How many divisions has the Pope?

WSJ : Buttigieg openly defies SCOTUS

In this, along with other actions, it appears that the Biden administration is intent do thrashing the Rule of Law.  These defiances lead down a very bad road. Either Biden will eventually accept that he lost these decisions, or he will get that insurrection he keeps talking about.

188 thoughts on “How many divisions has the Pope?

  1. “… will get that insurrection he keeps talking about.”

    Again, the threats of violence from the right. Don’t you guys believe in the reason we have Congress and might strive to fix it so we have representation that resembles America.

    Then use it to settle our issues. Executive overreach? Debate and legislate.

    Or is it “my way or the AR-15 way”? Must be with all the GOP folks using guns in ads.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. OK then, tell me at what point it is proper for the people to rise up?

      On multiple issues, the courts have ruled against Biden’s executive branch orders and regulations. The response has been to defy the courts and the Rule of Law.

      Certainly chastising the administration at the polls is the first step, but if the administration persists in defying the law even after losing the House this fall, is there no point at which you will stand against it?

      Would it matter if it were a GOP administration doing the same thing?

      Is there any breach of the Rule of Law that you will not join in opposing? If the people won’t hold the administration accountable, who will?


      1. People like you who whitewash actual violent insurrection don’t have the bona fides to talk about the “Rule of Law.”

        This time your threat of violence is over the interpretation of the phrase “environmental sustainability.” You think your arsenal and bullets have something to say about what that means? Obviously, you do. And that is a problem far bigger than any push by the government to lower CO2 emissions.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. So what?

          Even if the cause were a good one, the court has ruled that the EPA did not have the authority to deal with it. Congress must authorize it first.

          The issue is not whether the EPA plans were good or not(they aren’t, but not the issue) it is that the Biden administration is flat out defying the law after losing in court.

          If a President decided to ignore Lawrence v Texas and started jailing gays, would you just shrug that off?

          If an administration refuses to submit to the Rule of Law, who, other than the people themselves, can bring it to heel?

          The courts have no army, neither does Congress. Only the people can act to end a tyrannical Executive branch.

          Do you crave a dictator that much?


          1. “Do you crave a dictator that much?”

            I crave democracy. The people and the Congress want the government to do MORE, not less, to protect the environment. The majority – of which I am a member on most issues- is growing weary of minority rule by billionaire-funded lying liars and their dirty tricks.

            Your claim that President Biden is ignoring the rule of law is stupid partisan bullshit. The law in question is a different law with different words than the one where SCOTUS blocked “pollution” control of powerplants. Let them rule on the words “environmental sustainability” and see what happens before you reach for your fucking gun.

            The fact that you equate automobile emission regulation called for by Congress with a “tyrannical Executive” requiring armed response marks you as one of those disturbed people who should not have legal access to guns. The Constitution gives Congress the explicit authority to “suppress Insurrection.” People advocating insurrection should bear that in mind if they really care about the Rule of Law.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Buttigieg’s charade violates the same principle as the power plant decision. And they know that.

            If you are certain this policy is the will of the people, then you should have no problem getting Congress to pass appropriate legislation to expand the power of the EPA legally.

            Good luck with that.

            Democrats in Congress are happy with the EPA illegally expanding its powers because it spares them going on the record to impose policy that DOES NOT have the support of the people.


          3. And for that you want another civil war?

            Look at Donbas in Ukraine. Is that what you think is a good solution for things you disagree with? That is what civil war does. Technically it is not a civil war, but the results are the same.

            For that matter, are there successful civil wars? You are still fighting the one we had 150+ years ago.

            Ginny Thomas spread the rumor that election officials and Democrats were on barges outside of Gitmo awaiting military tribunals. Is that your solution too?

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Once again, the willingness of the people to put down a rogue regime is generally enough to make actual violence unnecessary.

            It is when the people indicate they will not stand up for anything that it gets out of hand.

            You are more likely to bring on an actual insurrection than I am by telling the Executive there is no line they cannot cross.


          5. And again, what I am talking about is when the administration defies the courts,

            It’s when you sue and win and the administration does whatever it damn well pleases anyway.

            Other than the people, who enforces the Rule of Law?

            When SCOTUS ruled against Andrew Jackson driving the Amerindians out of their lands, he just went ahead and did it anyway, and the courts were impotent to stop him.

            The people did not stand up to him and a great wrong was done. Do we support the Rule of Law only when it suits our goals?


          6. Back to killing. What is your scenario? What do you suggest? An insurrection? How? 1/6 redux? With bazookas? Then what? Hostage taking of Congress members? Then what?

            Liked by 2 people

          7. …”what I am talking about is when the administration defies the courts,”

            As stated earlier, the decision is based on Roberts’ INTERPRETATION of the law. That makes it quite understandable and possible that the administration is interpreting other parts of the law differently.

            Humankind is fallible. Not everyone agrees with every interpretation of laws. The administration is not ignoring anything; they are interpreting the decision and moving forward within the constraints of what is believed.


          8. The decision of the court is law, whether you agree with it or not.

            That’s the point of the court making a decision. so that people can know what the law is. They don’t get to relitigate it every time they encounter it.


          9. …”the willingness of the people to put down a rogue regime is generally enough to make actual violence unnecessary.”

            But it was the willingness of the people on January 6th, the ones who stored the Capitol, who were the violent ones. And that wasn’t to put down a rogue regime; it was to keep one in power.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. There is a lot of polling data out there that says otherwise because they believe the Big Lie concerning fraud in the 2020 election. Many of them are running for statewide offices to oversee elections. Many are sitting in Congress.

            And the BIG ONE is sitting in Mar-a-Lago laughing at the idea of our Democratic Republic.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “Buttigieg’s charade violates the same principle as the power plant decision. And they know that.”

            That is your opinion. I know of no reason why anybody should accept your opinion on anything. Especially when it concerns the Rule of Law. Besides, you are wrong.

            BTW, rhetoric about banning gasoline powered vehicles is dishonest. So, of course, you spread it. This PROPOSED rule – still subject to comment and revision – does no such thing. It PROPOSES that states and municipalities develop plans to reduce highway emissions. It explicitly states. . .

            “The proposed rule would not mandate the level of the targets.”

            It leaves it up to states to individually set targets and methods that work for them with the only requirement that they plan to reduce emissions over time.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. If you think it’s a good idea, then get Congress to authorize. But that authority does not exist now.

            But go ahead, I would be delighted to see Chevron overturned in its entirety and that’s what we will get if SCOTUS is backed into a corner with these “clever” workarounds.


          13. “And the rest of the people did not support them.”

            You would have if they had succeeded scaring away the Congress and throwing the election back to Gerrymandered state legislatures. You would have convinced yourself that it was all legal. Just like the Founders intended.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. “What you think I would do is fact, because you say so?”

            No, it is not mind reading. It is an opinion based on lots of evidence.

            I am very familiar with the way you think. You express your bizarre opinions quite forcefully. I know how you minimized and justified the violence. I know how you hate democracy. I know how you hate President Biden. I know how you hate Democrats. I know how you support Trump. I know how you believe and spread the Big Lie. I know how little the truth means to you (you support Trump). I know how you love the idea of violence against the government.

            So, IMHO, if the attempted coup – with all of its pseudo-legal rationale – had gone a little better for Trump you would not see that as something to fight but something to applaud. Say I am wrong, if you want. I won’t believe you.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. “But I would not have been willing to accept Trump’s efforts had they been successful.”

            We will see how sincere you are when Trump is indicted for his many crimes in the aftermath of the election.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. “It makes it accepting the Rule of Law, which Biden seems incapable of doing.”

            Noted hatred of po Boiden.

            When Trump stops claiming the election was stolen and there was widespread fraud and convinces his followers that he is been lying since the day he entered the political arena, than I will agree that he has accepted the Rule of Law.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Trump whines and blusters, but he did not refuse to give up the office. He did not set up an alternate Presidency-in-exile.

            He complained, but he obeyed the law.

            Biden does not.


          18. “Biden does not.”

            Seeing as you have no idea how to be objective when it comes to Biden or Democrats in general, I will ignore the fact that you believe that just because he left office (probably because he knew the US Marshall service would have per-walked him out) he obeyed the law.

            The fact that you still give him a pass while touting the idea of the Rule of Law would be laughable if it weren’t such a dangerous way to think.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. Trump wasn’t exiled, so setting up a government in exile is harder.

            We now know that 1/6 was planned to be violent by Trump. We know he threatened and extorted election officials.

            Yeah, he was a real Rule of Law president.

            Liked by 2 people

          20. You haven’t bother to watch the investigation.
            The connections among the gangs and Trump associates is pretty damning.

            Trump had a phone call with Bannon and just a few minutes later Bannon was on his podcast telling folks that on Jan 6 “All hell is going to break loose”.

            Bannon and Stone had very strong connections to both Proud Boys and Oathkeepers right up to the night before. Stone even took the oath to join.

            He knew there were weapons. And evidence shows that the plan all along was to go to the Capitol, not a spontaneous act. The gangs had stored caches of arms nearby.

            There is plenty of evidence from both Republicans at all levels and former gang members.

            There were elaborate plans written down on official letterheads to have the military seize voting machines. After much shouting, it was shot down.

            I have debated with many of my friends and relatives that prosecuting an ex-president would not be a good idea. However, the evidence shows that this was very deep in the right wing circles and Trump was the leader. I am now of the mind that he should be prosecuted not just for 1/6 but interfering in state elections via extortion and threats, a felony.

            Witness tampering is also happening via not so veiled threats and phone calls from both surrogates and Trump himself.

            I never thought he was innocent, but never in my life did I think a sitting president would attack his own government and Constitution that he swore to defend.

            Evidently, he did.

            Liked by 2 people

          21. Of course I’m not watching the charade.

            Calling it an investigation is just plain silly. Nothing you see has not been scripted. Witnesses are questioned in private with no public record. Anything contrary to the narrative is never seen.

            Bannon has offered to testify in public. Not necessarily broadcast, just on the record.

            Let’s see if that happens.

            The Committee would appear to have a lot more to hide than Trump, it is an active fraud on the American people.


          22. “…no public record.”

            All the testimonies, about 1000 so far, have been under oath, recorded and transcribed. They will all be available after the hearings are over.

            As an American, I am very interested in not just what happened, but how and why. It was obvious that our norms were not protective enough of our Constitution and our system of governance.

            An independent commission that was initially agreed upon by Republican leadership in the House was the original plan. McConnell, and Trump, squashed that.

            Interestingly, very little testimony has been challenged, not refuted, other than the details in the limo about the steering wheel. By that time the attack had been underway anyway.

            Like Watergate, it has been the testimonies of the inner circles of power by loyalists that are the core.

            Congressional investigations are not trials. But I suspect there will be some soon as the evidence becomes insurmountable.

            I never expected you to accept anything other than a few upset Trump fans wandering around the Capitol. That is the right wing internet at its most effective…and pernicious.

            Such is life in America today.

            Liked by 2 people

          23. How can testimony be refuted when there is no cross examination? And contrary testimony kept secret until after the mid term election?

            You’re right that it isn’t a trial, but it isn’t an investigation either. It’s a taxpayer funded campaign commercial with no legitimacy on any level.


          24. Your opinion. Mine is different, obviously.

            It would be a bit different if they did not have so much testimony from inner circle Trump loyalists. And remember, they stayed loyal for well over a year.

            With a few minor exceptions, the testimonies were first hand knowledge as witnesses to the events leading up to 1/6. Unless 1000 people under oath committed perjury and collaborated the testimonies, it strains the idea that there is much contradictory information. But if trials happen, there will be plenty of opportunities to refute.

            Watergate had the support of Republicans who were outraged at Nixon’s behavior. Here, the Republicans are scared because they are either involved or spineless in the face of Trumpian wrath.


            Liked by 2 people

          25. You have no idea what 1000 people said under oath.

            At most you know the 0.1% the committee staff has chosen to reveal out of context.

            It is not possible to know what inconsistencies and contradictions might be in the 99.9% still held secret.

            That you think you know the truth based on what has been made public tells me that you don’t really care what the truth is.


          26. “That you think you know the truth based on what has been made public tells me that you don’t really care what the truth is.”

            Laughable. You are clearly the person here who cannot handle the truth.

            The Trump appointees and staffers – all the best people – whose testimony has been presented are perfectly capable of speaking out if the presentation of their testimony has not been honest. Why wouldn’t they do that if it had happened? Are they “corrupt?”

            Liked by 1 person

          27. They could do whatever and you still would find fault. 1000 people, committee members, aides, videographers, transcribers add up to a lot of secrets to be kept over the last 6 months. Not to mention the witnesses themselves.

            Conspiracies are not my cup of tea.

            Wait for the trials, then we’ll see.

            Unless they hold it near any place that is not to your liking.

            Or the judge is a RINO. Or the Italian satellites are beaming up Dr. Spock.

            I do care about the truth. I also have some respect for the committee members and that they are real patriots who want to preserve our grand experiment not tear it down to install an autocrat. Everyone, but particularly Cheney and Kinzinger are under death threats by very dangerous actors. As are the election officials, volunteers, judges, witnesses and anyone else who doesn’t buy into what Trump is selling.

            Promise you will read each and every transcript from all witnesses when they are public. I know you won’t. And I understand. Too comfortable to just stand aside and lob conspiracies.


            Liked by 2 people

          28. If you have any respect at all for Adam Schiff or Jamie Raskin as many times as they have been caught in lies, you are operating in a delusion.

            As far as Cheney is concerned, she is more like Trump than she understands. It’s all personal for her, and truth be damned.

            And no, I won’t read every transcript. I have a life. And I have people for that, they work at the WSJ. But those transcripts should be available to the Press in real time, unless they have something to hide.


          29. Raskin’s entire opening statement in Trump’s second impeachment was lies from beginning to end, claiming he had evidence, never presented, that Trump had prior knowledge of the Capitol intrusion and that Trump’s challenging of electors was unprecedented. Raskin challenged electors in Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary.

            For Schiff, the list goes back years, including flat out lying about the Whistleblower incident, and all through the Russia Collusion hoax.


          30. …” claiming he had evidence, never presented, that Trump had prior knowledge of the Capitol intrusion”

            You do realize that Tuesday’s hearing provided that?

            Too bad you don’t want to see what is being presented. And rebuttal? There is none.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. In the absence of cross examination and counter testimony, none of what the Committee provides is evidence of anything.

            Evidence can stand up to questionsing.


          32. You use the word “evidence” when it is convenient for your argument. The testimony that has been given thus far has been by people ON THE INSIDE. What questions would you ask under cross? Based on what has presented to this point, I would see any “rebuttal” as “We have no questions for this witness.”

            Liked by 1 person

          33. Then why was it necessary to exclude the GOP choices from the committee?

            If there is no cross examination, or challenge to their accuracy, such as testimony from other witnesses either not called or not made public, then it isn’t evidence.


          34. “Raskin’s entire opening statement in Trump’s second impeachment was lies”

            Uh, that impeachment had to be prepared on an incredibly short time frame. It turns out, now that 1,000 or so people have been deposed, that Raskin understated Trump’s knowledge, preparations and culpability. You would know that if you had not deliberately avoided hearing the evidence.

            Here is a pro tip. Just because one of the lying liars of the propaganda organizations that keep you people fired up tells you that Raskin or Schiff or anyone else are liars, does not make it true. Try thinking for yourself. I know you can do it.

            Liked by 1 person

          35. We know that Trump did plan the attack. So
            where is the lie?

            In the past there have been a few voiced protests by legislators. The scope and planning by Trump was unprecedented.

            Schiff did make a false statement about the whistleblower and whether he spoke to the committee in a Morning Joe interview. At the time WAPO gave him 4 Pinocchios. I learned something that I forgot.

            I don’t know about other incidents.

            Liked by 1 person

          36. So are you saying we should just have ignored 1/6 as if it never happened. If Republicans refused to cooperate in an independent commission, that was the end all.

            I see how that works. Ignorance is bliss on a national level.

            The GOP was in a serious bind, and still is. Its constituents, the hard core, the primary voters, believe the satellites. Its legislators probably don’t for the most part. But they can’t afford to voice that. Plus there was a good chance that some would get exposed for their roles. And it seems they have.

            I wager that if Obama had tried to stay in power the same way you would have screamed for so many investigations that heads would spin. Telling Antifa to “stand by”. Then curse advisors to let armed leftists in because they were not there to hurt him. Threaten and extort state officials in swing states. Sit in the White House and do nothing for over 3 hours while Congress is being ransacked. Then tweet a thank you to the patriots who sent 125 police to the hospital.

            OMG, the outrage from the left would have been constant and not just for a few days until Obama talked to them so they could thwart an investigation.

            PS: “ And no, I won’t read every transcript. I have a life. And I have people for that, they work at the WSJ.” What! You are going to filter the transcripts through MSM? I am shocked. Appalled. You who wanted to make them public today. I thought you liked to wait and see the originals of everything.

            Liked by 2 people

          37. Were you unsatisfied with the job the DOJ under Garland was doing investigating the incident?

            Congress has oversight, but that is to keep the Executive Branch honest. Instead, the Select Committee is hampering the DOJ investigation,

            The Committee is not engaged in a serious investigation, DOJ had that covered, this is political theater that has nothing todo with truth.


          38. DOJ was just addressing the people who attacked the Capitol. They committed various crimes from trespassing to vandalism to assaulting police and more recently seditious conspiracy.

            Was he investigating the planners and plotters in the Trump organization?

            Liked by 1 person

          39. You would not know anything about the investigation if you refuse to watch or, I suppose, even read the testimonies. So how do you know what you assert?

            You just despise Democrats, as, to your credit, have so stated. So it matters little what they say or do.


            Liked by 2 people

          40. …” and truth be damned.”

            You do that with every single post about the committee. You won’t even watch because you BELIEVE it is all a sham. You won’t pay attention to any of the REPUBLICAN witnesses or even the WH Counsel who was there.

            YEah. They are all performing a chardae.

            Your bull is effective fertilizer, but your hypocrisy is worse.

            Liked by 1 person

          41. I don’t watch commercials for the casinos that tell me how much money I can make gambling there either.

            When you have been lied to enough you stop listening to those people.

            FWIW, I don’t listen to Trump talking about the election either.


          42. Unfortunately politicians do lie. In our lifetimes we have had major problems. LBJ lied about Tonkin Gulf, Nixon lied about everything, Reagan lied about Iran-Contra, as did Bush the Elder, Clinton lied about sex, Bush the Younger lied about WMD’s. You can pick your Obama lies, but they were pretty tame. Shoot, Seneca lied about the virtues of Stoicism while he was the richest man in Rome.

            In America, the saying is “campaign in poetry and govern in prose” is correct. However we have virtually endless campaigning, so the lines between poetry and prose are blurred by money and power.

            I would love to have every politician answer every reasonable question with the simple truth. But the truth is that our legislators are supposed to represent “us”, but instead need “them” to finance re-election campaigns.

            The “grand jury” will most certainly send the DOJ all the evidence and let them deal with it. But Georgia for one, and some other states too, have a legal bone to pick with Trump for felony election interference. The whole country heard Trump extort and threaten with plenty of witnesses on both side. So the feds may have to wait.

            Just musing. But I would guess your screed against lying is stronger for Democrats than Republicans.

            Liked by 2 people

          43. Now who is lying? You may not listen to Trump directly, but I find it hard to believe that you don’t pay attention to what is reported by your news sources of choice. Unless your news source of choice is not covering the news.


          44. “Of course I’m not watching the charade.”

            LOL! Too painful?

            It is not an investigation. It is a presentation of the results of an investigation. Duh. And without the usual parade of grandstanding jackasses, it is doing so in a clear and compelling manner.

            Liked by 1 person

          45. No parade of grandstanding jackasses?

            Thompson, Luria, Cheney and Schiff, are right there.

            What is not there are GOP appointees to contest the lies of the committee members.

            The moment Pelosi rejected the GOP appointees, the committee became a farce of no interest to honest citizens.


          46. The GOP stopped the non partisan commission that was proposed. SO because of the the Speaker of the House (elections have consequences) HAD to do something. And when the GOP wanted to put people on the committee who were directly involved in the efforts to overturn the election, Pelosi knew they could not be there. Not because they would ask cross examination questions, but because they would attemtp to deflect the hearing as to failures by security on that day. The members that were proposed have said that is the direction they would take their questions.

            There would have been ZERO security failures if Trump, his sycophants and his minions hadn’t been pushing the lie of a stolen election.

            If the GOP wanted to put SERIOUS members of their party on that commission, they had the opportunity. McCarthy blew it when he listened to his master’s voice. (Who know says McCarthy screwed up and should have put GOP members there.)

            And seeing as you are not watching the hearings, how is it you can say they are telling lies. Who is telling lies? What lies are being told. OR are they just Democrats so they lie automatically?

            Yeah, That’s what I thought.

            Liked by 1 person

          47. Oh horrors, people the Democrats had decided were guilty BEFORE the “investigation” would have been there to defend themselves.

            Can’t have that, it’s contrary to Stalin’s rules for criminal inquiry.


          48. Your desperation is noticed. BIGLY!

            It is NOT a criminal inquiry. IT is an investigation as to what happened and what were the causes. It isn’t an impeachment where there are certain rules of evidnece.

            Kind of hard to defend oneslf agaisnt the indefensible. What would they say? Things you used to say about Trump? They misspoke. Did not speak delicately enough. They didn’t really mean what they said?

            It seems you are even more unhinged than the December 18th meeeting in the Oval Office.

            But hey Supreme COurt Jutices.


          49. “If a President decided to ignore Lawrence v Texas and started jailing gays, would you just shrug that off?”

            If SCOTUS overturns that case, as Thomas seems to be advocating for, would YOU just shrug it off? Doesn’t sound like someone who believes in Liberty.


          50. Thomas specifically brought that case up in his concurring opinion:

            “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

            The cynic in me says he will see what clients are paying Ginny for getting SCOTUS to revisit those rulings.

            Liked by 2 people

          51. “I doubt even Thomas would support it.”

            Then why were those cases mentioned in his concurrence in DObbs?

            Your view of Thomas is quite Pollyannaish, in my view. He is a danger to civil rights for a lot of people in this country. (It makes one wonder why Loving wasn’t also mentioned.) His OWN WORDS say that. – IMO


          52. He may be kind and caring. A mother bear is kind and caring. But to mention cases that should be revisited shows no kindness or caring. It shows a taste for overturning MORE precedent than what was done with Dobbs.

            Liked by 1 person

          53. Not really.

            It was a list of rulings that may be in peril, and a warning to Congress and State legislatures, to take appropriate actions, just as I recommended last week regarding repeal of the Defense of Marriage Amendment.

            Thomas didn’t say he was opposed to those protections, just that they should be protected other than by a right to privacy argument.


          54. So one’s rights as far as marriage , contraception, sex partners will be variable depending upon state. Nice. Arrest a gay couple traveling cross country. Or some officer sees pills in a purse while at a traffic stop with a couple going on there honeymoon.

            The right to privacy is not dead. Just on hold. Meanwhile people suffer needlessly.

            Liked by 2 people

          55. I don’t know if those things will be subject to state or federal guarantees.

            But Thomas gave the Congress and states notice they have work to do. That’s why I pointed out that we should be making an effort to clean up our State constitution and repeak the Defense of Marriage Amendment.

            But you should not assume that because Thomas warned that they were in danger that he is hostile to those causes.


          56. “I’m not going to worry about SCOTUS backtracking on Lawrence ”

            Probably because you are a straight white male. It doesn’t effect YOU. Just like Roe did not effect you.

            Liked by 1 person

          57. “[Trump] complained, but he obeyed the law.
            Biden does not”

            Uh, what law has President Biden broken?

            As for your statement about Trump, it does not need me to point out how ridiculous it is. It does not need me to list the MANY crimes he has committed as President. Everyone who is not a jackass is well aware of them.

            Liked by 2 people

          58. “How do we know that Trump intended violence?”


            You refuse to watch the presentation of the evidence and now want to pretend there isn’t any. Kind of like the head in the sand approach of the ostrich.

            Liked by 1 person

          59. “I presume then there was testimony from psychics and astrologers to tell us Trump’s intentions? Or does that come next week?”


            Many crimes involve intent, and they are successfully prosecuted based on, you know, EVIDENCE.

            Liked by 1 person

          60. “No parade of grandstanding jackasses?”

            Actually, I was referring to “Gym” Jordan, Jim Banks, MTG, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, and Louis Gohmert. Your heroes and intellectual paragons.

            As for “honest citizens” not being interested, I see that Len is very interested and you are not. Case closed.

            “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” — Aristotle.
            You, Dr. Tabor, are not wise.

            Liked by 1 person

          61. You cannot be both honest, even with yourself. if you support a partisan committee investigation where all the participants are chosen by one side.

            Everyone on that committee, and all of the staff, live in a bubble where the conclusion is foregone, and cognitive dissonance reigns supreme.

            You share that bubble with them, so it looks OK to you. The rest of the world has already dismissed everything connected with the committee.


          62. “The rest of the world has already dismissed everything connected with the committee.”

            So who is playing psychic now? You, Mr. Smith, Mr. Roberts and RE the troll, are not “the rest of the world.”

            Liked by 1 person

          63. “You cannot be both honest, even with yourself. . .”

            You are the one whose honesty is questionable. The history of how this Committee came to be is something that an honest person would not ignore. It is only “partisan” because that is the way Trump wanted it to appear. Timeline. . .

            1. In the aftermath of the coup attempt members of both parties – including McCarthy – were outraged and demanded that the origins be investigated.

            2. There followed negotiations for a non-Congressional and totally non-partisan Commission. The Republicans got everything they wanted in those negotiations. They were set to enact the Commission when Trump put his foot down and killed it. He does not want the facts investigated.

            3. Pelosi rightly went to Plan B – A Select Committee. McCarthy was invited to nominate members.

            4. He included two Trumpist bomb throwers who would have turned the Committee into a farce. Pelosi rightly rejected those two. The work was obviously too serious for such nonsense.

            5. McCarthy then decided to boycott the committee in order to discredit it as “partisan.”

            6. Two Republicans stepped up and risked their political careers to make it bipartisan. Which, it is.

            7. Laughably, Trump is now criticizing McCarthy for doing what Trump almost certainly told him to do.

            Liked by 1 person

          64. McCarthy was justified in choosing whatever members he wanted. That’s how “both sides” works.

            Can you honestly claim McCarthy’s choices were more extreme pro Trump than Pelosi’s are anti-Trump?

            If she was choosing honest moderates for her side, you could make the case for excluding ‘bomb throwers’ but as she was choosing bomb throwers of her own…


          65. “McCarthy was justified in choosing whatever members he wanted. That’s how “both sides” works.”

            Uh no. People do not get to investigate themselves.

            Based on his contemporaneous note, acting Deputy AG Donoghue testified to a direct statement by Trump in response to being told yet again of the total lack of evidence of election fraud. . .

            “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen”

            McCarthy was NOT justified in choosing members such as Jordan and King who were prepared to do Trump’s bidding based on the FALSE claim of election fraud.

            Liked by 1 person

          66. “Unchallenged speculations are not evidence.”

            The Committee is not presenting “unchallenged speculations.” They are presenting facts. You would know that if you had bothered to watch.

            Trump and his remaining loyalists have not been able to credibly challenge ANY of the central facts presented and they have the bullhorns to do so.

            Liked by 1 person

          67. “the incident?”

            Leave it to someone who refuses to watch the readily sworn testimony refer to a months-long criminal effort to overthrow the election as an “incident.” The violent assault was only the last-ditch Hail Mary from a wannabe President-for-Life after his other criminal efforts on many fronts failed to achieve the goal.

            His other crimes beyond those committed the day of the “incident” included but are not limited to:

            1. Criminal pressure on state election officials to commit election fraud.
            2. Criminal pressure on DOJ to provide a FALSE pretext for the coup.
            3. Criminal conspiracy to inject fraudulent slates of electors.
            4. Wire fraud
            5. Seditious conspiracy.
            6. Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
            7. Criminal abuse of the pardon power.

            Liked by 1 person

          68. “If there is evidence not gleaned from tea leaves, bring it on.”

            Tea leaves, psychics, astrologers? Wild flailing of someone who is not ready for the truth.

            There have been many equivalents of smoking guns provided in the hearing so far. Lying liars call the evidence “hearsay” but when you personally hear someone speak and report what they said, that is not hearsay.

            For example, Cassidy Hutchinson personally heard Trump demand that the crowd not be screened for weapons and heard him say. . .

            “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the fucking mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here, let the people in and take the mags away.”

            Direct sworn testimony from a reliable witness. Is that tea leaves, psychic or astrology?

            Liked by 1 person

          69. So?

            Trump isn’t afraid of his supporters,

            The screening was keeping people who had come a long way from getting in, and he wanted a big crowd. Do you think it’s a good thing for our leaders to be distrustful of the people?

            I don’t see the problem.


          70. This wasn’t one of your Richmond 2A rally days. This was a group of very angry, delusional people who were lied to and were armed and ready to take action against Congress and the Vice President who was doing their Consitutional duty.

            Liked by 1 person

          71. Those people were armed with sticks, had they gone there to overthrow the government, they would have gone prepared.

            Ask John Bolton how that works.


          72. 4 of the 7 of the charges listed by Paul have been shown to be accurate.

            The phone call to GA election officals and the Attorney General (We’ve heard that tape, by the way – No tea leaves involved).

            2.”Just tell them it was stolen. GOP representatives and I will take care of the rest.” (Attested to by more than one witness, inclduing those directly involved in the conversation. TRUMP appoined DOJ personnel)

            The several states and the DOJ are gaining more information on this point daily.
            Pay for my legal defense of the election … but I am really going to use it for other things. That is SIMPLE fraud.
            ALL of the attempts to overturn the results of the election AFTER the courts ruled. Oops. THere’s that Rule of Law thing again.

            Liked by 1 person

          73. So? …
            … I don’t see the problem.”

            I think you are lying. Even you can see the serious problems. Obvious problems.

            1. The screening was keeping a significant number of his supporters out BECAUSE THEY WERE ARMED. Duh! People without weapons had no problem getting past the mags and into the presence of the President.

            2. It is not a question of his fear or lack thereof. It is not acceptable to allow random armed people to be in the presence of the President. It only takes one person with a gun to create a national disaster. It is not about being “distrustful of the people.” What planet are you from? Do you know nothing of history?

            3. These words are a smoking gun of criminal intent. Trump knew that a large part of the crowd was armed and yet he chose to incite them with fighting words and lies and lead them to the Capitol. If they were not there to harm him – whom were they there to harm?

            Liked by 1 person

          74. Nope.

            The magnetometers created such a bottleneck that the crowd could not be accommodated, It takes just as long for an unarmed person the screened as an armed person.

            So tens of thousands were being kept out because a few MIGHT BE armed.

            Trump was more worried about crowd size than his safety.

            And considering what the crowd would do to someone who tried to harm Trump, I suspect he was pretty safe.


          75. “The magnetometers created such a bottleneck …”

            Your imaginary facts are always handy.
            Really, why do you always assert falsehoods?
            Do you ever feel any shame?

            If you had listened to the testimony, you would know that the issue was not that the mags were jammed up. It was that a significant portion of the crowd declined to go through them because they did not want their weapons confiscated. That was explained to Trump and that is when he said “they are not here to hurt me.”

            Liked by 1 person

          76. Nope.

            Weapon confiscation was the problem, but Trump said in front of several witnesses that “they were not there to hurt him.”

            Nice, but we soon saw who the weapons were supposed to hurt. I guess the gangs could have turned in their weapons, then asked for them back because they needed them for the Capitol assault.

            The “stacking” maneuver up the Capitol steps was kind of nice, no. Having to disarm, then rearm after the rally and the call for 1776 was so inconvenient. And would have slowed down the assault, too. Then everyone would have been late for the “red wedding”.

            “pro-Trump YouTuber “Salty Cracker” ― who currently has 776,000 subscribers ― told his followers: “You better understand something, son. Red wave, bitch! There’s gonna be a red wedding going down Jan. 6.” A slaughter was predicted.


            So, yeah, the magnetometers were just slowing things down. Darn security.

            Liked by 2 people

          77. If you’re going to characterize tens of thousands of people based on one online crackpot, you might want to checkout Libs of TikTok on Twitter


          78. Oh, there were lots more messaging going on. If you bothered to check the investigation transcripts you would see that.

            Liked by 2 people

          79. Libs of TikTok has nothing to do with the thinking of the people gathered by Trump on January 6th.

            Do you get it now? The evidence is that Trump was trying to lead an armed mob to the Capitol. You cannot spin that fact away. “They are not here to hurt me” is smokiest smoking gun ever.

            Liked by 1 person

          80. Your spin is just so much fertilizer.

            You aren’t paying attention to the hearings so any comments you make concerning them are based on your delusions that everything was just hunky-dory that day.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Rise up”? Certainly not over policy issues at which we acquiesced via election. Over the decades, we have allowed Congress to be overridden by executive action or inaction.

        Time to vote them out if that is unacceptable.

        The Roe ruling would be the most egregious when a minority of Americans decide family size. Protests, sure. You want women to “rise up” and kill instead? The response from the left is to encourage voters to vote Democrat.

        The same with the voting rights bill. No insurrections planned. By the left. The right is planning to create so much chaos that maybe the foiled plot of overriding the 2020 election could succeed.

        Now, if SCOTUS were to adapt the really fringe Independent State Legislators theory, you might see violence because the people are now stripped of the power of the ballot. That would probably be at the state level.

        But even so, the logistics of an insurrection in a country the size of ours is daunting.

        So what is your scenario for “rising up” on stretching the EPA rules?

        Liked by 2 people

          1. We impeached a president twice for thwarting the Rule of Law. Right wingers, your folks, decided it was a bridge too far for such “minor” issues as extortion, overriding Congress and, of course, violent refusal to a peaceful transition of power.

            Yet, you feel justified to start killing over an environmental policy debate?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. No, you impeached a President twice because you had the votes in the House to do it, and he was exonerated twice because you did not have the votes in the Senate to convict. It was purely political farce with a predetermined outcome.


          3. ‘It was purely political farce with a predetermined outcome.”

            Right. Mitch McConnell predetermined that, regardless of the evidence, he would not allow his party to vote to impeach a President of his own party. If he had been around in 1974, Nixon would have finished his second term and Jerry Ford never would have been CinC.

            “Exonerated”? Not really. Just not enough backbone in the GOP Senate to stand up for … wait for it … THE RULE OF LAW.


          4. So you say. I think you are wrong. Trump broke the law. Period. The Senate was rigged and you know it.

            In hindsight, the first impeachment, though legally justified, was politically unwise. The senate vote was known in advance.

            The second one should have been a slam dunk, especially after all the grandstanding by GOP leadership about holding Trump accountable. If all these Republicans had come forth then, Trump would have been convicted easily.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Don’t worry. We might get to see impeachment again, with predictable results due to a split Senate, or, as seems possible, a Democrat majority.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. Not to mention the several “investigations” being teed up by McCarthy and his band of motely fools.

            If you believe that the GOP isn’t going to play “childish tot-for-tat”, then you are even more Pollyannaish then I thought.


          7. And spineless Republicans chose not to support a non-partisan commission.

            It’s another Benghazi moment for the GOP. At least when they called a key witness she showed up, answered questions, did not once plead the 5th and sat for over 7 hours. Let me know when Jordan decides to do that.


          8. “he was exonerated twice”

            Is English not your first language? He was NOT “exonerated.” Exoneration occurs when proof of innocence emerges. The words you are looking for are “Not convicted.”

            Trump was not convicted because of partisan Republicans putting the truth and loyalty to the country behind their loyalty to Trump for cowardly political reasons.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Innocent until proven guilty makes not convicted the dame as exonerated.”

            No, it does not. Look it up. Besides, impeachment and Senate trial of a President is not a legal process. It does not lead to punishment. It is the mechanism for removing someone who is not fit for office. Trump is exactly the sort of President the founders had in mind when they devised this procedure.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks!

    You provide yet another example of how you people see violence as a natural extension of politics. Threatening violence is now your first option. It is not “Watch out in November.” It is “Beware of insurrection” if we don’t get what we want.

    If someone does not agree with a performance goal for the highway system that includes “environmental sustainability” then change the law. If you can. Or you can go whine to your activist Super Legislature at SCOTUS. They don’t care what the people or Congress intend and will not hesitate to play with words to push the “conservative” / Putin agenda of a kneecapped country. No need to bring out your weapons of war to murder the postman.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. RE: “These defiances lead down a very bad road.”

    Yes, they do, or else they mark how far we have already travelled. Let us hope, as WSJ does, that the courts stop FHWA’s abuse of power.


      1. If you want the EPA to have that power, then get Congress to specifically authorize it.

        Article I gives the Congress the power to make law. not the Executive nor the Courts.

        The Executive does not have the power to replace Congress or evade the Courts.


        1. The opinion of a Supreme Court that is packed with antigovernment, pro-business, LYING “originalists”, while binding, is idiotic. But then again, precedent means nothing to the Trump-appointed, Federalist Society darlings now filling 3 of 9 seats.

          Like the Bible, interpretations of men (and women) who WEREN’T THERE and cannot “know” the intent of the authors, but claim that superior knowledge, is questionable at best. Roberts interpreted what the law said. It doesn’t mean he is accurate. He just interpreted it in the manner HE thought correct.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Don’t have one. Wish I did. I don’t see increasing the number of Justices to allow Biden to fill the seats with Progressives as being a viable option. Even though is is a possibility and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it.

            We have the court we have. Just as you have disagreed with them in the past, I disagree with them now.


          2. Yes. and I abide by those decisions I didn’t like.

            I agree with not stacking the court, but I am also concerned about what we do if the administration incites some extremist into assassinating a justice.

            In such a case, I would support the Senate refusing to consider a replacement until after the neaxt Presidential election.


          3. …”and I abide by those decisions I didn’t like”

            Funny, I don’t recall ever seeing a case titled Tabor v. Biden.

            And saying you believe the administration would incite an assassination is asinine. Even the WH has said that extremists on the pro-choice side are not helping the situation and condemned them for their actions.

            But I find it interesting that you had no issue with the previous administration and its supporters, inciting a mob to attack the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes. And I don’t want to hear any more about how it was only delayed. If the attack had been successful, we would be living in a banana republic today.


          4. It was a lot more than protesters gettin excited. The gangs arrived armed with instructions and caches of weapons stored not far from the Capitol.

            Actually taking over the government was not the plan. Creating chaos and forcing the hand of the VP was. And the president was going to March right up to, or into, the Capitol and takeover or pee on the floor or something. Seemingly cooler heads prevailed. Not among his aides, advisors or staff. But the security detail realized it could be a catastrophe.

            There are so many smoking guns coming out from Republican testimonies it’s as if they can’t tell us fast enough to pitch Trump for the GOP because they are afraid to do it themselves.

            Giuliani’s tweet was just amazing.

            “The January 6 Witch Hunt Cabal has now exceeded even its prior fraudulent,” reads the tweet. “The last witness was a reckless liar. Contrary to her false testimony she was never present when I asked for a pardon.”

            Then he backtracked and said he never asked for a pardon.

            But he sounded like his own comedy show. Or the gang that could not shoot straight.

            Except that he and the rest of the yellow bellied bastards tried to destroy us.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. You are still giving them ALL a pass. If that isn’t tacit support for their efforts, what is it? It certainly doesn’t comport with your raving about the “Rule of Law”.


          6. I don’t say give people a pass but I don’t support grossly overcharging people to coerce a plea bargain, and I don’t support trying them in DC, which has a 92% Democrat voter registration.

            But fair trials on appropriate charges are Ok.


          7. …”I don’t support trying them in DC”…

            That is where the crimes occurred. Where would you like the trials to be held? Alabama? Texas? Clifornia?

            Your anti-urban is showing. A good defense lawyer can convince a jury of innocence and a good prosecutor can convince a jury of guilt. That is how trials go.

            If those charged did not want to go to jail, then maybe they should have protested elsewhere. But then it would have just been a protest and not a fucking riot to overturn the results of the election.


          8. Salt Lake City is a big city. Try them there.

            Or better, where they live. HAving to mount a defense a thousand miles from home is an excessive burden.


          9. Ginsburg died just before the election. I am not sure, but the Barrett nomination and approval might be a record.

            Never mind the yearlong absence when Garland was nominated.

            So the GOP has set a dangerous precedent. But, hey, they managed to get the majority of the country and of women really pissed off about abortion rights.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “Again, there is a difference between serious conspirators and protestors who got carried away in the moment.”

            Sure, some of those involved committed more serious crimes than others. So what?

            Passive language. They got carried away in the moment? Who did the carrying? They were incited to riot by a criminal President who absolutely knew he had lost the election using them to flesh out the violence he needed to chase Congress out of the Capitol.

            “Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.”

            You have been silent.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. “I don’t support trying them in DC, which has a 92% Democrat voter registration.”

            Stupid and insulting. Every juror will be an American citizen sworn to render an impartial verdict and will have survived intense questioning by defense attorneys with wide latitude to dismiss them.

            The crimes should be tried in the jurisdiction where the crimes were committed. Your talk of the burden of being tried away from home is something the criminals should have considered before travelling that 1000 miles to commit their crimes. If a Black Panther were accused of assaulting the police in, say, Salt Lake City but demanded to be tried in his hometown of, say, Baltimore, you would have no trouble understanding what an unamerican and frankly stupid this idea is.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. We may see that next year? If SCOTUS rules in favor of the fringe Independent State Legislatures theory, it takes state courts out of the equation as a referee on constitutionality of laws passed.

        You want that?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Look it up Don. It is probably the most consequential case in your lifetime.

            It addresses your contention that the legislature is the last word on elections. State Supreme Courts would have no say so if a legislature says they will pick electors regardless of voting results. Or rules that say polls are only open 2 hours. Or any other denial of voting rights.

            There is your dictatorship you might consider rising up against.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. The Constitution does not require States to hold a Presidential election at all. States may choose their electors with a coin flip if that is their law.

            Or their legislatures can choose.

            It is only if they choose to have an election that it must conform to Federal laws on discrimination.


          3. Not quite. Every state has elections enshrined in law or a constitution. So the ballots will be cast first.

            Then the legislature can say we don’t like the results and toss them out. No recourse.

            The debate is on the term “legislature” and its meaning. State constitutions set up legislatures and courts and the executive. To have one branch say they have all the power with no checks is the debate.

            You and I can parse this to death, but few legal scholars say that the ISL theory is valid.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. As I said, I haven’t studied the issue in detail.

            But the Constitution doesn’t require an election for President in states. I would think though that if they hold one they are then obligated to honor it.


          5. State constitutions or laws require elections.

            If a state legislature decides against an election, a court battle would ensue. With ISL, the courts are out of it. Legislature has the last word.

            That is the problem. That would be tyranny. And with heavy gerrymandering, tyranny by the minority in many, if not most cases.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. I’m of the Jeffersonian opinion that each generation should be able to write their own rules. I’d prefer not to be constrained by the whims of men who thought I had no business with political agency, to say nothing of their opinions of women and minorities.

        But since “originalism” was invented a few decades ago, we’re now stuck with people who want to read the tea leaves of the founders’ opinions, except when asserting a power they chose to leave out of the constitution.

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame you. I respect the Republicans a hell of a lot more than the Democrats. I wish I had a party to support that was actively trying to pass policy. I just don’t understand why everyone insists on this fantasy of originalism when it’s clearly just a small cadre enforcing minority rule.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Jefferson also said we should have revolution every generation(not necessarily a violent one)

          He said a lot of outrageous things just to make people think and debate.

          He was the original American Troll.


          1. So you’re saying we’re not meant to take the words of a founding father literally and that they’re open to interpretation?

            Weren’t you just talking about “refreshing the tree of liberty?”

            Liked by 2 people

          2. A legal document that refers to black people and Native Americans as 3/5 of a person, enfranchises only about 6% of the population, and makes no mention of judicial review?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. I am referring to the precision of writing, of course, and not to the compromises agreed to to get the document ratified.

            But don’t assume too much, Jefferson was well aware of the wrongness of slavery and the difficuty in ending it, writing “We have a wolf by the ears, we cannot hold on yet we dare not let go.”


          4. The compromises are part of the original document and clearly reflect the will of the founders. Why do we get to wave those aside but insist on the divinity of the parts we may like?

            Is that Jefferson quote hyperbole, meant to spark debate, or should it be taken as his legitimate views? Why? How do you know?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Jefferson, in other writings, indicated he knew slavery was wrong and advocated a safe phase out. Like many, in the early 19th century, he was aware of slave rebellions that went vey badly.


          6. And yet, he managed to accumulate over 600 of them. It must have really tugged at his conscience.

            And slavery only ended because there was a political party and an armed movement that was willing to defy the courts and the founders’ moronic views.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “I just don’t understand why everyone insists on this fantasy of originalism when it’s clearly just a small cadre enforcing minority rule.”

          Personally, I make a distinction between ideas and the words used to convey them. I see originalism as a means of discovering the intended ideas.

          Since I support the original ideas the Constitution contains, I see no problem with judicial review.


          1. “What point is that?”

            That not everything that is part of our Constitutional order is written down in the Constitution. This is a fact and shows in yet another way how intellectually bankrupt “originalism” actually is. The very power that the “originalist” is exercising (judicial review of constitutionality) is nowhere to be found in the words of the Constitution.

            You are welcome.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. The fact of the matter is that law, no matter how well crafted, is always up for review.

      The Torah is a small book. The first few books of the Bible for the most part.

      The Talmud is huge. Full of interpretations that rabbinic scholars spent lifetimes parsing words, phrases and nuances of the Torah.

      Rules of Golf. A short, detailed booklet with pretty clear rules. The Decisions on the Rules of Golf is a thick volume of interpretations.

      Our Constitution is clear as mud in many details. Hence a huge number of rulings over the centuries. We enshrined the post office, but left out public healthcare as an example. We needed the Postal Service as a way of getting an informed electorate, the bedrock of a successful democratic republic. Medicine was about leeches and amputation with a shot of whiskey. Malaria w as “bad air”. Times have changed dramatically.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. This kind of jumped out: “This sounds like DOT conscripting states into regulating vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, which states are expressly barred from doing under federal law.”

    Apparently WSJ doesn’t pay attention to California. Stands to reason. WSJ ignores the 6th largest economy in the world.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s