@snoopydawg

Just read where they want to charge people under the SMITH ACT

The Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 28, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence, and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the federal government.

Approximately 215 people were indicted under the legislation, including alleged communists, anarchists, and fascists. Prosecutions under the Smith Act continued until a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1957[2] reversed a number of convictions under the Act as being unconstitutional. The law has been amended several times.

It is a bad law with bad consequences if used again now with all the other war on the people acts that congress has passed since then and I cannot believe he even thought it was a good idea. Fortunately I saw a lot of people standing against using it for that reason. But wasn't it a bad idea when Trump wanted to use it? Why yes it was. I was appalled reading it till I saw the push back. Kudos to the bros who think that the rule of law and the constitution should still mean something no matter how broken they are.

I haven't read Thomas' rebuttal yet, but when you lose Thomas, it's a hint it was a bad decision.

A rare event MPs having to protest their own government to get access to a political prisoner. Join us on Tuesday at HMP Belmarsh 11.30am#DropTheCharges#FreeAssangehttps://t.co/4qhIFvRYYg

— alison mason #freeassange (@alimay101234) June 26, 2021

Lots more people are paying attention to what is happening to Assange. Gawd if the shitlibs don’t wake up they are going to feel really dumb when they too face censorship and persecution because no one escapes it once it’s in place.

@on the cusp

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Issued a Decision Too Extreme for Clarence Thomas

In a sweeping 5–4 decision, the court stripped Congress of its power to create new rights.

On Friday, the Supreme Court pulled off a heist decades in the making. In TransUnion v. Ramirez, five conservative justices seized Congress’ power to create new individual rights and protect victims by authorizing lawsuits when those rights are violated. Instead, the court awarded itself the power to decide which rights may be vindicated in federal court, overturning Congress’ own decisions about which harms deserve redress. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion for the court was so extreme it prompted Justice Clarence Thomas to write a furious dissent, joined by the liberals, that accused the majority of infidelity to the Constitution. But because of the court’s 6–3 conservative supermajority, Thomas’ defection from the conservative bloc did not change the outcome. And now, thanks to Friday’s decision, a huge number of Americans harmed by a flagrant violation of the law will be locked out of the federal judiciary altogether.

TransUnion revolves around “standing,” or an individual’s ability to file suit in federal court. The Constitution allows federal courts to hear only “cases” or “controversies,” and the Supreme Court has interpreted this language to limit the kinds of disputes that these courts can entertain. Specifically, SCOTUS has held that a person may only sue in federal court if they suffered an “injury in fact,” also called a “concrete harm.”

Some concrete harms are obvious: An abridgment of constitutional liberties, for instance, plainly qualifies; so does a physical or financial injury. But what about less traditional harms? Friday’s case provides a good example. TransUnion, a credit reporting agency, incorrectly flagged thousands of people as potential terrorists and drug traffickers using an incredibly sloppy and inaccurate system. Some victims were denied credit because TransUnion told businesses they were serious criminals. Others were never actually denied credit, but they still suffered: TransUnion did not tell these individuals that the company had flagged them as serious criminals and declined to provide them with a “summary of rights” required by law.

Remember that Schumer allowed McConnell to fast track judges during Trump’s tenure when many federalist society judges got put on the federal courts and some who were not qualified. Democrats have to agree with republicans on judges from their states and many democrats voted for the Trump judges. I thought it was so they could role back previous legislation that democrats passed when they actually worked for the working class and bring inverted totalitarianism to us pdq, and the Supremes have been giving corporations more power over us. We got a ruling in our favor when they said cops do have to get warrants to enter someone’s property.

Let me know if you’re interested and I’ll link the article. Bad news for us tho. You know it’s bad when Thomas doesn’t like it. Thanks Pelosi.

of a witness. (Clear your mind of Clinton and Trump and Nixon impeachement. This is different.)
It is malpractice for lawyers to fail offer up evidence that automatically impeaches the credibility of a witness.
The sure way to do that is to admit the judgments into evidence showing that witness has been convicted of a crime. It happens at trial, however, and it appears that Assange's "trial" did not get into the nuts and bolts of the witnesses supplying evidence for the charging instruments.
At any rate, the witness giving key evidence to pretty much give Assange a death in prison sentence is circumventing the need for the formal trial impeachment process.
He will not live to be an old pervert thief, of that, I am sure.