Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

et_al

Subscribe to et_al's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled against a Florida law limiting the scope of Amendment 4, a 2018 ballot measure allowing most felons to vote. He called the law, which he mostly struck down, a "pay-to-vote system" read more


Comments

#44 and 46

Anecdotal evidence is just that nothing more. For example;

The 10 convictions represent a broad spectrum of age, party affiliation and geography. Those convicted include four Democrats, one Republican, one Libertarian and four people not affiliated with a political party. www.oregonlive.com

Voting and election fraud happens. It very rarely affects the outcome of an election. Nevertheless, reasonable efforts should be made to prevent such fraud happening. Arguing against voting by mail is not reasonable. Arguing for or against the specifics of how voting by mail happens is reasonable.

They based something on a direction and outcome they wanted and pressured with questioning for such an outcome, and even threatened family members to get to outcome.

Common, well known police tactics. Query, were those tactics at play when Flynn sat in the comfort of his lawyer's office and signed plea documents where he admitted the factual allegations of his crime and pleaded guilty? Were those tactics in play when he stood in open court and pleaded guilty not once but twice?

There is no explaining, the Obama administration wire tapped and made it difficult for the incoming administration to perform, it is that simple, and as a lawyer it is amazing you are sitting partisan lines, you should be disbarred.

Again, it is common and well known that calls of all foreign diplomats are recorded. When the recording becomes of national security interest, the American participant can be "unmasked." You can thank Bush and the Patriot Act for that. Why would Flynn, a high ranking military and intelligence official, not know that? BTW, what's making the Buffoon's administration have "difficulty performing" after it came in office, up to and including today? The Obama Administration or the fact the Buffoon's administration is incompetent, like the "hero," Flynn, the Buffoon fired for incompetence and lying?

Oh, and the partisan jab, thanks for that. I've been accused of being a partisan by the rabid left and right on this site. Makes me figure I'm in about the right place.

Disbarred? Knock yourself out. https://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForThePublic/ProblemswithanAttorney/
GrievanceEthicsInfo1/File_a_Grievance.htm

It's a think tank.

No, it's a blog. Most of the contributors are lawyers who have spent their careers working in national security. Like the article author who spent nineteen years prosecuting the likes of Flynn.

Also, you should have read the rest of the wiki you cited. You would have learned a little about what the term means to the three founders of Lawfare Blog.

Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, and Jack Goldsmith employed the word in the name of the Lawfare Blog, which focuses on national security law and which has explored the term and the debate over what lawfare means and whether it should be considered exclusively a pejorative. (See: Welcome to Lawfare, By Benjamin Wittes. Wednesday, September 1, 2010; also see: About Lawfare: A Brief History of the Term and the Site, at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/about-lawfare-brief-history-term-and-site.)

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has argued that lawfare should not have only a negative connotation, but that it also refers to the sharply contested legal debates in the U.S. surrounding national security, and national security law. Wittes writes, "The name Lawfare refers both to the use of law as a weapon of conflict and, perhaps more importantly, to the depressing reality that America remains at war with itself over the law governing its warfare with others."[8]

Now, explain how the author is wrong to conclude the interview of Flynn was predicated.

The founding fathers didn't give a damn about no invisible bugs.

I'd bet they did.

The Long History of Coercive Health Responses in American Law

The earliest recorded quarantines in the colonies were against smallpox, dating back at least to the 1620s. The first formal quarantine law enacted by one of the American colonies followed in 1647, in Massachusetts. By the early 18th century, Massachusetts added a law permitting local authorities to isolate ill people in separate houses.

After independence, coastal states commonly enacted quarantine laws requiring ships' crews and passengers to remain aboard for a specified period before disembarking. In 1855, Louisiana authorized the Board of Health to establish a quarantine station 75 miles downriver from New Orleans, inspect incoming ships there and quarantine incoming passengers there as necessary.

Two weeks after election, COVID-19 cases have not spiked in Wisconsin but experts urge caution about conclusions

Epidemiologists and infectious disease experts said Tuesday there has been a slight increase in cases in recent days, but the numbers have ebbed and flowed a bit over time and any change may have been caused by factors other than the election.

It insists that preventing Shapiro from speaking does not violate the First Amendment, stating that "hate speech can actually limit free speech," because "the fear and lack of safety caused by hate speech does not allow for free debate, learning and open discourse."

No, there's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment

I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, "This isn't free speech, it's hate speech," or "When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?" But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam " or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens " as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.
Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no hate speech' exception to the First Amendment
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend ... strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable