Once in a while, some R's do something that is encouraging.

[j-mac]

Some leading GOP Conservatives have actually left the GOP and have become Democrats (temporarily).

Really hard right conservatives became the base of Never Trump-ers

now run along little doggie

I would say that those who left to become dems, weren’t republicans in the first place…

And I won’t be running anywhere….

 

[Dante]

Actually not.

Republicans aren’t doing the right thing – they’ll implement redistricting for 2028.

simple searches escape these cretins:

Whether Texas Republicans redistricted legally is a matter of intense judicial debate, with the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately permitting the state to use its maps. [1]
The legality of Texas's mid-decade redistricting effort unfolded as follows:

• The Redrawn Maps: In August 2025, the Texas Legislature passed and Gov. Greg Abbott signed a new congressional redistricting map that created up to five new Republican-leaning U.S. House seats. [1, 2]
• Federal Court Ruling: In November 2025, a three-judge federal panel blocked the map, ruling that the state had used race to intentionally draw districts. The court found that this "racial gerrymandering" unconstitutionally targeted Black and Latino voters. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Supreme Court Intervention: Texas immediately appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In December 2025, the Court issued a 6-3 ruling that halted the lower court's injunction, allowing Texas to use the redrawn maps. The majority concluded that the district court had "failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith" and improperly inserted itself into the election cycle. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Differing Perspectives: While the conservative majority and Texas GOP officials maintained the maps were drawn purely for partisan advantage, which is legally permissible, the dissenting justices argued that these political goals were achieved by unlawfully manipulating the racial makeup of the districts.

 

[Dante]

I would say that those who left to become dems, weren’t republicans in the first place…

And I won’t be running anywhere….

nonsense again

at least you're consistent, even in your stupidity

 

[Dante]

Yes, Trump started it, but Texas did it legally, Democrats retaliated in Virginia by going about it illegally.

I personally don’t care what states do but do it legally or change you laws. Be smart not stupid.

procedural errors
Virginia? Ballot initiative passed by voters?

case argued on procedural errors
Felons like Trump hope to get off on technicalities like this one.

procedural errors

 

[berg80]

I would say that those who left to become dems, weren’t republicans in the first place…

And I won’t be running anywhere….

Too late. You've already run away from democracy and towards autocracy.

The Question Inside Trump's White House Wasn't Whether They Could Suspend Rights—It Was Whether They Could Get Away With It​

The headline read “Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right.” It teased the story like this: “Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.”

What follows is an outrageous attempt, even though it ultimately failed, at least for now, to shatter firmly established constitutional rights and protections. In sharing this story, The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan are giving us a peek at their forthcoming book. Leaving aside, for the moment, the inevitable debate over whether journalists have an obligation to report in real time as opposed to holding their most interesting revelations for later publication, their reporting in this story puts together some previously known or suspected information with new details to provide detailed support for understanding this administration as a threat to democratic ideals.

The Question Inside Trump's White House Wasn't Whether They Could Suspend Rights—It Was Whether They Could Get Away With It

The headline read “Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right.” It teased the story like this: “Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.”

joycevance.substack.com

 

[berg80]

procedural errors
Virginia? Ballot initiative passed by voters?

case argued on procedural errors
Felons like Trump hope to get off on technicalities like this one.

procedural errors

Or what could be called lawfare.

 

[berg80]

I would say that those who left to become dems, weren’t republicans in the first place…

And I won’t be running anywhere….

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right​

Last spring, Will Scharf, an arch-conservative lawyer serving as the White House staff secretary, wrote a secret memo to the chief of staff that reflected growing unease in the West Wing about one of the extreme measures being weighed by Stephen Miller, the powerful adviser driving President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Dated April 29, 2025, and stamped “confidential,” the memo was careful and lawyerly but amounted to a warning against end-running the rule of law. The subject line read: “THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.”

Habeas corpus — the centuries-old right to force the government to justify, before a judge, why it has locked a person up — is enshrined in Article I of the Constitution. Mr. Scharf’s memo, in its unassuming way, was a blinking red warning light. The second Trump White House was deliberating an explosive new claim of presidential power: the suspension of habeas rights for unauthorized immigrants.

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right

Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.

www.nytimes.com

That is what you ran towards. Violations of the Constitution.

 

[j-mac]

Too late. You've already run away from democracy and towards autocracy.

The Question Inside Trump's White House Wasn't Whether They Could Suspend Rights—It Was Whether They Could Get Away With It​

The headline read “Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right.” It teased the story like this: “Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.”

What follows is an outrageous attempt, even though it ultimately failed, at least for now, to shatter firmly established constitutional rights and protections. In sharing this story, The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan are giving us a peek at their forthcoming book. Leaving aside, for the moment, the inevitable debate over whether journalists have an obligation to report in real time as opposed to holding their most interesting revelations for later publication, their reporting in this story puts together some previously known or suspected information with new details to provide detailed support for understanding this administration as a threat to democratic ideals.

The Question Inside Trump's White House Wasn't Whether They Could Suspend Rights—It Was Whether They Could Get Away With It

The headline read “Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right.” It teased the story like this: “Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.”

joycevance.substack.com

Why should I take anything an Obama appointee seriously?

 

[j-mac]

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right​

Last spring, Will Scharf, an arch-conservative lawyer serving as the White House staff secretary, wrote a secret memo to the chief of staff that reflected growing unease in the West Wing about one of the extreme measures being weighed by Stephen Miller, the powerful adviser driving President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Dated April 29, 2025, and stamped “confidential,” the memo was careful and lawyerly but amounted to a warning against end-running the rule of law. The subject line read: “THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.”

Habeas corpus — the centuries-old right to force the government to justify, before a judge, why it has locked a person up — is enshrined in Article I of the Constitution. Mr. Scharf’s memo, in its unassuming way, was a blinking red warning light. The second Trump White House was deliberating an explosive new claim of presidential power: the suspension of habeas rights for unauthorized immigrants.

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right

Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.

www.nytimes.com

That is what you ran towards. Violations of the Constitution.

People in our country illegally should be deported, full stop.

 

[Dante]

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right​

Last spring, Will Scharf, an arch-conservative lawyer serving as the White House staff secretary, wrote a secret memo to the chief of staff that reflected growing unease in the West Wing about one of the extreme measures being weighed by Stephen Miller, the powerful adviser driving President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Dated April 29, 2025, and stamped “confidential,” the memo was careful and lawyerly but amounted to a warning against end-running the rule of law. The subject line read: “THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.”

Habeas corpus — the centuries-old right to force the government to justify, before a judge, why it has locked a person up — is enshrined in Article I of the Constitution. Mr. Scharf’s memo, in its unassuming way, was a blinking red warning light. The second Trump White House was deliberating an explosive new claim of presidential power: the suspension of habeas rights for unauthorized immigrants.

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right

Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.

www.nytimes.com

That is what you ran towards. Violations of the Constitution.

The denial(s) of people like this j-mac is nothing short of astounding.

Is it age related? Who knows, but people are wondering. (moi, channeling an inner-Trump)