I feel like I’m the only one saying this but it bears repeating. A lot of these same right wingers crying about campus antisemitism believe the following: Jewish people who don’t convert to their brand of Christianity are doomed with the rest of us. They will get raptured. The rest of us will be left to suffer horribly during the tribulations. And when Jesus comes back he’ll wipe out the rest of the Jewish population.
These aren’t secret beliefs! Hate preacher John Hagee, who endorsed John McCain back in the day, & who has a tv show on Christian networks, started CUFI. Christians United for Israel. With the intention of purposefully fomenting religious tension in Israel so Jesus will come back faster. He is very open about Jesus killing Jewish people who don’t convert. Hagee isn’t the only one! This is easily searchable information.
If you’re only befriending Jewish people to convert them with the belief they’ll later suffer & die if they don’t, you’re purposefully working to make that suffering & death happen, well that sounds pretty anti-freaking-semetic to me!
The Conservative judges feel emboldened by their lifetime appointments. Lifetime appointments are another Founders' error. It's such a mistake that R majority AZ legislators want to institute the same lifetime appointments for judges in Arizona. Currently AZ judges are retained by the votes of the people either every four or six years. Republican lawmakers are planning to put a referendum on the ballot to propose lifetime appointments for judges and justices. Two state Supreme court justices who voted to implement the 1864 abortion ban are up for retention in November. If the Republicans' ballot measure passes, it would be retroactive, in case Arizonans vote to oust those two justices.
Republicans are authoritarians. There's no debate. I bet none of those students at the protests at Columbia would even want to clerk for those reactionaries.
Nothing at all against you, but you highlighted one of the worst scams in constitutional history. No federal judge whatsoever was given a "lifetime appointment." No judge can even hope to begin to prove any federal judge was given lifetime tenure. Article III of the Constitution (which was written and ratified by "We the People" to "secure Justice") said merely that judges may hold their offices "during good behaviour" (so they may use their offices for good behavior). In no way was "during good behaviour" or "during good behavior" meant (by anyone with any integrity and sense of the meanness of people with power) to mean "for life."
"We the People" wrote and ratified our Constitution to "secure Justice" by requiring good behavior of those who call themselves our judges. And to ensure judges do behave themselves (and to ensure they can be removed for bad behavior), we made Congress the judge of judges. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate is exactly how judges may be (and more than a few have been) removed from office.
Semantics. Bad behavior is in the eye of the beholder, and rarely has a partisan Congress acted upon that. That's why Clarence Thomas is still on the court.
That's an offensive and disrespectful reply. The Constitution has a lot of flaws. (Here's another. Two senators per state creating the most malapportioned legislative body in the world.)
Am I supposed to accept all of the constitution as divinely inspired and exceptional? If as a judge or justice, you're never confronted in a systematic way with bad behavior, you have a lifetime appointment. Example (again): Clarence Thomas
Where did "accept" or "divinely inspired" come from? Not from me. But "exceptional," most certainly. And "lifetime appointment," most certainly not.
Don't take it personally. I was making fun of Judge Kacsmaryk, not you. I am sorry that I offended you.
Seriously, I appreciate your link to the piece about SCOTUS Justice Chase's impeachment, and I agree with your point that politicians treating impeachment as political is why it does very little to protect us from people abusing power. And since you brought it up . . .
One of the worst myths about Justice Chase's impeachment was that "A Federalist, Chase [merely] irked Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies in Congress, and was impeached on [merely] politically motivated charges of acting in a partisan manner during several trials."
Justice Chase should have been convicted by the Senate, removed from office, tried in criminal court, and sentenced to prison for committing the same crime he was responsible for sentencing others for purportedly committing. He helped convict and imprison people under Section 2 of the Sedition Act of 1798 by blatantly, viciously and knowingly violating the express provisions of Section 2.
With his own words and deeds, Justice Chase abused his position and powers to clearly commit the crimes in Section 1 of the same Act. But he was saved by politicians being politicians--protecting people in power (because guess who abuses power). I'm sorry to say that the conduct of the federal judges we're discussing now reminds me of Justice Chase's abuses of power.
What these judges have done is so blatantly and viciously unconstitutional that it is time that we (the people) put tyranny on trial. So I'm now offering those judges a $1 million reward to prove that their threat was not unconstitutional and prove that making good on their threat would not be unconstitutional. This was their threat:
"Recent events demonstrate that ideological homogeneity throughout the entire institution of Columbia has destroyed its ability to train future leaders of a pluralistic and intellectually diverse country." "Considering recent events, and absent extraordinary change, we will not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community—whether as undergraduates or law students—beginning with the entering class of 2024."
This is my offer: a $1 million reward if any judge on that letter (or all together) can prove (consistent with our Constitution, SCOTUS precedent and federal law) that the U.S. Constitution permits federal judges to use a federal court to do what those judges did and what they said they intend to do. Any judge who wishes to accept my offer, must state such intention by May 15, 2024 in writing by email using his or her official court email account to courts@amicuslaw.us. To qualify to earn said reward, a judge who has accepted this offer by May 15 must provide their proof (by the same means as stated for acceptance of this offer) by July 4, 2024. The marketplace of ideas is open.
"Do the judges have any evidence that Columbia treats some groups of protestors differently than others? Nope!" It's scary when judges make decisions that aren't based on evidence and facts. But, this is typical among MAGA conservatives. The judges also need to remember that the students will be around long after they're off the bench and they're actually providing proof that students need to vote for people who are in favor of a diverse society.
You were treated to a rare, transparent, compelling example of how federal judges (individually and in a gang) abuse their powers to make decisions about the lives, liberty and property of the people they think they have the power to victimize. Ignoring what you saw is pretending the naked emperor is wearing rich robes.
dear lords and little fishes. Watch the judiciary promote guilt by association to a major legal principle.
"Your honor, we have no evidence that Defendant X participated in the fraud of Defendant Y. But he lives in the same zip code. I move for summary judgement against him." "Granted."
I wish the judges weren't so stupid with their blatant partisanship behavior. I guess they want the citizens to lose faith in the justice system.... but for whose benefit? How does that help them other than sending a signal that they want to destroy our government?
In a May 9 comment below I offered a $1 million reward for information from the gang of federal judges who publicly sought to intimidate and injure current students, faculty and administration of at least one university (including by threatening to retaliate against future students) because of their thoughts and speech. I offered the same reward elsewhere. See, e.g., https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/a-1-million-reward-for-information?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web. Any judge who wanted the opportunity to earn said reward needed only to notify me by email by May 15. No judge even sent any such email. I have seen nothing that even permits me to believe that any judge whose name is on their May 6 letter actually even believes their conduct did not clearly violate our Constitution.
I feel like I’m the only one saying this but it bears repeating. A lot of these same right wingers crying about campus antisemitism believe the following: Jewish people who don’t convert to their brand of Christianity are doomed with the rest of us. They will get raptured. The rest of us will be left to suffer horribly during the tribulations. And when Jesus comes back he’ll wipe out the rest of the Jewish population.
These aren’t secret beliefs! Hate preacher John Hagee, who endorsed John McCain back in the day, & who has a tv show on Christian networks, started CUFI. Christians United for Israel. With the intention of purposefully fomenting religious tension in Israel so Jesus will come back faster. He is very open about Jesus killing Jewish people who don’t convert. Hagee isn’t the only one! This is easily searchable information.
If you’re only befriending Jewish people to convert them with the belief they’ll later suffer & die if they don’t, you’re purposefully working to make that suffering & death happen, well that sounds pretty anti-freaking-semetic to me!
The Conservative judges feel emboldened by their lifetime appointments. Lifetime appointments are another Founders' error. It's such a mistake that R majority AZ legislators want to institute the same lifetime appointments for judges in Arizona. Currently AZ judges are retained by the votes of the people either every four or six years. Republican lawmakers are planning to put a referendum on the ballot to propose lifetime appointments for judges and justices. Two state Supreme court justices who voted to implement the 1864 abortion ban are up for retention in November. If the Republicans' ballot measure passes, it would be retroactive, in case Arizonans vote to oust those two justices.
Republicans are authoritarians. There's no debate. I bet none of those students at the protests at Columbia would even want to clerk for those reactionaries.
Nothing at all against you, but you highlighted one of the worst scams in constitutional history. No federal judge whatsoever was given a "lifetime appointment." No judge can even hope to begin to prove any federal judge was given lifetime tenure. Article III of the Constitution (which was written and ratified by "We the People" to "secure Justice") said merely that judges may hold their offices "during good behaviour" (so they may use their offices for good behavior). In no way was "during good behaviour" or "during good behavior" meant (by anyone with any integrity and sense of the meanness of people with power) to mean "for life."
"We the People" wrote and ratified our Constitution to "secure Justice" by requiring good behavior of those who call themselves our judges. And to ensure judges do behave themselves (and to ensure they can be removed for bad behavior), we made Congress the judge of judges. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate is exactly how judges may be (and more than a few have been) removed from office.
Semantics. Bad behavior is in the eye of the beholder, and rarely has a partisan Congress acted upon that. That's why Clarence Thomas is still on the court.
https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached
Semantics, is it? Is that the sum of your thoughts about our written Constitution?
Patt . . . Matt. Constitution . . . semantics. You're not Judge Matt Kacsmaryk (one of the infamous judges on the infamous letter), are you?
That's an offensive and disrespectful reply. The Constitution has a lot of flaws. (Here's another. Two senators per state creating the most malapportioned legislative body in the world.)
Am I supposed to accept all of the constitution as divinely inspired and exceptional? If as a judge or justice, you're never confronted in a systematic way with bad behavior, you have a lifetime appointment. Example (again): Clarence Thomas
Where did "accept" or "divinely inspired" come from? Not from me. But "exceptional," most certainly. And "lifetime appointment," most certainly not.
Don't take it personally. I was making fun of Judge Kacsmaryk, not you. I am sorry that I offended you.
Seriously, I appreciate your link to the piece about SCOTUS Justice Chase's impeachment, and I agree with your point that politicians treating impeachment as political is why it does very little to protect us from people abusing power. And since you brought it up . . .
One of the worst myths about Justice Chase's impeachment was that "A Federalist, Chase [merely] irked Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies in Congress, and was impeached on [merely] politically motivated charges of acting in a partisan manner during several trials."
Justice Chase should have been convicted by the Senate, removed from office, tried in criminal court, and sentenced to prison for committing the same crime he was responsible for sentencing others for purportedly committing. He helped convict and imprison people under Section 2 of the Sedition Act of 1798 by blatantly, viciously and knowingly violating the express provisions of Section 2.
With his own words and deeds, Justice Chase abused his position and powers to clearly commit the crimes in Section 1 of the same Act. But he was saved by politicians being politicians--protecting people in power (because guess who abuses power). I'm sorry to say that the conduct of the federal judges we're discussing now reminds me of Justice Chase's abuses of power.
This is an eye-opening article. Very well-written and backed up with facts that are easy to understand. Well done.
What these judges have done is so blatantly and viciously unconstitutional that it is time that we (the people) put tyranny on trial. So I'm now offering those judges a $1 million reward to prove that their threat was not unconstitutional and prove that making good on their threat would not be unconstitutional. This was their threat:
"Recent events demonstrate that ideological homogeneity throughout the entire institution of Columbia has destroyed its ability to train future leaders of a pluralistic and intellectually diverse country." "Considering recent events, and absent extraordinary change, we will not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community—whether as undergraduates or law students—beginning with the entering class of 2024."
This is my offer: a $1 million reward if any judge on that letter (or all together) can prove (consistent with our Constitution, SCOTUS precedent and federal law) that the U.S. Constitution permits federal judges to use a federal court to do what those judges did and what they said they intend to do. Any judge who wishes to accept my offer, must state such intention by May 15, 2024 in writing by email using his or her official court email account to courts@amicuslaw.us. To qualify to earn said reward, a judge who has accepted this offer by May 15 must provide their proof (by the same means as stated for acceptance of this offer) by July 4, 2024. The marketplace of ideas is open.
"Do the judges have any evidence that Columbia treats some groups of protestors differently than others? Nope!" It's scary when judges make decisions that aren't based on evidence and facts. But, this is typical among MAGA conservatives. The judges also need to remember that the students will be around long after they're off the bench and they're actually providing proof that students need to vote for people who are in favor of a diverse society.
Any list including "torture" James Ho and lunatic Matthew Kacsmaryk really should just be ignored.
You were treated to a rare, transparent, compelling example of how federal judges (individually and in a gang) abuse their powers to make decisions about the lives, liberty and property of the people they think they have the power to victimize. Ignoring what you saw is pretending the naked emperor is wearing rich robes.
dear lords and little fishes. Watch the judiciary promote guilt by association to a major legal principle.
"Your honor, we have no evidence that Defendant X participated in the fraud of Defendant Y. But he lives in the same zip code. I move for summary judgement against him." "Granted."
I wish the judges weren't so stupid with their blatant partisanship behavior. I guess they want the citizens to lose faith in the justice system.... but for whose benefit? How does that help them other than sending a signal that they want to destroy our government?
In a May 9 comment below I offered a $1 million reward for information from the gang of federal judges who publicly sought to intimidate and injure current students, faculty and administration of at least one university (including by threatening to retaliate against future students) because of their thoughts and speech. I offered the same reward elsewhere. See, e.g., https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/a-1-million-reward-for-information?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web. Any judge who wanted the opportunity to earn said reward needed only to notify me by email by May 15. No judge even sent any such email. I have seen nothing that even permits me to believe that any judge whose name is on their May 6 letter actually even believes their conduct did not clearly violate our Constitution.