Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

et_al

Subscribe to et_al's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Sunday, September 27, 2020

Like many other liberals, I'm devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I'm revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's willingness to confirm Trump's nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.


Tuesday, September 08, 2020

The president's rhetoric has put my party in the position of a firefighter who deliberately sets fires to look like a hero putting them out. Republicans need to take a hard look before advocating laws that actually do limit the franchise of otherwise qualified voters. Calling elections "fraudulent" and results "rigged" with almost nonexistent evidence is antithetical to being the "rule of law" party.


Zeke Emanuel has a message for jittery Americans ahead of a momentous election: Voting in person during the coronavirus pandemic is about as safe as going to the grocery store read more


Thursday, August 20, 2020

President Donald Trump's campaign, ordered by a federal court judge in Pennsylvania to back up its claims of fraud in the state's vote-by-mail system, has documented only a handful of cases of election fraud in recent years -- none of which involved mail-in ballots. read more


Wednesday, July 22, 2020

This is a meticulously researched legal brief that describes in painstaking detail how Mr. Barr has violated his attorney's oath of office and rules of professional conduct.

That complaint asks the DC Bar's discipline office to investigate Mr. Barr's alleged ethical violations and determine what sanctions would be appropriate.

The complaint is a sober and comprehensive "bill of particulars." It challenges Mr. Barr's actions as to four basic matters:


Comments

dailysoundandfury.com

These "originalists" want to negate Amendments as if they weren't allowed under the original doucment. They are simply wrong and the woman will do grave damage to our nation if confirmed.
#43 | Posted by danni

You bought Summer's conclusion hook, line and sinker. Too bad he, and ostensibly you, fails to comprehend the law review, titled CONGRESSIONAL ORIGINALISM, which he cites in his article. Barret expressly rejects Summer's conclusion.

Members of Congress are differently situated. While the stylized process of adjudication narrows the questions presented to the Court, in Congress the question of a measure's constitutionality is always on the table. And because framing constraints do not narrow the relevant and permissible grounds of decision as they do in litigation, evaluating a bill's constitutionality arguably requires analysis of every possible constitutional flaw. That could put the originalist legislator in a bind. After all, if the legislator owes allegiance to the original public meaning, it is not obvious why the legislator need not ensure that a bill complies with that meaning in every respect. Because the kinds of procedural outs that permit originalism and deep-seated error to coexist in courts are not as readily apparent in the legislative context, the originalist legislator might have to face questions that an originalist justice can escape"such as the constitutionality of the administrative state or the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, broad-brush arguments about the obligation imposed by the legislator's oath of office, combined with the originalist emphasis on the preeminence of the text's original meaning, strongly suggest that a member of Congress must do just that.

We think that is wrong. Part III contends that it misinterprets the duty of fidelity to the text to maintain that Congress (or any individual member) must strip every constitutional question down to the studs. [Emphasis added.]


Barret makes no argument that the Fourteenth Amendment is "illegitimate" although she cites others who do then she meticulously and persuasively explains how deciding that question is both impractical and unnecessary.

... if you want your vote to count it is easy, go to the polls and vote. If you depend on the post office, you will never know.

I agree in part. Going to the polls is about as safe as going to the grocery store. drudge.com

If that is not an option and you are truly concerned about the mail service send your ballot by certified mail. The cost is less than $4.00, you get a postmarked receipt proving you sent it and you can track it online.

My experience with the postal service is different than yours. Over the course of a 30 plus year legal career, I have sent and received ten of thousands of mailed items. I can count one one hand the number of problems.

He should be charged under terrorism laws because that is exactly what false fearmongering is, domestic terrorism.

I'm having a problem coming up with any crime much less domestic terrorism.

There is no all encompassing federal "domestic terrorism" statute. www.lawfareblog.com

Nor does Oregon have a "domestic terrorism" statute. theintercept.com

A cop lying in this manner is protected by the First Amendment. As the Lawfare article notes that is an impediment to enacting "domestic terrorism" statutes.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable