Main Menu

Getting shed of Orly Taitz

As much as I dislike Orly Taitz, she is a citizen of the United States and unless she by her own actions renounces that citizenship, she has the right to live here, just as much as all the other people I don’t like.

Now, Orly Taitz offers us a solution, remove the entire state of California from the Union. Taitz says, citing historian (according to Taitz) Thomas DiLorenzo, that every state has the right of secession. She writes:

Today we are seeing an unprecedented tyranny of the federal government and it might take a secession by one or several states to wake up and shake up the federal government into ending the abuses.

The crackpot is strong in that one (more nonsense in the article).

I personally would be sad to see California go, especially Berkeley. Perhaps Orly can declare her own state within California, and then it could secede.

They’d none of them be missed; they’d none of them be missed.

Throwing Lincoln under the bus

There is one curious item in the article, attributed to DiLorenzo: “a warrant issued by Lincoln to arrest the chief judge of the Supreme court for disagreeing with Lincoln.” All major Lincoln biographers have concluded that this alleged secret warrant never existed although that possibility might have been discussed within the Lincoln administration. (See Wikipedia: Taney Arrest Warrant.)

, , , ,

42 Responses to Getting shed of Orly Taitz

  1. avatar
    John Reilly September 20, 2014 at 5:41 pm #

    Dr. Taitz has, by her account, lived in 3 countries. Now that she is here (and I have not seen any naturalization certificate) her article today defends the South for seceding. She is critical of Lincoln and thinks he should have let the South go. How that would have changed history, such as American involvement in WWI and WWII especially as it affected the Jewish people of Moldova or the existence of Israel is of no concern to her in her warped racist rants against Pres. Obama.

  2. avatar
    JPotter September 20, 2014 at 6:11 pm #

    Declare her own state within CA …. she could probably make a go of such an attempt in Orange County!

  3. avatar
    Krosis September 20, 2014 at 8:58 pm #

    Dr. Taiz – the best of all attorneys,
    Dr. Taiz – one of the elite,
    Lives among such horrible corruption!
    Dr. Taitz! Secede! Secede! Secede!

    In the noble land of Orly Kingdom
    People shall submit to Orlylaw.
    Violators will be prosecuted
    No matter whether high or lo’.

    Justice will be equal in the kingdom:
    Whether it is early, or it’s late,
    You will have to show Dr. Orly
    Your non-forged Birth Certificate.

    Villains, stay away from Orly kingdom,
    Since your evil, vile, disgusting plan –
    It will be defeated very quickly
    When she sees your stolen SSN.

    Keep in mind that all’s not well with Orly:
    Dr. Orly suffers from a cough.
    That’s why Dr. Taitz has legislated:
    “No kids from Mexico! Enough!”

    So, let’s all unite behind Orly!
    We all love our Dr. Orly Taitz!
    Shining spires of Dr. Orly Kingdom –
    California’s eternal fate.

  4. avatar
    Janny September 20, 2014 at 9:04 pm #

    To Krosis: Perfect!

  5. avatar
    Keith September 20, 2014 at 9:27 pm #

    JPotter:
    Declare her own state within CA …. she could probably make a go of such an attempt in Orange County!

    Not sure. How’d the “7 California” petitions do in Orange County?

  6. avatar
    Thomas Brown September 20, 2014 at 9:36 pm #

    Interesting construction. I have never seen “getting shed” used in that context, although it makes fine sense. I have encountered “getting shet” of someone or something in colloquial southern speech recorded by Faulkner and others. “Shet” we assumed was a variant (or past participle?) of “shut”. Now I wonder.

    Applied to Taitz, of course, either would do.

  7. avatar
    Arthur B. September 20, 2014 at 9:50 pm #

    Thomas Brown: I have never seen “getting shed” used in that context, although it makes fine sense.

    Google reveals very little about the phrase, but I did find it as an example of “Missouri Slang” at the site http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mostone/fun/slang.htm , “The Ozark to English Online Dictionary” — “Shed of” means “Get rid of,” as in “I shore want to be shed of this cold.”

    Oddly, I had no trouble with the phrase — I seem to recollect it from my youth, though that was in Manhattan.

  8. avatar
    Dave September 20, 2014 at 10:06 pm #

    Another Taitz post called my attention to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of pro-secession sentiment in the US. The poll, apparently motivated by the Scotland thing, found that 24% of Americans at least somewhat supported their state seceding from the US. Reuters of course plays this as shocking — what do you expect them to do after paying for a poll? — but I can’t help noticing that 24% is right in line to be classified as what is sometimes called the crazification factor, that you can ask a question in a poll and get about 20% of respondents to agree to an answer that is objectively stupid.

    Reuters also slices up the data as many ways as they can, but the only times I could find where the answers become at least slightly significant are:

    1) Republicans: 30%
    2) “Southwest” (AZ, NM, OK, and of course TX): 34%
    3) Tea Partiers: 53%

    I find it notable that no other region of the country broke 30% — including the South.

  9. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 20, 2014 at 11:29 pm #

    The States are sovereign pursuant to the 11th Amendment. The 11th Amendment was a response to SCOTUS’s ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793); whereby, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court.

    Breaking news …… the federal government is subservient to the people and the States.

  10. avatar
    Keith September 20, 2014 at 11:44 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Breaking news …… the federal government is subservient to the people and the States

    Breaking news …… Sven doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    From Wikipedia: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

    Although the Eleventh Amendment grants immunity to states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may abrogate state immunity from suit under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), the Court ruled the Congress could do the same regarding bankruptcy cases by way of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution. In Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that when a state invokes a federal court’s removal jurisdiction, it waives the Eleventh Amendment in the removed case.

  11. avatar
    Keith September 20, 2014 at 11:52 pm #

    (Hit post to early and ran out of editting time)

    Basically the 11th amendment clarifies the soverign immunity of Governments to law suits brought against it for Governing according to its mandate.

    It doesn’t say anything about the Feds being subservient to the States – that is a stupid interpretation.

    The way to change a Government you don’t like is not to sue them – it is to elect a different Government.

  12. avatar
    GLaB September 21, 2014 at 12:28 am #

    This poll is most notable for showing no change since Rasmussen’s 2012 poll:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2012/24_say_states_have_right_to_secede

    That poll showed a bit of a rise from an earlier poll by Zogby in 2009 (20%). The net take: no tea for you, partiers.

  13. avatar
    Thinker (mobile) September 21, 2014 at 1:32 am #

    If wingnuts were to form the Republic of Wingnuttia, it wouldn’t last more than a few months. At the very first legislative session, at the first sign of disagreement, the infighting would begin. They would start calling each other infiltrators. They would quickly devolve into micro-republics of a couple dozen people each and waste all their time, energy, and other resources fighting each other. It is guaranteed to fail.

  14. avatar
    bovril September 21, 2014 at 2:21 am #

    Lets not forget that when you breakdown which states receive more from the federal government than they contribute, they are almost exclusively red states. Do I hear a “Takers not Makers”……..😈

  15. avatar
    Lupin September 21, 2014 at 2:42 am #

    Clearly Orly wants to play her own version of GAME OF THRONES in real life.

  16. avatar
    bovril September 21, 2014 at 3:07 am #

    Oh if anyone wants the figures to back up my assertion

    http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

  17. avatar
    Greenfinches September 21, 2014 at 6:16 am #

    Keith: Breaking news …… Sven doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    your post was admirably succinct, Keith!!! Hardly need another quote from the fantasist…..

  18. avatar
    Andrew Morris September 21, 2014 at 8:22 am #

    Orly believes that it was wrong for the “North” to force the “South” to end slavery, by force. Leaving aside that her history is about as unreliable as her law, it’s no surprise to see where she stands on that issue.

    She also doesn’t get that the departure of Texas likely means there’d never again be a Republican President or majority in the House.

  19. avatar
    Bonsall Obot September 21, 2014 at 8:29 am #

    Bloody Orly didn’t think it through to its logical conclusion???

    Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

  20. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 21, 2014 at 10:35 am #

    Keith:
    (Hit post to early and ran out of editting time)

    Basically the 11th amendment clarifies the soverign immunity of Governments to law suits brought against it for Governing according to its mandate.

    It doesn’t say anything about the Feds being subservient to the States – that is a stupid interpretation.

    The way to change a Government you don’t like is not to sue them – it is to elect a different Government.

    In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), SCOTUS answered the question, “… against the shield of sovereign immunity afforded the State by the Eleventh Amendment, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), [does] Congress [have] the power to authorize federal courts to enter such an award [of money damages] against the State as a means of enforcing the substantive guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.” SCOTUS said yes, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 entitled petitioners the right to pursue money damages against the State for discrimination. The State could not invoke sovereign immunity to prevent a lawsuit to determine the merits of an allegation the State discriminated against some of its employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    In other words, if a State secedes from the union, then some citizens of the State that object may sue the State in the District Court to recover money for damages due to loss or property, privileges and immunities. Collection may be a problem after the State secedes and could lead to a war.

  21. avatar
    Sef September 21, 2014 at 12:18 pm #

    Orly “No Sheds” Taitz.

  22. avatar
    bovril September 21, 2014 at 1:49 pm #

    Sven,

    Still waiting on those details of the naturalisation certificate you keep on about.

    You know, those details you would have seen and noted from such a momentous record. Specifically the record number the, A number, the signer and where the record was issued.

    Oh an don’t forget we are still waiting on you getting off your voluminous ass and getting a copy of the original that is freely available to such a doughty researcher as yourself.

  23. avatar
    Dave B. September 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm #

    Where I came from in Arkansas it was “get shed.” You know, like a snake would get shed of its skin. When I first read it, “getting shut” of something made about as much sense as somebody talking about “a long road to hoe.” I don’t know how you’d “get shut” of somebody, and anybody who thinks you hoe a road instead of a row never hoed either one.
    Faulkner, bless his heart, should’ve kept his liquor and his writing materials in different houses– or at least at different ends of a very long hallway.

    Thomas Brown:
    Interesting construction.I have never seen “getting shed” used in that context, although it makes fine sense.I have encountered “getting shet” of someone or something in colloquial southern speech recorded by Faulkner and others.“Shet” we assumed was a variant (or past participle?) of “shut”.Now I wonder.

    Applied to Taitz, of course, either would do.

  24. avatar
    Dave B. September 21, 2014 at 2:33 pm #

    Yet they get all hot and bothered over the Pledge of Allegiance. Go figure.

    Dave:
    Another Taitz post called my attention to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of pro-secession sentiment in the US. The poll, apparently motivated by the Scotland thing, found that 24% of Americans at least somewhat supported their state seceding from the US. Reuters of course plays this as shocking — what do you expect them to do after paying for a poll? — but I can’t help noticing that 24% is right in line to be classified as what is sometimes called the crazification factor, that you can ask a question in a poll and get about 20% of respondents to agree to an answer that is objectively stupid.

    Reuters also slices up the data as many ways as they can, but the only times I could find where the answers become at least slightly significant are:

    1) Republicans: 30%
    2) “Southwest” (AZ, NM, OK, and of course TX): 34%
    3) Tea Partiers: 53%

    I find it notable that no other region of the country broke 30% — including the South.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 21, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

    According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, it is a variant of “get shut of” or “get shet of.” It means “get rid of.” The sample sentence was, “Tom followed me around for months, but I finally got shed of him.” It’s a rural idiom. Erskine Caldwell used it in his story “Savannah River Payday.”

    I chose the phrase very intentionally in place of “get rid of” because that other formulation can also suggest murder, which I very definitely didn’t want to suggest.

    See also today’s quote of the day.

    Thomas Brown: Interesting construction. I have never seen “getting shed” used in that context, although it makes fine sense. I have encountered “getting shet” of someone or something in colloquial southern speech recorded by Faulkner and others. “Shet” we assumed was a variant (or past participle?) of “shut”. Now I wonder.

  26. avatar
    Rickey September 21, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

    ” If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” – Justice Antonin Scalia

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/antonin-scalia-no-right-to-sec.html

  27. avatar
    Woodrowfan September 21, 2014 at 5:44 pm #

    DiLorenzo is NOT a historian. he is an economics professor. He is also a nut. No actual reputable historian takes him seriously.

  28. avatar
    Keith September 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: In other words, if a State secedes from the union, then some citizens of the State that object may sue the State in the District Court to recover money for damages due to loss or property, privileges and immunities. Collection may be a problem after the State secedes and could lead to a war.

    So you are saying that it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a State to secede?

    In what universe is the Fed. Gov. subservient to the State Gov. if the Feds can override the State Gov sovereign immunity?

  29. avatar
    Atticus Finch September 21, 2014 at 7:14 pm #

    No State has the right to secede.

    Case law:

    Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that “the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,” and that “without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.” Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. Texas v. White, 74 US 700, 725 (1869)

    enuf said

  30. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 22, 2014 at 4:00 am #

    Rickey:
    ” If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” – Justice Antonin Scalia

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/antonin-scalia-no-right-to-sec.html

    I thought the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court were the only venues to answer Constitutional questions. Now, Associate Justice Scalia is advocating for Civil War as a way to answer Constitutional questions.

    That reminds me that I need to buy more ammo.

  31. avatar
    bovril September 22, 2014 at 4:14 am #

    Come along Sven, still waiting on those naturalization details

  32. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) September 22, 2014 at 7:06 am #

    Taitz says, citing historian (according to Taitz) Thomas DiLorenzo, that every state has the right of secession.

    It’s interesting to note that the “let’s secede” notion has faded almost into oblivion after it was quite strong among wingnuts after Obama got re-elected.

  33. avatar
    faceman September 22, 2014 at 8:58 am #

    Sven, by what twisted logic do you conclude that Scalia was advocating civil war as a way to resolve Constitutional Issues? The Civil War he was referring to happened happened 150 years ago.

    Now about that naturalization paperwork……

  34. avatar
    Lupin September 22, 2014 at 9:03 am #

    bovril: Come along Sven, still waiting on thos

    Other than his “the French lied” (???) I’m still waiting for his explanation of how Obama got into France when he was in college without a US passport.

    Let’s face it: sven has got nothing.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater September 22, 2014 at 11:29 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I thought the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court were the only venues to answer Constitutional questions. Now, Associate Justice Scalia is advocating for Civil War as a way to answer Constitutional questions.

    That reminds me that I need to buy more ammo. He stated that the civil war resolved any constitutional issues when it came to the idea of secession.

    So plain english is something you also struggle with. Nowhere in that quote did Scalia advocate civil war.

  36. avatar
    predicto September 22, 2014 at 6:07 pm #

    DiLorenzo is a neo-confederate apologist, promoting the Lost Cause mythology that Lincoln was evil and caused the civil war, and the confederates were just upset about … tariffs. Many RWNJ’s love him.

    He has no credentials as a historian, and he is a joke as an economist as well (he is an extremist “Austrian” libertarian.

  37. avatar
    Sef September 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I thought the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court were the only venues to answer Constitutional questions. Now, Associate Justice Scalia is advocating for Civil War as a way to answer Constitutional questions.

    That reminds me that I need to buy more ammo.

    What this proves is that you are the poster child for “Reading Is Fundamental”.

  38. avatar
    The European September 22, 2014 at 6:41 pm #

    faceman:
    Sven, by what twisted logic do you conclude that Scalia was advocating civil war as a way to resolve Constitutional Issues?The Civil War he was referring to happened 150 years ago.

    Now about that naturalization paperwork……

    Scalia quoted the “Normative Kraft des Faktischen “- (Georg Jelllinek) – the power of facts (like the outcome of the Civil War) to decide questions of law ….

    If there were not this power – the Queen of England would still be your sovereign …..

  39. avatar
    chancery September 23, 2014 at 11:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: shed

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, it is a variant of “get shut of” or “get shet of.” It means “get rid of.” The sample sentence was, “Tom followed me around for months, but I finally got shed of him.” It’s a rural idiom. Erskine Caldwell used it in his story “Savannah River Payday.”

    I chose the phrase very intentionally in place of “get rid of” because that other formulation can also suggest murder, which I very definitely didn’t want to suggest.

    See also today’s quote of the day.

    I somehow had the idea that there was an obsolete construction “to be shent” of someone.

    Two minutes’ internet research doesn’t support the notion, and I’m too lazy to fire up the NYPL’s free (but slow) link to the OED.

  40. avatar
    Thomas Brown September 24, 2014 at 3:36 am #

    chancery:
    I somehow had the idea that there was an obsolete construction “to be shent” of someone.

    That’s one I haven’t run into, but it too makes fine sense esp. if related to “shunt.” We keep our PIE dictionary handy to see if these word branches can be traced to a single older root. And the Shakespeare Concordance, to see if the word appears in the Works.

  41. avatar
    Thomas Brown September 24, 2014 at 12:56 pm #

    The Concordance records six appearances of “shent” in the Folio, though one is due to a typo. There is a line in Twelfth Night that says “I was shent for speaking to you,” so it looks like shent was a variant of “shunned.” The other occurrences seem to carry the same sense. “Shent” appears in Hamlet as well, so when I get a chance to consult the Variorum I will see if there is a footnote from any period regarding its connotation.

  42. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 24, 2014 at 2:53 pm #

    I read this comment a couple of days ago and today was excited to find a really nice play in Words With Friends (which is totally and completely different from Scrabble, really!) that involved the word “SHET”. I was so proud—it would have proven that I’ve gotten more out of the birther movement than all of the birthers combined! (except, of course, for the grifters). But it turns out that “SHET” is not a word (at least a word in the dictionary). Now all I’m left with is a feeling of disappointment like the birthers must feel all the time.

    🙁

    Thomas Brown:
    Interesting construction.I have never seen “getting shed” used in that context, although it makes fine sense.I have encountered “getting shet” of someone or something in colloquial southern speech recorded by Faulkner and others.“Shet” we assumed was a variant (or past participle?) of “shut”.Now I wonder.

    Applied to Taitz, of course, either would do.