Reports the NY Post (with a photo).
ADDED: The first commenter and (I'm thinking) a million people on the internet responded with some variation of "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."
Hey, whyntchya leave me alone, I'm tryna do my routine here.
१२ डिसेंबर, २०१७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२०५ टिप्पण्या:
205 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»A shot of Inga, fading off into the distance , as she screams: "%^#@$ and the horse you rode in on......" Cut to black, fade, go to commercial for a New Jersey flight to Atlantic destinations, on "Epstein Air." Flight attendant, Billy Bob Clinton.
--Vance
Moore voted for the horse.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
That should win him some crossover votes.
After the election, Hillary looked like she was rode hard, and put up wet.
I hope he brought a pooper scooper.
I hope he was packing something other than that silver snub-nosed revolver.
Ride 'em Cowboy!
I hope he wins and then gets expelled from the Senate following an ethics inquiry, requiring an interim appointment and/or do-over special election.
Lefties everywhere triggered.
I hope he wins and serves out his term. The Left thinks he's dangerous enough to beclown themselves with ridiculous lies to prevent his election. He has successfully shown the accusations for the lies they are. This impresses me.
BDNYC - I am 99.9% sure the AL constitution is very clear that the governor gets to appoint an interim Senator (will be an R) then there is a special election. Then, if they get an R who is less, errrr, encumbered, he beats Jones like a rented mule - probably +20 at this point.
-XC
PS - Yes, looked it up - http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vacancies-in-the-united-states-senate.aspx
I hope he votes for the tax bill, and then votes to confirm federal judges for the next year, while the Senate ethics inquiry makes whatever findings it makes.
Hi-Yo, Silver!
I'm sure there is a Caligula joke in there somewhere.
What a guy. I hear his horse he rode is 14.
@ Expat(ish)
Yes, I believe that would be the best result for the voters of Alabama, a deep-red state, and also the Republican Party.
while the Senate ethics inquiry makes whatever findings it makes
As long as it's not double jeopardy, which is another principle adopted, with cause, by Americans. Then there is the matter of the tainted jury. Press-hood is objectively one of the greatest conspiracies to undermine civil rights in recent times.
steve uhr: "What a guy. I hear his horse he rode is 14"
A horse year is equal to 6 1/2 human years for the first 3 years of the horse's life. At the horse age of three the equivalent changes and is approximately 5 years to man.
That would make the horse 74.5 years old in human years.
steve uhr, leftist, ignorant and easily triggered is no way to go thru life son.
As usual.
Is the horse a gelding? If so the lefties will approve.
Steve meant 14 hands.
To Feelz you with.
I don't know about this guy, but he seems to have balls.
I tend not to favor religious conservatives, although I have met John Danforth and was very impressed by his honesty and humility. Maybe Moore will turn out to more like Danforth and not be the monster that liberals and Republicans are scared of.
I won't mince words - I think Moore is an ass.
He's still better than any Democrat.
If he wins - he should ride the horse into the Senate.
Its about time someone did that.
Obviously bareback...
ba dum bum
It would be best if he were a monster.
It would help to put the Washington institutions into their final madness.
I'm sure there is a Caligula joke in there somewhere.
I would prefer the whole horse go to the Senate rather than the rear.
Back in the 50's or 60's I think it was, a newly elected governor of Louisiana actually rode his horse up the capitol steps and into the Senate. Jimmy Davis maybe?
Yes, 1960, Jimmy Davis. The "You are my sunshine" guy.
Moore would cement reelection by a landslide if he rode a horse into the US Capitol. Especially if it took a dump on McConnel's shoes.
--Vance
Francisco D: "I tend not to favor religious conservatives, although I have met John Danforth and was very impressed by his honesty and humility. Maybe Moore will turn out to more like Danforth and not be the monster that liberals and Republicans are scared of."
I would bet that on 95% of the issues Moore would end up at the same place as Danforth, but taking different paths to arrive there.
Which would make him a 100% nightmare for the dems/left and LLR Chuck.
I'll bet reading about this Moore stunt gave John Kerry a long face....
Think about the sheer incompetence of Jeff Sessions -- he gets the AG spot, but then is spooked into recusing himself, which allows the special prosecutor to run wild.
And, then, his safe open Senate seat is deluged with Roy Moore and all the attendant madness.
I bet Trump is not too fond of Sessions, right now.
The more I see and hear of this and nothing further comes to light, I get to thinking Roy Moore of Etowah County 40 years ago more likely was a klutz around women than a pedophile (or whatever the right term is for Lolita chasers).
So I don't think he really has much to fear from a Senate "ethics investigation" in case he does get elected today. It will be convened, but at length forced to conclude there was no there there.
This was on his calendar for several weeks--it's apparently a tradition for him.
Moore... more likely was a klutz around women than a pedophile
It may have been a case of a boy forced to be a man (e.g. military service) who returned as a boy to resume his life anew. While he dated perilously close to the age of consent, and perhaps one courtship cut short following discovery, there is no credible evidence of a latent or persistent psychopathy (e.g. pedophilia).
So because I am a masochist, I turned on CNN. Wolf Blitzer is looking absolutely wooden.
1) Of course, he asked the Secretary of State if he voted for Moore and of course, he DETAILED CONSIDERABLY the allegations against Moore and asked specifically why this did not bother the R SOS.
2) It is interesting. The Alabama SOS said that 90+% o their voters use Driver's licenses to vote. He noted that there are NINE OTHER valid forms of ID including a FREE Voter Card the person gets WHEN THEY REGISTER.
A very poor state like Alabama can afford FREE VOTER ID picked up WHEN YOU REGISTER.
This really shows how gross the lie is that requiring voter ID is some inhuman demand on the voters. If you can show up to register, you can at the same instant pick up your official FREE ID card.
Now, the process is only as honest as the people administering the registrations, so there is that, but voting transparency and lack of corruption is very easy
.
.
.
unless people want to MAKE transparency and lack of corruption difficult (See California and any Democrat city)
However, I am afraid to point out that the horse, despite citizenship, probably would be banned from voting...which will torque off SOME hypersensitive Democratic constituency.
The Senate can only rule on whether a Senator-elect meets the Constitutional requirements for being a Senator. An ethics referral can only be for actions while being a Senator.
Come to think of it, was not the premise of the novel that Lolita was the real predator and Humbert Humbert the "victim"?
That would make the horse 74.5 years old in human years.
Age "equivalence" calculations between genera as widely separated as Equus and Homo are mostly nonsense. I have known a number of highly competitive show jumpers that were 12, 13, 14, and even 15 years old. Haute école dressage is also largely the preserve of older horses. Assuming the animal is sound and free of disease a 14 year old horse is still in its prime.
(Reposted with typo correction)
Heard a good one the other day: The weather in Alabama today favors Moore. It's supposed to dip into the teens.
Well, that didn't take long to go from only rather obvious to the dems stating it outloud: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/opinion/franken-resignation-harassment-democrats.html
Re Lolita -
Humbert is an unreliable narrator.
But its much more involved than just that.
Nabokov wrote a very complex thing.
Quaestor: " I have known a number of highly competitive show jumpers that were 12, 13, 14, and even 15 years old."
That's all fine and well, but what about horses?
From a daily mail article linked at Drudge:
"Moore has faced accusations that he prayed on teen girls while in his 30s"
Where's Emily Litella when you need her?
That's all fine and well, but what about horses?
Well, I haven't known them.
Not in the Biblical sense at any rate.
steve uhr said...
What a guy. I hear his horse he rode is 14.
12/12/17, 12:30 PM
It truly is a pity. Who can imagine why anybody would think you were a leftist?
I've had a lot of horses that lived 30, or 30+ years, so Moore's horse would be middle age.
Buwaya observes: Re Lolita -
Humbert is an unreliable narrator.
But its much more involved than just that.
Nabokov wrote a very complex thing.
Humbert imagined [or rationalized] that his nymphet actually flirted with him and encouraged his lust. Some pedophiles have even maintained this nonsense regarding small children.
What Exiledonmainstreet said at 12:38PM.
steve uhr said...
What a guy. I hear his horse he rode is 14.
That's the same age Corfman said she was when she lied about being assaulted by Moore!
Clever, but I don't think the horse will appreciate the inference you made that it is a liar.
The US Senate does not have any valid business investigating Moore's alleged antics 40 years ago, but it does have valid business investigating dirty tricks to affect an election to fill a seat in the US Senate.
In particular:
1) The yearbook hoax perpetrated by Beverly Young Nelson and Gloria Allred.
2) The funding for that hoax.
3) The Washington Post's timing of its report of Nelson's accusation.
The Senate should publicly question Nelson, Allred and the newspaper's owners and editors.
Did he flashed his cap gun?
The Senate can only rule on whether a Senator-elect meets the Constitutional requirements for being a Senator. An ethics referral can only be for actions while being a Senator.
AFAIK there is nothing that prevents the Senate from expelling one of their members for whatever reason they see fit including for things that the Senator allegedly did before they took office. I’m not sure that there are any rules that limit what can be referred to the Ethics Committee to only conduct while the person being investigated is a Senator.
”I hope he wins and then gets expelled from the Senate following an ethics inquiry, requiring an interim appointment and/or do-over special election.”
That’s where I’m at as well.
Why would he be expelled?
If you do not condemn Roy Moore in the strongest possible terms, then you too shall be condemned in the strongest possible terms!
Here's the specific allegations made by Leigh Corfman, now 53 years old (if you want to read it).
I don't see a need to bash Ms. Corfman. But, admittedly, a 40-year old allegation should come with a great deal of skepticism. There are a few other red flags:
First, it's unclear whether the interaction was or was not consensual:
She claims that he picked her up secretly near their home in Gadsden a few days later. According to Corfman, Moore drove her to his home and kissed her and told her she looked pretty.
She said that during her second visit to his house, he undressed her and touched her sexually. He also made her touch him intimately. .
It's crazy that journalism has stooped so low, that they can't even get a clear statement from the victim, whether at the time, she consented to this.
Second, Ms. Corfman, apparently was a wild child (drinking,drugs,suicide attempt).
She added that she had struggled with the decision to come forward with her story since Moore campaigned for the state Supreme Court in 2000. But she did not come forward because she was worried about how it would affect her children. She also said that her tumultuous life, which involved drinking, doing drugs and a suicide attempt when she was 16, also influenced her decision to remain silent because she thought that her past life impugned her credibility. She also had three divorces and financial problems.
It's messy stuff for 40-year old allegations. You could never get a conviction on this type of evidence in any court in America.
I hope Moore wins, and kills 5, or 6 men during his first term. Then, is re-elected.
There's a reason why Roy Rogers and that sheriff from AZ never appear together. Same person.
Qwinn said...
I hope he wins and serves out his term. The Left thinks he's dangerous enough to beclown themselves with ridiculous lies to prevent his election. He has successfully shown the accusations for the lies they are. This impresses me.
What are the "lies"? Exactly, how has Roy Moore been "lied" about?
What I know about Roy Moore -- I am not in Alabama -- are these things:
~His his public and on-the-record feuds with federal courts concerning a Ten Commandments display at his courthouse;
~His public and on-the-record feuds with federal courts concerning enforcement of Obergefell v. Hodges;
~His various public statements on the Constitution and a variety of social issues, all on the record and most of them recorded on audio/video;
~Lastly, the allegations concerning sexual conduct, as well as Moore's own statements concerning same. For me, the most important single thing was seeing Moore interviewed by Sean Hannity, under sircumstances where Hannity was doubtlessly trying hard to give Moore adequate space to defend and explain himself, and Moore could barely do it even with Hannity's overtly friendly (to Moore) interview style. Hannity cast member Geraldo Rivera watched it on-air with Hannity and said that he thought it would be the end for Moore.
Not only do I not see any "lies" in any of that, I don't even see any room for lies. I haven't decided in my own mind that Moore's female accusers are telling the truth. I certainly don't have any basis on which to claim that they are lying, and I'd be surprised if you do.
Mike Sylvester: Also, the "handwriting expert" (presumably the same one Inga is still relying on) who validated the entire signature, including the bits Wilson wrote, as being written by Moore.
Somebody linked to the guy's bio, claiming he testified as an expert in "hundreds" of criminal cases.
I think Congress needs to reopen those cases, since the guy is obviously either incompetent or corrupt. Probably both.
I guess Chuck skipped the entire "Remember all that stuff I said Moore wrote in my yearbook? Yeah, I wrote half of it." story from yesterday. Or did he go all in on the "that doesn't qualify as forgery, Breitbart is a liar!" narrative?
I will be so happy when this is all over.
Sorry, not yesterday, a few days ago. But yesterday is when Matthew Sabian found the evidence of Wilson explicitly stating that Moore wrote "Old Hickory", etc., which she has now confirmed to be a lie and a forgery.
I will be sad when this is over. It has exposed SO many frauds completely and totally, especially Inga.
"It's messy stuff for 40-year old allegations. You could never get a conviction on this type of evidence in any court in America."
That's exactly why these character assassins have been using the media as their courtroom of choice.
twitter is having fun today:
As soon as we gave women the vote, three months of Hallmark Christmas movies 24/7 were assured -allahpundit
The real mistake was giving us shoes. From that, all the rest eventually followed.-Megan McArdle
We need a complete and total ban on NFL Network employees until we can figure out what’s going on -Allahpundit
Slut shaming Gillibrand lmao. It isn't even noon. I knew Alabama election day would be lit af. - ComfortablySmug
(Now there's a horse in the mix!)
The man who has the most personally invested in a Roy Moore victory tonight: Al Franken. -Jeff B/DDHQ
Roses are Red Violets are Blue - Griswold Christmas Vacation
The next three years of this dude in the Senate are going to be lit af. We don’t even need Trump anymore. - Allahpundit
It was reported that Doug Jones was driving a Chevy Volt to the polling station. Even after being recharged twice during the trip, it died within 1/2 mile of the polling station.
@Chuck "Not only do I not see any "lies" in any of that, I don't even see any room for lies."
I agree with you, and I think the accusations about his sexual conduct have in some ways helped him. Since we can't *know* the truth, it allows Moore to talk in a general way about lies in the media and sets him up for his supporters as a victim.
But there are lots and lots of things that are on the record about him that should make people doubt his ability to be a good senator.
One aspect that has really surprised me by its absence here among a mostly conservative crowd is his behaviour as a judge. He’s been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice, both times for defying a higher court.
The first time, in 2003, he defied a federal court order requiring him to remove a granite Ten Commandments monument — a monument he’d commissioned — from the Alabama Supreme Court building. The second time, he was suspended without pay after issuing an order to Alabama probate judges declaring that they had a “ministerial duty” not to issue same-sex marriage licenses. He issued this order six months after the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Constitution protected a right to same-sex marriage.
As someone wrote: "...The very instant that we permit any judge to actively defy the constitutional order simply when he — in his subjective wisdom — believes a superior court has overstepped its bounds is the instant we begin to lose the rule of law. Ironically enough, those who support Moore because they hate “judicial supremacy” are endorsing the most dangerous form of judicial supremacy possible: a judge who actively defies controlling authority on the basis of his will alone."
I read that today and thought it was really enlightening. The writer wrote from a Christian perspective: he was concerned that this would open the door to *liberal* judges defying higher courts in cases where Christians need protecting. That seemed like a good point that would be persuasive to some people here.
Humperdink, if that's true, that's ROFLMAO hilarious.
I'm still in shock that Alabama is a question of who will win. Last time this happened was Reconstruction. Primary voters, we're looking at you!
The horse -- fabulous! But, on the other hand, I think the writing is getting sloppy at the end of this season. How believable is this scenario? The rally last night was a bit over the top.
It was reported that Doug Jones was driving a Chevy Volt to the polling station. Even after being recharged twice during the trip, it died within 1/2 mile of the polling station.
Is this true? love it! Man, the writing is getting sloppy in this alternative universe.
I like horses.
Qwinn: "I guess Chuck skipped the entire "Remember all that stuff I said Moore wrote in my yearbook? Yeah, I wrote half of it." story from yesterday. Or did he go all in on the "that doesn't qualify as forgery, Breitbart is a liar!" narrative?"
Just check the DNC website prior to reading Chucks posts and you'll have a solid view into what our LLR will be posting about.
LLR Chuck is "accidentally" aligned with the lefts talking points about 95% of the time...and sometimes he is more aggressive against conservative republicans than even the "official" dems.
Qwinn said...
I guess Chuck skipped the entire "Remember all that stuff I said Moore wrote in my yearbook? Yeah, I wrote half of it." story from yesterday. Or did he go all in on the "that doesn't qualify as forgery, Breitbart is a liar!" narrative?
Breitbart, after firing Ben Shapiro and failing to stand up for Michelle Fields, is a non-starter with me, sport. I don't respect Breitbart any more than I respect Bannon.
As for the "forgery," I think I understand the story well enough. The woman who had a yearbook inscription from Roy Moore added a date and/or something else to the existing message that was from Moore.
Is that it? Is that your "lie" about Roy Moore? You said "lies", plural. is there anything else? I supplied a list of what I was basing a judgment on.
wwww: "The rally last night was a bit over the top."
Dude, they are hunting and metaphorically burning at the stake sexual harassment warlocks and witches and you think last night was "over the top"?
The first time, in 1851, he defied the Fugitive Slave Law requiring him to return an escaped slave — a man he’d hideen and fed — to the Alabama Slave Market...
Boo! Hiss!
Right?
LLR Chuck: "As for the "forgery," I think I understand the story well enough. The woman who had a yearbook inscription from Roy Moore added a date and/or something else to the existing message that was from Moore."
LOL
As expected. As with Blumenthals Stolen Valor lies, Chuck has the hardest time keeping straight lefties transgressions and lies!
Darn it!!
Chuck reappears to give Moore the "harrumph!" and KittyM dutifully follows suit. Unexpectedly.
"Roy Moore added a date and/or something else..."
Harrumph!
Fabi: "Chuck reappears to give Moore the "harrumph!" and KittyM dutifully follows suit. Unexpectedly."
Yes, indeed. The KittyM/Chuck dance is a very familiar one.
Very.
No Chuck.
You miss the 'innocent until proven guilty' metric. She SAYS a lot of things. Are they true? Have you BOTHERED looking at them or allowing anyone else to look at them...besides a partisan wingbat like Alldred?
And frankly Chuck and KittyM,
I don't recall either of you writing about a lower court judge such as that Hawaiian Judge who has been condemned by the upper courts for his judgments re Trump's travel ban against black letter law.
Except that you don't like what Moore stood for but you DO like what Hawaii Huckster is selling.
A Fighter who comes riding on a horse is signaling that he is the Alabama Calvary leading an Army to take back DC. We will see if he gets fired and killed like the old Calvary Soldier Patton when the war is over. But I bet Alabama still wants to fight the Good Fight.
See, here's where Chuck falls apart. His big thing is "I am a Republican! I'm genuinely upset about same sex marriage!!!!" And to give him credit, on same sex marriage topics he actually can focus and not bash Trump.
So Moore is defiant about same sex marriage... Chuck's wheelhouse, as it were, and Chuck is here blaming Moore for being against same sex marriage.
Thus, Chuck destroys what little credibility he had left. As a wise man would say, SAD!
--Vance
This feels like a Coen brother's movie at this point. But the writing has gotten sloppy at the end. The writers were sitting around smoking something, and got a bit over-the-top.
But he's wearing a black hat! Republicans are the good guys. We're supposed to wear white hats.
KittyM said...
As someone wrote: "...The very instant that we permit any judge to actively defy the constitutional order simply when he — in his subjective wisdom — believes a superior court has overstepped its bounds is the instant we begin to lose the rule of law..."
Bullshit. We lost the rule of law back when the superior court decided that it didn't answer to the Constitution, but only to its subjective wisdom.
I'm not saying I agree with Moore in ignoring the ruling of the higher court. But please don't lie about when we actually lost the rule of law.
@ Ignorance is Bliss "But please don't lie about when we actually lost the rule of law."
I was quoting someone, and they used it in a rhetorical flourish kind of way, I think.
FIDO said...
...
And frankly Chuck and KittyM,
I don't recall either of you writing about a lower court judge such as that Hawaiian Judge who has been condemned by the upper courts for his judgments re Trump's travel ban against black letter law.
Well you should try to recall better. All along, I have supported the basic Administration position that the President should be given great latitude on matters of executive authority in immigration policy. Essentially, I have said that the Trump Administration should probably win most of the decisions on his re-crafted executive orders.
I also wrote that one of the reasons that the EO's became difficult to defend was due to Donald Trump's preposterously stupid statement that he was calling for a "ban on Muslims entering the United States until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on."
There was never going to be any executive order that did any such thing. When Trump got into office, his political guys tried to create an order that was closer to being legal while still giving some lip service to Trump's campaign bloviating. It wasn't handled well. Incompetently, really. Later versions were better. In the end, it didn't look anything like Trump's idiotic initial pronouncement. And as I have written here many times, I would not want for Trump's personal ignorance to result in the making of bad law by federal courts on immigration policy or executive branch authority.
You could have asked me about my views on that. But no; like a typical jackass Trump supporter you had to attack first and ask questions later. Fuck you, and fuck everyone like you to hell.
By the way, your "Hawaiian judge" is a United States District Court Judge, sitting in Hawaii, and he was not excoriated by the US Court of Appeals (for the Ninth Circuit). He has been mostly upheld. Not that it was a result that I favored, as noted above. I just want to be right about my facts. Unlike you.
@Drago "The KittyM/Chuck dance is a very familiar one...Very."
That's weird that you write that, because I was just thinking that I have very rarely openly supported Chuck. I tend to agree with him but because I think he puts his points across very clearly and succinctly, I don't usually think I have much to add. So funnily enough, I deliberately made sure to agree with him openly just now, because I felt I don't do it often enough.
I wish more people would agree with my posts! (I know that won't happen.)
The pessimist position is that the rule of law is a nullity already, on many grounds -
- Complication. The law is a horrible mess. It literally cannot be followed without the expensive employment of specialists, for any normal function of commerce.
- Expense - see above. This is why "the process is the punishment" whenever an individual or any non-seep pocketed entity gets into a dispute.
- Predominance of power - The courts have developed a habit of overruling the people on cultural grounds. The courts respond to well funded minorities.
The net effect is that the "rule of law", a fantasy always, dependent on a mass hallucination, is now simply a dead fantasy. A realist will deal in terms of power, only.
"Accidental Leftist" Chuck: "By the way, your "Hawaiian judge" is a United States District Court Judge, sitting in Hawaii, and he was not excoriated by the US Court of Appeals (for the Ninth Circuit). He has been mostly upheld."
LOL
That is some funny stuff right there.
In other words, anyone defending 'the rule of law" is defending a corpse.
@FIDO "I don't recall either of you writing about a lower court judge such as that Hawaiian Judge who has been condemned by the upper courts for his judgments re Trump's travel ban against black letter law. Except that you don't like what Moore stood for but you DO like what Hawaii Huckster is selling."
I don't think I was commenting on this blog at the time, was I?
But tell me: what do *you* think? Looking at Moore's defiance of a higher court, twice, what do you say?
@ buwaya "The net effect is that the "rule of law", a fantasy always, dependent on a mass hallucination, is now simply a dead fantasy."
Wow. Bleak. So you think Moore was right?
KittyM: "That's weird that you write that, because I was just thinking that I have very rarely openly supported Chuck."
The names that plug into "The XXXX/LLR Chuck Dance" come and go. The pattern is familiar.
Very.
Blogger Chuck said...
Fuck you, and fuck everyone like you to hell.
-
Ah..thread is proceeding as usual..
@Drago "The names that plug into "The XXXX/LLR Chuck Dance" come and go. The pattern is familiar...Very."
Sorry to be dense, but I am missing something. What do you mean?
Which is superior, the text of the Constitution, or what a higher court *claims* the text of the Constitution says?
Moore can, get this, read. He knows what the Constitution says, and when some leftie in a higher court pulls n interpretation completely out of his ass to get a desired result that the Founders obviously never intended, IMO it is legitimate to oppose that ruling.
Last I checked, judges swear to uphold the Constitution, not a higher court.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to justify the Hawaii judge barring the travel ban. Not a damn thing.
If there's a comparison to be made, then advantage: Moore.
The Senate can only rule on whether a Senator-elect meets the Constitutional requirements for being a Senator. An ethics referral can only be for actions while being a Senator.
See, here is where the entertainment starts if Moore is elected.
Either:
1. The Senate can't really throw him out, but we all heard about how they could and would if he were elected, showing us what idiots they are, or
2. The Senate can throw him out, but will have to overturn decades if not centuries of precedent to do it. And in doing so will show the bipartisan hypocrisy we've come to expect from the Uniparty Swamp Dwellers.
Either way, we'll be entertained and informed which is much better than just being lied to all the time.
No comparison between a lower court being reversed by a higher court - Hawaii - and a lower court ignoring the clear mandate of a higher court -Moore. The former is our justice system in action. The later is contempt for the rule of law. There is a reason why twice his fellow judges found Moore unfit to serve.
"Accidental Leftist" Chuck: "By the way, your "Hawaiian judge" is a United States District Court Judge, sitting in Hawaii, and he was not excoriated by the US Court of Appeals (for the Ninth Circuit). He has been mostly upheld."
If by "mostly upheld" you mean slapped down by the Supremes (which has got to be galling our LLR poster).
Here's a take on Chucks newest lefty that needs to be defended rulings from a source less moronic than LLR Chuck:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/supreme-court-stays-enforcement-of-travel-ban-orders.php
"Today the U.S. Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a major victory, staying the orders of two lower courts that enjoined enforcement of the president’s revised travel ban. This means that the orders can be enforced, and travel from the affected countries can be banned or limited, while the courts continue to process appeals in the two cases.
You can read the Court’s two orders here and here. They were issued on 7-2 votes, with Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissenting in both cases.
When a court addresses requests for preliminary relief like those at issue here, a key issue is the court’s assessment of which party is likely to ultimately prevail on the merits. The Court’s two orders today strongly suggest that a solid majority of the Court thinks the president’s travel ban order will prove to be valid and enforceable. In my opinion, that conclusion is rather obviously correct."
LLR and #CNNStrongDefender Chuck hardest hit.
Unknown said...
See, here's where Chuck falls apart. His big thing is "I am a Republican! I'm genuinely upset about same sex marriage!!!!" And to give him credit, on same sex marriage topics he actually can focus and not bash Trump.
So Moore is defiant about same sex marriage... Chuck's wheelhouse, as it were, and Chuck is here blaming Moore for being against same sex marriage.
Thus, Chuck destroys what little credibility he had left. As a wise man would say, SAD!
--Vance
Oh that one is so easy! Because, as you rightly say, I am an ardent proponent of Justice Scalia's dissents in Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v Hodges. Scalia was brilliant, in addition to being right.
And my gripe with Roy Moore -- same as my gripe with Trump -- is that he makes my side of the debate look bad. With his clumsy pseudo-Christian, extremist-Christian, extreme-ignorance, undisciplined hysteria. Justice Scalia knew how to make the argument. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito know how to make the argument. Ed Whelen knows how to make the argument. Ryan Anderson and Maggie Gallagher know how to make the argument.
Roy Moore doesn't. I don't know if it is because Moore is stupid, or if he's got a mental disease or disorder. All that I know is that I do not want him as my lawyer, or as an advocate for my side in the culture wars.
Kitty, Chuck has been around a very long time, and went unhinged after Trump was elected. And he's created a few sock puppets, much like Inga has. And several other leftist posters have changed their names: Toothless Revolutionary being the most prominent one.
As for why few will agree with your posts here, it's because leftism is a vile disease that destroys mankind. And you yourself have admitted it when you attacked Moore as anti-semitic because he criticized George Soros. Soros is the evil barnacle on the rear end of Satan himself, yet you defend Soros.
Soros wants to murder millions of conservatives and Christians; and he's well experienced in genocide, having sold fellow Jews to the Nazi's in WWII. Why you defend him is beyond me. it's because you said that people who call leftist approved behaviors sinful that you'll get cold shouldered. Leftists really do hate being told "no, that's wrong." And thus they support Islam and Communism and every other form of evil on earth, all because they hate God and Christ. And even the posters here who are not Christian can see that the left is off the deep end.
And all of you leftists that say "But I don't want to turn America into a Stalinist hell-hole! Why do you accuse me of it?" it's because you do nothing at all to stop the raging left from destroying everything. And you call everyone "bigoted hater!" who does want to stand up to the evil-enabling leftists of the world, the kind that say Ray Moore is evil for dating a teenager but it's totally racist to say Muslim atrocities like Rotherham shouldn't be allowed.
--Vance
"I swear to uphold the Hierarchy of the US Judicial System..."
No, that's not it. What was it again?
I love lefties insisting the highest court decides EVERYTHING. No separation of powers, simply USSC Uber Alles. How long you think that'll last if Trump gets to pick two more Gorsu check's to the USSC? And then they ban abortion and gay marriage, or even just let thr states decide (as it should be? Think any leftist here will sit down placidly and accept that result?
LLR Chuck: " I am an ardent proponent of Justice Scalia's dissents in Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v Hodges.".....(wink wink)
@ Qwinn "If there's a comparison to be made, then advantage: Moore."
In terms of the law as it is now and has been since the founding, you are wrong. Please read what steve uhh wrote above. A lower court being reversed by a higher court (and then that decision quite possibly being overturned by the next instance and so on, up to the Supreme Court) - that is how the law works in this country. Individuals will have different views on these decisions. You may well feel that the Hawaiian judge made a horrible and "wrong" decision. But it was his decision to make at that time.
Moore ignored the decision of a higher court. In other words, he went rogue. He decided that *his opinion* counted for more.
That is NOT how the system works.
Now, you can agree personally with his decisions. You can think, "Yeah! The state shouldn't be able to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages! It's a travesty". But you don't get to decide. And neither does he.
And of course Chuck doesn't want a clear appeal to the Ten Commandments.
Those ones about lying and envy are not well received on K Street, are they?
Moore is a throwback politician, back to the days when people were not afraid to say that something is morally wrong. And that cowering to a dictatorial government is wrong too. If Trump ordered the military to arrest and gut Chuck Schumer, I'm sure you would be horrified. Even if Trump got a court order saying he could do it.
America was founded on people who did the right thing, regardless of whether it was legal--Jefferson, Washington and the boys certainly did not follow the law! Yet they were right.
Moore was right to not enable the court system to allow same sex marriage. The fact you hate him for it, even if it was a doomed effort, is telling. He at least took a stand.
--Vance
KittyM: "Please read what steve uhh wrote above."
LOL
Never good advice for any reason at any time.
You know, I bet the voters of Alabama are just pleased as punch that the rest of us are so willing to tell them how to vote.
I know I would be.
KittyM: "Moore ignored the decision of a higher court"
LOL
Judge Watson openly defied the Supreme Court and the lefties and their LLR enablers cheered.
@Unknown (Vance) "As for why few will agree with your posts here, it's because leftism is a vile disease that destroys mankind."
I know this is silly, but you made me smile with this sentence so thank you. In fact, you made me genuinely LOL. At least you don't mince your words.
It's very very strange to be an ordinary boring liberal person, with family, and a business, and friends and a few quite ordinary opinions, very conventional and mainstream in most things...and then to come here and start sharing my humble and boring views but to be amongst people who write things like, "And thus they..." (meaning me because I am a bit left "... support Islam and Communism and every other form of evil on earth, all because they hate God and Christ."
That's just so...um...extreme. What if I tell you I'm just a person like you, trying to get by, trying to work out what she thinks about things, trying to be a good person in my own modest way?
I'm actually focusing on the 10 commandments debacle. The FIRST ACT of the US Congress was to buy a crapload of Bibles for the public school system. IMMEDIATELY after the Constitution was written. Statues of Moses himself in thousands of courthousrs. And with that obvious historical validation of the explicit text of the Constitution someone decides no, the Constitution bans the 10C? Screw that. Constitution as written should win, period, and egregious "interpretations" that reach the opposite meaning should be dealt with by tar and feathers of the judge in the higher court.
Did not one of you read Animal Farm?
And incidentally, I'm agnostic, have been for 30 years, and even I saw the 10C debacle as outrageous, and fully supported Moore in it.
@Qwinn " Screw that. Constitution as written should win, period, and egregious "interpretations" that reach the opposite meaning should be dealt with by tar and feathers of the judge in the higher court."
But Qwinn that's just not how the system works. And I'm sure you can agree with me that a judge who actively defies controlling authority on the basis of his will alone is dangerous.
What if the next time it is a judge with a view you don't like?
It's a dog whistle to Caligula fans.
Here's the quote I was replying to above:
I don't recall either of you writing about a lower court judge such as that Hawaiian Judge who has been condemned by the upper courts for his judgments re Trump's travel ban against black letter law.
Again, it was not a Hawaiian state court judge. It was a United States District Court Judge, sitting the US District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Judge Derrick Watson is a Harvard Law grad and a former US Army Captain having served in the JAG Corps. His only significant rulings on the Trump Travel Ban cases were procedural; he entered a TRO pending a hearing on the merits.
He has never been "condemned" by the Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over his orders, which would be the Ninth Circuit. He has never been "condemned" by the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court's most recent ruling, the Court determined to allow the enforcement of the re-re-revised Trump Executive Order, even as the US Department of State incorporated part of Judge Watson's latest Opinion and Order into their own procedural rules as to which family extended family members would be covered. It was effectively a reversal of Judge Watson's preliminary injunction, but based on additional developing facts since the case had been before Judge Watson in the district. Again, no court has "condemned" (the word that caught my eye) Judge Watson.
And of course the Trump "travel ban" orders were cases of first impression for the district courts. There was nothing like any "black letter law" (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context) to work from.
Kitty, tell us then where your limits are. Lots of plain old humble liberals; just trying to get by, in Rotherham, England. Don't judge the Muslims; try not to be "Racist"; surely we can all get along..... even if we let the Muslims kidnap and rape all the young white girls in town.
Which is 100% true. The left's fetish with political correctness destroys lives. Do you reject political correctness? Kate Steinke would like a word.
Am I "extreme?" Maybe. But I'm not like you, where being a liberal means you never get criticized or silenced because of "WrongThink." I've had stuff I've written censored because it wasn't liberal enough; along with several other people. We all got thrown out because of leftists and political correctness. Daily in my local paper I deal with leftists who scream "racist bigot" at everyone who thinks that homosexual activity is wrong, and claim that the 1st Amendment only allows people to meet in church in a basement, where no one can hear them and if they do, the state should arrest them.
I belong to a Church that the US Government officially persecuted quite severely. My people lost the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold public office. Their property was seized by the Federal government. Thousands were jailed. Why? Because we disagreed with the secular religion over marriage. We disagree with the left now over marriage; how long until we are persecuted by "well meaning" liberals like you? After all, what's more important--the rights of a Gay person to feel good or the right of a Mormon to, you know, not be a slave or in jail? The left says the gays win. I'm sure you agree, and if you don't... eh, why bother standing up for those deplorable Mormons when the LGBT goons come to take their rights away, right? Bigots don't deserve anything.....
--Vance
KittyM, could I ask you a question? OK, thanks. How did you find this place (Althouse's blog)?
It’s a dog whistle for Caligula fans.
Humperdink said: "It was reported that Doug Jones was driving a Chevy Volt to the polling station. Even after being recharged twice during the trip, it died within 1/2 mile of the polling station."
Qwinn responded: "Humperdink, if that's true, that's ROFLMAO hilarious."
Nope, just a thought that hit me ..... and a description of his campaign.
And my gripe with Roy Moore -- same as my gripe with Trump -- is that he makes my side of the debate look bad. With his clumsy pseudo-Christian, extremist-Christian, extreme-ignorance, undisciplined hysteria. Justice Scalia knew how to make the argument. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito know how to make the argument. Ed Whelen knows how to make the argument. Ryan Anderson and Maggie Gallagher know how to make the argument.
Roy Moore doesn't. I don't know if it is because Moore is stupid, or if he's got a mental disease or disorder. All that I know is that I do not want him as my lawyer, or as an advocate for my side in the culture wars."
Chuck what is the relevance of your gripe with Moore as a judge? He isn't being nominated to the Supreme Court. At best ( or worst depending on one's point of view) he may be elected to the Senate. Is Moore any more of a crook or creep than Senator ( D) Robert Menendez? Is he any dumber than Kristen Gillibrand ( D)? Considering the hive of stupidity and sleaze that already exist in the Senate he would hardly be at the bottom of that barrel. So Alabama voters are basically choosing between the lesser of two evils, an alleged pervert or a man who thinks killing infants is acceptable. Not the best of choices but a real and distinct choice but then again a real conservative and Republican would know that.
In fact, and this is for Chuck too: I'll ask about Davis v. Beeson, a United States Supreme Court case. Decided 9-0. It held that Mormons could be stripped of the right to vote merely for being Mormon. Not a single dissenting vote. Never overturned, to my knowledge.
So: 1) Was it right for the Supreme Court to hold that? 2) If that is legal, then why can't Trump keep out Muslims? Nothing ever proposed by anyone against Islam is in the same ballpark as what this country and the US Government did to the Mormons, all 100% legally and upheld by the Supreme Court. No one ever says that was wrong... but they scream about "Bigotry against Muslims!" Chuck, how about we take away the right of Muslims to vote, under the Beeson precedent. No problems, right? Mormons never bombed people, after all.
3) Shouldn't someone have stood up against the bigotry of the Supreme Court?
--Vance
Well, Chuck, IIRC, we have precedent that the President can stop communists from entering the country. We have precedent that Jews can be kept from entering the country...as they were during FDR's reign. We have law allowing the President to set whatever metrics he has for limiting immigration for the common good. IIRC, it was written in the 1940s and has not been rescinded.
So a law keeping Muslims from lawless and hostile places? Please! Tons of law and precedent allowing this. But the Hawaiian Judge doesn't like Trump and wanted to start off the Resistance...even as Obama did something similar with NO dissent.
So pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
I would like to ask KittyM if she ever looked at the facts regarding Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick I gave her in response to a question she asked. Does she still think that Broaddrick is a liar? She seems to put a lot of stock in believing women here.
So Alabama voters are basically choosing between the lesser of two evils, an alleged pervert or a man who thinks killing infants is acceptable. Not the best of choices but a real and distinct choice but then again a real conservative and Republican would know that.
I am really tired of these bad choices. Like the choice between Trump and Hillary. Or the choices of losers Sharron Angle, Todd Akin or Christine McDonnell versus anybody.
Luther Strange versus Doug Jones would have been easy. An easy win, with few costs for the Republican Party. As a Republican, I know that.
Chuck said:
And as I have written here many times, I would not want for Trump's personal ignorance to result in the making of bad law by federal courts on immigration policy or executive branch authority.
Chuck, how do federal courts "make law"?
Luther Strange versus Doug Jones would have been easy. An easy win, with few costs for the Republican Party. As a Republican, I know that.
Yes, and two quick observations:
1. Trump supported Strange in the primaries, so, intellectually, you should give him credit for that.
2. Why didn't these allegations come out DURING the primaries? Well, that's easy. Because Moore would have sunk, and Strange would have swam to victory - thereby defeating the purpose of the disclosures.
Doesn't the timing (not just the 40 year delay, but during the general election, not the primaries) of these Moore accusers raise a serious red flag?
Its always amusing and enlightening when LLR Chucks mask slips.
Hagar: Come to think of it, was not the premise of the novel that Lolita was the real predator and Humbert Humbert the "victim"?
Not the novel I read.
3) Shouldn't someone have stood up against the bigotry of the Supreme Court?
--Vance
Not to aggrandize myself but I invoked Dred Scott way back, and the Fugitive Slve Law just earlier today. There is also Plessy v. Ferguson. There are others. The other side might name Korematsu, which is still the law of the land IIRC.
If five, nine, or any number of SCOTUS justices say that black is white, they are all wrong, and should be defied.
am really tired of these bad choices. Like the choice between Trump and Hillary. Or the choices of losers Sharron Angle, Todd Akin or Christine McDonnell versus anybody.
A lot of these bad choices engineered by Democrat. Hillary had her people talking up "pied piper" Trump because she thought he would be easy to beat. Todd Akin was helped through the primary by the Democrats. Harry Reid won his last election by interfering in the Republican primary process. Obviously the Washington Post engineered this choice.
So maybe the Republican Party needs to find a way to tighten this stuff up.
Unknown said...
In fact, and this is for Chuck too: I'll ask about Davis v. Beeson, a United States Supreme Court case. Decided 9-0. It held that Mormons could be stripped of the right to vote merely for being Mormon. Not a single dissenting vote. Never overturned, to my knowledge.
So: 1) Was it right for the Supreme Court to hold that? 2) If that is legal, then why can't Trump keep out Muslims? Nothing ever proposed by anyone against Islam is in the same ballpark as what this country and the US Government did to the Mormons, all 100% legally and upheld by the Supreme Court. No one ever says that was wrong... but they scream about "Bigotry against Muslims!" Chuck, how about we take away the right of Muslims to vote, under the Beeson precedent. No problems, right? Mormons never bombed people, after all.
3) Shouldn't someone have stood up against the bigotry of the Supreme Court?
--Vance"
I'm an immigrant and a naturalized citizen. I am also aware that I could be denaturalized if I did whatever crimes were deemed worthy of denaturalization and from there deported. If I can be stripped of my citizenship and expelled from the country I fail to see where there is an innate right to immigrate into the country. Incidentally did not the Supreme Court also give Congress the right to withhold Statehood to Utah unless it forbade the Mormon custom of plural marriage?
Bad Lieutenant,
On what grounds was a fugitive slave law unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th or 14th Amendments?
Thinking of the Fugitive slave clause. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Personally, I'm pro-13th and 14th Amendment. Roy Moore said he'd get rid of all the amendments after #10.
Quit guessing about this shit, FIDO. You said that the "Hawaiian Judge who has been condemned by the upper courts for his judgments re Trump's travel ban against black letter law."
It wasn't a "Hawaiian judge" in any meaningful legal sense. i.e., it wasn't a Hawaii (state) court; it was a federal court.
Judge Watson was never "condemned by the upper courts"; there are only two "upper courts" in our Article III federal court system. Those are the US Circuit Courts of Appeal and the US Supreme Court. Neither court "condemned" Judge Watson.
Judge Watson never entered any "judgments." He never heard the full case on its merits. He entered a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction. Those aren't judgments, and certainly not judgments on the merits.
There wasn't any "black letter law" in these cases, apart from the general law on executive authority in immigration cases. There was no "black letter law because at the time that Judge Watson first ruled -- again, NOT on the merits but rather on the procedural question of a TRO -- the whole thing was what courts call "a case of first impression." No other federal appellate court had issued a published decision on a Trump immigration order at the time.
You made a significant mistake in every single phrase in that sentence of yours.
Tommy Duncan said...
Chuck said:
And as I have written here many times, I would not want for Trump's personal ignorance to result in the making of bad law by federal courts on immigration policy or executive branch authority.
Chuck, how do federal courts "make law"?
The courts make "common law" every day.
https://thelawdictionary.org/common-law/
@AllenS "How did you find this place (Althouse's blog)?"
Hi Allen. I found Professor Althouse (and shortly thereafter the blog) during the first Obama primary campaign - against Clinton! I discovered her from Bloggingheads - do you remember that site? Where bloggers of different political persuasions sat in their homes and the screen was split and they just talked?
Man, I loved that format so much.
Anyway, I came across a Blogginghead with Ann Althouse (of whom, until then, I had never heard). I really loved her from the get-go. I loved her style of talking and arguing. I thought she was such a cool woman!
So then I found the blog and at that time it was very refreshing for me to read something that leaned more right than my usual fare. And she posted some absolutely fascinating stuff, in particular (funnily enough) about how the media presented Clinton as a woman. I loved her media analysis; what the papers really meant etc.
So I was a loyal blog reader (but only the posts, not the comments, sorry!). Then I drifted away, as one sometimes does.
After Trump was elected, I remembered the blog, I remembered it was (compared to me) right-wing. I was very taken at the time by the idea of the bubble - that liberals such as myself are in a bubble and never talk to people with views different to our own. So I sought out this blog again, and then, after a bit, decided to join in. To contribute to the "reaching out" which I think is so important and sorely lacking these days. I am very aware that I am in a tiny minority here. But I keep going!
What about you? How did you get here?
"Wow. Bleak. So you think Moore was right?"
There is no "right". That is an irrelevant concept. And it is entirely undefinable.
There would be disagreement even on the relevant category to use for a definition.
Moore was overpowered, that's all.
@Angel-Dyne "Hagar: Come to think of it, was not the premise of the novel that Lolita was the real predator and Humbert Humbert the "victim"? -- Not the novel I read."
Hey Angel - we agree on something!
Well, Cubanbob: Congress has always had the power to withhold statehood. The Supreme Court didn't give it that power. Utah was pretty well forced into stuff.
Incidentally: Utah made it part of their Constitution that polygamy would never, ever be legal. And they made that part outside of the amendment power--their Constitution cannot be amended to legalize plural marriage.... except if both Utah and the US Congress agree. Nothing about the Courts being able to do it.
So I don't think that the Supreme Court can even do it. Not without removing Utah as a state, as they'd be violating their Enabling Act.
Which is gonna suck once the left pushes for polygamy for Muslims.
--Vance
"And my gripe with Roy Moore -- same as my gripe with Trump -- is that he makes my side of the debate look bad."
All you need to do is redefine "bad".
That's what the homosexuals did.
If you dislike something because other people will tar you with it, the best approach is to adopt it wholeheartedly and force the critics to accept it as normal.
Kitty m asked:
"What about you? How did you get here?"
AllenS, like myself and most of the other commenters here, are inmates at an insane asylum and we are forced to comment here daily by our Republican overlord whose name is Meade.
@tim in vermont "I would like to ask KittyM if she ever looked at the facts regarding Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick I gave her in response to a question she asked."
Thank you very much for reminding me. I just looked into it - I googled it and read an article on Vox.com.
I find her story very upsetting and compelling and I can think of no reason not to believe Broaddrick's account of the rape. In fact, as the article makes clear, some of the details that were used against her (the fact that she went to some official Clinton event a few weeks afterwards) are actually in a funny way themselves persuasive of the truth.
That is a really awful story. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Chuck said...
So Alabama voters are basically choosing between the lesser of two evils, an alleged pervert or a man who thinks killing infants is acceptable. Not the best of choices but a real and distinct choice but then again a real conservative and Republican would know that.
I am really tired of these bad choices. Like the choice between Trump and Hillary. Or the choices of losers Sharron Angle, Todd Akin or Christine McDonnell versus anybody.
Luther Strange versus Doug Jones would have been easy. An easy win, with few costs for the Republican Party. As a Republican, I know that."
Chuck see the below from bay Area Guy
Bay Area Guy said...
Luther Strange versus Doug Jones would have been easy. An easy win, with few costs for the Republican Party. As a Republican, I know that.
Yes, and two quick observations:
1. Trump supported Strange in the primaries, so, intellectually, you should give him credit for that.
2. Why didn't these allegations come out DURING the primaries? Well, that's easy. Because Moore would have sunk, and Strange would have swam to victory - thereby defeating the purpose of the disclosures.
Doesn't the timing (not just the 40 year delay, but during the general election, not the primaries) of these Moore accusers raise a serious red flag?"
Chuck as I said, when given two regrettable but nevertheless distinct choices the option of not voting for the lesser evil guarantees the greater evil. I voted for Cruz in the primaries. If I were an AL voter I would have voted for Strange in the primary. But in both instances when it comes to the general the Democrat is so bad as to be not in any realm of consideration. So when it comes to choosing between shit sandwiches your choices are a huge wet patty with raw garlic and onions and no bun or a tiny desiccated turd with a lot of ketchup on a toasted bun slathered with mustard. It ain't fair but there it is. Look on the bright side, if Moore is elected he will vote for the Republican agenda and he will be primaried in the next not too distant election and probable loose to the challenger. All the same give the guy some props, showing up to vote on a horse versus the other guy in his wuss EV.
So I was a loyal blog reader (but only the posts, not the comments, sorry!). Then I drifted away, as one sometimes does.
After Trump was elected, I remembered the blog, I remembered it was (compared to me) right-wing.
I think we've identified the problem. I'm amused someone who puts great store claiming they not extreme nevertheless claims Althouse is "right-wing". Herself - not the commenters.
Unknown said...
Well, Cubanbob: Congress has always had the power to withhold statehood. The Supreme Court didn't give it that power. Utah was pretty well forced into stuff.
Incidentally: Utah made it part of their Constitution that polygamy would never, ever be legal. And they made that part outside of the amendment power--their Constitution cannot be amended to legalize plural marriage.... except if both Utah and the US Congress agree. Nothing about the Courts being able to do it.
So I don't think that the Supreme Court can even do it. Not without removing Utah as a state, as they'd be violating their Enabling Act.
Which is gonna suck once the left pushes for polygamy for Muslims.
--Vance"
This I did not know. I stand corrected. Now you have brought up an interesting conundrum. Suppose the Court finds the right to plural marriage but the Utah legislature refuses to change its constitution and the Congress stays silent on the matter? Muslim multiple marriage would be legal in forty nine out of fifty states? Or in no state? Or in all states?
This tweet is true:
No matter what the outcome of tonight’s election is, remember: you are living through the fall of Rome and there is no escaping that fact. Learn Mandarin. - Bridget Phetasy
CubanBob: I think Oklahoma has the same provision in their Constitution. Maybe Arizona too? So it's not just Utah that would go. I think it's a serious problem, because if two gay brothers can get married (and what reason does anyone have now for saying no to them) then how can anyone possibly say no to a Muslim and his 4 wives who all claim to love him very much?
That said, the fact that the US went to the point of arresting Mormons for it makes me think that Islam will have a bit of a time convincing the US Supreme Court to sign off on overturning most of the Court's religious liberty cases.
--Vance
PS, I note Chuck and Kitty haven't responded to the Davis v. Beeson case. Why not?
I guess Scott Adams would call that persuasion.
@tim in vermont "I would like to ask KittyM if she ever looked at the facts regarding Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick I gave her in response to a question she asked."
Something I've been wondering -- what year did Juanita Broaddrick's story come out? Did voters ever get a chance to vote against Bill Clinton because of it? Or did the story come out after his re-election?
One thing we can say about Moore, the electorate got the chance to go into the election with eyes open.
PS, I note Chuck and Kitty haven't responded to the Davis v. Beeson case. Why not?
Because I couldn't care less. I don't even understand what point you are trying to make. But don't bother trying to explain; I wouldn't care anyway.
It happened in 19998 around the time of the impeachment,
wwww said...
This tweet is true:
No matter what the outcome of tonight’s election is, remember: you are living through the fall of Rome and there is no escaping that fact. Learn Mandarin. - Bridget Phetasy"
Your are half right. China is more smoke and mirrors than true ascendency. Anyone have a better language for the new ascendancy?
Of course not, Chuck. You couldn't possibly care about something that directly impacts your arguments.
You claim that it's illegal for a Muslim ban. I point out that the US Supreme Court okayed stripping the right to vote from a religious group entirely. Given that precedent, how is a Muslim immigration ban unconstitutional?
But you don't see the relevance, and you don't care how it destroys your arguments. As long as you can bash Trump, that's your sole motivation in life now.
--Vance
AJ Lynch said...
Kitty m asked:
"What about you? How did you get here?"
AllenS, like myself and most of the other commenters here, are inmates at an insane asylum and we are forced to comment here daily by our Republican overlord whose name is Meade.
_________________________________________________________
"Forced" is such an ugly word, AJ., while "persuaded" seems so much more pleasing to the ear. And accurate, don't you think?
But carry on, all of you.
And you can totally trust a man with that avatar when he says we are not forced... just "persuaded."
Yep, it's all simple gentle persuasion. Trust him! And don't look behind those nice white walls.....
--Vance
wwww said...
@tim in vermont "I would like to ask KittyM if she ever looked at the facts regarding Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick I gave her in response to a question she asked."
Something I've been wondering -- what year did Juanita Broaddrick's story come out? Did voters ever get a chance to vote against Bill Clinton because of it? Or did the story come out after his re-election?
One thing we can say about Moore, the electorate got the chance to go into the election with eyes open."
The electorate did vote on Bill's indiscretions in 1992. As Perot mentioned ( more or less) "if your wife can't trust you, how can the country trust you?" and the Hillary with her Bimbo Eruptions. The electorate got a chance and they voted for the pig.
1998, in other news:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/12/federal-judge-recuses-herself-from-a-second-fusion-gps-case/?utm_source=site-share
The wiki has the whole story of Juanita Broaddrick.
Always check online first.
"The electorate did vote on Bill's indiscretions in 1992."
Not really. Most of what he had been up to came out later, much later.
The MSM did not look very hard.
It got some National Enquirer level stuff like G.Flowers, but not the real crimes.
“Incidentally did not the Supreme Court also give Congress the right to withhold Statehood to Utah unless it forbade the Mormon custom of plural marriage?”
Not sure if I can see how they could prevent that from Congress. Could they have mandated Congress take a vote on the subject? The results of that vote?
PS, I note Chuck and Kitty haven't responded to the Davis v. Beeson case. Why not?"
Vance, Chuck replied and you rebutted. The ball is now in his court assuming he wishes to reply. All the same I'm still waiting for someone to give a cogent explanation on how the Constitution grants someone who isn't covered by it the right to immigrate into the country.
"Forced" is such an ugly word, AJ., while "persuaded" seems so much more pleasing to the ear. And accurate, don't you think?
Are you suggesting, Meade, that we are free to leave at any time?
buwaya said...
"The electorate did vote on Bill's indiscretions in 1992."
Not really. Most of what he had been up to came out later, much later.
The MSM did not look very hard.
It got some National Enquirer level stuff like G.Flowers, but not the real crimes."
I remember the election well. The BimBo business and the various affairs were pretty well known at the time. Perot made an issue of it. Attitudes were a bit different back then but back then infidelity was a big no-no, however what pushed Bill into the White House was Perot's splitting the votes. When it comes to trade issues there really isn't much of a difference between Trump in 2016 and Perot in 1992. I would say it is a high probability that Clinton with his sleaze would have never been elected in 1992 but for Perot. Or Perot elected had not GHW Bush decided not to run for re-election.
Yes Meade, like your snitch er Mockturtle suggested, I swear I meant to say persuaded!
Polls close in half an hour. Should be interesting to see the media reaction no matter who wins. If Jones wins, I expect that they'll be unable to restrain themselves from a victory dance, proclaiming themselves as the impetus to putting a Democrat in Sessions' seat. If Moore wins, it'll "prove" that Republicans support sexual deviants (who, ironically, are part of the Dem voter base). The real lesson if Moore wins will be that the media can go all out, go back generations, create false biographies, and still fucking lose. That realization would send a chill through their bones.
Another substantive point about Moore:
I have a wife, several sisters, several sisters-in-law, and daughters, so I don't want 30-year old men hitting on, dating, coupling with or seducing the 14 year old girls in my life. That's weird and wrong and creepy and worthy of an uppercut to the jaw.
But it's not the same as being a pedophile or child molester -- as some in the media are describing Moore.
In the 70s, (when Leigh Corfman alleges the incident happened), the most attractive 14-year old Freshman girls in high school, were OFTEN dating seniors in High School, and even college boys/young working guys, 18 years and older.
That's just a fact. That's what was happening in California, at least. There wasn't some rulebook or lawyerly manual for dating. Girls had brothers and fathers who protected them, but the mating dance was much less regulated than it is today.
Not a big point, not a defense of Moore, just an observation. The 70s (post birth control pill, pre-AIDS, pre-Herpes) was pretty loose on sexual matters, if y'all didn't know that.
So, reflexive outrage over 40-year old highly-charged, sexual allegations require an examination of the proper context.
That is all.
@Chuck - my memory is that the Hawaiian judge first granted the TRO/PI based of course on reading of perceived campaign animus into the interpretation of plain statutory language. Likelihood of success on the merits, of such an innovative theory? Still, fine. Ultimately though it got essentially thrown out by the Supreme Court. What was egregious though was his doubling down after that rebuke, He was, essentially trying to shut down the President acting in strict accordance with statute and well within his Article II Powers, through temporary injunctive relief - which, again, required that the plaintiffs show a likelihood of success on the merits, using a novel legal theory, that the Supreme Court had just called BS on. The first PI was fine. Expected that some Dem appointed judges would cross the line into fantasy world to thwart the evil Trump. It was the doubling down after the Supreme Court had intervened that was egregious. And, no, I don’t buy that he was somehow justified, or less wrong than Moore, because it involved temporary injunctive relief and not final judgments. It was still egregious. He probably knew that he was legally wrong the first time, but could have no doubt the second time. Yet he persisted.
Well Pilgrim--if Duke Wayne can ride a horse into a saloon, Roy Moore can ride a horse into an Alabama voting booth. After all those smarty pants up in New York think that Alabamans vote in a barn anyway.
There is a reason reasonable G-d loving folks will not vote for Moore besides his trolling for young girls.
"There is a reason reasonable G-d loving folks will not vote for Moore besides his trolling for young girls."
Being reasonable is overrated.
Really, it is.
It is signalling surrender before the contest begins.
Winners are "unreasonable" in fact, though they may be clever enough to appear otherwise.
There is a reason reasonable G-d loving folks will not vote for Moore besides his trolling for young girls
And there were reasons people didn't vote for Bill Clinton, besides his forcible rapes, which don't bother you in the least because those women are all liars!
When are you going to start calling for Bob Menendez, who had sex with trafficked underage girls to resign? Well, what I meant was, when are any responsible Democrats going to do so?
Or is the recantation of their testimony, while still under the control of the traffickers exoneration enough for you?
You know what protects Bob Menendez? The fact that he would be replaced by a Republican is one thing. The other is that he flew on the jet of the admitted pedophile billionaire Jeffry Epstein multiple times, but that protects him because so did Bill Clinton, even more times! Ditching his Secret Service detail six of those times.
Democrats are all about male feminism and the rights of all women, and believing all women, except when powerful Democrats who can't be replaced by other Democrats are concerned.
Your sincere concern for women's rights, and the welfare of children has been carefully noted, R/V.
Blogger AJ Lynch said...
"Yes Meade, like your snitch er Mockturtle suggested, I swear I meant to say persuaded!"
Thanks AJ. Now the beatings will resume until morale improves.
Lolita Express. Jeffry Epstein's jet to his little bordello of trafficked children. Plead guilty, BTW. Not an issue in the national media, never will be, because narrative is that Republicans are uniquely hypocritical. You can say that because women who accuse Democrats, are, well liars, so there is no hypocrisy.
What I find interesting is that we know everything about Judge Moore. Heck, the media probably knows when Moore had his last colonoscopy.
What do we know about Jones that would be deleterious to his campaign? Do we know anything about his background, other than he's a commie-pinko? Nope, nothing to see here.
Bruce: "It was the doubling down after the Supreme Court had intervened that was egregious. And, no, I don’t buy that he was somehow justified, or less wrong than Moore, because it involved temporary injunctive relief and not final judgments. It was still egregious. He probably knew that he was legally wrong the first time, but could have no doubt the second time. Yet he persisted."
If you think your criticism of this obviously laughably activist leftist judge will go unanswered by #StrongLeftistJudgeDefender Chuck, you sir have another thing coming.
Kitty M - (in case you aren't Chuck)
You can learn the arguments of various groups in this country on this blog. People to the left, people to the right, Trump supporters, never-Trumpers, crypto-communists. Nothing is simple as it is over at sanitized comment sections like Huffpo. So if you are not quite the simple little woman all agog to learn what the right thinks which you say you are, that's OK too. Just make your simple little points in simple little questions, if that's what you like to do. It's all part of the vast pageant.
Yes there was a judge in massachussetts, who read the law correctly, then there was kozinski as well, if you ignore the precedents and go with feels of course you are going to get it wrong
Cubanbob, my paisan, scalia was one of a kind, its arguable that bill pryor was a better jurist (hes now a federal judge) Doug Jones by contrast put the wrong person Richard jewel in jail for the Olympic pArk bombing allowing the culprit Eric Rudolph to get away.
"Are you suggesting, Meade, that we are free to leave at any time?"
Of course, mock, of course. Free as birds.
Who are free from the chains of the skyway.
Judging by the look on Chris Matthews' face, he's seen the embargoed exit polls and Moore wins easily.
It could just be gas.
Tim I thought this posting was about Moore, and not Clinton who I did not vote for after he left the progressive element of the party, so why do you go off topic?
And you can totally trust a man with that avatar
For the life of me I don't know what Meade's avatar is. A Google search of the image was no help. I always thought it was a variant of Kenny McCormick on South Park.
"Are you suggesting, Meade, that we are free to leave at any time?"
Of course, mock, of course. Free as birds.
Who are free from the chains of the skyway.
So this asylum is on the honor system?
"For the life of me I don't know what Meade's avatar is."
Its a cardinal, the bird, face-on.
Buwaya declares: Being reasonable is overrated.
Really, it is.
It is signalling surrender before the contest begins.
Winners are "unreasonable" in fact, though they may be clever enough to appear otherwise.
Well, ARM has given 'reasonable' a bad name...
In the 70s, (when Leigh Corfman alleges the incident happened), the most attractive 14-year old Freshman girls in high school, were OFTEN dating seniors in High School, and even college boys/young working guys, 18 years and older.
Ms. Juliet was not yet years old when Daddy Capulet was taking marriage bids for his daughter, though the old softie wanted to wait 2 more years for her to wed (unlike his own wife, whom was birthing already according to the play)
But this isn't Renaissance Italy.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. And he was shunned for it.
Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and he got a standing ovation and calls to recall his indictment MANY times from Hollywood et al.
Still creepy, but also FORTY YEARS AGO right after he got back from Nam. My question is: Has he hit on any 14 year old girls SINCE THEN.
So if Hillary can destroy evidence JUST LAST YEAR and get away with it simply because no one will prosecute it, will anyone prosecute Roy Moore?
There is no statute of limitations on underage sexual assault, so he is technically on the hook. I think this case will be moot very soon anyway.
The virtue signalling will be intense after Moore wins tomorrow.
I've already been braced by office mates; "Do you support Roy Moore?" with a sneering inquisitorial look on their face.
So far, I've played dumb: "I don't vote in Alabama, pal" or "Not a big fan, wished the other guy woulda won in the primaries," etc, etc.
Hey, you have to be crafty in Northern California!
But, yes, Moore is not my cup of tea, but were I a citizen of the great state of Alabama, I'd suck it up and vote for Moore. His policy prescriptions are better for the country, than Doug Jones.
"Hey, you have to be crafty in Northern California!"
I always answer "I voted for Duterte".
They stop, with a look of puzzlement.
but were I a citizen of the great state of Alabama, I'd suck it up and vote for Moore. His policy prescriptions are better for the country, than Doug Jones.
Moore can be shunned, put aside etc., but Jones would be one more Democrat to add numerical weight to various votes, confirmations and so on.
Not as hard a choice when viewed that way.
I imagine Duterte and Moore would get along like a house on fire.
They stop, with a look of puzzlement.
Like they were looking at an impressionistic avatar of a cardinal.
R/V: "Tim I thought this posting was about Moore, and not Clinton who I did not vote for after he left the progressive element of the party, so why do you go off topic?"
Synopsis: can we just drop all that democrat unpleasantness that has been going on for decades? We need to talk about Moore now as if nothing else in the world were relevant 'cuz narrative!
Meade: "Of course, mock, of course. Free as birds. Who are free from the chains of the skyway"
I know why the caged Bloggers post.
"I imagine Duterte and Moore would get along like a house on fire."
Granted, Duterte is much more likely to SET a house on fire.
Always liked Free Bird better than Sweet Home Alabama
mock: Are you suggesting, Meade, that we are free to leave at any time?
You can logout any time you like, but you can never leave.
Notice how nervous the lefties and their LLR allies are becoming over the theoretical Franken "resignation"?
Dayton is jumping the gun on announcing Franken's replacement (certainly a gal) to increase the pressure.
KittyM: Hey Angel - we agree on something!
Probably won't be the last time. (I've been known to agree with LLR, ARM, and Cookie at times - hell, even Ritmo!)
F**k you and the horse you rode in on.
(Directed at the title of the post, not any commenter)
"Dayton is jumping the gun on announcing Franken's replacement ..."
What's Jesse "The Haircut" Ventura doing these days? Other than suing the Chris Kyle estate.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा