Trump is back…the “Now What” thread
- Thread starter D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷
- Start date
i don't think so. trannies typically pick a name they can spell.
I almost thought it was one but just that they all are just mentally deranged regardless. First time I heard of the one from Kommiefornia though.
great moment with the victim of males in girls sports.
Yeeeeee Hawwww.
How many ways can DJT our President say fuck the Democrats without saying fuck or democrat?
I can't even keep score.
How many ways can DJT our President say fuck the Democrats without saying fuck or democrat?
I can't even keep score.
I watched the whole thing.
Wonder how many times the dems will have to brush, rinse, spit and repeat to get the taste of shit out of thier mouth?
Wonder how many times the dems will have to brush, rinse, spit and repeat to get the taste of shit out of thier mouth?
Don’t forget the shit stains running all the way down to their shoes too.
amy coney barrett was a big mistake.
perhaps this is because they "already did the work" they are being paid for...but what work?
The Trump administration is continuing the Biden policy of killing chickens. Just saying. They made all that noise and then decided it was the best policy option after all.
Hopefully that's the last woman he ever appoints to the SCOTUS.
I wish he would appoint more Clarence Thomases, instead of looking for Justices in the mold of Scalia.
With respect to the Second Amendment, the reason why we are all here, Justice Thomas stood alone for the Second Amendment in Rahimi, an 8-1 decision.
With respect to the Commerce Clause, read Raich v. Gonzalez sometime. Scalia sided with the liberals and upheld that monstrosity of a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn. Thomas dissented, writing, "Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not 'Commerce … among the several States.' U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."
Thomas then added, "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.' The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison)."
Dissent, Thomas, J.:
supreme.justia.com
Some of you may think that Commerce Clause cases have nothing to do with guns, but they do.
The Court then took up the same year Silveira v. Lockyer, and turned it away saying "See Raich v. Gonzalez." Silveira was a case about homemade machine guns made from parts sourced intrastate all from California, so no interstate commerce connection. The plaintiffs won at the Ninth Circuit, which held that Congress had no power under the Commerce Clause to regulate such machine guns. <---- Yes, this is real. I am not making it up.
Because of Scalia and his conservative activism about marijuana, the Ninth Circuit had to reverse their decision to be in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Raich v. Gonzalez, so, poof! Just like that, no more legal machine guns. Thanks a lot, Scalia.
If we had nine Clarence Thomases, or even five of them, the federal government would be restrained back to its originally intended constitutional powers.
Machine guns made intrastate would be made without interference from the ATF.
But, no, we keep applauding the appointment of "conservative" Justices, as Trump said, "In the mold of Scalia." Dammit. Scalia is why we have this "dangerous and unusual" garbage and the Second Amendment does not protect weapons truly useful in a militia. It is why we have this "common use" test, which is garbage. US v. Miller used those words, but it was not a test. It was just a comment by the court that the militia showed up bearing private arms of the type in common use at the time. The way Scalia wrote it, we are now frozen in time. Machine guns or any new technology comes out, the government bans it, and, look, because you can get ten years in prison if you have one of these, they are not in common use. They can be banned because they are banned???
Trump is not fucking smart enough to appoint Justices like Thomas.
None of his advisors are smart enough or willing to stand up to suggest a real constitutionalist like Thomas rather than just follow the President's stated desire to appoint conservative activist hacks "in the mold of Scalia."
Dammit.
I'll stop now.
Clarence Thomas is the only Justice qualified to sit on the court right now, and Rahimi proved it. Read his dissent in that case, if you dare. You will never think of the other Justices the same way if you do.
With respect to the Second Amendment, the reason why we are all here, Justice Thomas stood alone for the Second Amendment in Rahimi, an 8-1 decision.
With respect to the Commerce Clause, read Raich v. Gonzalez sometime. Scalia sided with the liberals and upheld that monstrosity of a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn. Thomas dissented, writing, "Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not 'Commerce … among the several States.' U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."
Thomas then added, "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.' The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison)."
Dissent, Thomas, J.:
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Gonzales v. Raich: State laws permitting the medical use of marijuana do not prevent Congress from prohibiting its use for any purpose in those states under the Commerce Clause.
supreme.justia.com
Some of you may think that Commerce Clause cases have nothing to do with guns, but they do.
The Court then took up the same year Silveira v. Lockyer, and turned it away saying "See Raich v. Gonzalez." Silveira was a case about homemade machine guns made from parts sourced intrastate all from California, so no interstate commerce connection. The plaintiffs won at the Ninth Circuit, which held that Congress had no power under the Commerce Clause to regulate such machine guns. <---- Yes, this is real. I am not making it up.
Because of Scalia and his conservative activism about marijuana, the Ninth Circuit had to reverse their decision to be in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Raich v. Gonzalez, so, poof! Just like that, no more legal machine guns. Thanks a lot, Scalia.
If we had nine Clarence Thomases, or even five of them, the federal government would be restrained back to its originally intended constitutional powers.
Machine guns made intrastate would be made without interference from the ATF.
But, no, we keep applauding the appointment of "conservative" Justices, as Trump said, "In the mold of Scalia." Dammit. Scalia is why we have this "dangerous and unusual" garbage and the Second Amendment does not protect weapons truly useful in a militia. It is why we have this "common use" test, which is garbage. US v. Miller used those words, but it was not a test. It was just a comment by the court that the militia showed up bearing private arms of the type in common use at the time. The way Scalia wrote it, we are now frozen in time. Machine guns or any new technology comes out, the government bans it, and, look, because you can get ten years in prison if you have one of these, they are not in common use. They can be banned because they are banned???
Trump is not fucking smart enough to appoint Justices like Thomas.
None of his advisors are smart enough or willing to stand up to suggest a real constitutionalist like Thomas rather than just follow the President's stated desire to appoint conservative activist hacks "in the mold of Scalia."
Dammit.
I'll stop now.
Clarence Thomas is the only Justice qualified to sit on the court right now, and Rahimi proved it. Read his dissent in that case, if you dare. You will never think of the other Justices the same way if you do.
Last edited:
And Scalia wrote "common use" that way on purpose. All you have to do is hear him take Ted Olson to task in the oral arguments for Heller, mocking Ted Olson's contention that hundreds of thousands of legally machine guns are "in common use" in a nation of hundreds of millions.
Scalia knew what he was doing. And he stuck us with this ahistorical reading of the Second Amendment where handguns have the highest protection and a truly useful militia rifle, like an M4, for instance, is not protected at all. This was by design, just like he expanded Congress's commerce clause power to its ultimate limits by design (because being a conservative activist meant that making sure marijuana was federally banned was more important than enforcing the constitution as written).
Disgust.
Scalia knew what he was doing. And he stuck us with this ahistorical reading of the Second Amendment where handguns have the highest protection and a truly useful militia rifle, like an M4, for instance, is not protected at all. This was by design, just like he expanded Congress's commerce clause power to its ultimate limits by design (because being a conservative activist meant that making sure marijuana was federally banned was more important than enforcing the constitution as written).
Disgust.
Sadly, Clarence Thomas is now the oldest Justice, and our time with him is limited. Rather then get more Thomases, we are likely to soon have no Justice Thomas and a bunch of liberal and conservative activists fighting over politics rather than reading the Constitution and applying the law as written. We have only one justice who does that and means it today.
You don't need to be a lawyer. Article 1 (legislative branch) Section 8 (powers of Congress) Clause 3 (the third listed power) gives Congress the power:
"to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Read that again.
And again.
That little clause 3 is where the federal government gets most of its size and power. Now read it one more time and ask yourself, "Does this clause 3 give Congress the power to ban marijuana grown at home for personal use with no commerce whatsoever, intra or interstate?" Seriously, think about the answer. Read the clause again if you need to.
Does it give Congress the power to regulate a homemade machine gun, not intended for sale, sourced with parts all sourced from within your state? Again, treat the question seriously.
Is there any commerce with a foreign nation or Indian tribe being regulated? What about commerce "among states?"
Do you think Amy Coney Barrett or any of these other "conservative" Justices would take the kind of stand that Justice Clarence Thomas has? Rhetorical question. We had our answer the first time a difficult question came up in Rahimi, and the other 8 declared, oh, the Bruen case did not mean that about the Second Amendment.
Justice Thomas, the author of Bruen, was like, "Yes, we did mean that. That is what it says."
Sadly, I do not expect any Thomas type appointment out of this President.
"to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Read that again.
And again.
That little clause 3 is where the federal government gets most of its size and power. Now read it one more time and ask yourself, "Does this clause 3 give Congress the power to ban marijuana grown at home for personal use with no commerce whatsoever, intra or interstate?" Seriously, think about the answer. Read the clause again if you need to.
Does it give Congress the power to regulate a homemade machine gun, not intended for sale, sourced with parts all sourced from within your state? Again, treat the question seriously.
Is there any commerce with a foreign nation or Indian tribe being regulated? What about commerce "among states?"
Do you think Amy Coney Barrett or any of these other "conservative" Justices would take the kind of stand that Justice Clarence Thomas has? Rhetorical question. We had our answer the first time a difficult question came up in Rahimi, and the other 8 declared, oh, the Bruen case did not mean that about the Second Amendment.
Justice Thomas, the author of Bruen, was like, "Yes, we did mean that. That is what it says."
Sadly, I do not expect any Thomas type appointment out of this President.
Si.
We need some hard, Constitution hitting nigga's and I doubt they'll get nominated.
James Ho is purported to be on Trump's short list.
This would be real change of the sort we are not going to see just because Trump was elected.
Given his anti-constitutional opinion on birthright citizenship, I am afraid he is more of a conservative activist than a constitutionalist in the mold of Thomas. I hope I am wrong and that is just one issue, but he definitely holds a different view of this issue than Thomas does, and, I think Judge Ho holds a different opinion from the folks who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment and ratified it, and frankly, a different opinion compared to all of the judicial decisions regarding this issue.
Basically, his "invasion" opinion is a way to get around the constitution instead of letting the constitution be his guide. That is sort of the very definition of an activist rather than an originalist.
I have not read enough of his other writings to get a firm grasp - I know a lot of others think he fits closely with his former boss (Thomas). I will look more closely if he is nominated.
Judge Ho:
Source:
That quote is obviously written for folks who have not read the judicial opinions on this issue, or, frankly for those who are not smart enough to know the difference. Since Judge Ho is smart enough, I have to put this in the category of activism. He is twisting language in the opinions intentionally to get his desired outcome, which is different from the outcome one gets applying the language of the Fourteenth Amendment and this history and context if the language is not clear enough. That sort of twisting activism is the opposite of what I want in a Supreme Court Justice. That is what the other 8, not Thomas, do all the time.
I want Justices who follow the Constitution even when they do not like the result.
Si, I mentioned him not in support but as rumored to be on the short list.
The concept of following without liking or supporting is a concept that escapes many and one that can be difficult to abide by even if understood.
I'll have to read his opinion on this. The quote you chose would seem to indicate he is against birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants (unlawful combatants).
here is the problem judges taking over from exec that they don't like. it is a weak point of the system. the courts say what the law is and usurp leg and exec function with no one to say that that is illegal. this is,has been and will be a huge problem in dismantling the deep state and getting control of gov spending.
that all foreign aid should stop is a side issue really. how to stop lib judges from protecting the lib deep state? answer goes outside of "the rule of law".
That is exactly what he is saying.
You read it correctly and understand what he is saying correctly.
The problem is that what he is saying clashes with the Fourteenth Amendment and cases from which he gets this "invasion" language.
His point is silly if you read where he gets that argument. Essentially, Supreme Court decisions on that issue point to the hypothetical situation in which an invading force exercises control over an area. For the duration of time that they hold an area, children born to the invaders are born on soil that is essentially not the United States, and the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or the laws here, which have no effect on an area not under US control.
Immigrants, illegal or legal, are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. If an illegal alien kills a jogging UGA student, he gets arrested and prosecuted.
The two situations are very different.
Illegal aliens have not wrested any geographic area away from the US so as not to be subject to the jurisdiction of laws here. It is downright silly to be arguing that.
PS - I do not like birthright citizenship, but I do know what the Fourteenth Amendment says, and I have read the major cases, like United States v. Wong Kim Ark that are the law on this issue. I have read Wong Kim Ark more than once, so that I could thoroughly understand it. I discovered that folks misrepresent it all the time. Now I know what it actually says, so I am not mislead on this subject.
100%. This is important, but I find most Americans only care about the outcome and to hell with the Constitution.
Due process? F those people! Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Oh, well, until it is me.
Thomas was on the correct side of that one, along with three others, but that is not enough. 5-4 decision
(emphasis added by me)
Got it.
The invader language is intoxicating but an illegal immigrant is not exactly the same thing as an enemy combatant occupying an area and supplanting US laws. But even that seems sketchy if one of the parents was a US citizen. I guess if a captured combatant sired or birthed a child it might be different.
I want anchor babies to go away but assumed a long time ago it would take an amendment to make it a reality that sticks.
There has never been such a case - it is hypothetical, but harkens back to common law. The Supreme Court did discuss a case involving another issue when England was holding part of the United States temporarily (Maine, I think?). It was something to do with taxes, I do not remember now, but they used that to illustrate that US jurisdiction did not extend to that area while held by a foreign power (that was a real case, just not involving birthright citizenship).
Thomas and Sowell are 2 reasons being a racist is a back and forth tug a war for me. i have several personal reasons to be one. being one consistently is not correct. judging by character and using profiling in personal interactions is try to do response to people.
you are right of course. 1 prob is that a search for a true orig intent judge is almost impossible,they hardly exist except maybe at the county level. all judges are lawyers,all lawyers went to pretty much radical lib law schools,so...I wish he would appoint more Clarence Thomases, instead of looking for Justices in the mold of Scalia.
With respect to the Second Amendment, the reason why we are all here, Justice Thomas stood alone for the Second Amendment in Rahimi, an 8-1 decision.
With respect to the Commerce Clause, read Raich v. Gonzalez sometime. Scalia sided with the liberals and upheld that monstrosity of a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn. Thomas dissented, writing, "Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not 'Commerce … among the several States.' U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power."
Thomas then added, "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.' The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison)."
Dissent, Thomas, J.:
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Gonzales v. Raich: State laws permitting the medical use of marijuana do not prevent Congress from prohibiting its use for any purpose in those states under the Commerce Clause.
Some of you may think that Commerce Clause cases have nothing to do with guns, but they do.
The Court then took up the same year Silveira v. Lockyer, and turned it away saying "See Raich v. Gonzalez." Silveira was a case about homemade machine guns made from parts sourced intrastate all from California, so no interstate commerce connection. The plaintiffs won at the Ninth Circuit, which held that Congress had no power under the Commerce Clause to regulate such machine guns. <---- Yes, this is real. I am not making it up.
Because of Scalia and his conservative activism about marijuana, the Ninth Circuit had to reverse their decision to be in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Raich v. Gonzalez, so, poof! Just like that, no more legal machine guns. Thanks a lot, Scalia.
If we had nine Clarence Thomases, or even five of them, the federal government would be restrained back to its originally intended constitutional powers.
Machine guns made intrastate would be made without interference from the ATF.
But, no, we keep applauding the appointment of "conservative" Justices, as Trump said, "In the mold of Scalia." Dammit. Scalia is why we have this "dangerous and unusual" garbage and the Second Amendment does not protect weapons truly useful in a militia. It is why we have this "common use" test, which is garbage. US v. Miller used those words, but it was not a test. It was just a comment by the court that the militia showed up bearing private arms of the type in common use at the time. The way Scalia wrote it, we are now frozen in time. Machine guns or any new technology comes out, the government bans it, and, look, because you can get ten years in prison if you have one of these, they are not in common use. They can be banned because they are banned???
Trump is not fucking smart enough to appoint Justices like Thomas.
None of his advisors are smart enough or willing to stand up to suggest a real constitutionalist like Thomas rather than just follow the President's stated desire to appoint conservative activist hacks "in the mold of Scalia."
Dammit.
I'll stop now.
Clarence Thomas is the only Justice qualified to sit on the court right now, and Rahimi proved it. Read his dissent in that case, if you dare. You will never think of the other Justices the same way if you do.
maybe "amy" just isn't a good name for decent judges.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
BREAKING: DC Circuit Court Allows Trump Firing of Hampton Dellinger | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
Hampton linger's insights on the Supreme Court's evolving landscape offer a critical perspective on the intersection of law and politics, shedding light on the implications for future judicial decisions.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
i for one am getting sick of these "investigations","harshly worded letters" and these aggressive,empty speeches by our new leaders. when are the confiscation of ill gotten gains,life prison sentences and executions going to start?
Similar threads
