I was just censured on Twitter for the first time ever for saying "tarred and feathered"! I believe my First Amendment Freedom of Speech has been violated.
Okay, here's what happened:
Only moments ago, I finished reading https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4764675-the-supreme-court-ignored-alexander-hamiltons-point-about-executive-power/ and I was incensed by the arrogance and ignorance of our current Supreme Court. Well, some of them, anyway. No way would Ruth Bader Ginsburg have done to our country what Justice John Roberts just did a week ago.
You must read this article!!! I mean, gee, do you even know who Alexander Hamilton is?? This supreme court has committed a grave injustice against the United States by giving Donald Trump "presidential immunity" pursuant to his Trump v. United States case. I cannot in any good conscience consider for an instant that the SCOTUS ruling was fair, just, honorable in any way, shape, or form. It is tantamount to treason.
So, I posted the article on X and dared any Republican backing Trump for the presidency to read it and affirm their accountability when he takes our great nation down that damnable road. Then I found Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's X account and saw that she is pushing to expose and punish the self-serving treachery of the Supreme Court, targeting primarily Alito and Thomas for taking bribes. Could they have been bribed to vote in favor of Trump's demands? We are in serious trouble if that is true.
Anyway, I wrote something on AOC's account to the effect that Justice Roberts and his gang of thieves should be tarred and feathered. Oops. Twitter kicked me off for my violent language. Good grief.
If I can be kicked off X for something as innocuous as tarring and feathering a bunch of arrogant and ignorant judges, then all those judges ought to be kicked off the Supreme Court. What they decided before heading home last week was far far worse.
In The New York Times Opinion Round Table article "'The Justices Dropped This Bomb': Three Legal Experts on a Shocking Supreme Court Term" dated July 11, 2024, William Baude, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School wrote "As someone who rarely agrees with Justice Sotomayor, I found [her dissent in the Trump vs United States case] really powerful."
Okay--you have to read Justice Sotomayor's dissent. It IS powerful. It's also 29 pages long. Here's the seven-word gist of it: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent." Furthermore, she said, "Even if ... nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law." Please read the dissent before you dismiss her words. Alexander Hamilton couldn't have said it better himself.
At the end of the same article, Kate Shaw, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens, asked: "If a close election in the fall comes down to litigation in one or two outcome-determinative states, should the public trust that the [Supreme] court will decide the case with 'clear heads' and 'honest hearts'?"
To which Mr. Baude replied, "I hope so."
To which Ms. Shaw responded, "Now I'm even more worried."
Comments