I’m speaking of the 11th Circuit’s beatdown of President Trump and exaltation of the Deep State to the status of virtually a Fourth Branch of government. Well, as long as Donald J. Trump is involved. I read about this last night but was too discouraged to write anything, especially after I realized that two of the three judges were Trump appointees who, presumably, should have known better. This morning Margot Cleveland is all over it, and you can see for yourself how discouraged she is, too:
What paperwork did President Kennedy fill out in October 1962 when he sent photographs taken by some of the most sophisticated high altitude cameras ever produced, at resolutions not thought possible, from altitudes not thought possible for manned aircraft, over Cuba showing obvious evidence of Soviet IRBM's to his Ambassador to the UN with instructions to show the photographs in an open session of the UN General Assembly, televised around the world?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I barely gave a look at this case because the result was foregone. There is no peaceful, "legal" resolution to all of this. We all know it, we just gotta accept it.
The President needs no procedure or documentation for declassification. He can take or not take anywhere, show or not show "classified" docs to anyone he wants without violating any law or the Constitution. It's literally impossible for the President/ex-President to run afoul of any laws regarding classification or government records with respect to executive documents during his presidency.
Would affidavits from Kash Patel and John Ratcliffe have sufficed to prove Trump's declassification of the documents? Somehow, I think the judge had already made up his mind. Which begs another question: why did the Trump team suggest Dearie? It's all too bad, because the documents were likely, as Ratcliffe has said, DOJ and FBI "work product." In other words, the truth, as opposed to the Government's b.s. motions filed with the Court.
I am no less bothered by what's happening here than anyone else, but this unfortunately shows for about the 28 millionth time why my nickname for Donald Trump has long been "President Own Goal."
He had crystal clear constitutional authority to declassify and take with him just about anything he wanted to, so all he had to do before he left office was leave a very clear paper trail that he was declassifying those docs and taking them with him. Then he could've released every last one of them before leaving office. Totally legal in every way. Instead he chose to keep everything hidden from the American people, as he did with almost all the Russia hoax (and other) documents throughout his fours years in office. If he had trusted in the good sense of the American people from the start of his presidency and just refused to let his enemies keep their dirty deeds in the dark, he'd still be president today. Keeping We The People in the dark about what the bad guys in and out of government are doing is never a winning strategy. Ever.
Getting back to the present: despite his not clearly, explicitly declassifying the docs he took and not releasing them to the public before leaving office, he still could have made a very strong case for his right to have these documents the second the feds first started bothering him about them. He could have filed suit right away (or at least made a very public deal about what the Feds were trying to do to him) and used the precedents that Mike Davis (@mrddmia on the twatter) explains so well to demonstrate that the law and precedent were very much on his side. But he didn't go to court, and he didn't go public. Instead, he gave some of the documents back and then allowed his lawyers to give some mumbo jumbo declaration that he had nothing left that was marked classified (or something along those general lines). And now he isn't willing -perhaps because he isn't able- to give the Court any concrete proof that he declassified the docs.
Yes, I KNOW there are a ton of reasons why the Court still got this very very wrong -OF COURSE I see what is going on here- but the point is that it is no secret that the bad guys play hardball, and so you can't make it easy for them to screw you over, and keeping proof of their misdeeds to yourself and away from the public is making it as easy as can be for them. If Trump has ever learned this basic lesson, I see no sign of it through his actions. He just complains that his enemies don't play fair and 'woe is me.'
Bottom line: he gets bested by the uniparty time and again. It takes a certain kind of smarts to get the better of them, and the pattern over 6 years is just too clear: Donald Trump is woefully lacking in this type of smarts, as evidenced by the fact they have rolled him over and over and over for 6 years straight. Sorry, but this is not going to magically change someday, and throwing out a bunch of knee jerk excuses, as so many (not here) have done for 6 years and counting, will only continue making things even worse.
Will it be epic poetic justice if Donald Trump gets back into office despite all the wrongs that have been done to prevent that? Of course it will. Will I support him if the choice is between him and the Democrats? Of course I will, in a non-sycophantic way but with everything I have. Am I certain he will win if he's our nominee? No, I'm not, but I'm pretty sure Ron DeSantis would. Going away. Do I know for a fact that Ron DeSantis would make a better president? No, I don't, but I feel more strongly every day our odds are much better to win if he does end up running and if he does turn out to be the nominee.
I believe Trump's inclination is to play "by the book" and to trust people until they do something to vitiate that trust. These are surprising qualities for a real estate developer from New York. They are commendable qualities for an idealist who believes in the Christian God and the moral basis for our Constitutional order. They are not so commendable when blindly followed to the exclusion of recognizing that people are inherently evil and need to be treated cautiously, incentivized accordingly, and sanctioned according to their actions.
This distinction between ideal good and corrupt human nature is the core dichotomy on which our governmental creedal documents are based. How ironic and tragic that Trump has himself been caught in this dichotomy while he, among all our Presidents, is perhaps the most idealist when it comes to those creedal documents.
Yep, exactly. The bad guys play dirty, and all three branches of govt, plus almost every center of power outside of govt, are riddled with them.
It doesn’t mean you also have to play dirty, but you do have to know how to keep from falling in their traps AND how to attack their vulnerabilities. Like, for example, not letting them keep the most damning of the documentary evidence of their wrongdoing hidden from the public.
If nothing else, this should dispel the myth that Trump is playing multi dimensional chess.
He done good.
But he is simply not mean enough or careful enough to beat the Deep State.
I keep thinking 'what would it take?' Without putting anything in writing, let's just say that the actions necessary to crush the Deep State would not be recognizable under current processes.
Disagree strongly. You the people have no idea just how evil the people in charge are and how much they are in charge of the whole process of government. They murder you with Covid, deny you the effective medicines and concoct a vax that does more harm than good. Trump was sabotaged by EVERYBODY in Washington, the public got nothing but lies from the Media and the Courts nationwide are part of the conspiracy. I grant it that some were merely 'useful idiots' who couldn't and even now cannot fathom how much these people are manipulating everything. The process of an orderly government must go on. Trump is a disrupter. De Santis may have his heart in the right place, but he can't even get 50 illegals into Martha's Vineyard for more than a few hours. Trump accomplished miracles. Maybe, just maybe, when we are in the greatest depression in history we might remember the good times under Trump.
I know we don't see eye to eye here, perle, but I had to give a like to your comment anyway, since I do very much respect and appreciate where you're coming from and your willingness to just tell it as you see it. People who may at first disagree but who are open and honest with each other, as you clearly seem to be, can pretty much always find a way to bridge their differences and make good things happen for all.
I believe we agree on a desirable outcome, but you are probably younger than me, and more of an optimist. I expect the worst from people, and am rarely disappointed. On the other hand, the potential for good in a human being is limitless. If you read an earlier comment of mine on this very thread, I believe that what is going on now will decide if we have a government which will further the good, or will work against us and oblige us to disown our government, in private, of course. "I can't spare this man. He fights." Lincoln said that about Grant. I hold that way about Trump, and in addition appreciate fully what he accomplished for us during his four years. He has the ability, the experience and the drive to save this country. That is the sum total of our disagreement, and if you think this disagreement on policy with those now in power can be solved amicably, or on the other hand with bullets, I disagree. It has to be resolved by legal means by someone capable of navigating the waters, and to me that spells Trump.
They murdered us. Without going into the origins of Covid, intervectin and another medicine that worked were made unavailable. I know personally of an incident where a relative got it only because a grandson made a circuitous trip of over 200 miles to get it for him from a doctor willing to prescribe it.
Mark - have you followed the Watergate update where the collusion between the judiciary, executive and legislative in prosecuting Nixon and his helpers is exposed in the documents now released/avail that were retained by many of the lawyers involved? here is link - to presentation by the Federalist Society - it's 3 hours but a true deep dive by lawyers with intimate knowledge. It is must watch/listen.
is a precursor to what we are seeing now -- maybe indeed the start of the deep state's current MO.
there is no hyperbole too strong for the sorry state we are in.
were you aware of this prior to the release of these docs, as function of your inside position and it being 'general knowledge' of people within, or did you learn about it through the release of these documents? hearing the presentation of the extent of explicit collussion clearly illegal/improper is stunning, unbelievab;le (that people we expect to know and act better simply refuse to do so) and disheartening, as it clearly has become more acceptable and adopted -- is there a fix or remedy you hold onto to give continued hope we may turn the tide?
The old adage "You cannot have your cake and eat it too" should be considered by our present regime. Margot Cleveland is bemoaning that Trump has lost another court battle relative to the Mar-a-Lago raid. My take is that failing a Benedict Arnold type of justification shortly thereafter the raid would be perceived by any thinking American as a vast overreach and scandalous. The regime, the Congress, the DOJ and FBI and now the courts have perpetrated an outrage. With no justification they have authorized and perpetrated a Panty Raid on Melania and didn't even have the decency to clean up the mess they made. Now even Barr has come out against Letitia James' latest. I had no idea that it was a crime for a seller to exaggerate the value of a property. Is it also a crime for a buyer to undervalue a property? When Macys ups the price of an item previous to offering a 'huge' discount, or Lenevo takes discounts from a computer's estimated value is it a crime?
Worse than all of this is the perception that the 2020 election was stolen, and the fear that all future elections will be stolen. So the government maintains power by illegal actions. They then assume the right to make laws people are supposed to observe. Why should we? The laws are made to be broken. The proof is that violent crimes, even murder, result in release without bail even if the criminal is apprehended. The normally law-abiding citizen may feel his only defense is illegal concealed carry, and if he feels threatened he will shoot to kill and then disappear so as not to face the dubious verdict of the legal authorities.
My message is simple. When the authorities violate laws they create a disrespect for the law. Any attempt to invoke the sacred character of the 'law' will be disregarded, and the people will pick and choose depending on likely enforcement and potential gain. The biggest risk we now face is not that we will have a bad government, but that we will have no effective government at all.
Exactly! Where there is no law there is no justice and where there is no justice there is no law.
Anarcho-tyranny.
"What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny." - Samuel T. Francis
"So the message is loud and clear. When push comes to bloody shove in end-stage America, under the rule of the anarcho-tyrants, we, the law-abiding, are the enemy." - Michelle Malkin
We are in the end stages not of the Republic (that is already gone) but of our very civilization. Unless...
“The biggest risk we now face is not that we will have a bad government, but that we will have no effective government at all.“
The DS is firmly implanted in all 4 branches ( including media). They have the ideal (p)resident they completely control, in spite of his stumbling bumblings signifying nothing…I commiserate with your view of Trump’s imprecise use of language - he is made to NOT get away with it, while these so-called judges and jurists cannot be bothered to read the Constitution, let alone interpret it with learning and integrity!
It's just like Matt Taibbi said, They can't let you see the secret evidence (that they alone claim to be so secret not even a Special Master can look at it) because doing so will interfere with their secret investigations. Oh, and national defense is at stake!!!!!!!!
At this point Trump must have standing to take this to SCOTUS. Talk about disparate treatment!
What do they think is going to happen when lawfare trumps elections and all legal recourse becomes a laughable g-string-styled fig leaf covering their hatred of half of the country? It ain't gonna be our fault. What's shocking is that they really think they are going to get away with this forever. The US is the last place in the world where freedom's flame still flickers. If we let it be extinguished by lawyers it's our fault.
If Dearie wants proof that the documents in question have been declassified, what, exactly, is the manner in which documents are supposed to be declassified? What is the legal basis upon which that rests? Absent this, Dearie is just making claims as unsubstantiated as, it appears, he is accusing Trump of making. Also, what is the history and practice for declassifying documents? He ought to be looking at that as well.
Think about it: his argument is that, unless a deep stater has placed a declassified stamp on a document, then it remains classified. Presidential declarations, directions, etc. be damned.
Of course. Dearie needs to consult the Constitution re status of the POTUS as well as historical practices. These foolish rulings have grave implications going forward, in law and in our freedoms.
What paperwork did President Kennedy fill out in October 1962 when he sent photographs taken by some of the most sophisticated high altitude cameras ever produced, at resolutions not thought possible, from altitudes not thought possible for manned aircraft, over Cuba showing obvious evidence of Soviet IRBM's to his Ambassador to the UN with instructions to show the photographs in an open session of the UN General Assembly, televised around the world?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/09/the_eleventh_circuits_unconstitutional_ruling_against_trump.html
very good
Well Trump did instruct Bill Barr to declassify all the stuff related to Russia-gate, Kash Patel has testified to such.
And that should be sufficient, IMO.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I barely gave a look at this case because the result was foregone. There is no peaceful, "legal" resolution to all of this. We all know it, we just gotta accept it.
The President needs no procedure or documentation for declassification. He can take or not take anywhere, show or not show "classified" docs to anyone he wants without violating any law or the Constitution. It's literally impossible for the President/ex-President to run afoul of any laws regarding classification or government records with respect to executive documents during his presidency.
Would affidavits from Kash Patel and John Ratcliffe have sufficed to prove Trump's declassification of the documents? Somehow, I think the judge had already made up his mind. Which begs another question: why did the Trump team suggest Dearie? It's all too bad, because the documents were likely, as Ratcliffe has said, DOJ and FBI "work product." In other words, the truth, as opposed to the Government's b.s. motions filed with the Court.
I am no less bothered by what's happening here than anyone else, but this unfortunately shows for about the 28 millionth time why my nickname for Donald Trump has long been "President Own Goal."
He had crystal clear constitutional authority to declassify and take with him just about anything he wanted to, so all he had to do before he left office was leave a very clear paper trail that he was declassifying those docs and taking them with him. Then he could've released every last one of them before leaving office. Totally legal in every way. Instead he chose to keep everything hidden from the American people, as he did with almost all the Russia hoax (and other) documents throughout his fours years in office. If he had trusted in the good sense of the American people from the start of his presidency and just refused to let his enemies keep their dirty deeds in the dark, he'd still be president today. Keeping We The People in the dark about what the bad guys in and out of government are doing is never a winning strategy. Ever.
Getting back to the present: despite his not clearly, explicitly declassifying the docs he took and not releasing them to the public before leaving office, he still could have made a very strong case for his right to have these documents the second the feds first started bothering him about them. He could have filed suit right away (or at least made a very public deal about what the Feds were trying to do to him) and used the precedents that Mike Davis (@mrddmia on the twatter) explains so well to demonstrate that the law and precedent were very much on his side. But he didn't go to court, and he didn't go public. Instead, he gave some of the documents back and then allowed his lawyers to give some mumbo jumbo declaration that he had nothing left that was marked classified (or something along those general lines). And now he isn't willing -perhaps because he isn't able- to give the Court any concrete proof that he declassified the docs.
Yes, I KNOW there are a ton of reasons why the Court still got this very very wrong -OF COURSE I see what is going on here- but the point is that it is no secret that the bad guys play hardball, and so you can't make it easy for them to screw you over, and keeping proof of their misdeeds to yourself and away from the public is making it as easy as can be for them. If Trump has ever learned this basic lesson, I see no sign of it through his actions. He just complains that his enemies don't play fair and 'woe is me.'
Bottom line: he gets bested by the uniparty time and again. It takes a certain kind of smarts to get the better of them, and the pattern over 6 years is just too clear: Donald Trump is woefully lacking in this type of smarts, as evidenced by the fact they have rolled him over and over and over for 6 years straight. Sorry, but this is not going to magically change someday, and throwing out a bunch of knee jerk excuses, as so many (not here) have done for 6 years and counting, will only continue making things even worse.
Will it be epic poetic justice if Donald Trump gets back into office despite all the wrongs that have been done to prevent that? Of course it will. Will I support him if the choice is between him and the Democrats? Of course I will, in a non-sycophantic way but with everything I have. Am I certain he will win if he's our nominee? No, I'm not, but I'm pretty sure Ron DeSantis would. Going away. Do I know for a fact that Ron DeSantis would make a better president? No, I don't, but I feel more strongly every day our odds are much better to win if he does end up running and if he does turn out to be the nominee.
I believe Trump's inclination is to play "by the book" and to trust people until they do something to vitiate that trust. These are surprising qualities for a real estate developer from New York. They are commendable qualities for an idealist who believes in the Christian God and the moral basis for our Constitutional order. They are not so commendable when blindly followed to the exclusion of recognizing that people are inherently evil and need to be treated cautiously, incentivized accordingly, and sanctioned according to their actions.
This distinction between ideal good and corrupt human nature is the core dichotomy on which our governmental creedal documents are based. How ironic and tragic that Trump has himself been caught in this dichotomy while he, among all our Presidents, is perhaps the most idealist when it comes to those creedal documents.
Yep, exactly. The bad guys play dirty, and all three branches of govt, plus almost every center of power outside of govt, are riddled with them.
It doesn’t mean you also have to play dirty, but you do have to know how to keep from falling in their traps AND how to attack their vulnerabilities. Like, for example, not letting them keep the most damning of the documentary evidence of their wrongdoing hidden from the public.
Yes.
I've been thinking along these very lines.
If nothing else, this should dispel the myth that Trump is playing multi dimensional chess.
He done good.
But he is simply not mean enough or careful enough to beat the Deep State.
I keep thinking 'what would it take?' Without putting anything in writing, let's just say that the actions necessary to crush the Deep State would not be recognizable under current processes.
"He done good. But he is simply not mean enough or careful enough to beat the Deep State."
Well put. I couldn't agree more.
Disagree strongly. You the people have no idea just how evil the people in charge are and how much they are in charge of the whole process of government. They murder you with Covid, deny you the effective medicines and concoct a vax that does more harm than good. Trump was sabotaged by EVERYBODY in Washington, the public got nothing but lies from the Media and the Courts nationwide are part of the conspiracy. I grant it that some were merely 'useful idiots' who couldn't and even now cannot fathom how much these people are manipulating everything. The process of an orderly government must go on. Trump is a disrupter. De Santis may have his heart in the right place, but he can't even get 50 illegals into Martha's Vineyard for more than a few hours. Trump accomplished miracles. Maybe, just maybe, when we are in the greatest depression in history we might remember the good times under Trump.
I know we don't see eye to eye here, perle, but I had to give a like to your comment anyway, since I do very much respect and appreciate where you're coming from and your willingness to just tell it as you see it. People who may at first disagree but who are open and honest with each other, as you clearly seem to be, can pretty much always find a way to bridge their differences and make good things happen for all.
I believe we agree on a desirable outcome, but you are probably younger than me, and more of an optimist. I expect the worst from people, and am rarely disappointed. On the other hand, the potential for good in a human being is limitless. If you read an earlier comment of mine on this very thread, I believe that what is going on now will decide if we have a government which will further the good, or will work against us and oblige us to disown our government, in private, of course. "I can't spare this man. He fights." Lincoln said that about Grant. I hold that way about Trump, and in addition appreciate fully what he accomplished for us during his four years. He has the ability, the experience and the drive to save this country. That is the sum total of our disagreement, and if you think this disagreement on policy with those now in power can be solved amicably, or on the other hand with bullets, I disagree. It has to be resolved by legal means by someone capable of navigating the waters, and to me that spells Trump.
They murdered us. Without going into the origins of Covid, intervectin and another medicine that worked were made unavailable. I know personally of an incident where a relative got it only because a grandson made a circuitous trip of over 200 miles to get it for him from a doctor willing to prescribe it.
Gotta agree with you, Brad. Sadly.
Mark - have you followed the Watergate update where the collusion between the judiciary, executive and legislative in prosecuting Nixon and his helpers is exposed in the documents now released/avail that were retained by many of the lawyers involved? here is link - to presentation by the Federalist Society - it's 3 hours but a true deep dive by lawyers with intimate knowledge. It is must watch/listen.
is a precursor to what we are seeing now -- maybe indeed the start of the deep state's current MO.
there is no hyperbole too strong for the sorry state we are in.
https://youtu.be/_x8_xnwZxow
Yes. It's well documented but little known. Beginning of the end of our republic.
were you aware of this prior to the release of these docs, as function of your inside position and it being 'general knowledge' of people within, or did you learn about it through the release of these documents? hearing the presentation of the extent of explicit collussion clearly illegal/improper is stunning, unbelievab;le (that people we expect to know and act better simply refuse to do so) and disheartening, as it clearly has become more acceptable and adopted -- is there a fix or remedy you hold onto to give continued hope we may turn the tide?
The old adage "You cannot have your cake and eat it too" should be considered by our present regime. Margot Cleveland is bemoaning that Trump has lost another court battle relative to the Mar-a-Lago raid. My take is that failing a Benedict Arnold type of justification shortly thereafter the raid would be perceived by any thinking American as a vast overreach and scandalous. The regime, the Congress, the DOJ and FBI and now the courts have perpetrated an outrage. With no justification they have authorized and perpetrated a Panty Raid on Melania and didn't even have the decency to clean up the mess they made. Now even Barr has come out against Letitia James' latest. I had no idea that it was a crime for a seller to exaggerate the value of a property. Is it also a crime for a buyer to undervalue a property? When Macys ups the price of an item previous to offering a 'huge' discount, or Lenevo takes discounts from a computer's estimated value is it a crime?
Worse than all of this is the perception that the 2020 election was stolen, and the fear that all future elections will be stolen. So the government maintains power by illegal actions. They then assume the right to make laws people are supposed to observe. Why should we? The laws are made to be broken. The proof is that violent crimes, even murder, result in release without bail even if the criminal is apprehended. The normally law-abiding citizen may feel his only defense is illegal concealed carry, and if he feels threatened he will shoot to kill and then disappear so as not to face the dubious verdict of the legal authorities.
My message is simple. When the authorities violate laws they create a disrespect for the law. Any attempt to invoke the sacred character of the 'law' will be disregarded, and the people will pick and choose depending on likely enforcement and potential gain. The biggest risk we now face is not that we will have a bad government, but that we will have no effective government at all.
Exactly! Where there is no law there is no justice and where there is no justice there is no law.
Anarcho-tyranny.
"What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny." - Samuel T. Francis
"So the message is loud and clear. When push comes to bloody shove in end-stage America, under the rule of the anarcho-tyrants, we, the law-abiding, are the enemy." - Michelle Malkin
We are in the end stages not of the Republic (that is already gone) but of our very civilization. Unless...
Perle, I think we already have it:
“The biggest risk we now face is not that we will have a bad government, but that we will have no effective government at all.“
The DS is firmly implanted in all 4 branches ( including media). They have the ideal (p)resident they completely control, in spite of his stumbling bumblings signifying nothing…I commiserate with your view of Trump’s imprecise use of language - he is made to NOT get away with it, while these so-called judges and jurists cannot be bothered to read the Constitution, let alone interpret it with learning and integrity!
It's just like Matt Taibbi said, They can't let you see the secret evidence (that they alone claim to be so secret not even a Special Master can look at it) because doing so will interfere with their secret investigations. Oh, and national defense is at stake!!!!!!!!
At this point Trump must have standing to take this to SCOTUS. Talk about disparate treatment!
What do they think is going to happen when lawfare trumps elections and all legal recourse becomes a laughable g-string-styled fig leaf covering their hatred of half of the country? It ain't gonna be our fault. What's shocking is that they really think they are going to get away with this forever. The US is the last place in the world where freedom's flame still flickers. If we let it be extinguished by lawyers it's our fault.
The grinding down of Trump continues. Will there ever be a reckoning?
If Dearie wants proof that the documents in question have been declassified, what, exactly, is the manner in which documents are supposed to be declassified? What is the legal basis upon which that rests? Absent this, Dearie is just making claims as unsubstantiated as, it appears, he is accusing Trump of making. Also, what is the history and practice for declassifying documents? He ought to be looking at that as well.
Think about it: his argument is that, unless a deep stater has placed a declassified stamp on a document, then it remains classified. Presidential declarations, directions, etc. be damned.
Of course. Dearie needs to consult the Constitution re status of the POTUS as well as historical practices. These foolish rulings have grave implications going forward, in law and in our freedoms.