t to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate’s first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, February 11, 2021
Larry Flynt, known globally as an entrepreneur and First Amendment champion, has died aged 78.
Mr. Flynt had a strong desire for service to the nation, and first enlisted in the United States Army using a false birth certificate when he was aged 15, and had dropped out of the 9th grade. After 7 months, in 1960, he was declared supernumerary and honorably discharged. He then repeated that performance, and joined the United States Navy, where he served for 5 years, and was honorably discharged in 1964 during the Vietnam War. While serving aboard the USS Enterprise as a radar operator, he was on duty during the operation to recover John Glenn’s space capsule after splashdown following his first space orbit.
Larry Flynt (center) makes his way through a crowd at a rally in Cincinnati in 1977.
He was a native Southerner, and was born and raised in Lakeville, Kentucky, in Magoffin County, a still-small village in the practical middle of nowhere, in the state’s eastern central portion, due east of Lexington about a 2-hour drive on Kentucky State Highway 9009.
Mr. Flynt may perhaps best be known as pornographer, and publisher of Hustler magazine, a title of which he was unashamed, and for which an attempted assassin’s bullet severed his spinal cord outside the courthouse in Gwinnett County Georgia, on March 6, 1978, where he was facing obscenity charges, which he won. From that point on, he was never able to walk, and relied upon a wheelchair for mobility, albeit, a custom-made, gold-plated one.
For many years thereafter, Mr. Flynt’s sniper went undiscovered until an arrest for two unrelated killings elsewhere, when the suspect confessed to being Flynt’s shooter. White Supremacist John Paul Franklin said the reason he shot Flynt, was because he objected to photos in Hustler depicting interracial couples. He was executed by the state of Missouri in 2013 – an act which Mr. Flynt disapproved of as an opponent of the death penalty.
For the ignorant – and, that’s most people – it’s a SCOTUS ruling handed down June 17, 2019 that ruled that, “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech.”
In other words, Censorship laws DO NOT apply to the Private Sector.
Thank the so-called “conservative” Supremes who handed down that ruling. They are: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.
So, Mr. Dorsey, and every other private company does NOT have to abide by anti-censorship laws.
Furthermore, what in the hell is Ted Cruz doing meddling, trying to tell Twitter how to run their business? That jacked-up twat probably doesn’t even own one share of Twitter.
What fucking hypocrite that son-of-a-bitch is!
I’d have loved to have seen Mr. Dorsey ask Cruz that question – “Are you telling me how to run my business?” – and follow it up with this one:
“Exactly what laws are you accusing me, and/or my company, of breaking?”
Of course, the obvious answer is ‘none.’
And remember: This is Political Theater for Banana Republican Ted Cruz, who feigns not-so-righteous indignation on behalf of those who would vote for him in future elections, Presidential, or not. And chances are, we’ll see that Texas turd make a Presidential run for the border in 2024.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, January 12, 2021
For all the hoopla being raised by Banana Republicans parading as GOP types, including the Loser in Chief, about the decision Twitter made to cut him (and others) off from their private non-governmental service, and who are calling it “censorship,” the United States Supreme Court has some news for you:
Censorship laws DO NOT apply to the Private Sector.
Period.
If you don’t like it, take it up with those who decided it: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
In a Certiorari to The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, No. 17–1702, the court ruled that “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech,” and held that MNN (private nonprofit corporation, petitioner Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN)) was not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.
The court wrote further, that, “A private entity may qualify as a state actor when, as relevant here, the entity exercises “powers traditionally exclusively re-served to the State.” The precedent for that decision was rendered in the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352.
“The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 158.”
In the decision, the court wrote in part that,
“Under the state-action doctrine as it has been articulated and applied by our precedents, we conclude that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. Moreover, a private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. In operating the public access channels, MNN is a private actor, not a state actor, and MNN therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The background facts of the case which formed the basis of the suit are fairly straight-forward, and reads as follows:
“DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced public access programming in Manhattan. They made a film about MNN’s alleged neglect of the East Harlem community. Halleck submitted the film to MNN for airing on MNN’s public access channels, and MNN later televised the film. Afterwards, MNN fielded multiple complaints about the film’s content. In response, MNN temporarily suspended Halleck from using the public access channels. Halleck and Melendez soon became embroiled in another dispute with MNN staff. In the wake of that dispute, MNN ultimately suspended Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities. Halleck and Melendez then sued MNN, among other parties, in Federal District Court. The two producers claimed that MNN violated their First Amendment free-speech rights when MNN restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film.
“MNN moved to dismiss the producers’ First Amendment claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions on its editorial discretion. The District Court agreed with MNN and dismissed the producers’ First Amendment claim.
“The Second Circuit reversed in relevant part. 882 F. 3d 300, 308 (2018). In the majority opinion authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge Lohier, the court stated that the public access channels in Manhattan are a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. Reasoning that “public forums are usually operated by governments,” the court concluded that MNN is a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. Id., at 306–307. Judge Lohier added a concurring opinion, explaining that MNN also qualifies as a state actor for the independent reason that “New York City delegated to MNN the traditionally public function of administering and regulating speech in the public forum of Manhattan’s public access channels.” Id., at 309.
“Judge Jacobs dissented in relevant part, opining that MNN is not a state actor. He reasoned that a private entity’s operation of an open forum for speakers does not render the host entity a state actor. Judge Jacobs further stated that the operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function.
“We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether private operators of public access cable channels are state actors subject to the First Amendment. 586 U. S. __ (2018). Compare 882 F. 3d 300 (case below), with Wilcher v. Akron, 498 F. 3d 516 (CA6 2007); and Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995).”
Certiorari [pronounced “sir-sha-rar-ee”] is a writ [a written order issued by a court]seekingreview of a lowercourtdecision by a highercourt.
The decision in the case of TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., in which the Solicitor General for the State of Texas refused to sign onto, was short, sweet, and to the point.
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
The Current White House Occupant’s longtime friend Rudy Giuliani, and company (including the looney-tunes bad-conspiracy-peddling lady Sidney Powell), alleging fraud, tried in numerous states’ courts to have the certified election results overturned on the most inauspicious of grounds.
They failed in every one.
Even used coffee grounds would’ve had more substance than their arguments. Perhaps they should take a refresher course on the law, and maybe do a few practices before moot court.
What they called “fraud,” in the exceedingly vast majority of cases were simple clerical errors, minuscule issues, or minor oversights, and in no way was representative of any wholesale effort by any person, group, or organization to conduct or perpetrate fraud.
Every voting official in every beat, box, precinct, county, and state validated and verified that the election was conducted properly in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. And their statements were reinforced by the independent statement released by the nation’s top election security official with the Department of Homeland Security, as well as numerous other security and intelligence agencies which are charged with matters pertaining to national security.
A highly publicized and now, all-too-common, firing-by-Tweet by the Banana Republican POS45 of the Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Chris Krebs, our nation’s top Election Security Official at the Department of Homeland Security occurred when Director Krebs had the unmitigated audacity to speak the truth to the monstrous authoritarian power of the Liar in Chief, the CWHO POS45, that,
And frankly, in every court in which the Manipulator in Chief has had his Rudy Giuliani-led Goon Squad appear, they have testified, sworn, or affirmed under oath that they are NOT alleging fraud. To be under oath, and then lie before a judge – to commit perjury – is a severe crime with enormously negative consequences, and for a lawyer to lie before a judge is even worse, because they could lose their license to practice law. Giuliani has not done that. He has not committed perjury. And if he, or any other member of his team is to be believed, then we – like all other judges in all other courts in which he has appeared in this matter – should believe him when he testified in every case that fraud is not involved.
U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, an Obama appointee who is a longtime Republican, questioned Giuliani about whether the case he was bringing was a fraud case. Giuliani said, “This is not a fraud case.”
Judge Brann scolded Giuliani saying, “You’re alleging that the two individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote. But at bottom, you’re asking this court to invalidate more than 6.8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the Commonwealth. Could you tell me how this result could possibly be justified?”
There will be numerous articles written about the matter, and here are a few of the early ones. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, November 24, 2020
Wear a mask.
Yes, it’s just that simple.
None of this “I ain’t gonna’ wear a mask and you can’t make me, ‘cuz this is ‘Murka and we have FREEDOM!” kind of malarkey.
No, that simply won’t do.
Look out for A-number-one – yourself.
It’s like saying, wear gloves when you go outside, because it’s -30º below zero Fahrenheit. Protect yourself. Gloves only protect the person wearing them.
You see, even though we do have liberties – as good ol’ Justice Samuel Alito – a Bush II-appointed Supreme Court Judge who has been on the court since a 58–42 vote of Senate approval on January 31, 2006 – we also have limits. But Justice Alito doesn’t think so, and, has said as much.
It was the Supreme Jurists who gave We the People the nefariously infamous and disastrous rulings in:
• Citizens United v Federal Election Commission – essentially ruling that money is free speech;
• McCutchen v Federal Election Commission – essentially allowing unlimited money to be contributed to candidates/politicians, and;
• Shelby County, Alabama v Holder – essentially gutting the Voting Rights act by removing sections 4(b) and 5, which were its “heart and lungs,” whereupon the decision, many states enacted restrictive voting laws.
There are others, of course, but those three are perhaps the most notorious during the oversight of Chief Justice John Roberts.
And that was all in the name of “originalism” and “textualism,” the preferred interpretive modality of The Federalist Society.
So, it should come as no surprise that Alito – a longtime member of the Federalist Society, who said “I have been a member for many years,” and by his own admission has attended every annual meeting for the past 14 years – would sacrifice the greater good upon the altar of “originalism” to the god of individual liberty.
Where in our nation is the sense of shared sacrifice for the greater, common good? That some obviously think that they simply MUST have “freedom” to do whatever they want, when they want, where they want, without regard for anyone else is anathema and contrary to the very idea of a “united” states – e pluribus unum – though many, one. And of course, now, we’re paying for it. For if you’re gonna’ dance, you gotta’ pay the piper. And we’re dancing like mad. But the greatest problem is, eventually, there’s nobody to dance with, and the piper gets sick and dies.
But hey… “You danced like hell, didn’t you!?!,” read no headstone ever.
Of course, the members would recite a quote often misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, though historical researchers tell us that the phrase was Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Seems ol’ Teddy Boy got hot under the collar at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey during a Senatorial hearing today, Wednesday, 28 October 2020, which was conducted remotely because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Frustrated at the responses, Ted Cruz screamed out at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey,
“Who the hell elected you? Why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC, silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?”
Ol’ Ted should remember that “Freedom of Speech and of the Press” (First Amendment Rights) do NOT apply to businesses.
Only to the government.
The Press – and for all practical purposes, Twitter is considered part of the Press – is free to publish, or not, what they want. They are free to censor as much as they like, or not.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in March 2016. The Senate never voted on his nomination.
Led by Republican Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell, the Senate took no action on POTUS Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick B. Garland on March 16, 2016.
The last time the Senate had NOT considered a SCOTUS nominee was 61 years 4 months 8 days prior with Harlan Johnson, who was nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower on November 9, 1954.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Today, A.C. Barrett was administered the Constitutional oath as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court by SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.
She must still be administered the oath of office.
It’s only her SECOND job as a judge.
And she hasn’t even been a judge a total of 3 years yet!
Not even!!
Can you say “GREENHORN”? “Wet behind the ears”?
Recall that she came from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – her first job as a jurist, which Trump also gave her. No doubt, he’ll expect something in return.
Yesterday, the Senate confirmed her nomination along a party line vote, 52R-48D.
It only took 31 days from nomination to confirmation for the Republican Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell of Kentucky to ramrod her through the process – a record time. She must like being Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, October 22, 2020
It’s a good thing that American Presidents don’t nominate weirdos or extremists for the Supreme Court.
Amy Coney Barrett as Hannibal Lector, the psychotic, psychopathic weirdo in the movie series “Silence of the Lambs.”
People who have 7 kids – adopted, or not – are certainly outside the norm.
As is forbidding the use of birth control – and that’s almost exclusively a religious matter.
And now that businesses can have religion, which god do they worship – Mammon? Was it the Commerce Clause that Jesus died for? Or, was it people?
But after all, “businesses are people, my friend.”
And since money is free speech, what’s next?
To be frank, being outside the norm is not illegal in the United States.
It’s not illegal to be a weirdo.
Goodness knows, there are plenty of them in all 50 states.
Belonging to a weird religious cult shouldn’t disqualify one for service – at least according to the Constitution, which has a renown “no religious test” clause.
I mean, we could have, and there is no legal compunction forbidding, Moonies to serve us in our government – any government, federal, state, or local – and, that’s perfectly A-okay according to the Constitution – as it should be.
People who believe the Earth is flat could serve us in government – and while there’s not a “no scientific test” clause in our Constitution, I would imagine that most reasonable people would agree that, like the Moonies, those who believe the Earth is flat are weirdos, and extremists.
People who believe in alchemy – the fraudulent and disproven notion that gold can be made from lead, various ores, or things that do not contain elemental gold – could be elected, or appointed, and serve us in our government.
Why, even those who have belonged to the Ku Klux Klan have served on the Supreme Court – Hugo Black, an Alabamian.
And the virulently infamous racist George C. Wallace was elected as Alabama’s governor FOUR times.
Revealed: Ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse
by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday 21 Oct 2020, 0500 EDT
Last modified on Wednesday 21 Oct 2020, 2337 EDT
Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the supreme court has prompted former members of her secretive faith group, the People of Praise, to come forward and share stories about emotional trauma and – in at least one case – sexual abuse they claim to have suffered at the hands of members of the Christian group.
In the wake of the allegations, the Guardian has learned that the charismatic Christian organization, which is based in Indiana, has hired the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct an “independent investigation” into sexual abuse claims on behalf of People of Praise.
The historic sexual abuse allegations and claims of emotional trauma do not pertain specifically to Barrett, who has been a lifelong member of the charismatic group, or her family.
But some former members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood about the “community” of People of Praise ahead of Barrett’s expected confirmation by the Senate next week, after which she will hold the seat formerly held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Two people familiar with the matter say that more than two dozen former members of the faith group, many of whom say they felt “triggered” by Barrett’s nomination, are participating in a support group to discuss how the faith group affected their lives.
“The basic premise of everything at the People of Praise was that the devil controlled everything outside of the community, and you were ‘walking out from under the umbrella of protection’ if you ever left,” said one former member who called herself Esther, who had to join the group as a child but then left the organization. “I was OK with it being in a tiny little corner of Indiana, because a lot of weird stuff happens in tiny little corners in this country. But it’s just unfathomable to me – I can’t even explain just how unfathomable it is – that you would have a supreme court justice who is a card-carrying member of this community.”
Barrett was not asked about her involvement in People of Praise during her confirmation hearings last week, and has never included her involvement with the group in Senate disclosure forms, but has in the past emphasized that her religious faith as a devout Catholic would not interfere with her impartiality.
People of Praise is rooted in the rise of charismatic Christian communities in the late 1960s and 1970s, which Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, October 21, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary for her nomination to the United States Supreme Court
Much has been made in recent days about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Barrett has her critics. I am one. But there are other criticisms, including of the rushed process, which I too, hold. Rushed things hardly ever have good results.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has indicated that the full Senate will most likely have a vote on Judge Barrett on Monday, 26 October 2020 – a mere 31 days since her nomination on 26 September 2020. In stark contrast, her initial nomination to the Federal judiciary took 5 months 24 days.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published a paper entitled “Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee,” (R44235) first published on October 19, 2015, and updated periodically, and most recently on September 28, 2020, which answers some essentially basic questions about the nomination process, and provides background, and historical overview for the same. The “CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.”
Regarding Judge Barrett’s Judicial “style” which she and others call “textualism,” and or “originalism,” it seems to me to be a rather bizarre way to think of the document which forms the foundation of our government, which has endured since it was written and ratified in the late 1700’s. Doubtless, the Founders, and those alive then could not begin to conceive of plucking stardust from an asteroid (which NASA recently did) to analyze, communicating instantaneously with someone on the opposite side of the globe using video teleconferencing on a hand-held device, traveling faster than the speed of sound, splitting the atom, and using laser light to communicate, so why would we begin to imagine that we should adhere to some arbitrary, or even capricious standard to interpret what it means to, or for us, today?
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot expressed it best in this brief story, why “originalism” and “textualism” are misguided rules.
CHICAGO (WBBM NEWSRADIO) — Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she is preparing for when Amy Coney Barrett takes her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. She was asked to share her thoughts Tuesday on the judge and minced no words.
Mayor Lightfoot was first asked if she views the U.S. Constitution as Judge Barrett does, as an “originalist.”
Originalists firmly believe all statements in the U.S. Constitution must be strictly interpreted based on the original understanding at the time the Constitution was adopted. They do not believe in the concept of a “Living Constitution” that can be interpreted in the context of current times.
“You ask a gay, black woman if she is an originalist? No, ma’am, I am not,” Lightfoot laughed.
“That the Constitution didn’t consider me a person in any way, shape or form because I’m a woman, because I’m black, because I’m gay? I am not an originalist. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that it is a document that the founders intended to evolve and what they did was set the framework for how our country was going to be different from any other.”
“But originalists say that, ‘Let’s go back to 1776 and whatever was there in the original language, that’s it.’ That language excluded, now, over 50 percent of the country. So, no I’m not an originalist.”
Mayor Lightfoot said she’s deeply worried about some of Judge Barrett’s stated views, for instance, being against gay marriage.
“I deeply worry about this woman’s stated views. She’s on the record on a number of different things, not the least of which is thinking that gay marriage is something that shouldn’t be countenanced. And she’s got soulmates in Justice Thomas and others, who think that the decision by the Supreme Court…should somehow be rolled back,” Lightfoot said.
“What should I tell my daughter — that somehow now my wife and I are no longer married? That we’re no longer legitimately recognized in the eyes of the law? That is dangerous, dangerous territory. And what about a woman’s right to choose? We’re gonna keep re-litigating this issue, and we’re gonna make abortion illegal, as Amy Coney Barrett thinks it should be?”
The Mayor also called Republicans “hypocrites” for pushing the Barrett nomination when they put off taking up the Merrick Garland nomination by President Obama.
“The hypocrisy is something that is a bitter pill for me to swallow,” Lightfoot said.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Wednesday, October 21, 2020
This is what the soft hatred of bigotry cloaked in religious garb looks like.
This revelation should come as no surprise, that a radicalized right-wing religious zealot should serve at a high level on the Board of Directors for three schools in three separate states under a common umbrella would discriminate.
Below her image are three more images of the same type thing.
This person must NOT be confirmed to the nation’s highest court!
And toward that end, perhaps it may alarm you to know that a Ku Klux Klansman has been seated on the nation’s highest court.
You can read Matt Reimann’s excellently succinct August 15, 2017 article via the link above. Of note, Mr. Justice Black was also a “textualist” on matters of interpretation of the Constitution – the same thing late Justice Scalia said he was, and which Judge Barrett says she is.
“CHICAGO (WBBM NEWSRADIO) — Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she is preparing for when Amy Coney Barrett takes her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. She was asked to share her thoughts Tuesday on the judge and minced no words.
“Mayor Lightfoot was first asked if she views the U.S. Constitution as Judge Barrett does, as an “originalist.”
“Originalists firmly believe all statements in the U.S. Constitution must be strictly interpreted based on the original understanding at the time the Constitution was adopted. They do not believe in the concept of a “Living Constitution” that can be interpreted in the context of current times.
““You ask a gay, black woman if she is an originalist? No, ma’am, I am not,” Lightfoot laughed.
““That the Constitution didn’t consider me a person in any way, shape or form because I’m a woman, because I’m black, because I’m gay? I am not an originalist. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that it is a document that the founders intended to evolve and what they did was set the framework for how our country was going to be different from any other.
““But originalists say that, ‘Let’s go back to 1776 and whatever was there in the original language, that’s it.’ That language excluded, now, over 50 percent of the country. So, no I’m not an originalist.”
“Mayor Lightfoot said she’s deeply worried about some of Judge Barrett’s stated views, for instance, being against gay marriage.
““I deeply worry about this woman’s stated views. She’s on the record on a number of different things, not the least of which is thinking that gay marriage is something that shouldn’t be countenanced. And she’s got soulmates in Justice Thomas and others, who think that the decision by the Supreme Court…should somehow be rolled back,” Lightfoot said.
““What should I tell my daughter — that somehow now my wife and I are no longer married? That we’re no longer legitimately recognized in the eyes of the law? That is dangerous, dangerous territory. And what about a woman’s right to choose? We’re gonna keep re-litigating this issue, and we’re gonna make abortion illegal, as Amy Coney Barrett thinks it should be?”
“The Mayor also called Republicans “hypocrites” for pushing the Barrett nomination when they put off taking up the Merrick Garland nomination by President Obama.
“”The hypocrisy is something that is a bitter pill for me to swallow,” Lightfoot said.”
The September 13, 1937 front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette printed an image of Black’s KKK resignation letter.
“Hugo Black had been associate justice of the Supreme Court for less than a month when the news broke. In September of 1937, an exposé by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette found proof of Black’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan. He had joined in September of 1923, and resigned in July, 1925, as one of his first moves before running for one of Alabama’s U.S. Senate seat. Ironically, the smoking gun was Black’s resignation letter, written in legible longhand on Klan stationery, which appeared on the paper’s front page.
“Franklin Roosevelt, who nominated Hugo Black, was implicated in the scandal, which threatened to have far-reaching consequences for the president’s New Deal image. What was once seen as shrewd politics — the New Deal-friendly textualist was confirmed with a 63–16 vote — had become a disgrace. “Millions of Americans,” wrote one Indiana newspaper, “will not forget this sole tangible accomplishment of President Roosevelt’s attempted ‘liberalization’ of the Supreme Court.”
“When asked by the press to remark on the scandal, Roosevelt brushed questions aside, saying, “I only know what I have read in the newspapers. I know that the stories are appearing serially and their publication is not complete. Mr. Justice Black is in Europe where, undoubtedly, he cannot get the full text of these articles. Until such time as he returns, there is no further comment to be made.”“
apnews.com
Barrett Was Trustee At Private School With Anti-Gay Policies
By Michelle R. Smith and Michael Biesecker
October 21, 2020 at 10:51:08 AM CDT
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom.
The policies that discriminated against LGBTQ people and their children were in place for years at Trinity Schools Inc., both before Barrett joined the board in 2015 and during the time she served.
The three schools, in Indiana, Minnesota and Virginia, are affiliated with People of Praise, an insular community rooted in its own interpretation of the Bible, of which Barrett and her husband have been longtime members. At least three of the couple’s seven children have attended the Trinity School at Greenlawn, in South Bend, Indiana.
The AP spoke with more than two dozen people who attended or worked at Trinity Schools, or former members of People of Praise. They said the community’s teachings have been consistent for decades: Homosexuality is an abomination against God, sex should occur only within marriage, and marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Interviewees told the AP that Trinity’s leadership communicated anti-LGBTQ policies and positions in meetings, one-on-one conversations, enrollment agreements, employment agreements, handbooks and written policies — including those in place when Barrett was an active member of the board.
“Trinity Schools does not unlawfully discriminate with respect to race, color, gender, national origin, age, disability, or other legally protected classifications under applicable law, with respect to the administration of its programs,” said Jon Balsbaugh, president of Trinity Schools Inc., which runs the three campuses, in an email.
The actions are probably legal, experts said. Scholars said the school’s and organization’s teachings on homosexuality and treatment of LGBTQ people are harsher than those of the mainstream Catholic church. In a documentary released Wednesday, Pope Francis endorsed civil unions for the first time as pope, and said in an interview for the film that, “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God.”
Barrett’s views on whether LGBTQ people should have the same constitutional rights as other Americans became a focus last week in her Senate confirmation hearing. But her longtime membership in People of Praise and her leadership position at Trinity Schools were not discussed, even though most of the people the AP spoke with said her deep and decades-long involvement in the community signals she would be hostile to gay rights if confirmed.
Suzanne B. Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law School who studies sexuality and gender law, said private schools have wide legal latitude to set admissions criteria. And, she said, Trinity probably isn’t covered by recent Supreme Court rulings outlawing employment discrimination against LGBTQ people because of its affiliation with a religious community. But, she added, cases addressing those questions are likely to come before the high court in the near future, and Barrett’s past oversight of Trinity’s discriminatory policies raises concerns.
“When any member of the judiciary affiliates themselves with an institution that is committed to discrimination on any ground, it is important to look more closely at how that affects the individual’s ability to give all cases a fair hearing,” Goldberg said.
The AP sent detailed questions for Barrett to the White House press office. Rather than providing direct answers, White House spokesman Judd Deere instead accused AP of attacking the nominee.
“Because Democrats and the media are unable to attack Judge Barrett’s sterling qualifications, they have instead turned to pathetic personal attacks on her children’s Christian school, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that religious schools are protected by the First Amendment,” Deere said in an email.
Nearly all the people interviewed for this story are gay or said they have gay family members. They used words such as “terrified,” “petrified” and “frightening” to describe the prospect of Barrett on the high court. Some of them know Barrett, have mutual friends with her or even have been in her home dozens of times. They describe her as “nice” or “a kind person,” but told the AP they feared others would suffer if Barrett tries to implement People of Praise’s views on homosexuality on the Supreme Court.
About half of the people asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation against themselves or their families from other members of People of Praise, or because they had not come out to everyone in their lives. Among those interviewed were people who attended all three of its schools and who had been active in several of its 22 branches. Their experiences stretched back as far as the 1970s, and as recently as 2020.
NOT WELCOME
Tom Henry was a senior at Trinity School in Eagan, Minnesota, serving as a student ambassador, providing tours to prospective families, when Barrett was an active member of the board.
In early 2017, a lesbian parent asked him whether Trinity was open to gay people and expressed concern about how her child would be treated.
Henry, who is gay, said he didn’t know what to say. He had been instructed not to answer questions about People of Praise or Trinity’s “politics.”
The next day, Henry recalled, he asked the school’s then-headmaster, Jon Balsbaugh, how he should have answered. Henry said Balsbaugh pulled a document out of his desk drawer that condemned gay marriage, and explained it was a new policy from People of Praise that was going into the handbook.
“He looked me right in the eye and said, the next time that happens, you tell them they would not be welcome here,” Henry recounted. “And he said to me that trans families, gay families, gay students, trans students would not feel welcome at Trinity Schools. And then he said, ‘Do we understand each other?’ And I said, yes. And I left. And then I quit the student ambassadors that day.”
Balsbaugh, who has since been promoted to president of Trinity Schools Inc., says his recollection of the conversation “differs considerably,” but declined Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, October 19, 2020
With the nomination and practical acceptance of Amy Coney Barrett being ramrodded through roughshod by the Republicans, it’s almost a practical assurance that the Judge from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will fill the seat vacated by the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So if she’s approved to be a Justice on the Supreme Court, it will have been done in less time than it took for her original nomination to be confirmed to the Federal judiciary – 5 months 24 days, versus 3 weeks 3 days/24 calendar days (to date), and counting.
Amy Coney Barrett at investiture to the Federal bench, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Proceeding therefrom, it now appears that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will no longer be tilting at windmills, but instead, will be significantly tilting toward the far right side of the political spectrum – the right-wing nut job side.
So, given that Judge Barrett, whom for one year clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia, well-known for his interpretive style on the court – which he called “originalism,” and “textualism” – we can expect more nonsensical rulings in the 40+ years to come, the time for which she could reasonably be expected to rule.
Just like Neil Gorsuch’s infamous “Frozen Trucker” case.
And just so you’ll know – not that you would know – there’s a rather telling, and disturbing side of Judge A.C. Barrett’s judicial perspective, and interpretive style.
Case in point to illustrate: Kanter v Barr – a case in which she dissented involving a man who pleaded guilty to one count of a Federal Felony – mail fraud involving Medicare.
In the court’s ruling – an “en banc” decision, involving three judges – they wrote that: Read the rest of this entry »
by Stephen Fowler, Georgia Public Broadcasting
Oct. 17, 2020
5 a.m. EDT
Congress works for you. Learn how to be a better boss with the User’s Guide to Democracy, a series of personalized emails about what your representatives actually do.
This article is co-published by ProPublica, Georgia Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio.
Kathy spotted the long line of voters as she pulled into the Christian City Welcome Center about 3:30 p.m., ready to cast her ballot in the June 9 primary election.
Hundreds of people were waiting in the heat and rain outside the lush, tree-lined complex in Union City, an Atlanta suburb with 22,400 residents, nearly 88% of them Black. She briefly considered not casting a ballot at all, but decided to stay.
By the time she got inside more than five hours later, the polls had officially closed and the electronic scanners were shut down. Poll workers told her she’d have to cast a provisional ballot, but they promised that her vote would be counted.
“I’m now angry again, I’m frustrated again, and now I have an added emotion, which is anxiety,” said Kathy, a human services worker, recalling her emotions at the time. She asked that her full name not be used because she fears repercussions from speaking out. “I’m wondering if my ballot is going to count.”
By the time the last voter finally got inside the welcome center to cast a ballot, it was the next day, June 10.
The clogged polling locations in metro Atlanta reflect an underlying pattern: The number of places to vote has shrunk statewide, with little recourse. Although the reduction in polling places has taken place across racial lines, it has primarily caused long lines in non-White neighborhoods where voter registration has surged and more residents cast ballots in person on Election Day. The pruning of polling places started long before the pandemic, which has discouraged people from voting in person.
In Georgia, considered a battleground state for control of the White House and U.S. Senate, the difficulty of voting in Black communities like Union City could possibly tip the results on Nov. 3. With massive turnout expected, lines could be even longer than they were for the primary, despite a rise in mail-in voting and Georgians already turning out by the hundreds of thousands to cast ballots early.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder decision in 2013 eliminated key federal oversight of election decisions in states with histories of discrimination, Georgia’s voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million people, yet polling locations have been cut statewide by nearly 10%, according to an analysis of state and local records by Georgia Public Broadcasting and ProPublica. Much of the growth has been fueled by younger, non-White voters, especially in nine metro Atlanta counties, where four out of five new voters were non-White, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s office.
The metro Atlanta area has been hit particularly hard. The nine counties — Fulton, Gwinnett, Forsyth, DeKalb, Cobb, Hall, Cherokee, Henry and Clayton — have nearly half of the state’s active voters but only 38% of the polling places, according to the analysis.
As a result, the average number of voters packed into each polling location in those counties grew by nearly 40%, from about 2,600 in 2012 to more than 3,600 per polling place as of Oct. 9, the analysis shows. In addition, Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, October 15, 2020
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice, has dodged the question of recusal on any potential case which might come before her which would be brought by the President on any matter pertaining to the 2020 General Election. She dodged because she replied that she would follow the law of recusal.
She said in part that, “I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. … I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”
When asked about the law of recusal, she said in part that, “I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting the entire process.”
When specifically asked about election cases, she stated to the effect that it wasn’t a question she could answer “in the abstract.”
Obviously, she is aware of the law’s requirements, but what is concerning is if she will obey (follow) the law.
There could be an argument made that she has no interest in the case, per se, at least insofar as she was not a member of the President’s administration, nor had she done any work for him.
There are several disconcerting aspects of this matter, none of which concern her judicial temperament, nor her judicial philosophy, nor her rulings. First is that she has allowed herself to be used by the GOP and the President to force her, as their nominee, through the confirmation process in the midst of an ongoing election. Already, millions of people have voted.
Secondarily is Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s actions, in conjunction with the President’s efforts, to rush the nominee through the process. Rushed things are rarely done with high quality, or long-term thoughtfulness. Further, that “Moscow” Mitch McConnell has deliberately stalled, or “killed” well over 400 bills from the House of Representatives is prima facie evidence of his contempt for the Constitution, and legislative process. And that he has similarly refused to act upon any bill which would first, and foremost, deal with the matter of the coronavirus, aka COVID-19, and the needs of the people for their health, their needs for economic sustenance, and more, is again, hard-core evidence not merely of a lack of caring, but is an abandonment of his responsibilities to the American people, not merely to the citizens of Kentucky whose interests he is supposed to represent.
To the extent that Amy Coney Barrett participates in that wretched process, she is complicit in it all. She has, in effect, become a political tool, and is doing so knowingly.
Were she to have requested a delay of her hearings until after the election – a delay of a few mere weeks – she would likely have not garnered such opposition. For she is, in my considered estimation, more than a well-qualified jurist, and would be a good addition to the United States Supreme Court. Even 88 University of Notre Dame faculty members wrote an open letter to her, stating that it was “vital” that she “issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.”
In the letter, those faculty members also wrote in part that, “The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice,” and stated that “you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice.”
And goodness knows, we need more legal diversity on the nation’s highest court, and I don’t mean to refer to sex, ethnicity, or any physical factor – I mean to refer to the schools of law which the nominees have attended. And as she herself has noted,
“I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.”
Would she be my pick?
Perhaps not, but again, it is the rushed nature of this event which is most exceedingly distasteful. Hypocrisy has neither a pleasing aroma, nor taste.
Finally, there are other matters concerning the Supreme Court which desperately need to be addressed, which undoubtedly will not have an opportunity to be discussed simply because of the Senate Majority Leader’s deliberately destructive tactics to “kill” legislation.
Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 116th Congress (2019-2020)
And so, for your benefit, here is the law of recusal to which she referred. You can, and should, read it for yourself. It’s not difficult to understand, and is straightforward, without mumbo jumbo jargon.
§455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, October 8, 2020
True to form, radicalized, far right-wing political extremists are portraying Judge A.C. Barrett as a victim. The “poor, pitiful me” routine has taken hold in the GOP, Tea Party and other such ilk. Self loathing has never been more popular, it seems. But it does seem rather peculiar that it should find residence in the right, when for years we’ve been told that it is the political left who are such whiners and crybabies.
Aaaah… the political hypocrisy! You can smell the stench of its cooking all the way from the banks of the Potomac in Washington, D.C.
And the blindly vicious ambition! Its unmitigated violence permeates the miasmatic ether surrounding the city, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay, and beyond.
While “organic,” such contaminants are far from resembling a healthy backyard compost pile where grass clippings, leaves, eggshells, coffee grounds, vegetable peelings, and other such items begin their transformation process to become rich humus, fertile soil for vegetable and plant growth. Their forms, while neither ephemeral, nor impermanent, per se, are causative of other illnesses and diseases transmitted even to the 3rd and 4th generations, and beyond – all preventable – and must be guarded against by every generation.
The only difference being, is that disorders caused by those infections are preventable by conscience, not by manufacture. And the inoculation against such infection and affliction is love.
“Contrary to the impression many have of Barrett, what is most striking about her record is not the looming specter of theocracy, but her enduring opposition to what many Christians believe justice and mercy demand, presented under the aspect of originalism — an ersatz catechism, written in the pages of her judicial opinions, that fuses the political aims of the religious right with the constitutional theories of the late Antonin Scalia.”
There is NO “war” against religious faith in this nation, nor has there ever been. Neither has there ever been any alleged “war against Christmas” by our government, nor by its elected officials and administrators… like Federal judges, and other lifetime appointees. Although, it is curious how an officially non-sectarian, non-religious government sponsors a Federal holiday acknowledging a deity, thereby giving deference, homage and support to the same.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Rather, our Founders, not all of whom were religious-minded, were cognizant of others’ desires to express themselves through the practice of a privately-held conviction of faith – if they so chose – collectively and individually, according to the dictates of their conscience, and allowed to the greatest extent possible the practice of the same, without impingement upon the practices of government, and without obtruding upon others, who might, or not, agree with them. The Founders thought that aspect of individual liberty was so inherent, so inviolable, so sacrosanct to the public good, that they ensconced it, along with a few others, and made it and them First, and foremost among all others which followed.
Our fundamental foundational governing document, the Constitution, ensures and guarantees rights to Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Alternate headline: Trump Fucks Over America
“I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business,” Tweeted his highness, the Twitterer in Chief, and Chief Twidiot on Twitter the day after returning from a weekend hospital stay at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center where he was treated for COVID-19.
His hypocrisy marks a 180° reversal from the weekend when Trump pushed for negotiators to reach an agreement, telling them to “GET IT DONE.”
The SOB in Chief just cut his own throat -and- that of every other GOPer in every down-ballot race in America.
He CONTINUES to shoot himself in the feet, and America in the head and back – execution style.
Expect a🌊BLUE🌊TSUNAMI🌊in November!!
By his intransigence, he has now set America on a guaranteed one-way course to GREAT DEPRESSION II.
And that EVEN AFTER Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warned of PERMANENT economic damage if additional support was not forthcoming.
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, September 25, 2020
The Supreme Court, and the legal profession in general, are steeped in tradition – perhaps even more so than the United States Senate.
If you’ve ever heard any of the oral arguments before the nation’s highest court, you’ve likely heard the opening remark, “Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.”
However, if you’ve never heard an oral argument, you’re fortunate to be living in this age, because oral arguments in the nation’s highest court are recorded and archived for posterity sake. Audio recordings of the arguments may be found Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, September 21, 2020
It’s said that, “a picture is worth 1000 words.”
In that case, here are two.
And 822 words.
The Supreme Court may be about to take a hard-right turn If Donald Trump manages to install a new justice
September 21st 2020
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, the trailblazing liberal justice who died aged 87 on September 18th, will lie in repose at the top of the Supreme Court’s steps on Wednesday and Thursday. As mourners pay their respects, Donald Trump and his advisers will be huddling a few miles across town to pick a nominee to replace her. The choice, Mr Trump said on September 21st, will be revealed on Friday or Saturday — days before Ms Ginsburg is to be buried in a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery alongside Martin, her spouse of 56 years, an Army veteran who died in 2010.
Though she gained widespread celebrity as a lion of the liberal legal movement later in her career, Ms Ginsburg arrived at the Supreme Court as a moderate in 1993. The president who tapped her, Bill Clinton, said “she cannot be called a liberal or a conservative” as she has “proved herself too thoughtful for such labels”. Indeed, several progressive groups, including the Alliance for Justice, expressed misgivings at the time that she might not be bold enough on the bench.
Those worries gradually ebbed as Ms Ginsburg began a steady path to the left, leaving her, at the end of her career, paired with Sonia Sotomayor as the more progressive half of the liberal quartet of justices. But with Mr Trump in the White House Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, September 20, 2020
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite, and a liar… just like his narcissistic miscreant misleader, Donald “DJ” Trump, aka POS45.
In comments lasting about 6 minutes on March 10, 2016, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham said in pertinent part,
“I want you to use my words against me:
If there’s a Republican president in 2016,
and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term,
you can say ‘Lindsey Graham said,
‘Let’s let the next President,
whoever it might be,
make that nomination,”
and you could use my words against me,
and you’d be absolutely right.”
– South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, to the Senate Judiciary Committee March, 10, 2016
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor in Chief of The Atlantic, at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C., Graham said in pertinent part that,
Here’s an excerpt of the pertinent part of that interview which has become part of an ad exposing Graham’s lying hypocrisy, and opposing his re-election.
Things are different now, and that instead, he will support the President’s nominee.
Here’s a recent Tweet published by him Saturday, 19 September 2020 of him attempting to explain away his twice former promises and position to adhere to his promise of not promoting a SCOTUS nominee during an election season.
As to my view of filling a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, I’d encourage you to review these most recent statements.
And that’s but one reason why the GOP will lose the Senate, gain the White House, and strengthen their hold on the House of Representatives.
Sen. Graham’s challenge: Fill a court seat and save his own
By Meg Kinnard
Sunday, 20 September 2020
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Few members of the Republican Party have taken a political journey as long as Lindsey Graham’s, from ridiculing Donald Trump as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” to becoming one of the president’s fiercest defenders in Congress, as well as a regular golf partner.
Graham has long been known to have flexible politics, and that has served him well in South Carolina for decades. But this November may be his toughest test yet as he seeks reelection and explains to voters how, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he will push for Trump’s Supreme Court nominee on the president’s aggressive timetable, when the senator was so clearly — even defiantly — opposed to that approach as recently as two years ago, even demanding that he be called out for hypocrisy if he switched.
He switched.
“The rules have changed as far as I’m concerned,” Graham said Saturday.
It falls to Graham, as committee chairman, to vet Trump’s pick to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, September 20, 2020
“I want you to use my words against me:
If there’s a Republican president in 2016,
and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term,
you can say ‘Lindsey Graham said,
‘Let’s let the next President,
whoever it might be,
make that nomination,”
and you could use my words against me,
and you’d be absolutely right.”
– South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, to the Senate Judiciary Committee March, 10, 2016
BACKGROUND: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had earlier died unexpectedly during his sleep while on a hunting trip in Texas on February 3, 2016, thus creating an opening on the nation’s highest court. Within an hour of the national notice of Justice Scalia’s death, Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) had issued a statement to the effect that he would not grant any consideration (floor vote) to any nominee from President Barack Obama.
In that speech, Biden argued that then-President George H.W. Bush should wait until after the November General Election to put forth any nominee to any potential Supreme Court vacancy which might arise during the summer, or if not, should establish a precedent, and nominate a moderate whom would be acceptable to the then-Democrat-controlled Senate.
Republicans later began to refer to that concept as the “Biden rule,” though Biden reiterated that he had always thought that the President and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” when considering judicial nominees.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, (R)
Linked above from C-SPAN are South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s full remarks (approximately 6 minutes) to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2016 on the matter of consideration of SCOTUS nominees in an election year.
In his remarks, he noted that he had voted FOR Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor NOT because he agreed with them ideologically, but because he thought they were qualified.
In those same remarks, he also warned also of an increasing tendency of the Senate toward rancor, like in the House of Representatives, and of ideological partisanship accompanying judicial nominees, some of which COULD in the FUTURE be significantly detrimental to the nation because of a nominee’s unfitness for the bench, and an ideological unwillingness of the controlling party to compromise, or for an unwillingness of dissenting members in the controlling party to vote against an unqualified candidate put forth by the controlling party.
C-SPAN VIDEO DESCRIPTION: The Senate Judiciary Committee held a business meeting on whether to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court justice nomination to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said Read the rest of this entry »
The so-called “McConnell Rule,” which was actually no rule at all, but a political ploy by the Republican Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky, should be considered.
After all, turn about it fair play, and paybacks are hell.
But, before we continue in detail, NPR, which first reported the story of Justice Ginsburg’s death, wrote this:
“Just days before her death,
as her strength waned,
Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera:
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Justice Ginsburg was referring to comments that McConnell made following the unexpected death of SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, while on a hunting trip in Texas on February 13, 2016.
And I mean to refer specifically to those comments.
Scalia’s body wasn’t even proverbially cold yet, and preparations for disposition of his mortal remains, and burial hadn’t even begun to be made, and the noxious Senator from Kentucky was already shooting off his mouth. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Tuesday, September 1, 2020
Jerry Falwell, Jr. in the Bahamas July 2019, Instagram post
If “the farmer and the cowman should be friends,” then the pornographer and the preacher should be too.
Turns out, they did become friends.
By now, if you’ve not heard the name Jerry Falwell, some might wonder what cave in Tora Bora you’ve been hiding in for the last 40 years, or so.
And, if you enjoy any late-night teevee humorists – such as Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Jimmy Fallon, Trevor Noah, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, Samantha Bee, Bill Maher, etc., Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Conan O’Brien are ancient history – you should continue reading.
And if you don’t, you should STILL continue reading.
Why?
Freedom.
Because you do like it that way, don’t you?
Publisher Larry Flynt with the parody ad mocking Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sr., which initiated Falwell’s lawsuit against the magazine Hustler, and Flynt, its publisher. The case wound its way to the Supreme Court, and enjoyed a rare unanimous decision in Flynt’s favor.
First, some background:
There are now three men who’ve been named Jerry Falwell:
1.) The Reverend Jerry Falwell, Sr. (1933-2007)
2.) Jerry Falwell, Jr., (b.1962) an attorney/real estate developer who is the first born, and son of Jerry Falwell
3.) Jerry “Trey” Falwell, III (b.), the first born and son of Jerry Falwell, Jr.
It’s all your fault.
The Reverend started it all.
He started Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia.
He started the now-long-defunct religious political action group called the “Moral Majority.”
And, he started Liberty University.
He handed the keys of Liberty University to Jerry, Jr., while he handed the keys of the Thomas Road Baptist Church to son Jonathan.
The parody/satire ad in Hustler magazine that started it all. The parody is clearly marked as such at the center bottom, and is listed in the contents section as parody/satire, and states “not to be taken seriously.”
Good ol’ country boys
Like Falwell, Larry Flynt was good Southern boy, having been born in the hills and hollers of Eastern Kentucky in Lakeville, Magoffin County, while Falwell was born in Lynchburg, Virginia – about 216 miles from each other as the crow flies… or a 6+/- hours drive not-so directly East-West from each other. There’s hills and hollers throughout the area, you know. They happen to be called the Appalachians, for short. It’s hard to have a straight road in those mountainous areas.
Like Father, Not Like Son
Part of the greater underlying irony of the matter involving the Rev. Falwell, Sr., is that Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Saturday, August 15, 2020
Here’s another argument for the jus soli case for citizenship, versus the jus sanguinis.
Just in the case you may not be aware of the two terms’ meaning, they are Latin literally interpreted as “law of soil,” and “law of blood,” more commonly referred to as “by soil,” and “by blood,” respectively, and refers to the principle of citizenship being obtained from the location of one’s birth, and of citizenship obtained through ancestry of one’s parents’ citizenship.
Here’s a simple explanation to further clarify:
• Under the principle of jus soli, one who is born in San Francisco, California is a citizen of that city, state, and of the United States.
• Under the principle of jus sanguinis, one who is born in San Francisco to parents of Indian and Jamaican extraction is Indian and Jamaican.
Once again, jus soli refers to “the principle that a person’s nationality at birth is determined by the place of birth,” while jus sanguinis refers to “the principle that a person’s nationality at birth is the same as that of his natural parents.”
Historically, jus sanguinis came from Roman law, whereas jus soli came from English common law.
Before proceeding further, some background is helpful for greater understanding.
Kamala Harris with her Jamaican grandmother Miss Chrishy in Browns Town Jamaica
The jus soli system, sometimes also referred to as the “birthright citizenship” system, is common in developed nations that desire to increase the number of their own citizens (population).
A few nations that use jus soli are:
• Argentina
• Barbados
• Brazil
• Canada
• Colombia
• Jamaica
• Mexico
• Pakistan
• Peru
• United States
• Uruguay
Several European nations follow the principle of jus sanguinis, which generally means that citizenship is conferred by birth, and is obtained from a parent who is already a citizen of, or naturalized in that nation. The principle of jus sanguinis is contrary to jus soli because, according to the principle, the mere fact that a person is born in a nation does not, in and of itself, confer citizenship.
Some European nations that use jus sanguinis are:
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Ireland
• Luxembourg
• Portugal
• Romania
• Spain
• United Kingdom
Some nations have a blend of the two – soli, and sanguinis – although one is typically predominate.
If a nation adheres to the “jus sanguinis” or right of blood system, the child inherits a parent’s citizenship. So, for example, if your father and mother were each from a different jus sanguinis nation and you were born in a jus soli jurisdiction, you would be able to claim citizenship in three countries.
And, as is often the case, there are exceptions to whatever rule a nation follows because of treaties with other nations, including, for example, the determination of citizenship of children born to foreign diplomats, who are recognized as being citizens of the country that sent their parents there, as is done in the United States.
As well, people born on a foreign flagship or airliner are entitled to claim citizenship in the country under whose flag the vessel was registered.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall Read the rest of this entry »
“Another approach would be to have term limits. You know, Supreme Court justices, they used to just retire like everybody else. But now, we have these strange scenarios of people clinging, almost seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency. And this would help deal with that issue. Someone suggested that we rotate judges on and off the appellate bench.”
“Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush) and Justice Stephen Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton) have both indicated support for the idea. In a 1983 memo written when he served in the Reagan White House, Roberts wrote: “Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.”
Superficially, one might say that “Mayor Pete,” as he’s known, and “Mr. Chief Justice,” as CJ Roberts is known, are Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, April 21, 2019
And based upon the outcome, we could get fuct for a lifetime.
Think about it…
Only 5ive people decide the fate of a nation with very nearly 329,000,000 people – which is the 3rd most populous nation on Earth.
5ive.
Just 5ive Justices, that is, who are appointed to life-time jobs – which, when first written, was NOT in the clause which states in Article III Section 1. that “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
When the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) was formed by the Constitution in Article III, and after the first U.S. Census was taken in 1790, there were found to be 3,929,214 people in this land.
Fast forward 230 years.
In 2017, New York City’s estimated population was 8,622,698.
Los Angeles’ estimate was 3,999,759.
Chicago’s was 2,716,450.
Houston’s was 2,312,717.
Phoenix’ was 1,626,078.
Philadelphia was 1,580,863.
San Antonio was 1,511,946.
San Diego was 1,419,516.
Dallas was 1,341,075.
San Jose was 1,035,317.
But, that’s progress, and “progress” is a dirty word to many – especially to Southerners – whose loathsome contempt of, and resistance to change is as ignobly infamous as their Lost Cause (of the Confederacy) following defeat in our nation’s Civil War.
Curtis Flowers was tried for the SAME crime SIX times in Mississippi. If that doesn’t violate the intent of the “Double Jeopardy” clause of the Constitution, I don’t know what does. (Image from Mississippi Department of Corrections.)
Synopsis: A Mississippi Death Row inmate was prosecuted SIX times for the SAME crime by a prosecutor with a history of racial bias in jury selection.
The case was SO egregious, that the sole, long-silent Southerner, and only Black SCOTUS Justice, Clarence Thomas, who has for many years maintained literal silence on the bench, asked a question – the last question he asked was THREE YEARS AGO.
The case the Justices heard Wednesday, 20 March 2019, involved the conduct of Montgomery County District Attorney Doug Evans, in the tiny town of Winona, Mississippi, and his relentless pursuit of a conviction of Curtis Flowers.
With a population well under 5000, Winona is practically a village, and of the modestly-sized tiny town, NPR wrote that it’s a place “where everybody knows everybody.”
Curtis Giovanni Flowers is a black man who had NO prior arrests or convictions before he was arrested and accused of a quadruple murder in the town.
Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear some news about the former, 45th POTUS and the myriad legal troubles in which he has mired himself, Federal and State, and his numerous co-conspirators. Naturally, he denies all culpability, and continues telling “THE BIG LIE” — spinning a hypothetical yarn, hoping the too-tall tale of fantastical fiction grousing his 2020 electoral loss to Joe Biden will knit some kind of loosely-fitting garment… albeit one with numerous irreparable holes. It’s a modern version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
Imagine the utterly unmitigated gall, total temerity, and absolute audacity of 
Warm Southern Breeze 