• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 01:35 PM
    The Frito Bandito got tossed years ago (Mel Blanc did his voice, too).
    9 replies | 217 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 01:30 PM
    What specifically should the feds have done?
    16 replies | 232 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    03-04-2021, 06:44 PM
    That aspect of The License Tax Cases has been overruled by numerous later SCOTUS cases. Lopez didn't involve economic activity but rather the validity of a criminal law prohibiting the posession of a handgun close to a school.
    8 replies | 256 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    03-04-2021, 06:36 PM
    I was talking about what the law IS, not about what someone thinks it SHOULD be. Incidentally, given your quote from Justice Black you should be informed that he concurred in the decisions in both Heart of Atlanta Motel and McClung. From his concurring opinion in the former:
    8 replies | 256 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    03-04-2021, 02:39 PM
    The authority for 1964 Civil Rights Act was the Commerce Clause. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Your use of the term "sexual deviant conduct" is as Humpty Dumptyish as anything. At one time I suspect that anything other than the use of the missionary position by married couples was deemed deviant, but times have changed.
    8 replies | 256 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    03-01-2021, 11:36 AM
    This is to be expected when Congress increases the IRS's duties and cuts its budget.
    10 replies | 259 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-28-2021, 10:31 AM
    You missed the point. Who is to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of a State's law, its own Supreme Court or SCOTUS? If you say SCOTUS, then you have given it the sweeping power to determine local law in every State. We're not talking about SCOTUS ruling that the federal Constitution or a federal statute trumps a State's own law, but rather SCOTUS substituting its own judgment for that of the State's highest court on a point of state law. I didn't realize you disliked federalism so much.
    47 replies | 2142 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 05:20 PM
    Not quite. The meaning of the clause may have been to insure a State didn't become a monarchy and to protect the States against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. See https://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation18.html#f321 Would you really want the federal government, instead of local officials, to decide whether a State is abiding by its own laws? Suppose the PA Supreme Court hadn't extended the date for receiving mail-in ballots -- would you seriously want SCOTUS to be able to reverse the decision and rule the same way the PA Supreme Court actually did (i.e., that the extension was warranted by the PA constitution)? In any event, SCOTUS held in 1849 that questions arising under the clause are political, not justiciable, and that that ''it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.'' Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 42 (1849).
    47 replies | 2142 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 09:54 AM
    It's quite clear you know nothing about the law of standing. Neither Texas nor its voters were disenfranchised or otherwise harmed by some other State's conduct of its election, and your continued parroting of dicta from irrelevant cases won't change that fact. Even if you assume that the PA electoral votes weren't chosen in accordance with the rules set down by its legislature and that this amounts to a violation of the Constitution analogous to a breach of contract, neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated how Texas or its voters were harmed or suffered any damage as a result of this alleged violation, especially in light of the fact that Biden would still have won if all of the mail-in ballots received after the statutory deadline had not been counted. In essence, you and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch want SCOTUS to render an advisory opinion to govern future elections, not the one just held. But SCOTUS has refused to give advisory opinions ever since President Washington asked it to do so in 1793, and it shouldn't start now.
    47 replies | 2142 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 09:59 AM
    Texas voters weren't disenfranchised at all. Their votes were counted to determine who Texas's electors would be, which is all they were entitled to.* Just as they have no right to vote for Pennsylvania's electors, they have no right to complain about how PA's electors were chosen. None of the dicta you cited bears on the issue of Texas's standing. Moreover, the interdependence argument goes too far; it would permit one State to complain about another State's violation of any other constitutional provision, not just that dealing with presidential electors. For example, California could sue Texas alleging that some law on the latter's books violates Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech, Press, or Free Exercise of Religion, or the Establishment Clause. Is that really what you want? * Of course, their votes may not have been properly counted, since Texas Governor Abbott unilaterally opened the absentee voting period early in violation of state law, something pot-calling-the-kettle-black AG Ken Paxton somehow failed to mention in his suit.
    47 replies | 2142 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-23-2021, 02:13 PM
    The Constitution doesn't prohibit laws against libel, slander, or inciting a riot, and it most certainly doesn't prohibit laws against gathering together and storming the Capitol.
    107 replies | 2882 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-23-2021, 02:02 PM
    If you have the power to control property you will be treated as posessing it even though you don't have actual physical possession. Example: you're sued in a civil case and are served with a subpoena requiring you to turn over copies of certain business records in your posession. You don't actually have them in your possession because you gave them to your CPA. But you have the power to have your CPA return them to you. You can't refuse to comply with the subpoena on the grounds that the records aren't in your physical possession because you're treated as if they were. Any other result would be nonsensical.
    55 replies | 1511 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-20-2021, 03:41 PM
    Looks like these clowns are trying to do to literature what the idiots in Oregon are doing to mathematics: https://disrupttexts.org/2018/10/25/5-disrupting-shakespeare/ So let me get this straight: Shakespeare has no more and no less literary merit than any other playwright? Sheer insanity.
    107 replies | 2882 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-18-2021, 04:58 PM
    Please tell me this is from The Onion.
    107 replies | 2882 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-16-2021, 04:45 PM
    Playing the race card is no substitute for rational debate. I do not care to engage with intellectual cowards.
    19 replies | 842 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-15-2021, 05:07 PM
    How is it racist to point out the absurdity of the nullification argument? You may not be old enough to remember the reaction to the Brown decision, but it was precisely as I described it. Southern officials complained that the Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds and violated the 10th Amendment. "Impeach Earl Warren!" signs proliferated (never mind it was a unanimous decision). Demagogues like Faubus and Wallace held sway -- the former sent Arkansas National Guardsmen to block the integration of Little Rock's Central High School, while the latter attempted to prevent the integration at the University of Alabama. They, too, believed in nullification. The notion of nullification as a legal principle has been firmly rejected. In the only reported instance of a Supreme Court decision authored by all nine Justices the Court stated:
    19 replies | 842 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-15-2021, 12:11 PM
    67 years ago, the same kind of argument was made about a different issue. It went like this: "The left would have us believe that outlawing racial segregation in public schools is the 'law of the land', but Brown v. Board of Education was a Supreme Court decision, and the last time I checked the Constitution, courts do not make law. Can someone show me where the Constitution allows the federal government to tell local school boards how to run their schools?" So were States entitled to nullify the Brown decision if they thought it wasn't supported by the Constitution? Many tried, notably Arkansas and Alabama. Are Orval Faubus and George Wallace heroes in LTC West's eyes? Once you grant that a State can determine for itself whether its actions violate the Constitution you can kiss the Constitution's prohibitions against the States goodbye, because they would be rendered meaningless.
    19 replies | 842 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-11-2021, 01:25 PM
    "I was just following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg, and it shouldn't work for the goons who stormed the Capitol.
    205 replies | 7149 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-11-2021, 01:22 PM
    Which is precisely what Trump did. He started well before the election when he began claiming that the only way he could lose is if the election were rigged. At the time his approval rating was only 42%.
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-11-2021, 10:07 AM
    Leahy isn't judge, jury, and proseutor. As trhe presiding officer he has little if any power over the proceedings, since any ruling he makes can be overridden by a majority of the Senators. There's an interesting twist on whether Roberts must preside. He's not constitutionally required to do so because impeachment and trial are separate matters. Trump was President when he was impeached but the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside only when the President is tried, which is not the case with Trump. However, Senate Rule IV provides that when the President is impeached the Chief Justice will preside. This raises a Separation of Powers issue: how can the Senate require the Chief Justice to preside absent a constitutional requirement? It can't. However, the point may be academic, as it seems that a majority of the Senate could vote to amend Rule IV to refer to the President's being tried instead of having been impeached.
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-10-2021, 12:48 PM
    If I were served Pearl beer I'd be offended. The only time I drank it was at a favorite bar that served pitchers only with Pearl or Lone Star. Pearl was the lesser of two evils.
    18 replies | 541 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-10-2021, 11:09 AM
    The issue of whether a former federal official can be impeached and tried has arisen before. In 1876 Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached after he resigned by a unanimous House vote, and in his Senate trial a majority, but less than the necessary two-thirds, voted for conviction. The only practical reason for impeaching and trying him after he left office would have been to make sure he could never again serve as a federal official.
    205 replies | 7149 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-10-2021, 08:15 AM
    Yet this ban is a permissible punishment under the Constitution. So your beef is really with the Founding Fathers.
    205 replies | 7149 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-09-2021, 08:06 PM
    The kinds of horrible acts I had in mind are those that would constitute an abuse of office but that might not be criminal or if they were arguably criminal would be very difficult to prosecute in a civilian setting. Things like pardoning political cronies who were convicted on overwhelming evidence for acts anyone would agree were crimes.
    205 replies | 7149 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-09-2021, 04:44 PM
    The counterargument is that Trump was impeached while he was President and that his trial shouldn't be abated simply because he's no longer in office. Otherwise, a President could commit all kinds of horrible acts just before his term expires and not risk the sanction of being forever disqualified from holding a federal office.
    205 replies | 7149 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-09-2021, 04:36 PM
    The legal answer is likely the same as the practical one: it's constitutional if the Senate says it is. The Supreme Court would likely never get involved in determining the issue based on the majority opinion in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), involving the impeachment of federal judge Walter Nixon. Six justices were of the opinion that since the Constitution gives the Senate "the sole power to try all impeachments" issues involving impeachment trials are not reviewable by the judiciary.
    10 replies | 376 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-09-2021, 02:52 PM
    There aren't enough Republican Senators with the cojones to find Trump guilty.
    205 replies | 7149 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-08-2021, 04:46 PM
    Of course not. My point was that it had nothing to do with Schumer's outburst, which happened much later. You need to pay attention: I was responding to posts that were claiming that Schumer's speech deserved impeachment. But it didn't incite anything.
    29 replies | 1334 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-08-2021, 11:23 AM
    The pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court occurred in October 2018, 17 months before Schumer's speech. The bomb threat occurred last month, ten and a half months after Schumer's speech.
    29 replies | 1334 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    02-08-2021, 09:52 AM
    Apples and oranges. Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection. Schumer didn't incite anything except the expulsion of a lot of hot air.
    29 replies | 1334 view(s)
More Activity
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,154
Posts Per Day
0.67
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:35 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

01-26-2021


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 59 1231151 ... LastLast

03-07-2021


03-04-2021


03-01-2021


02-28-2021


02-26-2021


02-25-2021


02-24-2021


02-23-2021


02-20-2021


02-18-2021


02-16-2021


02-15-2021


02-11-2021


02-10-2021


02-09-2021



Page 1 of 59 1231151 ... LastLast