Tag: Judges

SCOTUS News

From time to time SCOTUS does make the news….the nightly news that is and this session has made the news on two fronts…..the news is both good and bad…..

The Good…….

There is no guarantee that conserv judges will vote conservatively…..

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a major victory to supporters of gay rights, reports the AP. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices decided that Title VII, a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protects LGBTQ workers from being fired because of their sexual orientation. Coverage:

  • The law: Title VII bars discrimination at work based on “sex” and other factors, and for the last 50 years or so, “sex” has gotten a narrow definition—basically that women and men can’t be treated differently at work, per the Washington Post. Monday’s ruling expands that definition to the LGBT community.
  • The ruling: “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
  • The surprise: Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, who usually side with the court’s conservative majority, instead joined the court’s four more liberal members, notes Politico.
  • The legal question: “The decisions in this case highlight a tension with textualism,” writes Jonathan Adler at Reason. That is, in regard to the 1964 law, “do we focus on the discrete meaning of the words, or do we focus on the words as they would have been understood and applied at the time they were adopted.” He adds that law schools will be poring over the opinions in the coming year.
  • Gorsuch’s view: His ruling acknowledges that Congress surely didn’t intend to protect LGBT workers when it passed the legislation, but he said that’s irrelevant. “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,” he wrote. “Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees.”
  • Dissent: Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent joined by Clarence Thomas, says the court went too far. “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” the dissent begins. “The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”
  • The cases: The ruling centers on multiple cases, and the New York Times has the details. They included a pair of lawsuits by gay men who say they were fired because of their sexual orientation, and another from a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, who says she got fired when she announced she would start embracing her female identity at work. Stephens died last month.

And now the Bad….and it is taken from the headlines of today……

The Supreme Court is for now declining to get involved in an ongoing debate by citizens and in Congress over policing, rejecting cases Monday that would have allowed the justices to revisit when police can be held financially responsible for wrongdoing, per the AP. With protests over racism and police brutality continuing nationwide, the justices turned away more than half a dozen cases involving the legal doctrine known as qualified immunity, which the high court created more than 50 years ago. It shields officials, including police, from lawsuits for money as a result of things they do in the course of their job. As is usual, the court didn’t comment in turning away the cases, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-page dissent saying he would have agreed to hear one of the cases.

“I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” he wrote, explaining he believes the court’s “qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text.” As a result of qualified immunity, even when a court finds that an official or officer has violated someone’s constitutional rights, they can still be protected from civil lawsuits seeking money. The Supreme Court has said that qualified immunity protects officials as long as their actions don’t violate clearly established law or constitutional rights which they should have known about. The push for the court to reexamine qualified immunity has come both from the left and right, including Thomas, a conservative, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal.

Here was a chance to make a difference…..but I am sure that the issue is not dead.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Court Packing

Note:  I do not like FOX News I have gotten more accurate information from the back of a Fruit Loops box….than from this “news site”.

Something new from FUX News…..they are taunting the idea that if Dems win they will pack the court with liberal justices….you cannot like what the Repubes are doing now but that is somehow different.

According to FUX News……(I apologize for my bitchiness but occasionally I get my fill of the lies and disinformation spread by a certain group and lash out)……

On Feb. 8, just before America’s first-in-the-nation primary, Demand Justice, the left-wing group dedicated to transforming our courts, hosted a New Hampshire forum for Democratic presidential candidates, along with the abortion-focused groups NARAL, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the All* Above All Action Fund. These groups were able to attract all the viable Democratic presidential contenders with the exception of former Vice President Joe Biden.

Let’s give the event hosts credit for a forum that gave us a chance to hear from the candidates on the subject of the courts, a topic that has rarely come up during the debates. They did voters a service, however unintentionally, by revealing just how dangerous it would be to our judicial system to elect a Democratic president in 2020.

The leading contenders made it clear they would advocate changing the very structure of the Supreme Court in order to advance their liberal ideology — or, to use the more familiar term, packing the court. Consider as a historical reference point Franklin D. Roosevelt’s notorious proposal of 1937, which would have authorized the expansion of the Supreme Court to as many as 15 justices. Although Democrats dominated Congress at the time, enough of them had the statesmanship to recognize a blow to our judicial system when they saw it, and accordingly blocked it.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2020-democrats-pack-supreme-court-carrie-severino.amp

To help out with this let’s go to something other than FUX News….

Though the Constitution provides that a Supreme Court shall sit at the apex on the judiciary, our founding document is silent about how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. A 1789 law established a six-justice Court, and the number of justices ebbed and flowed during the 19th century — swelling to 10 justices under President Abraham Lincoln before settling into a nine-justice configuration under President Ulysses S. Grant.

After a reactionary Supreme Court struck down several New Deal policies, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the Court to as many as 15 justices — although this proposal did not fare well politically, to say the least.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/31/21115114/court-packing-supreme-court-tom-steyer-mitch-mcconnell

There you have it…..both sides of this proposal…..(at least you have both sides here….IST is your one stop reading most of the time)……..

Personally I do not like the idea that a judge has a gig for life….and have written how we can have justice and end most of the partisan BS……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/those-supreme-court-judges/

There is a solution to this but it would require logic and rational thought and we know that is not possible in DC at this time.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Confirmation Wars

When Judge Ginsberg missed a day of court and the media and the president was preparing for her to leave the court I thought about the confirmation wars and had to open up about the situation.

Just before the midterms we had a knock down and dragged out confirmation process for a new judge for SCOTUS….surely you remember the name Kavanaugh, right?

It was Dem vs Repub and that is where this silliness is at now….the judgeship is a political appointment with all the trappings of a campaign with ads and all……and then Ginsburg, RBG, missed a day from the court and the media and right wing pundits have her about to retire and even die…..they so badly want our president old what-his-name to put another radical conserv on the court meaning the country will be f*cked for a generation maybe longer……

A judge should not be picked based on their politics….their record of decisions means less than their stands on certain social issues….we can thank the dullards in the Federalist Society et al for this bastardization of the judicial process.

This needs to end and end now…..our process is turning into a joke and that is not what the Founders had in mind…….we need to end the confirmation wars for good.

With the courts, perception is just as important as reality. The judiciary relies on the public’s faith in its role as a fair arbiter of disputes — without that legitimacy, why would citizens or officials feel obliged to follow court orders?

If one is concerned about the Supreme Court as an institution that can safeguard against constitutional overreach by the other two branches, the bare-knuckles politicking over recent Supreme Court nominees is incredibly shortsighted.

As this most recent (and awful) confirmation saga finally comes to its end, one unsettling consequence surfaces: The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is undermined by the U.S. Senate and its current confirmation process.

Before we try to claw our way out, let’s take a moment to see how we got here. Spoiler alert: No one has clean hands.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/410897-how-do-we-end-the-cycle-of-confirmation-wars

Of course there will be people that agree but then the process will NOT change any time soon…….agreement in principle is what we Americans do but actual change is not something we are capable of doing at any time.

The media is still pushing the story that RBG is getting closer to retirement…..it is pathetic how blatant the MSM is being about RBG…..

Closing Thought–08Oct18

One more thought on the ugly process of judicial confirmation.

Yes, Irene we have a new judge for SCOTUS!

After the vote that confirmed that alleged drunkard to the highest court in the land and after the old men of the Senate took their mandatory hourly pee break the swearing in began…..

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday night as the 114th justice of the US Supreme Court, after a wrenching debate over sexual misconduct and judicial temperament that shattered the Senate, captivated the nation, and ushered in an acrimonious new level of polarization—now encroaching on the court that the 53-year-old judge may well swing rightward for decades to come, the AP reports. The bitterly polarized US Senate narrowly confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court, delivering an election-season triumph to President Trump, per the AP. The near party-line vote was 50-48 capped a fight that seized the national conversation after claims emerged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted women three decades ago—which he emphatically denied.

After all this drama and a presidential speech to his slobbering throngs….the head of the Senate Judicial Committee tells why of the vote went as it did….(would my female readers read this part closely)……

“It’s a lot of work—maybe they don’t want to do it.” So says Sen. Chuck Grassley on why the Senate Judiciary Committee that supported Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination had no female Republicans, per the Wall Street Journal. “My chief of staff of 33 years tells me we’ve tried to recruit women and we couldn’t get the job done,” adds Grassley, the committee’s chair. But the 85-year-old Republican later walked back his remarks, saying the committee’s workload made it less enticing to male and female senators alike: “We have a hard time getting men on the committee. It’s just a lot of work whether you’re a man or a woman, it doesn’t matter.”

What exactly makes it so hard to get senators on board? “Well, I love it. I’ve been on it 38 years,” the senator responded. “On average, any woman in the United States Senate, whether they’re on Judiciary or any other committee, probably works harder than the average man.” Continuing his apparent change of heart, Grassley said the Supreme Court should have more women: “Probably five would be about right.” All Republicans on the committee are male, while the Democrats have ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein and three other women, per the Huffington Post. In fact Republicans haven’t had a single female member since the committee was established in 1816, Vox notes.
There has NEVER been a female member….NEVER….and why is that?  Workload?  Bullshit!  Women are just as capable or more so than most of the old farts on that committee.
Ladies…..don’t get made….think vote and be heard….then think bench removal!
I promise to move on…that is until this tool makes his next screw up and I think he will do just that…

We Have A New Judge

This post is for those intelligent beings that put this court thingy on hold so they could enjoy their weekend……On this day 08Oct18 we have a new star rising in the cesspool that we call the Supreme Court.

The vote is in and the Supreme Court has a new judge….a political, partisan, hard drinking perv is on the court for life…..a partisan d/bag will take his seat just in time for a ruling on a case that could involve the president….you will be watching…..

It all took place Friday and over the weekend…the confirmation that is……and if you found the whole process putrid but still would like to know what happened then tune in to IST…I can help with you education…..

The smart money now says Brett Kavanaugh will be the next Supreme Court justice. That became evident Friday afternoon when the Democrats’ last big hope, Republican Susan Collins, announced that she would vote yes on confirmation, reports the Washington Post. After her announcement, Democrat Joe Manchin, another swing vote, said he would do the same. The math now looks hopeless for Democrats ahead of Saturday’s expected vote, even with Republican Susan Collins voting against Kavanaugh. All this comes after Friday morning’s decision to end debate and move toward a final vote. Details and developments:

  • The math: Kavanaugh supporters won Friday’s procedural vote by a narrow 51-49 margin, and Democrats would need to flip two of those yes votes into no’s in order to stop the nomination. A tie wouldn’t cut it for Democrats because VP Mike Pence is the tie-breaker. That put the focus on the swing votes of Collins, Murkowski, and Jeff Flake, all Republicans, along with Democrat Manchin.
  • Flake: The Arizona Republican voted yes on Friday’s procedural matter, and he says he plans to vote in favor of Kavanaugh on Saturday “unless something big changed,” reports Politico. But, he added, “I don’t see what would.”

Collins: She gave a 45-minute speech from the Senate floor in which she talked about the Kavanaugh allegations and the confirmation process. “I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court,” Collins said, per Politico. “I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”

  • Murkowski: She was the only Republican to break ranks Friday and vote against moving Kavanaugh’s nomination forward. “I believe that Brett Kavanaugh is a good man,” but perhaps “not the right man for the court at this time,” the Alaska Republican told reporters, per NBC News. The comments suggest Murkowski is a firm “no” on Saturday, though the New York Times reports that Republicans were pressuring her to change her mind. Now it likely won’t be necessary.
  • Manchin: He’s the only Democrat who voted yes on Kavanaugh Friday, and fellow Democrats hoped to change his mind on Saturday. But Manchin announced Friday afternoon that he would vote for the “qualified jurist,” reports the AP. Even if he flips and votes no, that would lead only to a 50-50 tie, which Pence would break in favor of Kavanaugh. As the Washington Post notes, Manchin serves red-state West Virginia, and he’s in a tough re-election race.
  • Palin to Murkowski: “Hey @LisaMurkowski — I can see 2022 from my house,” tweeted the former Alaska governor in regard to the Alaska senator’s “no” vote on Kavanaugh. Palin urged Alaskans to make Murkowski pay for the decision when she’s up for re-election.
  • Bad timing: GOP Sen. Steve Daines of Montana has a big conflict on Saturday: He has to walk his daughter down the aisle at her wedding in Montana. Republicans could hold the vote open for Daines if his vote is needed to push Kavanaugh over the top, but the senator tells the AP that he will fly back to DC by private jet if he’s needed. Daines says Montana congressman Greg Gianforte, a fellow Republican, has offered up his plane.
  • The tea leaves: “It’s theoretically possible that some combination of Collins, Flake, and Manchin could still change their mind between now and the final vote,” observes Josh Voorhees at Slate. But “the writing is on the wall.”
  • A suggestion: An op-ed in the Hill says the Kavanaugh drama illustrates one thing that should be evident to both parties: It’s time to amend the Constitution and institute term limits for Supreme Court justices, writes law professor Alan Morrison of George Washington University. He suggests 18-year terms.

Maybe the markets did not see his confirmation as a good thing….. U.S. stocks closed lower as a three-day surge in government bond yields has investors worrying about rising interest rates, the AP reports. The Labor Department said the economy continues to add jobs at a strong pace. Investors sold bonds, sending their prices lower. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose to 3.24%, its highest since mid-2011. The S&P 500 fell a further 16 points, or 0.6%, to 2,885. On Thursday it took its largest loss since June. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 180 points, or 0.7%, to 26,447. The Nasdaq composite fell 91 points, or 1.2%, to 7,788. The Nasdaq fell more than 3% this week, its worst in six months.

In case you are not sure about the judiciary let me help with that….

Personally I was NOT impressed by all the the theatrics around this appointment……Repubs being the butt boy of the president and disregarding the Constitution and the Dems for using this as try outs for the next presidential election.

The Founders would be ashamed of the dramatics around this important appointment.

Arm yourself with facts and you can never lose.

Did I help?

This last part is just FYI……

Supreme Court History

All eyes are on the Supreme Court these days…..this happens every time we get a new nominee or the annual session opens up and we get speculation on how it will go……

This time it is all about the Nominee and his possible antics when he was younger (notice I said “possible”)……

I recently did a post on the 25 most controversial decisions of the SCOTUS…..(read it here….https://lobotero.com/2018/09/25/scotus-famous-rulings/

Now with that outta the way a little more SCOTUS history….this time the most divisive appointees……

On Sept. 26, 1789, all six of George Washington’s nominations for Supreme Court justices were confirmed by the United States Senate, which marked the beginning of the judicial branch of the newly implemented federal government.

While the judicial branch is supposed to be the least democratic and least political of the branches of government, an element of democracy still influences the courts and controversy has followed the judiciary since its founding in 1789.

In honor of divisive politics, a feature of the American system, here are the 10 most divisive Supreme Court justices in American history:

https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2018/09/27/10_most_divisive_supreme_court_justices_in_history_362.html

Now my reader has enough history to understand the court and its rulings……the problem is that today the nominee is a political appointment and not one about the Constitution and the the rule of law.

Another reason why the states are making the laws to avoid SCOTUS as much as possible.

The Court’s First Day–2018

I would like to post on SCOTUS and NO I will not go into the Brett baby and his proclivities for beer……this will be the actual docket for the court for year 2018.

All the attention that SCOTUS has gotten for the last couple of weeks is nothing to do with what the court has to rule on…..today is the first day of the 2018 session and the judges will consider a few interesting filings.

It’s the first Monday in October, which means the Supreme Court will be gaveled into session for its new term—even if the fate of the ninth potential justice remains in limbo. The general consensus in coverage is that the upcoming docket is relatively tame in terms of hot-button issues, though that could change as the term proceeds. In fact, the strategy might be intentional. “This makes me think that the justices were aware of [Anthony] Kennedy’s likely departure when they starting granting cases for this term,” court observer Adam Feldman tells Fox News. And the justices likely anticipated a vacant seat, at least in the early days of the term. Here are some of the bigger cases on tap for now:

  • Frogs: The timber company Weyerhauser objects to land in Louisiana being declared off limits for the protection of the dusky gopher frog, reports NPR. Only 75 of the frogs remain in existence, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service plans to relocate some to a forest owned by Weyerhauser.
  • Death row: The justices will hear a case out of Alabama in which a murderer with dementia is scheduled to be executed. Vernon Madison’s defenders say he can’t remember killing a police officer, and the execution would thus be cruel and unusual punishment.
  • Double jeopardy: In Gamble v. United States, the court will look at double jeopardy, and whether states can prosecute a person for a crime independent of the federal government. The reason it matters? If President Trump pardons someone at the federal level, the person could still face state charges over the same offense, explains the New York Times.
  • The list: For a thorough list of upcoming cases, see Law.com.

The GOP and Trump is in a hurry to confirm Brett Baby because of the Double Jeopardy case that could involve the president and his minions…..

Right now there is a 4-4 tie with the justices in residence…..they wait for Brett Baby to get the all clear from the FBI and he will be voted in and he can celebrate with beer and a party.

It was good enough for the court 2 years ago to be down one justice but for some reason that so much now that the cowards of the GOP are in control.

SCOTUS–Day Two

The big story of the week is the hearings to determine if Kavanaugh is suitable to be the next justice for the Supreme Court……and after two days what do we have?

After the “chaotic” first day of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination hearing, Wednesday saw the 53-year-old appellate judge bombarded with questions from senators. The AP describes him as “treading carefully,” and highlights some of the biggest issues raised during the second day of the hearing. Kavanaugh “didn’t show his hand” when questioned about abortion rights, for example, though he did call Roe v. Wade “important precedent” that has “been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.” (The AP also notes that Sen. Dianne Feinstein “vastly overstated” the number of deaths from illegal abortions in the decades before Roe v. Wade; it has a fact-check here.) More from the hearing, which is expected to extend into the late evening hours of Wednesday:

  • Kavanaugh said it was like a “gut punch” to learn that multiple women had accused one of his mentors, Judge Alex Kozinski, of sexual misconduct, and that it highlights the broader need for a better system of reporting workplace harassment; he said he was not aware of the allegations until they were made public. Fox News has more.
  • The New York Times, which offers live updates on the hearing, highlights questions from Sen. Patrick Leahy bringing up two Bush-era scandals. Kavanaugh worked as an associate White House counsel in the Bush administration, and Leahy suggested he may have been aware of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program as well as the infiltration of Democrats’ confidential internal files regarding Bush’s judicial nominees, both of which he has denied knowing about. More details at the Times, which calls the exchange “tantalizing but incomplete.”
  • The Washington Post also has live updates; among its highlights: President Trump weighed in on the confirmation hearing, saying Kavanaugh has an “outstanding intellect.” “I have watched his remarks, I have watched his performance, I’ve watched his statements, and honestly, they’ve been totally brilliant,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “I think the other side is grasping at straws.”
  • ABC News offers five key questions Kavanaugh was asked Wednesday and his responses to each one. Among those: Can a president pardon himself? Kavanaugh declined to answer, saying it was a hypothetical question.
  • Kavanaugh cited the “Ginsburg rule” when declining to answer hypothetical questions; Fox News explains what that is.
  • Protesters have again interrupted the hearing; the AP has more on the protests here.
  • Also Wednesday, Jon Kyl was sworn in to fill the late John McCain’s Senate seat through the end of the year; he will have the opportunity to weigh in on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the AP notes.
  • Speaking of votes, Susan Collins is a key swing vote, and the Intercept reports that activists have raised more than $385,000 so far that will be given to the campaign fund of a future opponent running against the Republican senator should she vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. If she votes no, the pledges will be canceled.

Kavanaugh was accused of ignoring a Parkland parent’s attempt at a handshake during Tuesday’s hearing.

This is as I thought it would be a contentious hearing at times…..but so far there has been nothing one could call a bomb thrown against the nominee…..but a few “we shall see” moments……IMHO.

For me….I would not vote for this guy because his hair looks like the hair of a Baptist preacher and I do not trust preachers….but that is just me.

SCOTUS This And SCOTUS That

It is after Labor Day and the cowards in the Congress are back at work…..and they will be drilling the new nominee for SCOTUS….

Early fireworks: The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing got off to a lively start on Tuesday as Democrats repeatedly interrupted the opening statement of Republican Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reports the Hill. One Democrat after another spoke up to demand that the hearing be postponed until they can see thousands of documents that have been withheld in regard to the Supreme Court nominee. Protesters in the audience also interrupted, but Grassley said the hearing would not be delayed. “If we cannot be recognized I move to adjourn,” said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal. “We have been denied real access to the documents we need,” he said, calling the panel’s handling of the matter a “charade.”

Kavanaugh, for his part, intends to tell the committee that he will be a non-biased judge. “I don’t decide cases based on personal or policy preferences,” Kavanaugh says in excerpts of his opening statement released in advance, per the Washington Post. “I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge,” Kavanaugh says. “I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.” (Kavanaugh’s attorney released thousands of pages ahead of the hearing, but not enough to appease Democrats.)

But why would Kavanaugh’s nomination and hearings be so contentious?  For one he is a self-described conservative….but there is more…..

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are expected to be contentious as Democrats plan on grilling the nominee on his judicial record and legal philosophy.

The battle has been controversial from the start since the nominee will be filling the seat of retiring justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote on many key issues including abortion rights, affirmative action and same-sex marriage

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/03/brett-kavanaugh-controversial-supreme-court-nominee-five-reasons/1143100002/

For your information….do you understand how the supreme court works?

Closing Thought–15May18

There are many examples of how government kicks the can down the road.. …on spending, budgets, immigration ans war…..but the one part of the government that you do not expect waffling is from the judiciary….

Well we cannot depend on them to do the right thing…

A while back a lawsuit was brought forth challenging the legality of the so-called war on ISIS……

Federal Appeals Court judges are hoping to continue to dodge ruling on a lawsuit in which a soldier challenged the legality of the unauthorized war on ISIS. The judges now are asking the lawyers to tell them whether or not the lawsuit even matters anymore.

Capt. Nathan Michael Smith filed the lawsuit back in 2016, claiming the war is illegal. The judges say that now, since Smith will be leaving the military later in May, his own personal interest in the case is essentially gone. Moreover, they argue that the war seems to be wrapping up.

Of course, Smith filed this case way back in 2016, and had to appeal after the first judge refused to rule on it. The current panel took the case in October, and has effectively just sat on the case since then. Now, they too seem set to refuse to rule on the case.

There are, of course, serious legal reasons to challenge unauthorized US wars. Federal judges are so unwilling to rule on these questions, however, as to make the courts effectively useless as a check on power.

(antiwar.com)

I see the cowardice of the Legislative Branch is nothing exceptional….it also extends to the Judicial Branch as well.

In other words we have a government of cowards from the Executive to the Legislative to Judiciary….

We can be so proud of what we have created over the past couple of decades…….a government of do-nothing toads.

My Tuesday postings is a wrap….I can go now and call Hannity for some sage advice. (Sorry I could not keep a straight face after that statement)

Gotta bounce…do stop by later tomorrow…..be well, be safe….chuq