A Transition Nightmare

Pin on ↞ A Hero For Fun↠

 

Last night I woke up and was kicking and screaming.

The Supremes ruled for Trump, more real than seeming.

Revived were my fears

Of a Trump next four years.

Until it appeared that I just had been dreaming.

Filed under: The Transition

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I'm pretty sure King Lear put Barrett on the Supreme Court so that she could use original jurisdiction to give him the election.

    Personally. I have recurring dreams/nightmares about being dropped off at a place of work (which no longer is there).

  • In reply to jack:

    In light of Art. III, Sect. 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, it would take an amazing feat of interpretation for Barrett to find original jurisdiction--far beyond what original intent or textualism would seem to permit. But then, Scalia and his disciples have shown agility in selectively using their "core beliefs."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I wasn't referring to the holding in Marbury v. Madison, but what goes on in the "astute" legal mind of OPD.

    I said a while back that someone should tell him the real meaning of Bush v. Gore, but Rudy won't. OPD, Rudy, Kaylegh (according to Jimmy Kimmel, McAdamiaNuts), and Oberweis have become clowns, except not funny.

  • I've been having nightmares about this, too!

  • As Mary Poppins would say, "Stay awake, don't rest your head. Don't lie down upon your bed. As the vote recounting climbs, stay awake, read calming lines." (I come here for mine.)

  • Trump now seems to be plotting a putsch using the Republican state legislature in Michigan. I'm trying to decide if this is a nightmare or the plot of a very bad farce, ala Springtime for Hitler.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    At least Springtime for Hitler ended when Kenneth Mars blew up the theater and everyone ended up in NY prison. But it now looks like OPD and Ivanka are going to end up there. Note, she didn't deny the investigation's existence.

    I don't see why the Wayne Co. DA couldn't indict OPD for interfering with an election.

  • In reply to jack:

    Wayne County probably doesn't have much money for expensive prosecutions. They may believe that New York is more than willing to go after the Trump clan.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    The NAACP apparently had enough money to sue the campaign for Voting Rights Act violations, though (story).

  • In reply to jnorto:

    It has also been reported that the Michigan AG is looking into it.

  • In reply to jack:

    It is still understandable that Wayne County is not interested. Local prosecutors rarely pursue organized crime cases. They require too many resources, both financial and personnel, and the DAs figure that the feds and the state AGs have freedom to choose without the hydraulic pressure of a constant flow of street crimes. And ACLU, of course, exists and fundraises to file civil suits like this to assert individual and minority constitutional rights.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Maybe I went too far on Wayne County, but that seems comparatively irrelevant; the real issue seems to be that this has gone from failure to plead fraud, to violation of frivolous litigation rules, to actual criminal activity--not to mention, as frequently mentioned, the potential disenfranchisement of voters in several states. Someone should tell The Little Dictator the gig is up.

  • In reply to jack:

    I agree. In an ideal world, the US. Attorney's office would be investigating violations of 52 USC 10304(a) and (c), but Barr would probably not allow this.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    In 2 months, he'll be gone.

    However, I don't think the section you cited is pertinent, as it deals with preclearance of changes in voting rues, which the Supreme Court threw out about a decade ago. It doesn't say anything about criminal penalties, but giving states the right to change the rules. Maybe you meant 10307 and 10308.

    Speaking of changes in voting rules,and hypocrisy, there was a report that a Wisconsin lawyer trying to get early votes thrown out had his and his wife's names on an early voting list.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    You're right, my typo. It should be 52 USC 10308(a) and (c).

Leave a comment