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.
The “public health emergency” has been in the works for years. I remember reading some stuff about it and wondering when they’d “pull the trigger” re: 2A. Took em awhile but they’re like elephants. They never forget.
Too many quotables here to list them all, so let me just do two:
1) "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."
Then contrast that will to power with the fecklessness of all but 2 of the SCOTUS 9. (Not just Kavanaugh and Barrett, but Gorsuch, too, scandalously voted to keep the American people in the dark by voting against letting them see what really happened in the 2020 elections. This is no minor detail, esp considering he could have voted and argued, on sheer principle and risk-free, in favor of looking at things knowing that position still would have lost 6-3.)
2) "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."
Your comment also, very nicely put. "Government by decree, by diktat." My comment below points out that government by consent of the governed, with policies that have popular support, and buttressed by trust, patriotism and a common interest rather than the sentiment that we the people are to be exploited for the interests of the few would give our government real power and the ability to overcome and accomplish real goals. We had a government like that once.
I don't understand Leftist tactics and strategy. First they destroy authority - antifa, take the knee, Trump fair game during and after the Presidency, BLM, police attacked and criminalized, rioting and burning down cities, no rule of law or Constitution - and now they glory in having absolute control over government. But government has control over nothing nowadays. Who respects Washington? So we'll pay taxes and will not j-walk. And we won't interfere with the graft and corruption. They will not force hundreds of millions of Americans to go 'woke', abandon their religion and morality and advance their crazy schemes for empire. And not controlling their spending they will crash the dollar, the markets and the economy. Where will they get the money for bread and circuses, even for illegals.
Does anyone else recall that Obama, while running for president in 2008, said that he wanted to establish a civilian force to rival that of the US military? Antifa is Obama's civilian army.
Hi, perle. I'm just throwing out here for the record that such a belief is delusional from top to bottom. I'll throw out no evidence-driven argument to support my position because I honestly don't care enough about the issue to make the effort. I'll instead just say that any rational person who a) followed the antifa money all the way around, and b) was also privy to all the communications between antifa members and leftist-funded political operatives, would never make a claim so divorced from reality as the one that "nobody controls antifa."
And with respect to the shoplifters, passing laws saying people can legally shoplift has no effect on the shoplifting behavior of a cities' inhabitants? Really?
Thanks for the comment but I had no intention of going into all the intricacies but merely to point out that the individuals involved will do their thing and cannot be turned off at will. It has been amply demonstrated that you cannot turn off a riot on request, and I am mystified where you got the idea that I think permitting shoplifting would not encourage it when I said the opposite. I honestly don't care enough about the issue to make the effort of explaining myself further.
I don't think they 'care' or give a thought to where they'll get their money for bread, circuses, or illegals -- they know they'll get it any way they can because they are sociopaths. They keep on their path until a deviation, they adjust to the deviation and continue on their power trip. It's all about power and control. It doesn't matter to a sociopath how low they sink as long as they're atop the pile of shit they've created -- in their minds it will never crater because they're always making the outhouse rules. They don't mind degradation or they couldn't stand the places their policies have created, like Baltimore, LA, or any other huge city where filth, drugs, chaos, corruption , and disorder rule. Also, if they're rubbing conservatives or Republicans, or Christian's faces in the muck, they're happy at our outrage and despair. They control our finest institutions, like once-revered universities, the media, and now so many courts and judges, once founded on the rule of law.
It will never crater...until it craters. "The Grapes of Wrath" was written in 1939, and people were starving in America 8 years after the New Deal. Even now, can they hide inflation, or the media make it better? And the institutions they control no longer control us. They have lost our trust.
I think my point (that I didn't make very well) was they'll ride their policies to the basement (which is, in essence, cratering), but they won't care how miserable, destitute, starving, and broke the American people are. They'll somehow still be control, and they don't care that they've lost our trust. That's how despicable I think they are. They do not care. They hate us. They will still be atop the rubble and hold the power.
And, I didn't even touch on what they're doing to our children in the guise of gender control -- now parents have to fight and demonstrate and even rely on muslims in a district, and still are told a teacher has more power over what will happen to a student in school, rather than a parent -- when parents are called terrorists because they want the girl they sent to school safe in a girl's restroom, and not worry about a boy calling himself a girl who has as much or more right inside that restroom, and can even rape a parent's child, then we are really in hell on earth.
I’m a lot more concerned about John Roberts saying and believing that there are no Obama judges, just judges, than I am about Turley saying the same thing. Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and if he actually believes that stuff then what chance does that give us?
Thank you for continuing to hammer away at Bluto Barr. He sure dropped the ball in 2020, doing nothing about the suspension of civil liberties and the crooked election. Is he lazy, incompetent, or corrupt?
Thus we see the strategic wisdom of the Left in pounding away at the "Founders" these past fifty years, to delegitimize them and their ideals by claiming their ideals, as written into laws in the 18th century, were grounded in slavery. A genetic defect in our constitution. Which is a logical fallacy but rhetorically very, very effective.
Who was it recently, who pointed out that we now have "rule by law" instead of "rule of law"?
I used to shrug and mock the “it’s for the children” argument back in the ‘90s. Now it has become no laughing matter with the “it’s for safety” argument. The tool of tyrants throughout history is the language of safety. More like keeping the tyrants safe from the people than the other way around.
I think the latest version is that "it's to save democracy". That's why we have to ban free speech, put political opponents in prison and cancel anyone who disagrees with us. Rather like saying we have to eat more bacon to become a good vegan.
What are the chances that eventually even Dem judges will balk at abolishing the Constitution? I’d say the chances are as good as were the chances of ANY judge agreeing to hear plaintiff’s substantive arguments of the 2020 election fraud cases, instead of just dismissing one and all on procedural grounds. (I say “all,” but iirc, there was ONE, out of the many cases filed, in which the judge agreed to hear the arguments, but it was quickly dismissed too, like all the others.)
I seriously doubt that a SCOTUS judge who doesn't know what a woman is will know what a constitution is. It has even more letters in it and is harder to pronounce.
The result of Turley’s article is providing a benchmark of what regular constitutional order should look like. He outlines the strategy used by the left to avoid being governed by law. He states that even Democrat judges might tire of this. It is important to try to get ordinary liberals to understand that the radicals are coming for them as well. They will only see this as things continue to evolve. Turley plants seeds here that will hopefully grow into understanding. Some will only understand what is happening with practical experience with tyranny. They are coming for conservatives first. The liberals are dessert and will get their just desserts from the radicals if they are not educated about the authoritarian methods in use here. Striking the right balance in tone and content is what Turley is attempting. At least in my opinion.
Leftist judges won't tire of these lawfare-power-ratchet tactics (see Judge Beryl Howell). Each new clasp of the pall excites expectations of absolute control. We ought not anticipate recovery through Judges, they are not up to the task.
And some are fellow travelers. New legal theories will be created by prosecutors, argued in court, and set as new ‘precedents.’ Tarrio’s sentencing is fore shadowing for Trump. The esoterica of the law will be used to control people as before the Bible was translated from Latin. Non~establishment lawyers will be persecuted out of existence. (Dershowitz is on substack. Does he have to publish there to have a voice?). State bar organizations will police lawyers ideologically. It will not matter that one is told that one does not have ‘standing.’ The conclusion of any court action will be known based upon who the accused is when the accusations are made.
That's the problem, Hal. While he's "providing a benchmark" and "planting seeds", the Left is actually doing stuff. When those seeds germinate they'll find themselves in the middle of a wasteland.
It seems that way. Useful idiocy has its costs. Hopefully enough will tune out the ‘Orange Man Bad’ distraction and see past the orange haze to where they need to: their right to choose who governs them is going away as Trump goes to prison.
As for the Meadows case, ShipWreckCrew wrote a long post the other day about the strength of the Meadows petition. I wanted to write a comment in that thread that the strength of the case was irrelevant at the moment because it was before a judge appointed by Obama, which is the only thing that really mattered in determining the outcome at the district level.
I don't think its naivete. I think that he, like McCarthy over at NR and others, has a pathological need to stop short of the whole truth in order to maintain some degree of acceptance by the other team. Its a foolish strategy because when the time comes they'll roll over Turley just as surely as they'll roll over Alex Jones. Maybe that is naivete.
The “public health emergency” has been in the works for years. I remember reading some stuff about it and wondering when they’d “pull the trigger” re: 2A. Took em awhile but they’re like elephants. They never forget.
Too many quotables here to list them all, so let me just do two:
1) "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."
Then contrast that will to power with the fecklessness of all but 2 of the SCOTUS 9. (Not just Kavanaugh and Barrett, but Gorsuch, too, scandalously voted to keep the American people in the dark by voting against letting them see what really happened in the 2020 elections. This is no minor detail, esp considering he could have voted and argued, on sheer principle and risk-free, in favor of looking at things knowing that position still would have lost 6-3.)
2) "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."
Ugly as hell - the reality - but very nicely put.
You're right. Gorsuch is dangerous, too: Bostock.
Your comment also, very nicely put. "Government by decree, by diktat." My comment below points out that government by consent of the governed, with policies that have popular support, and buttressed by trust, patriotism and a common interest rather than the sentiment that we the people are to be exploited for the interests of the few would give our government real power and the ability to overcome and accomplish real goals. We had a government like that once.
Totally. I couldn't agree more.
I don't understand Leftist tactics and strategy. First they destroy authority - antifa, take the knee, Trump fair game during and after the Presidency, BLM, police attacked and criminalized, rioting and burning down cities, no rule of law or Constitution - and now they glory in having absolute control over government. But government has control over nothing nowadays. Who respects Washington? So we'll pay taxes and will not j-walk. And we won't interfere with the graft and corruption. They will not force hundreds of millions of Americans to go 'woke', abandon their religion and morality and advance their crazy schemes for empire. And not controlling their spending they will crash the dollar, the markets and the economy. Where will they get the money for bread and circuses, even for illegals.
Does anyone else recall that Obama, while running for president in 2008, said that he wanted to establish a civilian force to rival that of the US military? Antifa is Obama's civilian army.
When push comes to shove, nobody controls Antifa. The leftists have no control over shoplifters and rioters in their cities.
Hi, perle. I'm just throwing out here for the record that such a belief is delusional from top to bottom. I'll throw out no evidence-driven argument to support my position because I honestly don't care enough about the issue to make the effort. I'll instead just say that any rational person who a) followed the antifa money all the way around, and b) was also privy to all the communications between antifa members and leftist-funded political operatives, would never make a claim so divorced from reality as the one that "nobody controls antifa."
And with respect to the shoplifters, passing laws saying people can legally shoplift has no effect on the shoplifting behavior of a cities' inhabitants? Really?
You can do better this, can't you, perle?
Thanks for the comment but I had no intention of going into all the intricacies but merely to point out that the individuals involved will do their thing and cannot be turned off at will. It has been amply demonstrated that you cannot turn off a riot on request, and I am mystified where you got the idea that I think permitting shoplifting would not encourage it when I said the opposite. I honestly don't care enough about the issue to make the effort of explaining myself further.
I don't think they 'care' or give a thought to where they'll get their money for bread, circuses, or illegals -- they know they'll get it any way they can because they are sociopaths. They keep on their path until a deviation, they adjust to the deviation and continue on their power trip. It's all about power and control. It doesn't matter to a sociopath how low they sink as long as they're atop the pile of shit they've created -- in their minds it will never crater because they're always making the outhouse rules. They don't mind degradation or they couldn't stand the places their policies have created, like Baltimore, LA, or any other huge city where filth, drugs, chaos, corruption , and disorder rule. Also, if they're rubbing conservatives or Republicans, or Christian's faces in the muck, they're happy at our outrage and despair. They control our finest institutions, like once-revered universities, the media, and now so many courts and judges, once founded on the rule of law.
It will never crater...until it craters. "The Grapes of Wrath" was written in 1939, and people were starving in America 8 years after the New Deal. Even now, can they hide inflation, or the media make it better? And the institutions they control no longer control us. They have lost our trust.
I think my point (that I didn't make very well) was they'll ride their policies to the basement (which is, in essence, cratering), but they won't care how miserable, destitute, starving, and broke the American people are. They'll somehow still be control, and they don't care that they've lost our trust. That's how despicable I think they are. They do not care. They hate us. They will still be atop the rubble and hold the power.
And, I didn't even touch on what they're doing to our children in the guise of gender control -- now parents have to fight and demonstrate and even rely on muslims in a district, and still are told a teacher has more power over what will happen to a student in school, rather than a parent -- when parents are called terrorists because they want the girl they sent to school safe in a girl's restroom, and not worry about a boy calling himself a girl who has as much or more right inside that restroom, and can even rape a parent's child, then we are really in hell on earth.
I’m a lot more concerned about John Roberts saying and believing that there are no Obama judges, just judges, than I am about Turley saying the same thing. Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and if he actually believes that stuff then what chance does that give us?
before I put on my make up
I say a little prayer for you
Thank you for continuing to hammer away at Bluto Barr. He sure dropped the ball in 2020, doing nothing about the suspension of civil liberties and the crooked election. Is he lazy, incompetent, or corrupt?
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.
And the Democratic nominee for POTUS is 2024 is the first transgender candidate, Michael Obama.
True. Talking of Orange Man Bad...
https://img2.timeinc.net/instyle/images/2009/GALLERY/122109-Obama-orange-400.jpg
Calvin ball rules!
"rule of law is so 18th century"
Thus we see the strategic wisdom of the Left in pounding away at the "Founders" these past fifty years, to delegitimize them and their ideals by claiming their ideals, as written into laws in the 18th century, were grounded in slavery. A genetic defect in our constitution. Which is a logical fallacy but rhetorically very, very effective.
Who was it recently, who pointed out that we now have "rule by law" instead of "rule of law"?
I used to shrug and mock the “it’s for the children” argument back in the ‘90s. Now it has become no laughing matter with the “it’s for safety” argument. The tool of tyrants throughout history is the language of safety. More like keeping the tyrants safe from the people than the other way around.
I think the latest version is that "it's to save democracy". That's why we have to ban free speech, put political opponents in prison and cancel anyone who disagrees with us. Rather like saying we have to eat more bacon to become a good vegan.
What are the chances that eventually even Dem judges will balk at abolishing the Constitution? I’d say the chances are as good as were the chances of ANY judge agreeing to hear plaintiff’s substantive arguments of the 2020 election fraud cases, instead of just dismissing one and all on procedural grounds. (I say “all,” but iirc, there was ONE, out of the many cases filed, in which the judge agreed to hear the arguments, but it was quickly dismissed too, like all the others.)
I seriously doubt that a SCOTUS judge who doesn't know what a woman is will know what a constitution is. It has even more letters in it and is harder to pronounce.
The result of Turley’s article is providing a benchmark of what regular constitutional order should look like. He outlines the strategy used by the left to avoid being governed by law. He states that even Democrat judges might tire of this. It is important to try to get ordinary liberals to understand that the radicals are coming for them as well. They will only see this as things continue to evolve. Turley plants seeds here that will hopefully grow into understanding. Some will only understand what is happening with practical experience with tyranny. They are coming for conservatives first. The liberals are dessert and will get their just desserts from the radicals if they are not educated about the authoritarian methods in use here. Striking the right balance in tone and content is what Turley is attempting. At least in my opinion.
Leftist judges won't tire of these lawfare-power-ratchet tactics (see Judge Beryl Howell). Each new clasp of the pall excites expectations of absolute control. We ought not anticipate recovery through Judges, they are not up to the task.
And some are fellow travelers. New legal theories will be created by prosecutors, argued in court, and set as new ‘precedents.’ Tarrio’s sentencing is fore shadowing for Trump. The esoterica of the law will be used to control people as before the Bible was translated from Latin. Non~establishment lawyers will be persecuted out of existence. (Dershowitz is on substack. Does he have to publish there to have a voice?). State bar organizations will police lawyers ideologically. It will not matter that one is told that one does not have ‘standing.’ The conclusion of any court action will be known based upon who the accused is when the accusations are made.
That's the problem, Hal. While he's "providing a benchmark" and "planting seeds", the Left is actually doing stuff. When those seeds germinate they'll find themselves in the middle of a wasteland.
It seems that way. Useful idiocy has its costs. Hopefully enough will tune out the ‘Orange Man Bad’ distraction and see past the orange haze to where they need to: their right to choose who governs them is going away as Trump goes to prison.
Merrick Garland has laid to rest any possible claim that there are no Obama judges
As for the Meadows case, ShipWreckCrew wrote a long post the other day about the strength of the Meadows petition. I wanted to write a comment in that thread that the strength of the case was irrelevant at the moment because it was before a judge appointed by Obama, which is the only thing that really mattered in determining the outcome at the district level.
That's it. And the law schools are weeding out normals in the admission process.
I like Turley, too, but he is hopelessly naive.
I don't think its naivete. I think that he, like McCarthy over at NR and others, has a pathological need to stop short of the whole truth in order to maintain some degree of acceptance by the other team. Its a foolish strategy because when the time comes they'll roll over Turley just as surely as they'll roll over Alex Jones. Maybe that is naivete.
He's the legal equivalent of poor old Kurt Schlichter over at Townhall. A decent enough person, but one who still thinks we're in the era of Reagan.