Gaming the Courts Purge opposition War on the Right

Pocket Vacancy

Proving that we are moving from a Cold Civil War to a hotter one, Shut Down DC is offering money to anyone disclosing the location of the six Conservative SCOTUS justices.

The reason for this, at least to me, is completely obvious. They WANT some looney to assassinate one or more of them. Such an act would allow Biden to name their replacement. This is nothing more than a group of people who want to commit murder but don’t have the balls to do it themselves. They know that there are people in their movement whose screws are loose, and are hoping that they can spur them into action by broadcasting the location of their desired targets.

I am willing to be that there will be a serious assassination attempt on a SCOTUS justice before the end of the year, with more copycats, and I would give you a 50% chance that at least one of those attempts will be successful before the 2024 election.

Meanwhile, the Republican baseball shooting of 2017 didn’t go far enough. This time, they are going to do something even bigger.

Now or Never is choosing to engage in direct action, it noted, because “conventional tactics are not enough” and it is “time to escalate.” 

The violence is ramping up again. If you think 2020 was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Gaming the Courts War on the Right

Attacks Continue

It’s a big surprise that justices go to dinner with like minded people? Then the MSM leftist media at Politicx attacks them to make it sound seedy or underhanded.

Gaming the Courts

SCOTUS disagreement

Here is a Washington Post article outlining a difference of opinion between Sotomayor and Gorsuch. In the post itself, they note that Sotomayor herself “noted that the courts have in the past regarded children as particularly susceptible to explicit and implicit pressure.”

One can’t help but wonder if this opinion is consistent when teachers are accused of grooming kids into being sexual deviants.

Gaming the Courts Race baiting

How Does She Know?

The MSM is claiming that Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in today, making her the “the first Black woman to serve as a justice.”

Since she testified to Congress under oath, claiming that she didn’t know what a woman was, claiming to be one means that she should be impeached for lying to Congress. Isn’t that the standard now?

Anti American left Gaming the Courts

White=Less Rights

The Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that people who are not white get more rights than people who are white. The reasoning?

the relevance of race and ethnicity in the seizure inquiry cannot turn on whether there has been recent, well-publicized discrimination and violence by law enforcement directed at individuals of the same race or ethnicity as the allegedly seized person. Instead, we must be cognizant that for generations, black and brown parents have given their children “the talk”—instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.

So the court is saying that because minority parents tell their children that cops will kill them for no reason, the standard for a cop asking “BIPOC” people for ID is higher than it is for whites.

It is now the law in Washington State- whites have fewer constitutional rights than other races. For that reason, I am adding all of Washington state to Zone 5. If you are white, you no longer have the same rights as others in Washington state. It is therefore no longer a part of the United States and whites are unpersons.

The next step historically is a decree forcing all Jews Whites to transfer retail businesses to Aryan BIPOC hands. The boxcars and camps follow soon thereafter.

This is a textbook violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, but my bet is that it won’t matter.

Anti American left Gaming the Courts

Religious Test

The left is making claims that Catholics have a conflict of interest in the abortion debate because their faith conflicts with their responsibilities.

It’s like they don’t even read the constitution.

Article 5 Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Cancel Culture Gaming the Courts War on the Right

Let Me Explain My Position

“Free Speech” means that you can say whatever you wish without fear of government reprisal. It doesn’t free you from all consequences. Twitter is well within their rights to lock you out of their service.

However, people are responsible for the things that they say. A great example of this is slander, libel, and defamation of character. If I make a statement as if it were a fact, yet I know to be false, and I made that statement with the intent of harming the person who is the subject of that statement, I am liable for that. Even if I made that statement with a careless disregard for any harm it would cause or a disregard for the truth of that statement, I am still liable.

For example, let’s say that I make the statement that someone is a pedophile. At the time I made the statement, I didn’t know or care whether or not it was true. If the community heard that statement and his business, career, or reputation is harmed, I am now open to being sued by him.

The reason why the press can publish stories about people is they make every effort to ensure its veracity. The truth is an absolute defense. This is why news organizations retract false statements publicly as soon as they realize it was false. Or at least why they used to.

The reason why sites like Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites don’t get sued is that they have claimed to be a virtual town square where the site doesn’t have anything to do with the content, and are merely serving as a vehicle for free speech.

As soon as Social Media sites began controlling and eliminating speech that they disagreed with, they became editors who ensured that anything posted on their site was something with which they agreed. At this point, the statement is essentially their statement and not simply a posting of someone else’s statement. They are trying to avoid this by calling it “fact checking” and dodging their responsibilities. I think this is a fig leaf that should be eliminated, but we know how the courts are going to go.

I just don’t believe in our legal system or its courts. Heck, I no longer believe in our entire government. Sadly, it has been completely subverted.

In the case of Musk blocking people, he isn’t eliminating their ability to speak. He is simply refusing to listen to them, and that doesn’t violate anything.

Gaming the Courts Rigging the vote

Judges Aren’t Partisan

A judge in California ruled that President Donald Trump likely broke the law when he “corruptly” attempted to obstruct the confirmation of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College win by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Now this judge, nominated by Democrat Sex Addict Bill Clinton in 1998 made his ruling by strictly following the law, facts, and Constitution, and not because he is a partisan hack who is located in one of the most liberal circuits in the most liberal district of the US court system.

Nevermind that this is the same judge who issued a 110 page ruling that required LA to provide housing for all homeless people on skid row, a ruling that was later overturned by the Ninth Circuit as being too liberal of a ruling.

This is also the same judge that dismissed the lawsuits against Obama’s presidential campaign when voters demanded that he provide proof that he was eligible to run for office, claiming that voters do not have standing to demand proof of eligibility for office.

Nope. The judiciary is completely above things like politics, even though this judge has carried Democrat water for decades.

Gaming the Courts Police State tyranny

Important SCOTUS case

A restaurant owner filed a complaint about a Federal cop with that cop’s supervisor. The cop responded by getting other Federal agencies (including the IRS) to place the owner under a microscope. The restaurant owner sued, and now that case is headed to SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS holds that this cop is immune from lawsuits, even while he is willingly and knowingly violating someone’s Constitutional rights, expect police behavior to get worse. We all know that SCOTUS is likely to support the cop’s behavior.

It’s almost like we live in a police state where the only way you can get justice is to mete it out yourself.

Gaming the Courts

Not Political? OK

Justice Breyer just announced his retirement. He claims that the SCOTUS isn’t a political entity:

“It is wrong to think of the court as another political institution,” he said in an April speech at Harvard Law School. “And it is doubly wrong to think of its members as junior league politicians.”

He added, justices “are loyal to the rule of law, not to the political party that helped to secure their appointment.”

OK. Pull the other leg, it has bells on it. The Supreme Court is, and always has been, a political entity. Breyer is retiring at this particular point in time because there is a Democrat in the White House, and the Democrats hold a razor thin edge in the Senate. They rolled the dice in 2016 and lost that bet, so they aren’t likely to do it again.

The left is still salty because the Senate wouldn’t allow Obama to replace Scalia with a leftist, thus cementing a hard left SCOTUS for decades.

The Democrats could have selected Scalia’s replacement in 2016, and the accusation is that the Republicans wouldn’t allow his selectee to be voted upon. That is pure BS. The Obama administration could have had Scalia’s replacement in 2016. All they had to do was offer a replacement that was not a hard core leftist. Had the Democrats offered a more centrist candidate, the Republicans would have likely approved. The Republican Senate would have approved a left leaning centrist, rather than wait to see the hard core leftist that HRC was going to nominate.

But Obama didn’t do that. Why not?

Because everyone who mattered was absolutely convinced that Hillary was going to be the next President. Her victory was a guarantee. The Democrats believed it so much, they decided to stick to the extremist pick on the theory that HRC was going to ram through a leftist candidate to replace Scalia and swing the court to the left.

Instead, the Republicans got to install Gorsuch. That was bad enough from their point of view, but still didn’t swing the court to the left.

The real damage came because Ginsberg decided to hold out for the HRC presidency that never materialized. RBG could have retired in 2016 and been replaced by an Obama selectee, but chose not to. Why did she do that? 

Ginsberg wanted to be in the history books after retiring during a Hillary Clinton Presidency, so she could become the first female Justice to be replaced by the first female President. 

That big mistake became the decision that threw SCOTUS firmly to the right by giving President Trump a recently unheard of three SCOTUS picks. The last President who got to do that was Ronald Reagan.

Everyone who mattered thought that Hillary was going to be the next President. The Democrats believed it so much, they decided to stick to the extremist pick on the theory that HRC was going to ram through a leftist candidate to replace Scalia and swing the court to the left. They didn’t need to pick a moderate SCOTUS candidate. If the Senate didn’t confirm Obama’s pick, HRC would get the pick. RBG didn’t need to retire while Obama was in the Oval office, HRC would pick her replacement.

They bet on an HRC victory. Trump’s victory destroyed all of that, and this set up to make the SCOTUS a conservative court for the next 20 years.

The retirement of Breyer won’t change that.

Interesting trivia:

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt got eight of his nominees on the Supreme Court in six years while in office. There was also Dwight Eisenhower, William Taft and Ulysses Grant, each of whom got five nominees on the court.

Nixon, Truman, Harding, Harrison, and Cleveland each got four picks.

Reagan, Hoover, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Trump each got three.

Obama, both Bushes, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and Hayes each picked two for the high court.

Ford, Coolidge, McKinley, and Garfield each only picked one justice.