Turley: Defy the courts?
-
By the way, one thing you find over and over with these leftist “thinkers” is that they don’t bother establishing their root claims. In this case, the unconstitutional rulings of this court. That’s a specific logical claim, that the rulings go against the constitution. But it’s not about logic, and it’s damn sure not about the constitution. It’s about intuitive, disgust-based morality. That sort of morality can be used to justify just about anything, and history absolutely demonstrates that.
-
For all of Jon's "cage the Fat Man" horseshit or Phibes' TDS, a simple fact that they've never acknowledged, is that Trump will fight like hell through the legal system, using every tool in the box to accomplish his goals. But at the end of the day, he abides by the final judge's decisions. He'll rail, preach and ridicule the ruling if he doesn't like it, but he abides by it.
The current administration doesn't give a shit. They'll do whatever they want, let the SCOTUS ruling go against them, then change whatever was ruled unconstitutional and do it again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
-
The Constitution is a simple piece of paper.
It means nothing, if men will not abide by the words written in it. The danger of the "Living Constitution" is that it can be twisted and interpreted however one wishes.
It has become very evident that the Left in this country has embraced the idea that violence is the ultimate power. They will use the Constitution to wield that power through government agencies and agents, whenever they are confronted with opposition.
-
You have a state legislature that has openly deliberately defied the Supreme Court — the state legislature deliberated and voted on it — and you are worrying about two academics who are mere private citizens flapping their mouths with only words and no action?
https://news.yahoo.com/alabama-passes-redistricting-map-defies-214529775.html
“Alabama passes redistricting map that defies Supreme Court ruling”
-
You have a state legislature that has openly deliberately defied the Supreme Court — the state legislature deliberated and voted on it — and you are worrying about two academics who are mere private citizens flapping their mouths with only words and no action?
https://news.yahoo.com/alabama-passes-redistricting-map-defies-214529775.html
“Alabama passes redistricting map that defies Supreme Court ruling”
Well, the court said that, according to the Voting Rights Act, Alabama had not given the state's Black voters an opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. Alabama has seven congressional districts, Adrian, and currently only one of those districts is one where Black voters make up a majority. One in 4 residents in Alabama is Black, so the plaintiffs in the case claim that at least another congressional district should be a Black-majority district. And the court sided with the plaintiffs against Alabama and sent them back to the map drawing board, so to speak
1 majority black district rather than 2 does not in fact violate anything specific. It was ruled by the AL court that the districts should be more representative of blacks, but there is no rule that 2 districts must be majority black.
If the 25% black population was integrated throughout the state evenly, it would in fact be impossible to draw even a single majority black district. That’s probably why there is no such rule. But the court is free to decide based on the spirit of the voting rights act, and the legislature did in fact redraw the district, in response to the court ruling. There may be continued litigation. It’s all acceptable parts of the process. There has been no flaunting of rulings.
-
You have a state legislature that has openly deliberately defied the Supreme Court — the state legislature deliberated and voted on it — and you are worrying about two academics who are mere private citizens flapping their mouths with only words and no action?
https://news.yahoo.com/alabama-passes-redistricting-map-defies-214529775.html
“Alabama passes redistricting map that defies Supreme Court ruling”
-
How Alabama is defying the supreme court to discriminate against Black voters
-
Remember all the screams about authoritarianism and dictatorship 4 years ago? Good times....
“I shall resist any illegal federal court order.”
When “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong,” the president should refuse to follow it.
Those two statements were made roughly 60 years apart. The first is from segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D). The second was made by two liberal professors this month.
In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists in calling for defiance and radical measures against the Supreme Court.
In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation.
What is most striking about these professors is how they continue to claim they are defenders of democracy, yet seek to use unilateral executive authority to defy the courts and, in cases like the tuition forgiveness and affirmative action, the majority of the public. They remain the privileged elite of academia, declaring their values as transcending both constitutional and democratic processes.
The problem is indeed “constitutionalism,” and their view of “popular constitutionalism” is a euphemism for “popular justice.”
Tushnet and Belkin show the release that comes with rejecting constitutionalism. They declare that it is not enough merely to pack the court: “The threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.”
In other words, they are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. He is to become a government unto himself.
Is it better or worse that
A. some law professors (who really have no ability to affect the situation) say the president should not follow laws he does not agree with
or
B. some County sheriffs (who do have a direct impact on things) say they will not uphold laws they do not agree with.
for example https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/11/5-or-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-new-gun-control-law/ -
Federal court blocks Alabama’s congressional map, orders new lines drawn
A three-judge federal panel Tuesday ruled that a new Alabama congressional map failed to address Voting Rights Act violations and ordered a third party to draw new lines.
…
