Archive for the Supreme Court Category

First Monday In October (October 6, 2025)

Posted in First Monday In October, Law, Supreme Court on October 6, 2025 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “This term, the Supremes must squire the disputes between Trump and the lower courts and reign in the King.  The Court may not be capable of providing a review of all the policy decisions designed to swarm and overwhelm the system.”

K          “The power of the Presidency has expanded in starts and fits since the Lincoln Administration.  While in power, neither party has done much voluntarily to restrain the Executive.  Now the guard rails of self-restraint are gone.”

J          “On its best day, the Supreme Court’s power is incomplete if not inadequate.”

. . .

K          “This is also our opportunity to render a verdict on the legal system.  The whole system could be indicted and convicted of incompetence on a good day and willful venality on a typical day.  Someone is profoundly disappointed.”

. . . 

J          “Here be dragons.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at First Monday In October:  Dos-à-dos (October 7, 2024), First Monday (October 4, 2021) and First Monday And “Patient One” (October 5, 2020) and other years.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

“But liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing.  Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government.”  Aldous Huxley

First Monday In October:  Dos-à-dos (October 7, 2024)

Posted in First Amendment, First Monday In October, Middle East, Supreme Court, War on October 7, 2024 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “The putative civil libertarians (Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson) have taken off their masks and revealed themselves to be . . . authoritarians and totalitarians.  My new super hero is . . . Sam, the civil libertarian.  What a long strange trip this life is turning out to be.”

J          “They are still concerned with the public good.  The public good sometimes requires one to look at and to and for the good of the public generally.”

. . .

K          “One of my projects still in draft form compares the Trump appointees and the Biden appointees to the federal district courts and the federal appellate courts.  Establishing a metric is problematic and vexing.  At this time, however, the Trump appointees have done much more to protect civil liberties than the Biden appointees.  In the last two Presidential election cycles, I broke the tie for the Presidential candidates based on my concern that the Democrats need to hold the Senate to control the judiciary.  That has changed.”  

J          “Trump has appointed lawyers who are loyal and obedient foot soldiers to him.  That does not promote the public good.”

. . .

K          “The most pressing legal concern today is to return to protecting the natural rights that preexist the adoption of the Bill of Rights and were until recently protected by the Bill of Rights.”

J          “With reasonable restrictions.”

. . .

K          “The word ‘Lawfare’ is a portmanteau of ‘law’ and ‘warfare’.  Portmanteaus are usually clever; ‘Lawfare’ is not.  Weaponizing the judiciary will haunt the legal system for decades.  The spiritual mitochondria of good faith and fair dealing is being eviscerated by judges cooperating with prosecutors to get politicians and people.”

. .  .

[See the e-commentary at Murthy v. Missouri:  AMA v. AAPS; Flaccid Amendment v. First Amendment.  The Speakers’ Corner And The Public Square. (March 18, 2024) and “Supreme Court backs Biden administration in social media dispute with red states”  Biden 1; People 0.  Oh, And Happy Canada Day! (July 1, 2024) and graduation advice.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“What a long strange trip it’s been.”  Grateful Dead

Make Lawfare Imprudent Again

From Jill Stein:

Today, October 7th 2024, marks one year since the Hamas attack on Israel that many consider to have sparked Israel’s US-backed genocidal campaign against Gaza that is now exploding into a regional war.  But history did not begin on October 7th, 2023.

To understand the current situation, we must look back at least as far as 1948 to the Nakba, the brutal mass expulsion of indigenous Palestinians from their homes by Zionist paramilitaries and the newly formed state of Israel.  While the world has been watching in horror for the past year as this genocidal rampage has cut short hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, that one year was preceded by generations of violence, occupation, displacement, dispossession, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.

While we abhor violence, we must understand that settler colonialism, occupation, genocide, and all forms of oppression have always provoked resistance.  If we merely condemned violence “on all sides” without first acknowledging the underlying conditions of oppression and doing everything we can to rectify those conditions, we would not only fail to address the root causes of the problem, but would risk becoming complicit in injustice by drawing a false equivalency between oppressor and oppressed.  As Desmond Tutu observed, “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

One of history’s greatest nonviolent change makers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., identified the “great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom” as “the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice” and “who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice”.  For too long, the US government has supported Israel’s version of “order” and “peace” that demands the systematic subjugation of Palestinians to violent injustice.  But whenever people are denied their human rights, resistance is inevitable.  Even President Kennedy recognized this with his statement that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Dr. King also recognized the hypocrisy and uselessness of condemning the violence of the oppressed without first addressing the violence of oppression: “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”  The US government is fully complicit in the violence that Israel has inflicted on the Palestinians and others, after supplying Israel with over one hundred fifty billion dollars in military aid and shielding Israel from accountability to the international community for its long history of defying international law.  For Americans to condemn Palestinian resistance while our own government actively oppresses the Palestinian people would be neither just nor conducive to peace.

The events of October 7th, 2023 have been weaponized to justify the genocide of Palestinians.  Yet it has become clear that official accounts of October 7th have not only been divorced from the historical context, but factually distorted to serve the agenda of the Zionist Israeli government.  As one example, Australia’s ABC News reported in September that Israeli forces apparently applied the “Hannibal Directive” on October 7th, killing an untold number of their own citizens in attempts to prevent them from being taken hostage.  The official discourse on hostages has also been extremely one-sided, rarely if ever mentioning that thousands of Palestinians are held prisoner by Israel without charge.  From the “Hannibal Directive” killings to Netanyahu’s disregard for the families of Israeli hostages to Israel’s expansion of the war far beyond Gaza, it’s clear that the Israeli government has not acted out of concern for hostages, but has only used those concerns as justification to launch a preconceived agenda of conquest and genocide.

In just the last few weeks, the situation has gotten even worse.  In a massive escalation of its genocidal war on Gaza, Israel has invaded Lebanon.  Shortly thereafter, Iran launched a barrage of missiles at Tel Aviv in response to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, and Iran itself, raising fears of an ever-expanding war in the Middle East that could even spark World War III, nuclear war, or both.

If he wanted to, President Biden could stop this war with one phone call to the Israeli prime minister as Ronald Reagan did in 1982.  Israel’s war machine is completely dependent on US taxpayer-supplied weapons, money, military and diplomatic support.  But instead the Biden-Harris administration is complicit in Netanyahu’s plans to expand this horrific war.  A recent Politico article titled “US officials quietly backed Israel’s push against Hezbollah” revealed that top Biden advisors actually encouraged Israel to invade Lebanon – despite the Democrats’ claims that Kamala Harris is “working tirelessly for a ceasefire”.

We do not consent to be dragged into World War III by Netanyahu to support his genocidal land grab in Palestine, Lebanon, and beyond.  By allowing Netanyahu to essentially dictate US foreign policy, Biden and Harris have abdicated the responsibility of their office.

As President, the first thing I will do is make the phone call to stop this madness at once and fix the crisis at its source – by ceasing all support to Israel until it ends its genocide in Gaza and agrees to negotiate a settlement for Palestine and the region consistent with international law and the rulings of the International Court of Justice.  The US, as the primary backer of Netanyahu’s military campaigns, holds the power to end his assault on Gaza and bring him to account.  This is not a matter of diplomacy but of the US electorate exercising its responsibility by voting for leaders with the political will to act.  As voters in the most powerful nation on Earth, we bear a unique obligation to hold our government and its allies accountable.

By holding Israel accountable, the US can rejoin the international community, from which we have become increasingly isolated due to our government’s unconditional support for Israel’s defiance of international law.  When the United Nations considered membership for Palestine this year, 143 nations voted in favor and only 9 against, including the US and Israel.  But the US has consistently used its veto power to shield Israel from accountability, undermining any credibility our nation has to speak on issues of international law and human rights.

As a Jew who grew up just after the Holocaust, with relatives who fled pogroms and a grandfather named Israel, I take “never again” seriously.  And that means never again for anyone.  In just the last year, I have met thousands of people from all walks of life, including Muslims, Jews, Christians, Palestinians, Israelis, Arabs, and many others from many ethnic, religious and spiritual backgrounds.  And I can say with certainty from my personal experience that peace and friendship are possible.  We can put an end to war, genocide, and generations of oppression, and start a new path to a world of peace, justice, and human rights for all.

In solidarity and gratitude,

Jill Stein

“Supreme Court backs Biden administration in social media dispute with red states”  Biden 1; People 0.  Oh, And Happy Canada Day! (July 1, 2024)

Posted in First Amendment, Free Speech, Supreme Court on July 1, 2024 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “The headline above an Associated Press article astutely sums up the score.  Law in America is a game and a sport with winners and losers.  The decisions should be printed and debated on the Sports Page.  However, there is no justice.”

J          “Not allowing them to make their argument was callow.” 

. . .

K          “The idea that even an ordinary person off the street does not have standing to defend the most fundamental Constitutional right is obscene.  They were advocating for free speech and were not even allowed to speak.  I know obscenity when I see it.”

J          “Time to appoint non-lawyers to the courts.  Lawyers are not capable of handling the task.  A new team is our only salvation.”

. . .

K          “I suspect they were discreetly reminded that they should not forget who they are dealing with.  Any one of the more than half dozen vaunted persuasion vectors alone could have been persuasive.” 

. . .

[See the e-commentary at Murthy v. Missouri:  AMA v. AAPS; Flaccid Amendment v. First Amendment.  The Speakers’ Corner And The Public Square. (March 18, 2024).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“[O]ne of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”

There was “more than sufficient” evidence that Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs, had standing to sue “and consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents.” 

“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.” 

“The Government’s pressure tactics, which included threats of adverse regulatory action, cannot be dismissed as mere persuasion.”

“This ruling effectively grants the government a free pass to continue its campaign of suppression, threatening the foundational principles of free expression.”

Justice Samuel Alito

Murthy v. Missouri:  AMA v. AAPS; Flaccid Amendment v. First Amendment.  The Speakers’ Corner And The Public Square. (March 18, 2024)

Posted in Censorship, First Amendment, Journalism, Supreme Court on March 18, 2024 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “The American Medical Association (AMA) provides the soundest diagnosis and prescription.”

K          “The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) provides the soundest diagnosis and prescription.”

. . .

J          “In brief, the AMA encourages the dissemination of accurate information and enforces the censorship of misinformation and disinformation.”

K          “In brief, the AAPS promotes the First Amendment and protects free speech.”

. . .

[See the discussion “AMA? BITFD!” by Ben Hunt in “Epsilon Theory” dated November 24, 2020.  (“I thought I was immune to being shocked by corporate mendacity and greed.  Then I started digging into the AMA.”)  See “Technocensorship: When Corporations Serve As a Front for Government Censors” by John Whitehead, the recipient of the Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017), and Nisha Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute dated February 27, 2024.  Their amicus brief is more poetry than prosaic turgid legal prose.  (“The facts of this case are positively Orwellian.”)]

[See the e-commentary at Graduation Advice:  Find The First Amendment (May 15, 2023).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri this morning.

Questions presented: (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.

Supreme Court:  K:  “Right!”  J:  “Wrong!” (March 4, 2024)

Posted in Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Trump on March 4, 2024 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “Wrong.  Period.”

K          “Right.  Full Stop.”

. . .

K          “The Constitution says ‘We the People of the United States’ not ‘I a sniveling petty night traffic court judge in a backwater jurisdiction of the United States who despises Trumpi and will do anything and everything to defeat him’.  Every person is entitled to due process and a fair and objective hearing in the proper jurisdiction applying applicable law.”

J          “We live in a federalist system that allows and requires the states to act at the right time and in the right circumstance.  The state of Colorado acting through its judicial branch acted properly and commendably.” 

. . .

K          “If there were three more of what I refer to as ‘individualist’ judges – although that term is now incomplete and inadequate – the decision likely would have been 12 – 0.”

J          “Time to appoint non-lawyers to the Court.”

. . .

K          “Was it really a 5 – 4 decision?  When I awake at 0400 hours, I will parse the decision a few more times.  Did Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh affirmatively rule that Congress has the sole power to enforce the ‘Insurrection’ provision?”

J          “Another thing to worry about at four a.m.  That may be the ‘take home message’ and consequence.”

. . .

K          “The country is coming apart.  The world is ready to explode.  We may not see opening day of grayling season.  The decision has the added virtue of being profoundly restrained and responsible.”

J          “The person dividing the country is now free to continue dividing the country.  He is unrestrained and irresponsible.”   

. . .

K          “I will never again be able to condemn the Supreme Court unconditionally.”   

J          “I dissent.  I am currently and will remain disgusted by their abdication.”

. . .

J          “You’re not getting weak on me?”

K          “Still despise him.  When he emerged, Trumpi was really the ‘symptom’ not the ‘Big Problem’ in the country.  However, now he has metastasized into another ‘Problem’ that plagues the country.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at Weaponizing The Judiciary: Democratic Prosecutors + Democratic Judges; Republican Prosecutors + Republican Judges:  Bad Math, Very Bad Math (December 4, 2023).  See the two discussions on J6 at January 6:  The Country Needs An Impartial And Objective Inquiry (January 8, 2024) and three years earlier at  On Riots And Rampages (January 11, 2021).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Law” and “War” are almost anagrams and read together (Lawwar) are almost palindromes.  

Lawfare = Law + (war)fare.  Very bad idea

The Government Stumbles; The Judicial Legislature Rumbles (October 2, 2023)

Posted in First Monday In October, Supreme Court on October 2, 2023 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “Congress managed to stay open for business for a few more weeks.  The Supreme Court Legislature is open for business for a few more months.”

K          “Hold your hats.  Try to hold onto your civil liberties.”

. . .

J          “They legislated their views on abortion.  They legislated their views on affirmative action.  They legislated their views on political gerrymandering.  They are the most activist unelected legislature in the world.”

K          “In a facetious moment, you could say that they get things done.  They get done the things they want to get done.”

. . .

K          “I lament that America is a land of ‘consumers’ not ‘citizens’ and yet must support the continued existence of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau.”

J          “What about the Citizen Protection Financial Bureau?”  

. . .

J          “I think I understand the role and even the necessity of ‘Chevron deference’ to agency action in our political system.  I suspect that the putatively judicial branch is going to change the rules so that the actions of an executive branch agency are subject the legislative review by the Supreme Court legislature.”

K          “I have seen so many agencies fail and then the court defer to the failed agencies and thus the system fails again.  Time and time and time and time again.”

. .  .

J          “There is a case to be heard next month that could preclude domestic abusers and violent felons from possessing a gun.  Seems profoundly sound to me.”

K          “Me too.”

. . .

K          “I have said it before.  The Supreme Court as currently constituted is an illegitimate institution.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at the Category Supreme Court.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

There is no law.  There is only ideology.

The Elections Clause And The Independent State Legislature Theory Confront Sound Logic And Settled Practice (December 12, 2022)

Posted in Constitution, Elections, First Amendment, Sports, Supreme Court on December 12, 2022 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “I had the good fortune to listen to the debate from the perspective of someone who has not been inside an American law school.  As I recall from inside an American high school, Federalist Paper Number 78 courtesy of Alexander Hamilton discusses the role, albeit limited, of the judiciary.   Fourteen years after the drafting of the Constitution in 1789, the Supreme Court in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison advanced a doctrine of robust judicial review.  The federal courts have the solemn task of determining whether acts are constitutional and what must be done if acts are contrary to the Constitution.  Even a hard-core Originalist who looks only at the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and possibly other then contemporary publications does not dispute that robust judicial review is part of the settled analytical framework of the Constitution.  The Elections Clause language vests the decision in the state legislatures.  The Petitioners argue that the analysis stops there.  However, the Elections Clause language does not preclude judicial review by any court.  In addition, the analytical framework of the United States Constitution includes robust judicial review as a matter of settled practice in the Republic.  Nothing in the Elections Clause precludes a state supreme court from following the same analytical framework allowing for robust judicial review of the state’s legislative action.  The Petitioners sought . . . judicial review by the United States Supreme Court of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s . . . judicial review of actions taken by the North Carolina legislature.  Petitioners did not challenge the actual decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court, only the decision to decide.  Dismiss the petition as contrary to the text, logic, structure and history of the Clause and the Constitution, I say.”

K          “I had the good fortune to attend the show in person and from the perspective of someone who kept everything in perspective while in an American law school.  That is also my take.  The specific provision is neither incomplete nor unartfully drafted.  It says what it says on the topic but need not and does not need to say anything more.  John Marshall’s statue dominates the inside of the Court.  Any true conservative would affirm his great contribution to the development of the American court system.  The acts by state legislatures pursuant to the Clause are subject to state judicial review.”      

. . .

K          “Nice to be agreeing on something again.”

J          “I am pleased you see it my way.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary involving the goal of the Beautiful Game discussed at Expanding The Goal In Soccer (July 18, 2022).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Beau jeu

The Twitter Files Are The Pentagon Papers Of Today

Moore v. Harper:  Say what?

Free Assange

The U.S. Declares War On Germany, Europe, Russia And The Free World . . . Bank Of England Flops Then Flips . . . And The Supreme Beings Saunter Into Town (October 3, 2022)

Posted in First Monday In October, Pensions, Rule of Law, Russia, Supreme Court, War on October 3, 2022 by e-commentary.org

. . .

J          “Just when I thought it was safe to exist.”

K          “Just when I thought I could rake a few leaves in peace.”

. . .

K          “The U.S. bombed or caused to be bombed or allowed to be bombed the Nord Stream Pipelines.  That is an act of war against Germany and Russia and the world.  But the U.S. does not adhere to international law.  A NATO country attacked a NATO country.  What do they do with Article 5?”

J          “The U.S. bombed or caused to be bombed or allowed to be bombed the Nord Stream Pipelines.  We agree.  Nothing big goes on here on Plant Earth without Uncle Sam making the decision or at least approving it.  The decision will be seen to be unwise.”   

. . .

K          “When former spook and torture monger John Brennan went on CNN to proclaim that Russia bombed itself, I knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the U.S. was in front of or at least behind the pipeline terrorism.”

. . .

K          “Late last week, some major over-leveraged British pension plans started to wobble which forced a diametric change in BoE policy within a few hours.”

J          “Those pesky ‘gilts’ misbehaving again.”

. . .

J          “And today the gang is collecting at the ‘judicial legislature’ on First First Street to impose their religion and ideology on the populace.”

K          “The Democrats are doing nothing to counterbalance the crusading Corporatists on the Court except bombarding me with e-mails demanding money and promising to do something about the Court.”

. . .

[See e-commentary.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Remember The Nord Stream!

Bombs away

There is no law, there is only ideology

The real the purpose of NATO is to keep the “Russians out, Americans in, Germans down”.   British General Hasting Ismay

They Lied.  With Malice.  Under Oath.  Before The Senate.  In Front Of The American People. (June 27, 2022)

Posted in Abortion, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Supreme Court on June 27, 2022 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “All five of them lied.  And all five are going to get away with the lies.”

J          “All five of them lied.  All five are getting away with the lies.  That is America today.  They knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that getting the job required them to lie to the Senate and the American people and then left them unteathered to decide to the contrary and get away with it.”

. . .

J          “Without the detriment of any formal American legal indoctrination, I regard the opinion issued on Friday written in what was probably a smoke-filled back room as just an opinion . . . that happens to be the wrong opinion.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  To gauge their true and binding sentiments, I place stock in what they averred to the Senate and to the entire nation under oath and in public.  In plain English, they backhandedly agreed that Roe v. Wade was settled law, stare decisis is a fundamental principle of American law and a right to privacy exists in the Constitution.  To the extent they were knowingly coy, they were intentionally deceptive.  To discern and divine the true and accurate decision that is to guide the land, you must turn to the statements made under oath to the American people.  Properly analyzed, Roe was upheld by a 9 – 0 vote.”

K          “Logic has no place in the discussion.  What they did was a raw, naked and unvarnished abuse of power.”

. . .

K          “For a decade I have observed that the Supreme Court is not a legitimate institution and as constituted has no legitimate role to play in American law and society.  The humility, integrity and honesty addressed in Federalist No. 78 are not in evidence in the judiciary today.  The Supremes have gone rogue.”

J          “The situation is hopeless.  The Supreme Court has the ability to do physical violence to the citizens of America which is why they are able to do violence to the body politic.”

. . .

K          “The major Democratic politicians do not have the courage or the integrity to impeach them because they do not have courage or integrity.  The Roe issue is also the greatest fund raiser for the DNC machine.  However, lying to Congress is a violation of multiple provisions of Title 18, the federal criminal code.  The Attorney General should present the criminal charges to a grand jury.  That might get some attention.  They may find their lifetime appointment is served in the graybar hotel.”

J          “Not going to happen in America.”  

. . .

K          “We live in a country with many, many, many rules and many, many, many laws, but we do not live in a country that believes in or adheres to the rule of law.”

J          “There is no law, there is only ideology.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at Impeach Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett . . . For Perjury? For Not Good Behavior? (June 6, 2022) and Law Is Politics ; Politics Is Law (July 7, 2014) and four dozen other e-commentaries over the last two decades.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

We live in a country with many, many, many rules and many, many, many laws, but we do not live in a country that believes in or adheres to the rule of law.

There is no law, there is only ideology.

Impeach Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett? For Perjury? For Not Good Behaviour? (June 6, 2022)

Posted in Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Supreme Court on June 6, 2022 by e-commentary.org

[DuckDuckGo is completely blocking www.e-commentary.org.]

. . .

K          “We agree on something!”

J          “You agree with me on something!”

. . .

J          “The lie is the backbone of contemporary civilization.  But lies are costly and inefficient and not good because you know that you still must commit resources – time and money – to discern the truth. ”

K          “Lying is a way of life.”

. . .

J          “Asking a potential justice how he or she might rule in the future is not allowed in our shallow and faux political politeness.  Asking a justice how he or she respects a ruling in the past – a precedent in a system purportedly underpinned by stare decisis and the rule of precedent – is appropriate.  The ambitious potential Justices were asked about Roe v. Wade . . . and appear to have lied to the Senate to get the job.”

K          “The Constitution states that the judicial officers can remain in office for ‘good behaviour’.  It does not state that they can be removed only for bad behavior.  The test is all well and good and places the burden of proof and persuasion on the judge or Justice.  A procedure should be established to require every federal judge to evince to the satisfaction of the public that he or she has exhibited ‘good behavior’ on the bench every four years.” 

. . .

K          “There is no final decision from the Supreme Beings, so as the lawyers would say the issue is not ripe.”

J          “The Democrats are betting on the January 6 hearings to save them this November not a negative response to the likely decision.”

. . .  

[See the e-commentary under the Categories Perjury and Perjury/Dishonesty.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

If it feels good, do it.

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”  Friedrich Nietzsche (?)