Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow. Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2019
Ginsburg's answer is open to interpretation, and it's really not at all insulting to Trump. Here's how I read it: Because Trump is not a lawyer, he's free to float ideas about things, and he doesn't purport to know the answer, only to ask a question. Of course, his own lawyers could answer the question for him. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop the impeachment?
The answer is no, but Ginsburg isn't going to come right out and say it, and in all likelihood, the President himself knew the answer was no when he tweeted the question. The question is political rhetoric, and the reason to ask it is to make people feel that the House Democrats are behaving badly, violating the law, and it should be stopped. The President is very good at expressing feelings about what is fair and what is abusive, and such things can find their way into the law. I am sure Ginsburg has deep thoughts about that, far beyond what she'll say when asked a question by a journalist.
Now, you might ask, but if she says, "We react to what’s out there," does that mean she reacts to the President's howling about unfairness and abuse? It primarily means, I would say, that the courts don't do anything at all unless a case is filed, and if it is, and if it isn't filtered out by doctrines of jurisdiction and justiciability, the decision may be influenced by the public discourse about what the law should be. But certainly the Court can't reach out and become involved in a dispute ("We don’t have a program, we don’t have an agenda"). A case must be filed. And Trump — even though he's not a lawyer — reflects that proper understanding of the courts. He didn't say, Hey, Court, why don't you stop this travesty?! He said, "Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?"
Posts
106 comments:
And hopefully the Lincoln Project, made up of conservative Republicans, will stop Trump.
Ginsburg is a hardcore lefty who would not be confirmed today even if appointed by a Dem president. She was general counsel for the ACLU (Anti-American Civil Liberties Union).
President Trump (apparently) keeps doing this!
He keeps asking people; "can we do this thing?"
and when they say; "No, that wouldn't be legal"; he doesn't do it
Can you think, of ANYTHING that is MORE IMPEACHABLE than that?
IMPEACH! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!!!
President Trump consistently refuses to overstep his bounds!
IMPEACH! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!!!
"Said Ruth Bader Ginsburg last night...."
What, did someone break out a Ouija board?
Of course Professor Althouse is correct. There must be a case and controversy for the judiciary to act. And a court must have jurisdiction. RBG is correct that Trump can't get the federal courts directly involved in impeachment. Trump can't file a mandamus case to stop the House vote.
But RBG's remark that the federal judiciary doesn't have an agenda is a total lie and she knows it. Why are there so many 5-4 votes on important cases? Why wasn't the same sex marriage case 9-0? Why does SCOTUS reverse so many 9th Circuit cases?
On important cases with political implications, the Left has totally politicized the federal judiciary. And that's why the Left tried to destroy both Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh.
Said Ruth Bader Ginsburg last night, when she was asked what she thought about something Trump tweeted a couple weeks ago:
Setting the agenda with his tweets even at the highest levels...........
roesch/voltaire said...
And hopefully the Lincoln Project, made up of conservative Republicans
I was curious, and took a look at these "conservative Republicans:
Led by lawyer George Conway, the husband of White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway,
Reed Galen, one of the super PAC’s board members and former political consultant to Sen. John McCain
rv, you keep using that word; i do not think that word means what you think it means
Looking forward to the absolute meltdown when Trump replaces her.
May have to burn some vacation days just to watch the raging circus.
Amadeus 48, J. I concur in Justice Althouse's lucid explication of this out-of-court statement not offered as proof of the matter stated therein.
Not to derail the topic but am I the only one with what has a problem with any judge accepting a $1 million award from a think tank that's known for influencing political policy?
George Conway, no matter what you label him, knows more about the what goes on in the White House than any anonymous writer and you should be concerned when he. speaks out against Trump.
Why are there so many 5-4 votes on important cases? Why wasn't the same sex marriage case 9-0? Why does SCOTUS reverse so many 9th Circuit cases?
Exactly. If there were truly no agendas (other than the Constitution) in the Supreme Court, all but the most deeply ambiguous cases would result in 9-0 rulings. This goes for the lower courts too. In a more honest and reasonable world, a person like RBG wouldn't even be on the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the Berggruen Prize is only three years old is supposed to be awarded to philosophers.
They've gone Full Nobel in only 36 months...
"roesch/voltaire said...
George Conway, no matter what you label him, knows more about the what goes on in the White House than any anonymous writer and you should be concerned when he. speaks out against Trump."
Really? How so? And way to move the goal posts.
Conservative is now defined as unwavering, unquestioning, unthinking loyalty to Trump since November 2016. Please update your dictionary accordingly.
"But RBG's remark that the federal judiciary doesn't have an agenda is a total lie and she knows it."
Are you sure that you don't want to moderate that a bit?
First, what is "the federal judiciary"? There are hundreds of federal judges in addition to the US Supreme Court. Then please articulate to us the agenda of those hundreds of judges. In light of the facts set forth in the preceding two sentences, please explain why the term "total lie"is justified. Assuming that you can provide the explanation in the prior sentence, please justify the statement that Justice Ginsberg knows that what she said is a total lie.
100% of your grade will depend on your answers to these questions.
Ginsburg says the right things here, which definitely describes how it works in theory.
In practice, though, she has a political agenda, fights for it, predictably votes for it, and rarely constrains herself from her objectives by adhering to those silly Constitutional restraints.
As I paged through the picture gallery at the linked site I was reminded of a famous quote:
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
Howard--I dispute that. Please state your reasons, recognizing that there is indeed a difference between shit and shinola.
@Howard
Liberalism is now defined as unwavering, unquestioning, unthinking hatred of Trump since before November 2016. Please update your dictionary accordingly.
FIFY
Trump has also tweeted in the past that if the Democrats ever impeached over the Mueller Report he would go to the Supreme Court to stop it. He just says stuff.
The Holographic Simulacrum of RGB is now operational!
She is ready to continue on for another 26 years on the Bench*.
(*in 26 years she will no longer be considered insufficiently progressive and thus be replaced by Christine Blaise Ford).
I am Laslo.
"Not to derail the topic but am I the only one with what has a problem with any judge accepting a $1 million award from a think tank that's known for influencing political policy?"
She doesn't get to keep it.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
'Tis Justice Ginsburg Who Does Not Understand
In her very recent comments at Ohio State University Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg noted her failure to understand the many objections to citing foreign judges in the interpretation of our laws and, yes, the Constitution of the USA.
What Justice Ginsburg fails to understand and has rejected is that there is such a thing as "American exceptionalism" (Why else would so many people, legally and illegally, risk life and their family connections to flee to the USA?) AND that the differences which made this nation great and hold some remaining like hope for the future is based on the letter of the Constitution and the intent of its authors and that of its Amendments.
Foreign Law is directed towards a socialist collective view of society where individual rights towards political freedom, freedom of (NOT "from") religion, free speech, life itself must all be subjected to the collective will---Of overbearing bureaucrats
Poor RBG. She is going to be subjected to the evil lights of a perverted science to keep her "alive" long after she has joined the choir eternal.
just off the presses, from the Ace of Spades...
Surprise! George Conway, Steve Schmidt, and John Weaver Have All Previously Renounced Their Republican Party Membership (At Least Once Each!); But Of Course Now All Claim, In the NYT, to be "Republicans" Who Favor Impeachment
—Ace of Spades
Ginsburg asserts that she has neither a program nor an agenda? Ginsburg!?!?! ROTFLMAO!
"He just says stuff."
That is the most accurate statement of fact I have ever seen readering make in these comments. Thank you.
Amadeus:
One of my former neighbors and a friend is federal district court judge Joseph Batallion. He was the former Chairman of the Nebraska Dems before his ascension to the federal bench.
Back in the last century, Judge Batallion found that same sex marriage was the law of the land. The Eighth Circuit promptly reversed him.
So, yes, on political cases the federal judiciary has an agenda.
I should say that on non-political cases Judge Batallion is a fine judge although he now has senior status.
Amadeus:
Case was decided in 2006.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111213233153/http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf
She doesn't get to keep it.
The story says she's 'donating it'. Reception of something of material benefit. Possession and release doesn't mean there isn't a big problem with it...
“ But RBG's remark that the federal judiciary doesn't have an agenda is a total lie and she knows it. Why are there so many 5-4 votes on important cases? Why wasn't the same sex marriage case 9-0? Why does SCOTUS reverse so many 9th Circuit cases.”
That may show inescapable leanings when deciding difficult cases or a certain amount of ideology within doctrinal analysis but she’s not lying when she is using the word agenda. There’s all the limitation she needs in that very special word.
@Swede
I view two scenarios regarding either RBG's retirement or passing (I want to be clear I wish death on no one...). The first scenario regards pre-election, and the second post.
A) If pre-election the sturm un drang will drown out any and every other aspect of current events in American and international life. The calls for delay until after November will reach a pitch heard in the vacuum of space. It will also hurt Trump. The left and Democrats will mobilize like Eisengard's Urukhai to ensure her replacement is chosen by not-Trump in November.
B) Post-Trump re-election. "This knob goes to 11." Whatever we've seen in the way of despicableness, new lows shall be reached. I shudder to think what they'll pull out to counteract a Trump pick for RBG's seat. I can't even imagine, so I won't put anything down in writing. But it will be bad.
r/v: "And hopefully the Lincoln Project, made up of conservative Republicans, will stop Trump."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
As noted elsewhere, Steve Schmidt, George Conway, Weaver etc have all PREVIOUSLY left the republican party and have for years been supporting democrats at all levels.
There is literally not a single actual republican in the entire Lincoln Project and every single one of them endorsed Hillary and advocate for the entire democrat agenda including gun confiscation, green new deal, obamacare, etc.
Its absolutely hilarious that all the usual lefty morons like r/v, readering, Howard, LLR-lefty Chuck etc think this fully exposed FakeCon Conservative Inc grift will work.
Steve Schmidt has literally "offiially" left the republican party about 37 times now.
Give it another week and he'll announce his departure again!!
This is how he and the rest of these idiots earn their keep now for their lefty paymasters.
But by ALL means, please keep recycling these chumps as the voice of reasonable republicans.....its bound to swing that 1 undecided voter on the upper East Side to the dems!!
Does anybody believe that RBG doesn't have an agenda?
“Judge Bataillon announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on May 12, 2005, overturning Initiative Measure 416 based on the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the prohibition on bills of attainder contained in the Contract Clause.[7] First, although the parties had not raised the issue, Bataillon concluded sua sponte that the measure denied gays and lesbians access to the political system to gain recognition of their relationships without passing a new state constitutional amendment, which he believed unduly burdened their free speech rights, in violation of the First Amendment.[7] Next, relying primarily on the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, he concluded the measure had "no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest," and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.[7] Finally, he concluded the measure "amounts to punishment" by legislation, as it "does not merely withhold the benefit of marriage; it operates to prohibit persons in a same-sex relationship from working to ever obtain governmental benefits or legal recognition," and thus was a bill of attainder, in violation of the Contract Clause.[7]“
Sua sponte! Yes, he had an agenda.
If the supreme Court is the arbiter of the Constitution then I think it is clearly within their sphere of reaction to assess whether the counts of impeachment are valid under the Constitution's definitions of cause for impeachment.
but she’s not lying when she is using the word agenda.
Yes she is. Her agenda is protecting the "right" to an abortion and the Leftwing agenda.
Please, Drago, don’t overlook The Rick Wilson!
RBG is correct that Trump can't get the federal courts directly involved in impeachment. Trump can't file a mandamus case to stop the House vote.
It sounds like Neil Gorsuch has been an influence on RGB. He is a very strong proponent of separation of powers on which RGB (bless her leftwing heart) seems to agree.
That is why we need to keep the Senate. Good SCOTUS justices make a difference.
of course weaver, chose to lobby for Russian interests, and Schmidt founded mercury partners which weber works for, and Vitter currently represents deripasha, which puts him in a similar basket with Christopher steele, who was a middle man for serge milian, who was a dubious subsource,
Ya'll want to know something funny? So they've stopped doing it but up until recently Google was providing individual pictures of the Supreme Court Justices whenever you typed in
Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
SCOTUS
Etc.
Any guess at the picture they showed? It wasn't recent. In fact every single other justice had their SCOTUS photo published except RBG. The picture they were posting was a black/white from her college years. You can see this at the link below.
https://cloverchronicle.com/2019/01/27/whistleblower-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-deathly-ill-and-in-a-medically-induced-coma-fears-massive-unrest-once-public-finds-out-the-truth/
Of course google realized large numbers of searchers were noticing this 'algorithmically' altered result to query and got rid of it.
This was the lie Ginsburg said:
"We don’t have a program, we don’t have an agenda"
Sure, the courts can't act until a case is filed, but let's not be naive, Ms. Althouse- "We" in that quote isn't just judges, and Ginsburg knows this. The judges all have political agendas, and the filing of a case isn't any barrier to acting on those agendas since each faction has legions of lawyers outside the judiciary.
mr creosote, no we're not ignoring him, but he bats for Qatar,
Beasts of England: "Please, Drago, don’t overlook The Rick Wilson!"
And Deadbeat Dad Lefty-billionaire-funded- Bulwarkian Charlie Sykes!! And lunatic AOC supporter Max Boot!!
Its the same 25 to 30 schmucks referenced over and over again!
Blogger Howard said...Conservative is now defined as unwavering, unquestioning, unthinking loyalty to Trump since November 2016. Please update your dictionary accordingly.
Howard,
You are becoming increasingly irrelevant to any serious discussion with your puerile musings.
Like Inga, I don't think you are smart enough to up your game,
David Begley--You are a great commenter, and I generally try to stay out of your way because you really go after things with facts and experience. BUT... I'll try to rewrite that sentence more fairly:
But RBG's remark that the federal judiciary doesn't have an agenda doesn't really address the problem: many judges incorporate their personal political beliefs into their judgments from time to time--sometimes all the time on certain topics. RBG is being either purposely obtuse or completely disingenuous.
Howard Your opposition similarly noted... Democrat.
It has always amused me that Trump haters try to make hay about his lack of legal acumen. Is it really that likely that a sophisticate businessman like Trump -- whose sister was a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals -- does not understand the judicial system.
I always get a kick out of the fact that Judge Maryanne Trump Barry was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton.
Justice Ginsburg's comment is being interpreted by some here as an echo of Chief Justice Roberts's, ummm, naively aspirational assertion, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” But Ginsburg was speaking of the judiciary specifically as an institution and contrasting its "reactive" institutional nature with the executive and legislative branches, which may initiate official action in furtherance of an affirmative program or agenda. She was not making any claim (here) about whether individual federal judges act to advance their political beliefs when opportunities arise.
Any guess at the picture they showed? It wasn't recent.
I perused the photos of the awards last night looking to see if WWD was pulling a fast one. No RBG in the photo gallery! Did they use an old stock photo in the hopes we wouldn't notice? In another article about the awards RBG has the same outfit with some of the other noted attendees, so likely she was actually there...
...but this is what its come to. And don't think the lefties didn't breathlessly do the same thing. Oh please, let her be there...
If she doesn't have an agenda, why not retire ? She's clearly not healthy, so why stick around the court just to opine on some case that is just another case ?
I should add that retired judge Lyle Strom had no agenda and neither does current federal judge Robert Rossister.
One interpretation that springs to mind is that, on the off chance Trump were silly enough to bring such a challenge, RBG is not about to say anything that would argue for her recusal.
PJ said: But Ginsburg was speaking of the judiciary specifically as an institution and contrasting its "reactive" institutional nature with the executive and legislative branches, which may initiate official action in furtherance of an affirmative program or agenda. She was not making any claim (here) about whether individual federal judges act to advance their political beliefs when opportunities arise.
That's just gibberish.
"She was not making any claim (here) about whether individual federal judges act to advance their political beliefs when opportunities arise."
Then she should have made that distinction explicit, but she didn't- she literally said "We don't have a program, we don't have an agenda." That is completely false, and she knows it is false. You can't even defend this under the idea that a case has to be filed first- that is no barrier since cases are easy to file for any faction in the judiciary- allies are abundant. I refuse to act like the judges aren't politicians as partisan as Chuck Schumer and Tom Cotton.
These judges literally help train their extra-judiciary allies through clerkships.
Didn't the Supreme Court do more than simply react in the 2000 Election? They pretty much cut off Al Gore, rather than let the Country go thru the farce of a recount. Recount = Impeachment.
no originally by Reagan, promoted by Clinton,
The fact that people that think of themselves conservatives have to look up what the Lincoln Project is who is part of it says all you need to know about the influence of the Lincoln Project among conservatives. It is equal to the level of the Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Nearly 3 years of effort to insist it exists and it was relevant, no evidence that it did exist or was relevant, and Trump has done more to stymie Russia in those 3 years than his opponents.
I have no issue with the banter from Trump and RBG. And if RBG is lying, then so is every other Justice and Judge in the US. If you don't believe me, then ask another one of them if they have an agenda.
they should call it the mcclellan project,
hhhhh,
Yes. The court erred in that decision. They should have explicitly remanded the case to the new House, which is where it would have ended up had Gore refused to concede. Gore, of course, conceded because he already knew how the House would decide (Gore can, at least, count)- by conceding, he regained some measure of dignity.
Would now be a good time to reference an actual democrat congressman and a PA state Senator changing political party to republican?
I was looking forward to having Biden dance around his 'quid quo pro' with the Ukraine, the Ukraine getting money from the U.S. only if they fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company for which his son was working, when the impeachment entered the trial phase.
If I understand it now, ain't gonna happen because the Senate part is a jury, not a courtroom. All the Senate gets to do is act on the evidence presented by the House. If that's the case, this impeachment was really corrupt to the core since the 'accused' was actively prevented from actually giving a defense. No defense witnesses, questions for the defense squelched by the Chair.
I'm not sure how this can be allowed; seems like a violation of multiple Constitutional rights as well as the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle foundational to our concept of justice. Unless this is corrected (possibly by the Judge, noting the issue and allowing it to be redressed) why couldn't the SCOTUS be asked to 'react'? Strictly as a procedural issue?
I'll believe the RBG doesn't have an agenda when one of her rulings surprises me.
Soto and Kagan and Breyer also.
If judges did not have agendas then the whole Kavanaugh circus would have never happened.
"We don’t have a program, we don’t have an agenda"
___________&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&=========
?Judge shopping is not real?
@Yancey Ward, I agree that if you read Justice Ginsburg's program/agenda sentence without reference to the sentences before and after that one, it may easily be interpreted as an assertion about whether federal judges act politically. But in context the program/agenda sentence seems plainly meant (at least to me) as reinforcement of the "reactive" point explicitly made before and after. I.e., Ginsburg's "We" refers back to the judiciary as an institution as stated in the previous sentence, not to the collection of individual federal judges.
I recall from history that the USA Constitution railroaded quite a few of its persons into "incarceration"
In 1790, when the first census was taken, African Americans numbered about 760,000 In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, the African-American population increased to 4.4 million, . The vast majority were slaves, with only 488,000 counted as “freemen.”
"Agenda" is neutral, just like "collusion".
It's the adjective that makes them good, bad, illegal, or legal.
Bataillon concluded sua sponte that the measure denied gays and lesbians access to the political system to gain recognition
At least he is not as obvious as the Federal judge who declared Prop 8 (passed with 63% of the vote) unconstitutional and then married his gay lover. Of course, Jerry Brown who was AG then, declined to appeal. I used to know gays who said they had been in his bed.
"The president is not a lawyer"
That line has always cracked me up, no matter who says it. Here, coming from the Buzz, it's meant as a put-down because Trump's not in the legal priesthood. But the fact of the matter is that almost each one of us has acted as a lawyer at one time or another, whether advocating/arguing for our positions (e.g., in a job interview) or for the interests of another such as our children (e.g., school disputes).
People who've gone to law school and pass a bar exam don't magically become endowed with a familiarity of how to juggle arguments which otherwise aren't available to others. The internet has allowed many, many non-lawyers to learn the law and solve/resolve some legal basic issues on their own.
And the Buzz is doing her put-down as a Democrat.
https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2019/12/11/maduro-militia-armed-forces/
In 1790, when the first census was taken, African Americans numbered about 760,000 In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, the African-American population increased to 4.4 million, . The vast majority were slaves,
But none north of the Ohio River.
You guys should read about the Northwest Ordinance of 1785.
The New England land system, while the primary influence on the great land ordinances of the 1780s, was not the only land system influence. The Southern land system, marked by individualism and personal initiative, also helped shape the ordinance. While the New England land system was premised on community-based development, the Southern land system was premised on individual frontiersman appropriating undeveloped land to call their own. The Southern pioneer claimed property and the local surveyor would demarcate it for him. The system did not protect people from competing claims or set up an orderly chain of title. The process was called 'indiscriminate location". This system encouraged individuals to amass large plantations instead of settling into dense communal development. This system was supported by the use of slave labor.[25] Perhaps the committee's resistance against indiscriminate location and support for limited and disciplined land settlement was an implicit attempt to create a structural barrier to developing a plantation economy that was dependent on slave labor. The committee could have been attempting to effectively eradicate slavery in the West after Jefferson failed to outlaw it in the Land Ordinance of 1784
Slavery was limited to south of the Ohio River by law. Dredd Scott and his wife had an incompetent lawyer. Not the first time.
Good book on the case.
And hopefully the Lincoln Project, made up of conservative Republicans, will stop Trump. - R/V
Snicker. Pinning your hopes on a bunch of NeverTrumpers?
Yeah. You go with that. It's been gangbusters so far.
The left can bulldoze you if "you're not a lawyer"
even after think regress, he will still grift for food,
https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/1207028987706462215?s=20
Said She of the Chamber, with Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, and progressive liberal ideology.
Ginsberg cannot insult Trump because he is not smart enough to know when he is being insulted - or to ever understand the law. However, she is wrong about Trump and the courts - since he spent his life suing everyone several thousand times who got in his path, in efforts to extract unearned economic rents.
But SCOTUS needs to recognize that he has participated in court-recognized illegal activities since his election in 2016 - beginning with the "Trump University" fiasco resulting in a $25 million fine, continuing on to extracting personal benefits from his Trump Charity adding another $2 million and, of course, his personal involvement in bribing Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Trump fixer, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty under oath “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.” Trump reimbursed Cohen for this activity from Trump business expenses, which represents a violation of election finance law and "old fashioned" cheating on Trump tax returns.
speaking of astroturf, they are still pushing for the ground zero mosque,
A lot of my liberal friends insist that Mr. Obama would make a great Supreme Court Justice. But why not Trump? Trump can appoint himself to the Supreme Court: nothing in the Constitution expressly disqualifies him from serving simultaneously. Of course, the Senate would rubber stamp Mr. Trump's nomination.
So can Trump then stop the impeachment? Would the Code of Conduct stop him?
RBG is still a thing?? Maybe it was a very good hologram?
@ Michael K said...
In 1790, when the first census was taken, African Americans numbered about 760,000 In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, the African-American population increased to 4.4 million, . The vast majority were slaves,
But none north of the Ohio River.
According to WIKI: In the late 18th century, Rhode Island had a population which included 6.3% slaves and its economic activity included slave trades. Rhode Island merchants controlled up to 90% of the African slave trade which involved distilling rum from molasses, sending the rum to Africa to trade for slaves, and then trading the slaves in the West Indies for more molasses.
But I suppose that one could argue that the Ohio River didn't extend as far east as Rhode Island.
nothing in the Constitution expressly disqualifies him from serving simultaneously.
There is even a precedent. John Marshall served as Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for months.
According to WIKI: In the late 18th century, Rhode Island had a population which included 6.3% slaves and its economic activity included slave trades. Rhode Island merchants controlled up to 90% of the African slave trade which involved distilling rum from molasses, sending the rum to Africa to trade for slaves, and then trading the slaves in the West Indies for more molasses.
So there are your reparations for the black community: Rhode Island. Congratulations!
Problem solved.
which were 3% of the entire population of slaves in the Americas,
But I suppose that one could argue that the Ohio River didn't extend as far east as Rhode Island.
gadfly flunked Geography. No surprise.
"we don't have an agenda". That's some disingenuous bullshit right there. Nope, no agenda whatsoever beyond pulling rights out of their assholes.
Trump has floated the Supreme Court idea before. Perhaps someone should buy him one of those pocket Constitutions and underline the words sole power.
You are now entering the Twilight Fringe, where agendas are written in invisible blood.
Is Trump that far off? In a civil lawsuit, the defendant can file a demurrer, meaning that even if everything alleged is true, it doesn't support a cause of action and the case is dismissed.
Have the Dems alleged enough facts to support a charge of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors?
RBG's argument did not work well for Grassley's opponent in the last election.
Definition of tragedy is a busload of lawyers going off a cliff with two empty seats. That's a bit more my speed, even with two kids lawyers.
One of them even tells lawyer jokes. The other, the FBI agent, has no sense of humor.
Earnest Prole: "Trump has floated the Supreme Court idea before. Perhaps someone should buy him one of those pocket Constitutions and underline the words sole power."
That won't work because the left/dems/LLR-left has spent the last 3 years telling Trump he doesn't have the right to exercise executive branch power.
I always find it amusing when our Poor Man's LLR-lefty Chuck gadfly pops in to embarrass himself/herself/xerself.
Generally by posting regurgitated lefty talking points that have been debunked for weeks and months.
When did SCOTUS judges start taking questions and commenting on current events?
Shut up!
Its also nice to see Ginsberg not in an Emergency Room. I think she'll live to be at least 95.
Slavery existed north of the Ohio River post-NW Ordinance in Gallatin County, Il., at the Saline Salt Works.
1784 - RI abolishes slavery by gradual emancipation. Girls/Boys freed at 21.
Population of RI in 1790 - 69,000. Total Slave Population - 4,000. By 1840 there were 5 slaves in RI.
By Comparison Massachusetts had 378,000, Pennsylvania had 434 thousand. NH+ Connecticut - 400,000.
Yeah, those 4,000 slaves In RI, Built New England!
Comments on slavery are always interesting because they spotlight the weirdos who always want to make it economically more important then it was.
In 1865 almost the entire USA west of the Mississippi was either Free or unsettled. Missouri had 100,000 slaves and 1 million whites. Texas had only 500,000 people and a couple hundred miles of Rail road. The Almost no one lived west of Houston and the "Piney Woods". Florida had 100,000 almost all in the panhandle. West Virginia & North Carolina had few slaves.
Slavery built America, is so stupid and historically dumb, no one started saying it until after WW 2, when the commie weridos started taking over the History profession.
Even in 1860 almost all the big cities and industry were in the North. The Confederate Railroads had Steam Engines built in the North, Iron rails from England and the North, and English/Northern Mechanics and Engineers.
Even the Railroads had been built with white labor (Mostly Irish) because slaves were too valuable to lose building RR's in disease laden Swamps and lowlands. A slave might be worth $1,000, an Irishman $0, so they built the RR's.
Just hilarious that anyone with a letterhead impresses Cuck and r/v
All they need to see is a bowtie and they start furiously masturbating
Whether or not "Slavery built America," you have to admit it broke America.
And is useful excuse and tool to keep America broken.
How do we find way out?
A slave might be worth $1,000, an Irishman $0, so they built the RR's
_____&&&&&-----
So on books slaves were assets while Irish were ordinary expenses.
I've been wondering about this for a while:
Did Federal and State government ever own slaves?
How do I find answer?
From a national legal publication:
"One of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s often-told anecdotes about her role as a parent goes like this: When her son James was a student at Dalton School in New York in the 1970s, he was somewhat of a troublemaker, so she would often get calls asking her to come to the school to discuss his behavior.
"Teaching at Columbia Law School at the time, Ginsburg once testily informed the school official, “This child has two parents. Please alternate calls.” Her request resulted in fewer calls overall, James later said, because the school was more reluctant to bother a father than a mother.
"At a National Constitution Center event in Washington Tuesday night, Ginsburg elaborated on the episode, revealing that the school official she received calls from was Dalton’s headmaster Donald Barr, father of current U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
"Ginsburg said she characterized her son as “lively,” but Barr thought he was “hyperactive.” She said that one time when Barr did call her husband Martin Ginsburg, he reported that James had “stolen” the school’s elevator. The late Martin Ginsburg, known for his wit, asked Barr, “How far could he have taken it?” In fact, the boy had taken over operation of the elevator briefly on a dare.
"Asked by Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, whether she thought Donald Barr was sexist, Ginsburg shrugged and said, “That’s the way it was” at the time. Women were presumed to be at home, while fathers were presumed to be at work. Rosen, who also went to Dalton School, has compiled many of Ginsburg’s anecdotes and observations in a new book Conversations with RBG: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty and Law.
"[T]he 86-year-old justice did volunteer that “I’m feeling fine” and that “I love my job,” statements that brought loud applause from the audience. Ginsburg had been hospitalized last month with chills and a fever and in August underwent treatment for pancreatic cancer. It was her fourth bout with cancer."
Interesting analysis of this on the Volokh blog: https://reason.com/2019/12/18/justice-ginsburg-opines-on-biased-senators-and-president-trumps-knowledge-about-the-constitution/
Curious what your thoughts might be on this, Ms Althouse.
Post a Comment