Image of the day

Captured by
RICHARD COFER

Lunar Occultation of Jupiter (Egress)

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: James Brown

March 4, 2024 06:16 PM Forum: Politics

"The Fix Is In"

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Oh please, Jim, look at how fast SCOTUS heard the Trump ballot case while slow walking the immunity case. I suppose you could argue that, compared to what Trump's favorite jurist, Aileen Cannon, is doing despite being slapped down twice by an appellate court, that the SCOTUS timing is just an anomaly and maybe it is but it's also true that Trump has the legal resources, paid for by his campaign committee, to conduct these sorts of appeals whereas the "every defendant" does not, except in theory.

It's equally obvious that Trump is manipulating the legal system to his advantage to avoid accountability before the election and "every defendant" is not running for president either so, please, spare us your legal high horse arguments that our arguments are seemingly corrupt, anti American, anti-liberty and only occur as the result of an overzealous prosecutor whom I believe is simply trying to do his job...
Smith is doing his job, the defense is doing their job, and the Courts are doing their jobs too.   It's proceeding as our robust system mandates.  But, because you are disappointed with the result you post: "The fix is in."   That conclusion is what is wrong.

I do think Smith is over-zealous by the way, as a matter of politics.   I do fear that those who would prefer not to see Trump elected president are going to regret his over-zealousness.  I have never posted that he is outside of the bounds of the law though.  He is doing his job aggressively, for sure, but he is not any indication of a broken or corrupt legal system.   Only fools would argue that.

March 4, 2024 08:03 PM Forum: Politics

SCOTUS's Decision On Monday

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis


RINO in Colorado stated this:  

"Rich will never see justices who disagree with them as anything other than political hacks"

Total bullshit of course.  Go ahead and cite an example.  

I'm at lunch, so I'll check back.
Here are two, just from today.

When you have ALL 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court rule that these courts got it wrong, it is a vindication that these corrupt courts are just that Corrupt as the day is long.

He certainly won't have the balls to get on here and make commentary about just how corrupt his vocation (the law and the courts) is today.  This legal system is a joke and has been for a long time. 

March 4, 2024 08:09 PM Forum: Politics

SCOTUS's Decision On Monday

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis


RINO in Colorado stated this:  

"Rich will never see justices who disagree with them as anything other than political hacks"

Total bullshit of course.  Go ahead and cite an example.  

I'm at lunch, so I'll check back.
By the way, are you trying to tell the people who have read years of your crap that now you do not consider Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to be political hacks?   That would be rich indeed.

March 4, 2024 11:50 PM Forum: Politics

"The Fix Is In"

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


I understand your concern regarding how a rush to judgment could be helping Trump. Frankly, I don't see that we have any choice but to indict and try Trump for his crimes. Doesn't a robust and fair system require that? Besides, it's possible to do both. I mean, indict and try Trump for his crimes and beat him at the ballot box. I think that is what will happen. There are not enough white rural rage Trump voters to put him in office.
I agree with this.   And the answer to your rhetorical question is "yes."  Maybe I am mis-reading Rod, but he and a lot of like-minded people seem to be counting on convictions before the election and anything else will be deemed a miscarriage of justice, at best.  Look at the thread title.  Watch MSNBC tonight and see what the talking heads on the left have to say.   Far too many want to rush justice because Trump is the defendant.

I think your take is the correct one.

March 4, 2024 11:57 PM Forum: Politics

SCOTUS's Decision On Monday

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


No pun intended, I assume.

Yes, as hard as it is to believe, Rich only thinks things are fair and correct when they reinforce his style and brand of blind and feverish partisanship.
angel  Must have been a long lunch!

It absolutely cracks me up when Rich is so disagreeable that he basically disagrees with himself!   Seriously, I had no idea he would get bent over the completely accurate observation that he thinks liberal judges and liberal Justices are political hacks!   Why would he even try to implicitly deny this?   His feelings are not hard to discern!   I guess the one immutable rule of extreme narcissism is disagree with everything, even if it means implicitly contradicting everything one has previously stood for!

March 5, 2024 01:26 AM Forum: Politics

March 5, 2024 05:57 PM Forum: Politics

Conservative Federal Judge Luttig: SCOTUS Ruling "Shocking"

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey


I didn't understand that Luttig was saying that the 14th Amendment and its insurrection text are dead due to Congressional ineffectiveness and paralysis. Still, I can't disagree with that take either.
Luttig was one of the litigants.  You noticed that from the original article right?  He lost this one.  Lost it 9-0.  To claim now that the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is dead is hogwash.

Rod, read the Court's various opinions if you want to understand their reasoning.  Far better way to learn the reality of the case than to re-post the sour grapes rant of a losing litigant.  Jim

March 5, 2024 06:06 PM Forum: Politics

Conservative Federal Judge Luttig: SCOTUS Ruling "Shocking"

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

Luttig was one of the litigants.  You noticed that from the original article right?  He lost this one.  Lost it 9-0.  To claim now that the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment is dead is hogwash.

Rod, read the Court's various opinions if you want to understand their reasoning.  Far better way to learn the reality of the case than to re-post the sour grapes rant of a losing litigant.  Jim
Read this if you want proper un-biased analysis:  https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/

March 5, 2024 06:15 PM Forum: Politics

Conservative Federal Judge Luttig: SCOTUS Ruling "Shocking"

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
"Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig on Monday called the Supreme Court decision allowing former President Trump to remain on the presidential ballot “stunning in its overreach.”

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,”

I have skimmed the concurrences.   They are nice and short.   Neither ACB nor the liberal justices said anything like the quote above.  If I missed it let me know.   It appears that Luttig, and the Hill are intentionally misleading gullible readers.

Here are the opinions:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

March 5, 2024 06:35 PM Forum: Politics

Conservative Federal Judge Luttig: SCOTUS Ruling "Shocking"

Posted By James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"That part seems a little over the top."

Well, that's easy off ramp for SCOTUS: they mandated congress should act to remove a candidate from a ballot. That's never going to happen. Congress can barely approve a budget to keep its own government functioning. I agree with judge Luttig that no effective change will ever occur even in Trump's case wherein his actions were in clear violation of the 14th amendment. And, of course, Trump is celebrating his victimhood and his vindication even though the SCOTUS decision provides neither...
I disagree.   Congress impeached Trump for "inciting an insurrection."  He was acquitted.   With better facts supporting the insurrection charge, Trump could have been convicted and barred from office under the impeachment clauses and the 14th Amendment.  There are plenty of R's who would have voted to convict if there had been evidence that Trump planned and executed the insurrection.

We both know that impeachment is political.   The criminal insurrection statute is different, it is not inherently political.  There are different burdens of proof and so on too.   But the reality is that if Jack Smith thought he had a prayer of convicting Trump of criminal insurrection, he would have brought the charges.  Unfortunately, there is little or no evidence that Trump participated in an insurrection.  Without any compelling evidence other than Trump's rambling speech, I am not sure how you can argue that Trump's actions were in clear violation of the 14th Amendment.