USA Politics (redux)

[Karl Henning]

Amanda Carpenter: In late 2020, Donald Trump instructed a top Justice Department official to "Just say [the election] was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."

Trump gave this command on Dec. 27, 2020—nearly eight weeks after Election Day and almost two weeks after the Electoral College met and confirmed Joe Biden's victory—to then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who revealed it in testimony before the House January 6th Committee yesterday. The revelation, confirmed in Donoghue's contemporaneous notes, shows just how serious the former president was about overturning the election.

With that simple order, Trump's plot becomes clear. He wanted Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to lie about the election, creating a pretense that Republican members of Congress could use to reject Electoral College votes for Biden.

[Karl Henning]

Amanda Carpenter: In late 2020, Donald Trump instructed a top Justice Department official to "Just say [the election] was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."

Trump gave this command on Dec. 27, 2020—nearly eight weeks after Election Day and almost two weeks after the Electoral College met and confirmed Joe Biden's victory—to then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who revealed it in testimony before the House January 6th Committee yesterday. The revelation, confirmed in Donoghue's contemporaneous notes, shows just how serious the former president was about overturning the election.

With that simple order, Trump's plot becomes clear. He wanted Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to lie about the election, creating a pretense that Republican members of Congress could use to reject Electoral College votes for Biden.

The whole article is worth the read:

The Republicans Who Wanted Pardons for Their Trump Coup Actions

[BasilValentine]

The only rational the 2nd Amendment provides for the right to bear arms is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." 

Given that ICBMs, SAMs, and tanks, to cite just a few examples, are currently deemed "necessary to the security of a free State," I believe a narrow, originalist reading of the 2nd amendment would hold that US citizens should now be allowed, if not required, to keep tactical nuclear weapons in their garages and to know how to drive tanks. It's clearly what the founding fathers envisioned.

So, similar to approval for Biden, Congress and the mainstream media. I've also read that only about 5% of the public thinks abortion is a top issue. The Democrats made a mistake in making a sacrament of it. The Democrat base has gone from "safe, legal and rare" to abortion-on-demand up until the moment of birth. That isn't where most people are. That also isn't where these European countries continually held up as sociopolitical paragons are either. France's abortion laws are stricter than Mississippi's, as has often been pointed out over the past couple of days.

Bullshit

[Fëanor]

So, similar to approval for Biden, Congress and the mainstream media. I've also read that only about 5% of the public thinks abortion is a top issue. The Democrats made a mistake in making a sacrament of it. The Democrat base has gone from "safe, legal and rare" to abortion-on-demand up until the moment of birth. That isn't where most people are. That also isn't where these European countries continually held up as sociopolitical paragons are either. France's abortion laws are stricter than Mississippi's, as has often been pointed out over the past couple of days.

There are extremists on both side of the abortion argument.  On one side, no abortion under essentially any circumstance;  on the other side, unrestricted abortion up 'till full-term birth.  But I don't thing all Democrats can be associate with the latter, any more than all Republicans can be associated with the former.

It seems you are make the fallacious "slippery slope" argument apparently against the Democrats.

[Daverz]

I didn't say all. I said the Dem *base*, which has shifted much farther to the left than the Republican base has shifted right. I think both parties are the Uniparty anyway. Not really all that much difference between the establishments.

Don't waste your time with this troll.

[Fëanor]

Given that ICBMs, SAMs, and tanks, to cite just a few examples, are currently deemed "necessary to the security of a free State," I believe a narrow, originalist reading of the 2nd amendment would hold that US citizens should now be allowed, if not required, to keep tactical nuclear weapons in their garages and to know how to drive tanks. It's clearly what the founding fathers envisioned.

But the 2nd provide only one rationale for the "right to bear arms", that being the need for a "well-regulated militia".  Nor did it say anything about a requirement to bear arms

At the time, 1792, the US army was very small and both external and internal threats were easy to imagine.  American military capacity, such as it was, was effectively provided by State Militias.  There are no State militias today;  effectively they are replaced by the National Guard, (which provides its members with whatever arms they need).  When you get down to it, the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.  A responsible SCOTUS would recognize that fact.

Yes, that's the very same National Guard that President Trump ought to have called our hours early to control the January 6h putative insurrection.  In fact VP Pence authorized its use as I recall: Trump never did.

In actuality the 2nd Amendment neither says nor implies anything about arms for personal self-defense, nor does it suggest anything about allowing citizens arms to resist oppressive government.  The latter is a farcical notion given the the Constitution allow Congress all up the militia to suppress insurrection.

[Karl Henning]

Dana Milbank:

At one point, Trump complained to top DOJ officials: "You guys may not be following the internet the way I do."

He was right. Only a crackpot would do that.

[Karl Henning]

Don't waste your time with this troll.

No, indeed.

[greg]

I suspect that yesterday might have something to do with big corporations and their future outlook...

although big corporations profited from Covid while small businesses (potential future competition) shut down, we have a below replacement birth rate, in large part due to the unsustainable cost of having kids.

That means that won't be a satisfactory amount of low wage workers joining the workforce in 20 years, for these large corporations.

So one strategy might be to make abortion illegal in the hopes that the birth rate will increase. I doubt the decision is based on moral opinion, more likely money and power, as it always is.

[Fëanor]

Genuine, sincere question here: how are the events of 1/6/21 any more an insurrection than the calls we hear now to disregard rulings from the Supreme Court, or even abolishing the Court altogether? I might've missed it, but I haven't heard one Democratic politician come forward and say "I disagree with the decision, but we're a nation of laws and so we have to leave it at that." It's always "my side lost and so now we have to throw the board off the table and change the rules." It goes back to the death of classical liberalism I mentioned.

Seriously?  Have any of the protesters broken into the Supreme Court building, smashed things, and directly threatened the Justices with death?  Have any police been beaten or killed?  Yeah, maybe betimes there is a fine lines between protest and insurrection but the mob of January 6th crossed that line.

Were I an American, I wouldn't be calling for the abolition of the Supreme Court, but I would be calling for the restoration of its independence and impartiality.  Presently it is a political creature of President and the Senator majority.  At the very least Justices' term should limited, say, to 16 years.

[SimonNZ]

abortion-on-demand up until the moment of birth.

That is an utter lie. And you're a fool for having swallowed such obvious
and dangerous disinformation so uncritically.

[SimonNZ]

Prove it.

No, troll. It's your assertion, so the burden of proof is yours. Proof you should have sought already.

[JBS]

NB
The aim of the 1/6 insurrection was to almost literally throw the board off the tables and change the rules.

[SimonNZ]

And that is in no way "proof" of on demand abortions being done up to the moment of birth. As I'm sure you're aware.

So you're not even trying. You're just trolling.

[BasilValentine]

Prove it.

You're the one who made an assertion about when abortions are performed, so it's you who needs proof.

[Fëanor]

So as I said you change the rules whenever you lose. That isn't the way it's supposed to work. "Independence and impartiality" simply means "that I find ideologically congenial". I don't recall the SC's independence and impartiality being called into question when it had a more leftward slant. Justices have *always* been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. And thus *always* "political creatures". That applied as much to Ruth Bader Ginsburg as it does to Neil Gorsuch.

There I must concede a point to you.  What you are saying is that Supreme Court Justices are, and always have been, political appointments, which is true.

What I'm saying is that the appointment process is, and has always been, a problem.  If the SCOTUS is supposed to be a the third leg of the "checks & balances" more independence ought to be achieved somehow.  Probably there should be stricter qualifications for Justices.  Probably tenure should not be for life but for some extended but fixed term, say 15 or 20 years, so at least the political biases of 30+ years ago, (like Clarence Thomas, 30 years -- or for that matter Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 27 years).

But given the long-standing appointment method, some things still stand out as travesties.  E.g. when Obama nominated Merrick Garland in May '16, the Senate refused to approve on the basis that the nomination ought to be made by the new President to be elected that year.  But when Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett in October '20, the same Republican hypocrites rushed the nomination through, declaring the it was the President's right & duty to make a nomination at any time in his(her) tenure.

[Herman]

I've also read that only about 5% of the public thinks abortion is a top issue.

I wonder where you read that.

abortion-on-demand up until the moment of birth.

admirable restraint on your part. Quite recently I heard some crazy talking about abortion after birth.
None of this is obviously real.

[BasilValentine]

What had happened the summer before? No wonder people were cynical about the sudden reverence for law, order and precedent. Again, when Democrats win it's treason to question the results. When Republicans win it's always an act of theft. That's the kind of quasi-religious, disingenuous political hyper-partisanship that I despise.

More bullshit which you will fail to support. You were asked to provide instances of this assertion before and didn't. You're habitually speaking from an alternative orifice.

[Johnnie Burgess]

More bullshit which you will fail to support. You were asked to provide instances of this assertion before and didn't. You're habitually speaking from an alternative orifice.

Hillary spent 4 years crying about losing to Trump.

[Fëanor]

What do you mean exactly by "independence"? Is Justice Sonia Sotomayor "independent"?

Actually, the lifetime tenure enhances independence of judges. I wouldn't want judges to be mere weathervanes going with this or that ideological drift. But they're going to have political opinions, and I may not agree with them. But just because I disagree with a justice's politics doesn't mean they're not independent. The job of a SC justice is to test the constitutionality of laws, not create them.

Strawman:  I never said the "independence" is defined by a Justice's opinion.  All the Justices have opinions on the Constitution and other issues.  What defines independence in my view is that appointment of Justices is minimally political.  IMHO, it ought to more strongly based on extensive judicial experience and/or high academic achievement is certain aspects of law, and such that the most experienced persons must receive first consideration.

It's true that long tenure is important to assure freedom for outside political persuasion, but 20 years without the possibility of reappointment would be enough.