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—
Posted by reinkefj 
Reinke Faces Life 
POLITICAL: The battle between the administration and the judiciary
Monday, April 9, 2012http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/
Crossroads
April 3, 2012 3:42 PM
Appeals court fires back at Obama’s comments on health care case
By Jan Crawford
Topics Supreme Court
Updated 6:55 p.m. ET
*** begin quote ***
(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
*** end quote ***
I think this is an epic struggle for the American Experiment.
I’m not sure that this is goign to end well.
# – # – # – # – #
Share this: