We are rapidly reaching a dangerous point in America and people don't realize it. Under Mark Elias, the Democratic Party is using lawfare to try and gain/keep/attain power. In NYC, the AG has said she will condemn and take Trump's property away----no respect for capitalistic property rights is allowed under the Stalinist system that is the NY and DC Judiciary and other blue judiciaries.
Democrats hide under words like "The people" or "protecting democracy", when they use lawfare to usurp the unalienable rights guaranteed to us not by a Constitution, but by a Creator.
I was watching Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" the other night. Obviously, a lot of dramatic license was taken but aren't there some parallel arguments that took place then taking place now, only in different forms? Again, it's the Democrats that are the oppressor party.
Based on models that cannot accurately predict historical temperatures, we have to punish those who do not buy into the hysteria as dangerous heretics.
As Yogi implied, don't say it's over until it's over. I fully suspect the Democrats will try to get into Federal Court to rule Trump disqualified, intimidate Electors to be Faithless (assuming Trump wins the EC), or reject Electoral vote slates for Trump (ditto, and notwithstanding the Democrats amending the Electoral Count Act to eliminate that path). Failing all those there will be 'January of Love' riots.
I have "US attacks Russia in October 2024" on my Bingo Card, assuming that whoever is in the White House pulls a Gulf of Tonkin to justify cancelling the election outright.
". . . The Biden team views the very question as absurd. The president in their view has an impressive record of accomplishment to run on. There is no obvious alternative. It is far too late in the cycle to bow out without considerable disruption. . . Members of Mr. Biden’s team insist they feel little sense of concern."
Who knew a sports announcer wasn’t an expert in constitutional law? Then again, Phil Rizzuto’s nickname was “Scotus”, I think. Or something like that.😊
Yes Glenn states it correctly. They are not bad or evil or stupid. They are unserious. Unserious people in very serious times. Does anyone think anyone in the Biden administration is a serious person? Blinken? Austin? Harris? Biden??????? Mayor Pete? Geez.
Thanks for this, Glenn. I'm not an attorney, but even I could tell this one didn't pass the smell test because it's a federal election. I'm not as sure on Fischer, and especially Trump's current appeal on presidential immunity (although if prosecutors and cops get it while performing their duties, I cannot imagine why the president wouldn't). But even these remaining cases are not my biggest concern. Specifically:
The left will not willingly give up power.
Not now, when they know they are a distinct minority. I don't know what the margin of cheating is but it has to be in excess of 5% in any swing state with a D governor and Sec. of State.
And even if somehow Trump does win, the law fare, the deep state resistance, and the three-letter agencies will work to subvert him. Again.
How do we fight all that? And how does Trump, especially in a Lame Duck presidency?
The Democrats did steal Wisconsin in 2020. An audit of the voting by nursing home residents in the most populous part of the state (from Madison to Milwaukee) showed that all ~90 nursing homes had at least 95% of the residents voting, and 22 had 100% voting. It is hardly possible that even 50% of these people, many with memory loss, could have voted. The added votes turned Wisconsin over to Biden.
Yes, no question, WE HAVE PASSED A DANGEROUS POINT. 1) open borders fueling criminal trafficking of drugs, gangs and terrorists 2) Afganistan capitulation transferring billons to the Taliban 3) giving billions to Iran, sponsors of the Houthis and Hamas 4) appeasing China's covert acts to undermine the US.
5) Delisting the Houthis as terrorist? Now they sink ships and cut undersea cables.
Today Fox reported that over 300k illegals have been flown into the US secretly from South of the border.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are on a path to destroy the incentives and values that made this a great nation. The Democrats are the traitors and insurrectionists. There is no turning back at this point.
What are they teaching people in law school these days?!
And really, TDS is just the latest iteration of Republican Derangement Syndrome, engineered and promulgated by the left since the propagandist demonization of Nixon. All GOP candidates are Hitler eventually.
> It is, as he puts it, "an unprincipled, pragmatic resolution" …
>> The Supreme Court opinion says that nothing in the Constitution delegates to the states the power to disqualify federal candidates. But this is obviously mistaken under the original meaning. The Constitution says that "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This provision allocates to the states the power how to run their presidential elections. State legislatures could decide not to hold elections at all but could assign their electoral votes to the candidate of their choosing.
They're teaching "Critical Legal Theory", which grew at the same time as "Critical Race Theory", and is pretty much the same thing but with differently-formatted footnotes.
I got a degree in Critical Theory in Film and then forgot about it--until I saw it being used in race relations. That's when I got real worried. And I was right to be worried.
I wonder if--or when--any pundit or politician from the Left will ever simply say, "I was wrong about...(Trump, Russiagate, COVID, Jan. 6, etc.). I let my tribalist loyalties outweigh my better judgement, and I'll try to be more humble and circumspect in the future." I might actually forgive some of them their insanity were that to happen. Some of them.
Donald Trump can even be in prison and be on the ballot in 2024. In 1920 Eugene V. Debs was on the ballot for President even though he was in Federal prison for Sedition. He got about 3% of the votes.
Paul Johnson, in his book Intellectuals, defined an intellectual as someone who cared more about ideas than people.
Lawyers today are too often intellectuals who care more about winning than justice. As the Professor points out, it’s not new that lawyers sometimes champion ideological causes. But the rigor of their arguments has never previously been this poor. The stupidification of the Legal profession is a tragedy.
I also still don't understand why Kari Lake did not try to stop her opponent, the actual Sec of State who was running the election, from also being a candidate in the race she was managing. Maybe the lawyers here could explain.
I believe she tried and lost in court. She also lost in court when the problem of printer error caused people not to be able to vote and she wanted the polls to remain open longer. She is losing in court when she is trying to show there was fraud when the printers were missing-adjusted. The courts just won’t find for her. It reminds me of playing a game with my then 5 year old grandson. When the rules were set and I was winning he just changed the rules and if I still was winning he changed the rules again until he won. I see no difference here
I do remember that. I just don't get why she didn't try to get her opponent to either get out of the race or stop running the election. Seems like a conflict to me.
I read the majority opinion and skimmed the separate statements by some of the Justices, and I couldn’t quite tell if this also puts paid to the situation in Maine and more recently Illinois. Does it?
We are rapidly reaching a dangerous point in America and people don't realize it. Under Mark Elias, the Democratic Party is using lawfare to try and gain/keep/attain power. In NYC, the AG has said she will condemn and take Trump's property away----no respect for capitalistic property rights is allowed under the Stalinist system that is the NY and DC Judiciary and other blue judiciaries.
Democrats hide under words like "The people" or "protecting democracy", when they use lawfare to usurp the unalienable rights guaranteed to us not by a Constitution, but by a Creator.
I was watching Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" the other night. Obviously, a lot of dramatic license was taken but aren't there some parallel arguments that took place then taking place now, only in different forms? Again, it's the Democrats that are the oppressor party.
And now Letitia James is suing a meat supplier for "lying" about its effects on (hypothetical) climate change.
Based on models that cannot accurately predict historical temperatures, we have to punish those who do not buy into the hysteria as dangerous heretics.
As Yogi implied, don't say it's over until it's over. I fully suspect the Democrats will try to get into Federal Court to rule Trump disqualified, intimidate Electors to be Faithless (assuming Trump wins the EC), or reject Electoral vote slates for Trump (ditto, and notwithstanding the Democrats amending the Electoral Count Act to eliminate that path). Failing all those there will be 'January of Love' riots.
I have "US attacks Russia in October 2024" on my Bingo Card, assuming that whoever is in the White House pulls a Gulf of Tonkin to justify cancelling the election outright.
I don't put engineering a confrontation with Russia out of the realm of possibility.
The Biden Junta is still strenuously resisting any attempt at a palace coup.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/03/today-in-ny-times-biden-doom-polling.php (from the New York Times via Steve Hayward at Powerline, from another story based on the NYT/Sienna poll that found Biden 5 points behind Trump in the NPV)
". . . The Biden team views the very question as absurd. The president in their view has an impressive record of accomplishment to run on. There is no obvious alternative. It is far too late in the cycle to bow out without considerable disruption. . . Members of Mr. Biden’s team insist they feel little sense of concern."
Keith Olbermann is a buffoon, is predictable, and should be completely ignored.
Unfortunately, he does represent much of the Leftist lack of logic, and its willingness to prioritize emotion over reality.
Who knew a sports announcer wasn’t an expert in constitutional law? Then again, Phil Rizzuto’s nickname was “Scotus”, I think. Or something like that.😊
scooter
Really? Could have sworn it was SCOTUS. I suppose scooter makes more sense for a ball player. /s
Yes Glenn states it correctly. They are not bad or evil or stupid. They are unserious. Unserious people in very serious times. Does anyone think anyone in the Biden administration is a serious person? Blinken? Austin? Harris? Biden??????? Mayor Pete? Geez.
Yet they are bad, evil, and stupid.
Another relevant word is "incompetent".
Unserious people are rarely competent.
Thanks for this, Glenn. I'm not an attorney, but even I could tell this one didn't pass the smell test because it's a federal election. I'm not as sure on Fischer, and especially Trump's current appeal on presidential immunity (although if prosecutors and cops get it while performing their duties, I cannot imagine why the president wouldn't). But even these remaining cases are not my biggest concern. Specifically:
The left will not willingly give up power.
Not now, when they know they are a distinct minority. I don't know what the margin of cheating is but it has to be in excess of 5% in any swing state with a D governor and Sec. of State.
And even if somehow Trump does win, the law fare, the deep state resistance, and the three-letter agencies will work to subvert him. Again.
How do we fight all that? And how does Trump, especially in a Lame Duck presidency?
The Democrats did steal Wisconsin in 2020. An audit of the voting by nursing home residents in the most populous part of the state (from Madison to Milwaukee) showed that all ~90 nursing homes had at least 95% of the residents voting, and 22 had 100% voting. It is hardly possible that even 50% of these people, many with memory loss, could have voted. The added votes turned Wisconsin over to Biden.
Yes, no question, WE HAVE PASSED A DANGEROUS POINT. 1) open borders fueling criminal trafficking of drugs, gangs and terrorists 2) Afganistan capitulation transferring billons to the Taliban 3) giving billions to Iran, sponsors of the Houthis and Hamas 4) appeasing China's covert acts to undermine the US.
5) Delisting the Houthis as terrorist? Now they sink ships and cut undersea cables.
Today Fox reported that over 300k illegals have been flown into the US secretly from South of the border.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are on a path to destroy the incentives and values that made this a great nation. The Democrats are the traitors and insurrectionists. There is no turning back at this point.
What are they teaching people in law school these days?!
And really, TDS is just the latest iteration of Republican Derangement Syndrome, engineered and promulgated by the left since the propagandist demonization of Nixon. All GOP candidates are Hitler eventually.
They are teaching them that the law is a tool to get the policy results you want.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/05/michael-rappaport-on-the-originalist-disaster-of-the-supreme-courts-ruling-in-trump-v-colorado/
> It is, as he puts it, "an unprincipled, pragmatic resolution" …
>> The Supreme Court opinion says that nothing in the Constitution delegates to the states the power to disqualify federal candidates. But this is obviously mistaken under the original meaning. The Constitution says that "each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This provision allocates to the states the power how to run their presidential elections. State legislatures could decide not to hold elections at all but could assign their electoral votes to the candidate of their choosing.
While they are in office, and then they aren't as bad as the 'next Hitler'.
They're teaching "Critical Legal Theory", which grew at the same time as "Critical Race Theory", and is pretty much the same thing but with differently-formatted footnotes.
I got a degree in Critical Theory in Film and then forgot about it--until I saw it being used in race relations. That's when I got real worried. And I was right to be worried.
I wonder if--or when--any pundit or politician from the Left will ever simply say, "I was wrong about...(Trump, Russiagate, COVID, Jan. 6, etc.). I let my tribalist loyalties outweigh my better judgement, and I'll try to be more humble and circumspect in the future." I might actually forgive some of them their insanity were that to happen. Some of them.
Donald Trump can even be in prison and be on the ballot in 2024. In 1920 Eugene V. Debs was on the ballot for President even though he was in Federal prison for Sedition. He got about 3% of the votes.
The brilliance of this commentary needs to be savored, and read more than once.
Nice, subtle nod to Allen Ginsberg, BTW.
Fine writers will leave little nuggets like that for their readers.
Paul Johnson, in his book Intellectuals, defined an intellectual as someone who cared more about ideas than people.
Lawyers today are too often intellectuals who care more about winning than justice. As the Professor points out, it’s not new that lawyers sometimes champion ideological causes. But the rigor of their arguments has never previously been this poor. The stupidification of the Legal profession is a tragedy.
I also still don't understand why Kari Lake did not try to stop her opponent, the actual Sec of State who was running the election, from also being a candidate in the race she was managing. Maybe the lawyers here could explain.
I believe she tried and lost in court. She also lost in court when the problem of printer error caused people not to be able to vote and she wanted the polls to remain open longer. She is losing in court when she is trying to show there was fraud when the printers were missing-adjusted. The courts just won’t find for her. It reminds me of playing a game with my then 5 year old grandson. When the rules were set and I was winning he just changed the rules and if I still was winning he changed the rules again until he won. I see no difference here
I do remember that. I just don't get why she didn't try to get her opponent to either get out of the race or stop running the election. Seems like a conflict to me.
Thanks Glenn, again for the common-sense.
I read the majority opinion and skimmed the separate statements by some of the Justices, and I couldn’t quite tell if this also puts paid to the situation in Maine and more recently Illinois. Does it?