Kavanaugh and Barrett’s Share of the Shame

[mystery-ak]

Kavanaugh and Barrett’s Share of the Shame

The Trump-appointed justices’ alliance with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court is not a betrayal of Republicans or the president who appointed them. It’s a betrayal of the Constitution.

By Julie Kelly
February 25, 2021

With Election Day looming and early voting underway, Judge Amy Coney Barrett pledged at her confirmation hearing in October she would not act as a Republican “pawn” in any election dispute.

Democrats and the media, anticipating a close vote in the Electoral College, warned Barrett would rule in favor of the man who nominated her if the ultimate decision reached the Supreme Court as it did in 2000; Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) demanded Barrett recuse herself “in any case involving Donald Trump’s election.”

Blumenthal, in essence, got his way. Democrats must be thrilled—laughing all the way to 2022 and 2024—at the de facto recusals by Justices Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in every post-election lawsuit petitioned before the court, even those not filed by the Trump campaign.

Kavanaugh and Barrett, sold to the country as “originalists” who would counteract the bench’s Left-leaning jurists, instead joined their liberal colleagues and Chief Justice John Roberts to reject each case. In doing so, Barrett and Kavanaugh broke their promise to defend the Constitution and gave their imprimatur to lawless state elections—a clear and present danger to the future of the country.

more
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/25/kavanaugh-and-barretts-share-of-the-shame/

[goatprairie]

Flash.....news to the Trumpsters....he lost. It's none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania (or any other state) conducts their elections. Just it's none of the business of Pennsylvania how Texas conducts their elections.
If the people in Pennsylvania had a problem with the way the election was conducted, it is up to them to change things.
But of course the scribbler of this article and all the other Trump idolaters who are jumping up and down screaming about what happened in Pennsylvania are just being hypocrites.
They know damn well that if the situation were reversed and Pennsylvania was attacking Texas because Trump won with the Texas gov. Abbott changing a few things without the approval of the Texas state legislature (which is what happened), they'd be telling Pennsylvania to go stuff themselves. That how Texas conducted their elections was no business of Pennsylvania.
Just be honest with yourselves. You're only upset because Trump lost. If Trump had won with the same procedures, you'd be laughing at the Dems. Just as they're laughing at Trumpsters now.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Flash.....news to the Trumpsters....he lost. It's none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania (or any other state) conducts their elections. Just it's none of the business of Pennsylvania how Texas conducts their elections.

Flash ... news for the ill-formed ... the election was stolen through election and voter fraud.   And it is most definitely Texas's business how Pennsylvania (or any other state) conducts their elections.

It's past time for you to invest in your very own copy of the US Constitution ---- and actually read it.

When you finish reading the Constitution, read, actually read, the suit brought by Texas and signed onto by 23 states and the President of the United states.  The suit was against four states (you knew that, right?)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Here's the link:  https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Pay close attention to:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Let me know how else I may be able to help you educate yourself @goatprairie

[skeeter]

Yeah, the election was stolen.

Period

[Bigun]

Flash.....news to the Trumpsters....he lost. It's none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania (or any other state) conducts their elections. Just it's none of the business of Pennsylvania how Texas conducts their elections.
If the people in Pennsylvania had a problem with the way the election was conducted, it is up to them to change things.
But of course the scribbler of this article and all the other Trump idolaters who are jumping up and down screaming about what happened in Pennsylvania are just being hypocrites.
They know damn well that if the situation were reversed and Pennsylvania was attacking Texas because Trump won with the Texas gov. Abbott changing a few things without the approval of the Texas state legislature (which is what happened), they'd be telling Pennsylvania to go stuff themselves. That how Texas conducted their elections was no business of Pennsylvania.
Just be honest with yourselves. You're only upset because Trump lost. If Trump had won with the same procedures, you'd be laughing at the Dems. Just as they're laughing at Trumpsters now.

BS! From beginning to end! It most certainly is the business of Texas, and every other state for that matter, to ensure that Pennsylvania complies with the United States Constitution WRT its election laws and THAT is all that Texas vs Pennsylvania sought to do!

And BTW: SCOTUS has absolutely ZERO authority to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction!

[skeeter]

BS! From beginning to end! It most certainly is the business of Texas, and every other state for that matter, to ensure that Pennsylvania complies with the United States Constitution WRT its election laws and THAT is all that Texas vs Pennsylvania sought to do!

And BTW: SCOTUS has absolutely ZERO authority to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction!

Amen. The election was stolen.

NTers just need to accept that, move on and help plan against future rat steal attempts. Or they can continue with their childish pointless anti-Trump vendetta.

[jmyrlefuller]

Remind me again, who appointed Kavanaugh and Barrett, in the former case despite numerous grave concerns about his judicial record (drowned out thanks to Christine Blasey Ford)?

[jmyrlefuller]

BS! From beginning to end! It most certainly is the business of Texas, and every other state for that matter, to ensure that Pennsylvania complies with the United States Constitution WRT its election laws and THAT is all that Texas vs Pennsylvania sought to do!

No, it is not. That is the authority of the FEDERAL government. The 11th Amendment in fact prohibits states from suing other states.

And BTW: SCOTUS has absolutely ZERO authority to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction!

In a country of over 300 million people, it is practically impossible to hear all of the potential cases that would come forward. The SCOTUS has no Constitutional obligation to give a full trial to every kook that comes forward with any ludicrous claim. Like, you know, the birthers.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Remind me again, who appointed Kavanaugh and Barrett, in the former case despite numerous grave concerns about his judicial record (drowned out thanks to Christine Blasey Ford)?

I'm more interested in who recommended them .... they need to be erased from the list of resources.

This is the first I'm hearing about grave concerns about Kavanaugh's judicial record.  Have you a source link @jmyrlefuller ?  I may need to adjust my expectations of him.

Thanks.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, it is not. That is the authority of the FEDERAL government. The 11th Amendment in fact prohibits states from suing other states.

A state may sue another state in the federal court system. ... Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over cases between states.  States sue each other fairly frequently, especially in areas of jurisdiction, land rights, resource rights and debt collection.

The 11th Amendment offers states immunity from private actions brought against states in federal court.

Unless the state or the federal government creates an exception to the state's sovereign immunity, the state is immune from being sued without consent by any citizen in federal courts, state courts, or before federal administrative agencies. 

@jmyrlefuller

[Bigun]

A state may sue another state in the federal court system. ... Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over cases between states.  States sue each other fairly frequently, especially in areas of jurisdiction, land rights, resource rights and debt collection.

The 11th Amendment offers states immunity from private actions brought against states in federal court.

Unless the state or the federal government creates an exception to the state's sovereign immunity, the state is immune from being sued without consent by any citizen in federal courts, state courts, or before federal administrative agencies. 

@jmyrlefuller

Mr. Fuller seems to have some difficulty comprehending the two words "Original Jurisdiction".

[jafo2010]

Calling this court conservative is laughable.  Fact is, few votes have these Trump appointees voting conservative.  With who sits on the Supreme Court at present, nothing will happen to reflect a conservative court.  What in fact they have done is to cement a corrupt process of fixed elections, just like Russia.  Our republic is dead.  Trump's appointees did not stand up to corruption.  The swamp is alive and well, and stronger than ever.

[skeeter]

I'm more interested in who recommended them .... they need to be erased from the list of resources.

This is the first I'm hearing about grave concerns about Kavanaugh's judicial record.  Have you a source link @jmyrlefuller ?  I may need to adjust my expectations of him.

Thanks.

Didn't Trump receive his SCOTUS recommendations from The Heritage Foundation?

[GrouchoTex]

Didn't Trump receive his SCOTUS recommendations from The Heritage Foundation?

Future Presidents would be wise to look at the Federalist Society for their next Justice appointees.

[LegalAmerican]

Yeah, the election was stolen.

Period

This will harm the LEFTS...too.  Look, already at war in syria, under biden adm.   

[LegalAmerican]

Quote from: Bigun on Today at 11:39:04 AM
BS! From beginning to end! It most certainly is the business of Texas, and every other state for that matter, to ensure that Pennsylvania complies with the United States Constitution WRT its election laws and THAT is all that Texas vs Pennsylvania sought to do!

And BTW: SCOTUS has absolutely ZERO authority to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction!
Amen. The election was stolen.


SKEETER;
NTers just need to accept that, move on and help plan against future rat steal attempts. Or they can continue with their childish pointless anti-Trump vendetta.


 

[skeeter]

Future Presidents would be wise to look at the Federalist Society for their next Justice appointees.

If there is such a creature as a future president who is constitutionally inclined.

The Heritage Foundation is definitely out.

[skeeter]

Quote from: Bigun on Today at 11:39:04 AM
BS! From beginning to end! It most certainly is the business of Texas, and every other state for that matter, to ensure that Pennsylvania complies with the United States Constitution WRT its election laws and THAT is all that Texas vs Pennsylvania sought to do!

And BTW: SCOTUS has absolutely ZERO authority to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction!
Amen. The election was stolen.


SKEETER;
NTers just need to accept that, move on and help plan against future rat steal attempts. Or they can continue with their childish pointless anti-Trump vendetta.


 

Forward!

[goatprairie]

"The Eleventh Amendment prevents federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over state defendants--the federal court will not even hear the case if a state is the defendant. A state may not be sued in federal court by its own citizen or a citizen of another state, unless the state consents to jurisdiction."

[Cyber Liberty]

Just be honest with yourselves. You're only upset because Trump lost. If Trump had won with the same procedures, you'd be laughing at the Dems. Just as they're laughing at Trumpsters now.

You demand the impossible.  If I were to say, I'm "just upset because trump lost," then I would be lying about my reverence for the Constitution that got stomped upon.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"The Eleventh Amendment prevents federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over state defendants--the federal court will not even hear the case if a state is the defendant. A state may not be sued in federal court by its own citizen or a citizen of another state, unless the state consents to jurisdiction."

The 11th Amendment offers states  sovereign immunity from private actions brought against states in federal court.

Unless the state or the federal government creates an exception to the state's sovereign immunity, the state is immune from being sued without consent by any CITIZEN  in federal courts, state courts, or before federal administrative agencies. 

@goatprairie

[libertybele]

You demand the impossible.  If I were to say, I'm "just upset because trump lost," then I would be lying about my reverence for the Constitution that got stomped upon.

 

[jafo2010]

The Dems have wanted to jettison the Constitution for a long time now.

As long as we have electronic voting, it will be fixed.  Republicans either push for paper ballots only, or we are no different than Russia.  And that is NOT something we should want, but our young folks are being taught by radical university professors that socialism is a good thing.

[Sled Dog]

Flash.....news to the Trumpsters....he lost. It's none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania (or any other state) conducts their elections. Just it's none of the business of Pennsylvania how Texas conducts their elections.

Totally wrong, of course.

The Constitution requires the state LEGISLATURES to determine how their state selected presidential electors.

No the executive branch via edicts from the Secretary of State.

Not the judicial branch via court rulings changing procedures, such as how late magic mail-in ballots can be recieved, etc.

The state LEGISLATURE decides.   

ONLY the state legislature.

When the executive and judicial branches of half a dozen states arbitrarily and unconstitutionally decide to set aside the laws of the legislature and thus invalidate a critical element of the selection of the President, those goons are effectively and in actuality disenfranchising the voters of the 75 million Americans that voted for the real president and, if the laws had been been followed, elected President Trump by an electoral landslide.

To protect the rights of their citizens, Texas and the dozen or so other states that joined the lawsuit most eminently had standing to sue.   Because....

...it was NOT the "state of Pennsylvania" that violated the Constitution, it was the unlawful goons overstepping their utter lack of authority to have any input at all.

And the Supreme Court failed completely to perform it's task of protecting the rights of the people.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[Smokin Joe]

No, it is not. That is the authority of the FEDERAL government. The 11th Amendment in fact prohibits states from suing other states.
 In a country of over 300 million people, it is practically impossible to hear all of the potential cases that would come forward. The SCOTUS has no Constitutional obligation to give a full trial to every kook that comes forward with any ludicrous claim. Like, you know, the birthers.

That is why, If I take Pennsylvania to court for diminishing the value of my one vote to something less with fraudulent votes, I would not end up at the SCOTUS right away. However, the United States Supreme Court does have primary jurisdiction in matters between the States. If the votes of Texans and those of the other States which signed on are diminished by the unconstitutional actions of one or more States, the State has standing, and the Supreme court has no right to refuse to even examine the case.
Effectively, the people of all 25 States involved have been denied Due Process of Law by denying them a day in court.