Satchel

60 years ago today and we find ourselves right back where we started - fighting to preserve hard fought victories:

I don’t find any of what’s happening in our country the least bit funny, and I’m concerned that not enough people are paying attention.

Reduced to its bare essence, P25 is a massive grift.

I heard Michael Steele relate a conversation he recently had with a magalitia member. While basking in the glow of Biden’s failed performance, he shared a little known plan they to execute should Trump win. Plans are in place to add four justices to the SC. Saying that magalitia is feeling froggy is an understatement. And they will act on their plan.

I would caution anyone who thinks replacing Biden gives the Dems a better chance at victory across the board than that which currently exists, to tap the brakes. And overlooking VP Harris would simply de-energize the party’s most faithful voting bloc and all but ensure defeat. That’s just real talk. We have to think this through without be so reflexively emotional.

When the Dems win in November it will be with a mandate to rein in the Leo Court. I can see an all out push to I enlarge the court, even among those who don’t usually have a stomach for this kind of thing.

The Leo Court also said the POTUS’ potentially criminal motive could not be considered when determining legality.

I agree with Alexander Hamilton who wanted the POTUS to be subject to criminal penalty and not immune from it because he believed it would be the one thing that distinguished the POTUS from being a king.

Everybody knows that Biden will not test the SC’s law, but the GOP damn sure will.

Today’s ruling was the Leo court’s big FU to everyone who is not MAGA.

Maybe can ask not to be deloused so as to keep his single cell.

Amy Coney Barrett Rips Supreme Court’s Absurd January 6 Ruling Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke ranks with the conservative majority on the Supreme Court Friday, leveraging strong words against her colleagues for their interpretation of Fischer v. United States. After the court ruled 6–3 that the Justice Department overstepped in charging hundreds of January 6 rioters with obstruction, the Trump-appointed conservative judge used her dissenting opinion to tear apart the decision that would narrow all future obstruction charges, including potentially Trump’s. https://mail.yahoo.com/m/folders/1/messages/AK1Jz8Nqn-JUZoDOLgHckNii_fk?.src=ym&reason=mobile Noting that the court didn’t dispute the details of the case—namely that Congress’s joint session was an “official proceeding,” that the rioters delayed the proceeding, and that Joseph Fischer’s trespassing and brush-up with law enforcement during the ordeal was “part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results”—Barrett questioned why the court would question the “open and shut” obstruction case. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said,” she wrote, continuing to explain that the legal code for charging Fischer was a “very broad provision” and that, “admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) “But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway,” Barrett wrote. “The Court, abandoning that approach, does textual backflips to find some way—any way—to narrow the reach of subsection (c)(2),” referring to part of the statute used to charge Fischer for his actions on January 6. In doing so, the court “failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches” to punish illegal conduct that occurred on January 6, according to Barrett.

And for the record, Anita Hill was telling the truth.

No other help is coming.

If we don’t do something, it will only get worse: At the Texas GOP,party convention, the state party changed its platform to call for a new requirement that candidates for statewide office must also win a majority of votes in a majority of Texas’ 254 counties to win office, a model similar to that of the U.S. Electoral College. Under the proposal, the 4.7 million residents of Harris County would have the same voting power as the 64 residents of Loving County.

That’s what Leonard Leo wants you to focus on and be frozen by fear of what your opponents may do in response to your being active. Leo will only need to replace Sotomayor, Alieto and Thomas and the cons will be set for the next 25 years.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure representation for the minority that included reasons that were both honorable and dishonorable. Today, it is reasonable to question if those protections don’t work to the express disadvantage of the majority. There’s a reason Republicans in Texas want to make it harder for popular ideas among its citizenry to flourish. They, along with the SC’s majority don’t give a rats ass about how their power grabs look to those who oppose them. It’s important to note that this POV seems to be working for them.

What we are experiencing now won’t stop until we make significant structural changes to the imbalance of power in our country. We can’t win playing by a set of rules and norms that nobody cares about but us.

I’m right there with you, although I still think Democrats will prevail in November. I will say if there was any doubt that the SC majority is being cynically, brazenly and intentionally political, consider how they’ve decided to release their decision on the immunity case. Thirteen justices for thirteen circuits. Make it happen.

Not long. Right wingism is all the rage.

People need to learn the lesson of the loaves. Hillary doesn’t look that bad today.

Had Hillary won, the SC would be 7-2 or 6-3 Democratic appointees. None of what we see happening now would be possible.

Obama couldn’t get his appointments through until Harry Reid changed the cloture rule.

What’s happens to students who flunk Bible? Will their eyes be plucked out?