RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-filibuster-made-the-civil-rights-act-possible-11618174288?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

The debate over the future of the Senate’s legislative filibuster has focused on the simple use of majority power to crush the opposition. While the future of America’s bicameral legislature and the balance of power created by the Founders is riding on this debate, many have lost sight of the true nature and value of the Senate, an institution that takes time and requires compromise to find long-term answers to major issues. Critics have linked the filibuster to Jim Crow segregation, but the tactic actually played a crucial role in passing civil-rights legislation and ensuring it was accepted by the South.

Rule 22, which establishes a procedure called “cloture” to end a filibuster, was created to provide a way to close debate with support of a supermajority in the Senate and move to pass legislation. The rule protected the minority’s rights while allowing a compromise to be achieved that would ultimately result in legislation being passed.

For the first 47 years after Rule 22’s enactment in 1917, there were only five successful attempts to cut off debate in the U.S. Senate. A few senators felt so strongly about their right to extended debate that they vowed never to vote for cloture, even for legislation they supported.

There were several successful filibusters of civil-rights legislation between 1917 and 1964. But after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to make the Civil Rights Act his chief legislative priority. He worked with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to maneuver the bill through the challenges of senators who planned to filibuster.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/due-process-adult-sexual-morality

The Florida Congressman has not been charged with any crimes. But the reaction to this case raises important questions of political, legal and cultural judgments.

That Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is a pedophile, a sex trafficker, and an abuser of women who forces them to prostitute themselves and use drugs with him is a widespread assumption in many media and political circles. That is true despite the rather significant fact that not only has he never been charged with (let alone convicted of) such crimes, but also no evidence has been publicly presented that any of it is true. He has also vehemently denied all of it. All or some of these accusations very well may be true and, one day — perhaps imminently — there will be ample publicly available evidence demonstrating this.

But that day has not yet arrived. As of now, we know very little beyond what The New York Times initially reported about all of this on March 30: that “people close to the investigation” told the paper that “a Justice Department investigation into Representative Matt Gaetz and an indicted Florida politician is focusing on their involvement with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and received cash payments.” The article also said the DOJ “inquiry is also examining whether Mr. Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old girl and whether she received anything of material value.” Both the NYT and, later, The Daily Beast, indicated the existence of financial transactions involving payments by Gaetz to his associate Joel Greenberg, currently charged with multiple felonies. The New York Times article made clear: “No charges have been brought against Mr. Gaetz, and the extent of his criminal exposure is unclear.” That is still true.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/299995

America has become a strange, unrecognizable and intolerant place. In record time.

America. The country that says it is racist to expect black Americans to identify themselves when they go to vote, but don’t find it racist to insult black Americans by suggesting they are not capable of obtaining identification cards or documents.

America. The country that says it is racist if you don’t give black folk water when they line up to vote.

And a Democrat Party that can’t see the racism in suggesting that black folk are incapable of thinking of bringing water with them when they do go to vote.

America. The country where if you dislike a black person you are a racist, but if a black person dislikes you, it’s their 1st Amendment right.

If you lie to Congress, it’s a felony. But when Congress lies to you it’s just politics.

The government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals but they do almost nothing for the victims.

In public schools, teaching transgender transition is OK, but your kids can’t call you father or mother.

If a man pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him.

People who say there is no such thing as gender, are demanding a female president.

People who have never been to college must pay the debts of those that have.

If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.

You don’t burn books in America yet, but you remove them from the bookshelves and your libraries.

You are unwilling to close your border with Mexico, but maintain troops protecting South Korea from North Korea.

If you protest offensive and oppressive Democrat policies you are a domestic terrorist, but if you burn the American flag and destroy federal property and attack police you are within your 1st Amendment rights.

You allow porn on your TV, but have a Christmas nativity scene in your garden.

People who have never owned slaves have to pay reparations to people who have never been slaves.

You can kill an unborn child, but it’s wrong to execute a mass murderer.

They let hardened criminals out of jail and protect them in sanctuary cities, but arrest you for protecting your property from a rioting mob with a firearm.

They take money from those who work hard and give it to people who don’t want to work.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/in-harvard-speech-breyer-speaks-out-against-court-packing/

Emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s authority hinges on the public’s trust in the court, Justice Stephen Breyer used a speech on Tuesday at Harvard Law School to argue against efforts to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. The 82-year-old Breyer contended that public trust in the court rests in the public’s perception that “the court is guided by legal principle, not politics” and would therefore be eroded if the court’s structure were changed in response to concerns about the influence of politics on the Supreme Court.

The text of Breyer’s prepared remarks, which he delivered as a nearly two-hour speech, included references to the Roman philosopher Cicero, Shakepeare’s Henry IV, The Plague by Albert Camus and Alexis de Toqueville, the French aristocrat who chronicled American life in the early 19th century. (Breyer, who has been known to give speeches in French, did not indicate whether he read the latter two sources in English or in their original French.) The focus of Breyer’s speech, sometimes referred to as “court packing,” has been a popular topic among some Democrats, particularly since the September 2020 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moved quickly to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett after having refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, in March 2016. As a candidate, President Joe Biden declined to support an expansion of the court, instead promising to establish a commission to examine possible reforms to the Supreme Court more broadly.