Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Bad news for GOP: Pennsylvania Supreme Court tosses state’s congressional maps

Bad news for GOP: Pennsylvania Supreme Court tosses state’s congressional maps

It is difficult to exaggerate how damaging this ruling is to the GOP chances of holding the House.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File:Pennsylvania_Congressional_Districts,_113th_Congress.tif

The GOP may have just lost as many as four seats in the House—certainly at least one.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled, by a vote of 5–2, that the state’s congressional districts amounted to an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

And here’s an even greater shock— the PA Supreme Court just so happens to have five Democrats and two Republicans.

Because only a brief order has been released, it is unclear what the exact legal reasoning will be. We’ll have to wait for the full opinion to find that out. For now, the court has just said that the “Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, on that sole basis, we hereby strike it as unconstitutional.”

Based on the briefs filed by the challengers, the opinion will probably hold that gerrymandering violates free speech or “equal elections” provisions of the PA Constitution.

But the reasoning doesn’t matter all that much because, as the court went out of its way to emphasize in today’s filing, the ruling rests on the “sole basis” of the “Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” In other words, it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will review this decision, since federal courts cannot challenge a state court’s interpretation of state law.

The court also directed the legislature to “submit a congressional districting plan that satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution…for consideration by the Governor on or before February 9, 2018.” If the Democratic Governor Tom Wolf doesn’t approve it before February 15, then—wait for it—the PA Supreme Court itself will then “proceed expeditiously to adopt a plan” to redistrict before the 2018 midterms.

It is difficult to exaggerate how damaging this ruling is to the GOP.

Democrats need to win a net of 23 seats to take back the House. This decision may hand them 3 or 4 right off the bat.

There is no doubt that Pennsylvania is gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. I have little sympathy for partisan gerrymandering and would like to see it abolished, but the way to accomplish that is either with districts drawn by computer algorithms or by independent commissions.

But here is what happened in Pennsylvania: in 2015 Democrats won three supreme court vacancies in a clean sweep, ending the Republican majority. Democratic organizations, like the League of Women Voters that spearheaded the lawsuit in this case, realized they could exploit the results to circumvent the legislature and get a new map, all while never setting foot in a federal courthouse.

Republican legislators have pledged to seek a stay from SCOTUS, but legal pundits think such an endeavor is a pipe dream. Mark Joseph Stern at Slate writes that the decision is “almost entirely immune from review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“This case was designed from the get-go to get to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and no further,” Justin Levitt, an election-law scholar and associate dean at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told the New York Times. “There are one or two exceedingly long-shot ways that Republicans might attempt to get this in front of the Supreme Court. But I would not lay odds on that.”

That’s because while Congressional representatives are obviously members of the federal government, this fact alone is probably insufficient to trigger SCOTUS review. For the justices to assert jurisdiction, they would have to find that the case implicates federal law.

Rick Hasan at the Election Law Blog notes that the most likely federal question would arise under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the [state] Legislature.” Pennsylvania lawmakers could argue that the court’s decision effectively stripped them of that federally-guaranteed power.

A similar argument was advanced with respect to presidential electors by Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in Bush v. Gore. The trio argued that the Florida Supreme Court had interpreted state law so unreasonably as to violate Article II’s requirement that the electors be appointed in a “Manner as the Legislature…may direct.”

Again, this argument isn’t likely to gather steam.

As Mark Harris, a Republican consultant in Pennsylvania lamented, “There doesn’t appear that there’s much recourse, so we’re just hosed.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It just goes to further the belief now that the Judicial Branch is simply the third political branch of government, one that can be used to trump the other two.

the idea of an “independent” judiciary is dead.

The sake of argument, let’s assume a partisan state supreme court issues a bogus ruling that hands Democrats the house so that they may impeach the president on bogus charges, with the GOPe Senate sentencing removal of Donald Trump from office.

Line that up with recent evidence of systemic corruption within the FBI and DOJ… along with deep State activities among entrenched bureaucrats.

Do you still have faith in the rule of law?

Where is the line for you? Is there a line at all? At any point does a legal insurrection recognize the need for extra legal direct action? Or do you just give up, under a morally understandable position we will not taint the Republic by using dark methods to save it?

I’m not really looking for a correct answer. I’m not going to judge. I just always assumed we would try every available opportunity that was within the law BUT AT A CERTAIN POINT, if given no other choice we would pick up a rifle. And now cursing me that may not be true.

It’s now occurring to me that may not be true.

I’ve asked a question before from our experts and kind of gotten the runaround. If a legal Insurrection fails, if your President is removed by an Establishment Coup aided by a corrupt FBI and DOJ… what options do you see left on the table?

    Edward in reply to Fen. | January 23, 2018 at 9:20 am

    As a young person I never gave much thought to any possibility of actual widespread insurrection. Then I was one of the troops ordered to pack our “stuff”, draw our weapons and stand by for further orders on 22 November 1963. It occurred to me that there were more than sufficient citizens who would take up arms, but insurrection was very unlikely as most people weren’t upset with our government. Fast forward a few decades and I’m no longer young and I’m no longer confident that there are more than sufficient citizens who would turn off the reality TV, get off the couch and take up arms to return the country to the Founders vision of a representative Republic. Heck, most won’t even bother to vote to try and change things.

      Shane in reply to Edward. | January 23, 2018 at 12:42 pm

      I think you would be surprised. Pessimism is endemic of being older (not a bad thing). There are many, don’t believe me … one word … Trump.

And yes to be clear, I define direct action as 100,000 armed civilians marching on Capitol Hill pulling people out of their opposites and executing them. While the rest of the country hangs every Marxist they can find. Something along those lines.

Is there ever anything that would warrant that? Or do we just start writing books for our grandkids about the good old days

    rdmdawg in reply to Fen. | January 23, 2018 at 7:57 am

    Hell, yeah, the second amendment is absolutely our ‘insurance policy’ against a tyrannical government. That’s the reason Democrats are so against it.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | January 23, 2018 at 8:12 am

    “…100,000 armed civilians marching on Capitol Hill pulling people out of their opposites and executing them. While the rest of the country hangs every Marxist they can find.”

    Another of your murder fantasies. And a true Jacobin one, at that.

    The Second Amendment gives us the right to fight a tyranical government…on any level, local, state or central. I NEVER would justify your wet-dream of committing wholesale murder.

    Plus, as noted here many times, we have a tool our revolutionary founders did not have; civil disobedience. The government cannot survive without our support.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2018 at 9:38 am

      And a true Jacobin one, at that. Morris, you getting better, but remember “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

      I think a safer way to sort this whole thing out is with elections. It has worked for over 200 years, no reason to think it still will not work.

      All politics is local. Green will win over when they see that the economy is finally working. When I have diehard democrats tell me their 401 K’s are up by 15%, they are really changing their tune.

      Go away Rag. It’s a serious question and important to me to hear what the Prof or his minions think, as I have put faith in their judgement to remain inside the Rule of Law, and that Faith has moderated my position into “Yes, once I’m done venting and consider the Prof’s sober analysis I grudgingly agree that it’s wiser to change the system by acting within the boundaries set by civilized society.” I have been a patient follower of his philosophy. “YES Prof I will trust in your obvious logic and try it your way.”

      But I am still curious what path he advises if his way fails.
      I am asking where his line in the sand is. I’m asking if there is even such a line in his approach.

      Note that I even granted it was a morally defensible position to not save the Republic if the only way to do so would betray it’s founding principles.

      But I am hungry for an answer to this dilemma. If I follow his legal Insurrection and stay true to the rule of law, what comes after if that path fails because our enemies are operating outside and above the rule of law.

      I wouldn’t expect you to understand, this conversation is over your head. You’re a petty little man who would rather score cheap shots off some silly Grudge you have while the world burns down around you.

      Have another drink Ahab, and go away from me.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | January 23, 2018 at 10:29 am

        Oh, I see the walk-back, nutter. It was NOT a “serious question”. Not anymore than your previous murder fantasies were “metaphor”. You’re a liar, and seriously nuts.

        What I wrote is something that…once again…identified your murder fantasies AND suggested a sound option to armed insurrection.

        You can’t deal with the latter, and you will try to lie about the former. But I can easily document the former.

          No Rag, it’s not a walk back. I was laying out in very stark terms what direct action would look like. Again reading comprehension, obviously not a prereq for the Sally Struthers School of Law.

          Now go away. You are boring. You can’t even muster a decent counter. I feel like I’m picking on a crippled person.

          And honestly, if you believe tyranny is going to announce itself with goose-stepping Marxist in the Public Square, you are useless.

          It’s going to come at you sideways, soft and smiling. Not Stalin but Delores Umbridge from that Harry Potter movie. Obviously evil men in with Red Guard cloaks will not appear. If that’s what you’re waiting on before you consider invoking the 2nd, well… I wonder how long it will take before you realize you’re in a labor camp.

          You’re the guy who frowns over the chessboard oblivious that the game was lost 10 moves ago.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2018 at 11:03 am

          Bullshit, liar. This is like fantasizing about throwing a brick through a store window because they somehow offended your puuuurrrrrr victimized snowflake self.

          That’s not a “metaphor”. It’s a pitiful dream of toxic cowardice.

          IFFFFFF you wanted to pose a scenario to lead to a question of when, and under what circumstances, an armed insurrection would be justified, you could easily have suggested one that die not involve outright murder. But that’s how your “mind” works.

        Mac45 in reply to Fen. | January 23, 2018 at 11:27 am

        The Founders of this Nation exhausted every single avenue of non-violent action in the colonies’ attempt to negotiate with England, before they declared independence. They never attempted to unseat the king or to change the government of England. It was the British who sought to reimpose their control upon the independent colonies and the colonies resisted with arms. There was a reason for the Founder’s restraint.

        The Civil War was the result of the USA [The North] reestablishing control over the territory of the new nation, the CSA [The South]. The South only used the force necessary to remove US troops from CS territory, Fort Sumpter which was well inside the territory of the new nation and which the US refused to vacate. Then the USA invaded the CSA, to reimpose control over the territory.

        In both cases, the short term goal was terrible, especially so in the Civil War. To take up arms against the current government of the US is not something that can be taken lightly. Weaponry has evolved to the point where casualties could be staggering. Not to mention the damage to the country. It is entirely possible that following such a conflict, there would be no USA as we know it. California could be gone, along with much of the Southwest. Eastern coastal cities could end up as ghost towns, if food supplies in the interior of the country were devastated.

        Armed insurrection would likely be the end of this country.

      Just a small point of correction. The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give Americans the RIGHT to engage a “tyrannical government” of the United States with force of arms. Taking up arms against an official government of the United States, tyrannical or not, is insurrection and is illegal.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | January 23, 2018 at 11:20 am

        Actually, I need to correct my statement.

        We have…and had…every right to oppose tyranny by any means prior to the Constitution. You’ll find that in the Declaration.

        We needed no “right” articulated in the Constitution to that end.

        What the Second Amendment did and does is secure the ABILITY to exercise that right. As Milton Friedman noted, freedom of the press is pretty vacant if you outlaw printing machines.

          Again, incorrect. First of all, the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee the individual the ability to exercise ANY right, as it did not apply to the states, when ratified, only the Federal government. The states were free to regulated the possession and carry of any weapon, including firearms, until 1968 when the 14th Amendment was enacted. Even after that the USE of weapons is not protected under the Constitution.

          The Founders decided that they would sever their ties with England because England refused to negotiate, and ultimately accede to, their demands. To justify what was unarguably an illegal action, and arguably insurrection and treason, the Founders made up a series of divine “Unalienable Rights” which justified their actions. These rights only exist in the minds of man and even the Founders only recognized and applied these “unalienable rights” as they saw fit, leaving entire segments of the population unable to exercise these “unalienable rights”.

          Sorry, Charlie, there is NO RIGHT to raise arms against a government; only a desire to.

          Correction: that should be 1868, not 1968.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2018 at 12:08 pm

          Again, incorrect. And ahistorical, you prig.

          Each of the states had provisions securing the right to bear arms…or at least most of them.

          The Second Amendment was only included to assure that the new central government could not abridge those rights, which are after all is said, natural rights.

          Why do you bother…???

          Soory, Chuckles, but we are speaking of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United states, not about the Constitutions of the various states, at the time. However, most states had nowhere near the absolute ban on regulations governing the ownership and possession of firearms and other weapons that constitutes the 2nd Amendment. In fact, few, if any states, today have such a draconian ban on the regulation of weapons.

          I love how you throw around the concept that some nebulous list of “rights” actually exists. You have only one right, in this life. The right to die. Nothing else is guaranteed. Life can be taken from you and often is. Liberty only exists if a person fights to secure it and keep it. Happiness is as elusive mist. Equality is nonexistent in the natural world. All of the supposed “rights” which men claim for themselves exist only a concepts within the mind of man himself. They might be good, positive concepts by which to live ones life, but they do not exist in nature and are not granted to man by God. If they were, then we would not have slavery, oppression or Tom Brady.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2018 at 4:46 pm

          Sorry, Nancy, but you’re as full of shit as you can possibly be.

          Let’s start with your bullshit about the Framers essentially making up arcane rights to give them a fig-leaf.

          Since the Greeks, these rights have been recognized. PRIOR to the Revolution, they were broadly discussed and known. In fact, in Western culture, they were essentially a given until the Progressive era. Which identifies you as a Wilsonian puke.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2018 at 4:56 pm

          “However, most states had nowhere near the absolute ban on regulations governing the ownership and possession of firearms and other weapons that constitutes the 2nd Amendment.”

          OK. I’ll assert they DID.

          Now, you post links to the several constitutions of EACH state supporting your bullshit.

          These rights are ALL made up. They are not divine. They are not “natural”. Greeks? Every city state in Greece had slavery. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Where was the ‘RIGHT” to liberty or equality. How about the Muslim world? Slavery again. I know China right? Oops, slavery again. What about women’s suffrage? Oop, not happening until the 20th Century. Right to life? That is a HHUUUGGEE joke right there. Ask the American Indian about the unalienable rights of life, liberty and equality. History is chock full of people killing other people for no good reason. Quit petting the unicorn and take a look at reality. These “unalienable rights” have only been practiced in earnest since the early part of the 20th Century. Even Communism, which is supposedly based solely upon equality was NEVER equal.

          As for state constitutions banning regulation of firearms and other weapons, your understanding of that is truly non-existent. Every state in the union allows the legislature and lesser jurisdictions to impose limits upon ownership, possession [carry] and use of weapons and firearms. And that is still true today. The 2nd Amendment is much more draconian, essentially banning the regulation of the ownership and possession of all weapons. As to providing YOU with examples of state constitutions how about you practice your Google-foo and find all the state constitutions which bar regulations on the ownership and possession of weapons and firearms. make yourself useful, cupcake.

          I’ll give you a clue, virtually every state in the union, along with many counties and municipalities had laws against the carry of certain weapons in certain areas and this included concealed carry. And, almost all of these restrictions were declared to be constitutional under the constitution of the state in question.

          Any other fantasies you want to present?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 24, 2018 at 7:10 am

          You are…again…as full of shit as you can be.

          But this has been revealing. You are a true Wilsonian. That explains a GREAT deal.

        gospace in reply to Mac45. | January 23, 2018 at 4:44 pm

        One of the reasons the citizenry isn’t actually taught the Declaration of Independence. …whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,… The founders certainly thought it was right.

          Mac45 in reply to gospace. | January 23, 2018 at 10:50 pm

          What the Founders did was to secede from the Britsh Empire in 1776. They had the enviable position of being separated from England by an ocean which took several weeks to cross. Logistics, for the British, was a nightmare. Then they had the tacit support of the French, who put pressure on England not to seriously expand their efforts to contain the American Colonies. And, they were still embroiled in a war which lasted 8 years and almost lost.

          The secession of the South, in 1861 did not go quite so well. After a 4 year war, the South was destroyed.

          And, who is to say who constitutes the People, who are authorized to abolish and change a government?

          These things NEVER go smoothly or end really well. That is why armed insurrection should always be the absolute last resort. It can, and often does, destroy the country that it is intended to “save”.

Penna supreme court: bunch of demo-rat hacks…

“I have little sympathy for partisan gerrymandering and would like to see it abolished,….”

BOOM. Well said, young man. The antidote better candidates who can effectively articulate a superior message of liberty and free markets.

Plus, defunding tax dollars from the diversiversiry marxist indoctrination camps formerly known as ‘university.’

Rick the Curmudgeon | January 23, 2018 at 10:08 am

The court also directed the legislature to “submit a congressional districting plan that satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution…for consideration by the Governor on or before February 9, 2018.”

Any bets as to whether the legislature just so happens to have a districting plan already drawn up and ready to submit?

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission US Supreme Court 2015.

As everyone may recall, this is the case that Ginsburg wrote that held that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the [state] Legislature.” may be completely ignored – See Roberts dissent.

    Arminius in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 23, 2018 at 2:12 pm

    The facts of the two cases are entirely different. In Arizona the voters created an Independent Redistricting Commission via ballot initiative. The majority ruled that that the voters have the right to strip a legislature of certain lawmaking powers and create an alternate lawmaking body. And the voters did not have to call these alternate lawmaking bodies legislatures. So the Independent Commission qualified as a “legislature” for the specific purpose of redistricting and therefore it passed constitutional muster.

    No such thing occurred in PA. The petitioners are the League of Women Voters and a group of individuals. The voters never elected them to anything. And a court is not a legislature by any stretch of the imagination. The reasoning behind the AZ ruling simply couldn’t apply. The reasoning behind the AZ ruling is that the voters had created the commission, and “all power flows from the people.” In a sane world the SCOTUS would have to side with the legislature here as whatever it says in the state constitution it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. And the U.S. Constitution trumps any state constitution. One of the conditions for statehood was that nothing in their constitutions could conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

    I have no doubt that Kennedy could find some alternate bizarre reason to uphold the ruling in PA. Perhaps he’d see his way to rule that the Constitution’s election clause can also mean “state supreme court” despite clearly saying “legislature.” It’s still a longshot, but at least it would make Kennedy look ridiculous. Although he’s apparently he’s beyond embarrassment already.

      Arminius in reply to Arminius. | January 23, 2018 at 2:16 pm

      “In other words, it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will review this decision, since federal courts cannot challenge a state court’s interpretation of state law.”

      They certainly can if that state law is unconstitutional at the federal level.

        Jared Samilow in reply to Arminius. | January 23, 2018 at 8:18 pm

        What I tried to explain is: SCOTUS cannot say, “the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has misinterpreted the PA Constitution. We think we can find a better interpretation.”

        SCOTUS could say, “The PA Supreme Court’s interpretation of the PA Constitution is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.”

      Jared Samilow in reply to Arminius. | January 23, 2018 at 7:48 pm

      This is a really excellent reply and is along the lines of what I was thinking.

      The Arizona case simply should not control here. In that case, the public made a conscious and explicit decision to transfer power away from the legislature. Justice Ginsburg, joined by 4 other justices, held that it could do this.

      There is no reason why such logic should also imply that a state supreme court can just advance a reading of the state constitution that totally neuters the legislature for 2018.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 9:20 am

      Arminius – Might have been unclear on my point. I agree that the 5 concluded that the people voted to create the commission to act as the legislature, which as Roberts pointed out in his dissent is in direct conflict with the elections clause.
      My point is that certain members of the court rulings are based on what they believe the law should be not on what is in the statute or the constitution. Ginsburg very much falls into this category (see her ACA concurring opinion – where her writing said health care reform is good and therefore there is no constitutional violation).
      Likewise, in this case, “redistricting to disfavor republicans is a good thing, therefore the PA SC qualifies as the “state legislature”.

Practical note:
If an appropriate person were to go to a Federal District Court and find a favorable judge to issue a stay, it wouldn’t matter whether or not the Federal Courts were justified in stepping in. The stay would extend past 2018, which for the moment is all that we care for.

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | January 23, 2018 at 11:29 am

    No. That’s a happy fantasy. Without proper jurisdiction, any such order would be immediately vacated by a higher court.

I see a lot of talk about picking up rifles and such but there is multiple avenues still left before we get to that situation.

The major one is one that many have been working on and it is the Article 5 movement in order to amend the Constitution.

Suppose a federal court does rule that the state supreme court is not the state legislature, and thus can’t draw up districting maps. What would be the implications for the many cases where federal courts have drawn up districting maps and imposed them on states. Surely they are not state legislatures either, so the same precedent would apply to them. Or is there a distinction to be made?

“…but the way to accomplish that is either with districts drawn by computer algorithms…”

Which means Democrats will control redistricting and it will be incredibly partisan.

“…or by independent commissions…”

Which also means Democrats will control redistricting and it will be incredibly partisan.

And if the PA Supreme Court ends up imposing their own plan (which seems blatantly Un-Constitutional given the Legislature has clear authority on this) then it will also mean Democrats will control redistricting and it will be incredibly partisan.

Basically, what this ruling means, is that the D’s get Districts drawn the way they want. Period. Every ten years, no matter who controls the legislature.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to Aarradin. | January 24, 2018 at 5:02 pm

    Or maybe, and I know this is crazy, determined by the people being represented?

    What would happen if the people on the edge of one district could opt to move into an adjacent one? if they could get some equal number of people to move the other way?

    Somehow, my mind keeps returning to the state reallocation map form a few years back, when a “non-partisan” interested citizen set out to “fix” the imbalance in the Senate. It had nothing to do with giving those deplorables less Senate votes of course. Just a quest for good, representative government. Yet, somehow this came up only when the Obama administration policies were being “obstructed”” there.

    You can still find the map: 50 equal-sized states, each with roughly the same number of people, in continuous adjacent territory, following natural borders when present, encompassing a population center when that worked. Kinda like states selected as much as possible to have common interests and outcomes within them.

    This exercise got memory-holed when looking at red / blue preferences of the actual population, it turned out the “conservatives” would have more or less a permanent 60+ vote majority in the new, balanced Senate. It seems the people “disenfranchised” by our current lumping scheme are way more red-folk than blue. At least with the Senate.

    That the PA Supreme Court contrived to give the redistricting authority to their own selves is non-partisan in exactly the same way.

    The game isn’t what mechanism might work better for districting, but what mechanism might be most immune to hijack, assuming one party has the rest of the government and all the other institutions … and no compunction about how to use what they have.

BierceAmbrose | January 24, 2018 at 4:34 pm

It helps to understand the lay of the board…

Three branches of federal government: legislative, judicial, administration. Right now two nominally controlled by the R party.

Five interwingled branches of cultural institutions: media / communications / entertainment, education / indoctrination, state industry / semi-oligarchs, autonomous agencies / NGOs / sanctioned “non-profits”, the formal government (legislative, judicial, administrative).

Four of the five branches of cultural steering completely controlled by the “opposition” party, one element of the formal government likewise, with both “controlled” by the R’s thoroughly infiltrated.

And they are all royally pissed that their inevitable ascent to unassailable control of the remaining somehow got derailed by an outsider who so far seems immune to all their well-practiced mechanisms of influence. Also a bit anxious as every element has been making moves safe and effective if control of the other elements is in place, and without that control, not so much. Consider if President Obama had been subject 1/10 the media assault directed at President Trump.

(Myself, I have thought playing along with protection rackets — which is all they’ll offer us wrongs — a losing game since I was exposed to my Jr. High’s version of Heathers.)

At any rate, that’s the lay of the board. What’s the move, given that?

    YellowSnake in reply to BierceAmbrose. | January 24, 2018 at 7:26 pm

    It’s a good thing President Obama was not subject to more than 1/10 the media assault or we might have learned he was born in Kenya. Didn’t someone get massive publicity for a bogus claim that he had investigators in Hawaii digging up the truth about Obama’s birth certificate? Still waiting.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend