Post Right Wing looniness here

[Mr. Deez]

If the GOP had let him be impeached after 1/6 they would be done with him. Mistake.

They wouldn't be done with him.

 

[theiioftx]

OK, I'm probably not going to please anybody here again. I agree with Husker, so The Eye isn't going to like my answer. However, Husker probably isn't going to like why I agree with him. Article III, Section 1 puts no qualifications on federal judges. Yes, Don Lemon could be a judge. (FYI - Robert Jackson (chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and SCOTUS justice) didn't have a law degree.)

Does current constitutional jurisprudence bar discrimination on the basis of race by the federal government? Yes. Bolling v. Sharpe held that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment implies an equal protection requirement and therefore makes it illegal for the federal government to discriminate on the basis of race. Furthermore, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to federal employment, and I'm not aware of any statutory exceptions for presidential appointees (though I'm open to correction on that). Either way, the federal government cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

So why do I think SH is right? Two reasons. First, both parties have informally accepted that these rules don't apply to presidential appointees even if the law says nothing about that. They reserve for themselves the right to single out whatever group they want to be seen as favorable to and have their picture taken next to a representative of that group. The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the issue, and I honestly doubt anyone would be able to make the case stick if he or she tried to sue.

Second, even if that informal arrangement didn't exist, Bolling v. Sharpe was wrongly decided. There is no equal protection requirement on the federal government, and here's what's wrong with implying one through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has an identical due process clause. If you hold that due process assumes an equal protection element, you nullify the actual equal protection clause that's in the Fourteenth Amendment. We don't interpret laws in a way to make other language in the law have no effect.

Accordingly, regardless of what Chief Justice Warren said in the '50s, at least constitutionally the federal government can discriminate on the basis of race. It shouldn't, and it should make doing so illegal and has under Title VII. So why isn't Biden's action illegal under Title VII? Because Article II, Section 2 gives him plenary authority to nominate federal judges, and if we applied Title VII to him, it would violate Article II, Section 2.

So yeah, he can pretty much discriminate on the basis of race in nominating someone for the Supreme Court.

Your honor, I object! Really thanks for the post. I always enjoy the education I get on HF.

 

[theiioftx]

iis
Think you'll get an honest answer?

That will be a big fat no.

 

[OUBubba]

That’s what poopy pants is doing. Someone who is male or not black need not apply. Honestly this progressive crap is setting the country back on race relations.

It worked to Reagan. I don’t remember you throwing your lollipop in the dirt back then.

 

[OUBubba]

Let’s be sure we remove info about Andrew Jackson ignoring an order of the Supreme Court to initiate genocide. Yay education!

 

[theiioftx]

It worked to Reagan. I don’t remember you throwing your lollipop in the dirt back then.

That was 10 years before Al Gore brought us the internet.

 

[OUBubba]

That was 10 years before Al Gore brought us the internet.

I thought there was a chance you may have caught that little fact.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Let’s be sure we remove info about Andrew Jackson ignoring an order of the Supreme Court to initiate genocide. Yay education!

First, I would say that scrutinizing books for students is an entirely appropriate process. If they were talking about ransacking public libraries or bookstores and holding bookburnings in the streets then I would take issue with it.
Second, I believe these are specific book titles, not entire topics of discourse. so i would imagine this is a single solitary book that covers this topic in a very "down with America" manner. I would imagine there are multiple other books available on Andrew Jackson still available in these libraries.

The left is not content to teach historical facts. They must increasingly come with a healthy dose of interpretation that leads to "America was born of sin". The historical facts are now routinely presented as the only reason for their collective failure to ascend. They want the world to believe that their personal choices play no part in their social and economic lot in life and "the system" is entirely to blame.

 

[OUBubba]

First, I would say that scrutinizing books for students is an entirely appropriate process. If they were talking about ransacking public libraries or bookstores and holding bookburnings in the streets then I would take issue with it.
Second, I believe these are specific book titles, not entire topics of discourse. so i would imagine this is a single solitary book that covers this topic in a very "down with America" manner. I would imagine there are multiple other books available on Andrew Jackson still available in these libraries.

The left is not content to teach historical facts. They must increasingly come with a healthy dose of interpretation that leads to "America was born of sin". The historical facts are now routinely presented as the only reason for their collective failure to ascend. They want the world to believe that their personal choices play no part in their social and economic lot in life and "the system" is entirely to blame.

Well, that is accurate. My creek family once lived in Alabama. They then moved west to Council Hill, OK, in great measure, because the president of the United States did not follow the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. I guess I should be thankful I’m not an Auburn fan.

 

[iatrogenic]

Violations of the constitution are a matter of opinion ——-unless they are said to be so by the SC and those opinions are subject to who happens to be on the court

so what is constitutional is always in flux.

it has been so at least since the reign of The Great Emancipator

as that constitutional scholar HUD Bannon so perceptively noted “the law should be interpreted leniently. Sometimes I lean one way and sometimes I lean the other “

Says the guy that defends illegal aliens.

 

[iatrogenic]

The Trump tax cuts is exhibit A.

Please professor Gomer, give us the details. Explain how cutting taxes is Socialism.
This will be interesting to watch. Ready....go...

 

[iatrogenic]

I guess I should be thankful I’m not an Auburn fan.

Imagine how Auburn fans feel.

 

[iatrogenic]

Solely?

Not solely. I think His Fraudulency, President Dementia, also prefers his colored folk to be clean and well spoken, as he described Obama. However, he don't be liken em be in bussed into whitey's schools because that would create a "jungle" of some sort, as he so eloquently described.

Discrimination is back and is all the rage! I guess this means CRT and D.I.E. are out, and unqualified "Justice Affirmative Action" is in, whomever she be.

 

[iatrogenic]

Jamaal Koshogi was a US Journalist, not citizen. That's my error. He could have been your or my neighbor. He dared speak out against the Saudi regime. He has two children who are citizens.

He was an advocate and former camel riding member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-democratic, terrorist organization. Even worse, he worked for the Washington Post. He could have been your neighbor, at least in ideology, but he couldn't have been mine. Fug him and his support for Bin Laden. I hope he suffered as he died.

 

[Mr. Deez]

First, I would say that scrutinizing books for students is an entirely appropriate process. If they were talking about ransacking public libraries or bookstores and holding bookburnings in the streets then I would take issue with it.
Second, I believe these are specific book titles, not entire topics of discourse. so i would imagine this is a single solitary book that covers this topic in a very "down with America" manner. I would imagine there are multiple other books available on Andrew Jackson still available in these libraries.

The left is not content to teach historical facts. They must increasingly come with a healthy dose of interpretation that leads to "America was born of sin". The historical facts are now routinely presented as the only reason for their collective failure to ascend. They want the world to believe that their personal choices play no part in their social and economic lot in life and "the system" is entirely to blame.

There's so much dishonesty on this issue. For starters, we use the phrase "banning books." Banning books is outlawing the sale of a book or prohibiting someone from reading a book. Taking a book from a school library or off the reading list isn't banning a book.

Second, when a book like Maus is removed, it's framed as though it's being removed because it talks about the Holocaust, which very clearly isn't the case. Otherwise they'd ban other less explicit Holocaust books.

Third, both sides get very righteous about this when both sides do it, and by the way, they should. Keeping books that are sexually explicit or otherwise harmful or inappropriate away from children is a good thing. There's a reason why kids can't buy a Hustler off the shelf.

 

[iatrogenic]

To recap:
-138 police officers were injured.
-5 people died.
-The U.S. Capitol was desecrated.
-A constitutional process was halted.
-750 people were arrested.
-200 are sentenced (so far)
-over 50 conspiracy charges
-11 sedition charges
- Fake electors exposed who were part of the effort to overturn the election

It was so egregious that the Libs are trying to hide the truth. You would think they would want to expose the entire, horrific event, especially since AOC won the Medal of Honor for her heroics during the great siege.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents citizens from suing for their release.

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common law right of access after the Capitol Police refused to provide any records in response to a January 21, 2021, request (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Judicial Watch asks for:

• Email communications between the U.S. Capitol Police Executive Team and the Capitol Police Board concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021 through January 10, 2021.

• Email communications of the Capitol Police Board with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021through January 10, 2021.

• All video footage from within the Capitol between 12 pm and 9 pm on January 6, 2021

Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch, therefore, brought its lawsuit under the common law right of access to public records. In opposing the broad assertion of secrecy, Judicial Watch details Supreme Court and other precedent that upholds the public’s right to know what “their government is up to:”

“In ‘the courts of this country’— including the federal courts—the common law bestows upon the public a right of access to public records and documents” … “the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that there is a federal common law right of access ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents.’” … “[T]he general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right.” The right of access is “a precious common law right . . . that predates the Constitution itself.”

The Court of Appeals for this circuit has recognized that “openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government….” “Neither our elected nor our appointed representatives may abridge the free flow of information simply to protect their own activities from public scrutiny. An official policy of secrecy must be supported by some legitimate justification that serves the interest of the public office.”

“The Pelosi Congress (and its police department) is telling a federal court it is immune from all transparency under law and is trying to hide every second of its January 6 videos and countless emails,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The hypocrisy is rich, as this is the same Congress that is trying to jail witnesses who, citing privileges, object to providing documents to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.”

In November 2021, Judicial Watch revealed multiple audio, visual and photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building. The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd. In October, Judicial Watch released records, showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt.

Also in November, Judicial Watch filed a response in opposition to the Department of Justice’s effort to block Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. Judicial Watch argues that Justice Department should not be allowed to shield “improper activity.”

 

[Garmel]

They wouldn't be done with him.

It would make a martyr out of him just like any possible indictments from these witch hunts will.

 

[guy4321]

Yes, this is loony. Here is the resolution that passed the RNC committee to censure Reps Cheney and Kinzinger.

Other than admitting that the RNC exists for the sole purpose of electing R's, not for actually governing, here is the key passage:



It's a complete white washing of what occurred on Jan. 6th.

To recap:
-138 police officers were injured.
-5 people died.
-The U.S. Capitol was desecrated.
-A constitutional process was halted.
-750 people were arrested.
-200 are sentenced (so far)
-over 50 conspiracy charges
-11 sedition charges
- Fake electors exposed who were part of the effort to overturn the election

@bystander You often point to the power of AOC as an example of "totalitarianism" but here you have the actual Republican party enforcing "group think" on a few members. With AOC you have the desire or potential for "totalitarianism". With the RNC it's now official procedure.

It'd be a lot easier to care about this if the sentences failed in the opposite direction. "Other than admitting that the DNC exists for the sole purpose of electing D's, not for actually governing..." We can find articles on Sinema, Manchin, and BLM looting to validate that. The only thing you'll probably win is number of charges as the federal government seems more interested in Jan 6 than the summer of 2020.

 

[Garmel]

It was so egregious that the Libs are trying to hide the truth. You would think they would want to expose the entire, horrific event, especially since AOC won the Medal of Honor for her heroics during the great siege.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that “sovereign immunity” prevents citizens from suing for their release.

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common law right of access after the Capitol Police refused to provide any records in response to a January 21, 2021, request (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Judicial Watch asks for:

• Email communications between the U.S. Capitol Police Executive Team and the Capitol Police Board concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021 through January 10, 2021.

• Email communications of the Capitol Police Board with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021through January 10, 2021.

• All video footage from within the Capitol between 12 pm and 9 pm on January 6, 2021

Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch, therefore, brought its lawsuit under the common law right of access to public records. In opposing the broad assertion of secrecy, Judicial Watch details Supreme Court and other precedent that upholds the public’s right to know what “their government is up to:”

“In ‘the courts of this country’— including the federal courts—the common law bestows upon the public a right of access to public records and documents” … “the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that there is a federal common law right of access ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents.’” … “[T]he general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right.” The right of access is “a precious common law right . . . that predates the Constitution itself.”

The Court of Appeals for this circuit has recognized that “openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government….” “Neither our elected nor our appointed representatives may abridge the free flow of information simply to protect their own activities from public scrutiny. An official policy of secrecy must be supported by some legitimate justification that serves the interest of the public office.”

“The Pelosi Congress (and its police department) is telling a federal court it is immune from all transparency under law and is trying to hide every second of its January 6 videos and countless emails,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The hypocrisy is rich, as this is the same Congress that is trying to jail witnesses who, citing privileges, object to providing documents to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.”

In November 2021, Judicial Watch revealed multiple audio, visual and photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building. The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd. In October, Judicial Watch released records, showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt.

Also in November, Judicial Watch filed a response in opposition to the Department of Justice’s effort to block Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. Judicial Watch argues that Justice Department should not be allowed to shield “improper activity.”

I could be wrong on this but as time goes on this thing has developed a Russian Collusion 2.0 vibe to it.

 

[iatrogenic]

I could be wrong on this but as time goes on this thing has developed a Russian Collusion 2.0 vibe to it.

Supposedly Pelosi declined Trump's offer of 10,000 National Guardsmen for Jan. 6, and it appears the FBI was once again involved in a partisan political maneuver. The FBI has crapped in their own hat many times recently. They are a shell of what they formerly were. The only good FBI agents are the ones that are former cops.

 

[theiioftx]

Every year, Pelosi tries to retire. Her husband objects because he still wants to earn his income from Nancy.

 

[nashhorn]

I’m guessing you mean his inside trading information from her.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Putting this here without comment.

 

[huisache]

Says the guy that defends illegal aliens.

I don’t defend illegal aliens. I defend the people who get caught smuggling them in so they can work cheap for Republican business owners and middle class zhits who are too lazy to cut their own grass and motel owners who don’t want to pay the rates Americans would want to clean up rooms and drop chocolates on pillows.
The smugglers are charged with crimes that will land them in prison. Under the Constitution they get lawyers. I represented insurance companies for decades and even represented some personal injury plaintiffs on occasion. The alien smugglers will at least admit they did something wrong

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don’t defend illegal aliens. I defend the people who get caught smuggling them in so they can work cheap for Republican business owners and middle class zhits who are too lazy to cut their own grass and motel owners who don’t want to pay the rates Americans would want to clean up rooms and drop chocolates on pillows.
The smugglers are charged with crimes that will land them in prison. Under the Constitution they get lawyers. I represented insurance companies for decades and even represented some personal injury plaintiffs on occasion. The alien smugglers will at least admit they did something wrong

Does anyone else picture @huisache as Saul Goodman?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Twitter is a cesspool that is only good for entertainment from politicians being put in their place. Rep. Cawthorn is a vacuous representative. His narrative is 100% contrived and all evidence points to him actually being a pretty sh!tty individual.

 

[OUBubba]

Twitter is a cesspool that is only good for entertainment from politicians being put in their place. Rep. Cawthorn is a vacuous representative. His narrative is 100% contrived and all evidence points to him actually being a pretty sh!tty individual.

I mean she was a Russian agent...

 

[Seattle Husker]

I mean she was a Russian agent...

Not ready to go there. Regardless, he's lied on many fronts. He was never accepted to Annapolis or West Point. He's lied about the crash that resulted in his injury where he makes his friend, the one that pulled him out of the car on fire and save him, the villain. Cawthorn's 1 Semester in college was riddled with multiple girls claiming he was a predator. From the speeches I've seen him give, he has less grasp on "truth" than Trump, which says eons.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Twitter is a cesspool that is only good for entertainment from politicians being put in their place. Rep. Cawthorn is a vacuous representative. His narrative is 100% contrived and all evidence points to him actually being a pretty sh!tty individual.

For about 5 minutes, I actually was optimistic about Cawthorn. Then he won and said he would commit his entire staff to "coms" (meaning nobody working on legislation), and I realized that he'd just be another assclown saying a lot of stupid things. If the GOP retakes the House, they need to push him, Green, and Gaetz to the side.

 

[Seattle Husker]

For about 5 minutes, I actually was optimistic about Cawthorn. Then he won and said he would commit his entire staff to "coms" (meaning nobody working on legislation), and I realized that he'd just be another assclown saying a lot of stupid things. If the GOP retakes the House, they need to push him, Green, and Gaetz to the side.

Tell you what...if you can advocate for pushing those assclowns to the wayside I'll do the same on the left. Too many politicians that aren't really worried about legislating but simply shouting loud enough to more easily incite people to donating to their coffers.