Inexcusable
-
Psaki:
The president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be. But I think we shouldn’t lose the point here. The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that had been law for 50 years — their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own health care — are at risk. That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.
Andy McCarthy comments:
This is more justification than condemnation. When discussing unacceptable behavior, it is a given that the perpetrators will be “passionate” or “scared” or “sad” or “worried” or “unhappy.” That part is obvious. The material question is whether those people are to be forgiven for indulging their strong emotions and damaging our political order in the process. Because the maintenance of our civilization demands that they not be, the answer to the question, “Should these passionate, scared, sad, worried, unhappy people break the rules?” must be “No” — especially when the person answering speaks for the president of the United States. The important thing about the rioters of January 6 was not that they were passionate or scared or sad or worried or unhappy; the important thing about the rioters of January 6 was that they attacked our system of government and put other people’s lives in danger. There is no place for a response to January 6 that starts with a recitation of grievances and ends with a “but,” and there is no place for such a response to this leak, either.
Does President Biden understand the position he currently occupies? I wonder. Last year, after an activist followed Senator Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom in Arizona, Biden said only that, “I don’t think they’re appropriate tactics, but it happens to everybody.” Then he added that “it’s part of the process.” But this was nonsense. Following people into bathrooms to harangue them is not “part of the process”; it is a violation of “the process.” That the president of the United States was unwilling to say as much was extraordinary in and of itself. That he was unable to say as much when the person being harassed carried the fate of his entire legislative agenda on her shoulders was inexplicable.
Of all the people in America, Joe Biden should know this. In 2020, his opponent in the presidential election was a man with an inability to flatly condemn bad behavior — a flaw from which Biden made a great deal of hay. Today, Biden has become what he claimed to hate.
Perhaps — just perhaps — he was full of it all along.
-
Psaki:
The president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be. But I think we shouldn’t lose the point here. The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that had been law for 50 years — their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own health care — are at risk. That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.
Andy McCarthy comments:
This is more justification than condemnation. When discussing unacceptable behavior, it is a given that the perpetrators will be “passionate” or “scared” or “sad” or “worried” or “unhappy.” That part is obvious. The material question is whether those people are to be forgiven for indulging their strong emotions and damaging our political order in the process. Because the maintenance of our civilization demands that they not be, the answer to the question, “Should these passionate, scared, sad, worried, unhappy people break the rules?” must be “No” — especially when the person answering speaks for the president of the United States. The important thing about the rioters of January 6 was not that they were passionate or scared or sad or worried or unhappy; the important thing about the rioters of January 6 was that they attacked our system of government and put other people’s lives in danger. There is no place for a response to January 6 that starts with a recitation of grievances and ends with a “but,” and there is no place for such a response to this leak, either.
Does President Biden understand the position he currently occupies? I wonder. Last year, after an activist followed Senator Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom in Arizona, Biden said only that, “I don’t think they’re appropriate tactics, but it happens to everybody.” Then he added that “it’s part of the process.” But this was nonsense. Following people into bathrooms to harangue them is not “part of the process”; it is a violation of “the process.” That the president of the United States was unwilling to say as much was extraordinary in and of itself. That he was unable to say as much when the person being harassed carried the fate of his entire legislative agenda on her shoulders was inexplicable.
Of all the people in America, Joe Biden should know this. In 2020, his opponent in the presidential election was a man with an inability to flatly condemn bad behavior — a flaw from which Biden made a great deal of hay. Today, Biden has become what he claimed to hate.
Perhaps — just perhaps — he was full of it all along.
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Psaki:
The president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be. But I think we shouldn’t lose the point here. The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that had been law for 50 years — their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own health care — are at risk. That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.
Andy McCarthy comments:
This is more justification than condemnation. When discussing unacceptable behavior, it is a given that the perpetrators will be “passionate” or “scared” or “sad” or “worried” or “unhappy.” That part is obvious. The material question is whether those people are to be forgiven for indulging their strong emotions and damaging our political order in the process. Because the maintenance of our civilization demands that they not be, the answer to the question, “Should these passionate, scared, sad, worried, unhappy people break the rules?” must be “No” — especially when the person answering speaks for the president of the United States. The important thing about the rioters of January 6 was not that they were passionate or scared or sad or worried or unhappy; the important thing about the rioters of January 6 was that they attacked our system of government and put other people’s lives in danger. There is no place for a response to January 6 that starts with a recitation of grievances and ends with a “but,” and there is no place for such a response to this leak, either.
Does President Biden understand the position he currently occupies? I wonder. Last year, after an activist followed Senator Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom in Arizona, Biden said only that, “I don’t think they’re appropriate tactics, but it happens to everybody.” Then he added that “it’s part of the process.” But this was nonsense. Following people into bathrooms to harangue them is not “part of the process”; it is a violation of “the process.” That the president of the United States was unwilling to say as much was extraordinary in and of itself. That he was unable to say as much when the person being harassed carried the fate of his entire legislative agenda on her shoulders was inexplicable.
Of all the people in America, Joe Biden should know this. In 2020, his opponent in the presidential election was a man with an inability to flatly condemn bad behavior — a flaw from which Biden made a great deal of hay. Today, Biden has become what he claimed to hate.
Perhaps — just perhaps — he was full of it all along.
Most people are. Notice how much we've talked about the BLM and AntiFa riots and how much property destruction and death resulted from those "protests". Not to mention a person couldn't attend church at that time, but he could meet up with a crowd of people at a protest.
No, it's all about who controls the narrative, what is condoned and what is condemned, by those who are smarter than the rest of us
It's all Maximus Hypocriticus Horseshit. And all it causes is division and strife, purely for political and power leverage. Apply the laws on the books, apply them evenly and fairly and impart truly blind justice.
Like many of the truly important things in life, it's very simple in concept, but man always finds a way to complicate it and screw it up.
-
We'd be better off as a nation, if most "news" programs were mandated to have a red banner at the bottom of the screen that flashed OPINION and the standards of slander and libel for public figures were closer to that of priivate citizens.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Watch the abortion advocate kill the fake baby.
Democrats must be proud.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-church-abortion-protesters
NYC church swarmed by pro-abortion protesters: 'I'm killing the babies'
Abortion groups have called for nationwide protests in response to the potential striking down of Roe v. Wade
Pro-abortion activists descended upon an iconic New York City church on Saturday as an anti-abortion group showed up once again in their monthly routine of demonstrating outside a nearby Planned Parenthood clinic.
The activists showed up at the Basilica of St. Patrick's Old Cathedral in Manhattan on Saturday morning, just feet from a group of anti-abortion protesters who typically walk from the church to a nearby Planned Parenthood site on the first Saturday of every month, according to WNYW-TV.
-
Rumors are that Alito and family have been moved to an "undisclosed safe location."
Georgetown ConLaw professor opines, in a now deleted tweet.:
Psaki Psircles back (only took 4-5 days). Guess it polled pretty poorly, so we gotta get ahead of that.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
We'd be better off as a nation, if most "news" programs were mandated to have a red banner at the bottom of the screen that flashed OPINION and the standards of slander and libel for public figures were closer to that of priivate citizens.
@Jolly said in Inexcusable:
We'd be better off as a nation, if most "news" programs were mandated to have a red banner at the bottom of the screen that flashed OPINION and the standards of slander and libel for public figures were closer to that of priivate citizens.
Unfortunately, the majority of the people want "entertainment" rather than "news". The entertainment shows on the various channels (Fox, CNN, etc) pretend to be news, and the news shows on those same channels also pretend to be news.
A station that would show unbiased straight news would not survive, unless they were willing to lose money every month.
I was reading an article about a cable station in Taiwan, that tried to focus on straight news and it failed. They referenced a news program in the US (I think called News America) that started out with a grand ambition to be an unbias news source. Ratings (if the program is still around) are almost zero.
-
@Jolly said in Inexcusable:
We'd be better off as a nation, if most "news" programs were mandated to have a red banner at the bottom of the screen that flashed OPINION and the standards of slander and libel for public figures were closer to that of priivate citizens.
Unfortunately, the majority of the people want "entertainment" rather than "news". The entertainment shows on the various channels (Fox, CNN, etc) pretend to be news, and the news shows on those same channels also pretend to be news.
A station that would show unbiased straight news would not survive, unless they were willing to lose money every month.
I was reading an article about a cable station in Taiwan, that tried to focus on straight news and it failed. They referenced a news program in the US (I think called News America) that started out with a grand ambition to be an unbias news source. Ratings (if the program is still around) are almost zero.
@taiwan_girl said in Inexcusable:
@Jolly said in Inexcusable:
We'd be better off as a nation, if most "news" programs were mandated to have a red banner at the bottom of the screen that flashed OPINION and the standards of slander and libel for public figures were closer to that of priivate citizens.
Unfortunately, the majority of the people want "entertainment" rather than "news". The entertainment shows on the various channels (Fox, CNN, etc) pretend to be news, and the news shows on those same channels also pretend to be news.
A station that would show unbiased straight news would not survive, unless they were willing to lose money every month.
I was reading an article about a cable station in Taiwan, that tried to focus on straight news and it failed. They referenced a news program in the US (I think called News America) that started out with a grand ambition to be an unbias news source. Ratings (if the program is still around) are almost zero.
They're doing it wrong. Read what I wrote.
-
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I know it’s legal. But still.
It's not legal.
18 United States Code 1507:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."What's indefensible is that the Biden Administration and particularly Merrick Garland are not acting to enforce the law.
-
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I know it’s legal. But still.
It's not legal.
18 United States Code 1507:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."What's indefensible is that the Biden Administration and particularly Merrick Garland are not acting to enforce the law.
@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I know it’s legal. But still.
It's not legal.
18 United States Code 1507:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."Good news! That’s probably why the cops were able to disperse them.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I know it’s legal. But still.
It's not legal.
18 United States Code 1507:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."Good news! That’s probably why the cops were able to disperse them.
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
@Ivorythumper said in Inexcusable:
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
I know it’s legal. But still.
It's not legal.
18 United States Code 1507:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
"Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt."Good news! That’s probably why the cops were able to disperse them.
Good news would have been the cops arresting all of them.
-
Rumors are that Alito and family have been moved to an "undisclosed safe location."
Georgetown ConLaw professor opines, in a now deleted tweet.:
Psaki Psircles back (only took 4-5 days). Guess it polled pretty poorly, so we gotta get ahead of that.
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Rumors are that Alito and family have been moved to an "undisclosed safe location."
One of the Sandy Hook families has had to move seven times.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Rumors are that Alito and family have been moved to an "undisclosed safe location."
One of the Sandy Hook families has had to move seven times.
@jon-nyc said in Inexcusable:
@George-K said in Inexcusable:
Rumors are that Alito and family have been moved to an "undisclosed safe location."
One of the Sandy Hook families has had to move seven times.
Good thing no mainstream ideas or people are on the side of those harassing the Sandy Hook families.
-
Calling for assassination of SCOTUS Justice is OK with Twitter.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I reported the following tweet to Twitter, because it explicitly called for Supreme Court justices to be assassinated:
The cartoon in question also called for the assassination of justices, albeit with a tiny fig leaf of deniability:
The response I got from Twitter regarding the explicit call for assassination: sorry, doesn’t violate our terms of service!
https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.32-AM-450x233.png
The email included a helpful list of material that would violate the terms of service. It includes a prohibition on, not just threats, celebrations of violence, and promoting terrorism or violent extremism, but also wishing harm on someone:
https://patterico.com/app/uploads/2022/05/Screen-Shot-2022-05-09-at-8.28.40-AM-392x450.png
This is a total joke. I see a lot of people saying “Elon Musk will fix this!” but his proposed standard is to allow anything that passes First Amendment muster, and this probably would. That said, apparently the people doing the moderation are useless and the Elon Musk standard already prevails, unless you misgender someone. So Elon really wouldn’t hurt much.
Meanwhile, people are protesting outside the homes of Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts in an effort to influence their votes, which is illegal under a statute that is likely constitutional.
This is a dangerous environment and it is why the Court needs to get the abortion issue out of the courts and into the legislatures. Public influence campaigns are appropriate for legislators. Not for judges. They are supposed to interpret the law. Period.
I plan to have much more to say about this.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
