MY RESPONSE TO JUSTICE ROBERTS AND ALITO.

YOU SHOULD READ THE ARTICLE- CNN: WHAT MATTERS- "The Supreme Court's legitimacy problem" first, for background info.

Yes, I am directly accusing Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, and the rest of the "MAJORITY" RUNNING THE SCOTUS OF A LACK OF INTEGRITY. THEY ARE DELIBERATELY USING THEIR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT A POLITICAL AGENDA SEEKING TO CREATE A LEGAL SYSTEM BASED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES AND BELIEFS ADHERED TO BY A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF THE U.S. POPULATION.

By their Actions as JUSTICES OF SCOTUS, they are violating CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES laid out in the BODY OF THE DOCUMENT, AND UNDERMINING DECADES OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT BY, EFFECTIVELY, MAKING PURELY FAITH BASED MORALITY THE LAW OF THE LAND. WHICH FAITH? Perhaps we should ask CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS AND EVANGELICALS about their opinion on the new direction taken by the Court.

To begin with, the Role that Religion was to play in the shaping of the Legal System in the newly created U.S., as laid out in the CONSTITUTION, COMES FROM TWO MAIN SOURCES;

-  ARTICLE 6.

- FIRST AMENDMENT.

To be clear, THIS COURT IS MAKING A MOCKERY OF WHAT WAS CLEARLY THE POINT OF THESE TWO PRINCIPLES, WHICH WAS TO PREVENT ANY FORM OF "THEOCRACY" FROM BECOMING PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND. UNFORTUNATELY, "THEOCRACY" AND "FASCISM" WORK VERY WELL TOGETHER.

TO BE CONTINUED.

CNN: WHAT MATTERS- The Supreme Court's legitimacy problem.

 

AFTER YOU READ THIS ARTICLE, I HAVE POSTED ANOTHER ONE WRITTEN BY ME, ENTITLED: "MY RESPONSE TO JUSTICE ROBERTS AND ALITO." DAVID MCDONALD. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX : The Supreme Court's legitimacy problem by Zachary B. Wolf

Some important firsts for the Supreme Court:   Good: The first Black woman justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, will be officially seated on the court in an investiture ceremony Friday before the term officially begins Monday. Bad: Fewer than half of American adults, for the first time in the history of the Gallup poll, have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the US government headed by the Supreme Court.   If legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, enjoying the trust of less than half the country means the Supreme Court has a serious problem.   The drop in faith comes after the court, in its most recent term, overturned Roe v. Wade, invalidated a 100 year-old New York law relating to concealed hand guns and cut down down the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to curb carbon emissions.   There are more cases on the docket for the term about to get underway, including tests of voting rights protections and the ability of universities to consider race in college admissions.   That was fast   The decline in American’s faith in its federal judiciary has been swift – a 20 percentage point drop in two years. The court used to routinely have the faith of two-thirds of Americans in Gallup surveys.   The new drop in trust comes mainly from Democrats and independents, many of whom were aghast at the court’s decision to end American women’s federal right to obtain an abortion.   Many Republicans, for what it’s worth, according to Gallup, had previously lost faith in the Supreme Court after decisions legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and upholding the Affordable Care Act. Republican faith rebounded and was at 84% in 2020 before dipping to 61% in 2021. Now it has risen to 67%.   Partisan Republicans, perhaps, can take some assurance in the fact that the six justice conservative bloc will keep the country from veering too far from their principles no matter what voters say.   The legitimacy question   It has to do with whether the justices are impartial referees – umpires, as Chief Justice John Roberts claimed during his confirmation hearing many years ago. Or are these judges, who aren’t accountable to voters and have lifetime positions, more like partisan operators that tilt the law one way or another?   The justices themselves, in something of a departure, are taking part in the debate, during public appearances and in statements over the past few weeks: John Roberts, the chief justice: Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court. More. Elena Kagan, part of the liberal minority, in July: “The way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court.” More. And Kagan again this month: …if one judge dies or leaves a court and another judge comes in and all of a sudden the law changes on you – what does that say? That just doesn’t seem a lot like law if it can depend so much on which particular person is in the court. More. Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision overturning Roe: It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line. More. Insults v. misleading   Speaking of the court’s integrity, Republican senators who support abortion rights have said they felt misled by conservative justices who promised to respect precedent and then voted to overturn Roe.   And Alito’s decision overturning Roe, rather than a simple and straight reading of law, was written as a triumphal return to a pre-Civil Rights era where states have more power, as long as it doesn’t tread on religious freedom.   Fundamental difference   Supreme Court biographer and CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic told Laura Coates recently that the justices seem to be disagreeing on the very idea of why their legitimacy is in question.   “What people are seeing is a very politically motivated majority. A supermajority. Plowing through all sorts of norms, rolling back a half century of abortion rights and also changing gun rights, changing regulatory authority. Doing all these things based on patterns that arise from their private partisan roots.” Watch it.   The former attorney Dean Obeidallah was more direct in answering Roberts. It’s not just that people disagree with the court’s decisions, as Roberts argued. It’s that the conservative-majority court’s decisions appear predictably partisan.   “Decisions delivered by the conservative justices this past term on hot-button issues such as abortion, climate change regulations and gun laws felt more like rulings written by the Republican National Committee than the highest court in the land,” Obeidallah wrote for CNN Opinion.   That’s assuming the justices wrote anything at all.   Rise of the shadow docket   Steve Vladeck is a CNN legal analyst and a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who has written a new book about the so-called “shadow docket” of rulings offered with arguments or decision. The subtitle: “How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.”   He looked at instances when the justices used unsigned and unexplained orders on the shadow docket for numerous consequential actions, like blocking state Covid restrictions. Read more.   In numerous instances, Vladeck wrote, the court has overruled conservative lower courts to allow executions to occur.   “No one disputes that the Supreme Court has the power to overturn a lower court’s conclusions, whether as to law or fact,” Vladeck wrote for CNN Opinion earlier this month.   “The problem is the impression that the justices leave when lower courts have gone to great lengths to explain and defend their rulings, and, as in Miller’s case, the court overrides them summarily. The court at least appears to be acting for political reasons rather than legal ones.”   Later, he offered this description of the Court’s legitimacy.   Vladeck: The idea is not that the court’s legitimacy flows from whether it’s getting these cases “right”; it’s that it flows from public acceptance that its decision-making is informed by principles – even principles with which many of us might disagree.   There are other things that don’t help   The targeting of justices by activists. Conservative justices have felt targeted by activists protesting at their houses.   The extreme politics of Supreme spouses. The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, dean of the conservative bloc, was interviewed Thursday by the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, riot and insurrection. She has said she does not discuss work with her husband, the Supreme Court justice. Read more.   Alito’s mocking. He tweaked foreign critics of the Dobbs decision in a speech delivered in Rome on religious liberty. “I had the honor this term of writing I think the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders,” Alito said, appearing proud of himself, more like a fan than an umpire.

THE LATEST "RULING" BY DONALD TRUMPS DEFENSE ATTORNEY...UH...I MEAN TRUMP FLUNKY JUDGE AILEEN CANNON.

 

REMEMBER THIS ARTICLE:

JUDGE AILEEN CANNON: THE LATEST CORRUPT/INTELLECTUAL JOKE PROTECTING TRUMP.

YOU MAY WANT TO READ IT AGAIN.

https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/2022/09/judge-aileen-cannon-latest.html?spref=tw

WHY: I'LL LET TODAYS COMMENTS ON TWITTER PROVIDE THE EXPLANATION.

HERE IS THE RULING MADE:

COMMENTS FROM:

KATIE S. PHANG.

Recall: SM Dearie originally ordered TRUMP (the "Plaintiff") to submit the declaration by Sept. 30, 2022, not his counsel or a representative. So now Trump can delay submitting his declaration until "after his review of any of the Seized Materials..."

SM Dearie ordered Trump to provide his privilege assertions on a rolling basis. Now, Cannon orders that Trump can wait and file "one final comprehensive log."

FROM Ant43

She’s VERY VERY openly acting as his defense attorney. And she knows it and knows everyone knows it and doesn’t care. And she doesn’t care because she knows our system protects her kind of corruption and usually rewards it. The R party loves corrupt people with no value set.

FROM emptywheel

Cannon is shamelessly acting as Trump's defense attorney. If you are a reporter, that's what your story is. If you're not a reporter, that's also what your story is.

At the very least fact check this woman.

FROM Ann Turner

laymen’s terms: “Trump doesn’t have to perjure himself, i’ll protect him” -Cannon

FROM ITMAN

Judge Cannon need to start acting like a Judge and not as a defense lawyer for the former president! What is the purpose of having a Special counsel if you just override his decision? Shameful and unprofessional!

FROM Human Being at large.

Looking forward to the DOJ writing on their appeal. They tore apart her last judgment, and there were two Trump out of three judges in that appeal court. Some judges actually believe in the rule of law no matter who appoints them. Cannon literally has no experience in this.

FROM MARY MILLER

Literally she is aiding and abetting obstruction. It is time for DOJ to indict him. This is ridiculous. DOJ has to appeal her orders.. He is not being held to his statutory burden and ALL PRA privilege claims must be per statute under DC jurisdiction. They need to stop playing...

MY COMMENTS:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN:

ESSENTIALLY, TRUMP CAN ACCUSE THE DOJ AND FBI OF PLANTING EVIDENCE, BUT DOES NOT HAVE TO SWEAR, UNDER OATH, WHICH ITEMS THEY ARE, AND HOW HE KNOWS SUCH ACTIONS HAVE OCCURRED. 

THE ACCUSATION, ON ITS OWN, IS ENOUGH FOR THIS---I'M NOT GOING TO REFER TO HER AS A JUDGE---TRUMP FLUNKY TO RULE IN HIS FAVOR. WHY? IT ALLOWS THE INVESTIGATION TO LINGER ON...AFTER THE ELECTION.

EVERY APPOINTEE MADE BY TRUMP, MUST BE INVESTIGATED. DOES THIS AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THEY ARE ALL AS CORRUPT AND/OR INCOMPETENT AS AILEEN CANNON, OR THE 3 SCOTUS JUSTICES HE PLACED ON THE BENCH? OF COURSE NOT.

HOWEVER, HIS ADMINISTRATION WAS RACKED WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO TURNED OUT TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN CRIMINALS FEEDING OUT OF THE TRUMP TROUGH OF CORRUPTION.

HERE IS A REPORT BY NEWSWEEK, WHICH IN NO WAY IS COMPREHENSIVE, BUT GIVES YOU A LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID.

A guide to Trump allies who've pleaded guilty or been convicted of crimes https://www.newsweek.com/guide-trump-allies-whove-pleaded-guilty-been-convicted-crimes-1735298

This does not cover those now under Investigation, or Crimes not Properly Investigated by his own version of the DOJ.

Not to mention he was Impeached Twice.

How much damage could be done just by the Judicial Jokes who would never have seen a Federal Judgeship, let alone a seat on the SCOTUS, if we had an HONEST AND COMPETENT U.S. PRESIDENT BETWEEN THE YEARS OF 2016-2020.

By the way, the number of Criminal Indictments issued against members OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMAS ADMINISTRATION, ACCORDING TO POLITIFACT: 0 in 8 YEARS IN OFFICE. THINK ABOUT THAT.

A POSSIBLE ANSWER TO THE STENDEC MYSTERY?

I have briefly touched on the STENDEC legend in a previous article about the crash of the STAR DUST. 

SEE: THE MYSTERIOUS WORLD. AMONG THE MISSING- WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR? PARTS 1-5.

Here is a brief summary of the Mystery, from the TV SHOW NOVA ON PBS.

STENDEC REFERS TO THE LAST WORD(S) RECEIVED BY THE CHILEAN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER FROM THE STAR DUST. THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE TV SHOW NOVA, (PBS), ABOUT THE MYSTERY;

The official 1947 report into Stardust's disappearance had this to say on the subject:

The 17.41 signal was received by Santiago only 4 minutes before the ETA. The Chilean radio operator at Santiago states that the reception of the signal was loud and clear but that it was given out very fast. Not understanding the word "STENDEC" he queried it and had the same word repeated by the aircraft twice in succession. A solution to the word "STENDEC" has not been found. From this time on nothing further was heard from the aircraft and no contact was made with the control tower at Santiago. All further calls were unanswered.

Before I get into the solution I propose for the STENDEC MYSTERY, keep in mind:

This is not meant to be the final word in finding an answer to the mystery. Treating it as a puzzle

that remains unsolved, the question of STENDEC is more of a Leisure Time activity. To me, it is a fun

way to "Excersize" your mind without any real constraints on Time or Subject Matter. 

(Don't misunderstand, the crash of the STAR DUST was a real and genuine tragedy, which I covered in 

a previous article.)

The Biggest roadblock into finding a definitive conclusion that would explain the mystery is that Radio 

Operator Dennis Harmer was killed in the crash, so there is no way of ever knowing what he meant by 

sending STENDEC.* This in no way should cast a shadow over his abilities, or the performance of the

 rest of the crew. They were highly trained professionals who "Cut their Teeth" flying against the 

LUFTWAFFE IN WORLD WAR 2. 

*Also, keep in mind that all communications between the STAR DUST and the Chilean Air Trafic Controller were done by MORSE CODE. There was no Vocal/Voice Transmission between the two.

Sometimes, we have a mystery that will forever remain unsolved, simply because we do not 

have enough evidence that provides us with a definite answer. We can speculate, and narrow the field to 

the most reasonable possible conclusions, but that is the best anyone can do. So, in Memory of those 

who were lost so long ago, I offer the following;

IF STENDEC IS NOT A MISSPELLING, AN ANAGRAM, OR AN ACRONYM, WHAT ELSE 

COULD IT BE? SUPPOSE IT WAS SENT AS TWO WORDS, AND PERCEIVED AS JUST ONE.

When I first looked at the word, many years ago, there was always something that bothered me. As time 

went by, it was how unlike it was to any other word I could think of. The ANAGRAM OR ACRONYM 

SOLUTIONS seemed too unlikely to consider, especially when the Crew believed they were only a 

few minutes from landing. So, if STENDEC seemed incomprehensible as one word, could Harmer have 

keyed in TWO DIFFERENT WORDS.

HERE IS WHAT I CAME UP WITH:

STEN

STEN- (VERB): TO STRIDE ENERGETICALLY.

(intransitive) Scottish

to STRIDE energetically

Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

STRIDE- a regular or STEADY COURSE, pace, etc

Decin American English

1.  

December

2.  DECLINATION

- 

a bending, sloping, or moving downward

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

Could Harmer have been trying to relay the message that the STAR DUST WAS DESCENDING AT A NORMAL STEADY RATE, AND ON COURSE?

Maybe this was something HARMER was trying out, and would not have been familiar to the controller. Since it was anticipated that the STAR DUST WAS LANDING IN A FEW MINUTES, IT MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEMED MUCH OF A PROBLEM.

Could it be a shortened way of saying: "Preparing to land, rate of descent is normal, no problems to report."