Deep dive – Fwd: [sfdebate-discuss] Authoritarianism is not Liberalism (part 1)

The LPSF Forum and Meetup discussion lists rejected this forwarded conversation as being too long, so I’m resending it in two parts. Here’s the first part (in chronological order, so my messages appear in the second part). Hopefully it will post correctly this time.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))


Begin forwarded message:

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 7:03 PM, Jeffrey Flint >>>>> <> wrote:


It is fair that justices are picked for their perceived philosophy based upon their previous opinions. The job of the Senate is to make sure there is also a brain in there. It is OK for a President to nominate judges that could overturn Roe or rule in a way that could upset anyone of us. The job of a judge is not about popularity.


P.S. I believe getting “Borked” was started by the Democrats.

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 4:18 PM Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

Let’s face it. These last 3 Justices were chosen specifically because they were likely to overturn RoevWade. Trump himself, who nominated them, said as much when he took credit for overturning RvW. The entire confirmation process revolved around this one question, so of course everyone was asking it.

The confirmation process has become a shitshow because Republicans have turned it into one. During Obamas time, Republicans flatly refused to confirm any lower court justices, forcing Democrats to get rid of the filibuster for confirmations. Then Republicans refused to even have hearings for Merrick Garland, claiming it was too close to an election. But when Ruth Bader Ginsberg died just months before the 2020 election, they rushed to install Coney Barett to the court.

The nomination process has become

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 12:42 PM, Jeffrey Flint >>>>> <> wrote:

I don’t believe it is fair to ask a federal court nominee about how she or he would rule on a hypothetical case. It is fair to ask about rulings that they have made since their opinions are a matter of record. The whole judicial nomination process has become a shit show unfortunately. People say it started with Judge Bork’s nomination way back when. I would like to see a Senate rule enacted that declares that only questions about past cases can be allowed in the confirmation of a judge.


On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 6:42 PM Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

Yes, they didn’t explicitly say they would overturn RvW, but they certainly sent all the right signals saying they would uphold precedent. Republican Senator Susan Collins said she felt “misled” by statements made to her by Kavanaugh before his confirmation. As per this article, here is what he said to her:

"Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he continued, according to the notes, adding: “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.”

Kavanaugh Gave Private Assurances. Collins Says He ‘Misled’ Her.

Kavanaugh Gave Private Assurances. Collins Says He ‘Misled’ Her.
“I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge,” the justice told the senator in a discussion on Roe, according to no…

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:49:04 PM PDT, Deborah Binder <> wrote:

Roy, has a good discussion, along with excerpts, of what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said at their confirmation hearing. Both of them used the word “settled” in the sense of precedence, both said precedent was very important but that it wasn’t the only thing they considered when dealing with specific cases. Neither would provide signals regarding how they would rule on Roe v Wade (as is appropriate). As for Thomas, my understanding is that these trips were not reportable activities.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:33 PM PATRICIA URBINA <> wrote:
You may be dissatisfied with the checks and balances in place, but you cannot claim that they do not exist.

On Apr 13, 2023, at 11:51 AM, Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

The appointment and confirmation process is flawed. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh called RvW “settled law” during confirmations, but voted to overturn it anyway. The impeachment process is way to drastic and political an action, which is why no Justice has ever been removed by the Senate (only one was impeached). Justices need to be a lot more accountable, not just for their rulings, but also for their conduct. Clarence Thomas has been taking lavish trips paid for by a billionaire donor to the GOP. His wife was implicated in the Jan 6th insurrection when she urged lawmakers not to certify the election. As per this article, several European democracies have mandatory retirement ages for their justices, as young as 68 in Germany.


On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:30:19 AM PDT, PATRICIA URBINA <> wrote:

Checks and balances for the Supreme Court exist in that judges are appointed by the executive and must be approved by the Senate. In addition, justices can be impeached.
Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances - Bill of Rights Institute
Frequently Asked Questions: General Information - Supreme Court of the United States

On Apr 13, 2023, at 10:58 AM, Roy Ferreira <> wrote:


No, I don’t think their opinions should arbitrarily be dismissed. Actually, I think their function is one of the most critical in our democracy. But they are human, and like all humans they can be corrupted by power. All centers of power need a check and balance in our democracy.


On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:34:37 AM PDT, Deborah Binder <> wrote:

Roy, you seem to imply that the fact that judges and justices interpret the law makes it ok to dismiss their opinions as merely subjective. Their job is to interpret the law, or to quote the Whitehouse: “the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied.” That judges and justices interpret the law has no bearing on whether their interpretations are correct.

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 9:47 AM Roy Ferreira <> wrote:
You can’t appeal a SCOTUS decision. I think many decisions are a matter of interpreting the law, rather than the “correctness” of the law. This “interpretation” may be widely unpopular, such as in the case of RoevWade. Say Congress were to pass a law to restore Roe. What happens then?


On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 9:40 AM, PATRICIA URBINA >>>>>>> <> wrote:
There is no “overriding unpopular” judicial decisions in American jurisprudence. What matters is whether the judge’s ruling is correct on the law, not whether it’s a popular decision. If the judge’s ruling is not supported by the law or there was impropriety in making a judgement (e.g. evidence that should have been considered was excluded), the decision can be be reversed on appeal.

On Apr 13, 2023, at 8:39 AM, Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

If the Legislative or Executive branches exceed their authority, the Judiciary branch can check their authority. But what happens if the Judiciary exceeds its authority, as in this case? The judge is not qualified to rule on the scientific validity of the FDA approvals process. There should be a process for overriding unpopular court rulings. Say a 2/3 majority of both legislative branches.


On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 8:27 AM, Roy Ferreira >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
Which court? Texas or Washington State? Following one will contradict the other. In any case, the Biden Administration did the right thing and appealed the Texas ruling.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 05:25:15 PM PDT, Srecko (Steve) Bartl <> wrote:

Granted, politicians will be politicians: they deflect, spin (and lie). But he is also a high official in the executive branch. He has to say, and so far such officials have always said, that they will abide by the court’s decision, however wrong, just and unfair they may think it is. Otherwise he, and the administration, are quite justifiably open to the charge of violating one of the principal foundations of the Constitution and the country: separation of powers, and co-equality, of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.


On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 04:44:50 PM PDT, Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

Starting 2:10, Dana Bash is asks him “yes or no, as HHS Secretary, do you want the FDA to enforce the Texas ruling if it is upheld, in the short term?” His response: “yes or no, yes, we want the courts to overturn this reckless decision”

He didn’t answer the question directly, but politicians on both sides often won’t answer questions directly. They dont want to say things that may hurt them later. Its understandable to be hesitant in this case, given the complexity of the issue.

BTW, just before this bit, Dana Bush states that some legal experts believe the FDA can legally ignore this decision. Maybe it is a valid option on the table.


On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 2:10 PM, Srecko (Steve) Bartl >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
He was pressed repeatedly to say whether HHS will enforce the court decision if upheld or recommend FDA ignore the same, and he refused to say one way or the other. When he said “everything is on the table”, he was specifically referring to recommending FDA ignore the court’s decision. Don’t just read the headline. Watch the video of Becerra and Dana Bash, starting at 2:10.


On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 12:46:10 PM PDT, Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

No, that’s not what the HHS Secretary said. He said “every option is on the table”. That’s just posturing, what politicians on both sides do all the time. Doesn’t mean anything illegal is being considered. This is in fact a very confusing decision, conflicting with the Washington state decision, and with questions of Constitutional jurisdiction. Makes sense for them to consider all legal options carefully.


On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:06 AM, Srecko (Steve) Bartl >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
This administration often (almost always) sends contradictory signals about what they are going to do on any particular issue. Most notably, HHS Secretary refused to publicly say whether it will abide by the court ruling if it ultimately goes against them (which itself is bad enough), so I’m going to wait that one out before grading them on it. There is little question on what they would like to do - my way or the highway describes that perfectly - if they weren’t afraid of the political consequences.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:27:54 PM PDT, Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

You titled this email thread : Democrats:My Way or the Highway…Constitution be damned. Obviously that’s wrong, right?


On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:19 PM, Roy Ferreira >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
Well, the Biden Administration agrees with you since that’s exactly what they are doing!


On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:37 PM, Srecko (Steve) Bartl >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
Putting aside the merits of the judge’s decision, Nancy Mace is wrong too. You can’t just go and ignore court decisions, especially if you are in a position of power. Otherwise, the whole system falls apart. That much should be obvious. You appeal them and get them overturned, which is likely to happen here. If it doesn’t, FDA can follow the proper approval procedure, which it did not do 20 years ago. If the pill has accumulated a solid safety record in that time, it should be a breeze.


On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 05:53:11 PM PDT, Roy Ferreira <> wrote:

Hardly a Democrat conspiracy to end democracy as we know it.

Firstly, not just Democrats, but at least one Republican suggests ignoring the ruling: Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina. Secondly, a competing ruling from a Washington State Court, requiring continued access to mifepristone throws the ruling into doubt, at least for Blue states. And lastly, most importantly, the Biden Administration has already said it won’t ignore it.

South Carolina Republican says to ignore FDA abortion pill ruling - POLITICO

Totally ridiculous overreach by the Texas court, second guessing the FDA for a drug that’s been around for 20 years and used to treat miscarriages in addition to abortion. Another example of a conservative judge imposing his values on America.


On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 4:54 PM, Srecko (Steve) Bartl >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
None of that makes any sense, other than to underline your blind hatred of Trump and Republicans, and your utter unwillingness to look at things with any semblance of an open mind. (Denial of abortion (by pill) is “cruelty”??? Wow. I guess it’s the same logic by which abortion itself is “reproductive healthcare”, just like, say, prenatal check-ups or fertility treatments.)

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 03:40:01 PM PDT, BL West <> wrote:

“If it does, the U.S. will take another giant step toward lawless politics.'”

That’s rich, Steve, the Republicans being the party of Trump.:laughing:

The idea of nullification does seem like a slippery slope. On the other hand, being against cruelty seems like a positive.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 3:29 PM Srecko (Steve) Bartl <> wrote:
Some Democratic Senators and Congresspeople have openly called on ignoring and disobeying federal court rulings. This is perfectly in line with their disrespect for the separation of powers and pretty much any judicial and ethical norm. Having power is the only thing that matters.

WSJ will not say it so openly, of course. Facebook could cancel them.

'In an editorial nearby, we explain our doubts about Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling. His national injunction is also excessive before the merits are even considered. But the judge delayed the enforcement of his order for a week to give the Biden Administration time to appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will weigh in on the national injunction and the legal merits of the case.

But this regular legal process isn’t enough for many Democrats, who are demanding that a federal agency ignore a legal court order they don’t like.
“I believe the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to ignore this ruling, which is why I’m again calling on President Biden and the FDA to do just that,” said Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden on Friday. “The FDA, doctors, and pharmacies can and must go about their jobs like nothing has changed and keep mifepristone accessible to women across America. If they don’t, the consequences of banning the most common method of abortion in every single state will be devastating.”
Mr. Wyden has moved ever leftward in recent years, but as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee he has real power. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also said the FDA should ignore the court.
This is dangerous for the rule of law, and Democrats shouldn’t think they’ll be the only politicians who pick up the Wyden Nullification Doctrine. Southern Democrats called for “massive resistance” to legal orders in the 1950s after the Supreme Court’s school desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Is that now the Wyden-AOC model?
Even if Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling is upheld on appeal, that won’t be the end of the matter. His ruling is procedural, and the FDA can re-approve the drug by closely adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act.
The other proper response is political. Mr. Wyden is one of many Democrats who predicted the end of legal abortion after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision last year. But Dobbs has proven to be an election windfall for Democrats, as they campaign against a ban while Republicans are divided and unsure how to respond. Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling is a political gift to the left that could end up aiding a more liberal abortion regime in many states if not nationwide.
We warned about this Wyden Nullification Doctrine before, and it’s encouraging that the Biden Administration is resisting so far. But there’s a risk the Administration will cave under progressive pressure if the legal rulings don’t go its way. If it does, the U.S. will take another giant step toward lawless politics.’

Opinion | Democrats for Defying Court Orders

Opinion | Democrats for Defying Court Orders
The Editorial Board
Ron Wyden and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorse law-breaking over an abortion drug.

.,.,_ Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#186) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe []


I changed the post limit to the maximum! :muscle:

Bravo. Nice work, Jeff. From one techie Nudist/Naturist to another ( more than most, Nudists&Naturists have always been problems solver heroes in My Experience ).

We’re working in a quickie flashmob•ish ProTest @TwitterSF, Polk & Market Sts, component for the Sat 22 #BareAsYouDare #WNBRsf2023 #EarthDay Ride to Poke Fun at their execs & policies on behalf of all the INNOCENT Naturists&Nudists* who’ve been deplatformed, shadow•banned, marginalized, muted, frivolously censorship warnings warrantlessly tagged by bots, without justification or reason or explanation or warning ( while blatant prostitution, #SexWorkIsWork, & sexually demeaning & degrading behavior, & bigoted ( against Women & Girls ) #drag behaviors & cowardly masked actors ( à la #blackface ), is not only permitted but algorithmically promoted.

*They have constantly been badgering via shadowbanning the impeccable Linda Weber aka BlondeGiraffe @TrueBlueNude — the former head of The National @AANRWestRegion ( & My Friend ) — for no good reason, just as @Twitter has done to so many innocent Libertarians à la the unimpeachable @DanielLMcAdams head of @RonPaulInstitut who was curiously/politically deplatformed previously for 2 election cycles — aside from deplatforming @LPNational for almost a month during the “HRC Coronation” ( ie: DJTElection1.0 ).

Wish You could join us giving “TheBirdie” to them & their mask/cot “Larry the Bird ( which makes no pretense of being an innocent “dove” ).