let's not judge too harsh. after all, this libertarian patriot were being criminalized for nothing save protesting the injustice o' what he believed were a tainted election. so, in an effort to escape the tyrannical oppression o' a justice system which chooses to ignore fundamental rights o' free speech and association, our misunderstood hero emigrated to... belarus?
sorry, is not possible to carry the joke forward and am wondering if even the board's most obtuse defenders o' oppressive regimes is gonna be able to make a convincing argument that belarus is an attractive destination point for those who believe it is the duty o' patriots to challenge government excess by means o' unfettered speech and free congress.
moving on am gonna make a few observations 'bout the predictable ketanji brown jackson circus.
1) crt is a similar unfunny joke the gop is indulging and they are using a national platform to magnify the republican party's new focus on naught save grievance and victimhood.
we would say more on this, but have kinda done-to-death crt. were nothing in the months past and is even more nothing today. nevertheless, white americans, fearing they is increasing marginalized 'cause folks such as tucker carlson tells 'em they should be afraid, has glomped onto an issue so utter devoid o' substance it beggars even our prodigious imagination.
2) am shamefaced at our own surprise regarding the gop attack on ketanji brown jackson's work as a federal public defender.
am trying to wrap our noodle 'round this complaint. the argument put forth by lindsay graham and others is that judge jackson while working as a public defender were too zealous in her advocacy o' the cases o' suspected terrorists?
...
serious?
as an attorney it were jackson's ethical duty to do everything legal and aboveboard to defend her clients. any kid graduating US high school shoulda' learned this truth at some point, yes? is not some kinda special rule o' exclusion requiring a duty o' utmost loyalty and a zealous advocacy when the crimes to which the defendants is accused is particular heinous.
and btw, is just lucky for some o' these clowns john mccain is dead, 'cause ketanji brown jackson filling briefs complaining that the use o' torture should be deemed unconstitutional and is unquestionable immoral is hardly a matter which legitimizes targeting her for scurrilous criticism.
the biden doj ending this bs is one o' things nobody is gonna talk 'bout in months leading up to november 2022 or 2024, but it deserves recognition. gop is clear on the wrong side o' this and those defending were far more quiet when john mccain were in the room.
3) child porn cases
*eye roll*
am linking analysis from national review and wapo, so take your pick.
quoting the national review analysis: "There is so little rain here for all the big wind, it’s hard to believe this is an issue."
is arguable one case wherein judge brown went with a sentence low enough to get an obligatory spock raised eyebrow from Gromnir. am thinking there is legit questions as to the sentence in the sears case. however, is also noteworthy judge jackson afterwards did not grant the defendant compassionate release for medical reasons and the prosecutor did not seek to appeal the sentence. sears is also a singular exception to otherwise pedestrian sentencing from judge jackson which falls square w/i what would be deemed ordinary by even a casual observer o' the fed courts.
4) the circus is what the Court has brought 'pon itself.
"What makes all this relevant to the bothersome application of "political pressure" against the Court are the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools. As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we Justices were doing essentially lawyers' work up here--reading text and discerning our society's traditional understanding of that text--the public pretty much left us alone. Texts and traditions are facts to study, not convictions to demonstrate about. But if in reality our process of constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments; if we can ignore a long and clear tradition clarifying an ambiguous text, as we did, for example, five days ago in declaring unconstitutional invocations and benedictions at public high school graduation ceremonies, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ___ (1992); if, as I say, our pronouncement of constitutional law rests primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people's attitude towards us can be expected to be (ought to be) quite different. The people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school--maybe better. If, indeed, the "liberties" protected by the Constitution are, as the Court says, undefined and unbounded, then the people should demonstrate, to protest that we do not implement their values instead of ours. Not only that, but confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into question and answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their constituents' most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional rights, and seek the nominee's commitment to support or oppose them. Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our Constitution has somehow accidently committed them to the Supreme Court, at least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body is put forward." --J Scalia, planned parenthood v. casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
in recent decades the Court has made itself fair game for accusations o' political bias. in the past so-called activist judges, most often favoured by liberals, were the most frequent targets o' such criticism, but today is arguable clarence thomas, J. brett kavanauagh and J. sonia sontamayor is all indistinguishable as naked political creatures with the so-called conservatives in no way elevating the discourse or distancing themselves from the partisan fray.
HA! Good Fun!
ps in our estimation, clarence thomas no longer deserves the traditional "J." removed.