In their podcast today, lawyer Mark Geragos and pundit Adam Carolla, discussed the insanity that has been occurring in California throughout 2020.
[This] is a tipping point for the Constitution. I know people think, “Oh, what are you talking about?” We have jumped the shark constitutionally here. If you’re not alarmed by what’s happening, then you’re asleep or you’ve been medicated because there is something fundamentally wrong here. If you don’t think that this is a blueprint for shutting you down with others in the future then you’re crazy. This is how tyranny starts. You can laugh and say “Oh outdoor dining tyranny”. No, you morons, it’s the idea of basically declaring martial law and using a pretext. This has been going for 9 months, going on for a year. Enough already. This is nonsense. Not in America, it doesn’t happen. — Mark Geragos
Only if you live in California, please sign the petition to recall Gavin Newsom.
I got to 2 minutes when Adam Carolla decided to clip his nails while Gerogos remembered his recently deceased mother. I like Carolla but I mean come on
Ask Corolla for the time he’ll tell you how to build a clock. And it’s why I stopped listening to his podcast. Holy Shit!!! After he interrupts his guest he’ll take five minutes to say something that can be said in 30 seconds.
Lotta folks like the sound of their own voice so much it’s all they want to hear.
Recall? That’s just another election they can rig to taste.
No. A few good men with guns need to insist on petitioning the Governor for redress of grievances in person—and to demand he step aside in favour of someone prepared to treat the Constitution as something other than a cruel joke, on pain of being used for target practice if he refuses.
The only thing that will make your typical globalist politician do the decent thing is a credible threat of a painful death if he doesn’t do it.
The President needs to have a few good men do the same damn thing to the democrat party and the scotus.
I guess basically that is what it comes down to we are under martial law because we are under the governments thumb, anyone as pissed off as I am? Is anyone pissed enough to take action? The answer to that of course is no, because most Canadians are brain dead sheep.
Bread and circuses will do that to a people.
We in the western world have been gleefully ceding increasing amounts of freedom and power to the government for 100 years now. I’d like to believe it’s going to change, but it seems to me the problem is the large number of people who think they’re part of the control mob. Might take a bit of work/mostly peaceful protests to convince them to leave us alone.
Didn’t listen to this podcast but I’ll go one step further. I understand the supreme court has refused to hear Trump and 18 states claim that the election in several states. It is obvious that there was fraud and cheating in the Nov election and if the court won’t get involved they are basically saying that election fraud is acceptable behaviour, now and in the future. One step further, if this continues democracy in the western nations is all but gone and other then by civil war it won’t be coming back.
” . . . if the court won’t get involved they are basically saying that election fraud is acceptable behaviour . . .”
What the court said is that the complaint, as filed, was not a federal matter. SCOTUS does not hear murder cases either. That doesn’t mean that murder is an acceptable behavior.
Contrary to popular conception the elections of November 3 were not federal elections, they were state elections. The federal election takes place on December 14 in the Electoral College. The state elections are for the purpose of selecting state representatives to the college. That selection is entirely the purview of the state legislatures which no court has the authority to gainsay.
I’m waiting for the NFL to follow the same structure (reposted from this morning).
NFL leadership has agreed that the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Atlanta Falcons, the Detroit Lions, and the Arizona Cardinals have the home-team only ability to re-define the points system during a game. This ruling comes about after the Houston Texans appealed the on-field referee’s decision to allow an overtime quarter after all Texan players had left the statium at the end of regulation time and what they thought was an overwhelming victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers. During the overtime quarter, the combination of the lack of any Texan defense, and multiple penalties applied against due to not starting plays within 10 seconds according to the game clock (causing a 1 point loss for each infraction, per the Steeler’s in-game rules change), caused what had appeared to be a 40-12 smackdown by the Texans to become a 31-35 loss for Houston.
The NFL leadership rules committee refused to hear the Texan case, despite support of 20 other teams in noting that in-game rules changes are outlawed by the league charter.
If those who issue rulings on the rules refuse to do their job and keep the rules even/equal for all, then there’s no point in playing the game anymore. If the rules can be changed arbitrarily in contravention of the rules committee, then the same.
Well, that analogy has no bearing on the filing to the Supreme Court, they ref the Superbowl, not the playoffs.
Trump just lost his Wisconsin suit because the judge (a Trump appointee) ruled that the rules changes were allowed by the charter. There is actually no league requirement that the rules be even/equal for all. I’ll also note that the teams are not members of the league. They are private entrants.
The charter states that the refs make the rules. Historically they have simply declared the winner without even the game being played, since they made that method the rules.
And I note that the NFL only exists because it doesn’t have to follow the rules other businesses do. If it did it would be an organized crime gang. So basically it is an organized crime gang that has been granted immunity from prosecution.
The laws are what they are, not we think they ought to be, and most people haven’t got half a clue what the laws are in the first place.
It’s the lead-in to the Superbowl, ensuring that no team like the Texans can make the final game by ensuring that a large number of home games are fixed to cause losses. If no non-cheating team can make the finals, than that guarantees that a cheating team will win.
The laws are what they are, not we think they ought to be…. That’s not what the state’s constitutions say. There is a process for changing the system, “the refs make the rules” is not it, and that process was not followed. Challenges before weren’t allowed because no-one was impacted yet. Challenges after aren’t allowed because it’s too late / lack of standing.
And I note that the NFL only exists because it doesn’t have to follow the rules other businesses do. If it did it would be an organized crime gang. This is shown false by the number of alternative leagues that have sprung up over the years only to die when they couldn’t get a solid enough following. If they really were organized crime then TV stations would be forced to show them, locals would be forced to buy stadiums for them (OK, I’ll give you that one), every citizen of their home cities would be marched to the stadium at gunpoint and forced to buy tickets, and the winner of every game would be pre-set before the games were played. Kinda like how this election is turning out.
kfg, it’s a constitutional matter, so yes, the SCOTUS has an obligation to take the case, all constitutional matters that effect the entire country are within their purview.
Tell it to the 7 of 9 who rejected that argument. The written dissent was that they were obligated to take the case, but also said that was not to imply that he thought the case had merit.
I’m not saying I agree, I’m explaining what went on in the court, which most people are mischaracterizing, but note that electoral fraud, in and of itself, is not a federal constitutional matter. The fraud must particularly violate a term of that constitution.
Now I’m expressing my opinion: I do not believe that the dissenting judges would have accepted the argument that elections in a state are a matter of complaint for another state simply because of effect on the complainant. They would have heard it, but not accepted it.
It is also my opinion that the failure was not of the federal court, but of the state legislatures who had plenary authority on the matter, but were pussies.
OK Confession. I am a Brit, and patriotic Canadian. I have never seen this Brit guy before. Who is he and what is his purpose? How does he profess to know so much?