Is the U.S. Supreme Court compromised?

I have been wondering this especially in the case of Justice Roberts. Big tech companies can easily find dirt on theses individuals or their families. I also can not help think the Supreme Court has had “persuasion” techniques used by powerful liberals. After they refused to hear any cases concerning the fraud in last years election, it sure makes me wonder. I’ll even suspect this more if the court rules in favor of the gun control people in the New York Second Amendment case coming this fall.

That's quite the conspiracy theory.

It's the men in black. They found out his dog is an alien.

certainly not PROVEN; but if you want to discuss...

look up Roberts' questions during ObamaCare's hearing and compare those with his tortured, UnConstitutional (on it's face) "logic" declaring it to be a "tax"...keeping in mind that tax legislation has to be introduced via the House, not the Senate.

yeah, the Deep State got him.

John Roberts was appointed by bush, who wasn't really a conservative, so Roberts was suspect from the start.

Bush was a pretty good president overall, and he did an awesome job handling 9/11. But the Patriot act, endless war against an endless enemy, and gobs and gobs of spending aren't the mark of a conservative. Therefore any judge he nominated should be suspect.

I don't think that's far from the truth. In more ways than one...

Probably always had the fence in his crotch.

I despise bizarre conspiracy theories. Saying "the deep state got dirt on Roberts" is one of them. Here's an alternate bizarre conspiracy theory......Roberts was always a liberal. Before he was on the supreme court, the conservatives had dirt on him, (that hes a flaming homosexual and was cheating on his wife with two dudes) and made him vote conservative. Bush had no clue about any of this, and so appointed h to the supreme court. Once on the supreme court, Roberts was part of a special guild, and was allowed two free assassinations, complete with identity destruction of the person assassinated. He chose to have assasinated his gay lovers, and their identities were destroyed. Now he's free to vote as he pleases.

The above scenario is just as likely, and has just as much evidence (none) as the conspiracy theory that the deep state is blackmailing him now.

not a big conspiracy theorist, myself.

have you looked up the SCOTUS arguments I referenced for yourself?

Goose,
The sooner you learn that there is in fact a "deep state" , the sooner you understand politics and why certain things happen.

You can look this up......Washington D.C. which is inhabited by thousands and thousands of career ABC agency employees votes between 90-95% democrat.
When Reagan won all 50 states in a landslide, he lost D.C by a large amount. I can't remember without looking, but I think 80% went democrats when the whole country went republican.

many people have been convicted in a court of law for "conspiracy". so, in fact...it exists.

is it proven here? certainly not.

but the difference between his questions in arguments versus his rendered opinion is startling.

This^^^

All the employees of all the alphabet agencies aren't going to vote for smaller government and potentially lose not just a job, but a lucrative benefits/retirement package. They don't care that it costs the taxpayers billions upon billions, they're getting theirs. The rest of us can eat cake.

Government's main concern is growing more government. And they'll print money out of thin air to do it.

That's your swamp/deep state.

Mike

Robert's is compromised and Lin Wood has a sworn affidavit by a whistle blower that can testify to Roberts having spent a little too much time at Epstein Island, and from that, you can surmise that the deep state has him by the nads.

Any one that doesnt believe that the deep state is real, is lost, sheeple type person with their head in the sand.

Is there anything else you all would like to know ?

Yes, it is compromised but not in the sense of extortion. Compromised in the sense of career jurists and the selection process.
Take note of the affiliations of these justices at ALL levels of the federal bench, you'll see one main association of the right leaning justices, The Federalist Society.
While I'm not ascribing ulterior motive and I actually agree with in their claimed beliefs I do question one group having such a strong influence upon the careers and career paths of so many jurists.

Our federal institutions, at least the two elected ones, were never intended to function as permanent status quo institutions. Change was expected to occur with each passing election and change of administration. The judiciary was set up with lifetime appointment to allow it to be held separate from the expectations of change in the other two branches. Yet somehow we now have a permanent bureaucratic class immune from the vagaries of elections and the three true branches have bent their will to the unelected.

I'm well aware of and believe in the swamp/deep state/ beurocracy nightmsre that I'd DC. That doesn't prove that anyone has "dirt" on Roberts.

Both my theory about Roberts being a liberal homosexual and Roberts being blackmailed have the same amount of evidence.....none.

If Roberts defended himself against Lin Wood's allegations, which he wont, because then evidence would surely come out, I believe you would see that extortion is in play, IMO

Roberts was cuddling his 2 boyfriend's that I mentioned on Epsteins island.

You can see a copy of the whistle blower affidavit on Lin Wood's channel on telegram, and the whole world can see it if they want.

Ive had no doubt it's true since Roberts REWROTE obama care to make it legal! I knew then someone had dirt on him.

I feel the court may not be compromised but it sure is now directed strongly to each political spectrum depending upon who is vetting and who is appointing and approving. There is no attempt to have the court be the non political branch of government be that nine members as now, fewer as before or enlarged as some have talked about recently. In the past many times being appointed to the court was an indication that even politicians were believing the appointee would be reviewing cases from an open perspective, in todays world appointees don't get considered unless they have made politically based or biased opinions.

Bryce

He's the one who went with the libs on not hearing our voting change here.

I agree although I think the center is the Federal Reserve. Do away with a fiat currency and many of the ills of today fade away.

One only has to track the the $ flowing out of Washington DC to see the that corruption and all the dishonest practices that go with it are happening on a large scale. Almost no accountability for anything they do as long as they give the voters a small piece of the $. I would say it could be very possible a SC Justice could be in someone's pocket. To think its a " conspiracy theory " that it is a possibility in today's world seems a little out of touch with reality. Way too much $ flowing around with those in power for it to be on the legal side. People are tolerating it because they have become complacent with the easy lifestyle we've become accustom to, by the time we figure it out the ship will have already set sail. Our government is financially out of control and it is not for the benefit of the average American. History of other great society's will validate what is taking place here and now. Desperate people will trade freedoms for promises. They just need to make enough people desperate enough and paint the rest as the reason for the cause of the majorities problems therefore making them the enemy in the eyes of the masses. The writing is on the wall throughout history. When the government of a Republic is not being run by the people but instead the people are being run by the government, the foundation of the republic has been compromised.

......Epstein island? would that be enough cause for change? lol

Nicely said Yes Sir.

Maybe the Federal Reserve and the Masons have a picture of Roberts out on the grassy knoll. The fact he was only 8 shouldn't matter. Seems crazy only draws more crazy.

I never knew Roberts was a homo.

You guys are too much. Conspiracies everywhere.

Jim

“Conspiracy” haha. The media loves that word so they never have to disprove anything anymore. It’s the only way you dems can argue. No facts/logic or common sense just emotions and sound bites

Roberts was listed on Epstein's flight log so you know he is being blackmailed.

Trump colluded with Russia but dare question a SC judge and it's a consipiracy.

Sad the citizens of this country are brain dead and won't wake up before it's too late.

The SCOTUS is indeed compromised and for some sick and twisted reason always leans towards the left on key issues. It's due to bribes I imagine. Anybody that says otherwise isn't paying attention. BTW, the only colluding Trump did with Russia was trying to shed some light of Biden's bribing Ukraine not to investigate his crackhead son and both their shady dealings.

Trump won the election, but had to fake loosing in order for certain things to come to fruition. But don't worry, he was secretly sworn in and is actually the president. Biden, pelosi, and Schumer are actually either dead it in prison, and what you see on t.v. is a hologram. Trump is coming back in August,and Hillary, Obama, Roberts, and Comey will be in prison, the child sex ring will be exposed, and trump will be allowed a 3rd term. Kennedy will explain everything.


This is the gist of all the conspiracy theories I've heard.

I don't know if Roberts is compromised. It's possible that he is just another bad federal judge willing to ignore the constitution to let illegal things happen if he likes them.

But, I certainly believe that there are bad actors in the three letter agencies who are in the business of influencing governments - hopefully only the governments that threaten us; but why not our government if it's self preservation?

I do think Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi intentionally threatened SCOTUS when they suggested packing the court. The message to the new conservative judges was: "Do anything too conservative and I'll make sure your vote never matters on any issue again."

Sounds logical.

I thought that was a made up word from the CIA, lol

Keep in mind Soros has given away billions.......what isn't clear is who he gave it to. Money talks and BS is given a free pass.

did I miss your contempt of conspiracy theories when Swallwell, Schumer and Pelosi were smearing the previous President?

or is yours only a one-way contempt?

There is a lot of odd things going on if you investigate it. Who knows what it means but the fact they are happening is not fake. Biden has yet to fly under the call sign airforce 1 which every other president has. Kamala has flown under air force 2. You see the edited video where his hand glitches across the mic? Or the pic of him and Jill with the Carters?


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/carters-and-bidens-1536x1026.jpg


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...people-spooked-chopped-head-hand-tricks/

Conspiracy when it goes against his view put when it stands to benefit his views then it must be looked into. Double standard.

I bet more evidence pointing to possible organized election fraud then Trumps Russian collusion.

I think folks would be amazed if they knew how many people were in the pockets of a few.....

Don’t be Silliy, of course they are!
So is Biden

1. Federal courts (including the Supreme Court) follow procedure in hearing and deciding cases. The Supreme Court won't hear a case just because the executive or legislative branch is throwing a tantrum. This is good.
2. Federal courts (including the Supreme Court) decide cases based on evidence. YouTube videos, clickbait articles and 4Chan are not evidence. This is good.
3. All I heard for years was the "conservative" appointees to the Supreme Court will be the last line of defense for decades. They are not populist politicians. Measured, rationale jurists that decide cases on the law, and most importantly the Constitution, is good--even if some of you don't agree with the outcome..

I know a thing or two about Courts. If you put too much faith in the judiciary you are going to be disappointed at least some of the time.

Now if they jerk around with the 2A, I'll pile on with you guys....

if you can honestly look at the line of questioning Roberts hit the ObamaCare lawyers with, and compare that with his opinion on same; and NOT conclude that something is vastly "wrong"...

Based on the Democrats desire to have more appointees of their choice setting at the Supreme Court I don't believe they feel the same way about them being "measured, rational jurists that decides cases on the law " BC. If they weren't political why such a fuss to have more Democratic appointed judges there than Republican appointed judges.Stacking the court as the dems are considering is an action that is unethical even among some of the left leaning law experts.

Different issue. The Left shouldn't expand the number of Justices. Awful idea.

I was responding to the comments on the current Court being compromised.

It would appear that I am not the only one who uses the term "Chief Judas ".

I don't really care how Roberts ruled on that issue. I care how he decides 1A, 2A and 4A cases.

I am too busy with work, my farm and family to get as outraged as you do on as many topics as you do.

You should be commended I guess for the odd dedication.

yeah, you're right...

most of the Constitution's Freedoms are irrelevant anyway.

I'm in favor of repealing the 17th and a repeal/reworded of the 14th.

A lot of what was called conspiracy theories over the last decade have been shown to be true. I know my eyes have been opened.

I sense sarcasm.

Does a bear dump in the woods?

I'm definitely all in on the 17th amendment issue.
It would be great to have senators representing Wisconsin instead of representing Madison and Milwaukee.

One of the characteristic of conspiracy theories is that their proponents will never change their minds no matter how much evidence refutes the theory.

Jim

How much evidence do proponents of statist/collectivist governments need to convince them that it is a bad idea?
Wasn't the last half of the 20th century enough?

James,
Do you always wait until all the facts are reported before you call people conspiracy theorists? Especially when Trump is the target.

Didn't see you trot out much, ok any, evidence on this thread before you played the CT card. Can you provide evidence Robert was not on Epsteins Island? If he was I would find it foolish not to think his integrity isn't compromised.

I don't know whether he was on Epstein's island, and don't care if he was, so long as he wasn't paying for sex or doing it with minors.

If you're going to claim that he was doing those things, you should have to come forward with proof.

Jim

Trump? I thought we were talking about Roberts and the Supreme Court.

Your only support for claiming the SC is corrupt is your dissatisfaction with some of their decisions. That shows you don't have much of an idea how courts work, or how to evaluate them.

Go re-read Blaine County's post.

Jim

There is not always proof something happened. Look at the theory of evolution.

Since every supreme court judge is human, since every human has done things they are not especially proud of, it stands to reason that at least some of them MIGHT be open to blackmail. In todays world it stands to reason that J Edgar Hoover was not the only person to compile files on prominent politicians and judges. That the collection of information stopped upon his death.

To say there is no proof is good enough to keep charges from being filed but it doesn't mean we ought to put blinders on.

You dont need to be a brilliant legal scholar to read the constitution and see how twisted up some pretty simple concepts have become.

Questions
Since C. J. John Roberts appoints and supervises the judges on the FISA court, why was he never questioned about the abuse during the warrants in the Mueller probe?
Why did the FISA court repeat renewals of the warrant after the scam was public knowledge and even the New York Times reported it was not true?
Why didn’t the FISA court render a reprimand to the DOJ when it became obvious that a fraud on the court had occurred?
I think the dimmest among us must realize that something is wrong with our Supreme Court.

just like Swalwell, Pelosi and Schumer came through with proof on the Trump allegations.

come to think of it, I must have missed your demand for proof when that was going on...

Which ones?

What is government spying on civilians?

How dirty the government really is, UFO'S,

Consider this:

Deep state government has ai or close to ai supercomputers that are plugged into everything....all social media, news media, governments, forums, just every piece of info/thoughts that are out there worldwide...that ai then predicts future events and what can happen or what can be done without there being mass unrest because of what was done.....the ai might come from alien technology. ai = artificial intelligence.

They ask it "if we do this, what will happen"?

Here NPR admits tech companies influenced the election, everything has been compromised.

(Fox) "Whether or not Facebook decides to reinstate former President Trump’s account in the coming months will likely have major consequences for Trump's political power and possible future campaign," NPR wrote on Twitter.

"Being on Facebook is crucial for modern-day political campaigns," NPR explains in the accompanying story. A Big Tech blackout would mean a drop in fundraising and "a significant revenue valve would be shut off for Trump, imperiling a 2024 presidential bid, if he decides to run again." This could also trickle down to negatively affect the midterm candidates he plans to endorse, they write.

You're giving "the dimmest" way way too much credit.

Like said above, the FISA court doing nothing when proven they were lied to is more than enough evidence that the courts in D.C. are as corrupt as can be. (Probably in on it.)

So, to consider the question 'is the scotus compromised' you may need to look at society as a whole and what the current trends are.....somehow/somewhere along the line it became OK to not only let tens of thousands of illegals enter the country but it is now Ok to totally support them with government funds....that is just one of the things going on, there are many, many more...ballots (tens of thousands, maybe millions) with no ID at all counted in the last election......a law to require ID to vote is now considered un American....the flag is racist and not fashionable (a sign of repression)....etc.

Consider all the things going on and it is very possible that scotus and much, much more is compromised. There may be no stopping the outrageous behavior which is not accepted/commonplace.

Dim,,,that rhymes with Jim.

Black mailed would be more like it !

I think Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are solid. Too soon to tell about Barrett and Kavanaugh. We know what Roberts is. I've read Roberts isn't content just being a Chief Justice, he wants to carve out a name for himself. I can't imagine why someone would want accolades from the left, they're lunatics.

How do you keep all of these conspiracies straight?

The whole federal government is corrupt and run by the Deep State.

The election was stolen by mass conspiracy of poll workers, ballot counters, and state officials.

And now the Supreme Court is compromised! And here I was told we should be grateful to Trump for his Supreme Court appointments.

If I were some of you guys, I couldn't sleep at night.

Jim

Says the guy that's up all night..

Pretty much. Glad to see you've seen the light.

(fox)
Melinda Gates was supposedly concerned with her soon-to-be ex-husband Bill Gates’ relationship with disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the years leading up to their high-profile divorce last week, according to a Sunday report.

Nary a word about Ghislaine Maxwell. Amazing how they can keep certain things under wraps when they set their minds to it. Is she still alive?

she is in jail.

She mysteriously got beat up in her cell which is solitary confinement.
Epstein didn't kill himself

Regarding the scotus being compromised, think about it, these 3 Trump appointees all know all to well if they favor something Trump is an advocate for then the deep state and media will drag these judges through the streets. Just look at how nasty they got during the confirmation.

They are just confused as to what constitution they should uphold.

You sure read alot into the two posts I made Matlock! LOL Maybe you should go back and re-read them!!!!

Nailed it.

And not too bright, easily manipulated sheep like voters....Meet a mirror soon...... Too bad Jim cannot see this, but the rest can. Lol Sometimes a one way conversation is best. I like this!!

Its pretty simple in my mind. Chinese agents managed to corrupt the election process in a few key cities. If any justices are susceptible to blackmail its a sure bet its happening. Armed citizens will be a problem when the economy is collapsed.

We will know soon enough when the NY pistol shooters get their day in court.

Evidence of Chinese agents?

The Justice Department pursued the Russian agents who worked to swing the 2016 election, and indicted about a dozen. Have these Chinese agents been caught and indicted?

And are you saying you consider the SC corrupted if they don't rule in favor of NY shooters?

I think gun-owners may lose that case. None of those justices are exactly good old country boys and girls.

Jim

Shall not be infringed. What could be simpler or plainer James? They will either do their job and protect our rights or they wont. If they dont what other explanation is there except corruption?

Chinese agents is my SUSPICIAN. Nothing else makes sense. Look at AZ. Staunchly in favor of the right to be armed. Same with GA. Yet we are supposed to believe they voted against that????????? You are well aware of the evidence James. If I had proof I would have been at the capital.

Something aint right. Power shut off in TX in a cold snap. Pipeline that supplies fuel to half the country suddenly shut down. ATF creating new law by reinterpreting the law. Good grief. Pull your head out of the mud. Look around.

there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You guys need to cut James some slack and be patient, as much as he loves evidence I'm sure he'll provide more than enough to support all his claims here any minute

following the 2012 election, Harry Reid was [finally!] asked about his allegations (lies) regarding Romney and his taxes; he admitted they weren't true.

but then added with a wry smile: "but it doesn't matter now, does it?"

I searched for James' outrage at the lack of proof in October 2012, but can't seem to find it.

James, I follow Lin Wood, and Reply to Lin Wood on Telegram, and if you look back a week or two, you'll see his alleged proof against Roberts, should Roberts object. It's out there.

Not a conspiracy theory, lol

“This election was a fraud. Donald Trump won I believe a 70% plus landslide election in the nation. He probably won over 400 electoral votes,”

Lin Wood

Biden won 125 Electoral votes in States he won by 20% or more
Biden won 182 Electoral votes in States he won by 15% or more
Biden won 209 Electoral votes in States he won by 10% or more

The Polls ( asking likely voters who they will vote for ) before the election showed Biden winning these States by approximately these margins.

How is it possible Trump won any of them?

Lin Wood knows what it takes to prove a case--evidence.

If he had the evidence, he knows also know where to try a case--at the courthouse.

He wants attention and has turned nutty just like the My Pillow crackhead.

Some of y'all are smarter than this.

Wasn't forgotten by most Pennsylvanians!
Several important states did the same thing, but move along, nothing to see here.

"Kathy Boockvar will leave office February 5 following three years at the department, Governor Wolf said in a press release.

Pennsylvania’s constitution requires that proposed amendments must pass the state legislature two times and the Secretary of State’s office must put the proposed changes in two newspapers in all 67 counties ahead of each assembly vote – Boockvar failed to do this in a constitutional amendment unrelated to the 2020 election.

According to reports, Boockvar bungled the handling of a constitutional amendment related to sexual abuse victims and their ability to sue alleged abusers.



“I’ve always believed that accountability and leadership must be a cornerstone of public service. While I only became aware of the mistake last week, and immediately took steps to alert the administration to the error, I accept the responsibility on behalf of the department,” Boockvar said."

From your link.

How accurate were the reported polls the previous presidential election compared to the actual vote? If I remember correctly the ones the left leaning news agencies were reporting ended up missing by a fair amount therefore compromising your point of the same polls validating the more recent election results.

As for the state polls in 2016, 45 states and the District of Columbia went exactly where they were expected to go. Florida and North Carolina were considered toss-ups, along with Maine's and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional Districts. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were the only real surprises, as polls showed Clinton ahead in each. Put simply, the polls weren’t nearly as far off as many people continue to think they were.

There was a unprecedented conspiracy to get Trump out of the white house, that's for sure. Social media, news media, polls and the list goes on to include local election officials and state administrations.....laws were broken and nothing was done about that, now it is deemed un-american to have to show id to vote...so this will be worse next time around....we will have all liberal federal government for quite a while going ahead from now...

Justice Thomas had it right.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/citi...ence-thomas-dissents-in-pa-election-case

Now if every state that had violations were looked at, the election would be changed.
Seems to be the fallback answer....well this one instance wouldn't change the election. No poop Shirlock, but as a whole they did!

Polls

I can say this and its very honest....in all my days on this earth, its never come close to the amount of political signs in yards as there were this year. And, it had to be close to a 100-1 ratio for one person. Most are still there!

"Pennsylvania democrat Secretary of State says she is sorry for changing election laws illegally. She apologized and resigned. "

I'm still looking for this apology.

" Chris Gavaler

Gavaler is assistant professor of English at Washington and Lee.

I’ve heard it so many times from both Democrats and Republicans that it has the seeming credibility of encyclopedic knowledge: 2016 was an upset that no poll saw coming. Everyone knows that. It’s established fact.

Except it’s not true. Look at the actual numbers. According to the conglomerate polls at Real Clear Politics, the day before the election Clinton was up 3% with a margin of error of 3%. No, she didn’t therefore “technically” win. She actually won. By 2%. That’s the popular vote, what the polls were polling. They predicted 3%, she hit 2%, and with a 3% margin of error, that’s not getting it wrong. That’s a bullseye.

Okay, but, the argument goes, they still blew it because they weren’t looking at the Electoral College. They said Clinton would win there. Except they didn’t. Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona. For those to be “upsets,” the polls must have predicted Clinton. That was true only in Wisconsin. The rest were toss-ups because neither candidate was polling outside the margin of error. Going into the election, the polls said Clinton had only 203 safe electors, with 171 in the toss-up range."

Dirt, a pollster isn't worth his salt if they don't understand a dem will win the vote. Cali. and N. Y. Give them a 5-8 million head start.

What they are trying to hide is they were giving state by state polls and had Hitler winning them all. Especially the so called firewall states that Trump won but wasn't suppose to.
Post all those links ya want, it isn't hard to remember what they were saying 5 years ago.

And!
Its getting us offtrack!

https://conservativebrief.com/supre...utm_medium=The%20Conservative%20Standard

I am glad they stood up for the first amendment. i am hoping the same happens for the 2nd

Exactly why I posted the link !

It seems to me that Roberts changed when Scalia passed away. Almost as though he was free of all rational constraints at that point.

It sure looks like Roberts has been compromised. I have a feeling he is also going to vote against our second amendment rights in the New York case. May be a 5-4 vote in favor of the antis.

Bow hunter there's also his low tv and web stream ratings for his congressional address. And he has about 1/4 the FB followers that Trump had. If he truly got 80m votes those numbers would be much higher

516 electoral votes for Biden?????????????????????????????? Where did you come up with that?

I remember less than a year ago when some here were posting what a great Supreme Court we have, now that Trump appointed three solid conservative justices.

I posted back then that they weren't going to like some of the decisions that will come out of their conservative Court. I said that with confidence because I'm sure that conservatism is not synonymous with Trumpism. Evidence? See the current move against Liz Cheney--a conservative if there ever was one--and the Trump worshippers in Congress.

As for calling a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory, I think a cow should be called a cow. "Conspiracy theory" has a specific meaning--look it up--and I'm going to say it when it fits, even if it causes snowflakes to melt down.

If my tone comes across as harsh, I'm sorry it strikes you that way. I'm losing patience with baseless accusations and people who think Trump's posts are evidence.

Slinging accusations of fraud, bribery, is irresponsible and does our country harm, as the more gullible come to believe them.

Jim

Now ya know how we feel about you.

Show us where you said that JIMMY.I say your full of it.

Slinging poo at the sitting POTUS was AOK with dipstick jimmy when Trump was in the white house....he preaches a crock of do-do....what a putz.

Keep fighting the fight James I think you have about got us convinced

Don't make the mistake of thinking the judicial system has anything to do with truth. It is concerned with law. The two things are not always the same, unfortunately.

They are not always the same unfortunately, but I your statement "[d]on't make the mistake of thinking the judicial system has anything to do with truth" isn't right either. The rules of evidence, procedure and appeals are designed to get to the truth. It does not always happen--but the goal is the truth.

Regardless and notwithstanding the defects, our judicial system is better than the current alternative of trying cases in the public sphere by the media, YouTube and Facebook.

Thanks for pointing out the distinction !

Man I git so excited thinkin that I just found a thread with 8 pages worth of comments but then I open it up and figure out it's mostly lawyers explaining to us that we are not actually smart enough to make up our own minds and need them to interpret everything for us.


Gag, I might as well waste electricity and turn on CNN

Imagine how awful it would be if there were more than two.

It's hard for us to turn it off. And I just had a few posts in the 8 pages!

Here's an article from the WSJ today by the attorney who argued both Heller and McDonald at SCOTUS. I find it disconcerting at the least.



Congressional Democrats’ Court-Picking (Not Packing) Scheme
Their election bill tries to game the judiciary by routing all legal challenges to the District of Columbia.
By Alan Gura
May 10, 2021 6:15 pm ET



Congress probably won’t pack the Supreme Court. But court picking poses a real threat to Americans’ rights.

Court picking is when Congress uses its authority over federal-court jurisdiction to stuff politically sensitive cases from throughout the country into one court that leans its way, to be buried there for as long as possible. Court-picking’s evil genius is its stealth. Americans would notice four new justices, but not changes to technocratic statutes that excite only civil-procedure professors. Despite featuring in Congress’s most radioactive bill—the so-called For the People Act, or H.R.1, which would transform elections and limit Americans’ rights to speak about them—court-picking has escaped notice.

It shouldn’t. H.R.1’s court-picking provision would shut courthouse doors throughout the country, attempt to game the outcome in critical cases, deny the Supreme Court the benefit of the federal judiciary’s broad and diverse perspectives, and repeal measures that expedite important lawsuits questioning government power.


In one neat court-picking trick, the bill would strip 93 of 94 local federal district courts, and 11 of the 12 regional appellate courts that review their decisions, of their power to hear First Amendment challenges to Congress’s regulation of political speech. All such claims—by Alaskans, Floridians or anyone in between—would be confined to the District of Columbia. Appeals would be heard only in the D.C. Circuit—the court over which Senate Democrats exercised the “nuclear option” in 2013, ramming through four judges who shifted its ideological balance. Imagine if Republicans had passed a voting-rights bill that forced Californians wishing to challenge it to sue in Louisiana, and appeal to some of the country’s most conservative judges.


Some complex and discrete legal fields are best assigned to specialized courts. The D.C. Circuit has some unique authority to review administrative cases involving federal agencies, and Congress created the Federal Circuit in 1982 to hear appeals in patent cases nationwide. But all federal judges should be conversant in the Constitution, and Washington-based judges are no better than those elsewhere at interpreting the First Amendment.

While historical quirks once made Washington the only place where Americans could sue to stop federal violations of their rights, Congress ended that restriction in 1962. The Senate Judiciary Committee called the limit “an unfair imposition upon citizens who seek no more than lawful treatment from their Government” and noted that it caused substantial delays as cases from far and wide clogged the D.C. District Court. Court-picking Washington for all federal political-speech claims is a remarkable step backward.

Ensuring Americans’ right to access local courts isn’t good only for litigants. It’s also good for the law. The Supreme Court prefers to let the law “percolate” among the various courts before deciding who’s right. Stuffing all the most important cases into the D.C. courts deprives the justices of the benefit of the diverse perspectives held by federal judges from all 50 states.

The Supreme Court would eventually have a chance to review the cases that lawmakers direct to Washington. But the court-pickers try to stretch out “eventually” in the hope of running as many elections as possible under their new, constitutionally dubious rules.

Understanding that election speech cases are time-sensitive, Congress designed a system in 1974 to speed them along. Ordinary federal cases can drag on for years, decided up to three times (by a district judge, a three-judge appellate panel and an en banc hearing by a larger appellate panel or the full court) before reaching the justices. But when voters file election speech cases, the district judge only gathers facts and, if the issues are significant, certifies the matter for an en banc decision by the appellate court. That means the case is decided only once before going to the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs challenging the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law have another one-stop option on their way to the Supreme Court: a panel of three D.C. judges.

The speech-control bill would repeal these fast-track rules, leaving only a note advising courts that they have a “duty” to “advance” and “expedite” campaign speech cases “to the greatest possible extent.” But federal law already instructs judges that good cause exists to expedite urgent constitutional claims. And time often appears differently to judges and litigants. In 2013 the D.C. Circuit refused to expedite an important Second Amendment case that had languished undecided for more than four years because the delay wasn’t “so egregious or unreasonable” to merit relief. (The challengers, whom I represented, won seven months later.)

Congress knew what it was doing when it streamlined election speech cases. And the court-pickers know what they’re doing by proposing to repeal these measures. The only value of the court-picking gambit is that it exposes the cynicism of would-be speech regulators, who fear exposing their schemes to rapid constitutional scrutiny by the nation’s federal courts.

Mr. Gura is the vice president for litigation at the Institute for Free Speech.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/congre...scheme-11620684937?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-election-bill-hr1-dark-money-billionaire

waiting for Blaine County and Jim's response to white 17's post...

not holding my breath on Jim's though. any time there's an inconvenient truth that he doesn't want to hear, it goes in his "ignore or blame-shift" file.

Hahahaha Where are those indicted Russians who "tampered" in the 2016 election....(as if that's never happened before)...and James you left out the part where NO Americans were found to have helped these Russians. Hahahaha This was an embarrassment for Mueller....a total embarrassment!

You're not writing big enough checks.

Stay tuned.

I thought the bolded passage was the most significant. We need lawyers arguing and Federal Judges in still relatively normal places, like Oklahoma for example, deciding cases of constitutional importance. A conservative Federal Judge in Oklahoma, or somewhere similar, is one of the best chances we have for a good decision and a solid record that positions a case correctly for its way through the Appellate Courts.

But, I've said this before--don't mistake a conservative Federal Judge for someone you would like to take on the trap line--even the ones sitting here. That's why we have to be tactical and keep the other two branches of government too. It improves our odds.

Ken, good article. He's convinced me that HR 1 is a terrible idea.

Jim

I'm not the only gunowner with an obligation to help support those who fight for our rights. How big are your checks?

Jim

Ok, ignoring the check writing spat. But to answer your question to trapdog, Jim. Yes, any court that would rule against the constitution is corrupt. The 2nd amendment is written in plain English a second grader could understand.

The only one who should be embarrassed is you. The dozen Russian agents are hiding out beyond US judicial process in Russia. If they ever set foot on US ground again, they'll be subject to arrest and prosecution.

In fact, Mueller indicted 34 individuals, twelve of whom were Russian agents, and most of the rest being Americans, like Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489. Stone was indicted for tampering with a witness about collusion with the Russians' attempt to influence the election. Some of the president's men were pardoned by Trump on his way out of office, probably to thank them for their silence.

You'd better take that laugh somewhere else. It rings hollow here.

Jim

Copied for lawyer types who haven't wrote enough checks to fix this crap yet

Mueller, lol.

2 years, team of anti lawyers and over 35,000,000 dollars and no collusion even after several attempts by the FBI to set them up and lying to the FISA court.
Yea, he's a shining example.

Agree.