Citizen’s Arrest Laws: Ahmaud Arbery

Blog 21 November 2021: Citizen’s Arrest

This is the text of the Georgia Citizen’s Arrest law that is being used in the defense of the three men who hunted down Ahmaud Arbery and killed him in the street.

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

According to Joseph Margulies, of Cornell University, citizen’s arrest laws date back to before the founding of the country. These laws allowed citizens to detain someone they had seen commit a crime.  The laws were designed for an environment in which there were few police.

The Georgia law, updated since then, was put into effect in 1863 and was designed as a slave catching statute.  Georgia along with other states, primarily in the south, later expanded these laws to cover citizens arresting someone they reasonably suspected of trying to escape from a felony.

This law was only repealed after Ahmaud Arbery was killed.  [1]

The jury will have to decide whether the three men “reasonably suspected” Arbery of committing a felony and trying to escape.    The issue will be whether the predominately white jury thinks that the three white men reasonably believed that Arbery had committed a crime.

Margulies also points out that there is a “stand your ground” law in Georgia which allows the use of deadly force if a person “reasonably believed that they were at risk of serious bodily injury or death.” [2]

NPR Article: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1048398618/what-is-the-citizens-arrest-law-in-the-trial-over-ahmaud-arberys-death

Ira P. Robbins, a law professor at American university who studies these citizen’s arrest laws, wrote: “…a member of the public doesn’t know — and likely cannot understand — the nuances of citizen’s arrest, particularly when it comes to the use of deadly force.” “That’s why it is so dangerous for people to take the law into their own hands.”

In an article in the New York Times, a case in surburban Atlanta is described.  “…Hannah R. Payne, 22, is awaiting trial on murder charges for the shooting death of Kenneth E. Herring, a 62-year-old mechanic who left the scene of a fender bender last May. Ms. Payne, who was not involved in the crash, chased Mr. Herring in her Jeep.”

“Witnesses told police in Clayton County, Ga., that Ms. Payne blocked Mr. Herring’s truck, approached the open driver’s-side window of his vehicle and punched him with her left hand as she pointed a 9-millimeter firearm with her right.”

“A 911 dispatcher told her (Payne) to stand down, but the police said the call recorded Ms. Payne’s demands: “Get out of the car,” she yelled, using a vulgarity. A single shot was fired, and Mr. Herring stepped out of the truck and died.”

Payne was described by her lawyer as an “all-American girl” who “thought she was helping out,” but she is now “facing a long prison term for a killing that shares eerie similarities to the shooting death of Mr. Arbery, who was killed in February after a father and son told the authorities they thought he was the suspect of a rash of recent break-ins in their neighborhood.”

After the refusal of a Wisconsin court to convict Kyle Rittenhouse for taking it on himself to go armed into a situation where he knew he was going to be at risk and put other people at risk, there will be more of these incidents.

People (including women) are bragging on social media about how they will “pop” you if you cross them.  They are proud of this aggressiveness.  Women have adopted this Marjorie Taylor Greene “packing and proud of it” mentality.  One of the neighbors in the Satilla Shores neighborhood where Ahmaud Arbery was killed, testified about usually carrying a gun and running out in the dark in her neighborhood when she thought something was happening.  She even testified that she feared her own husband was going to be shot by the McMichaels one night because the husband was in a vacant house site looking for “intruders.”

These citizen’s arrests laws are dangerous, unconscionable, and completely unnecessary.   


[1] In this article, published by NPR, the killing of Ahmaud Arbery is said to have happened “after a fight broke out in the road…”  A fight did not “break out.”  Three men were pursuing Arbery, cutting him off and positioning themselves so that Arbery was “trapped like a rat” as described by Greg McMichael. 

[2] I do not know if this “stand your ground” law is still in effect.  I think it it.

State Witness: Larry English Reports “colored” guy “on drugs.”

Ahmaud Arbery

The state’s witness this morning is Larry English who evidently has to testify by video because he has health problems.  I would like to point out that his health problems didn’t keep him from starting and participating in this moral panic that men were creating in Satilla Shores over items that MIGHT HAVE been stolen from his property.

I am from Georgia and I now live in Georgia and it has been years, decades since I have heard black people referred to as “colored” and “do what” used as “Pardon” or “What.”  It’s like these men lived in a bubble from the past.

The state played the 911 call English made to the Glynn County Police.  In it he reports a “colored guy” in describing the trespasser on his property that he can see only in a low-quality surveillance video.  He also says that the guy is “tattooed down both arms” and that he is “on drugs.”  He can see from this video that the young man is on drugs.

In his testimony after the 911 call was played he said that this was a “spur of the moment” phone call and that he thought Arbery was on drugs because he appeared to be unsteady on his feet.  He also claimed that he was phoning in part because he was concerned with Arbery’s safety.  It was a dangerous site and someone might fall if they are unfamiliar with the site.

Bull, just bull.

You Need To Look at Ahmaud Arbery’s Body

Ahmaud Arbery Notes Saturday

Blog 6 November 2021

Body Cam Video, Officer Duggan

Ahmaud Arbery Case

I have still not seen the full body cam footage from Glynn County Officer Duggan in the Ahmaud Arbery case.  The defense objected to even showing the video.  So, just as the defense tried to keep the public from hearing the questioning of the potential jurors in this case, they tried to keep the pubic from seeing the body of Ahmaud Arbery laying in the street after three white men hunted him down mercilessly with trucks and murdered him in the street.

As I said, I have still not found the complete video footage.  This is because most of the media outlets who are live streaming this case, made a decision that “in good taste” they would not show the footage.  So, even though the defense motion to keep the video out of evidence was denied, most of the media made a decision for the rest of us that we couldn’t be allowed to see the video.

In most of the live stream, the camera flips back to the face of officer Duggan or Travis McMichael when the most graphic parts of the body cam video are on. 

So, a public that watches the most graphic films and plays the most horrendously graphic video games, has to be protected from looking at the real violence that men can inflict when fueled by racism, hatred, toxic masculinity, and glorification of militarism and violence.

Just think for a minute about that situation.  The consumption of violence, graphic violence in this culture is endemic, especially among males.  But, when a real violent act occurs, the media just decides for the rest of us that we must be shielded from it, protected from it.

As I said, I have not seen the complete video, but the two glimpses of Mr. Arbery laying on the ground after Officer Duggan rolled him over which are in one censored video are enough to turn your stomach.

This young man laying on his back, arms flung out over his head, one arm nearly severed, his chest covered in blood that is still running out onto the pavement is reminiscent of a 1930s mutilation lynching.  This is why they are fighting so hard to keep people from seeing it.  It looks for all the world like a photograph of a mutilation lynching in the South.

It made my stomach churn and it made me want to cry and it made me angry, really really angry. 

This is not a video game.  This is not an accidental shooting.  This is the result of the intentional behavior of three men.

The defense argued on Friday that these men were doing their “duty.”  Bob Reuben argued that they weren’t out there because it was “fun.”  No, that’s precisely why they were out there.  These are men who enjoyed working themselves into a lather over the theft of some property.  They enjoyed pinpointing a black man and blaming all the thefts and problems on him.  They enjoyed the excitement of hunting down another human being and killing him in the street.

Men keep guns at the ready for a reason, they like hunting down and killing things that are alive.  They enjoy the experience of killing.  There is no other reason for a man to go hunting in this day and age.  Again, just think about that.  These are men who go out of their way to seek a killing experience, whether it’s animals on one day or black people on another.

And men keep guns at the ready because they love the image of themselves as killers.  They love the implied power of a gun, especially a big gun.  Guns take the place of self esteem.  Guns make men feel as if they can exert power over another being any time they wish.

Every person who votes Republican, who votes for a party that uses racism as a way to whip up hatred and votes, who helps prop up this gun culture, who votes to expand gun rights is complicit in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. 

All of you need to look at Ahmaud Arbery’s body. 

Ahmaud Arbery Jury Selection: Notes on the podcast “The Breakdown” with Shaun King

Notes Podcast “The Breakdown”

  • “All of us have a right to be skeptical” about the trial of the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery.
  • The three men are on trial in huge part because of the pressure that was brought to bear on Georgia, the governor, the AG, the GBI and others to make sure that they were arrested and made these people accountable.
  • “They (the state) had no plan to do that until we put the pressure on them.”
  • King notes the appointment of an outside prosecutor (a Republican) “I believe we have an ally in the prosecution…”
  • Over 1000 potential jurors were called.
  • There are a lot of factors that strike black people from jury pools before they even get to the process of being questioned at the courthouse.
  • The jury pool is selected with software that is supposed to make the process more random.  Note: The public has no access to that software or ability to judge the reliability and validity of that software.
  • African Americans are so “heavily policed, so heavily prosecuted” in Brunswick that even when Ahmaud Arbery was murdered, the system treated Ahmaud Arbery like the criminal.
  • Note: You can see this overpolicing in the body cam video of the police officer who questioned Ahmaud Arbery (several years ago) when he was doing nothing but sitting in his car listening to music.  The officers then used the fact that Arbery felt he was being harassed (which he was), and got angry about it, as an excuse for escalating the situation.  The officer escalated the situation while repeating over and over again that he wasn’t trying to escalate the situation.  When this officer testified in pre-trial hearings, he wore full body gear, and tried to make it seem that Arbery had acted irrationally.  I would have reacted the same way, but police would have never questioned me if I were sitting in my car listening to music. 
  • If you are caught up in the criminal justice system you are not even in the jury pool.
  • Also, it is much more difficult for African  Americans to commit to being on juries.  They are less likely to be able to take time off work, weather the economic problems caused by being away from work and family responsibilities.
  • The attorneys want to select people who say they don’t have a strong opinion about the case.
  • “If you live in Brunswick and you don’t have a strong opinion about this case, it tells me a whole lot about you.”
  • Note: One of the first questions asked by Sheffield (lawyer for Travis McMichael) is whether the potential jurors have a “negative” opinion of either of the three. 
  • “It’s going to be difficult to find somebody black, or white with any social conscience, who isn’t gravely concerned about this case.” 
  • Note: Again, Sheffield, for the defense attorneys, asks the jurors if they have supported “in any way” the social justice movement.  This is an extraordinarily broad question.  It implies that “the social justice movement” is a unified, single movement.  It also covers so many different issues and movements.  This reinforces King’s point.  If jurors who have “in any way” supported social justice movements are stricken from the jury, who do we have left?
  • If the trial lawyers are only trying to find people who are ambivalent.  “I’m concerned.”
  • Who doesn’t have an opinion about this case?
  • All it takes is one juror to hold out to create a hung jury.
  • The defense if giving jurors the Citizen’s arrest argument to hang their hats on. 
  • Note: After all the pressure that was put on the state of Georgia after the video was released, Brian Kamp signed a law banning citizen’s arrests.
  • But, the Citizen’s arrest law was in effect when the three men hunted down Arbery and killed him in the street.
  • Even under the law, the three men were “chasing him through a neighborhood with their guns out until they exhausted Ahmaud and then they murdered him.”

Ahmaud Arbery Case: Jury Selection

Ahmaud Arbery Case,

Day Five, 10/22/21

Friday Morning Reflections: Jury Selection

Few people seem concerned with the private questioning, away from public scrutiny, that is going on in the trial of the men who abducted and shot Ahmaud Arbery.  I think more people should be concerned.

Trials are public for a reason.  Trials are public so that the members of the community can exercise an oversight function.  There are not supposed to be secret trials in this country, but that is exactly what it going on in Brunswick, Georgia.

Because of the rulings of the judge in this case, potential jurors are being questioned collectively.  A panel of 20 potential jurors are called in and asked to hold up their juror number in response to questions from attorneys.  After that, jurors are separated from the rest of the people in the pool and questioned individually by the attorneys.

The problem here is that the judge seems to feel that these jurors deserve to be selected (or deselected) for jury duty in a process that is removed from public scrutiny. 

Defense attorneys moved to make the entire process secret, but after objections the judge gave what has been described as a “compromise” ruling.  The compromise is that two reporters at a time can sit in the room where individual questioning is going on and take “notes.”

I have no idea how long each set of reporters is allowed to sit in the courtroom before they are rotated out and replaced by others, but it can’t be long given the notoriety of the case and the number of media outlets that seem to be present. 

Last Saturday, I attended a rally for Ahmaud Arbery at the courthouse.  There were approximately 75 – 100 people there.  A large proportion of those in attendance were media.

So, the judge’s ruling means that in the first phase of questioning, the part where the jurors are asked to agree or disagree with certain statements by holding up their juror cards, the public can only see the attorneys and hear the juror number of the responding jurors being read out.

For example: “Do you support the Black Lives Matter movement?”  “241, 242, 255, etc.”  “Very good.”

We cannot see the jurors.  I am not completely happy with that situation but I can live with it.

During the second part of jury selection, however, the part where the attorneys question the juror individually (out of hearing of the other jurors) the public is excluded. 

I assume it was a ruling by the judge that allowed Glynn County to stipulate that only persons involved with the case can enter the courtroom and therefore witness the proceedings.  This means that the general public is excluded from this part of the trial and has to rely on the “notes” of a couple of reporters.  And remember, these notes are not a transcript.

They are just that, notes, fragments of statements considered relevant by a couple of reporters sitting in a courtroom for a few minutes and not reporting on the entire day of juror questioning.  This might very well make the press very happy.  Each reporter gets to file a story as if s/he was in the courtroom, but doesn’t have to do the work of sitting in on the whole day of jury selection.  It does not, however, serve the public interest.

Trials are supposed to be public.  As the incomparable Elie Mystal told me yesterday (yes, he actually did tweet me) the pubic right to view the process applies only to the trial, not the pretrial process.  But, that means that one of the most important parts of the trial, jury selection, is shielded from public scrutiny.   

Perhaps most people are not interested in witnessing jury selection.  Court TV, which purports to be covering the trial, is not even covering all of the general questioning.  I assume that attorneys for the media did not challenge the two-reporter compromise ruling.

Yesterday, an attorney for certain media outlets challenged a gag rule the judge had issued which prevents the attorneys from responding to certain questions about the case.  The media attorney argued that this would put a chill on what the attorneys said.  He argued that the attorneys would err on the side of caution since it was unclear exactly what they were and were not allowed to discuss.  I would guess this was exactly what the judge had in mind. 

The media attorney argued that usually when such gag orders are given, they are accompanied by a detailed explanation of the case law on which they are based and clear instructions of what is and what is not allowed.

The judge seemed to react with impatience to the media attorney’s arguments.  The judge informed the court that (essentially) he was a busy man in the middle of a trial (in which the lawyers were taking a lot longer to question potential jurors than he wanted them to, although he was determined to take all the time needed, but also that they should hurry the f… up).  He said, somewhat ironically, that as soon as he had time to explain exactly what he was talking about, he would.

Meanwhile, the attorneys are under the badly defined gag order.

This trial is raising a lot of questions.

Like Sharks in Charge of Water Safety: Elie Mystal and the Supreme Court

Elie Mystal, of the Nation Magazine, is a national treasure. 

He is like a breath of fresh air in the middle of the stale, phony, self-serving, power and celebrity worshiping hosts and commentators appearing regularly on corporate news.

One, just one of the reasons I love him is that he rolls his eyes on national television.  Another reason I love him is that he tells the truth and talks like a regular person.  He doesn’t use ten words with one will do, and he doesn’t surround every statement he makes with a boat load of qualifying phrases.  

He rolls his eyes, he tells the truth, he doesn’t obfuscate because (unlike almost every other person appearing on corporate news) he is not afraid.

The right is not afraid of stealing Supreme Court seats, lying, cheating, rigging elections, subverting justice and a whole host of other things.  The center, however, is a culture of people who are afraid.  They are afraid to see the truth right in front of their faces, afraid to confront depressing and distressing facts, afraid of the very possibility of offending somebody, afraid of being inconvenienced, afraid of not perhaps, maybe not getting some job they haven’t even thought of yet.

I spent almost a decade out of the country.  When I returned, I was astounded to hear a student tell me she couldn’t take an internship at World Wildlife (World Wildlife, not the Communist Party) because she might someday want to apply for a job with the State Department.  This is who we have become.  The right, the Republican party is fighting 24-hours-a-day to establish a Christo-fascist authoritarian government and those in the center are afraid of their shadows.

On Thursday, Nicolle Wallace, MSNBC, spent an entire segment of her program listening to people lionize the members of the January 6 Commission for considering, considering referring Steven Bannon to the Justice Department for criminal contempt.  But, as Eli Mystal pointed out on CNN this morning, the whole process of the referrals to the Justice Department is nothing but theatre.

What every news program and every host should have been pointing out is that the Committee has (but is not using) the right of inherent contempt.  Using this right, the Congress can jail people who don’t abide by subpoenas until they do abide.  They don’t have to refer the matter to the Justice Department and wait for Biden’s (wimp noodle) hatchet man, Merrick Garland to act. 

In addition, inherent contempt means that people like Bannon will be jailed and stay jailed until they provide the information that was subpoenaed.  Going down the criminal contempt path and referring to the Justice Department, assuming Garland will prosecute  (which he will not) and assuming a conviction, only punishes the offender for not cooperating.  It does not secure the information needed. 

So, the House Commission investigating the coup attempt should be shamed and criticized for not taking the path designed to get the information we need.  Instead, they are heralded as heroes, patriots, courageous public servants.  The Nicolle Wallace program last night became a virtual campaign ad for Benie Thompson and the other members.  Not once, did Wallace or any of the members of the panel she assembled tell the American people that what the Commission was doing was a sleight of hand maneuver to look like they were doing something and not doing it.

Similarly, the Commission Biden appointed to study the Supreme Court expansion was “designed to fail.”  As Mystal wrote in April when the commission was formed: “Biden’s choices confirm the worst fears court reformers had about the president: He doesn’t want a solution; he wants an excuse to do nothing.”

Quoting from Eli Mystal’s article IN APRIL:

“Instead of creating a commission of high-minded reformers or bare-knuckle politicos, Biden has created the quintessential government committee that is purposefully designed to accomplish nothing. The “Commission on the Supreme Court” isn’t even allowed to make policy recommendations on what to do about the Supreme Court. It is merely supposed to “study” the issue, which is like hiring a chef to draw pictures of food instead of cooking a meal. When Republicans take power, they don’t commission a book report on what they should do with the courts. They show up to Washington prepared to reshape the judiciary from day one. Biden showed up prepared to read a law review article.”

“Perhaps even more troubling, instead of balancing some of the center-left people on the commission with more, or any, outspoken advocates of court reform, Biden went the other way and put Federalist Society scholars and judges in there to drag the whole thing to the right. I cannot recall the last time a Republican president bothered even to consult a Democratic voice, never mind a genuinely left voice, on how to proceed with a matter related to the Supreme Court. But Democrats continue to act like they need a hall pass from Republicans before they take any action.”

Their inclusion—again, at the expense of some of the individuals who have been actively fighting these people and their conservative takeover of the courts—is insulting.

It’s also a giant waste of time. Donald Trump appointed 226 fire-breathing conservative judges to the federal bench in just four years; we are 20 months away from a midterm election during which Democrats might lose their tenuous grip on power; yet Biden’s committee on studying whether we should maybe, possibly try to fix the court will spend 180 days dickering with Federalist Society people about what Thomas Jefferson would do.”

This report did exactly what it was intended to do, provide cover for Biden who doesn’t have the stomach to expand the Supreme Court (or get rid of the filibuster for that matter).  As Mystal pointed out, the commission itself was composed of people who make their living arguing before the Supreme Court.  Appointing a commission like that is like appointing the sharks to supervise water safety.

In addition, the commission had nothing to say, nothing, about ethics and the Supreme Court.  The Supreme court is the only judicial body in the country with absolutely no ethics regulations.  There is no requirement for members of the Supreme Court to recuse themselves from cases in which they might have an interest.  There is nothing to prevent the wife of a sitting Supreme court Justice to participate in a coup attempt to overthrow the government.  Ethics complaints filed against Bret Kavanaugh were summarily buried after his appointment to the Supreme Court. 

But, the Biden administration, so widely hailed on corporate news spins its wheels, claims the high ground and does nothing.

Sources:

Eli Mystal

Federalist Society Justice: Chris Hedges Interviews Steven Donziger

If you want a glimpse of what the legal system is already looking like under the reign of the Republicans and the Federalist Society, listen to this podcast where Chris Hedges interviews Steven Donziger “the human rights environmental justice attorney, about the grim reality when we confront the real centers of power.Donziger has been fighting polluting American oil companies for nearly three decades on behalf of indigenous communities and peasant farmers in Ecuador, and has been under house arrest in Manhattan for nearly two years. He went on trial in federal court in New York two weeks ago on contempt of court charges, which could see him jailed for six months, for appealing the demand to hand over his computer, cellphone, and other electronic devices to the court, a violation, he argues, of attorney-client privilege. No attorney without a criminal record in federal court has ever before been detained pretrial for a misdemeanor offense.”

YouTube channel: On Contact

People somehow believe that the authoritarian take over of the government will not affect them, that their lives will go on as usual. This is not the case. Increasingly, Republican ideologues are being appointed to the courts. They have no interest in law, reason, or justice. They have interest in power.

In this instance, the courts are persecuting an attorney for daring to confront the criminal behavior of a corporation. Federalist schooled Republican judges are using the criminal justice system to make sure that other attorneys realize that if they go after those in power, they risk their careers, their families and their livelihoods. This case is designed to send a message.

YouTube channel: On Contact

Putting the pieces together: reality winner

PUTTING TOGETHER THE PIECES: Reality Winner

In June 2018, Reality Winner pleaded guilty in a plea agreement that resulted in the longest-ever sentence imposed for a leak of national security information to the media.   

As her mother wrote:

Although Reality’s legal team did their best to build a defense for her, the court ruled against them at every turn, and the threat of 10 years in prison and hefty fines if she didn’t prevail at trial became too much to battle against.

Despite having a spotless record, distinguished military service, documented volunteerism, and service to her community, the government’s sentencing memo…portrayed Reality as an enemy of the country.

On August 23, 2018, the court sentenced Reality to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

In a press release, U.S. Attorney Bobby Christine stated that resolving the case with this plea agreement was the best resolution, as a trial…[might] risk the further disclosure of classified information.

He said that the sentence imposed on Reality “promotes respect for the law and affords deterrence to similar criminal conduct in the future” — using Reality as the example. He referred to her as a “quintessential example of an insider threat.”

After releasing a press statement bragging about the length of the sentence, Christine continued to preside over her persecution.  He fought her move for Compassionate Release. 

Sources:

•        https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/atlanta-us-attorney-brings-in-assistants-who-worked-on-voter-fraud-issues-raising-fears-of-political-interference/2021/01/08/c4057f9a-51c9-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

Twitter: cjjohns1951

no federal pandamic plan, mcconnell packing the courts and other morning delights

MORNING RUNDOWN

•       At the beginning of the pandemic, because of the total lack of a federal plan to deal with the problem, New York spent $1.1 billion for supplies to deal with the crisis.  According to the New York Times (NYT) Both the state and city governments entered into contracts rushing to try to deal with the pandemic.  Now they are trying to avoid paying vendors who they say didn’t deliver on time, and making void contracts now that the crisis has abated.  The New York Times called the behavior a “frantic buying spree.”  But, this buying “spree” was the result of the lack of a federal plan and the decision to allow states to bid against each other for emergency supplies. (See NYT, 12/17/20)

•       Several health care workers in Alaska have had severe reactions to the new vaccine.  There is no coverage of the idea that rational people may be reluctant to have a vaccine because it was developed under the Trump administration.  There are almost weekly stories about the Trump administration’s successful influence over the CDC.  The corporate media is filled with stories about how black people and reluctance to get the vaccine.  To give you an idea of how in touch these corporate media people are, one commentator noted that black people were reluctant to get the vaccine because of the Tuskeegee “airmen.”    (NYT, 12/17/20)

•       The Judiciary is time bomb waiting to explode. (NYT, 12/17/20)   The NYT reviewed more than 10,000 published decisions and dissents during the first three years of the Trump administration.  Trump appointees were “more likely…to disagree with peers selected by Democrats…” and “more likely to agree with their Republican colleagues.”  The “published opinions from the nations’ appeals courts this year show that Trump appointees stand out from other judges…”  The “conservative imprint” is only deepening.  One of the reasons we managed to escape another Trump term is the federal judiciary.  But, that is the reason Mitch McConnell is packing the federal courts with “right-thinking” judges.  Next time, these judges may side with even the most outrageous lawsuits to maintain the power of the Republican party.  McConnell has encouraged federal judges to retire to make room for these more radical colleagues. (NYT, 12/17/20)

•       The new version of the stimulus bill doesn’t include the get out of jail fee card for corporations wanted by McConnell (NYT 12/17/20)

OPENING SUBMISSIVE STATEMENT: AMY CONEY BARRETT: HANDMAIDEN OF OPPRESSION

Just note the phrases of submission, of deliberate non-threatening language in the opening statement of ACB. The play here is: Look, this is a soft-spoken, non-threatening, non-intellectual mom, home, apple pie person. How could you be afraid of this? But, make no mistake about it, this woman is the handmaiden of oppression.

Statement:

“I thank the President”  “my family” “I thank” “I am especially grateful” “it has been a privilege” “my family” “my husband” “have been married” “he has been a selfless” “marriage”  Marriage “is easy.”  “far luckier in love than I deserve.”  “parents” “wonderful children.” “parents” “her parents’ “love” “liberal arts” “brought him home” “happy-go-lucky”  “kind” “our delight” “loves watching movies” “mom” “siblings” “dearest friends” “happy” “so grateful” “my parents” “my parents” “life of service, principle, faith and love.”  “grade-school spelling bee” “Dad sang” “devoted teachers” “high school” “literature class” “my first presentation” “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” “feared I had failed” “my professor” “filled me with confidence” “mentor” “degree in English” “passion for words” “legal mentors” “my first job” “continues to teach me” “he is cheering me on”  “from his livingroom” “taught me” “devoted to his family” never let the law define my identity” “discussed the issues with my colleagues” “remain mindful” “I read every word from the perspective of the loosing party” “one of my children was the party””I would understand” “fairly reasoned” “deeply honored”  “sacrifice, particularly from my family” “believe deeply” “humility” “with appreciation” “I was nine years old” “grace and dignity” “When I was 21 years old” “just beginning my career” “forever grateful” “honor of a lifetime” “valued colleague” “I might bring a few new perspectives” “first mother of school age children” “only sitting justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale.”  “Maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.”  “I would like to thank” “reached out with messages of support” “I believe in the power of prayer” “so many people are praying for me.”  “I pledge faithfully”

The Supreme Court is a nightmare.

Women, just think about where we are. This statement was not an exposition of brilliant legal reasoning. Instead, it was a woman displaying stories about her children, her husband and how wonderful he is, how she might teach men on the Supreme court something ABOUT FOOTBALL. What a f…ing embarrassment. Disgraceful.