Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

CNN’s Don Lemon Unhinged: ‘We’re Going to Have to Blow Up the Entire System’

CNN’s Don Lemon Unhinged: ‘We’re Going to Have to Blow Up the Entire System’

“You know what we’re going to have to do?… You’re going to have to get rid of the electoral college.”

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1308233534272831488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1308233534272831488%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fcnns-don-lemon-suggests-to-blow-up-the-entire-system-get-rid-of-electoral-college-stack-the-courts

CNN’s Don Lemon made his colleague Chris Cuomo appear sane last night during his nightly TV show.

Lemon lost his mind saying we need “to blow up the entire system” so the “majority” could “have a bigger say in government.”

The “majority” meaning the left, of course.

Cuomo tried to bring Lemon back to earth:

“We’re going to have to blow up the entire system,” Lemon said.

“I don’t know about that,” Cuomo reacted, who argued that Americans just have to vote.

“You know what we’re going to have to do?… You’re going to have to get rid of the electoral college,” Lemon continued. “Because the minority in this country get to decide who our judges are and who our president is. Is that fair?”

“You need a constitutional amendment to do that,” Cuomo replied.

“And if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts and they can do that amendment and get it passed,” Lemon shot back.

Earlier in the conversation, Cuomo predicted a “short-term win” for the president amid the Supreme Court battle.

“Look, this is a short-term win,” Cuomo said.

“If it’s a win,” Lemon pushed back.

“I think it’s a win,” Cuomo doubled down. “I think that if they get this judge, it’s a win because if he wants people to vote for him, if he doesn’t deliver a nominee and it doesn’t get acted on by the Republicans, they’ve got trouble.”

Cuomo continued, “I know that people say, ‘Well in races that are close.’ Who’s voting or thinking about voting for a Republican who doesn’t want them to pick a judge right now?”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has made the left’s TDS worse, which I didn’t think was possible.

If anyone on the right, especially Trump, even casually mentioned stacking the court the left would go berserk. But now they want to stack the court because God forbid they don’t get their way.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“You need a constitutional amendment to do that,” Cuomo replied.

“And if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts and they can do that amendment and get it passed,” Lemon shot back.

++++

Does he think Constitutional amendments are enacted by the Supreme Court? What a dunce.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Scrape. | September 22, 2020 at 10:17 am

    He sure is. Everyone knows they are devised by Hawaiian judges.

    GatorGuy in reply to Scrape. | September 22, 2020 at 1:35 pm

    Lemmon’s comment is off the wall, stone-batty, and Cuomo’s is legislatively inaccurate. Both are journalistically defective and, thus, unprofessional.

    For the benefit of a well-informed, civics-minded public (and a reputable, responsible and reliable, free media platform), these jackasses serve no useful purpose, other than to further intensify the DNC’s chief aim of electoral confusion, chaos, hopelessness, and the overall justification, in Lemmon’s own language, “to blow up the entire system, his violence-laden suggestion and borderline incitement to act seditiously being clear and certain enough to any and all.

    The need for a constitutional amendment in this Dem-instigated matter, as Cuomo (Heckle), understanding himself as legally educated and an indispensable font of civics knowledge and practical wisdom, albeit foolishly interrupting his CNN colleague (Jeckle) in an urgent but mistaken moment of believe-needed correction, is nonexistent.

    ARTICLE III Section 1
    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

    Section 2
    Clause 2: He shall . . . nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    Apart from a fleeting reference to the fact that the principal office of Chief Justice exists within the “supreme Court,” as indicated expressly in the briefest possible language — that “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside,” in the discussion about the Senate, found at Article I, Section 3 — that’s essentially it. There is no address in the US Constitution regarding the number of Supreme Court “judges” or justices other than, by the use of the definite article, implying one, in the phrase “the Chief Justice, referenced above.

    That’s all there is about the “supreme Court,” its “Chief Justice,” and its “judges”.

    The fact is, in case it might ever matter to PublicCounsel Heckle,
    a/k/a as BrotherFool, or even Chris Cuomo, the number of occupied seats on the USSC has, since the institution of the Judiciary Act of 1789, as amended, varied. But as it relates here, it is set forth by federal statute alone, its various versions over the years passing both chambers of Congress and affirmed by the signature of the president.

    The number of federal justices is governed, then, by federal statute; and because it is not materially constitutional in nature, no constitutional amendment would be required to revise its specifics, only amending it by ordinary congressional and presidential authorization.

    This shuts Heckle the f*ck up — alas, on this matter alone.

    As for Jeckle, well, maybe one lucky day he’ll have to eat crow. As for now, he gets the (crypto-racist principle-of-lower-expectations, affirmative action-based, minority/BLM) pass, of course.

      GatorGuy in reply to GatorGuy. | September 22, 2020 at 5:25 pm

      Probably trivial for us layman (but in all likelihood, as gross and egregious a technical error that, say, a conlaw student or practicing litigator could make in citing the Constitution at trial), the language following “Section 2” belongs, rather, to Article II, (the Executive), and not under Article III (the Legislative), as shown, (“He” being, of course, the unitary executive, the president). Just to be accurate and correct.

      Milhouse in reply to GatorGuy. | September 23, 2020 at 3:14 am

      Um, no. Your entire screed is true but irrelevant. The topic was not expanding the supreme court, but abolishing the electoral college. And as Cuomo correctly said, that takes a constitutional amendment, which no foreseeable Dem victory would let them pass.

    Emil de Blatz in reply to Scrape. | September 22, 2020 at 1:43 pm

    My first class in college as an undergraduate was 45 years ago, and it was a survey course in political science. The introductory lecture by Prof. Donald K. Emerson included his definition of political science. He said it could be reduced to one simple question. To wit – “Who decides?” That has has up pretty well in the intervening years.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Scrape. | September 23, 2020 at 10:30 pm

    He is an ignorant affirmative hire, sad but true. Affirmative BS has been incredibly corrosive to America, and it has been a disaster.

“Stack the courts.”

Even when they strategize out in the open, they talk about cheating or rigging the system. Completely clueless about why we have government in the first place.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Pasadena Phil. | September 22, 2020 at 12:11 pm

    The Dems have proposed more rigging than on a clipper ship:

    Pack the court
    Abolish the Electoral College
    Make D.C. and PR states
    Split CA into five states
    Lower the voting age
    Allow felons to vote
    Allow foreign nationals to vote
    Insist on universal mail-in balloting

    Every single one of the above measures is calculated by the Dems to give them advantages, because they have been periodically incapable of competing under the current rules. (I say “periodically” because the Dems have had their successes, most recently during Obama’s first term. The fact that they are not satisfied with alternately sharing power with the opposition exposes the insidious nature of their plans.) Not a single one of the above measures is directly beneficial to the country. This is all about power and control, and any party or faction that desires power and control above the interests of the nation condemns itself as unworthy of positions of authority and public trust.

      DownUnderYid in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 22, 2020 at 1:05 pm

      You can add to that list – “not requiring mail in voter’s signatures to match” as (i think) Philadelphia just changed the rules

        Nope. The signatures still have to match. The only rule change was that ballots postmarked by election day have three more days for the post office to deliver them.

I don’t believe there are that many people still watching CNN. But, those watchers are the hardcore Kool-Aid drinkers. Extorting that fringe to violence will probably result in many acts of violence.

A: Logic, sanity, and hope.

Q: Name three things required for a good life and rarely found in a Democrat.

    “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has made the left’s TDS worse, which I didn’t think was possible”

    Now if Durham would only deliver his report, we’d get to see TDS go to 11.

    What is taking so long on that report?

    Another Voice in reply to princepsCO. | September 22, 2020 at 6:57 pm

    The Great Carnac gone but not forgotten..a good one!

Is that really how they view the electoral college? Rule of the minority?

But I thought the left was all in favor of minorities? I guess they only like minorities whose members vote the way they’re told.

    DaveGinOly in reply to irv. | September 22, 2020 at 12:22 pm

    Their disrespect for the Electoral Collage really fries me. They either don’t understand, or don’t care, that the “majority” has their say in the House. The founders intentionally distributed the power into different branches of government AND intentionally distributed how the power is assigned within the three elements of the executive branch – the presidency, the House, and the Senate.

    The 17th Amendment was the death knell of the Republic. The Dems propose putting the nails in the coffin with the elimination of the Electoral College.

      Politically speaking, 1913 was the worst year in the nation’s history, with four disastrous events,

      February 3, 1913 – the 16th Am (income tax) became part of the Constitution

      March 3, 1913 – Democrat Wilson became president; Wilson the internationalist made the hard break from Americanism (government’s sole role being to protect natural rights), and set America on the pattern of endless world wars with America as the world’s policeman

      April 8, 1913 – the 17th Am (direct election of federal senators) became part of the Constitution

      December 23, 1913 – the bill creating the Federal Reserve became law; signed by Wilson the internationalist

Stacey Abrams was on Amanpour and Company last night griping about “voter suppression” and people “of color”.
Someone needs to ask her to explain 2008 and 2012.

Privileged dimwit with room temp IQ says what?

The Democrats have a long history of having no regard for minority rights.

It is shocking when someone shows themselves to be dumber than Chris Cuomo but Don was going all out.

Why is it I never hear them say the easiest fix? Just make electoral collage votes proportional. Some states do this already so start trying to get states to change and soon enough you effectively have got rid of the minority win issue they all seem to worry so much about. Mind you I don’t think it will help. If I lived in California I wouldn’t expect my vote cor president to count. If they changed the electoral college to proportional or got rid of it altogether then the numbers conning out of Cali might well change. Trump all but ignored NY and Cali last election. If he was worried about the popular vote he wouldn’t have done so.

    Trump did NOT ignore CA in 2016. He held several wildly successful rallies of which more than 35% who attended were Democrats. He offered his coattails to any Republican interested but few, if any, took advantage. THAT is the problem. We need candidates on the ballot. If all we are offered are communists, how do we vote out of this mess?

    The real question is why aren’t the Republican majorities in Pennsylvania acting to correct that judge’s order to defy the constitution and allow endless post-election day ballot counting even with no date stamps and signatures that don’t match? What’s worse? No Republicans or PA Republicans?

    Dusty Pitts in reply to EEllis. | September 22, 2020 at 11:03 am

    The number of Electors depends on the number of enators and Representatives from each state.

    The total number of Representatives is set by an act of Congress that Congress can change at any time. No constitutional amendment required, and the “disproportionate” influence of less populous states is much diminished.

    And the states wouldn’t have to change a thing.

    artichoke in reply to EEllis. | September 22, 2020 at 2:20 pm

    There is nothing to “fix”. I don’t want the big blue cities running the country. The existing arrangement is a protection for that purpose, translated into modern terms.

    If they want to try to abolish the EC, let them try via a proper constitutional amendment. Fortunately it would go nowhere.

    Milhouse in reply to EEllis. | September 23, 2020 at 3:26 am

    Just make electoral collage votes proportional. Some states do this already so start trying to get states to change and soon enough you effectively have got rid of the minority win issue they all seem to worry so much about.

    No state does this already.

    And while it’s not a bad idea, it wouldn’t change the fact that the smaller states get slightly more electors per capita than the larger states. That’s baked into the system, because a state’s electoral delegation is equal to its House delegation — which is approximately proportional to its population — plus two. For California those two extra electors are only a 2% increase. For Wyoming those two extra electors are a 200% increase.

Don Lemon looks like he’s aged 20 years in just the last few months.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to BillyHW. | September 23, 2020 at 11:00 pm

    He knows that they are going to lose. I suspect that he is starting to realize that his people have been pissing off the people who can kill Affirmative Action.

“Who’s voting or thinking about voting for a Republican who doesn’t want them to pick a judge right now?”

Mr. Cuomo thus demonstrates that he’s not completely clueless. Yes indeed, each and every Trump supporter this morning wants this vacancy filled before the election. Trump knows this and knows that it will kill his campaign if he fails. A loss of enthusiasm of just two percent of voters will be enough for him to lose.

If Trump loses the Senate very likely flips to the Democrats. Mr. McConnell, that wily character, knows it and knows that a Democratic Congress and a Joe Biden who will do whatever he’s told to do by his handlers will do everything they’re threatening to do. The Pubs will be done, permanently. Mitch doesn’t want that on his scorecard.

So they’re going to get this done; they have to. A prediction — even Murkowski and Collins will see this. They’ll understand that this is an existential vote for them — fail and they cease to exist politically. Collins is going to lose (per the polls), but if she votes ‘no’ there is no place for her anywhere at all after November. Murkowski knows that a ‘no’ vote will bring out every broken glass voter in the 2022 primary in her state — she’ll be done and again, there’s no spot for her anywhere else. No soft commission, corporate board, NGO, ambassador, nothing.

Lindsay gets it. Romney gets it. The usual RINOs are going to line up and vote this one through before the election because if they don’t, their party ceases to exist after the inauguration of Biden/Harris. This is an extinction vote.

The Pubs in the Senate are spineless, but they’re slightly smarter than dinosaurs. They’ll vote.

A constitutional amendment defining the number of supreme court justices as nine has been proposed recently I read somewhere. I think that amendment if it was clearly written would be a good thing.

I do believe that if The Republicans win the White House, and both houses of Congress Then this amendment should be pressed forward.

If there is much resistance to this hypothetical amendment being ratified then the Republicans can make a lot of noise about appointing judges at every level. Beyond just the vacancies. This would be to get the amendment passed and to avoid Democrats expanding courts in order to have excessive numbers of judges sympathetic to their politics.

    tom_swift in reply to Dr S. | September 22, 2020 at 10:51 am

    Actually, if we’re going to allow the Court to pretend it’s an unelected mini-legislature, maybe it should be bigger. If current trends continue, and we reach the sorry state at which a mere nine people can essentially determine just about all federal policy, we’ll be suborning ourselves to an unrealistically tiny oligarchy. We don’t have a nine-person Congress, and for good reason.

    Of course a much better fix would be to release ourselves from our thralldom to unelected rulers who can’t be voted out, but that doesn’t seem to be the way history is trending.

      DaveGinOly in reply to tom_swift. | September 22, 2020 at 12:43 pm

      Maybe someone here can answer a question for me.
      Is there precedent for life-term judges to lose their seats because their positions were abolished?

      Here’s why I’m asking:
      If the Dems increase the number of justices on SCOTUS, could the Republicans later (when in a position to do so) decrease the number (specifically eliminating the newest positions) such that the newly-appointed-for-life justices are removed from office because their offices no longer exist?

        DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 22, 2020 at 12:47 pm

        The reason why I’m asking if there’s a precedent is because without it, I don’t think this dog would hunt.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 23, 2020 at 9:58 am

        No. When a court’s size is reduced the reduction takes effect by not filling a vacancy. That’s why the first change in the Supreme Court’s size, from 6 to 5, never took effect: by the time the next vacancy occurred congress had changed its mind and brought the size back to 6. The post-civil-war reduction from 10 to 7 also took effect by not filling the next three vacancies; but after two vacancies had reduced the court to 8 congress decided to increase the size to 9.

    GatorGuy in reply to Dr S. | September 22, 2020 at 4:58 pm

    For the benefit of any and all — and please, anyone better informed, correct me if I’m mistaken — the following is offered to assure an accurate information base during our current, live episode of The Outer Limits. (“There is nothing wrong with your television set….”)

    SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August.

    — Judiciary Act of 1789

    The above is the major portion of text from the cited section and Federal Act. As a bill, it was the seventh and last of 1789 to be passed by both Houses of the 1st Congress and signed into law by our first president.

    An informative and lively summary can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

    Its passage and numerous amendments initiated the basic layout and features, and maintain the myriad detail and refinement of the federal judicial system to this day.

    The number of “judges” (or, by one of the Act’s later statutory amendments, “justices”) assigned to the “supreme court” is detailed, as quoted in major part from Section 1 of the original Act, above. This matter is thus statutory, not constitutional in either origin or amended revision; therefore, no constitutional amendment would be required to revise the number of justices on the high court, just, as was done in 1789, passage of its language by both Houses of Congress and the president’s signing the bill into law.

    Hence, a clean sweep of Article I & II Branches by the Dems in November COULD and JUST MIGHT lead to a bulkier Supreme Court. If decided as policy — and that’s still a possible climb — the Dems effort to make it law, in effect amending the venerable Act, would be, workwise and on the other hand, a quick and easy wrap.

    God forbid, anyway, whatever their need “to blow up”.

      Milhouse in reply to GatorGuy. | September 23, 2020 at 10:03 am

      Indeed congress has changed the size of the court from the initial 6 to 5, then back to 6, then 7, 9, 10, back to 7, and finally back to 9.

They walked still further and the girl said, “Is it true that long ago journalists reported the news instead of creating it?”

“No. The news has always been created by journalists, take my word for it.”

“Strange. I heard once that news used to simply happen by itself and they needed journalists to report on it so everyone would know the facts.”

He laughed.

    DaveGinOly in reply to JohnC. | September 22, 2020 at 12:45 pm

    I think that’s the first half of a story I heard:

    As they walked deeper into the woods, the girl said to the man, “I’m scared. The woods are wild and dark and they frighten me. I don’t want to go on.”
    And the man replied, “You’re scared? Think of how I’m going to feel walking out of here alone.”

    GatorGuy in reply to JohnC. | September 22, 2020 at 5:09 pm

    Nicely done; quaint, and pretty haunting.

Lemon is, charitably speaking, a full blown moron. Which is a bit better than an idiot last time I checked.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Comanche Voter. | September 22, 2020 at 2:36 pm

    “Moron” is top-of-the-line arrested mental development!

    Idiot – Ages 1-2 equivalent mental development
    Imbecile – Ages 3-7
    Moron – Ages 8-10

If it weren’t for affirmative action, Don Le Mon would be working for tips in some classy men’s room somewhere.
He’s as stupid as Fredo.

Don Lemon is a walking-talking piece of narcistic hot air. If you want to put a face on the far left idiots, his your poster boy.

Imagine being so stupid that Fredo knows more than you do.

Interesting — why?

Unless you are dead set on imposing your preferences on distand people you don’t know, won’t meet, and will never care for, what do you care what they do?

– The only reason to dispense with the electoral college is to take over the federal govt.

– The only reason to take over the federal govt is for the coastal bastions to inflict their policy elsewhere.

To be representative, the federal govt also has to be representative of people like you … you know, the ones you like so much you’ll do anything to siesze their representation from them, so you can impose your ideas on them. CA is larger than most countries, as they like to remind us. NY is pretty country sized. Why the need to reach beyond those units to impose on people who don’t agree with you?

Limoncello-there doesn’t get it: a limited, bounded Fed govt works because it’s agreed to. Another term for “consent of the governed” is forebvearance. Because of the protocols, n limits, people who disagree, forbear for the sake of the rest of what it brings: consistency, order, some gravitas internationally.

Have the feds do less. Go do what you want in your half acre. The Feds are only for things that *must* be done together to have a country, and *are better* done together … up until the cost of “together” is more than the gain.

Recall that Barney Frank’s famous quote is incoplete: “Government is just the name for things we (force people to) do together, (our way.)” It’s a great — irresistable — vehicle for inflicting stuff they don’t want on other people.

He is right in a true democracy the 51% get to vote on what they want to take from the 49%.
Than God we don’t live in one, yet.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 22, 2020 at 6:55 pm

Isn’t this the Lemon network?

VIDEO:

ESPN’s Kellerman Says Right-Wing Terrorists Are The Ones Rioting And Starting Fires Across America…

https://www.weaselzippers.us/456303-video-espns-kellerman-says-right-wing-terrorists-are-the-ones-rioting-and-starting-fires-across-america/

Gee Wally, I do believe Al Jazeera has competition!

No kiddin Beave, is he related to Eddy Haskil by any chance?

“You need a constitutional amendment to do that,” Cuomo replied.

“And if Joe Biden wins, Democrats can stack the courts and they can do that amendment and get it passed,” Lemon shot back.

If the Democrat (whoever that might be) wins, and the Dems keep the house and take the senate, then they can stack the courts. But I don’t know how he imagines that would help them “do that amendment and get it passed”. Does he have any idea what it takes to amend the constitution? Any idea?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend