princetonlawschool - Tumblr blog

[princetonlawschool]

They don't want to answer the question, so they answer a different one. It's a problem as old as time when it comes to our friendly neighborhood politicos, but like most things it got significantly worse over the last six years or so. The complete and utter shamelessness of our most prominent public servants was captured most succinctly in speech by Donald Trump's "EXCUSE ME," which he used to interrupt people whose line of questioning he did not like by accusing them of interrupting him. Then he'd say some random crap he thought was more advantageous to him. But even less masterful scammers have learned to either start yelling at their interlocutor that they're a biased hack who hates America, or just start talking about something else.

The main way to combat this, it seems, is to ask the same question over and over. We saw a bit of this when Jonathan Swan of Axios pressed Trump on his COVID response in the summer of 2020, inducing something of a toddleric meltdown. We saw it with Paula Reid of CBS, again on COVID, in the White House Press Briefing Room. (In fairness, Reid did actually interrupt Trump before his "EXCUSE ME" there.) And we got a dose of it again this month, first with an interview Jared Kushner did to promote his book on Sky News. His interlocutor, Kay Burley, again made the case that the Brits (and in Swan's case, the Aussies) tend to be much better at this stuff than we are.

Maybe there's a whole study here in how the British have a monarch to honor and politicians to grill, as opposed to the weird deference Americans seem to have for the elected leaders who serve at their pleasure. But for now we'll just observe that, when repeatedly asked why Trump had a bunch of top-secret documents in his Mar-a-Lago basement, Kushner had no answer. His attempts to make this about previous investigations and the like were foiled when Burley simply asked again why Trump was stacking up national secrets at some trashy club. And for the millionth time, the feds did not descend on Trump's property out of nowhere. He had repeated opportunities to turn this stuff over across months and months, and he refused.

Another example of the form arrived this weekend courtesy of former Senator Al Franken. His exchange on CNN with Republican strategist Alice Stewart was also revealing in that it pointed to the kind of institutional brinkmanship, powered by shameless bullshitting, that Mitch McConnell pioneered well before Trump came on the scene:

Franken laid out the situation simply: Republicans, led by McConnell, refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016 on the basis that it was an election year and voters should get to decide who would choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Then, four years later, they confirmed a Supreme Court Justice a week before the election. There was zero governing principle in play here besides "Republicans want seats so they can enact conservative policy through the Supreme Court," but Stewart attempted to throw out some smokescreen about how this has happened before to legitimize the power grab. Franken broke down the screen by simply asking Stewart the same question, over and over: When did this happen before? By the end, she was wilting on-screen, exposed for defending the indefensible. Just admit you wanted the seats at any cost!

Anyway, we could all take a page from this in the future. Next time Joe Biden gets flaky at a public appearance, somebody should just keep asking the same question.

[princetonlawschool]

Use of the national motto "In God We Trust" is expanding from its famed placement on U.S. currency to framed posters on public school walls thanks to a Texas law that recently went into effect. Senate Bill 797, which was passed last year, requires that elementary and secondary schools "display in a conspicuous place in each building of the school or institution a durable poster or framed copy of the United States national motto" so long as the signs have been donated to the school district and/or purchased with private donations.

"We just felt like it was a great opportunity to display our national motto in our public schools," said Tom Oliverson, a Houston area Republican state representative who co-authored the bill, in an interview with KHOU. "This was a idea I had after seeing something similar happen in a couple different states."

Other requirements for the sign include a representation of the American flag "centered under the national motto," and a representation of the Texas state flag. However, the use of glitter pens when crafting isn't strictly necessary. Signs with the phrase have already started popping up throughout schools in Carroll ISD near Dallas-Fort Worth this week after being donated to the district by Patriot Mobile, which bills itself a Christian conservative wireless provider.

Soon, similar signs could be spotted around schools in the Houston area. The Yellow Rose of Texas Republican Women posted photos on Facebook this week showing framed signs that volunteers made and donated to a number of Cy-Fair and Tomball ISD schools.

Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), who also co-authored the bill, promoted the signs on Twitter Tuesday. "The national motto, In God We Trust, asserts our collective trust in a sovereign God," Hughes tweeted. "I'm encouraged to see groups... and many individuals coming forward to donate these framed prints to remind future generations of the national motto."

While Oliverson claims that most of the feedback he's gotten about the signs has been positive, not everyone is enthused about the new state-wide requirement. Cy-Fair parent Aly Fitzpatrick told KHOU that the signs were a "disgrace" and an attempt from Republican groups to hijack public education. "The point is we are America and not everyone does believe in the same God," Fitzpatrick said. "And telling children that is very confusing."

In 1956, President D. Eisenhower signed a law declaring "In God We Trust" as the official national motto. The resolution was reaffirmed by Congress as the nation's motto several times, most recently in 2011.

[princetonlawschool]

Right-wing, white, “Christians” have a long history of using the Bible to assert their right to discriminate against others. Case in point, the Southern Baptists split off from the Baptists in 1845 over whether slaveowners could be missionaries. Southern Baptist leaders used the Bible to justify slavery, and later to justify segregation.

Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU writes a compelling column questioning how today’s right-wing, white, “Christians” are attempting to use the First Amendment as license to discriminate against:

The LGBTQ+ community in numerous ways.

Women’s and other’s rights to contraception and abortion.

Pregnant, unmarried female employees.

People with opioid use disorder who use medication-assisted treatment.

Jewish, Catholic, and same-sex couples who want to adopt or foster children.

Dying people who want to consider “end of life options.” 

Emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court, today’s religious right is pressing in courts nationwide for what amounts to a sweeping right to discriminate. […] For the past decade, the American Civil Liberties Union has tracked cases invoking a religious right to discriminate, and we’ve never been more alarmed. The sheer number of these cases has exploded. In 2012, the first ACLU report documenting them came in at seven single-spaced pages. The most recent report runs close to 30.

The scope of these claims has also mushroomed. […] These efforts are simply incompatible with a pluralistic constitutional democracy that values both equality and religious freedom. Religious freedom, after all, doesn’t mean a right to hurt others.

[…] In a recent speech, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., quoting scripture, implored “champions of religious liberty” to “go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves” to challenge the “growing hostility to religion” in America. The justice, who penned the Hobby Lobby opinion, now has a solid majority hungry to give these “champions” whatever they want. […] We have been here before. In the mid-1960s, a white supremacist who refused to serve Black people at his South Carolina barbecue restaurants argued that he was entitled to a religious exemption from the newly enacted Civil Rights Act. His lawyers told a trial court that the owner believed “as a matter of faith that racial intermixing or any contribution thereto contravenes the will of God,” and therefore enforcing the Civil Rights Act against him “constitute[d] State interference with the free practice of his religion.” The Supreme Court dismissed the argument as “patently frivolous.”

Champions of this “patently frivolous” claim are back before a remade Supreme Court. Half a century ago, the court snuffed out the flame on claims that religious freedom gave institutions the right to violate anti-discrimination laws. This time, it is lighting the match.

[emphasis added]

[princetonlawschool]

The Princeton Law School Charter I have had the tremendous honor to start accounting for is a School that prepares the legion of those charged with serving the most difficult and challenging period that could yield before those whom enter public Service either based upon free will or of product of chance of birth and are the culmination of the most evil of characters, most neutral and honest, and of the highest moral integrity when his or her duties present themselves- they are humanitarian in all ways, yet possess the qualities that assert the worst of human nature. They are the United States under our New Age and Order.

[princetonlawschool]

Ideal Year One, First Term Courses:

1. Systems of Governments

2. Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Legal Jurisdictions and History

3. Common Law Powers

4. Real and Personal Property

5. United States Constitutional Law

Ideal Year One, Second Term Courses:

1. Civil Procedure

2. Criminal Law and Procedure

3. Religion and the State

4. Rights of People and Powers of Governments

5. Civil Legal Jurisdictions/Napoleonic Code Jurisdictions

First Summer Courses

1. Trial Practice- Making and Meeting Objections

2. Racism, Sexism, Discrimination, Laws For and Against

3. Family Law

Ideal Year Two, First Term Courses

1. Federal Court and Highest Court Appellate Case Study

2. Laws Under State Emergency War Powers or other Emerging Crises

3. Parties, Election Systems, Factions, Types of Government Groups

4. Laws of War and Military Justice Jurisdiction

5. Government Treaty and International Compact Issues

Ideal Year Two, Second Term:

1. The Sciences, Arts, Free Speech and Press Issues

2. Specific Rights Pertaining to Rare Groups

3. Rights To Associations and Revolutionary War or Changing Structure of Governments Events

4. Maximizing Period of Preparing For and Aid During Periods of Servitude

5. Contract Law

Year Three, First Term

1. Constitutional Torts

2. Legal and Moral Ethics

3. Business Law

4. Legal Developments

5. Judicial Interpretation Methods

Year Three, Second Term

1. Clinic Service

2. Legal Process State/Federal Courts

3. Remote Legal Theories

4. Politically Charged Manipulation

5. Applying For Civil Servant Positions

[princetonlawschool]

Princeton University in New Jersey is a School that I could only have dreamed of attending. It also befalls upon myself as having been granted a Charter as far back as before the Founding of our Nation that it would await for myself to have the honor to be a part of the opening team of fellow Proud Professors of Government and Political Sciences, International Relations and their Governments, and so much more. But it has awaited for the constructing of a state of the Art Law School that will serve as the most preeminent and highest quality of standards in selectivity of candidates from different creeds and backgrounds whom shall compose of the First Class to participate in help SHAPING and MAKING LAW such as our National Purpose of the drafting and signing of the Resolution of the United States, plus it will teach the necessary skills and secret art of what made former Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln such great men- SURVEYING and PROSPECTING the land and shaping future events well beyond that of their own cut lives. Future History is just one of our National Gifts and only be offered at Princeton Law School upon it's opening.

Selectivity for the School in my own view shall not take into account the LSAT Scores following the recommendations made by the American Bar Association just this past year. However, a four year College Degree is required, unless extraordinarily rare exceptions apply. It shall also be a total of Five Years. Two years spent on learning necessary aspects of the law, and two years of creating your own prospectus of creating your own individual form of government based upon eventual Statehood Joinder, and twenty one years worth of such. This additional two years will be very selective from the graduates of the Princeton Law Juris Doctor program.

Requirements regarding necessary components to your application for admission shall be provided here soon, but the charter to begin construction of the facility will not be completed for a period of at least three years.

George Washington

Abraham Lincoln

Richard Eduardo Scott