It may be that she suffers from empathy which is anathema to all things maga. To be true maga you need to enjoy destroying the lives of the people you hate. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are maga to the core.
!00% agree, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch are three of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, with Kavanaugh riding along on a little pony right behind them. As for maga hate, it was on visceral display with Trump's combination of indifference and almost tangible excitement over Ukrainian civilian deaths following his cessation of intelligence sharing. Truly despicable.
I really wish Biden would have taken the court up on their complete presidential immunity ruling and thrown all these fuckers in prison and replaced them with people who are actually qualified.
You offer a glimmer of hope that as more and more cases on the fettering of democracy and the mindlessly narrow reading of the Constitution and the raging lawlessness of the Trumphuk / Heritage cabal is challenged in the courts that Barrett and Roberts will see the need to provide brakes on the runaway, rampant corruption that’s before their eyes. But even with that Trumphuk and his misbegotten “brain” Mr. Project 2025 Vought will likely plant more reliable “justices” to the court after getting Alito and Thomas to resign. H-E-L-P!!
Amy Coney Barrett, is not a white man. That is the reason they hate on her, although as Taylor Swift sings, haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
In a Blue secession, the SCOTUS is definitely one we want to leave behind with the New Feudalists as the Red States can be seen to be.
Right now I see a few ways to go.
1) Blue states secede to becoming the Democratic States of America with new constitution that protects from what we are seeing happen. All government employees who have been fired get the option to go to the new country and work. Same with Military leadership and Intelligence Leadership, at least those that have not taken work from foreign governments, friend or foe. Other than the name, I like this model.
Also, read Jefferson Cowie's Freedom's Dominion to understand that the people running the country do not believe in the freedom you and I believe in, but the one that says, free for me, but not for thee. A Feudal freedom that enslaves those around them because they can, led by wealthy, mostly white, men.
3) You can make your own personal secession plan. I wrote an article about this on 2 occasions. Here is the latest one.
4) You can just accept what is happening and count on your democratically elected representatives to put up a good fight. Wait for them to realize they need to be drafting legislation against every single thing in Project 2025, and that Musk is doing to protect us. That is go along to get along.
People have talked about secession since the first years of our republic. When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the Republican party (and the Federalist party was in power) in the late 1790's, Jefferson characterized the outrageous Federalist abuses and usurpations of power as a "reign of witches" and Jeferson spoke of secession. Madison characterized the Federalists' abuses and usurpations of power as "criminal degeneracy." Even so, Madison (much more disciplined and steeped in our Constitution) talked Jefferson and his more radical supporters down from the ledge.
Instead of secession, they worked on succession. They worked on getting Jefferson elected president and many Republican congressmen elected (which they did promptly in the next election). Jefferson was elected twice. Then, Madison was elected twice. Then, a third Virginia Republican (James Monroe) was elected twice. Elections, not secession, is how We the People determined we should be able to rein in people in power (our representatives) who abuse the power that we temporarily entrusted to them (to serve us).
President Lincoln was correct in following Madison. The primary reason for the Civil War was to counter the clearly unconstitutional efforts of the leaders of some states to tear up our Constitution by claiming they had the power to rip apart our Union. Our Constitution (Article V) is clear about the only way that our Constitution can be amended (to remove states from our Union).
It's worth keeping in mind that every federal or state employee swears an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. So does every attorney admitted to practice law before any state or federal court. The Fourteenth Amendment emphasizes one consequence of those people violating their oaths by supporting secession (or even "engaged in [any] insurrection or rebellion"). They are disqualified from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State."
For another interesting reminder additional consequences for people who mislead Americans to secession visit Arlington Cemetery. Or read about Arlington House. It once belonged to the family of Robert E. Lee.
It doesn’t feel like such a theoretical concept of did the south win the civil war anymore. The racism and oppression is occurring in plain site. Further, look at which states subsidize other states, with the south being takers. The senate has become the least democratic body ever. I never would have entertained the notion of a succession the other way around until now.
Colorado was right that Trump could be and was disqualified from holding office (and being on the ballot in Colorado). The SCOTUS judges who said otherwise knowingly violated our Constitution. They did so to help very high-level political operatives. Everybody else should think carefully before betting their career on secession (and risking criminal prosecution).
Every federal or state employee (military and civilian) swears an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. So does every attorney admitted to practice law before any state or federal court. The Fourteenth Amendment emphasizes one consequence of those people violating their oaths by supporting secession (or even "engaged in [any] insurrection or rebellion"). They are disqualified from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State."
How does anyone in MAGA world hold down a job or maintain a household with their level of reasoning? The country owed money for work that was done. Thus we should pay, no matter what the hell Elon Musk says. Though certainly no hero, ACB was correct on this extremely obvious ruling, which really does nothing to slow down the MAGA wrecking ball anyway. Do even the most conspiratorial of MAGA voters and pundits want to do work for which they are not compensated?
How Barrett is perceived and treated is less a reflection on her but on the other so-called conservatives on the court who believe their loyalty is to Trump and his agenda, and not to any particular interpretation of the Constitution.
The Russian-American Fascist Alliance is seen and is being protested worldwide. While Iranian men wore white shirts, tearing them open to be shot by the Shah’s fascist troops, the women of Paris don’t need any stinking shirts. https://bit.ly/4iBdePo
Justices Alito and Thomas very badly used and abused Justice Barrett when she first joined SCOTUS. I'm not the least bit surprised that she won't follow them blindly now. Good for her! I posted the following in response to Professor Josh Blackman's criticism of Justice Barrett. Professor Blackman has not responded. I doubt he dares to try to prove Justices Alito and Thomas did not lie in Dobbs. In the following paragraph, I quoted Professor Blackman:
I might believe that Professor Blackman "cares[s] very deeply about [originalism], and indeed the rule of law" (and I might even join his defense of Justices Alito and Thomas and even join his attack on Justice Barrett for not blindly following Justices Alito and Thomas) if he could prove that Justices Alito and Thomas did not lie about our Constitution and did not knowingly violate it in Dobbs.
I could barely believe my eyes when I saw them lie in Dobbs about the Ninth Amendment and then knowingly violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The Tenth Amendment obviously emphasized that federal judges could not exercise any "powers" that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The Ninth Amendment obviously emphasized that a particular power was not delegated to federal courts.
The majority in Dobbs (twice) knowingly and absurdly misrepresented that the Ninth Amendment stated a mere "reservation of rights to the people." The Ninth Amendment clearly was not merely (or even primarily) a "reservation of rights." The Ninth Amendment clearly is what judges commonly call "a rule of construction." It expressly and emphatically commanded how "the Constitution" absolutely "shall not be construed."
The Ninth Amendment expressly and emphatically commanded judges not to do exactly what the Dobbs majority did, i.e., not construe our Constitution "to deny or [even] disparage" any right "retained by the people" on the grounds that a right was not expressly included in any "enumeration in the Constitution." That command was clearly directed especially at judges whose duty is to construe the law (say what the law is).
After the Dobbs majority lied about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, they knowingly violated it. They deceitfully focused our attention on the obviously irrelevant fact that “[t]he Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion." Then, they lied again. They knowingly misrepresented the consequence (dictated by our Constitution) of the foregoing irrelevant fact: "therefore those who claim that [our Constitution] protects [any] right [at issue] must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.”
The Dobbs majority abused the foregoing lies about the law and their violation of our Constitution to pretend to justify shifting the crucial burden of proof--from the government (when it infringed on rights) onto citizens (asserting rights). The misrepresentation of law and violation of law by the Dobbs majority was clearly barred by the plain text and plain meaning of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It's almost unbelievable that those judges dared to do what they did in writing.
The Dobbs majority did not--and cannot--prove that their conduct and contentions did not violate our Constitution. Amendment I especially clearly barred judges from abusing their positions and powers for the "establishment" of their own "religion" or imposing their religious viewpoints on other persons (as they did in Dobbs). Amendment XIII clearly barred judges from abusing their positions and powers to facilitate "involuntary servitude" by other persons. Compelling a woman (or a couple) to involuntarily support a fetus (for some 9 months) and then a child (for some 18 years) necessarily is involuntary servitude. Moreover, our Constitution also clearly does guarantee a woman's right to use deadly force (even against another actual person and even against a citizen) for self-defense or self-preservation. That was the emphatic point of a decision by the same SCOTUS majority separated by only one day from their Dobbs decision. See all the many references to defense (or defence) or preservation in the analysis of the meaning of Amendment II in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (and even far more so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).
It may be that she suffers from empathy which is anathema to all things maga. To be true maga you need to enjoy destroying the lives of the people you hate. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are maga to the core.
!00% agree, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch are three of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, with Kavanaugh riding along on a little pony right behind them. As for maga hate, it was on visceral display with Trump's combination of indifference and almost tangible excitement over Ukrainian civilian deaths following his cessation of intelligence sharing. Truly despicable.
I really wish Biden would have taken the court up on their complete presidential immunity ruling and thrown all these fuckers in prison and replaced them with people who are actually qualified.
You offer a glimmer of hope that as more and more cases on the fettering of democracy and the mindlessly narrow reading of the Constitution and the raging lawlessness of the Trumphuk / Heritage cabal is challenged in the courts that Barrett and Roberts will see the need to provide brakes on the runaway, rampant corruption that’s before their eyes. But even with that Trumphuk and his misbegotten “brain” Mr. Project 2025 Vought will likely plant more reliable “justices” to the court after getting Alito and Thomas to resign. H-E-L-P!!
Amy Coney Barrett, is not a white man. That is the reason they hate on her, although as Taylor Swift sings, haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
In a Blue secession, the SCOTUS is definitely one we want to leave behind with the New Feudalists as the Red States can be seen to be.
Right now I see a few ways to go.
1) Blue states secede to becoming the Democratic States of America with new constitution that protects from what we are seeing happen. All government employees who have been fired get the option to go to the new country and work. Same with Military leadership and Intelligence Leadership, at least those that have not taken work from foreign governments, friend or foe. Other than the name, I like this model.
https://secularhumanism.org/exclusive/secession/
2) People can stay and fight the New Feudalists, with some successes, but overall, a country that is turned into a third world nation rapidly. See this Bulwark article about who the Southerners are. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/liberal-democracy-american-south-vance-bourbons?r=f0qfn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Also, read Jefferson Cowie's Freedom's Dominion to understand that the people running the country do not believe in the freedom you and I believe in, but the one that says, free for me, but not for thee. A Feudal freedom that enslaves those around them because they can, led by wealthy, mostly white, men.
3) You can make your own personal secession plan. I wrote an article about this on 2 occasions. Here is the latest one.
https://lindaweide.substack.com/p/a-plan-c-for-catastrophe?r=f0qfn
4) You can just accept what is happening and count on your democratically elected representatives to put up a good fight. Wait for them to realize they need to be drafting legislation against every single thing in Project 2025, and that Musk is doing to protect us. That is go along to get along.
People have talked about secession since the first years of our republic. When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the Republican party (and the Federalist party was in power) in the late 1790's, Jefferson characterized the outrageous Federalist abuses and usurpations of power as a "reign of witches" and Jeferson spoke of secession. Madison characterized the Federalists' abuses and usurpations of power as "criminal degeneracy." Even so, Madison (much more disciplined and steeped in our Constitution) talked Jefferson and his more radical supporters down from the ledge.
Instead of secession, they worked on succession. They worked on getting Jefferson elected president and many Republican congressmen elected (which they did promptly in the next election). Jefferson was elected twice. Then, Madison was elected twice. Then, a third Virginia Republican (James Monroe) was elected twice. Elections, not secession, is how We the People determined we should be able to rein in people in power (our representatives) who abuse the power that we temporarily entrusted to them (to serve us).
President Lincoln was correct in following Madison. The primary reason for the Civil War was to counter the clearly unconstitutional efforts of the leaders of some states to tear up our Constitution by claiming they had the power to rip apart our Union. Our Constitution (Article V) is clear about the only way that our Constitution can be amended (to remove states from our Union).
It's worth keeping in mind that every federal or state employee swears an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. So does every attorney admitted to practice law before any state or federal court. The Fourteenth Amendment emphasizes one consequence of those people violating their oaths by supporting secession (or even "engaged in [any] insurrection or rebellion"). They are disqualified from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State."
For another interesting reminder additional consequences for people who mislead Americans to secession visit Arlington Cemetery. Or read about Arlington House. It once belonged to the family of Robert E. Lee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_House,_The_Robert_E._Lee_Memorial
It doesn’t feel like such a theoretical concept of did the south win the civil war anymore. The racism and oppression is occurring in plain site. Further, look at which states subsidize other states, with the south being takers. The senate has become the least democratic body ever. I never would have entertained the notion of a succession the other way around until now.
Colorado was right that Trump could be and was disqualified from holding office (and being on the ballot in Colorado). The SCOTUS judges who said otherwise knowingly violated our Constitution. They did so to help very high-level political operatives. Everybody else should think carefully before betting their career on secession (and risking criminal prosecution).
Every federal or state employee (military and civilian) swears an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. So does every attorney admitted to practice law before any state or federal court. The Fourteenth Amendment emphasizes one consequence of those people violating their oaths by supporting secession (or even "engaged in [any] insurrection or rebellion"). They are disqualified from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State."
How does anyone in MAGA world hold down a job or maintain a household with their level of reasoning? The country owed money for work that was done. Thus we should pay, no matter what the hell Elon Musk says. Though certainly no hero, ACB was correct on this extremely obvious ruling, which really does nothing to slow down the MAGA wrecking ball anyway. Do even the most conspiratorial of MAGA voters and pundits want to do work for which they are not compensated?
I'm with you on this one. It's not even a liberal or conservative position. It's just enforcing a contract to, you know, be a contract!
How Barrett is perceived and treated is less a reflection on her but on the other so-called conservatives on the court who believe their loyalty is to Trump and his agenda, and not to any particular interpretation of the Constitution.
The Russian-American Fascist Alliance is seen and is being protested worldwide. While Iranian men wore white shirts, tearing them open to be shot by the Shah’s fascist troops, the women of Paris don’t need any stinking shirts. https://bit.ly/4iBdePo
Justices Alito and Thomas very badly used and abused Justice Barrett when she first joined SCOTUS. I'm not the least bit surprised that she won't follow them blindly now. Good for her! I posted the following in response to Professor Josh Blackman's criticism of Justice Barrett. Professor Blackman has not responded. I doubt he dares to try to prove Justices Alito and Thomas did not lie in Dobbs. In the following paragraph, I quoted Professor Blackman:
I might believe that Professor Blackman "cares[s] very deeply about [originalism], and indeed the rule of law" (and I might even join his defense of Justices Alito and Thomas and even join his attack on Justice Barrett for not blindly following Justices Alito and Thomas) if he could prove that Justices Alito and Thomas did not lie about our Constitution and did not knowingly violate it in Dobbs.
I could barely believe my eyes when I saw them lie in Dobbs about the Ninth Amendment and then knowingly violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The Tenth Amendment obviously emphasized that federal judges could not exercise any "powers" that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The Ninth Amendment obviously emphasized that a particular power was not delegated to federal courts.
The majority in Dobbs (twice) knowingly and absurdly misrepresented that the Ninth Amendment stated a mere "reservation of rights to the people." The Ninth Amendment clearly was not merely (or even primarily) a "reservation of rights." The Ninth Amendment clearly is what judges commonly call "a rule of construction." It expressly and emphatically commanded how "the Constitution" absolutely "shall not be construed."
The Ninth Amendment expressly and emphatically commanded judges not to do exactly what the Dobbs majority did, i.e., not construe our Constitution "to deny or [even] disparage" any right "retained by the people" on the grounds that a right was not expressly included in any "enumeration in the Constitution." That command was clearly directed especially at judges whose duty is to construe the law (say what the law is).
After the Dobbs majority lied about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, they knowingly violated it. They deceitfully focused our attention on the obviously irrelevant fact that “[t]he Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion." Then, they lied again. They knowingly misrepresented the consequence (dictated by our Constitution) of the foregoing irrelevant fact: "therefore those who claim that [our Constitution] protects [any] right [at issue] must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.”
The Dobbs majority abused the foregoing lies about the law and their violation of our Constitution to pretend to justify shifting the crucial burden of proof--from the government (when it infringed on rights) onto citizens (asserting rights). The misrepresentation of law and violation of law by the Dobbs majority was clearly barred by the plain text and plain meaning of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It's almost unbelievable that those judges dared to do what they did in writing.
The Dobbs majority did not--and cannot--prove that their conduct and contentions did not violate our Constitution. Amendment I especially clearly barred judges from abusing their positions and powers for the "establishment" of their own "religion" or imposing their religious viewpoints on other persons (as they did in Dobbs). Amendment XIII clearly barred judges from abusing their positions and powers to facilitate "involuntary servitude" by other persons. Compelling a woman (or a couple) to involuntarily support a fetus (for some 9 months) and then a child (for some 18 years) necessarily is involuntary servitude. Moreover, our Constitution also clearly does guarantee a woman's right to use deadly force (even against another actual person and even against a citizen) for self-defense or self-preservation. That was the emphatic point of a decision by the same SCOTUS majority separated by only one day from their Dobbs decision. See all the many references to defense (or defence) or preservation in the analysis of the meaning of Amendment II in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (and even far more so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).