HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » soldierant » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Colorado Springs, CO
Member since: Thu Aug 25, 2011, 03:33 PM
Number of posts: 5,922

Journal Archives

The power of soft language

I was introduced to Beau through a video that someone posted here, and have become a regular. I have never re-posted him here though until now.

With so many of us, myself included, running out of patience with insanity, this premise hit home to me. That doesn't mean I'm capable of doing it - I'm not right now, and in any case it takes practice. And it doesn't even always get results. But, when it does, it feels like a miracle.

The Supreme Court "Shadow Docket" and Abortion

I recently made a post elsewhere which referenced both the shadow docket and Texas's new [-]abomination[/-] abortion law, and received a response from a friend which seemed to me such a righteous rant that I wanted to share it. He suggested I tighten it up a bit (called it "rambling", but I think it rambles to pretty good effect.

The term “Shadow Docket” was first coined by U of Chicago law professor William Baude in 2015 (although had been in use prior to that). From his seminal paper:

Supreme Court Term provides an occasion to look beyond the Court’s merits cases to the Court’s shadow docket — a range of orders and summary decisions that defy its normal procedural regularity.

I make two claims: First, many of the orders lack the transparency that we have come to appreciate in its merits cases. Some of those orders merit more explanation, and should make us skeptical of proposals to personalize the Court.
Second, I address summary reversal orders in particular. As a general matter, the summary reversal has become a regular part of the Supreme Court’s practice. But the selection of cases for summary reversal remains a mystery. This mystery makes it difficult to tell whether the Court’s selections are fair.


Sadly, we are now cursed with a majority of SCOTUS justices nominated by Republican presidents who didn’t even win a majority of the votes (Bush [50,456,002] vs. Gore [50,999,897] yet Bush was able to nominate Roberts & Alito) and (Trump [62,984,828] vs. Clinton [65,853,514] yet Trump was able to nominate Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) …

Then confirmed by a majority of Senators representing a very SMALL MINORITY of Americans:

For example, L.A. County alone has a population of over 10 million. That’s more than the combined population of 10 entire states. Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming together have a total population of just over 9 million.


And the TWO Dakotas combined represent FEWER people than the island of Manhattan – yet they get FOUR Senators ….


And yet they overturn a procedure (abortion) that is supported by a significant majority of Americans.


WRT the Texas’ SB 8 abortion-prevention law ruling, it was deliberated on for LESS than three days, had NO oral arguments, and the “majority” opinion was UNSIGNED and LESS than ONE paragraph long!

If this tyranny by a minority of fascist right-wing republicans overturning rulings favored by a majority of Americans is allowed to continue, our nation will not be able to survive!

So if you’re wondering how the Taliban will be governing in Afghanistan, take a look at Texas!

So, starting with the shadow docket, we have addressed abortion as it was adjudged on that docket, and gone from there to the hard fact that we are experiencing de fact minority rule to a shocking extent. And, yes, it is all connected.

Hooked on Their Stealing (Parody)

I am a huge fam of Rocky Mountain Mike. (My signature video link is one of his).This is another of his best IMO

The Seven Last Words of the Unarmed

is a multi-movement choral work which premiered in 2016. It was written by Joel Thompson.

Joel Thompson's "Seven Last Words of the Unarmed" is a setting of the last words of unarmed black men before they were shot or killed by the police.

Texts for Joel Thompson's "The Seven Last Words of the Unarmed"
I. Kenneth Chamberlain
"Officers why do you have your guns out?"
II. Trayvon Martin
"What are you following me for?"
III. Amadou Diallo
"Mom, I'm going to college."
IV. Michael Brown
"I don't have a gun! STOP!"
V. Oscar Grant
"You shot me!"
VI. John Crawford
"It's not real"
VII. Eric Garner
"I can't breathe."

I was not familiar with it until a classical radio program aired it tonight (June 4th) in memory of Ahmaud Aubery, Freonna Taylot, and George Floyd.

As difficult as it is to listen to - it is very beautiful, and it needs to be heard.

When it comes to trial ...

OK, here's a thought.  

When (I'm going to go out on a limb and say when) the impeachment of Donald John Trump goes to the Senate for trial, that trial will be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - John Roberts.  That's what the Constitution says.  That's ALL it says.  That would appear to leave a great deal to the discretion of the justice in question.

Being a Republican, Chief Justice Roberts can't be expected to be completely impartial, but he has in the past appeared to care about his legacy.  It's not out of the question that consideration of his legacy, and of how appearances could affect it, might assist him in making some of the decisions on how to preside at this trial.

What would happen to the reputation and legacy of a trial judge in the courts who allowed accomplices of an accused in the crime for which he or she is on trial to sit - and vote - on the trial jury?

Of course the Chief Justice cannot kick people out of the Senate, but he may be able to remove them from the proceedings.  At the very least I would think he could require those Senators to recuse where there is evidence that they have involvement in or knowledge of (prior to the hearings).  IANAL, but I don't think that involvement or knowledge would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, since what is at stake is the integrity of the trial - and avoiding any appearance of evil - not any penalty or other negative consequences to those Senators.

Senator Graham's opening of an investigation into the matter that is the nexus of the crime makes it obvious he should refuse.  #MoscowMitch did not earn that hashtag for nothing.  I don't watch Fox News (except in short clips on the internet, and very few of those; essentially, just enough to learn that Napolitano generally speaks solid truth and one or two others do occasionally), but I am sure there are Senators who have said things there which could lead to their being "requested" to recuse. Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana, and some others, apparently attended a White House meeting with Trump to work with him on strategy for his defense at the potential trial.  That doesn’t sound like the conduct of impartial jurors.

I don't know what the best method would be to pursue this - a petition directly to the Chief Justice?  A nod to Democratic members of Congress to bring it up to the Chief Justice?  Possibly just a tidal wave of publicity on the implications?  And I would definitely not be competent to draft such a request - that should be a lawyer or at the very least someone with a strong legal background.

Another standing ovation for the ambassador

If I missed this here I apologize, but it warmed my heart so I wanted to make sure it was heard.

Marie Yovanovitch Visits A DC Jazz Club And Receives Standing Ovation

I'm not on Twitter, so this may look odd But hopefully at least y'all can see it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spontaneous ovation tonight at a DC jazz club for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarieYovanovitch?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarieYovanovitch</a>. Grateful for your courage and integrity, Ambassador! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Impeachment?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Impeachment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImpeachTrump?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImpeachTrump</a> <a href="https://t.co/GYwpQQdvJq">pic.twitter.com/GYwpQQdvJq</a></p>— Lisa Dickey (@LisaWritesBooks) <a href="https://twitter.com/LisaWritesBooks/status/1196259914156515329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2