Read the F1 article. The author is a joke. Claiming to be one of the proletariat yet can ID a Hemes bag, designer dresses, and high end watches in the blink of an eye (First time flying first class? She flies all over the world and has never been up graded? C'mon...).
Her shtick about how terrrrible the people were was only out done by the fake disdain she was putting on.
Well, if so, what are we to do about the risk that you may be right?
My view is that Rep Matt Gaetz and the sixty or so Republican representatives who have signed on to his resolution need to be exposed. This resolution is a gift to the Democrats in the House that they should not decline.
Here is the text of Rep Gaetz's resolution:
118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on _______________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or
give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did
not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
That looks to me like an "open goal," to use a soccer or hockey term.
Despite continuing to spread his festering malignancy on our gullible nation, I'll give DJT this: by utterly warping the standards we virtually breathe by as Americans he has exposed the true workings of our system including that the eminent gravitas of SCOTUS is all a farce. A Shakespearean tragi-comedy. We only thought these esteemed institutions were incorruptible. They're not and never were.
JVL: you need to understand something about the speed issue. Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to take the case in December. They told him to go fuck himself. They are in the bag for Trump. Their raison d'etre is making sure Trump never stands trial before the election. On their off hours, they decide how to stick their noses and every aspect of government, all while fraudulently claiming that they want to "lower the temperature." What a crock of shit.
The Supreme Court ceased being a legitimate institution of government long ago. I can trace it back to Scalia. Add Thomas, then Roberts and Alito and the receivers of stolen property, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett, and you have a super majority of unethical sleazebags.
I totally get the justices not wanting to pour gasoline on the fire, but their job is to interpret the constitution regardless of the political whims and social stability of the country.
They have rendered an entire portion of the constitution null and void and made up out of thin air some kind of imaginary provision where only congress can determine if the disqualifying test applies to a president. That isn't in the constitution. You don't pass a bill in congress to remove someone under 35 who has placed themselves on the ballot for president. It is self-executing. Why in the world wouldn't this one be?
Very disappointed but not surprised. Hoping they act fast on the immunity question and that they don't give in to their fear of the angry mob in granting Trump full immunity to rule as a gangster/Stalin type so that we can move his trials forward and convict this lifetime criminal.
So basically SCOTUS guaranteed that if Trump wins, he will run again in 2028, since the states cannot decide whether or not he would be eligible to run. There's no way a polarized congress would be able to pass legislation disqualifying him - certainly the Trumpified GOP would defend him wholeheartedly.
The lesson I'm tempted to derive from this SCOTUS decision is that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment on which it's written.
Scientists who fake data to support their preconceived models cease being scientists. Same doesn't appear to be the case for justices faking legal reasoning to support their preconceived decisions.
As if the “total immunity” appeal needs to be mulled over one more time.
The appeals court put a legal stake though the heart of Trump’s bone-headed claim that he can murder rivals and senators who’d vote for his impeachment, and still be above the law.
SCOTUS pulled the stake out, and gave Trump the delay he’s always begged for, by saying:
“You want to be a Hitler. a Stalin, a Putin, way above the law? Hmmm, we need to ponder this, maybe you can be!” Shameful.
The separate opinion by Justice Coney Barrett implies the real reason the Court was unwilling to read and apply the Constitution. She suggests that the justices were unwilling to be blamed for the political stress, and probable violence, that would greet a decision to remove Mr Trump's name from primary ballots. I am disappointed that Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson did not dissent.
Still, they all did us a favor. The net result of their decision is that if the Constitutional order is to be defended from insurrection, Congress must act.
Here's a suggestion.
Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida has proposed a resolution in the House that, if passed, would declare Mr Trump innocent of the accusations related to the assault on the Capitol on 6 January 2021. Democratic representatives should not stand in his way.
Why not encourage extensive hearings on the proposed resolution? Why not insist on holding the hearings in front of the cameras in prime time? There are witnesses to be called. There are documents to be revealed. There are videos to display.
The Speaker of the House or some Republican committee chairman may hold the gavel, but surely Democrats will be allowed equal time to present their case to the public.
Representative Matt Gaetz's resolution is really a gift to the Democrats and to the country. Full debate must follow full exploration of the facts.
Hours of testimony and supporting videos and other evidence will graphically expose the lies. It will be a fuller version of the 2022 Select Committee hearings . . . called by the Republicans! The result, I am confident, will be an "own goal" by the Republicans, to use a soccer term.
Upon reaching the end of the hearings, Democratic representatives can demand a member-by-member vote on the resolution. If it does not pass by at least a 2/3 majority, the Republicans will have demonstrated that Mr Trump does not have enough support to survive removal from office either by impeachment or by legislative action implementing Section 3 of Amendment XIV.
The Democrats in the House must not let this gift go unopened. They should take advantage of it before Representative Gaetz realizes his blunder and tries to withdraw the resolution.
There is a bit of silver lining in the opinion. None of us ever again have to pretend to take Alito or Thomas seriously when they piously opine about originalism. The drafters of the 14th amendment were crystal-clear in describing their intentions in any of the excerpts I have read of the discussions of the amendment. The so-called originalists on the court ignored all of that because it would have led to a disagreeable conclusion. I am idly curious if either of them has the self-awareness or intellectual honesty to acknowledge what they have done, but I really don't care. They are as venal as any Chicago alderman, and deserve no more respect than an alderman.
This made me smile and hope it has the same effect on y'all! Three of my colleagues bought $1200 worth of cheap MAGA merch, drove down to "the convoy" in Eagle Pass, sold it for $60k and donated every penny to Biden.
Dangerous, woke, liberal educators to the rescue! 😂😂💙🇺🇸
I'm really curious as to why JVL doesn't go by JVN at this point--Jonath V. Netanyahu. Aside from being related to this butcher, why would JVN just consistently fellate the policy decisions of Netanyahu?
And I continue to be disturbed that JVN is not a man of his word. In October he EXPLICTLY promised he'd call out Israel for the war crime of collective punishments IF it was proven, notwithstanding the fact Israel admitted to doing so from day one.
Why doesn't JVN speak out? Is it because Palestians are subhuman to him? Sure looks that way.
I'm guessing he'll ban me before he lives up to his WORD. What a pathetic specimen of a supposedly conservative man who is supposed to value his word.
Guess it doesn't matter then his targets are brown. Shame on JVN.
Oh and I'm gonna keep shaming JVN until he lives up to his word, whatever that means as an enabler of war criminals.
I am pretty confident someone before me has pointed this out, but no, it is not exactly a unanimous decision. (I can't read 419 comments to make sure). Yes, unanimous in the conclusion but not in the reasoning at all, and with the Supreme Court, that matters in a number of ways. I don't know where they are headed, but they are a divided bunch these days. I don't expect they will be unanimous on immunity either, though they absolutely should on the merits. It is a preposterous legal theory that should have be laughed away without an argument, but I suspect an argument was granted because of a few result oriented conservative justices and I don't know how far they are going to take this. It makes me nervous.
I have a faculty senate meeting in an hour (another exercise in futility but I digress). This sentence stood out to me "The “grownups” in favor of stability and norms will only be unanimous when it’s to Trump’s advantage."
Exactly JVL!! The authoritarian majority on the Court depend on the liberal squishes upholding decorum, like not speaking publicly while Alito writes op-eds, in order to continue their erosion of the rule of law.
Jake Tapper covered Bush v Gore and has said it was a completely corrupt process and he lost any illusions he had about the sanctity of the Court after that. The man behind the curtain is not benevolent, but he depends on us thinking that he is. Exactly like Netanyahu, but let's save that for another day. Just a little ethnic cleansing between "democracies" amirite?
F1 article: https://web.archive.org/web/20240301170542/https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a46975496/behind-f1-velvet-curtain/
Read the F1 article. The author is a joke. Claiming to be one of the proletariat yet can ID a Hemes bag, designer dresses, and high end watches in the blink of an eye (First time flying first class? She flies all over the world and has never been up graded? C'mon...).
Her shtick about how terrrrible the people were was only out done by the fake disdain she was putting on.
Well, if so, what are we to do about the risk that you may be right?
My view is that Rep Matt Gaetz and the sixty or so Republican representatives who have signed on to his resolution need to be exposed. This resolution is a gift to the Democrats in the House that they should not decline.
Here is the text of Rep Gaetz's resolution:
118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on _______________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in
insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or
give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did
not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
That looks to me like an "open goal," to use a soccer or hockey term.
Vince S
Despite continuing to spread his festering malignancy on our gullible nation, I'll give DJT this: by utterly warping the standards we virtually breathe by as Americans he has exposed the true workings of our system including that the eminent gravitas of SCOTUS is all a farce. A Shakespearean tragi-comedy. We only thought these esteemed institutions were incorruptible. They're not and never were.
JVL: you need to understand something about the speed issue. Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to take the case in December. They told him to go fuck himself. They are in the bag for Trump. Their raison d'etre is making sure Trump never stands trial before the election. On their off hours, they decide how to stick their noses and every aspect of government, all while fraudulently claiming that they want to "lower the temperature." What a crock of shit.
The Supreme Court ceased being a legitimate institution of government long ago. I can trace it back to Scalia. Add Thomas, then Roberts and Alito and the receivers of stolen property, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett, and you have a super majority of unethical sleazebags.
I totally get the justices not wanting to pour gasoline on the fire, but their job is to interpret the constitution regardless of the political whims and social stability of the country.
They have rendered an entire portion of the constitution null and void and made up out of thin air some kind of imaginary provision where only congress can determine if the disqualifying test applies to a president. That isn't in the constitution. You don't pass a bill in congress to remove someone under 35 who has placed themselves on the ballot for president. It is self-executing. Why in the world wouldn't this one be?
Very disappointed but not surprised. Hoping they act fast on the immunity question and that they don't give in to their fear of the angry mob in granting Trump full immunity to rule as a gangster/Stalin type so that we can move his trials forward and convict this lifetime criminal.
RE: The various State elections to decide the Presidency, did I miss repeal of the Tenth Amendment?
So basically SCOTUS guaranteed that if Trump wins, he will run again in 2028, since the states cannot decide whether or not he would be eligible to run. There's no way a polarized congress would be able to pass legislation disqualifying him - certainly the Trumpified GOP would defend him wholeheartedly.
The lesson I'm tempted to derive from this SCOTUS decision is that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment on which it's written.
Scientists who fake data to support their preconceived models cease being scientists. Same doesn't appear to be the case for justices faking legal reasoning to support their preconceived decisions.
Et tu, SCOTUS?
As if the “total immunity” appeal needs to be mulled over one more time.
The appeals court put a legal stake though the heart of Trump’s bone-headed claim that he can murder rivals and senators who’d vote for his impeachment, and still be above the law.
SCOTUS pulled the stake out, and gave Trump the delay he’s always begged for, by saying:
“You want to be a Hitler. a Stalin, a Putin, way above the law? Hmmm, we need to ponder this, maybe you can be!” Shameful.
Well, yes. It is depressing.
The separate opinion by Justice Coney Barrett implies the real reason the Court was unwilling to read and apply the Constitution. She suggests that the justices were unwilling to be blamed for the political stress, and probable violence, that would greet a decision to remove Mr Trump's name from primary ballots. I am disappointed that Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson did not dissent.
Still, they all did us a favor. The net result of their decision is that if the Constitutional order is to be defended from insurrection, Congress must act.
Here's a suggestion.
Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida has proposed a resolution in the House that, if passed, would declare Mr Trump innocent of the accusations related to the assault on the Capitol on 6 January 2021. Democratic representatives should not stand in his way.
Why not encourage extensive hearings on the proposed resolution? Why not insist on holding the hearings in front of the cameras in prime time? There are witnesses to be called. There are documents to be revealed. There are videos to display.
The Speaker of the House or some Republican committee chairman may hold the gavel, but surely Democrats will be allowed equal time to present their case to the public.
Representative Matt Gaetz's resolution is really a gift to the Democrats and to the country. Full debate must follow full exploration of the facts.
Hours of testimony and supporting videos and other evidence will graphically expose the lies. It will be a fuller version of the 2022 Select Committee hearings . . . called by the Republicans! The result, I am confident, will be an "own goal" by the Republicans, to use a soccer term.
Upon reaching the end of the hearings, Democratic representatives can demand a member-by-member vote on the resolution. If it does not pass by at least a 2/3 majority, the Republicans will have demonstrated that Mr Trump does not have enough support to survive removal from office either by impeachment or by legislative action implementing Section 3 of Amendment XIV.
The Democrats in the House must not let this gift go unopened. They should take advantage of it before Representative Gaetz realizes his blunder and tries to withdraw the resolution.
There is a bit of silver lining in the opinion. None of us ever again have to pretend to take Alito or Thomas seriously when they piously opine about originalism. The drafters of the 14th amendment were crystal-clear in describing their intentions in any of the excerpts I have read of the discussions of the amendment. The so-called originalists on the court ignored all of that because it would have led to a disagreeable conclusion. I am idly curious if either of them has the self-awareness or intellectual honesty to acknowledge what they have done, but I really don't care. They are as venal as any Chicago alderman, and deserve no more respect than an alderman.
This made me smile and hope it has the same effect on y'all! Three of my colleagues bought $1200 worth of cheap MAGA merch, drove down to "the convoy" in Eagle Pass, sold it for $60k and donated every penny to Biden.
Dangerous, woke, liberal educators to the rescue! 😂😂💙🇺🇸
I'm really curious as to why JVL doesn't go by JVN at this point--Jonath V. Netanyahu. Aside from being related to this butcher, why would JVN just consistently fellate the policy decisions of Netanyahu?
And I continue to be disturbed that JVN is not a man of his word. In October he EXPLICTLY promised he'd call out Israel for the war crime of collective punishments IF it was proven, notwithstanding the fact Israel admitted to doing so from day one.
Why doesn't JVN speak out? Is it because Palestians are subhuman to him? Sure looks that way.
I'm guessing he'll ban me before he lives up to his WORD. What a pathetic specimen of a supposedly conservative man who is supposed to value his word.
Guess it doesn't matter then his targets are brown. Shame on JVN.
Oh and I'm gonna keep shaming JVN until he lives up to his word, whatever that means as an enabler of war criminals.
Every day.
Every post.
Govern yourself accordingly.
I am pretty confident someone before me has pointed this out, but no, it is not exactly a unanimous decision. (I can't read 419 comments to make sure). Yes, unanimous in the conclusion but not in the reasoning at all, and with the Supreme Court, that matters in a number of ways. I don't know where they are headed, but they are a divided bunch these days. I don't expect they will be unanimous on immunity either, though they absolutely should on the merits. It is a preposterous legal theory that should have be laughed away without an argument, but I suspect an argument was granted because of a few result oriented conservative justices and I don't know how far they are going to take this. It makes me nervous.
I have a faculty senate meeting in an hour (another exercise in futility but I digress). This sentence stood out to me "The “grownups” in favor of stability and norms will only be unanimous when it’s to Trump’s advantage."
Exactly JVL!! The authoritarian majority on the Court depend on the liberal squishes upholding decorum, like not speaking publicly while Alito writes op-eds, in order to continue their erosion of the rule of law.
Jake Tapper covered Bush v Gore and has said it was a completely corrupt process and he lost any illusions he had about the sanctity of the Court after that. The man behind the curtain is not benevolent, but he depends on us thinking that he is. Exactly like Netanyahu, but let's save that for another day. Just a little ethnic cleansing between "democracies" amirite?