The Tremendous Trump Thread - Etterspill (Les førstepost)

[AveMORphine]

[JK22]

The Reign of Republican Idiots in the House Was So Avoidable (msn.com)

I’m trying very hard to sympathize with these people, as I ordinarily do with those afflicted with creeping petrification. Really, I am. (No, I’m not.)

From the Washington Post:

The decisions to depart are yet another sign of the broader drop in morale within the GOP conference. Many Republican lawmakers have largely accepted that their inability to govern is a predicament of their own making. They acknowledge that overcoming their legislative impasse relies not only on keeping control of the House in November, but also on growing their ranks significantly enough to neutralize the handful of hard-liners who wield influence by taking advantage of the narrow margins. But many also continue to say privately what few have acknowledged publicly: Republicans believe they are likely to lose the majority.

Five of 21 retiring Republicans will have resigned before the end of the term. Four GOP committee chairs are leaving, but Republicans were particularly shocked at the announced departures of Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Gallagher, who are not term-limited from continuing to oversee their committees. Eight lawmakers are retiring from the coveted Energy and Commerce Committee and eight subcommittee chairs are leaving. Four former members of a different GOP leadership era also have called it quits: former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), his trusted deputy Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), former deputy whip Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.), and McMorris Rodgers, who previously served as conference chair.

My complete lack of sympathy toward these people is nothing new.

The reign of idiots in the House was easily avoidable. It is the result of heedless gerrymandering out in the states, the massive amount of unregulated money that overwhelmed the ability of the national party to maintain any sort of discipline, and the steady and irreversible progress of the prion disease that has afflicted conservatism since Ronald Reagan first fed it the monkey brains back in the late 1970s.

And the "different leadership eras," especially in the House were no bargain, either.

First, there was Speaker Newt Gingrich, who pioneered so many of the techniques that the former president* refined to a very sharp edge.

Then there was the defenestration of John Boehner, and the utter political destruction of Paul Ryan, which should have been due to his dedication to crackpot economics, but turned out to be due to the fact that he was insufficiently red in tooth and claw.

Let us be merciful and say no more about the sad reign of Kevin McCarthy, who is wandering around Washington trying to have his bloody revenge with a rubber blade.

Take, for example, Rep. Patrick McHenry. This guy was one of the primo young fanatics in the House. Elected from a North Carolina district in 2005 at the age of 29, McHenry first made his bones with groundless accusations that Democrats were somehow behind leaking sordid tales about sexual misconduct on the part of his Republican colleagues, including onetime Speaker Denny Hastert. Later, he grabbed the spotlight again by calling Senator Professor a liar over a scheduling cock-up. He was the very model of a modern major Gingrichian.

But then the slide toward perfect vandalism accelerated and he found himself falling further behind the likes of Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Now, at 48, he's burned out and leaving Congress, soon to be replaced, we are fairly certain, by someone infinitely worse.

I'm saving my sympathy for the rest of the country.

"massive amount of unregulated money" skyldes en høyesterettsavgjørelse for mindre enn tjue år siden som fjernet en reguleringsregel som var på plass i flere tiår. Dette åpnet for korrupte tilstander og fraksjonsdanning i republikanerpartiet som sett med Koch-brødrene (den ene døde, den andre er nå en "Never Trump" etter hva man vet om). 

Gerrymandering var observert allerede i England i 1700-tallet, ennå hadde de amerikanske grunnlovfedrene nektet å ta stilling til verken valg eller partidanning. Britene kom videre ved å fjerne all politisk innflytelse på uavhengige grensekommisjoner som deretter får ansvaret for å utforme valgdistrikter for føderale, statlige og lokale jurisdiksjoner, dette er regelen for de fleste velfungerende demokratiske stater i dag, i land som Israel finnes det i praksis ikke valgdistrikter når alt samles under ett, og i andre land er det faste grenser, som bare justeres gjennom folkeutjevningstiltak som ofte er lovbestemt. (i Frankrike, er gamle grenser fra Napoleons tid fremdeles der) I USA er det de folkevalgte som har ansvaret. Og som med den nevnte saken omkring pengestøtte, høyesteretten i 2019 nektet å forby gerrymandering. 

Det politiske systemet i USA er døende.

[JK22]

A distinguished group of retired four-star generals and admirals from the U.S. military have argued in a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that Donald Trump’s claims of absolute “presidential immunity” from criminal prosecution tied to Jan. 6 is an “assault” on the “foundational commitments” underpinning democracy and if his argument is allowed to succeed before them later this month, it threatens “to subvert the careful balance between the executive and legislative branches struck in the Constitution.”

The 38-page amicus brief features 19 authors, all of them decorated retired admirals, generals or secretaries from branches of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. On April 25, the high court is poised to hear Trump’s question of immunity against prosecution for his alleged criminal conspiracy to subvert the results of the 2020 election. and according to the brief, these are arguments that should be approached with extreme caution.

“Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity threatens to subvert the careful balance between the executive and legislative branches struck in the Constitution. For example, if emboldened by absolute immunity, the President might unsuccessfully seek authorization from Congress to undertake a certain action and then attempt to have the military carry out that action even though Congress rejected it. Moreover, our Constitution directs the people’s elected representatives in Congress to enact criminal laws that the executive is tasked with enforcing; allowing the President to violate those laws with impunity fundamentally distorts this constitutional allocation of powers,” they wrote.

They continued:

The Constitution subjects the armed forces of the United States to civilian control and the rule of law. These limits on the military are bedrock features of our democracy and are deeply rooted in our nation’s history. From the Founding to the present day, a steadfast commitment to these principles has successfully guided us through two world wars and numerous other conflicts; provided the stability needed for our democratic republic to flourish; and ensured that the military has the capacity to defend our nation by being trained and ready to fight and win its wars. Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is an assault on these foundational commitments.

As Law&Crime has previously reported, Trump contends that the president cannot function, as a matter of fact, without total immunity from the threat of prosecution.

It would “incapacitate every future president with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents,” Trump’s legal team told the Supreme Court in February.

But this is not so, according to the brief filed on Monday. The career military officials say that if Trump’s version of immunity were to be accepted, it would “severely undermine the commander-in-chief’s legal and moral authority to lead the military forces” because it would for once and all signal that “they but not he must obey the rule of law.”

“Under this theory, the President could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders, placing those in the chain of command in an untenable position and irreparably harming the trust fundamental to civil-military relations,” they wrote.

Calling Trump’s view “profoundly ahistorical,” the career military officials wrote that “absence of absolute immunity is something that has been correctly assumed since the founding” of the nation and that contrary to his point, no president before him has been damaged or inhibited as he suggests even as the threat of facing criminal prosecution hung over their heads all the same.

'Profoundly ahistorical': 4-star generals side with Jack Smith, tell Supreme Court Trump's immunity claims are 'assault' on democracy (msn.com)

Some of the authors include Ray Mabus, who served as the 75th Secretary of the Navy from 2009 to 2017. Mabus was the longest to serve as leader of the Navy and Marine Corps since World War I. Other filers include retired General Michael Hayden of the Air Force. A four-star general, Hayden served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency as well as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency. For a complete list of authors, click here.

On the very last day of its term, the Supreme Court will hear question that Trump has used to gird every defense he has made while he faces felony indictments in multiple venues.

The case involving his alleged conspiracy around Jan. 6 has been waylaid for nearly a year — he was indicted last August. Trump’s team has pushed repeatedly to see the criminal trial in Washington, D.C., extended beyond the November election. Whether he will get his wish is uncertain but U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has indicated a willingness to keep as tight a schedule as possible and special counsel Jack Smith has expressed the same.

he order stated only that the court would resolve the question of “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office[.]”

At the center of Trump’s defense to the charges in Washington, D.C., is something the retired military officials argue would “harm our national security and undermine our role as the international standard-bearer of democracy.”

“Presidential transitions are times of significant national security risk. Leaders in the outgoing administration must prepare their successors to take the reins, and any complications in this handoff can diminish the successors’ preparedness to handle national security threats,” they wrote.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Trump’s stark bid for “absolute immunity” as president already. The judges resoundingly rejected his claims that under certain circumstances, a former president could even get away with murdering his political rivals.

Ganske sterkt.

How Trump’s lawyers would fail my constitutional law class | Opinion (msn.com)

How Trump’s lawyers would fail my constitutional law class | Opinion

Former President Donald Trump claims that the president of the United States is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

On March 19, 2024, Trump filed his brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith for Trump’s alleged criminal attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump argued in the brief that the Supreme Court must dismiss the criminal indictment against him because his alleged conduct constituted official acts by a president and that presidents must be afforded absolute immunity for their official acts.

To support his contention, Trump cites Supreme Court cases, the Federalist Papers, and other writings from legal scholars. Trump argues that these documents show presidents hold absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

But as a constitutional law scholar, I know that those writings, in fact, say the opposite. They say U.S. presidents are not absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

If a student of mine had submitted a brief making the arguments that Trump and his lawyers assert in their Supreme Court filing, I would have given them an F.

Sitting in judgment

It is standard practice for a person involved in a lawsuit and their lawyers to quote past cases and other legal writing to support their arguments.

It is also common for litigants to quote the Supreme Court justices themselves – either from their past opinions or other writings, such as law review articles – to advance their arguments.

But it is not standard practice to characterize those cases and documents as saying one thing when they say the complete opposite.

Trump begins by citing Marbury v. Madison from 1803, which is one of the court’s most consequential cases. He argues that Marbury v. Madison said that a president’s official acts “can never be examinable by the courts.”

But Trump ignores the paragraph that immediately follows that passage in the Marbury opinion, which states that when Congress “proceeds to impose” legal duties or directs the president to “perform certain acts,” the president “is so far the officer of the law (and) is amenable to the law for his conduct.” In other words, when Congress enacts a law, the president must follow it.

Trump also argues that, according to the Constitution, “federal courts cannot sit in judgment directly over the President’s official acts.”

This assertion is contrary to scores of cases where federal courts have reviewed presidential acts. While the federal courts have generally refused to direct the president to perform a specific task, federal courts regularly determine whether a president’s actions are legally permissible.

Take Biden v. Nebraska. President Joe Biden sought to cancel more than $400 billion in federal student loans. Biden argued that he had the authority to do so under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act passed by Congress in 2003 – known as the HEROES Act. That act grants the secretary of education the authority to “waive or modify” student loan programs during national emergencies.

Several conservative-leaning states challenged the loan forgiveness, and the Supreme Court concluded that Biden did not have the legal authority to cancel the federal student loans under the HEROES Act because the plan was not a “waiver” or “modification.” Here, as they did in countless other cases, the federal courts sat “in judgment directly over the President’s official acts.”

But the main legal question remains – whether a president holds, as Trump claims, absolute immunity from criminal investigations and prosecutions for a president’s official acts.

From a policy perspective, Trump claims that “functional considerations” warrant the absolute immunity that he seeks because if a president is subject to criminal liability, that legal exposure “will cripple … Presidential decisionmaking.”

Donald Trump speaks at the Save America March rally on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

To further this claim, Trump relies on a 2009 law review article by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who now sits on the Supreme Court. Trump quotes Kavanaugh, who wrote that “a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President,” which Trump provides as evidence of support for the position that a president requires absolute immunity.

But even a cursory reading of Kavanaugh’s article reveals that Kavanaugh argued only for a deferral of a criminal prosecution until after a president leaves office.

As Kavanaugh states, “The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.”

Simply put, the underlying premise of Kavanaugh’s article is that a president can be held criminally liable for his conduct.

Civil cases vs. criminal cases

It is true, however, that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for their official acts. That issue was settled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In that case, A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Air Force. According to Fitzgerald, he was terminated in retaliation for his testimony before Congress about cost overruns of $2 billion on a transport plane project.

After tapes emerged in which then-President Richard Nixon was heard ordering that Fitzgerald be fired, Fitzgerald sued Nixon for retaliatory termination. The Supreme Court concluded that a president enjoys absolute immunity for his acts “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”

Nixon v. Fitzgerald is a civil case. Trump urges the court to extend the presidential immunity established in this civil case to criminal matters. But he overlooks the fundamental difference between the civil justice system and the criminal justice system.

The purpose of the civil justice system is to make an injured party whole again. But the purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect society, because crimes are understood to be harms against the public.

Wayne Unger, Assistant Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Endret 8. april av JK22

[nebrewfoz]

Walls of text? TL;DR

[Red Frostraven]

nebrewfoz skrev (21 timer siden):

Walls of text? TL;DR

You surely jest, but:

Trump: Hvis ikke presidenter har immunitet mot grunnloven og alle lovene, så vil de måtte frykte for straffeforfølgelse satt i gang av deres politiske motstandere resten av livet

Generaler: Hvis presidenten ikke er bundet av loven, så kan presidenten gi ordre om at militæret skal utføre ulovlige ordre uten konsekvenser for presidenten personlig -- mens de militære kan lide konsekvenser både om de gjennomfører ordren eller nekter fordi de er bundet av loven.

Trump (sine advokater): Hvis du vrir på hodet og leser disse gamle lovene og vedtakene og stopper å lese etter dette kommaet her, så ser det litt ut som om presidenten bør være immun!

Eksperter på lover: ...nei, fortsett å lese etter kommaet, så går det klart frem at konklusjonen er den motsatte.

---

At presidenter kan lide om de ikke har immunitet er jo åpenbart bare er sant om deres politiske motstandere er ondsinnede maktmisbrukere, eller om presidenten har brutt lover.
Trump har brutt lover, og en hel haug republikanske folkevalgte er onde maktmisbrukere -- som akkurat nå misbruker kongressens makt og tar i mot hjelp fra russisk etterretning i et forsøk på å produsere falske beviser for at Joe Biden har brutt loven.

Endret 10. april av Red Frostraven

[nebrewfoz]

6 hours ago, Red Frostraven said:

You surely jest, but:

Takk!

[JK22]

Dissensen mot den føderale høyesteretten er i ferd med å bli så alvorlig, at Roberts kan risikere trøbbel. For den juridiske reformbevegelsen "Common Cause" som siden 1970 har en sterk innflytelse i USA, har kommet med en rapport på 37 sider som gjort det klart at Roberts kan ha kompromitterte høyesterettens upartiskhet ved å favorisere Trump og deretter bedrive skadelige virkninger på politiske prosesser som det kommende presidentvalget i november 2024.

'Favor Mr. Trump': Latest filing gives SCOTUS stern warning on presidential immunity case (msn.com)

“This Court is at serious risk of being perceived as attempting to influence the 2024 election in favor of Mr. Trump,” the group writes. “It should do everything possible now to avoid that impression, which would be highly detrimental to this Court’s reputation for neutrality and fairness. Time is of the essence.”

Common Cause's 37-page brief condemns the nation’s highest court scheduling decisions they argue came to Trump’s legal rescue “against the public interest."

Specifically, the group points to the Supreme Court’s speedy ruling on his 14th Amendment insurrectionist ban challenge — a ruling that allowed Trump to remain on Colorado’s ballot — and the scheduling of his presidential immunity hearing until April 25, the last day possible.

Trump is claiming he is immune from prosecution because his actions were taken while president. Smith had requested to cut out usual procedures and take the case straight to the U.S. Supreme Court for a fast decision, but his request was denied.

“Both cases ask, in different ways, whether Mr. Trump illegally attempted to interfere with the outcome of the 2020 election,” Common Cause argues. “Yet to date, the Court has treated the two cases in dissimilar ways that seem to favor Mr. Trump.”

Common Cause notes it took the court five weeks on Trump v. Anderson, the Colorado Supreme Court challenge, but will not hear arguments until 20 weeks after Smith first requested a judgment.

The ruling could take another two months and render a verdict in the crucial criminal case before the 2024 presidential election impossible, the brief states.

“If that is the outcome and this Court rejects Mr. Trump’s immunity defense, then many Americans may fairly wonder whether the disparity in the Court’s scheduling decisions in these two related cases…were for the purpose of favoring the election of Mr. Trump and denying voters information critical to their decision-making,” the brief states.

To preserve the Court’s reputation for neutrality and avoid interfering with the election, the Court should decide this case rapidly so as to permit trial to take place before Election Day.”

Common Cause reminds the court that Trump could effectively kill the election interference case against him should he regain control of the White House, and the Justice Department, in 2025.

“That interest is unusually compelling here because delay until after the election could, if Mr. Trump is reelected, lead to the unseemly spectacle of a criminal defendant directing the dismissal of his own indictment so the public would never learn whether their newly elected president is guilty or innocent,” they write.

“A prompt decision is essential so that voters on Election Day know whether 5 or not one of the two major candidates has committed serious federal crimes in an attempt to overthrow our constitutional order.”

Her gjør de det meget klart at Roberts risikere å anklages for brudd på ed, som er en meget alvorlig forbrytelse. Dissensen kan bli så sterk, at høyesteretten kunne bli umyndiggjort på ubestemt tid, ved at man ikke kommer til å akseptere disses autoritet som sett i 1857-1865. Da var høyesteretten i praksis død i øyne på nesten hele det politiske systemet, som splittes opp i en borgerkrig. 

[JK22]

JK22 skrev (På 30.3.2024 den 1:20 PM):

Disse dommernes advarsler er i ferd med å slå til; det meldes at flere republikanskledede delstater er i ferd med å forgripe seg på den amerikanske konstitusjonen ved å presse gjennom lovforslag basert på SB 4-loven fra Texas som betyr at de kan pågripe og deportere immigranter fra andre land uten føderal innblanding. Intet land - heller ikke Norge - vil akseptere dette, da en delstat i realitet er IKKE en nasjonalstat, ved å være et internt område i et internasjonalt anerkjent land. 

Another red state moves a step closer to enacting Texas-style anti-illegal immigration bill (msn.com)

 Louisiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, Tennessee og Oklahoma vil ha deres egne immigrasjonslov som disse ved lov er forbudt fra å ha, ettersom det kun er lovlig å arrestere immigranter ved lovbrudd, ikke for disses status - som da er underlagt føderal lov ved at bare USA som nasjonalstat kan arrestere, dømme og deportere immigranter og folk med fremmed statsborgerskap fordi dette falle under det mellomstatlige feltet. Intet land vil tillate deportasjon - og heller ikke arrest - av immigranter fra et lavtstående administrasjonsområde man simpelt ikke har et mellomstatlig forhold med. Dette var den føderale høyesteretten helt innforstått med helt siden 1789.

Helt til 19. mars 2024 da John Roberts regelrett skjøt den føderale rettsinstansen i senk. Man hadde muligheten til å annullere SB 4-loven og det var dette de tre liberale dommerne hadde ønsket. Men Roberts valgt å la saken leve og returnere den til en lavere rettsinstans. Dette er et så grov brudd at det ikke kan forsvares. Nå hersker det kaos, og det er opprørsaktivitet bokstavelig talt fordi nasjonalgardister flyttes over delstatsgrenser uten presidentens tillatelse og Louisiana og Texas sitter med seriøse planer om "interstate compacts" - som er i brudd mot den føderale makten. 

I slutten må delstatene da internere de illegale innvandrere som ikke kan deporteres, og det kan ende med at ekte interneringsleirer må bygges og åpnes akkurat som med japanskimmigrantene som var arrestert og internert under 2.vk på et ulovlig grunnlag, bunnet rasistiske holdninger. Flere millioner kan bli internert før valget vil finne sted, og da snakker om man et skala av menneskerettighetsbrudd som ikke hadde vært bevitnet på flere generasjoner. 

Nå er presset på Roberts massiv. "Alle" har nå forstått at situasjonen er kommet utenfor kontroll. 

Dessuten er det pisket opp et voldsom hykleri mot den illegale immigrasjonen, at det nå snakkes åpent om å begå massedrap på kvinner og barn som krysser grensen! 

“I may not be eligible to vote,”  “but I can vote with my feet.”

Arbeidsmigranter og immigranter som hadde slått seg til ro i de amerikanske delstater, har blitt meget dypt urolig over den ufattelige stupiditeten Roberts hadde startet. I Iowa ble immigrantloven SF 2340 - en blåkopi av SB 4 fra Texas - vedtatt i rekordtid av republikanerne som nekte å lytte på arbeidsgivere og samfunnslederne som innså at dette kan sette store deler av arbeidsmarkedet i stor fare. 

A controversial Texas law has become a blueprint for other states. Immigrant communities are worried (msn.com)

Et stort problem med SB 4 er at den er for vag omkring inngrepsmuligheter og karakter av lovbrudd som status for den enslige immigrant - som med vilje videreføres av republikanerne over hele USA. I Mississippi og West Virginia ble dette stanset av komiteene som nekte å tillate bearbeiding av lovforslag, i Arizona ble loven vetoet av den demokratiske guvernøren og i Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri and South Carolina er SB 4-kloner hentet fram der man vil gjøre disse til lover. I Florida varsles det at de vil deportere "illegale" immigranter snarest mulig. 

Dissensen mot Roberts bare vokser; situasjonen omkring de delstatlige immigrantlovene er kommet utenfor kontroll slik at flere titalls millioner risikere å få sine rettigheter krenket, og i verste fall forfølgelse og internering fordi ingen nasjonalstat vil akseptere deportasjon fra delstat, som kan ende opp med at andre delstat vil ikke akseptere deportasjon fra andre delstat. De liberale dommerne hadde advart på det sterkeste mot dette, men Roberts hadde nektet å høre på dem - og nå er det oppstått et juridisk kaos fordi de føderale myndigheter kan ikke gripe inn så lenge høyesteretten ikke vil følge den konstitusjonelle bestemmelsen. 

The truth about noncitizen voting in federal elections - The Washington Post

Etter amerikansk lov har man stemmerett først etter å ha fått statsborgerskap. Det varieres fra delstat til delstat, men når det gjelder føderal lov omkring presidentvalg og kongressvalg er kriteriene meget strengt, bare disse med beviselig statsborgerskap har stemmerett gjennom registreringskrav som gjør at valglokalpersonell må registrere stemmegiverens identitet og status. Til dette må man ha føderal og delstatlig registreringsopplysninger i tråd med den siste loven senest vedtatt i 1996. Men i kommuner (municipalities) og delstater som er fritt til å ha deres egne valglov, kan migranter få lov til å avgi stemme i lokalvalg på kommunenivå. Bare enkelte byer har innført dette, og New York var den første større byen da disse byene - 11 i Maryland og 2 i Vermont - er små byer; men en dommer hindret dette fra å tre i kraft. 

Dommer Ralph Porzio mente dette er "ukonstitusjonelt", men det er en liten feil; grunnlovsfedrene bryr seg nemlig ikke om valgprosedyrer og dermed ignorere hele saken. Spesielt med tanke på at delstatskonstitusjonen tillatt migrantavstemning i skolevalg (der man velge rektorer og komitemedlemmer ansvarlig for undervisning) i 1970-2002. I San Francisco, California kunne foreldrene deltar i skolevalg uten problemer når det gjelder deres barn. I New York hadde det blitt for mange migranter som var blitt skattepliktig, slik at det skape et legalt problem - hele 800,000 i en by med syv millioner. Dette var forsøkt løst ved å gi stemmerett til disse som betalt skatt, man må være skattepliktig for å stemme i lokalvalg.

Det var jo helt presist regelen fram til 1870-tallet, da statsborgerskap som statsberettigede dokument var sjeldent. Det var dessuten mulig for immigranter å avgi deres stemme i 22 stater og føderale territorier - spesielt i Vesten - i delstatlige valg fram til 1920. Logisk sett var dette meget praktisk, spesielt i de føderale territoriene som utgjorde det vi kaller "den ville Vesten" mellom Mississippistatene i øst og kyststatene i øst. 

Registreringskrav i eldre tid gjør valgarrangørene ansvarlig for å påse om stemmegiveren er registrert i de offentlige registreringene, akkurat som i Norge, men i de siste tiår hadde republikanerne gått i bresjen for å "gjenreise" dixiekratiske regler fra Jim Crow-tiden ved å tvinge ansvaret over på stemmegiveren, som må gjøre alt arbeidet selv. Dette er striks antidemokratisk. Meget antidemokratisk ved å signalisere at man ikke stole på systemet. 36 delstater har dette; stort sett bare republikanskstyrt. 

Personlig mente jeg at en immigrant ikke skal få lov til å stemme før han/hun har fått statsborgerskap og dermed forpliktelse mot staten man bosette seg i, og mener likedan at man ikke heller burde gi disse lokal stemmerett av frykt for ghettotendens og uaksepterte politiske tendenser som korrupsjon og separasjon. Det fortoner seg forskjellig i et land som av karakter er en immigrasjonsnasjon. I Norge som en innfødt nasjon er det meget annerledes, og jeg hadde blitt irritert over at man var så liberalt med å dele ut passbøker som oppholdelsestillatelser, spesielt "familiegjenforening". 

Dette er gammelt nytt i USA, hvor man tradisjonelt tar statsborgerskap på alvor. Ennå hadde Trump og hans gærningene lansert en propagandakampanje hvor man påstår at immigranter kan avgi stemmer helt illegalt, og dermed mener dette må forhindres med en ny lov. Mye av dette er basert på løgn og usannheter som massemedier prøver å stoppe, men dette stadig kom gjennom, spesielt i sosiale medier hvor Egon Musk - som selv er en immigrant - er på Trumps side. 

“They [the Biden administration] don’t have a clue. I think they are looking for votes.”

“That’s why they are allowing these people to come in — people that don’t speak our language — they are signing them up to vote.”

Disse løgnene av Trump ser ut til å bunne i en patologisk besettelse omkring immigrasjon, da han vant presidentvalget i 2016 kom han med meget kraftige påstander om at Hillary Clinton som fikk flertallet, hadde "tre millioner stemmer fra migranter" - og på nytt påsto han etter presidentvalget i 2020 at Biden vant delstaten Arizona med 10,000 stemmer mer, at "36,000 migranter hadde stemt". 

Heritage Foundation som flere nå mener er antidemokratisk, hadde siden 1979 prøvd å registrere hvor mange illegale stemmer hadde vært avgitt, men fra 2002 til 2023 var det funnet bare 85 tilfeller ut av flere hundre registrerte stemmer - istedenfor hadde det vist seg at mange stemmerettslige hadde blitt sabotert og hindret fra å avgi deres stemmer. Det var spesielt ille i Texas, der var 100,000 anklaget for å være immigranter, av disse var 25,000 uskyldige, og bare FIRE mistet deres stemmerett mens et stort antall var forhindret i 2019 - som måtte returneres etter et dommerinngrep! Ikke rart at det er sterk mistro mot republikanerne blant latinos i Texas. 

Falske "oppdagelser" som da Jesse Richman fra Old Dominion University i 2014 ment å ha dokumentert at 6,4 % av immigrantene hadde stemt i 2008-valget og deretter 2,2 % i 2012-valget, hadde blitt hentet fram av Trump selv om Richman i ettertiden kom meget sterkt på defensiven i møte med fagpersoner med større dybde og ekspertise enn ham. Mye tyder på at dette var forfalsket. For da en legal undersøkelse fant sted i Arizona, vist det seg at hans opplysninger var helt galt, færre enn 1,000 ut av 3,8 mill. stemmegivere var illegalt. Dette straffes med fengselsdom. 

Donald Trump And Mike Johnson Are Pushing For A Bill To Ban Non-Citizens From Voting — Despite An Existing Federal Law (msn.com)

Vi ser dette tegnet på galskap hvor Mike Johnson, som åpenbart vil ikke hjelpe ut Ukraina, har sluttet seg til Trumps ide om å fremme et lovforslag som kommer aldri til å bli akseptert fordi 1996-loven er streng nok. 

Trump og republikanerne vil gjøre immigrantene til USAs svar på jødene fra Nazi-Tyskland. 

[AveMORphine]

Mhm...

[JK22]

Om det ikke er Trump og MAGA, er det den føderale høyesteretten som utgjør en trussel mot den amerikanske demokratiske ånden. 

Meget mange blir sjokkert da Roberts kunngjort at høyesteretten vil ikke behandle "Mckesson v. Doe"-saken og dermed betyr det at anken avvises - slik at rettsavgjørelsen i delstaten Louisiana av den føderale Fifth Circuit, som Trump hadde fylt opp med uegnede dommere, er blitt stående - og dermed gjeldende lov ikke bare i den nevnte delstat, men også i alle delstater over hele USA hvor det ikke er delstatlig lov omkring protestretten. Dette skyldes en voldsepisode hvor en politimann ble skadet med en stein kastet av en ukjent under en protestdemonstrasjon i Batou Rogue som respons på politivold med døden til følge for Alton Sterling i 2016. Politimannen siden gikk til saksøkning og mener at arrangøren er ansvarlig, selv om dette er i åpen strid med allmenn internasjonal praksis; og endog mot amerikansk lov basert på den første tilleggsprotokollen av 1789-konstitusjonen. 

The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states (msn.com)

I 1982 hadde høyesteretten avgjort under "NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware" at protestarrangører ikke kan holdes ansvarlig for individuelle voldshandlinger og ukontrollerte opptøyaktivitet om disse ikke tar et aktiv grep for å oppmuntre dette fram, og det er i tråd med allmenn praksis også i alle land med demokratisk styring hvor demonstrasjonsretten beskyttes. En saksøker kan ikke anklage arrangørpersoner for det som hendt vedkommende, og det var gjeldende praksis fram til 14. april 2024. 

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.

It is possible that this outcome will be temporary. The Court did not embrace the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision attacking the First Amendment right to protest, but it did not reverse it either. That means that, at least for now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is the law in much of the American South.

For the past several years, the Fifth Circuit has engaged in a crusade against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent figure within the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest near a Baton Rogue police station in 2016.

The facts of the Mckesson case are, unfortunately, quite tragic. Mckesson helped organize the Baton Rogue protest following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or similar object at a police officer, the plaintiff in the Mckesson case who is identified only as “Officer John Doe.” Sadly, the officer was struck in the face and, according to one court, suffered “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head.”

Everyone agrees that this rock was not thrown by Mckesson, however. And the Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that protest leaders cannot be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant, absent unusual circumstances that are not present in the Mckesson case — such as if Mckesson had “authorized, directed, or ratified” the decision to throw the rock.

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again.

Indeed, as Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett, who dissented from his court’s Mckesson decision, warned in one of his dissents, his court’s decision would make protest organizers liable for “the unlawful acts of counter-protesters and agitators.” So, under the Fifth Circuit’s rule, a Ku Klux Klansman could sabotage the Black Lives Matter movement simply by showing up at its protests and throwing stones.

The Fifth Circuit’s Mckesson decision is obviously wrong

Like Mckesson, Claiborne involved a racial justice protest that included some violent participants. In the mid-1960s, the NAACP launched a boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi. At least according to the state supreme court, some participants in this boycott “engaged in acts of physical force and violence against the persons and property of certain customers and prospective customers” of these white businesses.

Indeed, one of the organizers of this boycott did far more to encourage violence than Mckesson is accused of in his case. Charles Evers, a local NAACP leader, allegedly said in a speech to boycott supporters that “if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.”

But the Supreme Court held that this “emotionally charged rhetoric ... did not transcend the bounds of protected speech.” It ruled that courts must use “extreme care” before imposing liability on a political figure of any kind. And it held that a protest leader may only be held liable for a protest participant’s actions in very limited circumstances:

There are three separate theories that might justify holding Evers liable for the unlawful conduct of others. First, a finding that he authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity would justify holding him responsible for the consequences of that activity. Second, a finding that his public speeches were likely to incite lawless action could justify holding him liable for unlawful conduct that in fact followed within a reasonable period. Third, the speeches might be taken as evidence that Evers gave other specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats.

The Fifth Circuit conceded, in a 2019 opinion, that Officer Doe “has not pled facts that would allow a jury to conclude that Mckesson colluded with the unknown assailant to attack Officer Doe, knew of the attack and ratified it, or agreed with other named persons that attacking the police was one of the goals of the demonstration.” So that should have been the end of the case.

Instead, in its most recent opinion in this case, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Claiborne’s “three separate theories that might justify” holding a protest leader liable are a non-exhaustive list, and that the MAGA-infused court is allowed to create new exceptions to the First Amendment. It then ruled that the First Amendment does not apply “where a defendant creates unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.”

And what, exactly, were the “unreasonably dangerous conditions” created by the Mckesson-led protest in Baton Rogue? The Fifth Circuit faulted Mckesson for organizing “the protest to begin in front of the police station, obstructing access to the building,” for failing to “dissuade” protesters who allegedly stole water bottles from a grocery store, and for leading “the assembled protest onto a public highway, in violation of Louisiana criminal law.”

Needless to say, the idea that the First Amendment recedes the moment a mass protest violates a traffic law is quite novel. And it is impossible to reconcile with pretty much the entire history of mass civil rights protests in the United States.

In fairness, the Court’s decision to leave the Fifth Circuit’s attack on the First Amendment in place could be temporary. As Sotomayor writes in her Mckesson opinion, when the Court announces that it will not hear a particular case it “expresses no view about the merits.” The Court could still restore the First Amendment in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in a future case.

For the time being, however, the Fifth Circuit’s Mckesson decision remains good law in those three states. And that means that anyone who organizes a political protest within the Fifth Circuit risks catastrophic financial liability.

Med dette har den konservative høyesteretten gjort demonstrasjonsretten umulig i tre delstater - Louisiana, Mississippi og Texas fordi arrangører kan ikke ta risikoen av frykt for å bli saksøkt (det kan også gjelde massemøter av ulike karakter). 

Hvis dette ikke rettes ut, kan det en dag bli forbudt å demonstrere i amerikanske gater. 

[AveMORphine]

[JK22]

Trump cites Founding Fathers in telling Supreme Court why he should not be prosecuted

Det som skjer i det sist er en propagandakampanje i det åpne der man argumenterer for innføring av persondiktaturstyre i regi av Trump som mener bestemt at en amerikansk president skal ha absolutt immunitet og dermed i realiteten står over loven, også ovenfor 1789-konstitusjonen. Og dessverre har dette en farefull spredningseffekt som kan bli fatal, for det merkes at flere og flere har begynte med å "kjøpe" hans argumenter. Hans frekkhet er så uhørt, at han burde ha blitt pisket og fått tungen skåret ut! Det snakkes i flere kretser om å anklage ham for forakt for loven i det siste. 

Trump cites Founding Fathers in telling Supreme Court why he should not be prosecuted (msn.com)

WASHINGTON − Former President Donald Trump highlighted concerns from America's Founding Fathers about hyper-partisanship to argue in a filing with the Supreme Court on Monday that he shouldn't be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election.

In Trump's final brief laying out his case before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on April 25, his lawyers cited writings from George Washington and James Madison to bolster his case that opening the door to presidential prosecutions would invite political abuse.

Washington, in his farewell address, warned against the "alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities.”

Madison cautioned that “the diseases of faction … have proved fatal to other popular governments," Trump's lawyers wrote.

"The radical innovation of prosecuting a former President for official acts will fulfill those ominous prophecies," the lawyers concluded.

Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith has dismissed such concerns, telling the court presidents can function effectively without criminal immunity, something that neither the framers of the Constitution nor any other president contemplated.

“To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law— including the President,” Smith wrote in his brief previewing the oral arguments that was filed last week. “Nothing in constitutional text, history, precedent, or policy considerations supports the absolute immunity that petitioner seeks.”

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, wants the Supreme Court to dismiss his indictment on federal charges he tried to steal the 2020 election, arguing criminal prosecution presents a “mortal threat” to the independence of the presidency.

Three of those nine justices were appointed by Trump when he was president, giving the Court a conservative supermajority comprised of six people appointed by Republicans.

Even if Trump loses his appeal, the Supreme Court may not reach a decision quickly enough for a trial to proceed in time for a verdict before the November election.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to four federal charges in the case before the Supreme Court − three for conspiracy and one for obstruction − for falsely claiming election fraud and trying to overturn the legitimate election results.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the charges are politically motivated. If he returns to the White House, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek to dismiss any pending federal charges. Trump could also simply pardon himself, although his power to do so is debated.

But Trump’s preferred outcome is for the Supreme Court to entirely dismiss the indictment, an outcome experts say is unlikely.

While former presidents have broad immunity from civil lawsuits for official actions taken while serving in the White House, Trump has attempted to claim sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution.

Madison var en idiot. Han var bekymret over partipolitiske tendenser, men basert dette på hans studier av det athenske pøbeldemokratiet i antikken, og i slutten gjort ingenting for å sette inn korreksjoner i den konstitusjonelle teksten omkring partidanning/politikk - i motsetning til alle andre nyere konstitusjoner i senere tid. Det vist seg å være et meget stort feilgrep for dette tillatt hva han kaller "hyper-partisanship", som vi nå ser er i ferd med å ødelegge det politiske systemet i USA. Men så hadde man meget strenge sosiale kodekser i møte med frekk og æreløse som løgnaktige folk som Trump, den gang var disse pisket, satt i gapestokk, fått tungen skåret ut - og i verste fall dømt til brenning på bål - levende. Alt dette forsvunnet i nyere tid. 

Etter saken omkring delstatelige immigrasjonslover som er kommet utenfor all kontroll, og siden saken om demonstrasjonsrett i flere delstater, er det blitt åpenbart at noe er veldig galt med den føderale høyesteretten, og at de liberale dommerne ikke er å stole på, som sett fra saken om diskvalifiseringen av Trump. Roberts hadde hemmeligholdt hvorfor Thomas uteblitt fra møtet da anken (om demonstrasjonsrett) avgjøres - og dette avslører at høyesteretten er blitt en så gammeldaglig og innelukket institusjon at den ikke er lenge i tråd med resten av systemet. Det må ikke glemmes at høyesteretten hadde stjålet frihet og rettigheter fra fargede og minoritetsfolk i 1870-1960 og tillatt konstitusjonsbrudd som sett med den femtende tilleggsprotokollen. For høyesterettsdommerne er demokrati ikke-eksisterende. 

Det er voksende forferdelse i de intellektuelle kretsene i USA som har begynte med å realisere at de er kommet i en situasjon hvor folket er blitt sin egne verste fiende, slik at demokratismen risikere å bli liggende med brutt rygg fordi de ser mer og mer at mange amerikanerne ser ut til å tro det er bedre å ha god økonomi - akkurat som i Russland for tiden - i bytte mot politiske og individuelle rettigheter, de ser noe som de vet er umulig, en "kineserifisering" av av det amerikanske folket. "Kineserifisering" betyr at folket gir fra seg sine rettigheter i bytte mot økonomisk vekst og stabilitet, dvs. en "kontrakt" der staten/makthaveren vil ha all makt mot at folket vil få det bedre økonomisk sett, dvs. lave levekostnader, gode arbeidsmuligheter, større varetilgjengelighet og lav utgift på tjenester, transport og ytelser. 

Dette er i praksis læren fra 1930-tallet som gjentar seg. Finanskrisen i 2008 er i ferd med å få samme rolle som Svartekrakket i 1929, for denne hadde brutt den vestlige økonomistabiliteten som ikke har gjenreist seg helt siden den gang - så da energiinflasjonen kom i 2021 - var folk flest blitt sterkt sårbar, det var ikke lenge sikkerhetsmarginer (som nå er ved å bli borte i Norge, alt man sparer opp er ved å bli borte og man er i resesjon) - slik at det bli et stort økonomisk sjokk i 2022-2024 akkurat som i 1929-1933. 

Bedre å være fattig og fri enn rik og ufrie - nå er russerne i ferd med å bli rik, men de lever under det verste tyranniet siden Stalins dager. Mange amerikanerne i deres uforstand ser ut til å ønske det samme. 

[sedsberg]

"Den som sover synder ikke". Så Trump kommer nok til å bruke det at han sovna i retten som argument for at han er uskyldig.

[Poor Old Gil]

Går ikke så bra med aksjen til Trump. Kommer han til å tjene noe på dette?

[jjkoggan]

Poor Old Gil skrev (1 minutt siden):

Går ikke så bra med aksjen til Trump. Kommer han til å tjene noe på dette?

Han tjener politisk når han vinner (Jeg er en genius!) eller taper (Eliten hindrer landet, vi må slå tilbake!)

[JK22]

Was Biden's uncle eaten by cannibals near New Guinea in World War II? Here's what the president said. (msn.com)

Trump er ikke alene om å forvirre og opphisse publikum. Nylig hadde Biden kommet med oppsiktsvekkende erklæringer som fikk folk til å bare måpe; han mente at hans onkel, en flyvåpenoffiser, kan ha blitt spist av kannibaler i New Guinea under krigen. Denne onkelen var Ambrose Finnegan som flyr om bord på et Douglas A-20 "Havoc" taktisk bombefly sammen med fire andre, da dette flyet forsvant i 14. mai 1944 under et vanlig skytteltokt. Bare en overlevd, som klarte å komme i kontakt med andre etter en stund og forklart flyet krasjet i havet utenfor nordkysten av New Guinea etter motorsvikt, men verken flyet eller de fire andre inkludert Finnegan var funnet. 

"And my uncle − they called him Ambrose. Instead of 'Brosie,' they called him 'Bosie,' Biden said. "My Uncle Bosie was a hell of an athlete, they tell me, when he was a kid. And he became an Army Air Corps, before the Air Force came along. He flew those single-engine planes as reconnaissance over war zones."

A-20 flyet var et tomotors bombefly. 

"And he got shot down in New Guinea, and they never found the body because there used to be − there were a lot of cannibals − for real − in that part of New Guinea," 

Ifølge den overlevende kom de aldri i kontakt med japanske fiendefly og krasjet pga. motorsvikt. Han klarte å berge seg tidsnok fordi flyet sank svært raskt, han ble reddet av lokale på en sjøfarkost som kom over ham i havet. Det er korrekt at det var innfødte kultur med kannibalistiske praksis i New Guinea, både i innlandet og på kyststrøkene selv om det egentlig er snakk om separate kulturer. Men kannibaler ifølge litteratur som skildret dette fenomenet, gjort det klart at disse avholdt seg fra å ete døde mennesker da disse foretrakk å drepe og deretter eter sine ofre, og det var svært sjeldent disse angrep fremmede fra andre verdenskanter. Rett og slett fordi det kunne invitere fram morderiske gjengjeldelser som nederlenderne, japanerne og australierne hadde stått for. I 1944 var kannibalene i New Guinea stort sett i innlandet. 

Det kom fram at Biden har et alvorlig problem med å overdrive hans beretninger. 

Biden has a long history of embellishing stories on a number of subjects − whether it's being arrested during civil rights protests, which the New York Times reported there's no evidence of, the scale of a past kitchen fire at his Delaware home, or an oft-told exchange he had with an Amtrak conductor, who CNN reported was dead when Biden said the conversation occurred.

Herregud... hvordan i all verden kunne USA ha havnet i en så absurd situasjon? 

Endret 18. april av JK22

[nebrewfoz]

7 hours ago, JK22 said:

"And my uncle − they called him Ambrose. Instead of 'Brosie,' they called him 'Bosie,' Biden said. "My Uncle Bosie was a hell of an athlete, they tell me, when he was a kid. And he became an Army Air Corps, before the Air Force came along. He flew those single-engine planes as reconnaissance over war zones."

A-20 flyet var et tomotors bombefly. 

Finnegan var passasjer på dette flyet, så det kan vel godt hende han vanligvis fløy enmotors rekognoseringsfly ...

[shockorshot]

On 16.4.2024 at 10:03 PM, Poor Old Gil said:

Går ikke så bra med aksjen til Trump. Kommer han til å tjene noe på dette?

Den synker fordi investorer tror det er en høy risiko for at det er en pump&dump scheme fra Trump hvor han skal dumpe nesten alt på kort tid for å betale bøter. Derfor Trump supporters blir anbefalt å kjøpe aksjer i DJT istedenfor å donere til kampanjen. De har også fumblet en del med det legale rundt hvordan DJT/Truth social ble opprettet som nå er et stort problem.

LegalEagle har en flott video om det:

Spoiler

 

 

Endret 19. april av shockorshot

[Dragavon]

Svindel frå Trump som vanleg.

[sedsberg]

Og han kommer til å slippe unna med det som vanlig.