OUR CORRUPT/INCOMPETENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY: SELECTED POSTS #1.

 

THE MUELLER REPORT AND TESTIMONY, ARTICLES AND POSTS, START TO FINISH: BREAKING DOWN THE MUELLER REPORT: A BRIEF TIMEOUT. PART 3. IMPORTANT UPDATE.

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 procdedures 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.

IS IT THE END? MUSK ANSWERS, I RESPOND ON TWITTER.

The following was a question asked by Tucker Carlson to Elon Musk in a recent interview on FOX.

.

@elonmusk

: "Will civilization end with a bang or a whimper? Well, it's currently trending to end with a whimper in adult diapers, which is depressing as hell."

My Response:

Will, if it does, it will be led by people like TRUMP, MUSK, AND CARLSON who put themselves, and their personal desires, ahead of the Good for all Mankind. Tell us again about the 2020 Election, and how Donald was cheated? Nice to see two Hypocrites...

In addition..."whose attitudes and behavior have done their best to push a Trumpian/Fascist Ideology in the U.S. (Spare me the Trump is mad at Musk diatribe, that Love/Hate relationship is getting old fast.)

FOX SETTLES DOMINION LAWSUIT FOR $787.5 MILLION OVER U.S. ELECTION LIES. REUTERS.

 

      [1/5] Dominion CEO John Poulos and lawyers speak to the media after Dominion Voting Systems and Fox settled a defamation lawsuit for $787.5 million,

WILMINGTON, Delaware, April 18 (Reuters) - Fox Corp (FOXA.O) and Fox News on Tuesday settled a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million, averting a trial putting one of the world's top media companies in the crosshairs over its coverage of false vote-rigging claims in the 2020 U.S. election.

The settlement, which legal experts said was the largest struck by an American media company, was announced by the two sides and the judge in the case at the 11th hour.

The jury had been selected earlier in the day and the trial poised for opening statements in Wilmington, Delaware. Dominion had sought $1.6 billion in damages in the lawsuit filed in 2021.

Dominion CEO John Poulos called the settlement "historic."

"Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion that caused enormous damage to my company, our employees and our customers," Poulos said in a statement.

"Truthful reporting in the media is essential to our democracy," Poulos said.

At issue in the lawsuit was whether Fox was liable for airing the false claims that Denver-based Dominion's ballot-counting machines were used to manipulate the presidential election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden over then-President Donald Trump, a Republican.

Tuesday's settlement spared Fox the peril of having some of its best-known figures called to the witness stand and subjected to potentially withering questioning, including executives such as Rupert Murdoch, the 92-year-old who serves as Fox Corp chairman, as well as on-air hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro.

Fox anchor Neil Cavuto broke into his news show "Your World" about 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time to report the settlement. A statement by Fox was read on air.

"We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems," the statement said. "We acknowledge the Court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues."

FOX HAS BILLIONS IN CASH

Shares of Fox Corp closed up slightly at $34 per share, but were down 1% in after-hours trading following disclosure of the settlement amount. Fox has cash on hand to pay for a settlement. It committed $3 billion to buy back shares in the first quarter after revenues beat estimates. Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch told Wall Street analysts in February that the company had about $4 billion cash on hand.

Dominion lawyers declined to answer questions about whether Fox News would apologize publicly or make changes.

Fox News is the most-watched U.S. cable news network.

The settlement of $787.5 million is the largest amount of money paid to conclude an American media libel case, said Richard Tofel, principal of Gallatin Advisory. The previously highest payment occurred in 2017 when Walt Disney Co paid $177 million, in addition to insurance recoveries, to settle the "pink slime" defamation case against its ABC network by Beef Products Inc.

Dominion sued Fox Corp and Fox News, contending that its business was ruined by the false vote-rigging claims that were aired by the news outlet known for its roster of conservative commentators. The trial was to have tested whether Fox's coverage crossed the line between ethical journalism and the pursuit of ratings, as Dominion alleged and Fox denied. Fox had portrayed itself in the pretrial skirmishing as a defender of press freedom.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, presiding over the case, had ordered a one-day trial postponement on Monday. Fox was pursuing settlement talks, two sources familiar with the matter said. Davis delayed the trial on Tuesday, as the two sides appeared to hammer out the deal in private.

The primary question for jurors was to be whether Fox knowingly spread false information or recklessly disregarded the truth, the standard of "actual malice" that Dominion must show to prevail in a defamation case.

In February court filings, Dominion cited a trove of internal communications in which Murdoch and other Fox figures privately acknowledged that the vote-rigging claims made about Dominion on-air were false. Dominion said Fox amplified the untrue claims to boost its ratings and prevent its viewers from migrating to other media competitors on the right.

ANOTHER LAWSUIT PENDING

Adding to the legal risks for Fox, another U.S. voting technology company, Smartmatic, is pursuing its own defamation lawsuit seeking $2.7 billion in damages in a New York state court.

"For many plaintiffs, a court holding, and admission by the defendant about falsity, are even more important than any actual money damages," said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Fox had earlier argued that claims by Trump and his lawyers about the election were inherently newsworthy and protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Davis ruled in March that Fox could not use those arguments as a defense, finding its coverage was false, defamatory and not protected by the First Amendment.

The lawsuit referenced instances in which Trump allies including his former lawyers Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell appeared on Fox News to advance the false allegations.

Murdoch internally described the election-rigging claims as "really crazy" and "damaging" but declined to wield his editorial power to stop them and conceded under oath that some Fox hosts nonetheless "endorsed" the baseless claims, Dominion told the court in a filing.

Under questioning from a Dominion lawyer, Murdoch testified that he thought everything about the election was on the "up-and-up" and doubted the rigging claims from the very beginning, according to Dominion's filing.

Asked if he could have intervened to stop Giuliani from continuing to spread falsehoods on air, Murdoch responded, "I could have. But I didn't," the filing said.

Reporting by Helen Coster in Wilmington and Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

FACT CHECKING TRUMP, AND ANYONE ELSE. PART 2.

So, why should we fact-check?

IN LOGIC, THE CONCLUSION TO ANY VALID ARGUMENT IS ONLY AS STRONG AS THE

PREMISES GIVEN TO SUPPORT IT.

Premises are the Foundation, but if they are Weak or Unsupportable then your Conclusion will

collapse. So, if someone is basing a Conclusion on certain specific facts given as all or part of

a premise(s), it is necessary to evaluate whether or not said facts are true.

EXAMPLE:

PREMISE 1- All Members of Party A Voted against Issue B.

PREMISE 2- Issue B, if passed, will lower taxes.

CONCLUSION: PARTY A VOTED AGAINST LOWERING TAXES.

This is a very basic example, but I find that some form of it is being used constantly

by Politicians trying to drag down the opposition.

FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, WE MUST FIRST ESTABLISH THAT

BOTH PREMISES ARE FACTUAL.

As you see, Premises 1 and 2 are quite different from each other, in how difficult it would be to 

establish each as factual. The first premise would need only a simple survey of voting records to

establish its reality, but it alone does not lead to said conclusion.

The Second Premise is a different story. JUST CLAIMING THAT ISSUE B WILL LOWER TAXES

DOES NOT ESTABLISH IT AS A STATEMENT OF FACT.

to be continued...