THERE IS NO GREATER DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IN AMERICA THAN THE LYING GAMER LAWYER CLASS!
In a letter to DHS Secretary (GAMER LAWYER) Alejandro Mayorkas, Senate Democrats including (GAMER LAWYER) Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), (GAMER LAWYER) Cory Booker (D-NJ), (ANCHOR BABY) Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Catherine Cortez Masto (MEX-OCCUPIED NV - D-NV), along with a number of House Democrats, urged the (GAMER LAWYER) Biden administration to move forward with the regulation and expand the program to include more illegal aliens.
THERE IS NO GREATER DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IN AMERICA THAN THE LYING GAMER LAWYER CLASS!
Ralph Nader: Biden's First Year Proves He Is Still a "Corporate Socialist" Beholden to Big Business
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTIUtjkDss
In a letter to DHS Secretary (GAMER LAWYER) Alejandro Mayorkas, Senate Democrats including (GAMER LAWYER) Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), (GAMER LAWYER) Cory Booker (D-NJ), (ANCHOR BABY) Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Catherine Cortez Masto (MEX-OCCUPIED NV - D-NV), along with a number of House Democrats, urged the (GAMER LAWYER - SO IS BIDEN’S CRACKHEAD SON AND INFLUENCE PEDDLING BROTHER JAMES) Biden administration to move forward with the regulation and expand the program to include more illegal aliens.
Breyer was arguably the most right-wing figure among the moderate-liberal bloc on the court. A reliable vote for corporate power and business interests, as well as for the national-security state, he was a liberal only on questions of race, gender, abortion rights and democratic rights in general—the last only inconsistently.
US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer retires
Justice Stephen Breyer announced Thursday that he will retire from the US Supreme Court after the conclusion of the current session, which ends in late June or early July, giving President Joe Biden his first opportunity to appoint a new justice to fill a vacancy on the highest court.
Breyer, at 83, is the oldest justice, with the second-longest tenure, behind only the arch-reactionary Clarence Thomas. He was nominated in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, and is the oldest of the three Democratic appointees who comprise the moderate-liberal minority on the court, along with Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Breyer appeared alongside Biden at the White House Thursday afternoon, giving brief remarks that were notable for indicating concern over the permanence of what he called “the American experiment” in democracy and the rule of law.
Breyer quoted from the Gettysburg Address, focusing on Lincoln’s words: “And we are now engaged in a great civil war to determine whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”
This was his oblique allusion to the mounting threat of ultra-right authoritarianism, demonstrated for all the world to see in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Biden’s remarks were equally brief, consisting mainly of effusive praise for Breyer’s five decades in the federal government, including the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and the reiteration of a campaign pledge to nominate a black woman to fill the first vacancy on the Supreme Court that occurred during his term in office—a bow to the central role of identity politics in the Democratic Party.
The replacement of Breyer by any of the half dozen or so judges now being widely mentioned in the corporate media will not change the balance of power on the court, where six conservatives, most of them identified with the far right of the Republican Party, outnumber the three moderate liberals.
All the likely replacements, such as Ketanji Brown Jackson of the DC Court of Appeals, Leondra Kruger of the California Supreme Court, and J. Michelle Childs, a federal District Court judge in South Carolina, are long-time figures in the judicial apparatus of the capitalist state. Their class position is what is critical, not their race or gender, as is demonstrated by the example of Kruger. She served in the Department of Justice in the Obama administration, when it was engaged in justifying the “right” of the US president to carry out drone-missile assassinations.
Breyer was arguably the most right-wing figure among the moderate-liberal bloc on the court. A reliable vote for corporate power and business interests, as well as for the national-security state, he was a liberal only on questions of race, gender, abortion rights and democratic rights in general—the last only inconsistently. He did, however, express himself with increasing hostility toward the open politicization of the court as it became packed with right-wing ideologues of the type of Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
His main concern was not so much the impact of reactionary and arbitrary court rulings on the interests of working people and victims of state oppression and violence, as the discrediting of the court in the eyes of the population, as the court became more and more viewed as the direct instrument of the political right.
Breyer was himself confirmed to his position on the court by a vote of 87–9 in the Senate, a year after the Senate approved Ruth Bader Ginsburg by a vote of 96–3. Since then, however, confirmation votes have become vicious mudslinging affairs decided by virtually party-line votes. Trump’s three nominees were all confirmed by narrow margins: Gorsuch by 54–45, Kavanaugh by 50–48, Barrett by 52–48.
The closeness of the votes does not indicate any real struggle by the Democratic Party, which has avoided highlighting the dangers to democratic rights represented by the packing of the court with diehard reactionaries in favor of complaints about process or alleged personal misconduct.
Gorsuch was chosen for the seat held open for a year by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to ensure a Republican president could fill the vacancy. Barrett’s nomination was rammed through only days before the presidential election. Kavanaugh was the target of a campaign of vilification based on unprovable allegations of sexual assault brought forward 30 years after the fact.
The Democrats proceeded in this way in order to avoid alerting the American people about the growing danger of right-wing authoritarianism and to avoid undermining any further the dwindling popular respect for the Supreme Court as an institution.
Despite the efforts of the Democrats and allied groups to portray the Supreme Court as a bastion of democratic and constitutional rights, the moderate-liberal wing of the court has itself moved steadily to the right over the past half century, and throughout that period never constituted more than four out of the nine members of the court.
Since the 1990s, the role of “swing” or “middle” justice was always played by a conservative Republican: first Sandra Day O’Connor, later supplanted by Anthony Kennedy, then Chief Justice John Roberts, as the center of gravity on the high court steadily shifted to the right.
With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Trump’s selection of Amy Coney Barrett, the open reactionaries now constitute six out of nine justices. The role of “swing” justice, now an almost meaningless term, apparently devolves on Brett Kavanaugh, a longtime Republican partisan, member of the Federalist Society and central figure in the Starr inquiry that led to the impeachment of Clinton.
Whoever Biden nominates must win confirmation in the 50–50 Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris potentially casting a tie-breaking vote. The two right-wing Democrats who torpedoed Biden’s “Build Back Better” legislation and voting rights bill, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, have never voted against any of Biden’s nominees for district or appeals court judgeships, and have previously voted for several of those reputed to be on Biden’s short list when they were nominated for lower court positions.
Within hours of news of Breyer’s retirement there was already speculation in Washington about whether his replacement by a black woman would benefit the Democrats politically in the November midterm elections.
Typical was Dan Balz in the Washington Post, who wrote: “If Biden fulfills his pledge to nominate an African American woman and thereby make history on the court, he could go a long way to patching up relations with Black voters—a critically important constituency for Democrats, one that has been disappointed at the lack of progress on voting rights and what it views as Biden’s other still-unfulfilled promises.”
Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California, former co-chair of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, speaking with the New York Times, said of the prospective nomination, “My first thought is just that it moves us one step closer in a long journey towards racial justice.” He added that he hoped the vacancy would be a “galvanizing” moment for Democratic voters.
There is a strong element of desperation in such comments, and in the preceding campaign, waged by a number of Democratic Party-allied groups, imploring Breyer to retire before the November election, when the Democrats could well lose their Senate majority and therefore the ability to confirm Biden’s nominee.
Having completely failed to bring the coronavirus pandemic under control, instead embracing the “herd immunity” policy first adopted by the Trump administration, and in the midst of mounting economic crisis and social decay, the Democrats express the hope that exchanging an elderly white male for a younger black female on a Supreme Court that has become largely discredited will somehow boost their popular standing. This is truly clutching at straws.
Approval of U.S. Supreme Court Down to 40%, a New Low
BY JEFFREY M. JONES
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
·Approval down from 49% in July
·Current reading is lowest in Gallup's trend; prior low was 42%
·New high of 37% say court is too conservative
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court have worsened, with 40%, down from 49% in July, saying they approve of the job the high court is doing. This represents, by two percentage points, a new low in Gallup's trend, which dates back to 2000. The poll was conducted shortly after the Supreme Court declined to block a controversial Texas abortion law. In August, the court similarly allowed college vaccine mandates to proceed and rejected a Biden administration attempt to extend a federal moratorium on evictions during the pandemic.
Line graph. Full trend in Supreme Court job approval. Forty percent approve of the Supreme Court in the September 2021 survey, down from 58% in July 2020 and 49% in July 2021. The 40% approval rating is the lowest in Gallup's trend, while the high is 62% measured in 2000 and 2001.
These latest findings, from Gallup's annual Governance survey conducted Sept. 1-17, come little more than a year after 58% of Americans approved of the Supreme Court, among the highest readings in the trend.
The previous lows in Gallup's trend include 42% approval in 2005 after the court expanded government's eminent domain power, and again in 2016, after the Supreme Court ruled colleges could continue to consider using race as a factor in admissions, a decision most Americans opposed. In 2013, 43% approved of the Supreme Court after it issued rulings that expanded the rights of same-sex couples and weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Now, a majority of 53% disapproves of the job the Supreme Court is doing, exceeding the prior high disapproval of 52% from 2016. A Sept. 9-13 Monmouth University poll found 54% of U.S. adults disagreed and 39% agreed with the Supreme Court's decision to allow the Texas abortion law to go into effect.
Confidence in Federal Judiciary Also Down
The September survey also reveals a steep decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who express "a great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in the judicial branch of the federal government, from 67% in 2020 to 54% today. The current reading is only the second sub-60% trust score for the judicial branch in Gallup's trend, along with a 53% reading from 2015.
Line graph. Full trend in trust and confidence in the judicial branch of the federal government headed by the Supreme Court. Fifty-four percent in the September 2021 survey have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the federal judicial branch, down from 67% in 2020. At least six in 10 have had confidence in all but one other survey, 53% in 2015. The high point in confidence was 80% measured in 1999.
In recent weeks, three Supreme Court justices -- Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer -- have made public speeches defending the court and its decision-making. These speeches have come amid pressure from some Democrats to expand court membership, presumably to add more liberal-leaning justices. This is likely a response to Republican President Donald Trump's nominating three conservative justices in his four-year presidential term, the first after the Republican-led Senate refused to consider Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee in 2016, citing the upcoming presidential election, and the last confirmed by the Senate days before the 2020 election.
More See Court as Being Too Conservative
The plurality of Americans have consistently viewed the court as being "about right" ideologically, and that continues today, with 40% describing it that way. However, perhaps reflecting changes in the composition of the court or its recent decisions, a new high of 37%, up from 32% a year ago, consider the current Supreme Court "too conservative."
The previous highs in perceptions that the high court was too conservative were 33% in 2019 and 32% in 2007 and 2020, all under Republican presidents.
Meanwhile, 20% describe the court as "too liberal." That is similar to the 23% rating it this way a year ago, but lower than the high points of 32% and 37% recorded when Obama was president.
Throughout Obama's two terms, during which two of his nominees were confirmed, more Americans perceived the court as being too liberal than being too conservative. The opposite pattern occurred during the Trump administration.
Line graph. Full trend in perceptions of Supreme Court ideology as too liberal, about right or too conservative. In the September 2021 poll, 37% say the court is too conservative, 40% about right and 20% too liberal. The plurality of Americans have always said the court is about right, while the percentages who say it is too liberal or too conservative have varied, with more tending to say it is too liberal when a Democratic president is in office, and more tending to say it is too conservative with a Republican president in office.
As might be expected, those who see the court's ideology as too far left or too far right are less likely to express confidence in the institution and to approve of the job it is doing. In fact, those two groups hold nearly identical views of the court, with just one in three saying they are confident in it and fewer than one in five approving of the way it is handling its job.
In contrast, 81% of those who believe the Supreme Court's ideology is about right are confident in it, and 75% approve of the job it is doing.
Approval of and Confidence in the Supreme Court, by Perceptions of Court Ideology
Court is too liberal Court is about right Court is too conservative
% % %
Job approval of court
Approve 17 75 19
Disapprove 76 20 79
Confidence in court
Great deal/Fair amount 33 81 36
Not very much/None at all 67 19 64
GALLUP, SEPT. 1-17, 2021
Perceptions of whether the Supreme Court's ideology is appropriate are influenced by Americans' own political leanings. The large majority of Democrats, 66%, describe the court as "too conservative," while 25% say it is "about right" and 8% "too liberal." In contrast, 56% of Republicans believe the Supreme Court's ideology is about right, while 33% say it is too liberal and 6% too conservative. Independents' views exactly match the national average.
Compared with a year ago, before Barrett was confirmed and increased the number of Republican-nominated justices from five to six, Republicans are now more likely to say the Supreme Court is about right. Meanwhile, Democrats and independents are more likely than in 2020 to say it is too conservative. All of these shifts have been modest (less than 10 points).
Declining Approval, Loss of Confidence Seen Among All Party Groups
Compared with readings last year and earlier this year, Republicans, Democrats and independents are all less likely to say they approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing and to say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the federal judiciary.
Job approval among each of the three party groups is either 12 or 13 points lower than it was a year ago. For Republicans and independents, about half of the decline was evident in the July survey and the remainder has occurred since then, while the decline among Democrats has been seen only since the July survey.
When it comes to confidence in the federal judiciary, Republicans show a much steeper drop from a year ago than Democrats or independents do, perhaps because of the change in the partisan power structure in Washington this year. The greater decline may also be a consequence of low Republican satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. more generally.
Changes in Job Approval and Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court, by Political Party
Sep 2020 Jul 2021 Sep 2021
% % %
Approve of court
U.S. adults 53 49 40
Democrats 49 51 36
Independents 53 46 41
Republicans 57 51 45
Confident in court
U.S. adults 67 n/a 54
Democrats 58 n/a 50
Independents 63 n/a 51
Republicans 82 n/a 61
GALLUP
The decline in approval among Republicans may seem at odds with the court's allowing the Texas abortion law to go into effect, given that most Republicans identify as pro-life and favor greater restrictions on abortion. Abortion opponents hope the Texas law, or similarly strict laws passed in Mississippi and other states, will provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. Indeed, the court plans to hear arguments over the Mississippi law in its coming term.
Gallup polling from earlier this year found that Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, as well as bans on early-term abortions such as those in Texas and Mississippi. Support among Republicans is higher, but even they are divided over overturning Roe v. Wade and on the types of restrictions on early-term abortions enacted in those new state laws.
Implications
Americans' opinions of the Supreme Court are now the worst Gallup has measured in its polling on the institution over the past two-plus decades. At this point, less than a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents approve of the job the court is doing. Barely half of Democrats and independents are confident in it, while confidence is slightly higher among Republicans.
The decision on the Texas abortion law has received the most attention, but the high court's recent emergency rulings on college vaccine mandates and the eviction moratorium were also controversial. The new court term beginning next month will include cases that deal with abortion and gun laws, issues that stir great passion in the U.S. and are certain to elicit strong pushback from people on the losing side of those decisions.
To stay up to date with the latest Gallup News insights and updates, follow us on Twitter.
Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.
View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).
Supreme Court approval drops to 40 percent, hitting a new low: Gallup
BY JOSEPH CHOI
Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court fell to a new low of 40 percent this month, according to a new poll released by Gallup on Thursday.
The surveys were conducted from Sept. 1-17, around the time the Supreme Court declined to block an extremely restrictive Texas abortion law as well as allow college vaccine mandates to continue, Gallup noted.
At 53 percent, a slight majority of respondents said they disapproved of the Supreme Court.
Since 2001, the high court's approval rating has dipped as low as 42 percent in 2005 and 2017. In July 2020, the court had an approval rating of 49 percent, marking a drop of nearly 10 percentage points within the span of just a couple of months.
"Americans' opinions of the Supreme Court are now the worst Gallup has measured in its polling on the institution over the past two-plus decades," Gallup said. "At this point, less than a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents approve of the job the court is doing. Barely half of Democrats and independents are confident in it, while confidence is slightly higher among Republicans."
The survey also found a sharp decline in the amount of Americans who say they have confidence in the Supreme Court. In 2020, 67 percent said they had "a great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in the judicial branch, but according to the more recent survey only 54 percent now say the same.
Gallup also noted this new low was recorded a little over a year after the court had an approval rating of 58 percent, just 3 percentage points shy of the highest approval rating it has seen with Gallup.
·House GOP campaign arm ties vulnerable Democrats to Biden in new ads
·Gottlieb: COVID-19 delta wave could be 'last major surge'
When it came to political opinions of the court, 40 percent of respondents said it was "Too conservative" while 20 percent said it was "Too liberal." Of the remainder, 37 percent said the court was "about right." Gallup noted that this appraisal was largely affected by individual political leanings, with Republican more likely to say that the court is "about right."
The Gallup conducted a random survey of 1,005 adults in all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points with a 95 percent confidence level.
Gallup's poll follows a Quinnipiac University survey released last week that also found the Supreme Court had an all-time low approval rating, with only 37 percent saying they approved. This marked the lowest rating since Quinnipiac began recording approval ratings in 2004.
DOCUMENTED LYING LAWYER ELIZABETH WARREN
Elizabeth Warren Calls for Court-Packing After Breyer Retires
15
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
27 Jan 2022648
3:10
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has called for court-packing in the wake of Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement from the Supreme Court.
In a tweet on Thursday, Warren extolled Joe Biden for his pledge to nominate the first black woman to the highest court in the land while pressing him to go even further. She tweeted:
Justice Breyer has an extraordinary record of public service. I’m very happy that President Biden will fill this seat by naming the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. And we ought to #ExpandTheCourt to give her at least four more new colleagues & rebalance this institution.
Court-packing entails adding more justices to the Supreme Court in order to shift the balance of power toward the nominating party. Currently, the court has six justices appointed by Republicans and three appointed by Democrats. If implemented, court-packing would destroy an independent judiciary as president after president appoints however many justices they desire to get an ideological outcome. It has been a hardcore progressive cause ever since former President Trump began shifting the balance of the court, starting with Justice Kavanaugh and accelerating into overdrive when Justice Barrett replaced the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ironically, neither Ginsburg nor Breyer supported the idea and condemned it at every turn.
In April of last year, reports surfaced that Senate and House Democrats were working on legislation that would add four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Courtm even after Justice Breyer said that court-packing would erode any and all trust in the judiciary.
“If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches,” Breyer said in a speech to Harvard Law, later adding:
The court’s decision in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore, is often referred to as an example of its favoritism of conservative causes. But the court did not hear or decide cases that affected the political disagreements arising out of the 2020 Trump v. Biden election. It did uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare, the health care program favored by liberals.
Speaking with NPR in 2019, Ginsburg criticized past attempts to pack the Supreme Court, such as when President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to do so in the 1930s.
“Nine seems to be a good number,” the justice said. “It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court.”
Even if President Biden and the Democrats were enthusiastically committed to packing the Supreme Court, they would undoubtedly have an uphill battle from the likes of moderate Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). In fact, shortly after the 2020 election, Manchin pledged he would not vote to end the filibuster or pack the court, a promise he has so far kept.
“With packing the courts, I’m not voting for that,” Manchin told CNN.
Elizabeth Warren may face consequences for practicing censorship
Elizabeth Warren, a mediocre law professor who parlayed a fake Native American identity into a gig at Harvard and a seat in the United States Senate, thought that, once in government, she’d try her hand at censorship. When Joseph Mercola and Ronnie Cummins wrote a book about COVID with which Warren disagreed, she used her position as a Senator to try to get Amazon to censor the book. Although Chelsea Green Publishing filed suit in November, people are finally becoming aware of the suit.
I’m always amazed when someone who ought to know the law doesn’t—or feels entitled to ignore it. As a lawyer and a law professor, one would expect Warren to be familiar with the First Amendment. That’s the one that says that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” As government has grown, that principle has been extended to the federal government as a whole, whether it’s an executive agency, Congress, or a politician acting under the color of his or her role in the government. (And of course, to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment.)
Nevertheless, on September 7, 2021, writing in her capacity as a United States Senator, on official Senate letterhead, Warren sent a very long letter to Andy Jassy, Amazon’s CEO, expressing her concern that Amazon itself was publishing misinformation by allowing Mercola’s and Cummins’s book, The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal, to appear on its bestseller list and daring to give it a favorable ranking. After waffling on for pages several pages, and mendaciously claiming the book was “potentially unlawful,” Warren “asked” Amazon to modify the algorithms to destroy the book’s ranking.
Chelsea Green responded in November by suing Warren for violating the First Amendment, although news of that filing only reached the media recently. The lawsuit relies upon Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1962). Bantam Books involved a newly-created Rhode Island Commission which had the task of educating the public about any written material that could harm the morality of or otherwise corrupt Rhode Island’s young people.
Image: Elizabeth Warren fakes it with beer. YouTube screen grab.
In Bantam Books, the plaintiff publishers sued, alleging that the commission was violating their First Amendment rights. The Court held, in relevant part, that government representatives sending letters to booksellers to pull books constitutes a form of censorship that violates the Constitution.
Specifically, the government cannot relieve itself of the First Amendment’s prohibitions by urging a private party to act on its behalf. In the same way, when Biden told social media companies to censor views with which he disagrees, that too violated the Constitution. The only thing is that he was just telling the media companies to do what they’re already doing.
In the original November 8, 2021, press release about the lawsuit, Chelsea Green had this to say:
Plaintiffs allege Warren’s letter contained blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated accusations about the book and that Warren’s claims, even if correct, would not alter the book’s constitutional protectedness.
“Senator Warren broke the law and betrayed our fundamental right to free speech,” said Dr. Joseph Mercola, founder of Mercola.com, a natural health website. “No politician is above the law, I will do everything in my power to defend my constitutional rights as an American.”
Ronnie Cummins, co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association, said: “Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is necessary if we are to achieve a system of participatory democracy and solve the interrelated crises that threaten our survival — health, food, environment, climate, politics.”
“The government trying to ban books is a very dangerous slippery slope to totalitarianism and cannot be allowed,” said Margo Baldwin, Chelsea Green president and publisher.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman, Children’s Health Defense, said: “If a government can hide what it’s doing by censoring its opponents and silencing dissonants, it has license to do anything that it wants. Sen. Warren must be held accountable.”
I wish Chelsea Green luck. Like all leftists, Warren is a bully and it’s high time that she was seriously reprimanded for her bullying ways. I’m only sorry that the lawsuit cannot include a request for compensatory and punitive damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment