Every Morning I Wake Up ...
And I wonder how things got so crazy. I mean, rationally, I get it. I understand Leftist tactics and strategy and the suspension of judgment that is so characteristic of American life. But I can’t help thinking that there must be enough normals left that at some point they’d all just say: No, enough! and make it stick. But it doesn’t happen.
Elon gets it:
This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What it would actually mean is that if you disagree with the other parent about sterilizing your child, you lose custody. Utter madness!
Quote
Greg Price
@greg_price11
BREAKING: The California Assembly just voted in favor of AB 957 which will require judges take into account whether a parent "affirms" a child's "gender identity or gender expression" in determining custody. The Senate already approved it so it's heading to Gavin Newsom's desk.
Lots of people think WEF puppet Newsom is the Dem Dream candidate. If so, they’ll pull out all fraud stops.
Jonathan Turley, otoh, still doesn’t get it. Or maybe Tom Luongo is right, that Turley gets it but can’t risk saying “it” out loud:
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones has denied the motion of Mark Meadows for removal to federal court. While this is a tough question with limited case law, I think that the court is wrong that Meadows did not present a colorable claim on some of these issues...
This isn’t about law, it’s about power. It’s about, We win and you lose. Marxists don’t believe “law” is about anything other than who has power. That’s what the J6 show trials are about. The Trump lawfare persecution. Obviously. Turley is wrong when he says there are no Obama judges, just judges. Trump was right to speak about that reality, because it’s always right to speak the truth.
And guess what? The GOPe enabled so much of this. And Turley’s “good friend” Bluto Barr was a key figure behind this. He refused to ensure that our streets would be safe and that our elections would be free and fair.
The good news is that Meadows can appeal and that at some point he’ll probably wind up in front judges for who an oath to uphold the constitution still means something.
Meanwhile, Turley rightly denounces the latest Dem move to subvert our constitutional order—this time in New Mexico, but likely coming to a state very near you. “Public health emergency” is the way to get around constitutional order and to rule by decree. Can you say, Thank you Covid Regime? The SCOTUS dodged ruling on the flagrant suppressions of our right to assembly and so forth. Maybe they thought, This, too, will pass. Well, NO! It doesn’t pass. These Left schemes never pass. They morph. So—Government by decree, by diktat. We don’t need no stinking constitution:
The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short that it becomes moot before any final decision is reached by a court.
New Mexico Governor Suspends Gun Rights in Albuquerque for “Public Health Emergency”
“New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday suspended laws that allow open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque for 30 days after declaring a public health emergency. …”
... Many will of course celebrate the boldness of Grisham in taking away an individual right under a cleaver measure. It is, however, too cleaver by half. If not found moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future public health rationales.
Here’s what Turley is saying. Grisham suspended the 2nd Amendment for just 30 days under the pretext of a “public health emergency.” She knows that no court will likely rule that quickly, at which point her diktat will be “moot”, and the court will dismiss any challenge to it, since it’s no longer in effect. At which point, she repeats the process. And other governors follow suit. And having established that they can abolish the Constitution in this manner, and can likely de facto tell the judicial branch to butt out, the Left starts targeting other provisions of the Constitution, other laws, and so on. Hey, they got away with a similar process to steal Election 2020. Pretty soon judges feel the pressure, throw up their hands, and those thirty day limits just extend indefinitely.
Turley first presents the stark reality of what’s going on. Then comes the Pollyanna stuff:
Democratic leaders have increasingly turned to a claim used successfully during the pandemic in declaring a health emergency to maximize unilateral authority of governors. There have also been calls to declare racism a public health emergency, supported by groups like the American Public Health Association. Transgender programs have also been declared a public health emergency by some groups. …
As the list of claimed health emergencies grow, even state Democratic judges may begin to balk at the obvious end run around constitutional rights.
…
... By setting a 30-day period, the Governor makes it difficult to secure a final decision. She could face a preliminary injunction in that time. However, if she gets a sympathetic trial judge, the time could run out before a final ruling can be secured on appeal. In any case, it makes it less likely that the case can be taken to the Supreme Court or even through the federal court system.
Yet, challengers could argue that the matter is not moot when the order can be and is likely to be repeated in the future. That is always a challenging claim to make, but it is clearly true in this case. What is clear is that this is unambiguously and undeniably unconstitutional under existing precedent.
Turley argues that at some point even Dem judges (he does actually say that) will balk at abolishing the Constitution. Really? He thinks the motivation isn’t really to abolish constitutional rights. I say, the motivation is to establish the priority of RightThink over all opposition—including the Constitution if it gets in the way. It’s about power to redefine the human reality of life in America—rule of law is so 18th century, when you’re on the Right Side of History.
Finally, Turley argues that this scheme could be “too clever by half,” because it could provide a vehicle for 2nd Amendment advocates—and, indeed, proponents of constitutional order generally—to clip the wings of all these Covid Regime claims of “public health emergencies” to get around constitutional order:
If a court decides that this is not moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future such claims.
The problem with this argument is that it presumes the status quo continues, that other Blue states and other local jurisdictions won’t follow suit, that Left judges in the federal judiciary won’t defy “existing precedent” to slow down the process, and that people like Roberts, Amy, and Brett don’t get scared and punt. As they did during the first Covid Regime abrogation of constitutional order.
Here's a bit of good news that came out a couple of days ago. The city of Huntington Beach's city council banned all mask and injection mandates.
Turley will be arguing the minutiae of the Constitution as he goes before a firing squad. He's playing by rules that no longer exist. Sure, the world gets crazier every day, but the eternal verities are still out there and still as true as they ever were.