Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, Bureaufare, and the Law of War  (Read 73185 times)



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
legal weasels
« Reply #302 on: July 18, 2023, 08:29:34 AM »
or shysters

no end -   

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/18/trump-says-special-counsel-told-him-hes-a-target-in-jan-6-probe.html

 :roll:

Why do you call someone a weasel?
Definitions of the word 'weasel' that imply deception and irresponsibility include: the noun form, referring to a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person; the verb form, meaning to manipulate shiftily; and the phrase "to weasel out", meaning "to squeeze one's way out of something" or "to evade responsibility".


Why do you call someone a shyster ?
A shyster is someone who might rip you off or do something unethical in order to get his way.

A used car salesman might tell you a car is a thousand dollars, but when you read the fine print, it turns out you’ll pay a lot more. That salesman is a shyster — someone who lies and deceives for his own benefit. The word comes from the German Scheisser, which is a vulgar term for “worthless person.” Although it contains the word shy, it actually sounds more like heist, which makes sense, since shysters are basically trying to rob you.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
campaign contribution in Wisconsin
« Reply #305 on: October 23, 2023, 10:22:23 PM »
" In the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, Janet C. Protasiewicz, a liberal, defeated conservative attorney Dan Kelly in April for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The record $23 million raised by or on behalf of the Janet for Justice campaign prompted a group of citizen investigators in Wisconsin to look into where all of the money had come from."



https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/the-most-expensive-judicial-race-in-us-history-is-raising-questions-5499794?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-10-23&src_cmp=mb-2023-10-23&utm_medium=email&cta_utm_source=Morningbrief&est=K4dFvJO7wA66asK0YpcHBcUUmXWDCBYirQ38XZPZNQXkmUNpJMbGU7gIzzY%3D

Me :

ironic that a judge who is suposed to be adminstrator of justice was elected at least partly due to election fraud.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WSJ: Feds using deranged tax code theory to go after Hillsdale
« Reply #308 on: December 03, 2023, 07:31:33 AM »

Title IX and the Assault on Hillsdale College
The school gets no federal money, but a lawsuit seeks to rope it in because it’s a tax-exempt nonprofit.
By Tunku Varadarajan
Dec. 1, 2023 5:51 pm ET


Embedded in a civil lawsuit against Hillsdale College is an assault on the fabric of this small, private Christian school founded in 1844. The lawsuit, brought by two undergraduate women who allege that they were raped two years ago by male Hillsdale students of their acquaintance, alleges not only that the college was negligent in handling their complaints, but also that it failed to afford them the protection to which they were entitled under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

In 2011 the Obama administration turned Title IX into a sword in the armory of federal civil-rights law. On pain of losing federal money, including student financial aid, the Education Department compelled schools to adopt rules that deprived those accused of sexual misconduct of basic due-process protections. The Trump administration undid those rules, and the Biden administration is working to reinstate them. The problem with invoking Title IX against Hillsdale, however, is that the college takes no money from the government. “Not a cent,” says its president, Larry P. Arnn, which means that Hillsdale isn’t bound by Title IX.

In their lawsuit, filed on Sept. 25 in federal court, the plaintiffs assert that Hillsdale “does not accept government funding in a misguided and ineffective attempt to avoid its obligations under Title IX.” Mr. Arnn calls that claim “insidious and baseless.” Robert Norton, Hillsdale’s general counsel, says the college’s process for investigating and resolving allegations of sexual assault are “stronger, quicker, and more confidential” than the Education Department’s Title IX standards. He also says the college found the two male students had engaged in “conduct unbecoming,” even though no criminal charges were brought after the accusers filed complaints with the local police.

The lawsuit seeks to impose Title IX’s strictures on Hillsdale, arguing that the college’s tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code “operates as a subsidy, which is a form of federal financial assistance.”

Mr. Arnn sees a darker ideological intent in this claim. “This is about the kind of society some people want us to have,” he says. “The principle that because you have a tax deduction you’re spending government money can’t mean anything other than that all money, in principle, belongs to the government.” This “tax-deduction thing,” as he calls the argument, “would be a massive expansion of government authority in one go. And of course, there are many people who seek that in America.”

Such a ruling would “sweep into the government’s net hundreds of thousands of American institutions that have sought to stay out of it,” Mr. Arnn says. The argument has won favor recently in two district courts, in California and Maryland. The latter case, Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association, has been accepted for interlocutory appeal by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A friend-of-the-court brief filed there by the Napa Institute, a Catholic nonprofit, argues that the ordinary meaning of “federal financial assistance” in Title IX refers to “funding or active support affirmatively provided by the federal government—not to an entity’s tax-exempt status.” Congress couldn’t have intended to alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms, to “hide elephants in molehills,” the brief says, invoking a metaphor Justice Antonin Scalia favored.

Mr. Norton, the general counsel, tells me that Hillsdale will “fight the point vigorously,” but prefers not to expose his argument, at this stage, to the other side. Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, says: “The proposition that nonprofit tax status should subject private institutions to the regulations applied to government grantees would be a radical departure from longstanding tax and legal principles and would put at risk the fundamental independence of America’s private charitable and educational sectors, to say nothing of its religious institutions.”

Treating a private institution as “philanthropic, charitable or not intended for profit can amount to a simple recognition of its structure and purpose,” Mr. Olson continues, “not some sort of seal of approval, let alone subsidy.” Neither Mr. Olson nor Mr. Norton—and certainly not Mr. Arnn—believes the Supreme Court would go along with this evisceration of America’s nonprofits. But until the argument is put to rest, Hillsdale will have to fight this assault on its character.

Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at New York University Law School’s Classical Liberal Institute.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2023, 07:50:35 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #309 on: December 03, 2023, 09:39:21 AM »
" Mr. Arnn sees a darker ideological intent in this claim. “This is about the kind of society some people want us to have,” he says. “The principle that because you have a tax deduction you’re spending government money can’t mean anything other than that all money, in principle, belongs to the government.” This “tax-deduction thing,” as he calls the argument, “would be a massive expansion of government authority in one go. And of course, there are many people who seek that in America.”

Royal oh my God!  :x

has this challenge been made for other institutions because if not then it is clearly political
and assuming that what about that.

left wing shysters - again

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Lawfare targets John Eastman
« Reply #310 on: December 11, 2023, 07:27:52 AM »
https://links.a.keepthehouse2024.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MzgwMzk2NgS2&r=OTI0ODcyMzkyNzUS1&j=MTQwMDEwMDQ3OQS2&mt=1&rt=0

Dear MARC,

My legal team has filed our closing argument brief in the California State Bar trial seeking to have me disbarred as a lawyer. This has been a surreal, exhausting battle to defend my integrity and legal actions from an onslaught of false charges leveled by radical leftwing lawyers working with lawfare groups. Tragically, many of these false charges were repeated nearly word-for-word by State Bar prosecutors and form the basis of the Bar’s prosecution against me.

It took months of preparation by me and my legal team to be ready for this trial, which took up an incredible ten weeks of testimony. My legal team has demolished the State Bar’s claim that there was no evidence of fraud or illegality in the 2020 elections. Our team put on a wide array of credible witnesses that, for the first time, laid bare in a courtroom many of the illegal and fraudulent activities that occurred in critical states such as Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania.

It was a constant battle even to present our witnesses as State Bar prosecutors repeatedly objected to evidence we sought to present. Nonetheless, our team did a magnificent job and made a clear and compelling case that my representation of President Trump had a strong factual basis as well as a compelling legal basis under the law and constitution.

The State Bar Court judge has ninety days to publish her decision and put forth any recommendation on discipline she might seek the Bar to impose. But that ruling won’t be the end of the case. The decision can be appealed through the State Bar judicial process, and then it can go to the California Supreme Court and also possibly to the US Supreme Court for final determination.

Support The John Eastman Legal Defense Fund
The Federalist online news outlet recently published an article noting that I will need to raise $3-3.5 million to contend with the lawfare assault being waged against me. Though I have been blessed with over half a million in donations to my legal defense fund, I have already incurred legal costs of three times that amount. I urgently need your help to move forward with my defense.

⋙ DONATE $50
⋙ DONATE $100
⋙ DONATE $250
⋙ DONATE $500
⋙ DONATE $1,000
⋙ DONATE $1,500
⋙ DONATE $2,500
As excruciating as the State Bar trial has been, this assault on my good name is just one of several high-profile lawfare attacks I am dealing with. In Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis has asked the criminal court to begin the trial against me, President Trump and others in early August 2024. She estimates that the trial will last 4-5 months. Note the timing of her prosecution seeking as it does to keep President Trump tied up in a courtroom through the November presidential election and forcing defendants like me to raise unfathomable resources to defend myself for the next year +.

The Federalist article made the disturbing but entirely factual observation that “John Eastman has been harassed unceasingly since assisting Trump in 2020 constitutional litigation.” That is the very purpose of lawfare. The radicals desire to make the process so painful and expensive, and the punishment they seek to exact so steep, that no conservative lawyer will ever again challenge the radical left.

The Federalist reported my reaction to this lawfare assault: “The whole premise here is: ‘The government has spoken and you continue to say otherwise. Therefore you must be lying.'”

Support The John Eastman Legal Defense Fund
As difficult as these past months have been, it’s clear to me that what my family and I have endured thus far because I had the courage to assist President Trump bring lawful, substantive allegations of election illegality before courts and appropriate elections officials pales in comparison to what we still face.

If the State Bar judge rules against me and recommends that I be disbarred, I have the right to appeal but my law license will be suspended in the process. This will cripple my ability to earn a living doing what I have loved and excelled at for decades.

Meanwhile, I face a highly-partisan prosecutor in Georgia who is determined to put me in prison for years to come. That’s on top of being named an unindicted co-conspirator in federal prosecutor Jack Smith’s case in Washington against President Trump. And all the while the US Supreme Court is being asked to disbar me from practicing law in federal courts.

They are trying to completely destroy me.

I am categorically innocent of all the charges against me and I am doing everything in my power to defend myself and expose the truth. But an unfortunate component of exposing the truth against a government that has spoken, is that individual power is limited by the sheer size and overwhelming cost of the attacks that have been mobilized against me.

I’m $1 million in the hole already on top of what my legal defense fund has covered, and I need to raise an additional $1 million by February to defend myself in the Georgia prosecution.

My wife and I have worked hard all our lives to earn a middle-class living for our family. We have no way to handle the $3 million+ in legal expenses that this lawfare assault will cost. We’re completely dependent on the generosity of people of good will like you to help.

During this pivotal month of December, I ask you to please make a generous donation to my legal defense fund so that I might erase the deficit that now exists and be in a position to continue my aggressive legal defense as we move into 2024.

If at all possible, please consider making a pledge to contribute an amount of your choosing on a monthly basis. With the Georgia prosecution likely taking up much if not all of 2024, knowing that I can count on your support each month would be a real blessing and source of comfort.

Make A One Time Donation
Become A Monthly Donor
In closing, I ask that you continue to keep me and my family in your prayers. In many ways, what the country is experiencing is a spiritual battle with the forces of evil on the march.

Sincerely,


John Eastman

Constitutional Scholar

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
girlie lawfare
« Reply #311 on: December 12, 2023, 07:06:55 AM »
https://dnyuz.com/2023/12/11/ex-fox-news-star-andrea-tantaros-is-back-to-haunt-the-network/

this sounds like trumped up BS just on the face of it.

wonder if she has help from DNC lawyers or some other DNC who is funding this or is based on contingency.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Moby Trump
« Reply #313 on: December 13, 2023, 06:52:20 PM »
·
Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew

Some very seasoned and smart attorneys on the liberal side of the spectrum allowed their personal and partisan desires to cloud objective judgments on "nuts and bolts" issues of federal criminal procedure.

They were Captain Ahab and having a trial in the spring of 2024 was their "White Whale."

There were always many opportunities for Trump to derail the trial schedule, and he has now done so.  I think the Trump defense played this exactly correctly -- they complained about the trial schedule so they had a record of having done so.  They then went about trying to comply with the deadlines with some unstated confidence that the schedule would eventually crash upon the rocks of pretrial issues that would cause delays.

The decision by SCOTUS this morning to take up the challenge to Sec. 1512 -- with 2 of the 4 counts charged against Trump being connected to that charge -- was the final straw.  There is no reason now for SCOTUS to expedite the appeal of the immunity issue.  While the cases are different, both will have a huge impact on what happens with the DC case if/when it ever gets to trial.  So SCOTUS can deal with both on parallel tracks with similar schedules. 

Oral arguments at the end of April and decisions at the end of June is the most likely result.
THEN an entirely new scheduling order will be necessary in the case -- if there still is a case.
That new schedule will bump up against the FL case which I expect will be reset for mid-to-late summer.
The issue will be whether the DC case will be set in the fall of 2024 during the middle of the general election campaign. 

My guess would be -- "No."

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
This is what a DC jury will do to Trump
« Reply #314 on: December 15, 2023, 03:00:11 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #315 on: December 15, 2023, 03:12:15 PM »
Hope Rudy is right , , ,

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #316 on: December 16, 2023, 07:41:28 AM »
Hope Rudy is right , , ,


A little more on this here:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/12/the-giuliani-verdict.php

"The verdict seems a tad excessive."

(Doug)  I see the Left got a good headline out of it.  CNN should have put it under "entertainment" for their audience.  Rudy doesn't have $148 million.

The right better find an answer to the DC jury situation.  I say move the capitol out and deed the land to Maryland.  They think big, we need to think big.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #317 on: December 20, 2023, 02:42:31 PM »
If the Supreme Court strikes down any overreach the Left has done, and especially if it is decided 6-3 or 5-4, the narrative becomes how undemocratic the Court is and how corrupt the Trump appointees are, not how outrageous the Left has been behaving.

I get that there are far Left zealots and operatives in positions of power who will do anything and there is far Left media powers who will help and provide cover for them, but what I don't get is how rank and file Democrats and left leaning people including friends and family go along with all this.

It's tearing our country apart.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Obama judge tells Rudy to pay 148 million
« Reply #318 on: December 20, 2023, 07:24:02 PM »
Obama appointed

judge

Jewish and Columbia law school grad
and Bryn Mar college a historically women's college
who I remarked 40 yrs ago to a friend who graduated from there "separate but equal"

so we know where her political position is

is gung ho on the ridiculous amount DC jury awarded a couple of poll workers who if they do get real money will have won the lottery .

I can't believe the amount at least would stand.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Strassel
« Reply #322 on: December 23, 2023, 05:35:10 AM »
Well said!
======================

Sandbagging the Supreme Court
The left’s legal assault on Trump is a threat to the institution—and that’s by design.
Kimberley A. Strassel
By
Kimberley A. Strassel
Follow
Dec. 21, 2023 6:08 pm ET


Meet the biggest and baddest new power broker in the 2024 presidential contest: an unelected and unenthusiastic U.S. Supreme Court. If this thought sits a bit uneasily, blame the lawfaring leftists who engineered the sandbagging of the nation’s top jurists.

Less than a month from the Iowa caucuses, the high court faces the prospect of deciding whether Colorado—and other states—can scrub Donald Trump from the ballot on grounds that the leading candidate for the Republican nomination engaged in “insurrection.” It’s also being asked to rule on whether special counsel Jack Smith can prosecute Joe Biden’s top rival for acts related to the riots of Jan. 6, 2021.

That isn’t all. The justices may be asked to settle further unprecedented questions flowing from an array of legal campaigns against Mr. Trump, including a court-imposed gag order in the Jan. 6 case; Mr. Smith’s separate prosecution involving alleged mishandling of classified documents; immunity in a New York defamation suit; and the Georgia state election-interference case. The black robes are already on the hook to pronounce on the Justice Department’s fanciful use of a financial statute that bars “corruptly” obstructing an official proceeding to convict Jan. 6 rioters.

The Supreme Court has had to issue consequential election decisions, most famously in Bush v. Gore (2000). That decision was a consequence of a tight election, the unexpected mess that was Florida’s hanging-chad ballot system, and partisan state judges attempting to rig the counting in Al Gore’s favor.

No one before Election Day planned for the 2000 outcome to land with the U.S. Supreme Court. Today’s pileup of election-related suits, by contrast, was always destined to end up there. Embittered by electoral losses, unwilling to trust the will of voters, the left now routinely turns to extraordinary legal action in hopes of pressing the courts to impose its political objectives by judicial fiat. Every party to these high-stakes, highly speculative cases knew exactly where this would end. And not one cares a whit for the consequences for the high court.

Take the Colorado Supreme Court majority, and its laughable claim in its decision this week that it didn’t “lightly” reach its finding of Trump-as-insurrectionist and was “mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions” and “solemn” about it. The opinion was in fact so wild—glossing over basic questions of due process, federalism and the Constitution—that three liberal justices strongly rejected it. The majority knew it would be left to the U.S. Supreme Court to clean up their mess.

Mr. Smith likewise knew the minute he filed his indictments against Mr. Trump—the first criminal charges ever against a former president, filed on untested and uncharted claims in the runup to an election—that it would be the Supreme Court ultimately holding the bag. Win or lose, his name will be in the history books. The Justice Department surely considered that dusting off the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to seek 20-year sentences for rioters would provoke a legal challenge. But worth a shot, right? Remember this strategy the next time the left screeches about the court’s “shadow docket.”

There was a day when the professional class—in particular prosecutors and lower-court judges—cared about institutions at least as much as about winning. Not this crew. What makes their actions more deplorable is the cynical view that harming the high court is an added benefit, not a cost. They come amid a vicious campaign to vilify the court as partisan and corrupt. If the justices rule against Mr. Trump in these suits, the left accomplishes an immediate political goal. If they rule in Mr. Trump’s favor, the left smears the justices and ramps up its campaign to pack the court.

The Supreme Court may have no choice but to hear and decide these cases. But there are better and worse outcomes. The biggest question now is whether the three liberal justices understand the grave risks of this lawfaring agenda—not just to the immediate moment, but to the future health of the nation. Do they sign up for the campaign with opinions that justify novel legal theories and the judicial usurpation of elections—in the process inviting more special counsels, more rogue court decisions, more litigation? Or do they recognize this game for what it is, acknowledge the sound legal reasons for why no one has attempted such reckless prosecutions and lawsuits before, and send a message it needs to stop?

The best outcome would be a string of 9-0 Supreme Court decisions that put a decisive end to the current upheaval and discourage a repeat. There’s a much easier way—for all involved—to settle the nation’s political disputes. It’s called an election. Let’s have one, and live with the results.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Politics by Lawfare, flight 93 analogy
« Reply #323 on: December 24, 2023, 07:20:13 AM »
I didn't understand this thinking at first,
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/12/24/flight_93_election_anti-trumpers_imperil_the_rule_of_law_150244.html

They have repeated this Trump dictatorship line so many times they believe it, and if true that requires all actions possible to stop including crashing the plane with all of us on it.  Remove opposition from ballots without it before due process is clearly Soviet, the totalitarian way and they will be that to prevent it.  Dishonest projection in the extreme to me but makes perfect sense to (some of) them.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2023, 03:21:16 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
AG Garland caught lying again
« Reply #325 on: January 01, 2024, 08:09:00 AM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Is Smith’s Prosecution of Trump Legal or Constitutional?
« Reply #326 on: January 04, 2024, 04:09:25 AM »
Interesting piece exploring whether what Smith is attempting is kosher to any degree at all:

https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/02/appeals-court-jack-smith-trump/?fbclid=IwAR2W-m1xFVw46dHmBvFGgR2jbC5PeBnlnSgUpk7TJeorXxBdrc_IgRqqqs8

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Is Smith’s Prosecution of Trump Legal or Constitutional?
« Reply #327 on: January 04, 2024, 06:49:11 AM »
Interesting piece exploring whether what Smith is attempting is kosher to any degree at all:

https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/02/appeals-court-jack-smith-trump/?fbclid=IwAR2W-m1xFVw46dHmBvFGgR2jbC5PeBnlnSgUpk7TJeorXxBdrc_IgRqqqs8

From the Meese brief:
“Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé.”


No mention of Taylor Swift but funny to see the standing argument that started this mess turned back on them.

It would look political for Joe Biden's  Attorney General to prosecute his opponent so he hand picks someone else to do it and calls him "independent".  Meanwhile 3 year old cases from different jurisdictions "acting independently" are brought to trial during primary season like choreography.

Strangest part is that even with the media all on board the public isn't buying it.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #328 on: January 04, 2024, 07:09:48 AM »
" No mention of Taylor Swift "   :-D

[but didn't it originally say Taylor Swift?]

 :wink:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Heads We Win, Tails You Lose is the Kind of Judicial Activism the Left Likes
« Reply #329 on: January 04, 2024, 10:51:41 AM »
This could be placed in more than one place but, given the prediction that the Progressive left will up the amplitude of its already hypocritical and false attacks on conservative SCOTUS justices I figure it belongs here:

The Left's Love-Hate Relationship With ‘Judicial Review’
Nicholas Waddy
 
Jan 04, 2024

For decades, the legal and constitutional landscape of America, not to mention its social fabric, was transformed by an activist Supreme Court determined to press progressive change on a largely unwilling public, and despite a skeptical Congress, which ordinarily (lest we forget) has responsibility for passing laws – or so the Framers innocently believed, when they created our constitutional republic.

Starting in the 1930s, as the Supremes buckled under to FDR's “New Deal” and its massive expansion of federal government authority and spending; moving into the early post-war period, with the judicial mandate to end school segregation; into the 1960s and '70s, when laws against contraception and abortion were struck down, and even the death penalty was temporarily laid low; and, in some ways, extending even into the 21st century, as an ostensibly “conservative” SCOTUS discovered that gay marriage was a constitutional right, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition on sex discrimination provides blanket protection to members of the LGBT community, too, the Supreme Court of the United States has, time and again, rendered decisions that 1) expanded federal power, 2) advanced the political and social agenda of leftists, and 3) won praise and support from elected and unelected Democrats and progressives. There is, in short, ample historical precedent for a fruitful partnership, and much mutual admiration, between the Left and the judicial branch.

Recent events in Israel reinforce the notion that there is something like a natural alliance between progressive ideologues, entrenched bureaucracies, mainstream journalists, educated elites, and professional jurists. All of the above have conspired to undermine the fruits of Israeli democracy, which in 2022 yielded the election of a conservative government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. That government, with its majority in the Israeli parliament, known as the Knesset, early on expressed its determination to reverse the Supreme Court of Israel's absurd domination of that country's government. Based on nothing other than its own juridical fantasies, high court judges in Israel had long since invented a proprietary right to strike down any law, or nullify any decision, made by the Knesset or the executive branch that struck them – the judges of said court – as “unreasonable.” Not only could legislation duly passed by the country's elected representatives be nullified, but even cabinet appointments made by the prime minister could be (and have been) overturned. What's more, the Knesset could not even hope to alter the composition of the Supreme Court over time, since appointments to it were controlled by a “judicial selection committee,” and thus the Israeli electorate has no say. In essence, the deck is stacked in the Jewish State to ensure that progressives will enjoy permanent and total control of Israeli politics. Yes, the people might occasionally choose to elect odious leaders (from the progressive perspective), like Netanyahu, but those leaders would be penned in by heavy-handed judicial oversight. Checkmate!

In July, after much gnashing of teeth among leftists, and not a little street violence actively encouraged by progressive forces, inside and outside of the country, the Netanyahu government succeeded in gaining passage of a relatively mild law that would have amended Israel's “Basic Laws,” specifically by preventing high court judges from overturning laws and government actions merely because they considered them “unreasonable.” Unsurprisingly, last week, the Supreme Court struck down this law, since it claimed it would have done “severe and unprecedented damage to the basic characteristics of the State of Israel as a democratic state.”

Pretty rich, no? The laws passed by the people's elected representatives, by this logic, are invalid because...democracy! In fact, the negation of the people's will, and the enthronement of robed autocrats, is itself the antithesis of democracy, but then again there is little evidence that anyone on the Left has bothered to contemplate the literal meaning of the term, as opposed to its political uses.

Be this as it may, the global Left feted the decision of Israel's Supreme Court, and the humiliation, as they saw it, of Netanyahu. Moreover, it looks unlikely that Netanyahu and his allies, who are currently busy fighting a war against Hamas, will have the courage or the presence of mind to defy the Court's verdict. Once again, the domestic and international Left has closed ranks successfully to protect “democratic” norms – which may or may not be genuinely democratic, but have the practical effect of hobbling populists and empowering professional leftist know-it-alls. For progressives, this is a victory much to be savored.

As judicial activism thus runs amok, with the Left's blessing, in Israel, the irony is that “judicial review”, and therefore the authority and legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court, is about to be tested as never before.

For years now, as conservatives shepherded and then expanded their majority on the Supreme Court, leftists grew wary, and they even began a concerted, sophisticated campaign to vilify and intimidate conservatives Justices. Huge numbers of elected Democrats supported a campaign to pack the Supreme Court with pliant Biden appointees, in order to reverse a series of SCOTUS decisions, like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, with which they disagreed.

Importantly, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, irksome as it has been to progressives, did not have the temerity to intervene, in any meaningful sense, in the conduct of American elections, including the 2020 election that removed Donald Trump – the man who had appointed a third of the Court – from the presidency. Now, though, with several cases looming that may well determine whether or not Trump is jailed before the 2024 election can take place, and whether or not he appears on the ballot in enough jurisdictions and states to have a realistic chance of victory over the incumbent Joe Biden, it is inevitable that the Supremes will be targeted by the Left in unprecedented ways and to a degree never before seen in this country.

The Justices will be excoriated by leftists if their decisions in these cases go against progressive orthodoxy, which posits that Trump is always in the wrong, and that any maneuver, no matter how contrived, deceptive, or mean-spirited, that undercuts or harms him must, by definition, be legal, constitutional, just, ethical, and, above all, necessary to preserve “democracy,” whatever the warped progressive mind may mean by that term. For now, the American Left has but one aim: the destruction of Trump and Trumpism, and any institution that fails to assist in achieving this sacred task must and will be burned to the ground – certainly figuratively, and possibly literally, if need be.

In other words, the Supreme Court is about to find out just how opportunistic and fleeting is the American and global Left's respect for, and advocacy of, the empowerment of professional judges to oversee and control lawmaking, human and civil rights, elections, and every other facet of modern government. The form of that government, and the norms by which it is controlled, in short, do not interest them, but the decisions it renders, and the ideology to which it conforms, most certainly do.

That is why today's leftist can cry “God bless the Supreme Court of Israel!” and “Down with the Supreme Court of the United States!” in the very same breath. The only consistency that can be observed here is a determination amongst progressives to use any institution on offer to advance their narrow agenda, and to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way.

 

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.

https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2024/01/04/the-lefts-love-hate-relationship-with-judicial-review-n2633126?fbclid=IwAR1IjIoJ-g9xcSdY-R8E1b4-kvvajnjHxZGhor7JCdPARUMjbzloco59RvI

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
lawfare in western countries
« Reply #330 on: January 13, 2024, 08:33:02 AM »
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/first_thing_we_do_lets_kill_all_the_lawyers.html

BTW,  I don't advocate "kill all the lawyers "

There are good and uncorrupted attorneys of course:

Levin, Turley, Dershowitz, Jarrett, Lieu, Wisenberg, Denny.






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #331 on: January 13, 2024, 06:58:37 PM »
 :-D


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1693
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #334 on: January 21, 2024, 04:28:28 AM »
Martin Armstrong shows Trump winning in 4/6 models. he has been for long saying civil war is coming along with an actual war.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-fix-is-in-trump-goes-to-prison/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #335 on: January 21, 2024, 04:48:30 AM »
Martin Armstrong shows Trump winning in 4/6 models. he has been for long saying civil war is coming along with an actual war.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-fix-is-in-trump-goes-to-prison/
. Ye gods, what a cheery piece!

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Mann's Suit: The Process is the Punishment
« Reply #337 on: January 30, 2024, 06:04:12 AM »
This piece accompanies one made in Pathological Science re Michale Mann's (of Hockey Stick infamy) attempt to bankrupt those who point out his hamfisted willingness to seek the destruction of all who point out his abject unscientific embrace of supposed "science." I'm surprised to learn here that one such defendant--Mark Sty]eyn--is representing himself in, as seen during current J6 prosecutions, a notoriously biased DC court. It's well worth noting the various pathological techniques embraced by Mann as they are something of a roadmap where "Progressive" tactics meant to stifle free speech among other rights are concerned:


Mann Overboard (WSJ opinion piece)

Anthony Fauci isn’t the only oracle of science who regards dissent from his findings as heresy.

Meet Michael Mann. He is the climate scientist who gave us the iconic “hockey stick” graph showing a sharp rise in the global temperature in the 20th century. He has been pursuing two of the stick’s critics—conservative author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg—through the courts for 12 years, saying they defamed him by attacking his personal and professional integrity. Their fate will be decided any day now by a District of Columbia Superior Court jury.
This isn’t Mr. Mann’s first legal rodeo. In 2011 he sued geographer Tim Ball in Canadian court for saying in an interview that “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” In 2019 a Canadian judge dismissed the charges because of the “inexcusable” delay in the trial and ordered Mr. Mann to pay Ball’s legal costs. But news reports say Mr. Mann never paid, and Ball died in 2022.

But back to the science. Mr. Mann’s hockey stick charts the Earth’s temperatures since the year 1000, showing a slow decline that turned sharply upward in the 20th century. Critics have questioned Mr. Mann’s statistical methods and the proxies he used. These proxies include the data from tree rings with which he estimated surface temperatures in medieval times.

In a 2012 post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute blog, Mr. Simberg let it rip. He likened Mr. Mann to a Penn State football coach just found guilty of having sexually abused boys: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” 

Mr. Steyn then quoted Mr. Simberg in his own post for National Review Online. “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.” 
Mr. Steyn was referring to leaked emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. These showed there was far from a scientific consensus about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change decision to feature the hockey stick in its 2001 report. Both Mr. Steyn and Mr. Simberg suggested that Penn State had covered for Mr. Mann just as it had for Mr. Sandusky.

So Mr. Mann sued. He pointed to independent investigations by the National Science Foundation and Penn State that had cleared him of any research misconduct.

Three years ago, a judge dropped National Review and CEI from the suit, ruling they weren’t liable because Messrs. Steyn and Simberg weren’t their employees. But the judge’s decision can be appealed once the lawsuit itself is resolved—so CEI and National Review could still find themselves on the hook. 

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Steyn is acting as his own counsel, which may not be wise but is entertaining. He obviously feels passionately about free speech and equally passionately that he can defend it. At the end of each day of the trial, his website features re-enactments of some of the more spirited encounters.

During the trial, Mr. Steyn characterized Mr. Mann as a “guy who can dish it out but can’t take it.” In an April 2023 tweet touting his own book on the climate wars, Mr. Mann said one criticism of the hockey stick had “a disturbing connection w/ the bad stats used to support early theories of white supremacy.” In addition, one of Mr. Mann’s witnesses in the trial, Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, had admonished Mr. Mann more than two decades ago that his “scorched earth” approach to criticism—even criticism that is unreasonable—wasn’t doing his reputation any good.

On the stand last week, Mr. Mann also admitted that 12 years of litigation had cost him nothing, though he declined to name who was funding it. In sharp contrast, National Review’s legal defense has gone through millions in insurance claims and significant out-of-pocket expenses.

That seems to be the goal, judging by one of Mr. Mann’s emails explaining his rationale: “Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if there is the potential to bring down this filthy organization [National Review] for good.”
The beauty of “bringing down” National Review or any of the other defendants is that Mr. Mann doesn’t have to prevail to do it; he just has to keep the suit going in hopes the legal fees bury them. This is lawfare. The message is: If you don’t like a critic’s tweet or blog posts, just drag him through the courts. It’s especially sweet if someone else foots your bill.

That isn’t the way science ought to be practiced. We know now, for example, that Dr. Fauci tried to quash those who questioned lockdowns. With both Dr. Fauci and Mr. Mann, the real issue is not so much that they got things wrong but that they tried to suppress the robust debate that is necessary for scientific truth.

Three years ago, a judge dropped National Review and CEI from the suit, ruling they weren’t liable because Messrs. Steyn and Simberg weren’t their employees. But the judge’s decision can be appealed once the lawsuit itself is resolved—so CEI and National Review could still find themselves on the hook.

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Steyn is acting as his own counsel, which may not be wise but is entertaining. He obviously feels passionately about free speech and equally passionately that he can defend it. At the end of each day of the trial, his website features re-enactments of some of the more spirited encounters.

During the trial, Mr. Steyn characterized Mr. Mann as a “guy who can dish it out but can’t take it.” In an April 2023 tweet touting his own book on the climate wars, Mr. Mann said one criticism of the hockey stick had “a disturbing connection w/ the bad stats used to support early theories of white supremacy.” In addition, one of Mr. Mann’s witnesses in the trial, Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, had admonished Mr. Mann more than two decades ago that his “scorched earth” approach to criticism—even criticism that is unreasonable—wasn’t doing his reputation any good.

On the stand last week, Mr. Mann also admitted that 12 years of litigation had cost him nothing, though he declined to name who was funding it. In sharp contrast, National Review’s legal defense has gone through millions in insurance claims and significant out-of-pocket expenses.

That seems to be the goal, judging by one of Mr. Mann’s emails explaining his rationale: “Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if there is the potential to bring down this filthy organization [National Review] for good.”
The beauty of “bringing down” National Review or any of the other defendants is that Mr. Mann doesn’t have to prevail to do it; he just has to keep the suit going in hopes the legal fees bury them. This is lawfare. The message is: If you don’t like a critic’s tweet or blog posts, just drag him through the courts. It’s especially sweet if someone else foots your bill.

That isn’t the way science ought to be practiced. We know now, for example, that Dr. Fauci tried to quash those who questioned lockdowns. With both Dr. Fauci and Mr. Mann, the real issue is not so much that they got things wrong but that they tried to suppress the robust debate that is necessary for scientific truth.

https://apple.news/A4_h4ZXamS4qtJjgmSw2U3Q

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Mann's Suit: The Process is the Punishment
« Reply #338 on: January 30, 2024, 07:15:30 AM »
Thanks for bringing this trial to the forefront.

The process has been a crime and the outcome will be important.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2024, 07:37:33 AM by DougMacG »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Engoron
« Reply #340 on: January 31, 2024, 11:04:10 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Engoron

"In one court ruling, Engoron revealed he had taken part in "huge, sometimes boisterous, Vietnam War protests"

"Engoron is a fan of pop culture references, frequently using them in his rulings"

Both Columbia undergrad and NYU law grad

already ruled fraud committed

I would hazard a guess he will fine Trump of north of $300 million, and of course bar him and his sons from NY state business.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 02, 2024, 05:51:04 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #343 on: February 02, 2024, 09:15:20 AM »
And yet we have the MSM laughing and scoffing at the concept that there is a deep state when of course it exists and is in plain sight demonstrated by the shyster brigades colluding (RICO case?) like mobsters to twist bend break all the rules to keep one person (or any Republican ) from the WH.

If this was 30 or more yrs ago I would never have thought this would happen in the US.

Trump has too much baggage, but he is our nominee at this point and Nikki should drop out after she gets crushed in her own state if not sooner.

Time to rally around our guy at this point in IMVHO

I hope they are polling to determine who the best VP pick would be to perhaps woo independents.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Stormy Daniels case
« Reply #344 on: February 03, 2024, 09:50:41 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/incorrect-watergate-lawyer-corrects-record-on-extremely-strong-stormy-daniels-case/ar-BB1hHVeR?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=a8fa2ba2770d407ea5d7be706b9c4f42&ei=23

I am not sure what crime was committed.
Wealthy pay off people to keep quiet ALL the time.
if a purported victim wants to agree to keeping silent for riches let them so what.
if they don't that is their choice.

how many women made it big simply claiming harassment etc ?
look at the Fox news girls . yes the abuse they experienced was disgusting but so many got rich over it.
wrote books etc.

Sadly no one ever harassed me so I could sue for millions.
I guess I don't fit the gigolo type  :-P

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Stormy Daniels case
« Reply #345 on: February 03, 2024, 12:22:28 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/incorrect-watergate-lawyer-corrects-record-on-extremely-strong-stormy-daniels-case/ar-BB1hHVeR?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=a8fa2ba2770d407ea5d7be706b9c4f42&ei=23

I am not sure what crime was committed.
Wealthy pay off people to keep quiet ALL the time.
if a purported victim wants to agree to keeping silent for riches let them so what.
if they don't that is their choice.

how many women made it big simply claiming harassment etc ?
look at the Fox news girls . yes the abuse they experienced was disgusting but so many got rich over it.
wrote books etc.

Sadly no one ever harassed me so I could sue for millions.
I guess I don't fit the gigolo type  :-P

Yes all they call it by initials NDA it happens so commonly.

Wouldn't the 'non-disclosure' also keep the signatory from saying something false happened behind closed doors since they've agreed to say nothing at all and have money on the line?  A reasonable protection if legal.

The crime was he took it as a business expense instead of a campaign expense, or something like that.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/will-trump-face-charges-for-stormy-daniels-hush-payments/ (Story from March 18, 2023) They went felony because time ran out on the misdemeanor?

The Stormy thing came out of the media's Michael Avanati moment, remember he was going to be the next President, or Prophet, then left the scene in disgrace, caught fleecing clients and advancing false claims. Then Michael Cohen went to jail for lying. But Dems and their prosecutors breathed life into a dead case as 2024 was approaching.

If Trump's such a crooked businessman, why don't they come up with one real example of him breaking a law we've heard of?

Anything to keep America talking about anything but Biden's policies and Presidency.
 
« Last Edit: February 03, 2024, 12:28:00 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #346 on: February 03, 2024, 01:13:31 PM »
I got harassed at the dermatologist office this week by a pretty young nurse and a fairly young woman doctor.  They were giggling quite a bit when I took my shirt off.   + :-D :-D :-D

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WSJ: DC Circuit ruling on Presidential Immunity is wrong
« Reply #347 on: February 07, 2024, 04:22:50 AM »
Denying Trump’s Immunity Is Bigger Than Him
Is the Presidency at risk of being harried by partisan prosecutors?
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 6, 2024 6:38 pm ET


The first criminal trial of Donald Trump might soon be back on the calendar, after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the former President isn’t immune from prosecution. Yet the sweeping nature of the ruling means that it also risks weakening the office of the Presidency, so perhaps at least four Supreme Court Justices will be interested in having the last word.

This is the federal case against Mr. Trump’s efforts to undo the 2020 election, which Judge Tanya Chutkan originally scheduled for a March 4 trial. In an unsigned opinion, the D.C. Circuit’s three-judge panel makes short work of bad immunity arguments, such as the claim that Mr. Trump can’t be criminally indicted because he was already impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. This isn’t double jeopardy. It’s legal sophistry.

Yet the court also makes too-short work of better arguments. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court said the President has “absolute immunity” from civil liability for “official acts.” That case involved a federal worker who argued his layoff was political retaliation. “Because of the singular importance of the President’s duties,” the High Court said, “diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government.”

One question posed by Mr. Trump’s case is whether his actions in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, were within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties, as Fitzgerald put it. Mr. Trump betrayed Mike Pence on Jan. 6, but if a President asks a Vice President to perform a legislative maneuver in the Senate, that looks like official conduct. What about the other allegations in the indictment, though, such as that Mr. Trump and his aides convened “sham proceedings” to cast phony electoral votes?

The D.C. Circuit blows past the question, because it categorically refuses to extend the logic of Fitzgerald. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the panel says. The judges are justifiably outraged at Mr. Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election, which they call “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.”

But if the President could be hobbled by civil suits over official actions, where is the concern that he might be paralyzed by the thought of partisan indictments the moment he leaves office? The panel says the criminal process has safeguards in grand juries and the ethical obligations of prosecutors. Grand juries? Really?

“This is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federally indicted,” the judges write, with confidence that may not age well. “The risk that former Presidents will be unduly harassed by meritless federal criminal prosecutions appears slight.”

Mr. Trump is all but promising that if he wins in November, he will ask his Justice Department to charge President Biden. “Joe would be ripe for Indictment,” he fumed last month. For what crime? Who knows, but the federal statute books are voluminous. The Supreme Court last year upheld a law that gives prison time to a person who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States.”

Mr. Trump’s claims of total immunity for anything a President does are obviously wrong. But the D.C. Circuit has gone overboard in the other direction by declaring a President has no immunity. By the D.C. Circuit’s logic, a former President could be charged with a crime for violating any Congressional statute. Harry Truman might have been prosecuted for seizing steel mills. (He was blocked by the Supreme Court.)

Mr. Trump will appeal, and the Supreme Court may understandably want to avoid getting pulled deeper into the legal-political maelstrom of the 2024 election. Had the D.C. Circuit ruled against Mr. Trump on narrower grounds—e.g., that his post-election actions were electioneering, and not part of his official duties—the Supreme Court would have found it easier to turn down a Trump appeal.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19748
    • View Profile
Another AG let off the hook
« Reply #348 on: February 08, 2024, 12:22:48 PM »
No one above the law.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/08/news/special-counsel-robert-hur-issues-report-on-bidens-mishandling-of-classified-documents/

we all knew this was a farce.

Funny how DOJ let Biden lawyers go through everything prior to being turned over.
No swat raid.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #349 on: February 08, 2024, 03:07:33 PM »
Stay tuned.   What he put there is devastating for Biden.  True 25th Amendment material!

Too non compus mentis to prosecute, but fit to be the leader of the free world?  This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.