So much for any pretense that the Supreme Court is about law. Kennedy's decision is even worse than his rccent votes.
 

Jack:

He is an octogenarian. Perhaps he isn't able to continue doing the job.
 

No, it is the McConnell Court. The Democrats ought to refuse to vote on any nominee except Garland (rather than vote against the nominee), thereby making a statement that the current Court is illegitimate. Not that that will do any good.
 

I can live with Roberts as the "swing vote," until Trump replaces Ginsberg after she retires or dies.
 

Henry said...No, it is the McConnell Court. The Democrats ought to refuse to vote on any nominee except Garland (rather than vote against the nominee), thereby making a statement that the current Court is illegitimate. Not that that will do any good.

I am certain Kennedy let McConnell know he was retiring and the Senate majority leader extended the summer session into August specifically to confirm his replacement.

This places incumbent Democrat senators facing red state voters in a no win situation. Do they vote against the nominee and a majority of their constituents or for the nominee and against their minority base?
 

With Gorsuch, Donnelly, Heitcamp, and Manchin voted yea. They'd probably do so again because they're all up.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

JackD said...With Gorsuch, Donnelly, Heitcamp, and Manchin voted yea. They'd probably do so again because they're all up.

A clever conservative PAC will advertise and condemn these votes in Democrat neighborhoods under some pseudonym like "Democrats for Justice."
 

"A clever conservative PAC will advertise and condemn these votes in Democrat neighborhoods under some pseudonym like "Democrats for Justice."

Partisans like Bart exchange principles for principals.
 

Mr. W:

Bringing the truth to voters is unprincipled?

The Democrat media is not going to report anything harming Democrat politicians if they can avoid it.
 

According to Wikipedia, "The term Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used disparagingly by the party's opponents. ... 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt."
 

Henry:

After rule by decree with a pen and a phone, calling the Democrats "democratic" is a misnomer.
 

Henry, Bart is exemplary of what's become the norm among conservatives-he can't discuss, he trolls. He knows full well it will be received as a slur by those he says it to in fact he counts on it, it's a sick mindset.
 

"A clever conservative PAC will advertise...under some pseudonym like "Democrats for Justice."

Sure, totally on the up and up, no shady misrepresentation there at all. It shows how far gone you are.

"calling the Democrats "democratic" is a misnomer."

This is the party that won six of the last seven popular vote for President.

Also, there is no 'Democrat media,' at least nothing analogous to the direct arm of the GOP that is Fox News, CBN, talk radio, etc.

 

Bringing the truth to voters is unprincipled?

Trumpists, who celebrate and worship the Great Liar, talking about the importance of truth. Wow.
 

Speaking of political labels, I would not call any contemporary Republican, including the four so-called conservative Supreme Court justices, a "conservative." They seek to destroy, not to conserve. They seek to destroy the right of minorities to vote, of women to control their bodies, of workers to have negotiating power, of people to have health care, of immigrants to due process, of African Americans not to be murdered by the police, of the social safety net, of democracy (favoring Citizens United and gerrymandering), among other things that do not immediately come to mind.
 

Mr. W:

The candidate voting record is fact.

Democrats are generally lemmings and will not believe anything not spoon fed to them by the Democrat media. If, say, the Koch brothers pointed at the sun shining overhead, your average Democrat drone would look at the sun and assume it was a cloud. Thus, a conservative PAC would have to pretend to be part of the Democrat media complex for Democrats to believe a verifiable fact.
 

What a sad rationale for backing a misrepresentation ("pretend to be"). But for partisans principles must make way.

Also, there is no 'Democrat media,' at least nothing analogous to the direct arm of the GOP that is Fox News, CBN, talk radio, etc. And the latter is unparalleled as far as having an easily duped audience it regularly misinforms coordinated with the GOP daily talking point.
 

"Also, there is no 'Democrat media,' at least nothing analogous to the direct arm of the GOP that is Fox News, CBN, talk radio, etc. "

Oh, come on! Take a look at figures 9 and 13.

Trump's best coverage was from Fox, at 73% negative, 27% positive. Only at Fox and the Washington Post was Hillary's coverage coverage worse than this! His second best coverage, from the Wall Street Journal, was 80-20 negative. Only Fox gave Hillary this negative of coverage, all other outlets treated her substantially better.

So, yes, Fox was somewhat in Trump's corner, if you mean that, while they were opposed to him, they weren't relentless about it. Almost every other outlet was about that much or much more in Hillary's corner.

No, actually there IS a Democrat media, and it's most of the media.
 

Leave it to Brett to cite a source which, when read, blows a China sized hole in what he's trying to allege. From the source: "As Clinton was being attacked in the press, Donald Trump was attacking the press, claiming that it was trying to “rig” the election in her favor. If that’s true, journalists had a peculiar way of going about it. Trump’s coverage during the general election was more negative than Clinton’s, running 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive. But over the full course of the election, it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage (see Figure 1). Overall, the coverage of her candidacy was 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, while his coverage was 56 percent negative to 44 percent positive."

'Democrat media, indeed.'
 

Note, too, that by far the largest category of stories (dwarfing any other) about the candidates in the study were 'horserace' stories and that, remarkably, the study counted stories reporting that Clinton was ahead as 'positive' coverage for her and news that Trump was behind as 'negative' coverage! So it's fair to say a yuuuge amount of the numbers of 'positive' stories for Clinton and 'negative' stories for Trump were stories simply reporting...the fact of poll results at the time!
 

Democrats are generally lemmings and will not believe anything not spoon fed to them by the Democrat media.

Yet another example of how civil right-wingers are, as opposed to us nasty liberals.
 

Brett,

Are you aware of the extensive, wildly over-the-top coverage of Clinton's emails?

From the Columbia Journalism Review:

Given the sheer number of scandals in which Trump was implicated—sexual assault; the Trump Foundation; Trump University; redlining in his real-estate developments; insulting a Gold Star family; numerous instances of racist, misogynist, and otherwise offensive speech—it is striking that the media devoted more attention to his policies than to his personal failings. Even more striking, the various Clinton-related email scandals—her use of a private email server while secretary of state, as well as the DNC and John Podesta hacks—accounted for more sentences than all of Trump’s scandals combined (65,000 vs. 40,000) and more than twice as many as were devoted to all of her policy positions.

...ten articles on the front page of The New York Times in a six-day period (October 29 to November 3, 2016), discussing the FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server. In the same time-period there were six front-page articles on the dynamics of the campaign, one piece on Trump’s business, and zero on public policy of candidates.

I'm sure you think Trump's scandals are phony, but no one else has to accept your fantasies.
 

Of course I'm aware that it got coverage. They could hardly NOT cover it: One of the major party candidates for President was publicly known to have violated federal laws governing the handling of classified information, in her efforts to violate FOIA laws. It's the sort of thing that would normally have instantly destroyed a candidate, if they hadn't had the media soft-pedaling it.

That's a large part of why they both had net negative coverage. One candidate was a criminal, and the other hated by the media.

The reason Trump's policies got so much coverage was that the media mistakenly thought they'd be unpopular. Once they figured that out, they stopped covering his policies, and stuck to fluff.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

Shorenstein Center: But over the full course of the election, it was Clinton, not Trump, who was more often the target of negative coverage (see Figure 1). Overall, the coverage of her candidacy was 62 percent negative to 38 percent positive, while his coverage was 56 percent negative to 44 percent positive."

Two points on this misleading spin:

1) As I noted at the time, during the primaries, the Democrat media favored Trump with hundreds of hours of commentary free coverage it denied the other GOP candidates because they thought he would be the easiest nominee for Clinton to defeat. As soon as Trump secured the nomination, the Democrat media turned on the Donald with the most negative coverage in modern campaign history. This is an old strategy. See, e.g., McCain.

2) Shorenstein counts any coverage of evidence of Clinton's crimes as negative coverage, when in fact most of it was spin to minimize the acts and to argue she did not commit any crimes. Name one Democrat media outlet who called for Clinton's prosecution or for her to step down. If FBI had this case against Trump, the Democrat media would be howling for a prosecution. Hell, they have been suggesting indictment and impeachment without any evidence of a crime.

Democrat media, indeed.
 

You see, to a crackpot partisan no amount of evidence dissuades the opinion that was assumed from the beginning. How could the 'MSM' be 'Democrat media' when they provided so much negative coverage to the 'Democrat' candidate? Well, it's obviously because she 'deserved' so much worse coverage and all that negative coverage (which to a non-crackpot partisan seems hard to square with the media being in the tank for the candidate) *should* have been even worse, so the mostly negative coverage actually proves, to the crackpot, that the media was really in the tank for the person they mostly negatively covered! The conspiracy theorist has a non-falsifiable position.

"One of the major party candidates for President was publicly known to have violated federal laws"

And here's another example. Clinton was the subject of an investigation led by a lifelong GOP operative, one who the IG recently concluded broke agency policy to engage in politically harmful behavior towards her. The agency itself was riddled with agents that opposed Clinton and were selectively leaking harmful information, the lifelong GOP operative in charge of the investigation was negligent in addressing this. If this situation were reversed someone like Brett would caterwaul like a stick pig about the inherent unfairness of the situation to the person being investigated. *And still* the investigator could not suggest prosecution, because there just wasn't any precedent for one and a court of law, as opposed to one of 'public opinion' largely ignorant of the law, prosecutorial practice and how much the GOP media arm had ginned things up, would have laughed this away. But someone like Brett takes this set of facts and, amazingly, sees bias *in favor of Clinton!* And so all the negative reporting on this story that, even with everything stilted against Clinton, turned out to be nothing, is, again, incredibly proof to the crackpot that is the norm in the Republican party that the media was in the tank *for* Clinton! This is what we're dealing with with what the conservative movement has become (and this isn't even to mention that while the lifelong GOP operative was breaking policy to engage in public behavior harmful to Clinton he was keeping the fact that the GOP candidate was at the very same time under an FBI investigation for having possibly colluded with a foreign, and hostile, power!!!).



 

"Name one Democrat media outlet who called for Clinton's prosecution or for her to step down."

Bart shows that, like most conservatives, he cannot distinguish between facts and ideology. Media, in the form of reporters, are not supposed to 'call for' the prosecution or stepping down of anyone, they are supposed to report verifiable facts. You can't blame Bart though, conservatives mainly get their news from sources like Hannity and Limbaugh whose shtick is to report the news along with the GOP's daily spin on it and how to 'interpret' it.

And again, notice the crackpot conservative's frequent reliance on unverifiable 'mind-reading' to explain away inconvenient facts. Objectively, counting the entire campaign process, the press was more negative to Clinton than Trump (as any political observer not a crackpot can tell you, primary coverage matters too in defining a candidate, this is why parties try so hard to avoid tough primary fights), but Bart tries to wave this away by mind-reading that the 'MSM' were 'really' doing the Democrats bidding by treating Clinton more negatively than Trump (and, of course, still treating Trump more negatively than positively, an odd way to enable Trump). Again, there is no fact pattern the crackpot cannot twist to fit the pre-set conspiracy.
 

Mark Tushnet
1. Statutes, policies, and practices that strengthen the Republican Party, and those that weaken the Democratic Party, are constitutionally permissible.
2. Statutes, policies, and practices that strengthen the Democratic Party are unconstitutional.
3. If leading Republicans are indifferent about a statute, policy, or practice, and leading Democrats favor it, and if the statute, policy, or practice does not strengthen the Democratic Party, the statute, policy, or practice might or might not be constitutionally permissible.
4. If leading Republicans are indifferent and leading Democrats oppose a statute, policy, or practice, it might be unconstitutional.
All the rest is commentary.

Or you can simply observe that nearly the entire progressive project violates the Constitution as written.

 

BD: "Name one Democrat media outlet who called for Clinton's prosecution or for her to step down."

Mr. W: Bart shows that, like most conservatives, he cannot distinguish between facts and ideology. Media, in the form of reporters, are not supposed to 'call for' the prosecution or stepping down of anyone, they are supposed to report verifiable facts.

LMMFAO!

The facts are...

1) There is more than ample evidence in the public domain with which to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Clinton committed the crimes of providing classified information to uncleared persons, storing classified information in uncleared and unsecured locations, obstruction of justice for attempting to destroy her emails and perjury before Congress.

2) There is no evidence in the public domain Trump entered into a conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime.

Yet, as you conceded, the Democrat media never once suggested Clinton committed the crimes for which there is ample evidence, but they have on thousands of occasions suggested indictment or impeachment for "collusion with Russia" or even treason.

This screaming partisan double standard is not remotely arguable and has no parallel in modern US history.
 

"There is more than ample evidence in the public domain with which to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Clinton committed the crimes"

Again, look at Bart. An investigation led by a lifelong GOP operative, riddled with agents that engaged in selective leaks harmful to Clinton, where the investigation leader broke policy to engage in behavior harmful to Clinton, still could not suggest even the start of a prosecution, but country lawyer Bart, has this figured out, and so reporters that reported the facts rather than country lawyer Bart's conclusions about it (and we know the history of the quality of Bart's conclusions here) are the biased ones! In fact, the harping on what turned out to be a nothingburger by the media doesn't prove a bias against Clinton, but for her in his crackpot mind, because it wasn't enough and negative enough. Again, no set of facts can convince a crackpot, they will always twist it to fit the preset conspiracy.



 

Mr. W:

The Comey as a lifelong Republican fig leaf fell away months ago in his book and during his book tour when he admitted "my party left me years ago," he comforted Obama after Clinton's loss and his family participated in anti-Trump marches.

The public evidence suggests Comey decided not to charge Clinton before gathering the evidence and the Clinton partisan he assigned to lead the investigation, Peter "We'll stop him" Strzok, rewrote Comey's statement to the press to eliminate the finding of gross negligence against Clinton, which was the intent standard for one of the crimes.

The fix was in from the beginning.
 

Comey was a registered Republican. He had a history of donating to GOP candidates. He had a history of serving GOP administrations. The IG concluded that he broke policy in harming Clinton during the investigation several times.

For the sane person, these are all red flags about unfairness *to* Clinton. For the crackpot partisan, they are actually flags of unfairness *for* her. This is the level of crackpot-ism we're talking about here. Just like the media is 'Democrat media' for covering Clinton mostly negative because they didn't cover her 'negative enough.' No facts can derail the conspiracy nut's preset train.
 

Mr. W:

There is no spoils system. Bureaucrats serve decades long careers under POTUSes of both parties.

For months, Comey's corrupt investigation ignored the demands of the SDNY US Attorney's office and sat on the evidence Clinton and/or Abedin illegally stored classified emails on Abendin's computer and that of her perv hubby "Carlos Danger." In a CYA move, Comey wrote the letter to Congress only when he believed his stonewalling would leak.
 

Interesting essay that will if anything be more applicable in upcoming years:

https://verdict.justia.com/2018/06/28/the-supreme-court-is-still-incoherent-about-taxes-and-finance-but-the-conservatives-seem-to-know-what-they-want

It in part cites Prof. Wu's analysis of a 5-4 antitrust case that "badly mangled the economic analysis" and in the process blocked an attempt to regulate an anti-competitive credit card practice. This regulation of the market, one never truly "free" in the real world, has broad effects as much as the 5-4 ruling (in which Roberts joined three of the liberals in dissent -- to foreshadow things a bit; this will happen a few times in the future, I'm sure) involving internet sales.

I appreciate Mr. W's comments though it does with a certain degree of depression.
 

The IG found that Comey was negligent at best in not addressing the NY office's vendetta driven leaks. Again, to the non-crackpot this is more evidence of the bias against Clinton of the GOP lifelong official's investigation.
 

"There is no evidence in the public domain Trump entered into a conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime."

The press has to report verifiable facts such as:

Trump Jr and other officials met with a Russian agent who by their own admission offered them intelligence on Clinton. They also lied about this meeting.

Trump's NSA head was a literal firing agent and lied about this including his dealings with the Russians.

Trump pressured the head of the agency investigating the matter to drop it and then fired him, several conflicting justifications were given for the firing.

Trump's campaign manager was a long known Russian operative that worked to subvert democracy in Ukraine and get a Russian puppet in office there. He was known to lobby US officials on policy favorable to Russia. He lied about much of this.

Trump's AG, knowing full well about allegations of Russian collusion, lied about contacts he had with Russian agents

Several other campaign officials had meetings or contact with Russian agents in which intelligence exchanges were discussed.

Any one of these facts, if on the other foot, would have Brett and Bart rending their garments and frothing at the mouth in outrage.
 

Firing should read foreign
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

What the conservative media reported for months, which the IG report soft-pedaled, was the rank and file FBI were furious at Comey's Clinton whitewash and were constantly leaking the evidence against her to the media. What was telling in the IG report is only Comey and the Democrats voiced any concern about the rampant leaks because they were the targets.

As for the "Russia collusion" bull sh_t, none of your allegations show a criminal conspiracy. In order to prove conspiracy, the evidence needs to show two parties agreed to commit a crime and one of the parties made a significant step in carrying out the crime.

The original slander was Trump agreed with the Russians for some unknown quid pro quo that the Russians would hack Democrat computers and make their dirty laundry public. There was never any evidence for this partisan defamation.
 

Note that many times here Bart has decried leaks critical of Trump and his officials as evidence of improper deep state conspiracy to bring down Trump but now he handwaves at the leaks by FBI officials driven by agents with vendatta's against Clinton during the time the agency was investigating Clinton. A partisan like Bart has no real principles.

As to the evidence of Trump's campaign and administration's improper Russia connections, I will just repaste:

Trump Jr and other officials met with a Russian agent who by their own admission offered them intelligence on Clinton. They also lied about this meeting.

Trump's NSA head was a literal firing agent and lied about this including his dealings with the Russians.

Trump pressured the head of the agency investigating the matter to drop it and then fired him, several conflicting justifications were given for the firing.

Trump's campaign manager was a long known Russian operative that worked to subvert democracy in Ukraine and get a Russian puppet in office there. He was known to lobby US officials on policy favorable to Russia. He lied about much of this.

Trump's AG, knowing full well about allegations of Russian collusion, lied about contacts he had with Russian agents

Several other campaign officials had meetings or contact with Russian agents in which intelligence exchanges were discussed.

Any one of these facts, if on the other foot, would have Brett and Bart rending their garments and frothing at the mouth in outrage.

Since he brought up the hacks, I'll add that we know that Roger Stone and Donald Trump Jr. had contacts, which they lied about, with Guccifer 2.0 the Russian agent/entity that hacked and leaked DNC emails.




 

Mr. W:

After the Court dismisses your first indictment for failure to state a crime, filing the same indictment a second time is likely to get you thrown into jail for contempt.
 

Bart, the crimes are plain and many are actually being prosecuted (having moved far beyond the stage of any supposed 'crime' of Clinton).
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

None of what you alleged, much of which is false, is being prosecuted. For example, compare your allegations and the Manafort indictment.
 

Of the parade of terribles concerning the current and upcoming Roberts Court posted by the resident academics, Professor Fishkin's concerns are the most justified.

In this term, the Court took on the core of the progressive state - laws looting workers to support unions, bureaucratic abuses of power to punish religious thought crimes, and class action lawsuits claiming to represent dozens to thousands of unwitting non-parties to extort businesses.

Limiting the powers of the absolute bureaucracy to act under the Commerce Clause, write their own portfolios from vague enabling statutes and abuse due process, what Fishkin notes as being "on the cusp of a bolder Roberts Court, one poised to push much harder for a neo-Lochnerite individualistic vision of constitutional political economy," would be a logical next step
 

Here is what I said re: Manafort:

"Trump's campaign manager was a long known Russian operative that worked to subvert democracy in Ukraine and get a Russian puppet in office there. He was known to lobby US officials on policy favorable to Russia. He lied about much of this."

The indictment can be downloaded here: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/full-text-paul-manafort-indictment-244307

From the indictment: "MANAFORT and GATES acted as unregistered agents of a foreign government and foreign
political parties...The Party of Regions was a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine. Beginning in
approximately 2006, it retained MANAFORT, through DMP and then DMI, to advance its
interests in Ukraine, the United States, and elsewhere, including the election of its slate of
candidates. In 2010, its candidate for President, Yanukovych, was elected President of Ukraine. In 2014, Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia in the wake of popular protests of widespread
governmental corruption. MANAFORT and GATES generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of their
Ukraine work. From approximately 2006 through the present, MANAFORT and GATES engaged
in a scheme to hide income from United States authorities, while enjoying the use of the money. "


 

One can only laugh at Bart calling the bureaucracy 'absolute' directly below extolling it's defeats at the hands of the Court. Count among the principles the crackpot partisan tosses the principles of the English language.
 

Since Joe mentioned the anti-trust ruling, I'll quote my best friend, who used to be the CFO of a major financial company:

"The one I know something about, two sided markets in the American Express case, is breathtaking because the actual theory underlying two-sided markets would have argued for the reverse result because when given a chance to operate in two-sided markets one is able to create increasing returns to scale, which is social welfare decreasing for all but the business involved. So, if you actually believed in competitive markets and the social welfare theorem you would decide differently. Unless your purpose in life is to enhance monopoly power, which apparently is the Robert’s Court mission, but the mentioning of two sided markets in the argument shows how intellectually vacuous Thomas really is."
 

I should also note that Priscilla Smith's suggestion won't work because the absence of a quorum has to be suggested by a Senator on the floor. That would require the presence of a Dem Senator, bringing the total (assuming all Rs other than McCain are present) to 51.
 

"I should also note that Priscilla Smith's suggestion won't work because the absence of a quorum has to be suggested by a Senator on the floor. That would require the presence of a Dem Senator, bringing the total (assuming all Rs other than McCain are present) to 51."

Yes, that much is obvious to anybody who's thinking clearly about the matter. Which the people desperately groping around for a way to keep the elected President with a Senate majority of his own party from filling a Supreme court vacancy aren't doing right now.

Personally I'm hoping that they don't start thinking clearly, because there IS something that would work, that almost got successfully pulled off last year:

Assassinating a Republican Senator.
 

Mr. W: Trump's campaign manager was a long known Russian operative that worked to subvert democracy in Ukraine and get a Russian puppet in office there. He was known to lobby US officials on policy favorable to Russia. He lied about much of this.

From the indictment: "MANAFORT and GATES acted as unregistered agents of a foreign government and foreign
political parties...The Party of Regions was a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine. Beginning in
approximately 2006, it retained MANAFORT, through DMP and then DMI, to advance its
interests in Ukraine, the United States, and elsewhere, including the election of its slate of
candidates. In 2010, its candidate for President, Yanukovych, was elected President of Ukraine. In 2014, Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia in the wake of popular protests of widespread
governmental corruption. MANAFORT and GATES generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of their
Ukraine work. From approximately 2006 through the present, MANAFORT and GATES engaged
in a scheme to hide income from United States authorities, while enjoying the use of the money. "

The indictment does not charge the slander "Trump's campaign manager was a long known Russian operative that worked to subvert democracy in Ukraine and get a Russian puppet in office there" as a crime.

Furthermore, the indictment does not charge "lobby[ing] US officials on policy favorable to Russia" as a crime. Instead, the indictment alleges Manafort's failure to register as a foreign agent (a procedural failing Justice almost never charges) was a crime.

You may now report to jail in contempt of court.

One can only laugh at Bart calling the bureaucracy 'absolute' directly below extolling it's defeats at the hands of the Court. Count among the principles the crackpot partisan tosses the principles of the English language.

Absolute power is the exercise of all three powers of government - legislative, executive and judicial. Even in my most wild eyed moments, I am not under the illusion exchanging Kennedy for another Gorsuch will give the Court enough gumption to hold Congress may not delegate its Article I powers and the courts Article III powers to the bureaucracy.

Maybe if Trump replaces RBG after she dies on the bench reading another dissent, but not by replacing Kennedy.
 

Lol, you might as well argue Capone wasn't a bootlegger because he was indicted (and convicted) on the charges of improperly reporting the money from his bootlegging activity. The indictment details that Manafort was an unregistered agent of and worked to get into power a Ukranian administration/party, that the party were Russian puppets (the indictment itself says 'pro-Russia' and notes the leader 'fled to Russia'), that he was paid by the same and tried to hide that money. You're trying to be cute to say the *charge* isn't centered on the first three, but the *scheme* (identified as such) which shows the charges details everything I said.

"a procedural failing Justice almost never charges)"

Long time readers will remember that Bart acted like he'd never heard of and was scandalized by the idea, confirmed by Comey (and yet to contradicted) of prosecutorial practices of declining to charge certain offenses, yet here he points to them to make his case. Again, partisans forego any principles.

"Absolute power is the exercise of all three powers of government - legislative, executive and judicial."

Not at all. Absolute means "not qualified or diminished in any way; total." And the bureaucracy cannot have that having lost several times this very term (and every term before that, and via Congressional reversals, and via reversals by new administrations). Again, it seems you've foregone the principles of the English language as well via your partisanship.
 

Returning for a moment to the topic of the post, the resignation of Justice Kennedy, I should have mentioned in my initial comment that it is particularly ironic that Justice Kennedy chose to announce his resignation at the time that he did. His timing made it likely that his successor would be named and confirmed before a new senate was seated.

Had he waited until after the midterm election, of course it would have been possible, even if uncertain, that the senate would have been Democratically controlled. That would have made it possible for the new majority to moderate the Republican effort to install the most right wing candidate possible. I say it's ironic because that is how Justice Kennedy, himself, gained the office after President Reagan's choice of Robert Bork was voted down and Judge Ginsberg found it politic to withdraw. I think it obvious that Justice Kennedy took all of that into account and deliberately chose a path most likely to secure a hard right wing majority on the court going forward. Therefore, I believe, history will hold him largely responsible for the behavior of the court for the foreseeable future including the likely reversal and/or dilution of his own liberal/moderate decisions.
 

BD: The indictment does not charge the slander "Trump's campaign manager was a long known Russian operative that worked to subvert democracy in Ukraine and get a Russian puppet in office there" as a crime. Furthermore, the indictment does not charge "lobby[ing] US officials on policy favorable to Russia" as a crime. Instead, the indictment alleges Manafort's failure to register as a foreign agent (a procedural failing Justice almost never charges) was a crime.

Mr.W: Lol, you might as well argue Capone wasn't a bootlegger because he was indicted (and convicted) on the charges of improperly reporting the money from his bootlegging activity.

Brilliant analogy, apart from the fact political consulting and lobbying are not crimes, but bootlegging was.

BD: "a procedural failing Justice almost never charges)"

Long time readers will remember that Bart acted like he'd never heard of and was scandalized by the idea, confirmed by Comey (and yet to contradicted) of prosecutorial practices of declining to charge certain offenses, yet here he points to them to make his case. Again, partisans forego any principles.

There is definitely no analogy between the commission of thousands of counts of substantive crimes and failing to register with the government as an agent. The former are routinely prosecuted, the latter is not.

You know better concerning the definition of absolute power.
 

Trump has a back channel via Kennedy's son. Conservatives are quite competent when it comes to their court goals. Charming how they selectively care about majority rule too.
 

"apart from the fact political consulting and lobbying are not crimes"

Acting as an unregistered foreign agent is.

"the latter is not"

So you have (suddenly) heard of prosecutorial practice of not charging certain offenses (or only charging them under certain circumstances)? Or you just decided to indicate your knowledge because this time it involves someone with an R in front of their name?

"the definition of absolute power"

There is nothing to 'know better.' The definition is as I listed it. Strange that you employ the term so much without seeming to be aware of that definition.
 

Trump had a back channel to Senate Leader McConnell during the campaign, it seems, via McConnell's spouse. I still wonder about the pillow talk and its impact on separation of powers. Of course, Mitch may not have known of the cabinet position to be offered, wink, wink.
 

Mr. W:

This former prosecutor declined to charge antiquated or bulls_t crimes. Failing to register with the government as an agent definitely falls in the latter category.

Between predatory prosecutors with no such scruples and the Feds turning nearly everything into a crime, most of them felonies, the old saw "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is becoming an all too common reality.
 

So, again, suddenly you do recognize prosecutorial practices of declining to prosecute crimes that may technically on their face appear to be committed.

Back when Comey pointed out the long practice of not charging the crime Clinton was charged with without evidence of intent you went on and on about how you'd never heard of such a thing.

You really have no principles other than partisanship at all.
 

What I want to know is this: Manafort was no small time adviser or flunky, he was the manager of the Trump campaign and in the inner circle of Trump's inner circle. Did Trump not know his campaign manager was an illegally unregistered literal agent of a foreign power, indicating his lack of competence and/or mental capacity, or did he know but that was valuable to him in some way (collusion)? I'm not sure which of the two available alternatives is worse.
 

Mr. W:

I doubt Trump or Manafort even knew about the agent registration law. This is hardly malum in se stuff.
 

"Failing to register with the government as an agent definitely falls in the latter category. "

I'd also quickly dispute this, failing to register as an agent *of a foreign power* (convenient how left that part out) is as far from an inconsequential offense as there can be. Any true patriot would want to know if their fellow citizen has an allegiance to some other nation, and this case is exemplary why: that person might be running the campaign of the eventual President of the United States! This invites the subversion of our national interest and security and is far from 'bs' law as it can get.
 

Mr. W: Back when Comey pointed out the long practice of not charging the crime Clinton was charged with without evidence of intent you went on and on about how you'd never heard of such a thing.

I called him out for the liar he was and offered multiple examples of current prosecutions of military personnel.

Both Clinton and I (when I served as an Army intelligence officer in the early 90s) were fully briefed about the handling of classified information, warned violating these laws were crimes punishable by imprisonment, and signed nondisclosure agreements admitting our understanding.

If I had done what Clinton did, I would have spent years in Leavenworth.
 

If Manafort, a man whose business was in international relations, didn't know about this law he was negligent to reckless and the same can be said about a man running for President not checking on this from the person in charge of his campaign. Not only does it threaten the interests and security of our nation, if there anything like a true and fair press this would have been the story of the election. Imagine if Obama or Clinton had a campaign manager that was an illegally unregistered literal agent of a foreign power, we'd never hear the end of treason-based conspiracy theories from the likes of Brett and Bart!
 

'offered multiple examples of current prosecutions of military personnel."

You offered none and still cannot.
 

It should be duly noted that the prosecutorial skills SPAM honed have permitted him to become the top dog DUI criminal defense counsel in his li rural little mountaintop community to work economic plea deals for alleged drunks permitting SPAM a lot of time to troll this Blog.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted, despite Gina], the fact that one is designated a military intelligence officer does not mean that person is intelligent, as SPAM has displayed in this and many more threads at this Blog.
 

I'm sure if no Democrat was on the floor and McCain was not present on account of illness, that a principled Republican, perhaps one of the gentle-ladies concerned about abortion rights, would state a point of order on the question. After all, the person who is being replaced recently noted:

The oath that all officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined to those spheres in which the Judiciary can correct

Plus, conservatives are quite sticklers for following procedures and constitutional obligations such as quorum rules and will surely follow them in a principled fashion.

I'm here all week. Enjoy the "Impossible burgers."
 

Joe, you forgot to label your snark.
 

In light of Brett's comment at 2:55, I should note that no R Senator has ever been assassinated. Only 2 Senators have been, both Dems.
 

"In light of Brett's comment at 2:55, I should note that no R Senator has ever been assassinated. Only 2 Senators have been, both Dems."

No R Senator has ever been successfully assassinated. Rene Boucher made a pretty good try at taking out Rand Paul, though.

Just as James T. Hodgkinson made a serious attempt on a large number of Republican House members, for all that he only put one of them in the hospital.

I can't be the only one to have figured out that a couple of bullets could put an end to any chance of Trump filling that vacancy.
 

Brett's 8:09 PM closing:

"I can't be the only one to have figured out that a couple of bullets could put an end to any chance of Trump filling that vacancy."

is scary and weird. Is Brett perhaps referring to a 2nd A absolutist taking such action against Trump? What is Brett's purpose in relating this? Might it relate to candidate Trump's warning to his people that if Hillary became President there might be some 2nd A thoughts of what to do about that?

His earlier reference to Rene Boucher's assault of Sen. Rand Paul as perhaps a failed assassination is also weird, as they were neighbors, the assault taking place in the area of their homes. Perhaps a better example is described at:

https://www.thoughtco.com/violence-over-slavery-in-senate-1773554

" Violence Over Slavery on the Floor of the U.S. Senate
A Southern Congressman Attacked a Northern Senator With a Cane"

The attacker was a Senator from South Carolina, where Brett now resides. Might Brett consider this an attempt at assassination?
 

The mention of Rene Boucher is laughable.

Even the suggestion of some other target is pretty unlikely. It would have to be an R Senator from a state with a Dem governor; otherwise the governor would just appoint an R replacement. Aren't many of those. Perhaps Brett can circulate a list of targets, since he seems to be really invested in this.
 

SPAM is also weird with his 2:55 PM:

"Maybe if Trump replaces RBG after she dies on the bench reading another dissent, but not by replacing Kennedy."

Is this an attempt at libertarian humor? Or is such a demise of RBG a hope and desire of SPAM?
 

Snark? Me?

"I'm here all week. Enjoy the "Impossible burgers."

That is a take-off of the end of comic's set at a club. "I'm here all week. Enjoy the veal."
 

Shag:

RBG is fading fast. Democrats saw this and begged her to retire during the Obama administration. However, I suspect she made the same mistake nearly every other Democrat made in underestimating Trump. Now, odds are Trump will replace her.
 

Randy Barnett on who Trump should pick to replace Kennedy:

Since originalism is so objectionable to progressives, who’s up for a living constitutionalist justice who shares the President’s moral and political beliefs?


 

Barnett is, himself, who Trump should pick, IMO.

The problem with that essay, as can be seen in the comments, is that living constitutionalists don't admit that it's possible for anybody else to NOT be a living constitutionalist.

They think originalists are just lying about how they reason.

It's much the same principle as adulterers thinking everybody cheats on their spouses: Vice is easier to justify if you deny virtue is possible.

So it's a false choice so far as they're concerned.
 

SPAM seems to confirm that he hopes and desires that "RBG dies on the bench reading another dissent ...." SPAM displays what a vile person he is, or as neighbors describe SPAM as "just another pisshole in the snow." Fortunately for mankind SPAM will not be passing on his genes.
 

I don't think Brett has an idea what a living constitutionalist is, it's just a bogeyman for him and many conservatives.
 

"The mention of Rene Boucher is laughable."

It is funny that conservatives that profess so loudly that words have fixed, easily discernible meanings so often use them in absurd, laughable ways.
 

Regarding Randy Barnett's post at VC, here's my comment on it at Dorf on Law:

***

Shag from Brookline said...
As a followup to my 7:40 AM comment, note Randy Barnett's post at the VC addressed to non-originalists regarding who they might want to replace Justice Kennedy:

"(a) A self-described living constitutionalist/multiple modalities/common-law-constitutionalist/moral-readings--pick your fave--justice who shares President Trump's political and moral views or
(b) A self-described originalist?"

Note the detail Randy includes regarding his (a) on "a self-described living constitutionalist/...", with his bare (b) 'self-described originalist". Randy knows there are many varieties of originalism, many of which have been significantly demeaned as being far from objective that are based on original intent, original expectations, original understanding, which led to Randy's version of the New Originalism's original public meaning that includes a "spirited" "construction zone" when the original public meaning is not clear. Perhaps Randy has faith in all versions of originalism for which I have suggested names in my comment. Those interested might check out the video of the debate between Randy and Mike where Mike points out that Randy utilizes many versions of originalism from time to time other than his original public meaning version.

5:02 PM Delete

***

Mike Dorf and Randy Barnett had a debate on originalism a couple of weeks ago, a video of which is available at Dorf on Law.

As to Brett, apparently "living" is anathema to Brett's immortal " ... a couple of bullets could put an end to any chance of Trump filling that vacancy." Apparently Brett as a 2nd A absolutist favors the "dead hand" view of the Constitution.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted, despite Gina), Brett has ignored the caning of a fellow senator by that S. Car. Senator who felt that he was addressing incivility.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mista Whiskas said...I don't think Brett has an idea what a living constitutionalist is, it's just a bogeyman for him and many conservatives.

A judge either does or does not enforce the law as written. "Living constitutionalism" is a progressive spin term for progressive jurists who fall under the second category.

As Dorf put it in his debate with Barnett, "Whether we can discern [the] meaning by staring hard at the words or whether we need to apply our own understanding of the world in which we live."

More accurate terms for what Dorf is advocating would be dictator or outlaw.
 

Personally I'm hoping that they don't start thinking clearly, because there IS something that would work, that almost got successfully pulled off last year:

Assassinating a Republican Senator.

This is loathsome, even for you. You blindly worship a President who, during the campaign, suggested that if his opponent won, the "Second Amendment people" might be able to do something about it. And no, he wasn't talking about votes. The reference was explicitly to what could happen if Clinton won.

It's your side that glorifies gun violence, Brett.
 

SPAM's descriptive of living constitutionalism as "A more accurate term would be outlaw." suggests that SPAM as a 2nd A absolutist would back SPAM's insurrectionist views against SCOTUS? Is that in the oath SPAM took as a lawyer? Did SPAM have his fingers crossed?

By the Bybee (expletives deleted, despite Gina), the guru of originalism Randy Barnett doesn't think Heller (5-4, 2008) was an originalist decision. But Randy is a "Sore-loser Originalist" after the Raich roach case was snuffed by ... drum roll ... feinthearted [sic] originalist Justice Scalia.
 

"A judge either does or does not enforce the law as written."

This is unhelpful. First, there are parts of the Constitution that are certainly not (and never have been) enforced 'as written' (enforcing the Free Speech clause 'as written' would mean we couldn't criminalize telling the enemy troop movements). Secondly, because the Constitution 'as written' is chock full of *concepts* or principles which are broad, the application of which to any given fact pattern is not going to be specific and will of course change with understandings over time. For example, the 15th Amendment protects the right to vote and gives Congress the power to pass 'appropriate' legislation to that effect. That's a pretty broad, imprecise word! In Shelby the majority argued that what would have been 'appropriate' in 1870 or 1969 would not be 'appropriate' in 2016, because one could use their understanding of changed conditions to see that what would have been appropriate in one situation wouldn't be in another. I disagree with their final determination of what was appropriate, but that's what they were doing. Other concepts in the Constitution like 'cruel,' 'unreasonable,' 'due' also fall into the same category.
 

Shag:

Like all other practicing attorneys, I swore an oath to "support the Constitution of the United States."

Any jurist who ignores the words of the Constitution and substitutes his or her "own understanding of the world in which we live," is violating that oath.

 

Mr. W:

If the words of the law are specific, you enforce the law specifically.

If the words of the law apply a general principle like due process, the words themselves invite the Congress and courts to define the general principle.

In both cases, you are applying the law as written.

The Constitution is not perfect. It lacks an red line principle for courts to use in defining the scope of our liberty from government direction. This is why I have suggested an amendment applying the harm principle.
 

You cannot apply concepts like 'cruel,' 'appropriate,' 'due', 'unreasonable' to changing situations and information in our world without employing an understanding of the world which the case exists in.
 

"If the words of the law apply a general principle like due process, the words themselves invite the Congress and courts to define the general principle."

This makes up much if not most of what people decry as 'living constitutionalism.'
 

SPAM ignores his insurrectionist view of the 2nd A regarding his oath as a lawyer. I assume his Glock in his jock remains at the ready in the Bund-y manner.
 

BD: "If the words of the law apply a general principle like due process, the words themselves invite the Congress and courts to define the general principle."

Mr. W: This makes up much if not most of what people decry as 'living constitutionalism.'

Not remotely.

For example...

The Commerce Clause is not a general principle and only grants Congress the power to regulate (discipline) commerce (the trade of goods and services). It nowhere grants Congress the power to enact any law it pleases so long as it has a theoretical effect on the economy.

Articles I through III expressly grant all legislative power to Congress, all executive power to POTUS and all judicial power to the courts. The grants expressly forbid the delegation legislative and judicial power to the executive bureaucracy.

Then there is the practice of inventing rights nowhere written or implied by the written constitution like abortion and SSM.

Etc, etc.

The fact is the Constitution as written expressly forbids the vast majority of the progressive political economy. The concept of "living constitutionalism" is a friendly spin term for outlaw courts rewriting our basic law by decree like a dictatorship by committee.
 

Mr. W at 10:39 AM perhaps inadvertently omitted including SPAM's sentence immediately following the one he quoted:

"In both cases, you are applying the law as written."

that more accurately comports with Mr. W's concluding:

"This makes up much if not most of what people decry as 'living constitutionalism.'"

But I question SPAM's claim that Congress and the courts can "define" "the general principle[s]" in the Constitution. Rather, that's interpretation/construction and not the Constitution as written. This is the failings of both textualism and originalism.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted, despite Gina), I prefer "non-originalism" rather than "living constitutionalism., although with time Jack Balkin's "Living Originalism" may prevail.
[
 

Actions by Congress not vetoed by the Executive, nor challenged by the Judiciary provided the Administrative State. Congress can take steps to undo this, but those in Congress recognize that they cannot do all the things that the Administrative State accomplishes in a nation of 330 million that may be necessary and proper for the general welfare, with the courts reviewing claims regarding compliance with Congress' directives. SPAM attempts to take America back to The Gilded Age of the late 19th century, which SPAM touts as America's best days. Imagine America in todays world with SPAM's folly on the outlaw Administrative State.
 

Shag:

Jack's "living originalism" reduces everything in the Constitution to a general principle to allow the progressive courts to fill in the blanks, which is "living constitutionalism" by another name.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

If Congress wants to delegate its powers and its responsibilities to an absolute bureaucracy like the Roman senate appointing a dictator, Article V grants it the power to propose such an amendment to the states. However, Article V nowhere grants the courts the power to do so by decree.
 

"The grants expressly forbid the delegation legislative and judicial power to the executive bureaucracy."

That's not clear at all. Does FDR delegating military decisions to General Eisenhower violate Article II's CoC clause? Was Eisenhower a 'dictator' when that occurred?

To use another example, if Lord Granholme tells head butler Carson 'I don't want to have to approve every item on every meal, you make menus with the direction that they must feature a meat, vegetables and a dessert, and if I don't like the results I'll change this rule' has the Lord given up any power at all? Doesn't seem so, seems like he's exercising it.

"
Then there is the practice of inventing rights nowhere written or implied by the written constitution like abortion and SSM."

But this involves the very text you conceded was not specific and therefore up to the courts to fill out!

 

Another way to put this, it's not clear from the text as written that the delegation we're talking about is forbidden. It's reasonable to look at the word 'all power' and conclude: that means the legislature itself has to make every single decision; but reasonable people can look at the same language and say 'a delegation to make decisions under a general directive revocable and subject to change by the delegator at any time' retains 'all power' in the delegating legislature.

What would be clear from the text as written would be if it said "all power...and no delegation." But it doesn't say that. So it invites some reasonable disagreement on what the concept "all power" entails.
 

BD: "The grants expressly forbid the delegation legislative and judicial power to the executive bureaucracy."

Mr. WL That's not clear at all.

Please. What part of the following do you not understand?

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Does FDR delegating military decisions to General Eisenhower violate Article II's CoC clause?

Eisenhower was FDR's subordinate. FDR had no power to grant his CiC power to Congress or the courts.

BD: Then there is the practice of inventing rights nowhere written or implied by the written constitution like abortion and SSM.

Mr. W: But this involves the very text you conceded was not specific and therefore up to the courts to fill out!

Have you ever read Roe or Obergefell?

Roe cited "penumbras."

Obergefell was metaphysical crap which did not even bother engaging in a faux equal protection analysis.

As an aside, I took a Supreme Court role play class taught by my very progressive ACLU con law prof, who made me play Souter in a hypothetical SSM case. This was a transparent test to see whether I would play myself or the character. I drafted a complete BS opinion applying an effective strict scrutiny equal protection analysis to create a right to SSM and aced the course. Kennedy did not even bother putting in this work.
 

SPAM goes further into the past with his reference to the Romans. SPAM ignores the history of America once the Constitution was adopted as to how it was applied for now over 200 hundred years. SPAM lacks the intellectual capability of correcting what SPAM might claim was in error in the interpretation/construction of the Constitution as periodically amended. There was no originalism/non originalism battle before the 1870s of significance. The battle arose because conservatives were upset with the Warren Court so-called activism, that began with it foundation Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (unanimous, 1954), which led to the civil rights movement. That's been the basic thrust of the various versions of originalism that surfaced in conjunction with the Federalist Society. Originalism is ideological and faith based. Few directly challenge Brown anymore, although Trump has inspired such challenges. Both SPAM and Brett, while not directly challenging Brown, have stated in the past at this Blog that they believe that the implementation post-Brown was wrong. From both SPAM and Brett's comments at this Blog, it is obvious where they stand on the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Originalism and the Federalist Society want to turn the clock back to look at the original meaning of the Constitution that accommodate slavery and then after the Reconstruction Amendments Jim Crow, perhaps coming to the view of fears of what the changing demographics may wrought in unsetting all those Anglo Ameriican values developed over so many years prior to Brown for the controlling majority.
 

"What part of the following do you not understand?"

I don't understand how any power is lost when someone in authority directs someone to make decisions they can overrule at any time. Lord Granholme loses no power in my analogy with Carson.

"Roe cited "penumbras."

Roe cited Griswold on penumbras as one of several possible locations for a right to privacy, but it did not base its decision on that. Instead it used the 9th: "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Now, if there's a non-specific piece of text in the Constitution then the 9th is certainly it!

"Obergefell was metaphysical crap which did not even bother engaging in a faux equal protection analysis."

Because Obergfell wasn't decided on equal protection grounds, it was decided on due process. But 1. that's the very text you conceded as being the kind that must be filled out by the court and 2. you can hardly blame 'progressives' for coming up with the idea of due process rights, that falls on two of the most libertarian courts in or history (the Slaughterhouse court and the Taft court)

 

Shag:

Contrary to your personal fixations, legal history did not begin, end or even move substantially with the Brown decision.

So far as I know, the earliest progressive suggestion of an organically evolving constitution was a Woodrow Wilson essay at the end of the nineteenth century.

Rewriting the Constitution to rubber stamp progressive policy did not begin in earnest until Roosevelt managed to appoint a critical mass of Supreme Court justices.

Both the suggestion and the reality of courts rewriting the Constitution to accommodate the progressive political economy drew considerable backlash from the outset. Jurists who fairly consistently enforce the rule of law simply never enjoyed a majority on the Supreme Court since the 1930s until, perhaps, now.
 

My correction, as the excerpt indicated the Roe court did not choose the 9th but the due process clause rather than the Griswold court's 'penumbra' theory.
 

Mr. W:

The Roe Court declined to adopt the 9th Amendment holding of the district court, in favor of a penumbral "right to privacy."

Due process may be a general principle, but that principle by textual definition is limited to the procedural rights you enjoy before the government may take your life, liberty or property. "Substantive due process" is a contradiction in terms.

The only way you can theoretically get to a "right" to SSM under the text of the Constitution is to note the fundamental right to marriage and then claim homosexual unions are similarly situated to heterosexual unions for the exercise of that right.
 

Romans? Insert Monty Python "Life of Brian" clip here.

Because Obergfell wasn't decided on equal protection grounds, it was decided on due process.

Justice Kennedy (correctly) did note the connection between due process and equal protection, which is shown by multiple opinions where some justices used one or the other to decide the question. For instance, Griffin v. Illinois dealt with criminal defendants having a right to appeal, even if they didn't have the means to pay for a court transcript. The plurality noted:

"Notice, the right to be heard, and the right to counsel would under such circumstances be meaningless promises to the poor. In criminal trials a State can no more discriminate on account of poverty than on account of religion, race, or color."

This has clear equal protection connotations while also being a procedural due process case involving rights of criminal defendants. Loving v. VA, more directly, was decided on both due process and equal protection grounds.

Fitting Obergefell v. Hodges on right to marry grounds fit it in a diverse number of cases and reflected the demands of the couples themselves, who promoted the idea that they simply wanted to marry like everyone else. Marriage in particular, not broad rights across the board for gays and lesbians.

Of course, the right to marry was long held to be a basic liberty and the ability of freed slaves to marry was of great importance.

 

Did the Court in Plessy rewrite the Constitution's 14th A? How long did the Court accommodate Jim Crow despite the 14th A? Much of the history of America, until Brown, deprived meaning to the 14th and 15th As. This was apparently okay what with the demographics of the majority. Now with the changing demographics, there is anxiety of the high variety, witness Trump and his witless Forgotten and Revengelicals (FKA Evangelicals). That may account for SPAM's sojourn among the lilies in his rural little mountaintop community, where the deer and the antelope play, except when the Bund-y-ites are cavorting and carrying about.
 

SPAM's confessional on his "play role" in preparing a draft BS opinion was good preparation for SPAM's consistently BS comments at this Blog. As a wise man once said, "Practice makes prefect [sic]."