This is from Jonathan Turley's latest column for THE HILL:
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once observed that “it’s hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court.” However, there are some years that are bigger than others. That’s what 2022 is likely to be.
The court has accepted a series of transformative cases with few available exit ramps. It recently added to that list.
In other words, it is likely to issue historic rulings on abortion, gun rights and an assortment of other issues.
The fact that the Supreme Court is going to hand down such decisions in a major election year is also noteworthy. The court tends to be more conservative in the selection of cases before major elections, but 2022 will put the court at ground zero in one of the most heated elections in history.
For those calling to pack the court to ensure a liberal majority, the already furious commentary is likely to reach near hysteria if the conservative majority rules as expected in some of these cases in the first half of 2022.
Here’s just a partial list of what is coming in the new year:
Abortion
The country is awaiting a decision by June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. At issue is whether Mississippi can impose a 15-week limit on abortions. That is earlier than previously allowed by the court, but the United States is one of only seven among the world’s 198 countries to allow abortions after 20 weeks. While the court could simply overturn Roe v. Wade and return the area to the states, it is more likely that the court will increase the authority of the states while recognizing constitutional protections for such reproductive rights. That could result in a major reframing of “previability” cases.
After Dobbs was accepted, advocates sought to enjoin a Texas law that banned abortion after just six weeks. The court ruled 5-4 to allow the Texas law to be enforced. The Biden administration and other litigants then forced a reconsideration of that decision. The court — as expected — allowed the appeal to go forward for some of the litigants in the lower court but again refused to enjoin the law. To make matters worse, it declared the Biden administration’s appeal to be “improvidently granted.”
A lot could happen this year. We need to realize that it is important who sits on the Court. That means Democrats shouldn't be going along with Roberts as a nominee -- but they did. Time and again, they have refused to fight and then they want to whine. If they're not going to fight, step aside and let a party emerge that will. They are a disaster and those of us on the left deserve a better political party.
"Media: How much does Lucie Arnaz hate her late mother?" (Ava and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):
So many lies from Sorkin. He tells you that the press ignored Winchell's statement.
Not true. The next morning, Lucy and Desi awoke to find that reporters were staked outside their home and, when they went to work, outside the studio. That was real life so, of course, it's not in the film. The first to publish was THE LOS ANGELES HERALD-EXPRESS and they published it Monday evening (papers had evening editions then) followed by THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, THE NEW YORK HERALD, etc. Again, not in the film. Aaron's film has the press just ignoring the story day after day until it's time to tape the I LOVE LUCY episode. (For the record, I LOVE LUCY was recorded on film but if we use "film," this critique will end up more confusing than Aaron's awful film.)
Aaron is a pig of a man and he loves other pigs. So he uses this film to make J. Edgar Hoover a hero.
That's how awful this film is -- Lucie Arnaz should be ashamed of herself for executive producing this garbage. In the film, Aaron has Desi do a warm up act before the taping (Desi did the warm up act every week) but Desi instead talks about how Lucy isn't a Communist -- and that did happen. What didn't happen was Desi getting a call during this from J. Edgar Hoover and holding it up so that the studio audience knew J. Edgar Hoover was clearing Lucy of the charges.
That never happened.
Never.
US House Rep Donald Jackson did hold a press conference clearing Lucy of charges that she was a Communist the week of the taping. But J Edgar Hoover had nothing to do with Lucy.
Why do you make crooked Hoover a hero? Because you're a pig boy who, when you get your snout out of the lines of cocaine, go right for the ass of a fellow pig boy. How did it smell, Aaron, all these years later, how did Hoover's ass smell?
If he can't answer that, maybe Aaron can explain why his film telling the 'truth' about that September week in 1953 also has Desi fighting with others about Lucy being pregnant in real life and how they're going to have the character Lucy be pregnant on the show.
Its not going to be done! That's what many tell Desi in the film.
And
they are right. It's not going to be done. The reason why is that
"Lucy Is Enceinte" is an episode that was broadcast in season two on
November 24, 1952. It can't be done because it was already done almost a
year before.
The week that Lucy was accused of being a Communist? That's September 1953 and that's when they're filming "The Girls Get Jobs" which is the second episode of season three.
So, no, that wasn't going to happen in season three.
Can Aaron ever stop lying?
I watched the movie and was so offended on behalf of Lucille Ball. I think she would have hated the movie because it was so dishonest and because it portrayed her as an idiot who needed to be told what to do over and over. Shame on Lucie Arnaz.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Tuesday, January 4, 2022. Another attack on US forces in Iraq, War Criminal Tony Blair inspires more outrage, Mexico's president offers asylum to Julian Assange, and much more.
Sinan Mahmoud (THE NATIONA) reports, "US troops in western Iraq shot down two drones on Tuesday morning, Iraqi and US-led international coalition officials said." And before you think, "Wait, that was covered in yesterday's snapshot -- No. This is anothe drone attack. Two days in a row. Cameron Jenkins (THE HILL) explains:
A second attempted drone attack on U.S. forces in Iraq was foiled on Tuesday after Iraq's air defenses shot down armed drones that were headed toward a U.S. air base west of Baghdad.
An official with the U.S.-led international military coalition confirmed the attempted attack on the Ain al-Asad air base, according to Reuters.
On Monday, a similar attack was attempted, but the drones were shot down.
So let's again raise the important question: Are US forces in Iraq getting combat pay? They are in a war zone, so they should; however, US Presidnet Joe Biden is so bound and determined to claim 'combat' troops are gone, they may not be.
Moving from one War Criminal to another, as 2021 drew to a close Tony Blair became a knight. Yes, the royal family of England took time out from embracing the rapist Prince Andrew to embrace Was Criminal Tony. John Pilger Tweets:
Andrew Feinstein Tweets:
Desmond Tutu refused to share a platform with Tony Blair, describing him as a war criminal who shud stand trial. Blair is also a war profiteer, having made 10s of millions personally from the invasion of Iraq & his corrupt arms trade links.C ‘The Shadow World’ book for references
Tony Blair's final act as a human wrecking ball could well bring down the British monarchy following the controversial decision by Queen Elizabeth II to award him a knighthood. Not just any old knighthood, you understand; he has been made a member of the Order of the Garter, the country's oldest and most prestigious order of chivalry.
As the world's longest reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth's many admirers have lavished her with praise for the way she has steered the ship of state for nigh on seventy years by avoiding any embroilment in hot political issues. It wasn't always like this, though. In 1997, the death of Princess Diana exposed fault lines within the monarchy which revealed Britain's royal family to be out of touch with the British people. It was the Queen's then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his "peoples' princess speech" which apparently turned public opinion and softened republican murmurs.
Such murmurs are being revived now, though, following her controversial decision to honour the 68-year-old former Middle East envoy in this way. So much so, that "Sir Tony" could well be the undoing of the monarchy. It really is that serious.
Blair's knighthood has also been greeted with bewilderment and outrage around the world, especially in the Middle East where conflict and turmoil continue today as a result of the 2003 war in Iraq which brought untold death, misery, injury and hardship to millions. Blair, of course, hung on the coat tails of US President George W Bush and sold the invasion of Iraq on blatant lies regarding "weapons of mass destruction" in the oil-rich country.
And ARAB NEWS reports:
More than half a million people have called on the British government to rethink the award of a knighthood to former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Sir Tony, who served as prime minister from 1997 to 2007, was named a knight companion of the most noble order of the garter — the highest accolade possible — in the queen’s honors list for 2021.
An online public petition calling on the government to push the queen to rescind the honor has accrued over 550,000 signatures.
The petition says: “Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society. He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent, civilian lives … in various conflicts. For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.”
Caroline Westbrook (THE MIRROR) reminds:
The anger over Mr Blair’s knighthood comes from his decision to send UK Armed Forces into Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11 – which led to the deaths of more than 600 British military personnel and tens of thousands more civilians.
The war with Iraq began in 2003 with the invasion of the country by a US-led coalition of forces, and ended with the withdrawal of US forces in 2011.
At the time, the then PM built the case for military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime by saying there appeared to be evidence mounting of weapons of mass destruction that could be used within 45 minutes.
However the subsequent Chilcott Inquiry – which looked into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war – concluded in 2016 that the former Labour leader overplayed the ‘flawed’ intelligence about the dictator’s weaponry and ignored peaceful means to resolve the issue.
And TRT WORLD notes:
The anti-apartheid hero archbishop Desmond Tutu who recently passed away, was even more scathing.
In an opinion piece almost a decade ago, he wrote, "the immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history."
Yet while he has been held generally held in contempt in the public realm, Blair has raked in tens of millions of dollars mingling with some of the world's more corrupt and despotic regimes.
If Tony Blair was worried that his post-prime ministerial career would shudder to a halt given the hate he inspired, he didn't show it.
His first major contract was with the US banking giant JP Morgan, who gave him a five-year contract of $4 million per year.
Tony Blair was also appointed as a Middle East Peace Envoy, at a cost of more than $13 million, a role he held between 2007 and 2015.
For many, that the man who had helped trigger so much war and destruction in the Middle East should be appointed to find a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, smacked as a cruel joke for those living in the region.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Tony Blair resigned in 2015, not having brought peace to the Middle East.
However, by this time, Blair had brought a measure of peace and prosperity for his family, amassing a string of houses in central London worth millions of dollars. His net worth is estimated to be around $60 million.
As revelations of Blair's dealings with the super-rich and authoritarian regimes have periodically trickled into the press, his stature has fallen in equal measure with one British paper calling the former prime minister a "political embarrassment".
Meanwhile journalist John McEvoy Tweets:
As TELESUR reports in the video above, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the Presidnet of Mexico, has again offer Julian Assange political asylum in Mexico. REUTERS notes:
López Obrador reiterated the asylum offer he had made for Assange a year ago, and said that before Trump was replaced as President by Joe Biden last January, he had written him a letter recommending that Assange be pardoned.
Mexico did not receive a reply to the letter, López Obrador told a regular government news conference.
“It would be a sign of solidarity, of fraternity to allow him asylum in the country that Assange decides to live in, including Mexico,” López Obrador said.
The world watches as Joe Biden continues to persecute Julian Assange.
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
-
How I Made It: KAINA6 hours ago
-
-
-
That unethical Biden family9 hours ago
-
Octavia Butler9 hours ago
-
What about the others besides Jizzy Pants?10 hours ago
-
-
Weekend box office10 hours ago
-
The laptop10 hours ago
-
A Brief History of Broken Promises12 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
