Per Thom Hartmann, the right wing justices on scotus were all heavily supported by outside interests that wanted to return us to the early 1900’s. Already, challenges abound to end the protections that were set up to protect Americans from the greed of the morbidly rich. It is time for a big, big change.
Since this SCOTUS believes Roe vs. Wade was the wrong decision, so is their current decision. I’m all for articles of impeachment for these corrupt judges!
Many thanks for sharing link from Kettering. I watched with great interest, hoping they would address an issue that has confounded me:
I'm no lawyer, but it has always been my understanding that a person convicted under laws that were valid at the time, remains convicted even if the laws later change. (?)
I'm considering this in the context of the attempt to get the New York ruling overthrown on the basis that some testimony used to convict was deemed ineligible under SCOTUS ruling. The 34 felony convictions were decided before the ruling, so why would that have an impact? I realize that Judge Merchan must agree, since he has delayed sentencing in order to reevaluate, but I don't get it!
And while I'm at it, there's another legal question (election law) that has been nagging at me, though unrelated to this case: I've read and heard a few presumed experts state that it would be impossible to get a new Democratic presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states + territories in time for the November election. Some have stated that the GOP has devised a plan to stop such an initiative with cumbersome legal challenges. If this is true, wouldn't that override any desire to replace the top of the ticket this late in the game?
I'm guessing that every state has a slightly different process, but if it's possible or even likely that the Democratic party could only get a new candidate on the ballot in states that have democratic Secretaries of State/Governors/AGs, wouldn't that make this endless discussion a counter-productive waste of time?
the Republican machine and the Heritage Foundation already have plans and methods to tie up and legally challenge in state courts a switch in the name at the top of the ticket this late or latter in the process. Court challenges would continue after the election. Much of this is based on state election law and timing of names on a ballot.
An excellent discussion on this is found on Robert J. Rei’s July 7, 2024 Substack essay,
This court is the worst. They’re going to have many reversals in the future. They will go down in history as the most corrupt and compromised scotus ever. John Roberts Mudd, Clarence Thomas Mudd, Samuel Alito Mudd, Neil Gorsuch Mudd, Brett Kavanaugh Mudd, Amy Coney Barrett Mudd. Their descendants wont thank them.
Thom Hartmann’s 10 July newsletter discusses the need for a free and independent press to protect democracy and uses as an example President John Adams arresting and jailing many pro-Jefferson Democrat-Republican newspaper publishers and even at least one Congressman on sedition charges under federal laws Adam’s pushed through the then (1798) Federalist controlled Congress. Also made note of John and Abigail’s preference for pomp. Sure remains me of Trump.
Per Thom Hartmann, the right wing justices on scotus were all heavily supported by outside interests that wanted to return us to the early 1900’s. Already, challenges abound to end the protections that were set up to protect Americans from the greed of the morbidly rich. It is time for a big, big change.
Since this SCOTUS believes Roe vs. Wade was the wrong decision, so is their current decision. I’m all for articles of impeachment for these corrupt judges!
David, so impressed by the list of Senior Fellows at Kettering that you are a part of; appreciate the link to the list. Such important work.
Many thanks for sharing link from Kettering. I watched with great interest, hoping they would address an issue that has confounded me:
I'm no lawyer, but it has always been my understanding that a person convicted under laws that were valid at the time, remains convicted even if the laws later change. (?)
I'm considering this in the context of the attempt to get the New York ruling overthrown on the basis that some testimony used to convict was deemed ineligible under SCOTUS ruling. The 34 felony convictions were decided before the ruling, so why would that have an impact? I realize that Judge Merchan must agree, since he has delayed sentencing in order to reevaluate, but I don't get it!
And while I'm at it, there's another legal question (election law) that has been nagging at me, though unrelated to this case: I've read and heard a few presumed experts state that it would be impossible to get a new Democratic presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states + territories in time for the November election. Some have stated that the GOP has devised a plan to stop such an initiative with cumbersome legal challenges. If this is true, wouldn't that override any desire to replace the top of the ticket this late in the game?
I'm guessing that every state has a slightly different process, but if it's possible or even likely that the Democratic party could only get a new candidate on the ballot in states that have democratic Secretaries of State/Governors/AGs, wouldn't that make this endless discussion a counter-productive waste of time?
True.
the Republican machine and the Heritage Foundation already have plans and methods to tie up and legally challenge in state courts a switch in the name at the top of the ticket this late or latter in the process. Court challenges would continue after the election. Much of this is based on state election law and timing of names on a ballot.
An excellent discussion on this is found on Robert J. Rei’s July 7, 2024 Substack essay,
https://open.substack.com/pub/robertjrei/p/chaos-is-our-friend-says-close-trump?r=1knhs2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This will happen for any Democrat name other than Biden.
And now I’ll highly recommend everyone takes the time for the Kettering video. Outstanding takedown of the SCOTUS immunity ruling.
This court is the worst. They’re going to have many reversals in the future. They will go down in history as the most corrupt and compromised scotus ever. John Roberts Mudd, Clarence Thomas Mudd, Samuel Alito Mudd, Neil Gorsuch Mudd, Brett Kavanaugh Mudd, Amy Coney Barrett Mudd. Their descendants wont thank them.
Great heading, David, to grab our attention. You are in exalted company. I’m going back now to watch the 15-minute video. We the people indeed!
Thom Hartmann’s 10 July newsletter discusses the need for a free and independent press to protect democracy and uses as an example President John Adams arresting and jailing many pro-Jefferson Democrat-Republican newspaper publishers and even at least one Congressman on sedition charges under federal laws Adam’s pushed through the then (1798) Federalist controlled Congress. Also made note of John and Abigail’s preference for pomp. Sure remains me of Trump.
Adam’s acted as though he had immunity.