Wednesday Morning Rant

Who Is In Charge?

When it comes to finding out who is in charge in the United States, there are two ways to try to arrive at the conclusion. One is to read and understand the Constitution about where power comes from and who does what. That's pretty easy to do and not difficult to understand. There are also plenty of adjunct materials to explain it, from "Schoolhouse Rock" all the way up to postgraduate courses in major universities.

But it doesn't seem to matter much, because that is isn't how things actually work. There is a tried and true method to ascertain how things work, and that's simply to look around. How does something happen. Who says yes or no? Who gets listened to - grudgingly or not - when he says yes or no? Regardless of what's written down where and how things technically work, you can always just see how things unfold to find out who is in charge.

Headlines help to tell the story.

CNN, January 9, 2025: READ: Supreme Court ruling allowing Trump to be sentenced on Friday
Associated Press, February 21, 2025: The Supreme Court won’t allow Trump to immediately fire head of whistleblower office
Reuters, February 27, 2025: US Supreme Court allows Trump's freeze of foreign aid funding temporarily
Associated Press, March 04, 2025: Trump increasingly asks the Supreme Court to overrule judges blocking key parts of his agenda
PBS News, March 05, 2025: Divided Supreme Court upholds order requiring Trump administration to release $2 billion in foreign aid
Reuters, March 28, 2025: Trump asks US Supreme Court to intervene in deportations fight
LA Times, April 08, 2025: Supreme Court OKs Trump’s mass firing of new federal workers, blocking S.F. judge’s rehire order
Associated Press, April 09, 2025: Supreme Court allows Trump to deport Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act, after judges’ review
The New Yorker, April 15, 2025: Will the Supreme Court Stop Donald Trump?
Associated Press, April 17, 2025: Supreme Court keeps hold on Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship but sets May arguments
New York Times, April 22, 2025: Justices Seem Set to Allow Opt-Outs From L.G.B.T.Q. Stories in Schools
ABC News, May 05, 2025: Supreme Court allows Trump to implement transgender military service ban for now

"Supreme Court Allows." "Supreme Court won't allow." "Trump asks Supreme Court." "Will the Supreme Court?" There's a trend coming hot and heavy this year, isn't there? But lest you think this is distinctly a Trump thing, it does of course precede him. For example, on the topic of firearms. "Supreme Court expands gun rights, with nation divided" and "Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun rights groups," are headlines from a few years ago. For as long as most can remember, members of the government - elected, or (in a whole 'nother problem) unelected - make rules and the Supreme Court decides whether those rules are real or not.

The rest of the government does whatever it does, and the Supreme Court decides whatever the hell it pleases. Justified or not, based in law or not, Constitutional or not, the Supreme Court chooses what happens. You go hat in hand to the Court to beg permission, to beg for approval, to beg for disapproval. They listen to the river of supplicants and rule the land from their bench. It has long been this way, but what has changed in the Trump 2.0 era is how much the tone and word choice have shifted.

They used to couch it in different language. "Supreme Court upholds" or "Supreme court considers" or "Supreme Court reverses" used to carry the day. Nobody is pretending any longer. Now it's been distilled to its essence. "Supreme court allows" and "Supreme Court forbids." Go beg the Court for what you want. The shift has been as subtle as a brick through the window and now it's out in the open in headline after headline.

Throw away your Constitution and your law books and your treatises on the theory of American Government. None of them matter. All of them are fiction. We are ruled from the Bench, and the Bench does whatever it pleases.

Posted by: Joe Mannix at 11:00 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 1st?

Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:00 AM (77rzZ)

2 Fiction

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at May 07, 2025 11:01 AM (IcZqk)

3 I'll call 'em.

Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:01 AM (77rzZ)

4 "How many Divisions does this judge have?" should be a normal question right now.

Posted by: NR Pax at May 07, 2025 11:01 AM (BpO1e)

5 'Em status: Called.

Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:02 AM (77rzZ)

6 Used to date a girl like the Supreme Court. No appeal.

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at May 07, 2025 11:02 AM (IcZqk)

7 Behind the Supremes are some nasty people called Senators.

Posted by: Pudinhead at May 07, 2025 11:04 AM (pZ64F)

8 Dancing around this issue so as to no 'offend' SCOTUS is a losing strategy.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 07, 2025 11:04 AM (Q4IgG)

9 I'm just a bill, yeah I'm on a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill...

Posted by: Harry Paratestes, watching Schoolhouse Rock at May 07, 2025 11:05 AM (uCjyK)

10 Not only was the SC intended to be the weakest branch - they seized the power of judicial review remember, it was never given to them - the government overall was never supposed to have this much power to begin with.

The primary intent of the federal government was to protect the borders - not push people to embrace globohomo, give the urban populations welfare, or make politicians and bureaucrats rich.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:06 AM (t0Rmr)

11 When I was in my paralegal certification course, the instructors (all attorneys) had a saying: "What is the law? Whatever a judge says it is."

Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:07 AM (77rzZ)

12 Interestingly, this is how a lot of third world countries operate.

Like India.

Their Supreme Court is basically some kind of weird version of an all powerful monarchy that can override anything they don't like, or order things to be done. And it's all outside the "democratic system."

I guess the House of Lords served a similar function in the UK back in the day. Like "yeah... we'll give you the illusion of choice, but really, we make the rules here, so shut up."

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at May 07, 2025 11:07 AM (uCjyK)

13 Looking especially at matters of international relations and confronting the southern invasion, there is no role for the courts. None.

Did FDR have to give each Japanese "undocumented immigrant" "due process" during WWII? Why then is Trump supposed to do the same with the current invaders?

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:07 AM (t0Rmr)

14 Amen to that.

Posted by: torabora at May 07, 2025 11:08 AM (m4ZZk)

15 Good. It's about time the masks have fallen. Only a matter of time before a hanging judge will have a whole new meaning.

Posted by: Abolish The SCROTUMS at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (979V4)

16 Did FDR have to give each Japanese "undocumented immigrant" "due process" during WWII?
Posted by: 18-1

Well, the Japanese internees were American citizens, so he should have, yes.

Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (77rzZ)

17 "Supreme Court Allows." "Supreme Court won't allow." "Trump asks Supreme Court." "Will the Supreme Court?" There's a trend coming hot and heavy this year, isn't there?

---------------

A kritarchy, if you can keep it.

Posted by: ShainS at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (UfbNw)

18 Supreme Court = Politburo

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (ML8rW)

19 ***Regardless of what's written down where and how things technically work
---

Herman Hesse was infatuated with Hinduism. When he finally made it to India and witnessed it in action he threw up and went back home.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (PB44O)

20 The difference is that it's been around half the Supreme Court that follows its Constitutional placement as the third equal branch and the other half that truly thinks it's Supreme in all matters.

The Left SC Justices don't listen to cases and apply the constitution to the arguments presented. They have a conclusion before I've case is even brought to the court. When it is they simply work backwards to write their opinion to fit their conclusions. It results in intellectually silly opinions that make no logical or constitutional sense.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (VofaG)

21 Used to date a girl like the Supreme Court. No appeal.
Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats

Same. She was in a wheelchair. No standing.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (xt/H7)

22 Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:02 AM (VofaG)

Hey! I was asking about you and never got a satisfactory answer. Nice to see you around.

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:10 AM (RxTC7)

23 ‘We are ruled from the Bench, and the Bench does whatever it pleases.’

‘‘Twas always thus. It’s just that the stakes have gotten higher and more public. And the leftwing toadies on the court have gotten more activist. Meanwhile the GOP continues to thumb its own asshole on the sidelines. They want this. Make no mistake.

Posted by: Elric the Bladiest Blade at May 07, 2025 11:10 AM (aeiyZ)

24 Well, the Japanese internees were American citizens, so he should have, yes.

No, I'm referring to the IJA that was present in Alaska and a number of American territories that FDR directed the US military to remove from those places...with no "due process"

The interning of American citizens of Japanese descent is different - Trump is not deporting citizens remember.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:11 AM (t0Rmr)

25 Unless literally any President or any Congress or both just say "no."

But everyone in government likes it much better this way, so it stays like this.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at May 07, 2025 11:11 AM (BI5O2)

26
Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:06 AM (t0Rmr)

I'm not an expert on the Constitutional Convention deliberations, but I don't think the intention was to make "co-equal" branches of government in the first place.

Congress had specific, enumerated powers. The Presidency had it's specific, enumerated powers. The Court system had it's specific jurisdiction and powers listed, but was subordinated to Congress (to set up "inferior courts", expand original jurisdiction, etc.)

It all fell apart pretty much immediately though.

And the Court has just been slowly and steadily gobbling up power since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was VERY controversial at the time, Jefferson made some comment about how the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus on the President, which the Court ended up not doing, but they set the precedent that they COULD if they wanted to.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at May 07, 2025 11:12 AM (uCjyK)

27 Unless literally any President or any Congress or both just say "no."

I think the "Maryland Man" incident would have been a good case to push this through. The courts have no sway over foreign policy. No citizens were involved.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:12 AM (t0Rmr)

28 Hey don't look at me!

Posted by: Diana Ross at May 07, 2025 11:13 AM (RxTC7)

29 FDR wasn't subject to the whims of the Court because he spanked them and sent them to bed without their supper. Done and done.

It's an object lesson.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at May 07, 2025 11:13 AM (BI5O2)

30 Used to date a girl like the Supreme Court. No appeal.
Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats

She didn't raise a bone of contention in your legal briefs?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:13 AM (Dg2sF)

31 It's time to R&R SCOTUS and the rest of them too.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at May 07, 2025 11:13 AM (PB44O)

32 Hey! I was asking about you and never got a satisfactory answer. Nice to see you around.
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:10 AM (RxTC

Thanks nice to be noticed . I have been posting under different nics though haven't tried to hide it. Just got used to it. I can be aggravating twice as much that way. 😀

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:14 AM (VofaG)

33 A quick perusal of DU discussion topics supports your premise, sadly.

Reuters: US judge blocks Trump from shuttering three federal agencies

Reuters: Judge blocks Trump administration from canceling COVID-related school aid

CPR News: Judge bars federal government from using Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans from Colorado

CBS: Second judge blocks Trump administration's use of Alien Enemies Act to remove certain migrants

Another Wisconsin Judge Stands Up For Justice: Like Judge Hannah Dugan, Sawyer County Circuit Court Judge Monica Isham has come under fire for standing up for justice.

Huff Post: 150 Former Judges Tell Pam Bondi They're Not 'Deranged'

Posted by: Intercepted DU Transmissions brought by the Intrepid AoS Liaison at May 07, 2025 11:14 AM (JCZqz)

34 Used to date a girl like the Supreme Court. No appeal.
Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats

Same. She was in a wheelchair. No standing.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (xt/H7)

***

Real funny...

Posted by: Gov. Abbott at May 07, 2025 11:14 AM (1FWWQ)

35 FIRST!!!!!

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:14 AM (Zz0t1)

36 Simple. Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided.

Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:14 AM (1bNHn)

37 We are ruled from the Bench, and the Bench does whatever it pleases.
____

They are Protecting Democracy(TM), except when they rule against what the Globalists want.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (Dv3i1)

38 Schoolhouse Rock was the shizznit.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (Zz0t1)

39 Woke teachers at NYC private school up in arms over student's prank

https://mol.im/a/14685073

Posted by: Ciampino - later it is at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (sPQoU)

40 I'd be happy if we could find Justices is who follow law and evidence to reach a conclusion, instead of determining who is the victim based on social justice affinity categories and then constructing some convoluted BS to support the Marxist conclusion.

Posted by: Bilwis Devourer of Innocent Souls, I'm starvin' over here at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (pIfcn)

41 The Court system had it's specific jurisdiction and powers listed, but was subordinated to Congress (to set up "inferior courts", expand original jurisdiction, etc.)

It all fell apart pretty much immediately though.

And the Court has just been slowly and steadily gobbling up power since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was VERY controversial at the time, Jefferson made some comment about how the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus on the President, which the Court ended up not doing, but they set the precedent that they COULD if they wanted to.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes

The court was set up to settle disputes between the states so they didn't go to war with each other.

I still say Texas should have declared war on Pennsylvania over the 2020 election when the court said we had no standing.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (xt/H7)

42 We are ruled from the Bench, and the Bench does whatever it pleases.

-------------

I had an epiphany one day after getting into philosophy, economics, politics, et. al. heavily in my mid-twenties (the '80s):

We had no such thing as actual "separation of powers" because all three branches of government at the time were controlled exclusively by lawyers.

Posted by: ShainS at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (CO2Xj)

43 Schoolhouse Rock was the shizznit.

I'd like to see a modern rework that includes the role of globalist oligarchs, the permanent bureaucracy and the FNM.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:16 AM (t0Rmr)

44 I can be aggravating twice as much that way. 😀
Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:14 AM (VofaG)

Not possible. 😉

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:16 AM (RxTC7)

45 Schoolhouse Rock was the shizznit.
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (Zz0t1)

Conjunction junction, what’s your function 🎶

Interjection!!

Posted by: LinusVanPelt at May 07, 2025 11:17 AM (6RwsA)

46 Remember, after rule by Judges, the ancient Jews decided "F this. We'd rather have a King."

Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:17 AM (1bNHn)

47 The court was set up to settle disputes between the states so they didn't go to war with each other.

I still say Texas should have declared war on Pennsylvania over the 2020 election when the court said we had no standing.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:15 AM (xt/H7)

That was part of it. Here's the full text from Article III on the subject: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at May 07, 2025 11:17 AM (uCjyK)

48 Make the judiciary enforce their rulings when it interferes with the Executive and that office's responsibilities. If one were to believe the judiciary has that power.

If not, consider what sort of alternatives you'd be willing to take.

Is the Trump administration at the consideration stage? Or are they just going along? If so, why?

Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 07, 2025 11:17 AM (Q4IgG)

49 But everyone in government likes it much better this way, so it stays like this.

They have robes. That makes it official.

Posted by: DaveA at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (FhXTo)

50 Billboard just reported in Temple, Texas:

Better Woke than Broke.

Uh......stupid?

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (Zz0t1)

51 The Left sees three co-equal branches as three separate chances to ram their bullshit through. That's all it is to them.

You cannot invent a system that cannot be turned inward on itself by bad actors.

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (RxTC7)

52 The Nazgul… they search for the Ring… always it calls them..

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (PCK5/)

53
I still say Texas should have declared war on Pennsylvania over the 2020 election when the court said we had no standing.

I argued at the time that Abbott should have announced that if the SC refused to take the case that he would submit a plebiscite for Texan independence and set a date for when it would happen (say two weeks in the future)

I guarantee the SC would have taken the case. Now...how they would have ruled would have been completely dependent then on how the other red states reacted to the notion of leaving the union - but if it was positive we would have gotten an election "do-over" without the unaccountable mail in ballots and Trump would have won...

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (t0Rmr)

54 Schoolhouse Rock was the shizznit.

IIRC, many of the songs (including my fave, "Conjunction Juntion"), were written by Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty, composers of the Broadway musical Ragtime.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (Dg2sF)

55 Ragtime.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (Dg2sF)

My least favorite time of the month.

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (RxTC7)

56 ***The interning of American citizens of Japanese descent is different - Trump is not deporting citizens remember.
Posted by: 18-1
---

He's deporting trespassers, to say the least.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (PB44O)

57 Remember, after rule by Judges, the ancient Jews decided "F this. We'd rather have a King."
Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:17 AM (1bNHn)

Why wasn’t Sampson more popular?

IIRC Samuel wept when Israel demanded a king… and they ended up with Saul who hid when they told him and was a disastrous king (although he was tall and handsome so looked the part)

Posted by: LinusVanPelt at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (6RwsA)

58 43 Schoolhouse Rock was the shizznit.

I'd like to see a modern rework that includes the role of globalist oligarchs, the permanent bureaucracy and the FNM.
Posted by: 18-1
-------------
Doesn't PragerU have a few 5min videos addressing exactly that?

Posted by: NALNAMSAM at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (VkY89)

59 38 Schoolhouse Rock was the shizznit.
==

Thanks to Schoolhouse Rock, I can not say the preamble to the Constitution without singing it.

Posted by: J. Frank Parnell at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (eb5mD)

60 Texas should have declared war on Pennsylvania over the 2020 election

Immediately devolves into Cowboys v. Steelers squabble.

Posted by: DaveA at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (FhXTo)

61 How many divisions does the bench have?

Posted by: rechill at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (Q1LXu)

62 You cannot invent a system that cannot be turned inward on itself by bad actors.
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (RxTC7)

That is true, and it is an inescapable flaw with, well, any form of government.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (uCjyK)

63 Even John Roberts didn't note that due process for deporting illegal aliens is significantly different from due process for an American citizen accused of a capital crime. So every media idiot can now parrot 'due process' to make it seem like Chuy Emmess Trece needs to have a trial before he can be deported.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (Dv3i1)

64 As many times as I saw "Lolly's, Lolly's, Lolly's, Get Your Adverbs Here," I still didn't understand what an adverb. I was a freshman in high school when I finally understood the concept.

Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (77rzZ)

65 Remember, after rule by Judges, the ancient Jews decided "F this. We'd rather have a King."
Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:17 AM (1bNHn)
-------
Samuel had some choice words to say about that.

Posted by: Captain Obvious, Laird o' the Sea at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (mTIWJ)

66
Thanks to Schoolhouse Rock, I can not say the preamble to the Constitution without singing it.

Posted by: J. Frank Parnell at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (eb5mD)

There is no preamble to The Constitution.

Posted by: Rachel Maddow at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (Zz0t1)

67 50 Billboard just reported in Temple, Texas:

Better Woke than Broke.

Uh......stupid?
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer

The Left can't meme- example 342,937.

Posted by: Moron Analyst at May 07, 2025 11:22 AM (JCZqz)

68 Saul… a truly tragic figure of the Bible…

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:22 AM (PCK5/)

69 Saul… a truly tragic figure of the Bible…
Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:22 AM (PCK5/)

Better call.....

Posted by: Rachel Maddow at May 07, 2025 11:22 AM (Zz0t1)

70 Damn hangover.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:23 AM (Zz0t1)

71 The activist judiciary playbook.

Just like here in Israel.

Look up what El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele said, warning the US about this.

Time is not on Trump's side.

Posted by: Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, at May 07, 2025 11:23 AM (Te9F3)

72 There is no preamble to The Constitution.
Posted by: Rachel Maddow

And it was written by old white male colonizing slave owners, so who cares what it says?

Posted by: Joy Reid at May 07, 2025 11:23 AM (JCZqz)

73 50 Billboard just reported in Temple, Texas:

Better Woke than Broke.

Uh......stupid?
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer
____

Translation: Cutting off your kid's dick is better than tariffs.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:23 AM (Dv3i1)

74 My least favorite time of the month.
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:20 AM (RxTC7)

Mine too! When the frozen tomato paste starts to melt in my anus, it makes such a big mess!

Posted by: Uncle Flow, Disorderd Sexual Pervert at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (979V4)

75 I take a very simple view of the Constitution, kind of like how Fundamentalists read the Bible - just read it and you see the truth.

In that vein, a Constitution that requires post graduate study to understand is, imo, way too complicated and a symptom of a pretty serious societal ill.

Posted by: WitchDoktor at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (Oq5OE)

76 There is no preamble to The Constitution.
____

Is there an Amble?

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (Dv3i1)

77 Remember, after rule by Judges, the ancient Jews decided "F this. We'd rather have a King."
Posted by: Eeyore

Dennis didn't want a king.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (xt/H7)

78 How many divisions does the bench have?

I disagree with the notion that judges have seized power. It's been given to them because too many on the right are weak-watered cowards worshipping 'norms' and 'precedent.'

The bench doesn't need 'divisions' if no one has the guts to stand up to them.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (Dg2sF)

79 Like everything political, the judiciary included, I doubt reforming it will be done by working within the system itself. Going to various courts to try to undo what another court has done seems counter productive.

Especially when that other court has usurped it's authority. And isn't likely to abide any ruling against it anyway.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (Q4IgG)

80 There is a tried and true method to ascertain how things work, and that's simply to look around.
______

Not a huge Rand fan, but I do love Francisco's money speech.

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot."

Posted by: Biff Pocoroba at May 07, 2025 11:25 AM (UBKzV)

81 65 Remember, after rule by Judges, the ancient Jews decided "F this. We'd rather have a King."
Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:17 AM (1bNHn)
-------
Samuel had some choice words to say about that.
Posted by: Captain Obvious, Laird o' the Sea at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (mTIWJ)
_________
Which shows you just how bad rule by Judges was. (Read the book. It's ghastly.)

Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:25 AM (1bNHn)

82 As many times as I saw "Lolly's, Lolly's, Lolly's, Get Your Adverbs Here," I still didn't understand what an adverb. I was a freshman in high school when I finally understood the concept.
Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (77rzZ)

-

Mr. Morton is the subject of the sentence, and what the predicate says he does.

Posted by: WitchDoktor at May 07, 2025 11:25 AM (Oq5OE)

83 78 How many divisions does the bench have?

I disagree with the notion that judges have seized power. It's been given to them because too many on the right are weak-watered cowards worshipping 'norms' and 'precedent.'

The bench doesn't need 'divisions' if no one has the guts to stand up to them.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (Dg2sF

There you go again… saying the quiet part out loud!!

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (PCK5/)

84 Better Woke than Broke
--------

How so?

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (RxTC7)

85 As many times as I saw "Lolly's, Lolly's, Lolly's, Get Your Adverbs Here," I still didn't understand what an adverb. I was a freshman in high school when I finally understood the concept.
Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:21 AM (77rzZ)

My shortcut was that an adverb ends in "-ly."

Not true across the board, but true enough for me to cut them out of my writing.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (Dg2sF)

86 Billboard just reported in Temple, Texas:

Better Woke than Broke.

There is a line of leftist thought here that Trump voters are going broke because Trump is cutting off payments to leftist activists and elites because those elites are indeed losing money over this. It is...poorly thought through to say the least

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (t0Rmr)

87 I didn’t think it was possible but this post increases my dislike for the Supreme Court of Usurpation.

Posted by: Dr. Claw at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (jbnUc)

88 85

My shortcut was that an adverb ends in "-ly."

Not true across the board, but true enough for me to cut them out of my writing.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (Dg2sF)

Really..

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:27 AM (PCK5/)

89 I disagree with the notion that judges have seized power. It's been given to them because too many on the right are weak-watered cowards worshipping 'norms' and 'precedent.'

The bench doesn't need 'divisions' if no one has the guts to stand up to them.
----------

Bravo!

Posted by: Crusader at May 07, 2025 11:27 AM (TN0g+)

90 The GOP is pathetically weak and bought but, mostly weak.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at May 07, 2025 11:28 AM (/U5Yz)

91
Really..
Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:27 AM (PCK5/)

Bigly!

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:28 AM (Zz0t1)

92 Remember, after rule by Judges, the ancient Jews decided "F this. We'd rather have a King."
Posted by: Eeyore

So did the frogs in Aesop's fable. And look what happened to them.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:28 AM (Dg2sF)

93 Here's the full text from Article III on the subject: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, ......;--to controversies between two or more states;-
____

So they failed to do their Constitutional Duty wrt Texas v. Penna. in 2020. You could even say they failed to provide "Due Process" to Texas.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:28 AM (Dv3i1)

94 Who is in charge?

The people who threaten and/or blackmail judges, including the Supremes. Obviously.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (xz8OS)

95 It's not the system that's broken in IMO. It's the people on the Left who have taken it over and bastardized it.

As John Adams said , our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people .

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (VofaG)

96 The founding of this Country was written in 4,573 words .

Congress today can't write a bill on how to pour piss out of a boot in under 15,000 words

Posted by: Ben Had at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (NVNRw)

97 62 You cannot invent a system that cannot be turned inward on itself by bad actors.
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (RxTC7)

That is true, and it is an inescapable flaw with, well, any form of government.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes

Not communism, which is just government by the people, mutually supporting each other for the benefit of all! And it's never been tried because evil capitalists won't allow it!

Posted by: True Red Retard at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (JCZqz)

98

They have robes. That makes it official.
Posted by: DaveA at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (FhXTo)

I have a black robe. I think I should be able to be on the Supreme Court. I'm sure I'm probably as qualified as "Action" Jackson . At least I know the difference between a man and a woman.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (42Vb+)

99 And to give an example, in the blue towns around me they are all worried the schools will have to lay off bureaucrats* because of budget cuts.

The employees that will lose their jobs are leftists and the AWFLs complaining about it are leftists. They drove middle class people out of these towns years ago with endless tax increases and intentionally making it impossible to commute out of the town with "traffic calming"

*Now, this is because they went on a spending orgy with COVID and Bidenbux, but that is besides the point.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (t0Rmr)

100 Who is in charge?

The people who threaten and/or blackmail judges, including the Supremes. Obviously.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (xz8OS)

CHYnuh.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (Zz0t1)

101 Dennis didn't want a king.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (xt/H7)

Dennis just objected to someone claiming to be king because some watery tart threw a sword at them.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (ExV1e)

102 It's all shitz and giggles for the left when it comes to judges running the show. Until they get their ass hauled in front of Zombie Roland Freisler.

Posted by: bill in arkansas, not gonna comply with nuttin, waiting for the 0300 knock on the door at May 07, 2025 11:30 AM (gm9Sb)

103 94 Who is in charge?

The people who threaten and/or blackmail judges, including the Supremes. Obviously.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (xz8OS)

It helps if judges are installed who are naturally “ pliable”…

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:30 AM (PCK5/)

104 At least the Pulitzer Prize committee is consistent:

https://tinyurl.com/muk38xsp

Who moneys them?

Posted by: Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, at May 07, 2025 11:30 AM (Te9F3)

105 Recently El Salvador's President, Nayib Bukele, responded to Venezuelan Presidents accusation that El Salvador was holding Venezuelan citizens as political prisoners by offering to exchange the Tren de Aragua detainees that are being held by El Salvador for the United states for the same number of political prisoners being held by Venezuela's government

Posted by: kindltot at May 07, 2025 11:31 AM (D7oie)

106 I've been saying for some time the judges better stay in their lane. The US is NOT a judiciacracy. (try saying that fast five times)
People are getting pissed.

Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2025 11:31 AM (W/lyH)

107 10 Not only was the SC intended to be the weakest branch - they seized the power of judicial review remember, it was never given to them - the government overall was never supposed to have this much power to begin with.
Posted by: 18-1
========
The reason that the Constitution was silent on judicial review is that on matters where the Convention had disagreements, they were silent. Such as leaving the Union (caused the Civil War), and judicial review. Some states already had it, Hamilton himself used a variant in a NY case citing the Articles of Confederation as forbidding what a NY law supposedly allowed, and so on.

But, blaming Marbury v. Madison for judicial review has a slight problem historically. Hylton v. US (a tax case) was the first in the 1790's. In that case, they decided that a congressional carriage tax was NOT a constitutionally forbidden direct tax but more like an excise tax.

Justices at that time issued seratim opinions (each justice issued their own) but several of the justices noted in passing that if Scotus has the power to declare something constitutional, then the obverse is true (see Justices Chase and Iredell).

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:31 AM (ctrM5)

108 101 Dennis didn't want a king.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (xt/H7)

Dennis just objected to someone claiming to be king because some watery tart threw a sword at them.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (ExV1e)

It really is no system to build a government on.

Posted by: The Central Scrutinizer at May 07, 2025 11:31 AM (KbCG3)

109 We are ruled from the Bench, and the Bench does whatever it pleases.

How many divisions does the Supreme Court command?

Posted by: Xipe Totec at May 07, 2025 11:32 AM (pohLc)

110 I don't call them Black Robed Tyrants for no reason.

The judiciary has constantly expanded its power and reach over the past century while Congress has given up more and more of its power to the judges and presidents.

At least we can vote for the first two branches.
If Congress took itself seriously they would've started impeaching some of these rogue judges years and decades ago.

That would've nipped some of these problems in the bud.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 11:32 AM (6ydKt)

111

Bring me the sodomy wench! I need a good pegging!

Posted by: Judge Buck Futt at May 07, 2025 11:33 AM (rTz63)

112 11 When I was in my paralegal certification course, the instructors (all attorneys) had a saying: "What is the law? Whatever a judge says it is."
Posted by: Bulg
=======
More fair to say whatever the attorneys (and higher courts) persuade the judge that the law is.

Bad lawyers lose cases because they themselves are poorly prepared (and perhaps poorly educated) to argue the law.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:33 AM (ctrM5)

113 Used to date a girl like the Supreme Court. No appeal.
Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats

Same. She was in a wheelchair. No standing.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (xt/H7)

You think that's bad, I'd spend months arguing my case in front of my gal, begging her to let me habeus her corpus.

She'd just say "wait until June for my decision."

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:33 AM (xz8OS)

114 We are ruled from the Bench, and the Bench does whatever it pleases.
--
Then the Bench is the enemy that needs to be destroyed.

Posted by: Methos at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (Dnobf)

115 How many divisions does the Supreme Court command?

Posted by: Xipe Totec at May 07, 2025 11:32 AM (pohLc)

-- --

They have no military, but they do have "contempt" charges and a sizable force called the U.S. Marshall Service at their disposal.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (6ydKt)

116
I have a black robe. I think I should be able to be on the Supreme Court. I'm sure I'm probably as qualified as "Action" Jackson . At least I know the difference between a man and a woman.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM

Fenelon Jackson!

Posted by: Minnfidel at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (4p0Xq)

117 At least we can vote for the first two branches.
If Congress took itself seriously they would've started impeaching some of these rogue judges years and decades ago.

That would've nipped some of these problems in the bud.
Posted by: SpeakingOf
=====
Not necessary. Congress has control of the jurisdiction of the court as well as funding. Basically we have a problem with congressional abdication of its authority as much as anything.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (ctrM5)

118 Better Woke than Broke
--------

How so?

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (RxTC7)

---------------

"Fuck our progeny (sometimes literally) -- we want trillions printed and given to on our nihilistic narcissistic asses by Big Mama Teat NOW AND FOREVER, H8R!"

Posted by: ShainS at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (2DOuK)

119 Dennis didn't want a king.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (xt/H7)

Dennis just objected to someone claiming to be king because some watery tart threw a sword at them.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (ExV1e)

It really is no system to build a government on.
Posted by: The Central Scrutinizer at May 07, 2025 11:31 AM (KbCG3)
--------
Moistened scimitar-lobbing bints hardest hit.

Posted by: Captain Obvious, Laird o' the Sea at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (mTIWJ)

120 Used to date a girl like the Supreme Court. No appeal.
Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats

Same. She was in a wheelchair. No standing.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:09 AM (xt/H7)

You think that's bad, I'd spend months arguing my case in front of my gal, begging her to let me habeus her corpus.

She'd just say "wait until June for my decision."
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:33 AM (xz8OS)
***

She just wants to check your briefs.

Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2025 11:35 AM (W/lyH)

121 Ask her what's wrong and she just says "nihilum".

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:35 AM (RxTC7)

122 Who Is In Charge?

* cackles *
* wing flaps in unison *

Posted by: Big Penguin at May 07, 2025 11:35 AM (0sNs1)

123 Who is in charge?

The people who threaten and/or blackmail judges, including the Supremes. Obviously.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (xz8OS)

It helps if judges are installed who are naturally “ pliable”…
Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:30 AM (PCK5/)

It's a numbers game. How many of these guys have sex kinks? How many have done terrible things?

How many of the gals have kids?

You just come to them, in a dark deserted parking garage, with an envelope. As soon as they open the envelope, you got 'em. For life. If they ask you what they want from you, just tell 'em you'll be in touch.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:36 AM (xz8OS)

124 SOS Rubio's people have been busy

Venezuelan opposition leaders Pedro Urruchurtu, Humberto Villalobos, Claudia Macero, Omar González, and Magalí Meda, who had been under asylum at the Argentine Embassy in Caracas since March 20, 2024, have left Venezuela, it was reported Tuesday.

The group of María Corina Machado aides was extracted in a secret operation involving US and Italian governments, with safe-conducts granted by the Chavista regime after negotiations. Tuesday's move was described as an “impeccable and epic” operation by Machado and a “precise rescue” by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio

https://tinyurl.com/y37syf4y

Posted by: Kindltot at May 07, 2025 11:36 AM (D7oie)

125 My shortcut was that an adverb ends in "-ly."

Not true across the board, but true enough for me to cut them out of my writing.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing

Why were you cutting out adverbs?

Posted by: Bulg at May 07, 2025 11:36 AM (77rzZ)

126 I have a black robe.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM

You know the rule.

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:37 AM (RxTC7)

127 You think that's bad, I'd spend months arguing my case in front of my gal, begging her to let me habeus her corpus.

She'd just say "wait until June for my decision."
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:33 AM

No whacking of your pee-pee!

Posted by: Baliff at May 07, 2025 11:37 AM (0sNs1)

128 They have no military, but they do have "contempt" charges and a sizable force called the U.S. Marshall Service at their disposal.
Posted by: SpeakingOf

Marshal's service is at the orders of the DoJ via the Attorney General. They are not part of the third branch but serve it in part.

During the Civil War, US Marshal's service refused to deliver a habeas order in Ex Parte Merryman requiring Chief Justice Taney to go personally to the fort to deliver it to the commanding officer of the post.

Basically, separation of powers denies the courts the power of arrest and arguably the power to hold people in jail for civil contempt. Criminal contempt requires the executive to prosecute and a jury to convict.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:37 AM (ctrM5)

129 She just wants to check your briefs.
Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2025 11:35 AM (W/lyH)

I wish.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:38 AM (xz8OS)

130 Not necessary. Congress has control of the jurisdiction of the court as well as funding. Basically we have a problem with congressional abdication of its authority as much as anything.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (ctrM5)

-- --

They find it easier to blame the other branches instead of taking any responsibility for anything a lobbyist group can't write legislation for.

The Dems love the judges doing this.
The GOP would rather argue over the next CR or hide under a desk somewhere.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 11:39 AM (6ydKt)

131 118 Better Woke than Broke
--------

How so?

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:26 AM (RxTC7)

---------------

"Fuck our progeny (sometimes literally) -- we want trillions printed and given to on our nihilistic narcissistic asses by Big Mama Teat NOW AND FOREVER, H8R!"

Posted by: ShainS at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (2DOuK)

The fundamental misunderstanding of the left is that most normies would gladly live a very simply, quaint life if they could just be left alone and not have their kids fucked with or their lives attacked for the sake of being born straight or a certain color.

I would pay every dime I ever earned just for my kids to grow up as well-adjusted human beings (aka, not libs).

Posted by: The Central Scrutinizer at May 07, 2025 11:40 AM (KbCG3)

132 They have no military, but they do have "contempt" charges and a sizable force called the U.S. Marshall Service at their disposal.
Posted by: SpeakingOf

Who get their marching orders from the Executive Branch.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:40 AM (xt/H7)

133 The Rule of Law is not an idle statement.

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:40 AM (PCK5/)

134 Not necessary. Congress has control of the jurisdiction of the court as well as funding. Basically we have a problem with congressional abdication of its authority as much as anything.
Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (ctrM5)

The Right has never had the numbers except very briefly after the the Dems controlled the House for over 40 years. Dismantling the Judiciary would take a significant majority unfortunately. I think as with most Empires, the goal is just to slow the roll to its eventual fall. Though we did take a couple of positive steps forward with Reagan and I'm seeing the same possibilities with Trump 2.0 .

Better than the usual one step forward , two steps back that we usually see.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:40 AM (VofaG)

135 Yeah, Mark Carney totally humiliated Trump yesterday; did you see that?! That was awesome, put the orange dictator in his place in his own building.

No post on that, amazingly.

Posted by: Sid at May 07, 2025 11:41 AM (GNz3z)

136 Of all the cases where Trump could have broken the power of the courts, the trannies in the military was the easiest.

Instead, he continues to play by their rules and appealed it to the Supreme Court.

The public would have been with him, "no, I'm not going to listen to the courts micromanaging the military."

Another is the case in FL, where the judge-king is ordering parties not before her--the local law enforcement--not to enforce FL law.
He needs to work with DeSantis and the FL AG and let them know that they need to viciously antagonize the judge even more--force her to issue ultra vires orders and contempt.

And when she does, he'll announce he's not going to enforce it.

The left will be horrified.

And there ain't shit the judge, the courts, or the left can do about it.

PS: I do note that the order that AP be allowed back on AF1 and in the WH isn't being complied with nor enforced ....

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at May 07, 2025 11:42 AM (bw0ep)

137 Posted by: Sid at May 07, 2025 11:41 AM (GNz3z)

You DICK!!!!

Posted by: Jeff Spicoli at May 07, 2025 11:42 AM (Zz0t1)

138 97 62 You cannot invent a system that cannot be turned inward on itself by bad actors.
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:18 AM (RxTC7)

That is true, and it is an inescapable flaw with, well, any form of government.
Posted by: Harry Paratestes
------
This is the true statement and why Madison held that ambition must check ambition via the separation of powers. That includes ignoring the Court when it makes an egregious decision affecting its co-branches.

Not an option for states as the Supremacy Clause and the debates in the Constitutional Convention itself made it clear. States gave up part of their powers to the national government and cannot rescind that and as a result, conflicts between the federal government in its enumerated powers and states results in federal supremacy. Those powers not delegated as the 10th says, are reserved for the states and the people respectively.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:42 AM (ctrM5)

139 96 The founding of this Country was written in 4,573 words .

Congress today can't write a bill on how to pour piss out of a boot in under 15,000 words
Posted by: Ben Had at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (NVNRw)
---

They should be required to write bills themselves and except for one secretary pay for any staff they think necessary.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at May 07, 2025 11:42 AM (PB44O)

140 End of the world update. Just saw an article at FOX. 8 graduation gifts your kindergartners want. Um, yea, no. How about a new box of Crayolas next year and a trapper keeper. You didn't graduate anything. Yea, it's cute and all but it's where it starts.

Posted by: Minnfidel at May 07, 2025 11:42 AM (4p0Xq)

141 129 She just wants to check your briefs.
Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2025 11:35 AM (W/lyH)

I wish.
Posted by: BurtTC

Are your briefs in order?

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (Dv3i1)

142 Sid, you ignorant slut.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (2UnvF)

143 No post on that, amazingly.
Posted by: Sid
_______

I see you didn't link it either.

Posted by: Biff Pocoroba at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (UBKzV)

144 Vatican looking for smoke.
Smokey Robinson sued for rape.
Coincidence?
I THINK NOT!!

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (c8vhZ)

145 85
‘ My shortcut was that an adverb ends in "-ly."

Not true across the board, but true enough for me to cut them out of my writing.’

Well said.

Posted by: Dr. Claw at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (jbnUc)

146 Dafuq is Sid talking about?

Carney is the one that just got buttf*cked on national TV, Dewayne.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (Zz0t1)

147 But, blaming Marbury v. Madison for judicial review has a slight problem historically. Hylton v. US (a tax case) was the first in the 1790's. In that case, they decided that a congressional carriage tax was NOT a constitutionally forbidden direct tax but more like an excise tax.

Justices at that time issued seratim opinions (each justice issued their own) but several of the justices noted in passing that if Scotus has the power to declare something constitutional, then the obverse is true (see Justices Chase and Iredell).
Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:31 AM (ctrM5)
_______
There is a difference between stating that something is explicitly in the Constitution (or explicitly banned), and inferring that inclusion or ban. Granted, this is itself always debatable, but then the question is who gets to settle the debate. Marbury said "we do."

Of course, this extends far beyond just this issue. Most arguments about the meaning of a text come down to arguments about interpretations.

Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (1bNHn)

148 They should be required to write bills themselves and except for one secretary pay for any staff they think necessary.
_____

They use taxpayer funded NGOs to write the law.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:44 AM (Dv3i1)

149 Posted by: Sid at May 07, 2025 11:41 AM (GNz3z)

You have the opportunity to tell us how you think Carney humiliated Trump. Give it a shot retard.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:44 AM (VofaG)

150 Congress today can't write a bill on how to pour piss out of a boot in under 15,000 words
Posted by: Ben Had at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (NVNRw)
---

They have a macro in Word they use for everything.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:44 AM (Zz0t1)

151 Not necessary. Congress has control of the jurisdiction of the court as well as funding. Basically we have a problem with congressional abdication of its authority as much as anything.
Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:34 AM (ctrM5)

I agree, and actually see this as the worst long term problem. I also don't see how it turns around. The Court can maintain its supremacy in a closely divided country, since each faction competes to gain the judiciary's favor; but as soon as a truly powerful President emerges, with full support of both the people and the government, that will end, and for better or worse, we will slip into a neo-imperial system. Since I do not see our Congress as ever being any more influential than the Roman Senate was, post-Augustus.

Posted by: Tom Servo at May 07, 2025 11:44 AM (uWKK8)

152 States gave up part of their powers to the national government and cannot rescind that and as a result, conflicts between the federal government in its enumerated powers and states results in federal supremacy. Those powers not delegated as the 10th says, are reserved for the states and the people respectively.
Posted by: whig
---

And if they decide not to settle a dispute between states they nullify themselves.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at May 07, 2025 11:45 AM (PB44O)

153 Sid is the Charles Johnson of Raimondo's.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:45 AM (Zz0t1)

154 He needs to ignore them, and then defy Congress to impeach him. He has the political support to get away with it.

That is not a bug, it's a feature.

Posted by: cpurick at May 07, 2025 11:45 AM (lNjg1)

155 She just wants to check your briefs.
Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2025 11:35 AM (W/lyH)

I wish.
Posted by: BurtTC

Are your briefs in order?
Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (Dv3i1)

I was told they weren't long enough.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:45 AM (kgPGi)

156 There is a line of leftist thought here that Trump voters are going broke because Trump is cutting off payments to leftist activists and elites because those elites are indeed losing money over this. It is...poorly thought through to say the least
Posted by: 18-1

wtf? 92% of Republicans, 85% of third party voters satisfied with their votes. More than that, the PRRI poll finds that just about everybody who voted in November is satisfied with their decision, including 95% of Harris voters and 85% of people who voted third party.

When you read that Times piece, you may find yourself most struck by the 29-year-old Black construction manager in Texas who said he’s happy that Trump has kept his promises, if only because the Texan then says, “Although these are some hard decisions — a couple of friends that have been deported, stuff like that. So I’m sad at the same time.”

the msm is carrying Magats' and Trump's water. Way too many people I know have buyer's remorse.

It is the people who did not vote at all who are making the difference in Trump’s bad poll numbers. His base is not going to admit their actions have resulted in the country and world failing.

Posted by: Intercepted DU Transmissions brought by the Intrepid AoS Liaison at May 07, 2025 11:46 AM (JCZqz)

157 Posted by: Eeyore at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (1bNHn)

The Leftist justices don't care about that. They have their conclusions already and no amount of evidence contrary to it will change it.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:46 AM (VofaG)

158 Good morning! It’s a very rainy day in Alabama, we have painters all over the house, the dog and the cats are in my bedroom with me and no one is happy about it. I will be spending the day with y’all since I am stuck back here.

Posted by: Piper at May 07, 2025 11:47 AM (p4NUW)

159 136 Of all the cases where Trump could have broken the power of the courts, the trannies in the military was the easiest.

Instead, he continues to play by their rules and appealed it to the Supreme Court.

The public would have been with him, "no, I'm not going to listen to the courts micromanaging the military."

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice
=======
Even Andy Jackson or Lincoln did not ignore the courts on every issue. Best to reserve outright ignoring of Scotus to a critical issue such as immigration.

Notice that Trump has done nothing to bring back Abrego Garcia (and now a second Tren dude in another court) from El Salvador.

Immigration cases are where Trump can clearly state that Scotus and lower federal courts themselves are acting lawless when it ignores the statutory law and its own precedent.

Immigration law, like tariff law, gives the president enormous power (used to be checked occasionally by Congress via the legislative veto-now defunct) and so does Scotus precedents.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:47 AM (ctrM5)

160 The stench from the bench is making me clench.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at May 07, 2025 11:47 AM (63Dwl)

161 This place is so intelligent and witty and then SIDS appears.

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:47 AM (RxTC7)

162 SHHHH!!!!! Guys, stop talking about Piper......here she comes!

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:48 AM (Zz0t1)

163 The bench doesn't need 'divisions' if no one has the guts to stand up to them.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May

I wish it was a matter of cowardice. It's not. It's dishonesty, and it's cheesy dishonesty, at that.

If a few snotnosed little apparatchiks with lifetime appointments can impose the will of your feckless ruling class in the matters you'd never have the nerve to take on yourselves, then you can shrug it off when the proles react poorly to their constant victimization.

"Oh, look at that - the black-gowned bastards did it again! Too bad, so sad, nothing you can do about that. Now, somebody fetch me a catamite and some more of that gold. For America."

It's risible.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at May 07, 2025 11:48 AM (BI5O2)

164 Pat Buchanan, 2011.

Prophecy:

https://tinyurl.com/m27ew2w4

Posted by: Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, at May 07, 2025 11:48 AM (Te9F3)

165 You have the opportunity to tell us how you think Carney humiliated Trump. Give it a shot retard.
Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:44 AM (VofaG)

All the "51st state" stuff is Trump saying "I'm in charge," and when people respond to it, they demonstrate that he is.

I think it's silly, but hell, I've never negotiated bazillion dollar real estate deals, nor have I run a country, so what do I know.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:49 AM (kgPGi)

166 When you read that Times piece, you may find yourself most struck by the 29-year-old Black construction manager in Texas who said he’s happy that Trump has kept his promises, if only because the Texan then says, “Although these are some hard decisions — a couple of friends that have been deported, stuff like that. So I’m sad at the same time.”
---------

And that's a thing that totally happened.

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:49 AM (RxTC7)

167 Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:47 AM (ctrM5)

Definitively. He has overwhelming popular support on this issue imo.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:49 AM (VofaG)

168
wtf? 92% of Republicans, 85% of third party voters satisfied with their votes

I'm going to guess that remaining 8% are NTs. Trump is doing what he said he would do.

But the left has no knowledge or understanding of right leaning people so they don't get this.

Their thought process - Obviously firing bureaucrats and deporting illegals is bad so no one except a NAZI could want it runs into the problem that most of the country DOES want exactly that.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:49 AM (t0Rmr)

169 Carney is the one that just got buttf*cked on national TV, Dewayne.
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at May 07, 2025 11:43 AM (Zz0t1)

It looked like when Trump was talking about tariffs, Carney started to stim.

Posted by: Kindltot at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (D7oie)

170 They have no military, but they do have "contempt" charges and a sizable force called the U.S. Marshall Service at their disposal.
Posted by: SpeakingOf

Who get their marching orders from the Executive Branch.
Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 11:40 AM (xt/H7)

You’ll know things are getting spicy when the US Marshalls start putting out statements about which branch’s orders they’ll follow.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (l3YAf)

171 Trump has an opportunity here. He's got nothing to lose. He could tell the courts to go piss up a rope, remind them of Article II, and proceed. The President either wields executive power exclusively, or he doesn't. Force the issue. You can't have a national leader if that person can only lead with a court's approval.

IMO YMMV RARIHTS

Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (AOsQT)

172 It can be lunch time

Posted by: Skip at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (8rq16)

173 I agree with the above, the Founders never intended for the branches to be co-equal.

That's a leftie lie to justify actual control of the country by the courts.

To wit:
Name the way the Executive or the Legislative limits or controls the Supreme Court.
In the way the Supreme Court can over-turn a law of Congress.
Or order the President to do or not do something.
Give me one example that happens as regularly as the Court limiting or restricting the other branches.

No, appointing Justices or judges for life is not in in way, shape or form a manner of control.
Nor is passing a law the Supreme Court can just declare unconstitutional.

Thus:
Ignoring the Supreme Court is in fact--and expected by the Constitution--to be the actual, anticipated, usual and regular limit on the Judiciary by the Executive and Legislative.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at May 07, 2025 11:51 AM (bw0ep)

174
Basically, separation of powers denies the courts the power of arrest and arguably the power to hold people in jail for civil contempt. Criminal contempt requires the executive to prosecute and a jury to convict.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:37 AM (ctrM5)

-- --

What would happen if one of Trump's appointees, who is being sued as a department head, refused a judge's order?

If the judge finds that person in contempt.
What happens next?
Wait until a Dem president to prosecute?

Cabinet secretaries don't go rogue on court orders and it's not because the courts don't have an army - it's the threat of contempt of court backed up by prosecution the next time a Dem president is in charge.

People have rarely been convicted of contempt of Congress yet we now have Steve Bannon & Peter Navarro in the last few years.

If these leftist judges are so hot to trot to stop Trump's every move then I don't see contempt as a toothless threat.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 11:52 AM (6ydKt)

175 =======
Even Andy Jackson or Lincoln did not ignore the courts on every issue. Best to reserve outright ignoring of Scotus to a critical issue such as immigration.

Notice that Trump has done nothing to bring back Abrego Garcia (and now a second Tren dude in another court) from El Salvador.
...

Posted by: whig
---

Yes, when he does it's got to be a big one that most of the country agrees with. That sets the wedge. Then he can hammer it.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at May 07, 2025 11:53 AM (PB44O)

176 Pat Buchanan, 2011.

Prophecy:

https://tinyurl.com/m27ew2w4/i]

I often wonder what the country would look like if he did somehow pull out a win in '92. He likely would have purged the communists from the bureaucracy, closed the borders, stopped the rush to MFN China, and appointed much better judges then any other R to that point.

Yes, he would have disengaged from Israel but compared to the other stuff that would have been a small price to pay.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (t0Rmr)

177 Congress today can't write a bill on how to pour piss out of a boot in under 15,000 words
Posted by: Ben Had at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (NVNRw)

On page on piss pouring, 1000 pages of add ons, amendments, and markups.

Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (W/lyH)

178 So if I read the comments here correctly the reason the courts can get by with what they do is because government allows them free rein…

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (PCK5/)

179 If these leftist judges are so hot to trot to stop Trump's every move then I don't see contempt as a toothless threat.
Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 11:52 AM (6ydKt)

What I learned late last year, and the beginning of this year is that a President (or his autopen) can pardon damn near everybody, for whatever they did while he was in office.

Seems those "contempt of court" charges are rather small potatoes, when it comes to the things a president (or his autopen) can pardon them for.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (buPQP)

180 Time is not on Trump's side.
---
But I filed a civil lawsuit (that'll be delayed for years) in their courts, on their turf, playing by their rules!
What more do you want?!
/s/ Bondi

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (bw0ep)

181 Carney started to stim.
Posted by: Kindltot at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (D7oie)

I'm sorry. I may be even dimmer than normal today, but what is "stim"?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (IQY71)

182 I think the fundamental problem with not only government, but the judiciary is that they can't be reformed from within their respective systems. They've been so corrupted that "voting," used as a tool of change, is broken and seldom results in said change. Especially when the powers that be do not wish it.

Same goes for the judiciary, which, in a way has more power today than the executive. Because the executive will, most of the time, submit. But then you have to ask, how to reform the judiciary? Certainly not by lawfare, right?

Because our law making system is also corrupt and broken. So, what's left? It's like trying to fix a kid's bike with a piece of string, a fork and a Q-tip when what you really need is a screwdriver, pliers and an wrench.

We need to work outside those corrupt systems to effect change.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (Q4IgG)

183 Judges of all levels have become the Marxists Commasars

Posted by: Skip at May 07, 2025 11:55 AM (8rq16)

184 Congress: Writes the law
Courts: interpret the law
President: enforce the law

Posted by: nurse ratched at May 07, 2025 11:56 AM (W2Pud)

185 I'm sorry. I may be even dimmer than normal today, but what is "stim"?
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (IQY71)

It's generally hand gestures and facial expressions, when someone who is autistic or intellectually disabled is going into their own world.

My son used to do it.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (buPQP)

186 How many divisions does the bench have?

I disagree with the notion that judges have seized power. It's been given to them because too many on the right are weak-watered cowards worshipping 'norms' and 'precedent.'

The bench doesn't need 'divisions' if no one has the guts to stand up to them.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing (aka Eloquent Depression) at May 07, 2025 11:24 AM (Dg2sF)

This

Posted by: Dr Pork Chops & Bacons at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (g8Ew8)

187 So if I read the comments here correctly the reason the courts can get by with what they do is because government allows them free rein…
Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM

I don't see it that way. It's not free rein. The reins are short, baby. The judges know what's expected of them, same as all the other apparatchiks.

The other apparatchiks give them the real heavy work. The really unpopular stuff. It's like a cheat code for them.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (BI5O2)

188 Stimming is an autism term I think

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (RxTC7)

189 182

Because our law making system is also corrupt and broken. So, what's left? It's like trying to fix a kid's bike with a piece of string, a fork and a Q-tip when what you really need is a screwdriver, pliers and an wrench.

We need to work outside those corrupt systems to effect change.
Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (Q4IgG)

That sounds extralegal… not an objection mind you.

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (PCK5/)

190 Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (t0Rmr)

He would have had just as many if not more roadblocks than Trump had in his first term. And he is no where near the honey badger Trump is. Also hard to believe but I think he had more enemies than Trump. He talked a good game but I never ever thought he could back it up.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (VofaG)

191 Cloudy with low-ish ceiling right now, so the Blue Angles are doing their "low show."

Posted by: one hour sober at May 07, 2025 11:58 AM (Y1sOo)

192 Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (buPQP)

Thanks.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2025 11:58 AM (IQY71)

193 Congress: Writes the law
Courts: interpret the law
President: enforce the law
Posted by: nurse ratched at May 07, 2025 11:56 AM (W2Pud)

Lobbyists write the law
Courts do what their blackmailers tell them to
President fights the two other branches and snakes and traitors within his own administration

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 11:58 AM (buPQP)

194 171
‘ Trump has an opportunity here. He's got nothing to lose. He could tell the courts to go piss up a rope’

I’m hoping Trump is preparing the battle space by getting our side good and angry at the judiciary first.

He ought to get moving before we all go from good and angry to demoralized.

Posted by: Dr. Claw at May 07, 2025 11:58 AM (jbnUc)

195 I think the Marxists and Deep State are waiting out the next election and will pull all the stops for fraud voting, padding votes or computer hacking.

Posted by: Skip at May 07, 2025 11:58 AM (8rq16)

196 And if they decide not to settle a dispute between states they nullify themselves.

Posted by: Braenyard

Texas v. Pennsylvania (also including GA, WI, MI as defendants) arguably was a ahistorical case brought under a novel original jurisdiction claim. The claim was that PA's (and the others) changes in election laws by executive departments in those states affected the Texas' interest in who would be president.

Previously almost all original jurisdiction claims dealt with disputes over things shared by states like waterways, boundaries, etc. One exception to the rule was a strange case involving a lynching in TN (US v. Shipp) and a county sheriff ignoring an order to hold a prisoner safe in the jail pending resolution of his appeals.

Alito and Thomas did not claim that Texas would prevail in court but thought the court should have heard the case (which would have required either a special master or the court directly to try the case).

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 11:59 AM (ctrM5)

197 187 So if I read the comments here correctly the reason the courts can get by with what they do is because government allows them free rein…
Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM

I don't see it that way. It's not free rein. The reins are short, baby. The judges know what's expected of them, same as all the other apparatchiks.

The other apparatchiks give them the real heavy work. The really unpopular stuff. It's like a cheat code for them.
Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (BI5O2)

Hmmm.. have to think on that, YD..

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:59 AM (PCK5/)

198 193 Congress: Writes the law
Courts: interpret the law
President: enforce the law
Posted by: nurse ratched at May 07, 2025 11:56 AM (W2Pud)

======

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Courts interpret the law?

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, smashy-smashy with Godzilla at May 07, 2025 11:59 AM (GBKbO)

199 Thx Joe. The Congress sitting on its thumbs is what is really causing this impass. Pass a number of simple bills to address the issues which a blocking the Trump agenda and the courts are powerless

Posted by: Smell the Glove at May 07, 2025 11:59 AM (vmkyp)

200 They've been so corrupted that "voting," used as a tool of change, is broken and seldom results in said change. Especially when the powers that be do not wish it.
_____

Voting the wrong way is a threat to our Precious Democracy (TM)

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 11:59 AM (Dv3i1)

201 Trump is a place where he can't just disobey the courts, either.

If he did, and the Dems win Congress next year, then come January 2027 they'd be writing up the impeachment articles before their even sworn in.

If the GOP maintains control then Trump should do whatever he wants and tell the courts to pound sand.

But he's still going to lose a few years on some important issues due to the left using lawfare to bring everything to a halt.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 11:59 AM (6ydKt)

202 Test:
(“

(‘

(**)
(*)
($)
(#)
(@)

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (ZVgZ4)

203 201 Trump is a place where he can't just disobey the courts, either.

If he did, and the Dems win Congress next year, then come January 2027 they'd be writing up the impeachment articles before their even sworn in.

If the GOP maintains control then Trump should do whatever he wants and tell the courts to pound sand.

But he's still going to lose a few years on some important issues due to the left using lawfare to bring everything to a halt.
Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 11:59 AM (6ydKt)

======

They'll impeach him no matter what.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, smashy-smashy with Godzilla at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (GBKbO)

204 We need to work outside those corrupt systems to effect change.
Posted by: Martini Farmer
=====
And that is what is called a revolution.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (ctrM5)

205 You have to remember that half the country is in favor of how the courts are operating now. The attempt to reform is an uphill battle . One that should have been fought 200 years ago.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (VofaG)

206 IMO YMMV RARIHTS
Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (AOsQT)
-------
Authentic Western gibberish!

Posted by: Captain Obvious, Laird o' the Sea at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (mTIWJ)

207 Notice that Trump has done nothing to bring back Abrego Garcia (and now a second Tren dude in another court) from El Salvador.
...

Posted by: whig

He was told to "facilitate". He has a plane ready.

If El Jefe of El Salvador doesn't want you let him go, that's on him, not Trump.

That's what Robert's asinine "facilitate" order got him.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (xt/H7)

208 So how do smileys work on Minx?

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at May 07, 2025 12:01 PM (ZVgZ4)

209 😏

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 12:01 PM (PCK5/)

210 Congress: Writes the law
Courts: interpret the law
President: enforce the law
___

I am the law.
- Judge Imperial Boasberg

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 12:02 PM (Dv3i1)

211 Come on Tubal, give!

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at May 07, 2025 12:02 PM (ZVgZ4)

212 You have to remember that half the country is in favor of how the courts are operating now. The attempt to reform is an uphill battle . One that should have been fought 200 years ago.
Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (VofaG)

Whether it's half or not, I think Team Trump is thinking now's not the time to make a stand.

If he's waiting for a case to come forward, to give him a reason to believe the country will be behind him, I think they'll do it, but apparently none of the nonsense we've seen so far is big enough.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:02 PM (buPQP)

213 😬😬

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 12:02 PM (PCK5/)

214
He would have had just as many if not more roadblocks than Trump had in his first term. And he is no where near the honey badger Trump is. Also hard to believe but I think he had more enemies than Trump. He talked a good game but I never ever thought he could back it up.

The Deep State was a different beast at that point and he had a number of connections to those people. No doubt he would have faced opposition but I think he would have had less in '92 then Trump has now.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 07, 2025 12:02 PM (t0Rmr)

215 195. skip, you could be right. alito and Thomas are by far the best Jurors we got, but we have to figure that out.

Besides Judicial life time appointments, i was hoping for legislation that a filibuster could protect in the future. Of Course if dems ever get the Senate back, the filibuster will be gone with these marxists

Posted by: Jonah at May 07, 2025 12:02 PM (gwrBY)

216 Congress today can't write a bill on how to pour piss out of a boot in under 15,000 words
Posted by: Ben Had at May 07, 2025 11:29 AM (NVNRw)

On page on piss pouring, 1000 pages of add ons, amendments, and markups.
Posted by: Diogenes at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (W/lyH)

It turns out the instructions for emptying the boot got dropped in committee. But we promise they’ll be in the next Continuing Resolution!

Posted by: Brother Mike Johnson at May 07, 2025 12:03 PM (l3YAf)

217 Alito and Thomas did not claim that Texas would prevail in court but thought the court should have heard the case (which would have required either a special master or the court directly to try the case).

Posted by: whig

Texas should have declared war whenSCOTUS said "no standing".

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 12:03 PM (xt/H7)

218 They'll impeach him no matter what.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, smashy-smashy with Godzilla at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (GBKbO)

-- --

I'm sure they'll try.
Probably what they've been trying to do with the Abrego Garcia case.

But I don't think wants to be impeached.
He knows it'll derail everything he's trying to do, at least for several months.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 07, 2025 12:03 PM (6ydKt)

219 He talked a good game but I never ever thought he could back it up.
Posted by: polynikes
---

And a closet full.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at May 07, 2025 12:03 PM (PB44O)

220 Where in the Constitution does it say that the Courts interpret the law?
Posted by: TheJamesMadison

Article III, Section 2
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

To resolve cases, you have to interpret the law first. That is considered an inherent power of courts because without it, they become merely mediators of disputes.

An inherent power of Congress is to investigate how its delegated power is being used. An inherent power of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States, and so on.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 12:03 PM (ctrM5)

221 IMO YMMV RARIHTS
Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (AOsQT)
-------
Authentic Western gibberish!
Posted by: Captain Obvious, Laird o' the Sea at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (mTIWJ)

I thought it was some of that fancy Latin the lawyers break out, whenever they don't want normal people to know what they're talking aboot.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:04 PM (buPQP)

222 Texas should have declared war whenSCOTUS said "no standing".
____

You're going to deny us Due Process? How about this for Due Process!
- Republic of Texas

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 12:04 PM (Dv3i1)

223 > We need to work outside those corrupt systems to effect change.
Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (Q4IgG)

That sounds extralegal… not an objection mind you.
Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 11:57 AM (PCK5/)
-------------
It could very well end up that way. Maybe the simple threat of it would motivate some to collectively get their shit together. Sort of like when my parents said; "if I have to tell you one more time..." I knew something unpleasant was coming.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 07, 2025 12:04 PM (Q4IgG)

224 If the GOP maintains control then Trump should do whatever he wants and tell the courts to pound sand.

Posted by: SpeakingOf
_________

This is also why I don't think the dem power struggle plays out until after 26. If they lose, the "moderates" will get their candidate for 28. If they win, it's AOC or some such.

Posted by: Biff Pocoroba at May 07, 2025 12:04 PM (UBKzV)

225 He was told to "facilitate". He has a plane ready.

If El Jefe of El Salvador doesn't want you let him go, that's on him, not Trump.

That's what Robert's asinine "facilitate" order got him.
Posted by: rickb223

A second case involving another piece of shit Tren member is working its way up the ladder. Again a stupid district court judge is repeating muh authoritah! as a legal argument in a political issue.

Posted by: whig at May 07, 2025 12:05 PM (ctrM5)

226
Writes the law: The Left
Interprets the law: The Left
Enforces the law: The Left

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 12:06 PM (RxTC7)

227 They'll impeach him no matter what.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, smashy-smashy with Godzilla at May 07, 2025 12:00 PM (GBKbO)

Exactly. Hell, the GOPe might try to impeach him. There’s no point in winning the Presidency if you’re just going to let commie judges act as President.

Give them a reason to impeach, since it’s coming anyway.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at May 07, 2025 12:07 PM (l3YAf)

228 Writes the law: The Left
Interprets the law: The Left
Enforces the law: The Left
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 12:06 PM (RxTC7)

Neocons enter the chat.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:07 PM (buPQP)

229 No way Pat Buchanan was ever gonna be elected president. The hapless senior George Bush beat him like a red headed stepchild in the primaries. Everyone made a big deal about how well Buchanan did but he lost New Hampshire to Bush by close to 20 points. He didn’t get close

Posted by: LinusVanPelt at May 07, 2025 12:08 PM (5MZNC)

230 If they win, it's AOC or some such.
Posted by: Biff Pocoroba at May 07, 2025 12:04 PM (UBKzV

If AOC becomes their nominee the Dems would continue their 25 year streak of having a progressively worse candidate each election cycle.

When one says it's impossible that anyone could be worse than Kamala is when the saying ' never say never ' comes into play.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 12:08 PM (VofaG)

231 The Supreme Court has undo power today because both the Legislature and the Executive have allowed it.

Posted by: Archer at May 07, 2025 12:08 PM (IDphi)

232 227. Means nothing, Now way you get 67 votes in the Senate. Trump could care less

Posted by: Jonah at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (gwrBY)

233 188 Stimming is an autism term I think
---------------
Stim is electrical stimulation of muscles. Its nice. Sort of an electrical massage much like a E-lec-trick-al Banana. Hat Tip to Donovan.

Posted by: Pudinhead at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (pZ64F)

234 😀 🥹 ☺️ 😉 😗 😝 🤓!
Never mind, I looked it up and used an Emoji keyboard! Still sometimes I get an inadvertent smiley like when I put end double quotes followed by a right parend. Ok how about “ ) vs. “

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (F7ycv)

235 You're going to deny us Due Process? How about this for Due Process!
- Republic of Texas
Posted by: Chuck Martel

Fist bump!

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (xt/H7)

236 If AOC becomes their nominee the Dems would continue their 25 year streak of having a progressively worse candidate each election cycle.
____

But what if she wears very low cut dresses ?

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (Dv3i1)

237 231 The Supreme Court has undo power
--------------
They have undue power soon to be undone.

Posted by: Pudinhead at May 07, 2025 12:10 PM (pZ64F)

238 Exactly. Hell, the GOPe might try to impeach him. There’s no point in winning the Presidency if you’re just going to let commie judges act as President.

Give them a reason to impeach, since it’s coming anyway.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at May 07, 2025 12:07 PM (l3YAf)

Sadly, I think that's basically it. Trump knows he doesn't have a majority in the Senate. That's a myth. The Uniparty has the votes it would need to convict him, if they chose. So he's got to play ball.

Granted, enough of the Gopes have to play their own game, to keep their distracted voters from seeing what lizards they really are. They have R's behind their names, after all, and lots of LiV voters vote for anyone with an R behind their name.

So we're going to mostly get the status quo. For the next two years, the next four years.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:10 PM (buPQP)

239 Neocons enter the chat.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:07 PM (buPQP)

The Left in fancy dress.

Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 12:10 PM (RxTC7)

240 But what if she wears very low cut dresses ?
Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (Dv3i1)
--------
Rule 1 still applies.

Posted by: Captain Obvious, Laird o' the Sea at May 07, 2025 12:11 PM (mTIWJ)

241 But what if she wears very low cut dresses ?
Posted by: Chuck Martel
_________

She may look like Ana Navarro by then.

Posted by: Biff Pocoroba at May 07, 2025 12:11 PM (UBKzV)

242 222
‘ How about this for Due Process!
- Republic of Texas’

I’d be happy if Texas just voted out their RINOs.

Posted by: Dr. Claw at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (jbnUc)

243 Liberals love themselves some batshit crazy judges.

Had a long debate with one regarding the overarching supremacy of SCROTUS (never mind district level).

TL

R
The discussion kept backing back to the oath is to support the Constitution,, not the SCROTUS. Nowhere does it say SCROTUS supercedes the other two branches or the Constitution itself.

Yeah, but what are you going toi do about it? SCROTUS said...

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (/lPRQ)

244 232 227. Means nothing, Now way you get 67 votes in the Senate. Trump could care less
Posted by: Jonah at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (gwrBY)

There are ways to get to 67 votes, but those are the real third rails that nobody in the White House would dare touch.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (buPQP)

245 In 21st century America, a few thousand people control 350 million, who constitute the wealthiest and most powerful country in modern history. Being any one of those few thousand is better than being a king of olden times. Of course each does his part to preserve that order for his own profit, and also on pain of death from his mighty peers.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (BI5O2)

246 Neocons enter the chat.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:07 PM (buPQP)

The Left in fancy dress.
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 12:10 PM (RxTC7)

---------------

Hack Dandies.

Posted by: ShainS at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (sgjeY)

247 > IMO YMMV RARIHTS
Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 11:50 AM (AOsQT)
-------
Authentic Western gibberish!

Posted by: Captain Obvious
---

in my opinion
your mileage may vary
rock and roll is here to stay

Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (AOsQT)

248 Posted by: LinusVanPelt at May 07, 2025 12:08 PM (5MZNC)

He did help Bush lose by coming up with the ' Read My Lips' insult. The Dems latched onto that like a leech in the general even though they had no objections to it. And as an aside there were actually no 'new' taxes but that technically didn't matter.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 12:13 PM (VofaG)

249 I’d be happy if Texas just voted out their RINOs.
____

Touché

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 12:13 PM (Dv3i1)

250 Neocons enter the chat.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:07 PM (buPQP)

The Left in fancy dress.
Posted by: ... at May 07, 2025 12:10 PM (RxTC7)

That's an interesting question: Did they ever really leave the left? Was the moniker always a lie?

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:13 PM (bQg1G)

251 234 😀 🥹 ☺️ 😉 😗 😝 🤓!
Never mind, I looked it up and used an Emoji keyboard! Still sometimes I get an inadvertent smiley like when I put end double quotes followed by a right parend. Ok how about “ ) vs. “?
Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (F7ycv)

You got it!!👌👍🥳

Posted by: tubal at May 07, 2025 12:13 PM (PCK5/)

252 Γνώθι σαυτόν!

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at May 07, 2025 12:14 PM (F7ycv)

253 rock and roll is here to stay
Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (AOsQT)

That doesn't sound Latin at all.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:14 PM (bQg1G)

254 Eight minutes into a new thread.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 07, 2025 12:15 PM (XPDqE)

255 But what if she wears very low cut dresses ?
Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 12:09 PM (Dv3i1)

She has belly whackers now. I can imagine what shape they will be in in 3 years.

Posted by: polynikes at May 07, 2025 12:15 PM (VofaG)

256 253 rock and roll is here to stay
Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 12:12 PM (AOsQT)
---------------
Rock n Roll was killed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving via a Highway Bill.

Posted by: Pudinhead at May 07, 2025 12:16 PM (pZ64F)

257 WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order ending federal funding for gain-of-function research – which intentionally makes viruses more dangerous or transmissible – in China and other countries.
_____

Funding to soon be restored by obscure district court judge looking to get his name in the papers.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at May 07, 2025 12:16 PM (Dv3i1)

258 >> Sadly, I think that's basically it. Trump knows he doesn't have a majority in the Senate. That's a myth. The Uniparty has the votes it would need to convict him, if they chose. So he's got to play ball.

You’re right we don’t have a real majority in the Senate, but it takes 67 to convict so Trump is probably safe.

I do wonder how many GOP Senators would defect if Trump just told SCOTUS to eff off, though.

I imagine a lot of this was worked out ahead of time. Mike Johnson and John Thune made clear to President-elect Trump where Congress would back him, where they’d remain silent and allow him to fight it out with the courts, and where they’d actively fight back against Trump.

Congress hasn’t so much abdicated their power as they are fine with the status quo and don’t intend to let it be upset too much.

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at May 07, 2025 12:17 PM (l3YAf)

259
BTW don't expect Congress to ever do anything about this problem. The wealth-and-influence racket that is our modern Congress is a well-oiled machine, and none dare risk running it off the rails.

Posted by: Don Black at May 07, 2025 12:17 PM (AOsQT)

260 Know thyself!

Posted by: NemoMeImpuneLacessit at May 07, 2025 12:18 PM (F7ycv)

261 Nobody NOODed

Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at May 07, 2025 12:19 PM (l3YAf)

262 258 I imagine a lot of this was worked out ahead of time. Mike Johnson and John Thune made clear to President-elect Trump where Congress would back him, where they’d remain silent and allow him to fight it out with the courts, and where they’d actively fight back against Trump.

Congress hasn’t so much abdicated their power as they are fine with the status quo and don’t intend to let it be upset too much.
Posted by: Disinterested FDA Director at May 07, 2025 12:17 PM (l3YAf)

======

Right after 1/6, at the nadir of Trump's popularity when the GOP thought he was toast forever, they got one Republican to vote for conviction:

Mitt Romney.

And he voted for conviction on only one count.

They had room to allow a dozen defections, at least, and only Mitt Romney followed through.

The idea that the GOP would, now, go against Trump in an impeachment trial, harder than they did right after 1/6, is silly.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, smashy-smashy with Godzilla at May 07, 2025 12:19 PM (GBKbO)

263 The idea that the GOP would, now, go against Trump in an impeachment trial, harder than they did right after 1/6, is silly.
-------------
Good point, James. Then there is the accusation of 'insurrection' to throw at the Judges seeking to kneecap Trump. Not to mention these Judges blind eye in railroading citizens cuz they were told to by the monied interests.

Posted by: Pudinhead at May 07, 2025 12:21 PM (pZ64F)

264 Liberals love themselves some batshit crazy judges.

Until they start finding for the right.

Just like with Elon. Electric car Elon until he became Nazi Elon.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 07, 2025 12:22 PM (xt/H7)

265 I'm sorry. I may be even dimmer than normal today, but what is "stim"?
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 07, 2025 11:54 AM (IQY71)

It is gently rocking back and forth, it is an extreme stress reaction, mostly seen in autistic kids, and kids with serious stress reactions.
It is "self stimulate" and is a coping behavior.

Posted by: Kindltot at May 07, 2025 12:53 PM (D7oie)

266 135: how?

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at May 07, 2025 01:19 PM (ML8rW)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0496 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.013 seconds, 275 records returned.
Page size 157 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.