POLITICAL: Perhaps time to reform how SCOTUS are filled

https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/04/04/far-left-calls-for-scotus-justice-sotomayor-retirement-reveal-dems-believe-in-trump-victory/

Far-Left Calls for SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor Retirement Reveal Dems Believe in Trump Victory.

*** begin quote ***

Democrats are increasingly calling on Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resign from the Supreme Court before the 2024 presidential election, suggesting a widespread belief that former President Donald Trump will win.

Sotomayor is 69, a lifelong diabetic, and the oldest liberal member of the court. Should Trump win the election and Sotomayor need to retire in the next four years due to her health, conservatives could secure a 7-2 majority.

*** end quote ***

Maybe each President should get to select one Justice in each term.  Nine justices times 4 years is a 36 year term.  Seems like “lifetime” is impractical in today’s life spans.  So, stagger their terms.  Each President gets to pick one.  Still have the problem of death, disability, and retirement,  but it would be better than the chaos that we have around election time.

And, I’m not so sure that a 7-2 conservative majority is a sure thing.  Given how the justices seem to be all closet liberals.

Sigh!

—30—

GOVEROTRAGEOUS: The Gooferment is the judge, jury, and executioner when it misbehaves

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4192662/posts

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/a-texas-farmers-fight-for-justice-could-have-major-implications-for-property-rights

A Texas farmer’s fight for justice could have major implications for property rights
By Jon Miltimore  — October 26, 2023 09:44 AM

*** begin quote ***

In the 1930s, Richie DeVillier’s grandfather purchased a farm in Winnie, a little town in eastern Texas named after a railroad contractor who prospered.

For nearly a century, the DeVillier family raised cattle and grew crops on the 900-acre property without incident — until the Texas Department of Transportation started a highway project that had serious implications for DeVillier’s land.

In the early 2000s, the state renovated Interstate 10, elevating and broadening the highway and erecting concrete barriers. The construction trapped the DeVillier property, turning his farm into a lake whenever the region experienced heavy rains, as it did in 2017 during Hurricane Harvey.

“The water started to rise on August 28,” DeVillier recalled . “Our home was completely flooded by August 29.”

When DeVillier says his “home,” he’s not talking about just his house. Video footage shows his entire farm submerged, with cows standing chest-deep in water; fields where the family once grew rice and olives can be seen totally flooded.

*** and ***

In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit punted on the matter, arguing that federal courts have no jurisdiction in takings cases against states. (A “taking” isn’t necessarily seizing the property; an action that substantially alters a property is legally defined as a taking in tort law.)

The court didn’t rule against DeVillier. It simply said that Congress never passed a law allowing Americans to sue states for taking their property, so the Fifth Amendment’s property protections do not apply to DeVillier or anyone else.

The court’s reasoning is strange. Not only does the Constitution explicitly state that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … [or] without just compensation,” but the high court weighed in on this issue as recently as 2019.

*** and ***

“If there is one basic principle in property law, it’s the Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you buy it,” said Robert McNamara, an attorney for the Institute for Justice who is representing the family. “The Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case amounts to ‘you pay if you feel like it.’”

*** and ***

That the government, which was created to secure these rights, has become the single greatest transgressor of human rights is a sad irony, one that was not lost on the 19th-century economist Frederic Bastiat, who described it as a “perversion.”

Few know this better than Richie DeVillier, whom the state of Texas is trying to stiff after destroying his farm.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to make amends. If it does, it will not just be a win for DeVillier. It will be a win for justice.

*** end quote *** 

I like that summation  — the Pottery Barn Rule.  In this case, the Gooferment “robbed this family blind”!

—30—

VOCABULARY: SCROTUS: the Supremely Corrupt Royalty of the United States

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/corruption-potus-scotus-and-scrotus

The Corruption Of POTUS, SCOTUS, And SCROTUS
by Tyler Durden  — Monday, Jun 26, 2023 – 04:20 PM
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

  • Until we reach that point of social transformation, we’re passengers on a ship of state doomed by rampant, systemic corruption and the collapse of moral standards and the rule of law.

*** begin quote ***

Then there’s SCROTUS: the Supremely Corrupt Royalty of the United States, the corporate bigshots, the lobbyists, the billionaires, the politically influential, the financially connected, and all the elites that are protected from consequence and therefore untouchable.

*** end quote ***

Thanks for another acronym that describes the opposite of us deplorables.

—30—

GOVEROTRAGEOUS: How can a State not have “standing” to call the Federal Gooferment to account for not following the laws?

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/06/23/supreme-court-strikes-texas-challenge-biden-border-policy/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell

Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas’ Challenge to Biden Border Policy
Tyler O’Neil / @Tyler2ONeil / June 23, 2023

*** begin quote ***

The Supreme Court struck down a challenge to President Joe Biden’s border policy Friday, ruling that Texas and Louisiana lack standing to challenge a policy the states claimed was illegal.

The Supreme Court Friday stuck down Texas and Louisiana’s legal challenge to new Biden administration border policies that violate federal statutes and harm citizens in Texas and Louisiana, the states argued. (Read the full ruling below.)

All justices besides Samuel Alito concurred in the opinion that Texas and Louisiana lack standing to challenge the new rules, which the Department of Homeland Security promulgated in 2021.

Texas and Louisiana argued that federal law requires law enforcement to arrest certain noncitizens upon their release from prison or entry of a final order of removal, but the new DHS rule only prioritizes the arrest and removal of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals who unlawfully entered the country recently. The states claimed that these rules harmed them by imposing extra costs by requiring them to continue to incarcerate or supply social services—such as health care and education—to noncitizens.

*** end quote ***

I just don’t understand.  No one seems to want to enforce the laws!

Argh!

—30—

POLITICAL: “Constitiutional Issue” hide that the Constitution is a joke; the Taxpayers are the butt of the joke

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3789863-free-and-fair-voting-or-rigging-elections-supreme-court-will-decide/

Free and fair voting — or ‘rigging’ elections? Supreme Court will decide
by Michael J. Dell, opinion contributor – 12/27/22 4:30 PM ET

*** begin quote ***

If there is one lesson all of us (including the Supreme Court) should have learned over the last few years, and particularly on Jan. 6, 2021, it is that we cannot be complacent about our democracy. The Supreme Court made an enormous mistake in Rucho when it said it would not prevent blatant partisan gerrymandering — a practice retired Justice Anthony Kennedy aptly noted has been described as “rigging elections.” The court should take this opportunity to reverse Rucho. The court has no task or responsibility that is more important than protecting our democracy and the fundamental right of all Americans to participate equally.

Michael J. Dell is a New York lawyer who litigates and writes about constitutional issues.

*** end quote ***

I keep getting annoyed by the word “democracy”.  The USA is no a “democracy”.  In fact, “democracy” means mob rule.

Is “blatant partisan gerrymandering” any different than all the recent Election Day frauds which appeared in the last few elections?  And, how about the Deep State (i.e., CIA, FBI, DOJ, DHS) violating the First Amendment to swing the election?

So let’s stop kidding ourselves about what type of environment we suffer under.

It’s imho a tyrannical oligarchy in which different “gangs” have a kabuki dance to decide who gets to screw the Taxpayer.

Maybe I’ve become a real “get off my lawn” senior citizen, but I don’t see anything changing anytime soon.  When the “suckers” stop the “parasites” from feeding off them, then maybe we will have a “revolution”.  Til then, don’t make me laugh or annoy me with these pretend “Constitutional issue”.  

The Constitution died when Washington put down the whisky rebellion, or when Lincoln fought the War of Northern Aggression, or when the “peace candidate” Wilson put us in the WW1, or when FDR confiscated gold as money, or… or … or … … …

“Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), No Treason (1870) http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6 

So let’s get real!

End the FED and downsize the Federal Gooferment.  And, let each State make its own heaven or hell for its population.

—30— 

BIGOTRY: Isn’t race-based affirmative action merely racism except packaged palatability?

https://sharylattkisson.com/2022/01/read-supreme-court-to-hear-race-based-affirmative-action-cases-in-2022/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Sharyl+Attkisson+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily+Newsletter&vgo_ee=9GwjIKYNhIK3eFXY6NCvBw%3D%3D

Supreme Court to hear race-based affirmative action cases in 2022
DATED: JANUARY 30, 2022 BY SHARYL ATTKISSON

*** begin quote ***

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting. 

Supreme Court to hear race-based affirmative action cases in 2022

Supreme Court has announced that it will reconsider race-based affirmative action in college admissions, a decision that could eliminate a practice that in recent years has primarily benefitted black and Hispanic applicants. The high court will specifically listen to challenges to policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) that use […]

*** end quote ***

You just can’t continue to use “race” and not be complicit in “racism”.

End Gooferment Skrules and everyone will be competitive!

—30—

POLITICAL: Are we going to get yet another really ignorant Supreme Court justice?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-sonia-sotomayor-coronavirous-aoc-kyrie-irving

POLITICS ON LATE NIGHT
Published January 22
Bill Maher torches Sotomayor for botching COVID facts: ‘That’s really ignorant for a Supreme Court justice’
The HBO star also calls out AOC for going to Florida and wonders why Kyrie Irving can’t play home games
By Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News

*** begin quote ***

“Real Time” host Bill Maher returned from his holiday break Friday and took aim at liberals for their responses to and handling of the coronavirus pandemic. 

Along the way, the HBO host commented on U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NBA player Kyrie Irving of the Brooklyn Nets and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Maher kicked off the show’s panel discussion by listing all the COVID restrictions the United Kingdom is lifting from mask mandates to vaccine passports, saying “They’re getting back to normal, we should follow this.”

*** end quote ***

Unfortunately, it appears that Joe Biden is using sex & race as a critical criteria for deciding who to nominate for the Breyer’s replacement.

And, worse, when selections are made for “appearance”, then we wind up with a Justice like Sonia Sotomayor.  Virtually illiterate about the facts around Covid.

Hopefully the Senate will do it’s job and maybe administer an IQ test.

—30—

POLITICAL: Will SCOTUS punt or stand up for honest elections

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/11/can-the-supreme-court-unite-to-decimate-texas-original-jurisdiction-case/#comment-8632660

Can the Supreme Court Unite to “Decimate” Texas’ Original Jurisdiction Case?
 — Could the Chief bring everyone together for a single merits ruling in a short time?
JOSH BLACKMAN | 12.11.2020 5:35 PM

Tom Goldstein writes that the Supreme Court should do more than dismiss Texas’s original jurisdiction case in a summary order. He says that the Supreme Court should “decimate” the motion with a written opinion.

It is perfectly ordinary and appropriate for the justices to write an opinion explaining the various reasons why they are rejecting Texas’ request. . . A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.

# – # – # – # – #

Disclaimer: I’m not any kind of a lawyer. As a little L libertarian, I don’t like either the d’s or the R’s, but I have followed the anecdotal stories and the statistical analysis of the 2020 Election carefully.

If SCOTUS doesn’t address the blatant fraud in SOME fashion, I fear we will never have an honest election ever again. Why shouldn’t the “political parties” lie, cheat, and steal in ANY election they can? NO ONE is ever held to account, especially the rich and powerful politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe a few peons will get their wrist slapped but that’s about it.

Corrupt elections have been a national joke since the JFK’s dad stole the Presidency from Nixon. We joke about the “graveyard vote”, non-citizens voting, and all sorts of scams around registering to vote. Never mind, “harvesting” the nursing homes, homeless, and felons. And don’t forget the “walking around money” that gets distributed.

No, if SCOTUS punts on this, then it sends the wrong message to the power players to clean up their act. If SCOTUS was to disqualify the five or so States from sending electors, then that, by itself, would send a STRONG message about “law and order”. Anything less, means that the Republic is lost until the next revolution.

—30—

UPDATE 2020-Dec-11 1846 

SCOTUS punted!

—30—

INTERESTING: Question about the SCOTUS terms

How about the idea of a single 18 year term for justices on the Supreme Court.

I’m adverse with tinkering with the wisdom of the Dead Old White Guys like was done with the direct election of senators.

BUTT (there’s always a big but) this proposal appears to have merit.

* each prez gets a pick; prevents “popular packing” by judges timing their “retirement”.

* doddering old “scholars” will be respectfully booted off.

* it presents a problem if one of them dies prematurely.

* probably should be accompanied by an age qualification (i.e. 65, 70,75?) to ensure that post-SCOTUS employment opportunities don’t enter into judicial decisions.

Your thoughts?

# # # # #