Has anyone looked at the Fla. State Constitution to see whether or not the Governor has the constitutional power to mess with local school curricula? Seems to me that needs to be studied. I downloaded the Texas State Constitution, and NOWHERE could I find any legislative power to regulate pregnancy or childbirth!
... and fetal "viability" is a MEDICAL determination, not a "legal" determination! So it cannot be arbitrarily legislated! Until the "Gang of Six" is impeached and removed from the US Supreme Court (highly unlikely), the "choice" fight must now be moved to state courts CREATIVELY litigating state law.
... and forcing women to carry pregnancy to term and unassisted MANDATORY child-rearing for the next 20-25 years just COULD be a violation of the 13th Amendment outlawing "involuntary servitude," which is differentiated therein from "slavery"!
Have to say, "Old Goats" has been an invaluable guide to "Democracy on Trial". It's not easy to be optimistic, but, indeed, accountability is mostly about outing the transgressions. And explaining the drama well, whether or not one agrees, is priceless. (And for everything else, there's Mastercard...)
Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan went with the later date after arraignment today -- Aug. 28 at 10am.
Very significant that Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan already has decided, and told the magistrate to tell the parties, that she will set trial date next hearing. More frequently the judge will have a first hearing and then set schedule no earlier than second hearing, She’s focused on schedule.
Trump is guilty but if his lawyers are savvy enough to keep him out of jail, it will be a big win for him politically.
And endangered election 2024 / chance for Biden to reelected.
======
12.04pm: start from his mansion in Bedminster New Jersey
2.51pm: landed in Washington DC
3.19pm: arrives at Elijah Barrett Prettyman Jr. Federal Courthouse (333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., U.S.)
Jack Smith is around 15ft away from Trump (the tables are 4ft wide). Look each other.
4.40pm: Trump pleads not guilty to federal conspiracy charges in plot to overturn 2020 election.
5.03pm: Trump's motorcade gets from the courthouse to DC airport in less than 10 minutes at rush hour.
5.12pm: Officers Harry Dunn, Aquilino Gonell, and Daniel Hodges leaving the courthouse.
5.24pm: Trump airplane to take off after waiting in line on tarmac
With appeals that will extend far past the election, he won't go to jail or get community service in a soup kitchen (my preferred punishment) any time soon. But a conviction will hurt him in a general election whatever the base says (and many in it will think twice if ex-jurors are convincing about the evidence)...
SIR Jonathan: What’s become so astonishing about the GOP is that their default position is just to lie brazenly, in a totally demonstrable way. Just make up a strawman and run with it. They all know they’re lying, we all know they’re lying, it’s clear they’re lying… and the dance continues.
Who said that, Oscar? Even with a conviction, Trump will still be on the ballot and--barring an unlikely (though totally constitutional) 14th Amendment solution--you can vote for or against him.
I'm willing to accept the argument that Trump lied more than Biden, just to keep the conversation going, but your "infinitely" is the reason that there is never any rational discussion on the topic. What is "infinitely" worse than (to name just two), inflation and the crisis at the border? Nuclear Armageddon, massive starvation, another Great Depression? Do mean tweets, obsessive narcissism warrant that level of hyperbole?
Nice point Oscar! And things did go pretty smoothly when Trump was president, did they not? I support Trump's right to question the election and maybe with these trials some of the actual evidence of election fraud will be actually heard by a jury. I also support his efforts to find a legal way to delay the outcome, although they were clearly futile. People have the right to look for legal remedy.
I would also point out to the viewing audience, there is no such thing as fake electors. They were alternative electors incase an election result was thrown out and changed.
The arguably "best" First-Amendment case ever decided by the Supreme Court (5-4) years ago was the case upholding (barely) the "right" of Larry Flynt to satirize Jerry Falwell in "Hustler" magazine by posing him having a drink of LIQUOR by a fireside and reminiscing about having had sex with his mother! I doubt the idiots in the "Gang of Six" would agree today. After all, it was decided 5-4 back then!
But, the Majority Opinion said it was an OBVIOUS satire of a public figure. No one would ever take such stuff seriously. So, the First Amendment protects (or should) false expressions about public figures that are obviously satirical, but it does NOT protect expressions INTENDED to defraud or hurt people, like falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. So, Donald Trump's "state of mind" is critical to the issue of whether or not his electioneering expressions are protected or not.
The First Amendment does not get truly tested by challenging noble speeches or fine art. It is best "tested" by expressions that are extreme, offensive and horrible to many--expressions that balance on the very edge of propriety. I like to say that the First Amendment guarantees the "right" to be offended. The "pecksniffs" need to get over themselves.
Personally, I am waiting until I see Trump in a jumpsuit matching the color of his skin!
It is admittedly difficult to assert that Larry Flynt's mockery of Jerry Falwell was, in any way, only on the "edge of propriety." It was gross as Hell, but I thought it was FUNNY! I seriously doubt that Jerry ever had sex with his mom, but I will certainly laugh at the flaming outrageousness of the suggestion! THAT is called "satire," and THAT is exactly what ought to be protected by the First Amendment! The nastier the better!
It is difficult to have a rosy view of America's future when half of Congress is beholden to a con man who relies on his lizard brain for political advice. Until the American voter realizes that a slick con is not a political platform, there can be little hope. Godspeed, Rosie. You will need to start seeing, understanding, believing, and running quite soon.
I hope she does run, JoAnne. She would be taking after my mother and her great-grandmother, Joanne Alter, the first woman elected in Cook County (in 1972).
Jonathan, I think you know at this point that I’m half nitpicker, and half devil’s advocate, which means that I rarely wholeheartedly agree with any piece presented here. 😄. This piece is an exception. I agree 100%. The undertones of relief, optimism, and even glee, are not misplaced! It’s too early to celebrate, but I am greatly heartened by the turn of events. Cheers.
Thank you Mr Alter. That rise of hope you felt for your granddaughter's future, I felt for my son, who is - I think - a Millenial? I'm an older mother - I had him at 40, and I realize I won't see the world he and his generation inherits. Although I hope to make another 20-25 years. I hope they can solve the climate crisis. I'm feeling a tad better about America's future.
In all my 82 years I never have been so fearful for our country, its values, its future, and our grandchildren. How did it come to this? For everyone who worries as I do, I hope the next election process finds us working the grass roots of our neighborhood, funding our nominee, and challenging those who threaten our democracy. You know who! Thanks, JA for your hopeful analysis.
Voting for Trump is totally inconceivable to me. You’re exactly right, the election of 2024 will be a litmus test for many Republicans on their loyalty to democracy!
Has anyone looked at the Fla. State Constitution to see whether or not the Governor has the constitutional power to mess with local school curricula? Seems to me that needs to be studied. I downloaded the Texas State Constitution, and NOWHERE could I find any legislative power to regulate pregnancy or childbirth!
... and fetal "viability" is a MEDICAL determination, not a "legal" determination! So it cannot be arbitrarily legislated! Until the "Gang of Six" is impeached and removed from the US Supreme Court (highly unlikely), the "choice" fight must now be moved to state courts CREATIVELY litigating state law.
... and forcing women to carry pregnancy to term and unassisted MANDATORY child-rearing for the next 20-25 years just COULD be a violation of the 13th Amendment outlawing "involuntary servitude," which is differentiated therein from "slavery"!
Have to say, "Old Goats" has been an invaluable guide to "Democracy on Trial". It's not easy to be optimistic, but, indeed, accountability is mostly about outing the transgressions. And explaining the drama well, whether or not one agrees, is priceless. (And for everything else, there's Mastercard...)
Thanks, Bear (Frank's nickname!)....Your basic frame--"Democracy on Trial"--is spot on.
Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan went with the later date after arraignment today -- Aug. 28 at 10am.
Very significant that Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan already has decided, and told the magistrate to tell the parties, that she will set trial date next hearing. More frequently the judge will have a first hearing and then set schedule no earlier than second hearing, She’s focused on schedule.
Trump is guilty but if his lawyers are savvy enough to keep him out of jail, it will be a big win for him politically.
And endangered election 2024 / chance for Biden to reelected.
======
12.04pm: start from his mansion in Bedminster New Jersey
2.51pm: landed in Washington DC
3.19pm: arrives at Elijah Barrett Prettyman Jr. Federal Courthouse (333 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., U.S.)
Jack Smith is around 15ft away from Trump (the tables are 4ft wide). Look each other.
4.40pm: Trump pleads not guilty to federal conspiracy charges in plot to overturn 2020 election.
5.03pm: Trump's motorcade gets from the courthouse to DC airport in less than 10 minutes at rush hour.
5.12pm: Officers Harry Dunn, Aquilino Gonell, and Daniel Hodges leaving the courthouse.
5.24pm: Trump airplane to take off after waiting in line on tarmac
https://prada.substack.com/p/live-update-trump-arraignment-in
With appeals that will extend far past the election, he won't go to jail or get community service in a soup kitchen (my preferred punishment) any time soon. But a conviction will hurt him in a general election whatever the base says (and many in it will think twice if ex-jurors are convincing about the evidence)...
SIR Jonathan: What’s become so astonishing about the GOP is that their default position is just to lie brazenly, in a totally demonstrable way. Just make up a strawman and run with it. They all know they’re lying, we all know they’re lying, it’s clear they’re lying… and the dance continues.
Clear. Persuasive. But it ain’t over until it’s over.
Thanks, Monty...Agreed about uncertainty of outcome.
Also, excellent work here with a pre-emptive takedown of the phony arguments already being dispensed by the Fox and Trump Propaganda Machine.
Thanks, Brian
At this point, if you are supporting Trump, you are an enemy of democracy and prefer a dictatorship.
Trying to access the logic that exercising my right to vote is killing democracy.
Who said that, Oscar? Even with a conviction, Trump will still be on the ballot and--barring an unlikely (though totally constitutional) 14th Amendment solution--you can vote for or against him.
Maybe I misread you. But if lying while deliberately avoiding the truth is disqualifying, then who can you vote for if it’s Biden v. Trump?
Trump's lies are infinitely worse than Biden's. Full stop.
I'm willing to accept the argument that Trump lied more than Biden, just to keep the conversation going, but your "infinitely" is the reason that there is never any rational discussion on the topic. What is "infinitely" worse than (to name just two), inflation and the crisis at the border? Nuclear Armageddon, massive starvation, another Great Depression? Do mean tweets, obsessive narcissism warrant that level of hyperbole?
Nice point Oscar! And things did go pretty smoothly when Trump was president, did they not? I support Trump's right to question the election and maybe with these trials some of the actual evidence of election fraud will be actually heard by a jury. I also support his efforts to find a legal way to delay the outcome, although they were clearly futile. People have the right to look for legal remedy.
I would also point out to the viewing audience, there is no such thing as fake electors. They were alternative electors incase an election result was thrown out and changed.
The arguably "best" First-Amendment case ever decided by the Supreme Court (5-4) years ago was the case upholding (barely) the "right" of Larry Flynt to satirize Jerry Falwell in "Hustler" magazine by posing him having a drink of LIQUOR by a fireside and reminiscing about having had sex with his mother! I doubt the idiots in the "Gang of Six" would agree today. After all, it was decided 5-4 back then!
But, the Majority Opinion said it was an OBVIOUS satire of a public figure. No one would ever take such stuff seriously. So, the First Amendment protects (or should) false expressions about public figures that are obviously satirical, but it does NOT protect expressions INTENDED to defraud or hurt people, like falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. So, Donald Trump's "state of mind" is critical to the issue of whether or not his electioneering expressions are protected or not.
The First Amendment does not get truly tested by challenging noble speeches or fine art. It is best "tested" by expressions that are extreme, offensive and horrible to many--expressions that balance on the very edge of propriety. I like to say that the First Amendment guarantees the "right" to be offended. The "pecksniffs" need to get over themselves.
Personally, I am waiting until I see Trump in a jumpsuit matching the color of his skin!
It is admittedly difficult to assert that Larry Flynt's mockery of Jerry Falwell was, in any way, only on the "edge of propriety." It was gross as Hell, but I thought it was FUNNY! I seriously doubt that Jerry ever had sex with his mom, but I will certainly laugh at the flaming outrageousness of the suggestion! THAT is called "satire," and THAT is exactly what ought to be protected by the First Amendment! The nastier the better!
HWE
Good point, Watkins!
It is difficult to have a rosy view of America's future when half of Congress is beholden to a con man who relies on his lizard brain for political advice. Until the American voter realizes that a slick con is not a political platform, there can be little hope. Godspeed, Rosie. You will need to start seeing, understanding, believing, and running quite soon.
I hope she does run, JoAnne. She would be taking after my mother and her great-grandmother, Joanne Alter, the first woman elected in Cook County (in 1972).
Thanks for weighing in and wishing Rosie Godspeed!
By "running" I mean being active and aware.
Jonathan, I think you know at this point that I’m half nitpicker, and half devil’s advocate, which means that I rarely wholeheartedly agree with any piece presented here. 😄. This piece is an exception. I agree 100%. The undertones of relief, optimism, and even glee, are not misplaced! It’s too early to celebrate, but I am greatly heartened by the turn of events. Cheers.
100 percent! Thanks, Tom
Thank you Mr Alter. That rise of hope you felt for your granddaughter's future, I felt for my son, who is - I think - a Millenial? I'm an older mother - I had him at 40, and I realize I won't see the world he and his generation inherits. Although I hope to make another 20-25 years. I hope they can solve the climate crisis. I'm feeling a tad better about America's future.
Glad to hear it, Sharon. I’ve got Millennial kids too.
In all my 82 years I never have been so fearful for our country, its values, its future, and our grandchildren. How did it come to this? For everyone who worries as I do, I hope the next election process finds us working the grass roots of our neighborhood, funding our nominee, and challenging those who threaten our democracy. You know who! Thanks, JA for your hopeful analysis.
I appreciate it, Sheila. I’m looking for the fear to lift after Nov 2024.
Voting for Trump is totally inconceivable to me. You’re exactly right, the election of 2024 will be a litmus test for many Republicans on their loyalty to democracy!
Thanks, Anthony!