IntenseDebate - Jarndyce

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - Low Ball · 0 replies · +3 points

It has a second fundamental goal, which was stated in Trump's campaign slogan, as understood non-euphemistically: Make America White Again.

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - Citizen's Arrest · 0 replies · +1 points

Wouldn't you think that one's Supreme Court confirmation hearings would be the last place that one would commit perjury? There's an incongruity, somehow.

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - Citizen's Arrest · 0 replies · +1 points

The Washington Post has an article by a baseball umpire stating that his job requires "rule interpretations and judgment calls," including in the calling of balls and strikes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/sorry-judg...

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - Citizen's Arrest · 0 replies · +1 points

An article at Salon.com reminds us of Rehnquist's perjury at his confirmation hearings:

"Conservatives have been accepting perjured testimony from favored nominees at least since the time of William Rehnquist, who lied about two matters in 1971 and again in 1985: his involvement in voter suppression efforts in Arizona in the 1960s, and his intellectual authorship of a memo written for Justice Robert Jackson, 1952 opposing the unanimous decision in (Rehnquist could not deny writing the memo, but claimed — against all evidence — that it represented Jackson’s views, not his own. New evidence of Rehnquist’s views in 2012 further undermined his claim)."
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/08/brett-kavanaughs...
The passage quoted above has two links, if you go to the article.

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - Citizen's Arrest · 2 replies · +2 points

But it's ok to commit perjury at one's confirmation hearings. Clarence Thomas did so repeatedly. In fact, it's practically required. The bullshit about balls and strikes is a lie, if not legally perjury, and liberals do it too. Sotomayor testified that her judicial philosophy is “fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law.” Roberts said, “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.” These people know that every Supreme Court decision makes law. If the Court rules that a statute means A and not B, then it has made a law that means A. One might forgive them for this lie, however, because the Senate has made it a prerequisite for confirmation. It would reject any nominee who was truthful about a justice's role.

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - Kavanaugh's reputation... · 0 replies · +3 points

I wholly agree with antiscience. I will name some other devastating blots that make no difference. Thomas is a perjurer as well as a sexual harasser; he lied repeatedly during his confirmation hearings. In Herrera v. Collins (1993), Thomas and Scalia, in a concurring opinion lacking any basis, said that the Constitution permits the execution of a death row inmate whom the state, after the conviction, discovers conclusively to be innocent. That belief places Thomas and Scalia beyond the pale of decent humanity; how can one take anything they write seriously? How about Bush v. Gore? The justices in the majority effectively announced that their mission on the Court was to further the agenda of the Republican party, and they have reiterated that in numerous subsequent decisions whose legal "reasoning" is a facade. Yet every judge and lawyer will continue to cite their decisions and will continue to cite Kavanaugh's after he gets on the Court. All three branches of our government are, perhaps irredeemably, corrupt. No nation lasts forever.

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - U.S. Immigration Polic... · 2 replies · +1 points

But I suggested that the seizures were not done under color of federal law, which would distinguish them from enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. Suppose Trump had ordered the murder of immigrant children instead of their kidnapping. Would that be subject to prosecution under state murder statutes?

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - U.S. Immigration Polic... · 5 replies · +1 points

Perhaps the government employees are not in fact determining that the parents are unfit. Rather, they may be looking for any excuse available to perpetuate as many of the kidnappings as they can.

I hope that some state attorneys' general will look into filing kidnapping charges against the perpetrators, from Trump on down. They could argue that the seizures of children were not done under color of federal law, but were legally no different from ordinary kidnappings.

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - U.S. Immigration Polic... · 6 replies · +1 points

The NY Times today has an editorial about Trump's child kidnappings; it's good to see that the media have not totally forgotten the matter. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/family.... It reports on the horrific effects that the kidnappings have had on the children who have been returned.

It also mentions something that I've read in other reports but never seen commented on: "A few dozen have parents who have been deemed ineligible for reunification because of criminal records or other circumstances. (Disqualifying offenses include drug-possession charges, ID violations and drunken-driving convictions.)" Surely no law permits the U.S. government to remove children because of such criminal charges (even if the parents have been convicted after having been afforded due process, which there is no indication that they have). How dare government employees presume to determine parents' fitness and remove their children, presumably permanently! Is the ACLU fighting this? Again, I've not seen a word in the media beyond the bare facts that I just quoted.

5 years ago @ The Reality-Based Comm... - The Revocation of John... · 0 replies · +1 points

It is obvious that Trump's real reason was the viewpoint Brennan expressed. The courts may decide to take the President's lie about his reason at face value, as the Supreme Court did in Trump v. Hawaii, upholding Trump's Muslim travel ban. But they don't have to; the lower courts in Trump v. Hawaii did not.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Jarndyce

People I'm following

Jarndyce