REMEMBERING THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS: TRUMP AND FASCISM TRIUMPH.

SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE,  AND THE "LIBERAL " NEWS MEDIA SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT OCCURRED DURING THE BRETT KAVANAUGH HEARINGS FOR HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, HERE IS A REMINDER. THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WITH A FASCIST WHITE HOUSE,  AND AN INEPT AND UNCONCERNED OPPOSITION PARTY.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ALLOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BECOME CORRUPTED BY SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS, INCOMPETENT JURISTS, AND AMORAL LAWMAKERS.

 

REMEMBERING THE TIME WHEN THE U.S. HANDED TRUMP AND HIS BAND OF CORRUPT GOP FASCISTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

FROM NPR NEWS- 6/27/2019.

In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU IGNORE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND ALLOW THE OPPOSITION TO CONTROL THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

OR

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU DO NOT CHALLENGE BOGUS RETURNS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HANDING THE WHITE HOUSE TO A SELF - CENTERED DEMAGOGUE?

ANSWER TO BOTH.

YOU GET DONALD TRUMPS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGHS' TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REGARDING ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades."

WHAT AN INTELLECT!! FITS IN WITH TRUMP AND MCCONNELL PERFECTLY.

WHAT ELSE CAN WE TAKE FROM THIS?

#1. Anger-  Does this reference the Unconstitutional denial of President Barack Obamas choice for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a chance to testify before the Senate, to be followed by a public vote? 

BUT YOU'RE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. REALLY?

#2. President Trump and the 2016 Election- You mean an election with Bogus Returns in at least 6 States that handed Donald Trump the White House, paving the way for him placing 2 Judges on the Supreme Court.

Do you mean "FEAR" of having the future course of Judicial Precedents decided by DONALD TRUMP, whose behavior while in the WHITE HOUSE is often considered to be IRRATIONAL AND VINDICTIVE? 

#3. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons- I assume you have the facts to back this up, since this is a direct accusation. Also, Do you mean that the Clintons planned and executed these plans directly, or are unwitting pawns that had no knowledge about the attempt to create this "Circus"?

IS THIS HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY?

So, What do I mean when I say: TODAYS DONALD TRUMP IS WHAT 
HE WAS ALLOWED TO BECOME...

Ask yourself the following question: OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT;  EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL, WHAT IS THE HIGHEST OFFICE/MOST POWERFUL POSITION THAT CAN BE OCCUPIED IN EACH BRANCH?

ANSWER.

EXECUTIVE-    PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

LEGISLATIVE-  U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.
                     SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REP.

JUDICIAL-        ONE OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE
                       U.S. SUPREME COURT.

Now, in most recent history, what events have most influenced the
current state of each office. 

For that, let's go back a few years.

THE SUPREME COURT.

On FEB,13, 2016 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA passed away.
THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, following procedures Set forth in the U.S.
CONSTITUTION, nominated JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND TO FILL THE VACANCY.       

The following passage is taken from the U.S. CONSTITUTION.

"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."

However, for the first time in U.S. HISTORY, THE U.S. SENATE DID NOT MEET TO QUESTION
THE NOMINEE, SO THAT THEY COULD "ADVISE" THE PRESIDENT, AND VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE JUDGE GARLAND NOMINATION. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL DECIDED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS NOT A DUTY OR OBLIGATION THAT THE U.S. SENATE HAS, BUT CAN BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT. SO, HE REFUSED TO SEAT THE SENATE TO ACT ON THE NOMINATION.

GIVEN SENATOR MCCONNELLS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, I DON'T EXPECT MUCH IN THE WAY OF FAIR AND INTELLECTUALLY JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE POLITICAL AGENDA HE PUSHES. HOWEVER, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES REFUSAL TO FILE SUIT, AND BRING THIS MATTER INTO COURT TO FORCE MCCONNELL AND OTHER REPUBLICANS TO OBEY THE OATH THEY TOOK TO "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION," SHOWED AN INEXPLICABLE LACK OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL COURAGE. WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK THIS SENT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? TO BAD, IT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.

HOW TRUE...

 

VLAD AND DONALD, IT WAS A GOOD PLAN...BUT HUMANITY IS MORE THAN JUST SYCOPHANTIC SELF-CENTERED YES MEN...PART 6.

Yes, each of you wanted something that only Betraying your Country could bring. In fact, not just your Country, but their Allies and Friends who counted on Treaties and Long Term Commitments to aid each other in time of need. However,Vlad and Donald, you and your supporters only laugh at such things. For Individuals like the two of you, Concepts such as HONOR AND DUTY ARE FOR SUCKERS. But the problem is this: Most people are not like your Supporters, and don't look kindly on SEDITION AND TREASON. WHAT COULD YOU DO?

Vlad, your Dream of Re-creating the SOVIET UNION would be difficult, since most of the WORLD, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO LIVE IN COUNTRIES FORMALLY BEHIND THE "IRON CURTAIN," don't want another SOCIOPATH stepping into the Type of Power wielded by MASS MURDERER JOSEPH STALIN. So you needed to control the process that would prevent former SOVIET TERRITORIES, (Which were still young Nations, learning what it takes to achieve, and hold onto, THE FREEDOMS THAT SO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES TAKE FOR GRANTED), from creating the Stability and Self-Confidence that would tell all the World that they were here to stay. TWO THINGS, ABOVE ALL ELSE, STOOD IN YOUR WAY: THE UNITED NATIONS AND NATO. THAT WOULD NOT DO. SO...

DONALD, your situation is not quite as COMPLEX AS VLADS. Your whole life has been THE EPITOME OF A GRANDIOSE AND SELF-CENTERED EXISTENCE WHERE ONLY ONE PERSON COUNTS: YOU.

WHO WAS THE BEST STUDENT?

WHO IS THE BEST BUSINESSMAN?

WHO IS THE SMARTEST INVESTOR?

WHO IS THE BEST SPEAKER?

WHO IS GODS GIFT TO WOMEN?

...AND ON AND ON.

WHY YOU ARE, RIGHT DONALD?

It doesn't matter that nobody, except you, actually believes any of it. They will learn. Too many people laugh at you, and don't respect your greatness. With Vlads help...You'll show them. 

Well, Vlad and Donald, you have the Funds, and enough insiders willing to commit Treason for you. 

TIME TO GO PUBLIC.

to be continued...

WHY DEMOCRATS SHOULD IMPEACH JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS. MSNBC OPINION.

 

CLARENCE THOMAS HAS NEVER BEEN A SOURCE OF "LEGAL PROFUNDITY." 

Like most recent GOP SELECTIONS FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, he is little more than a chair 

Filler, whose sole purpose seems to be turning FASCIST PROPAGANDA from the Far-Right into LAW.

His Mediocre Legal Mind is bad enough, BUT HIS REFUSAL TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CASES 

INVOLVING THE JAN, 6, 2021 ATTEMPTED COUP BY TRUMP AND HIS TREASONOUS 

ALLIES IS INEXCUSABLE. (SEE BELOW ARTICLE.)

Senate Trumpocrats, uh Democrats, have shown us that they are basically useless. 

There is no U.S. SENATOR ELECTED BEFORE 2016 THAT I WOULD TRUST IN ANY MATTER. 

THEIR ABANDONMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON WAS AS

DISGRACEFUL AS ANYTHING THE GOP HAS TRIED TO PULL. 

That same "COURAGE" has led to SENATOR JOE MANCHIN BASICALLY CALLING 

THE SHOTS IN THE SENATE. IT'S NICE WHEN A GOP FLUNKY RUNS THE DEMOCRATS

AGENDA IN THE SENATE. WHEN OTHER SENATE DEMOCRATS STAND UP TO HIM, 

EVEN ONCE, LET ME KNOW.

(I have written extensively on my reasons for these Conclusions, 

so I am not going to repeat them here.)

So this is to HOUSE DEMOCRATS. SHOW THE SAME COURAGE YOU DID WITH TRUMP: WE 

ARE STILL A NATION OF LAWS, AND NO ONE, BE IT THE POTUS OR A SUPREME COURT

JUSTICE SHOULD GET A FREE PASS. PERSONALLY, I'M TIRED OF FANATICS AND FASCISTS

GETTING A FREE PASS. MY GUESS IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD 

AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT.

DAVID MCDONALD - PUBLISHER.

Now to the article.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MSNBC OPINION.

Why Democrats should impeach Justice Clarence Thomas

By Mehdi Hasan, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

I have a question for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats: Why haven’t you impeached Clarence Thomas yet?

It’s become conventional wisdom that there’s nothing that can be done to pry a Supreme Court justice, like Thomas, from the bench after they receive what is more often than not a lifetime appointment. But every Democratic member of the House of Representatives should be Googling the name "Samuel Chase" right now.

The oft-forgotten Chase, in addition to being a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, was a member of the Maryland General Assembly, a member of the Continental Congress and the eighth justice to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court.

Still, his long and distinguished résumé didn’t win him many fans. The conservative mayor of Annapolis called him a “busy, restless incendiary, a ringleader of mobs, a foul-mouthed and inflaming son of discord and faction,” noted a 1974 retrospective that ran in Maryland's Evening Capital newspaper. Chase didn’t hold back against his critics either, calling them “despicable tools of power, emerged from obscurity and basking in proprietary sunshine.”

Every Democratic member of the House of Representatives should be Googling the name "Samuel Chase" right now.

His enemies included President Thomas Jefferson, who saw the judge as an extreme partisan, with a biased attitude toward defense lawyers and jurors. In 1804, nine years into Chase’s term on the court, Jefferson and his allies turned to what is still the only way to force a justice out: impeachment. In recent years, we have become all too familiar with the process for impeaching a U.S. president. Chase is a reminder that the Constitution contains the same rules for impeaching federal judges as it does for presidents.

While the associate justice was impeached on eight charges in the House, the Senate — despite being dominated by Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans — didn’t reach the two-thirds majority required to force him out on any of them.

Nevertheless, convicted or not, Chase remains the only Supreme Court justice in American history to be impeached. And it was not for some conflict of interest or violation of judicial ethics. It was because his political opponents, including the then-president, thought he was too partisan to rule in a fair or impartial manner.

Today, we agree that a judge cannot, and should not, be removed simply because we disagree with their rulings. But we should then also agree that if judges are violating ethics or subject to conflicts of interest, they should in theory be impeached and removed from the bench.

Which brings us back to Justice Clarence Thomas. In January, The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer profiled Thomas’ wife, Ginni, a longtime conservative operative and lobbyist, and revealed how her lobbying firm was on the payroll of far-right activist Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy. Gaffney and others submitted an amicus brief to the court in 2017 in support of the Trump administration’s travel ban, arguing that “the challenge of Islam must be confronted.”

Shockingly, Thomas did not recuse himself from the case given the clear financial conflict. He never even disclosed the $200,000 paid to his wife despite being required to report the source of a spouse’s income as part of his annual financial disclosures, according to The New Yorker. Thomas would later join his fellow four conservative justices in voting to uphold Trump’s shameful Muslim ban.

In February, The New York Times Magazine reported that Ginni Thomas served on the board of a secretive right-wing group called CNP Action. In November 2020, it circulated a “November ‘action steps’ document” instructing its members in the days after the election “to pressure Republican lawmakers into challenging the election results and appointing alternate slates of electors,” according to the report.

But when former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to block the House Jan. 6 committee from obtaining hundreds of pages of White House records from the National Archives, Thomas was the sole justice to vote against the House investigators.

Then on Monday, in an interview with a conservative blog, Ginni Thomas admitted to having attended the "Stop the Steal" rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021. She admitted to being in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, thereby endorsing that day's Trump-led rally to overturn the election, but she claimed to have left before Trump addressed the crowd because she “got cold.”

To recap: These reports showed that the wife of a Supreme Court justice not only took undisclosed money from an activist who filed a brief in front of the court, but that she was also part of a campaign to try to overturn the 2020 election result and attended the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. And as Ginni Thomas herself helpfully explained in Monday’s interview: “Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America.”

Ridiculously, Clarence Thomas wants us to believe he can carry on as an associate justice and remain above the fray. In September, speaking at the University of Notre Dame, he railed against growing criticisms of the court’s partisan behavior. If he really wanted to avoid looking like a politician, why allow his wife’s political activism and income streams to have even the appearance of an impact on his decisions instead of recusing himself?

Democrats should be loudly drawing attention to the fact that the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice supported Trump’s coup attempt.

In fact, unlike others on the court, such as Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Stephen Breyer, who have recused themselves from cases involving family members, Clarence Thomas has never recused himself from a case because of Ginni Thomas or her work.

Why should we continue to tolerate his outrageous and unethical behavior? Bear in mind, the nine justices on the Supreme Court are the only federal judges in America not bound by a formal judicial ethics code. Instead, they are supposed to regulate themselves. (Stop laughing.)