Thank you, Bob. I think it's the least I can do, and I like to think somehow my research and writing might do some good. If it does do any good, it will be only because of the tremendous work done by teams of patriots (e.g., Jack Smith and his team) laboring to have Trump held accountable despite the determined efforts of rogue SCOTUS justices.
People are fond of quoting Montesquieu, the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government. (paraphrased). Montesquieu also said the jury masks the power of the judge, and warns of any alliance of two or more of the branches of the tripartite government (which has happened).
Sheds a new light on the Federalist “sales pitches” where they are dismissive of the possibility that what we are seeing can happen.
You're right that it's important to bear in mind that The Federalist Papers were, in important respects, no better than "sales pitches." Hamilton's contention about "the least dangerous" branch is a good example. It has no meaning whatsoever.
Hamilton also issued that assurance before we had even a single federal judge or court, and before we could see how extremely dangerous their abuses of power could be. It is especially deceitful of judges to use such contentions precisely when the judges are actually and knowingly abusing their powers to undermine our Constitution.
The far more important language in The Federalist No. 78 came after Hamilton's assurances that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" and "weakest" branch. Hamilton (quoting Montesquieu) emphasized, "I agree," that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." Although "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone," it "would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments." And SCOTUS's two Trump decisions amounted to just such a union.
Excellent piece,Jack,you've really done your Homework and then sum!! I'll never understand how this Supreme Court got so many cases Wrong?! I'm no attorney, but I do have common sense, something this Court could use more of. Terrific Job here, I'll be reStacking this Asap 💯👍🇺🇸💙🌊🌊🌊🌊!
Thank you, Karen. You might notice that I often don't say SCOTUS justices (merely) got something "wrong." I use words that sound a bit more harsh. I don't do that to be offensive or inflammatory. I say they lied or deceived or defrauded or robbed people of rights because I can prove they did--and because I'd really like somebody to prove me wrong. I really wish I could believe that they actually at least believed they were not violating our Constitution or at least not deceiving us. But these people are some of the smartest and some of the best informed about what they're writing about. Time and again, they show that they know their own justifications are false and their conduct is unconstitutional.
Thanks for the background and insight into this abominable decision.
Thank you, Bob. I think it's the least I can do, and I like to think somehow my research and writing might do some good. If it does do any good, it will be only because of the tremendous work done by teams of patriots (e.g., Jack Smith and his team) laboring to have Trump held accountable despite the determined efforts of rogue SCOTUS justices.
People are fond of quoting Montesquieu, the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government. (paraphrased). Montesquieu also said the jury masks the power of the judge, and warns of any alliance of two or more of the branches of the tripartite government (which has happened).
Sheds a new light on the Federalist “sales pitches” where they are dismissive of the possibility that what we are seeing can happen.
You're right that it's important to bear in mind that The Federalist Papers were, in important respects, no better than "sales pitches." Hamilton's contention about "the least dangerous" branch is a good example. It has no meaning whatsoever.
Hamilton also issued that assurance before we had even a single federal judge or court, and before we could see how extremely dangerous their abuses of power could be. It is especially deceitful of judges to use such contentions precisely when the judges are actually and knowingly abusing their powers to undermine our Constitution.
The far more important language in The Federalist No. 78 came after Hamilton's assurances that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" and "weakest" branch. Hamilton (quoting Montesquieu) emphasized, "I agree," that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." Although "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone," it "would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments." And SCOTUS's two Trump decisions amounted to just such a union.
Agreed
Excellent piece,Jack,you've really done your Homework and then sum!! I'll never understand how this Supreme Court got so many cases Wrong?! I'm no attorney, but I do have common sense, something this Court could use more of. Terrific Job here, I'll be reStacking this Asap 💯👍🇺🇸💙🌊🌊🌊🌊!
Thank you, Karen. You might notice that I often don't say SCOTUS justices (merely) got something "wrong." I use words that sound a bit more harsh. I don't do that to be offensive or inflammatory. I say they lied or deceived or defrauded or robbed people of rights because I can prove they did--and because I'd really like somebody to prove me wrong. I really wish I could believe that they actually at least believed they were not violating our Constitution or at least not deceiving us. But these people are some of the smartest and some of the best informed about what they're writing about. Time and again, they show that they know their own justifications are false and their conduct is unconstitutional.
I feel you Jack, remember " IT hurts,sometimes,to be Beautiful" and you are 🙏🇺🇸💙🌊!