The part of the communist's plan that is side splitting, is that they kicked themselves in the balls. If you had not cheated in the 2020 election, that will be proved this coming year, Trump would be leaving January 20th, 2024. Then you could have really had the wind at your back for the next 4 years. Now you will have to watch President Trump appoint the replacements for the conservatives leaving the Supreme Court. The blue ball part of this that Justice Sotomayor has type 1 diabetes. You called for her to retire earlier this year. Now do to your games it looks like the conservatives will get another conservative justice. The sweet part is that you did it all by yourselves!!
Regardless of your political ideology, the fact that you ignore an amazing amount of evidence pointing to extraordinary election fraud in 2020 tanks your cred as a serious person. Hopefully you will grow out of it.
Oh , but you see you just point for making that statement.
'No one cheated on 2020'
There is evidence everywhere of it.
I can read someone else's opinions, agree , disagree, remain at agree to disagree but when that other party writes some wash, rinse, & repeat , and they become (for me) another person denying what was what i/was right in front of them
Vincent, I spent the entire afternoon reading every word of this thoughtful recap of our SCOTUS post Trump appointments and the ridiculousness of their decisions- so infuriating- I could cry. I wish to learn more about you and your work- you definitely have a handle on the law. It's impossible to understand what's happened to us; what are your ideas about turning this around somehow? Thank you for your great and clear writing style.
Thank you for the kind words! In the next four years we should survive the best we can. If we have the time and resources I recommend some form of mutual aid, you can never go wrong with helping your own community. Stay positive and try to spread left ideas. Not sure where you are on the spectrum, I am a Marxist. I want to encourage and educate people to explore left ideas so that they can take action themselves. There will be plenty of time to protest and build a bottom-up movement. We can't rely on establishment Democrats, they have failed us. We need at least a serious left-populist to reenergize people and fight Trumpism.
Sorry but the Citizens United case ended American Democracy as we know it by letting corporations, individuals, etc. fund elections by allowing them to form Political Action Committees (PACs and Super PACs). This ruling took away free and fair elections. More than $1 billion was spent in 2025. People who took money from PACS now are owned by the very same.
I approve this message, This is blatant truth. Seems the media and politicians do not discuss this ruling destroying our country, well…they are all getting rich from selling their children’s future away. Immediate gratification while F’ing their children.
The cases I go over here are just from the past four years after Ginsburg passed away. But ya, Citizens United was one of the worst cases in modern history in terms of its destructive impact on our elections and by extension our democracy.
Citizens United was filed because a politician didn't want a film critical of her to be shown. Prior to this, lobbyists were still bribing politicians.
Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the lawsuit being filed or the block that the FEC placed on Citizens United. The impact of the ruling is night and day, there is no essentially no limit to the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns which is why a combined $20 billion was in on this year's election: https://tinyurl.com/3pvvfzjd
Saying that it isn't different because politicians were bribed before is totally naive and completely misses the forest for the trees. That goes for both parties, if you think money isn't central to your party, you aren't living in reality.
It was in fact a documentary critical of Hillary that was being censored. Thinking she had nothing to do with it is naive.
I don't have a party. Thinking that these problems started with Citizens United tells me your understanding of this subject is as dismal as your understanding of the US constitution. You will never find a way to keep money out of politics. It won't happen. They will always find a way. The only answer is to strip the state of power. The people who want to purchase power have been doing it since before Citizens United.
Too bad the majority of Americans do not agree with you. Must be so hard to take. That means the American people do not trust the Democrats or your Marxist looney tunes.
Americans clearly don't like the conservative Supreme Court; opinion polling shows their approval rating is at 34% and 48% say that it is too conservative.
Liking or not liking the SC is irrelevant. The Dems almost always nominate left wing activists while republicans nominate solid jurists. The rulings demonstrate that.
Trump literally admitted himself that he appointed Amy Coney Barrett specifically to overturn Roe. The conservatives are the "activists" you're talking about.
First of all, Supreme Court Justices aren’t Republican or Democrat - they’re nominated by the President (whatever party he’s from - in the past, that could have been the Whig Party, the Federalist Party, the Democratic-Republican Party (aka “Jeffersonian Republican” Party)) and confirmed by the Senate. Some of the most “liberal”Justices (based on their votes on important cases) were appointed by Republican Presidents (e.g., Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Powell, Blackmun, Brennan, Stewart and, possibly the worst Chief Justice in the history of the United States, Earl Warren).
The justices take the law and apply it to the case’s facts. Rather than think of them as “liberal” or “conservative,” it’s more accurate to think of them as “strict constructionist” or “activist.” IMO, the Court should never stray from the Constitution. When it does, you get horrible opinions like Roe v. Wade that create out of whole cloth supposed “Constitutional rights” that aren’t actually in the Constitution.
I don’t know what your usual field is, but it’s clearly not Constitutional law. You should probably stick to topics you know and understand.
Saying that SC justices aren't ideological is just naive. We don't live in the high school curriculum version of reality where on paper they're not partisan, we live in the real world where Presidents chose justices to make decisions favorable to their party's interests. All these cases are ruled 6-3 with the same justices on each side. Some decisions that are less consequential see justices switching but for these big cases, they have demonstrated to always side with their partisan lines. No one is hiding this, not even the justices themselves, unless you want to make the wrongheaded claim that the court is fair which its clearly not.
The enumerated powers are in Article 1, Section 8. FEDGOV has no enumerated power to interfere in the private ownership of weapons. All federal gun control is unconstitutional.
The 9th amendment wasn't added because the founders anticipated a future where there might be more rights. The 9th was added to prevent misconstruction. The concern over adding a bill of rights to the constitution was that it would sow confusion about the nature of human rights, mainly that they were somehow a grant from the government rather than inherent to individuals. These concerns are covered in the debates, defenses, and critiques of the constitution contemporary to ratification, although even without additional reading, it should be apparent that the constitution doesn't purport to grant human rights.
I have enjoyed reading a few of these so far and hope to read more; here's my thought on what I've read: In the Grants Pass case regarding homelessness, while I feel for these people, I also feel for the tax paying citizens of this town. They should be able to use and enjoy their town parks. I don't know every detail of the situation, but I would tend to side with the residents who want to discourage homeless encampments. Cities like Portland and San Fran have voters that are more welcoming of this, so perhaps the homeless should move there - as the homeless are not entitled to dominate and control parts of the town.
Loper Bright / Chevron case my thought is that federal agencies have overstepped their roles in many cases and are often found to be acting in ways that create laws / regulations , when in fact congress needs to take action and make the laws themselves. A good example is the EPA actions on gas stoves and electric vehicles. Deciding what type of cooking, heating or mode of travel I prefer should be left up to the individual. Forcing people to cook with an electric range or a microwave is well outside the scope of what a government should be doing.
Lastly, regarding the Bangor Maine school vouchers, I think this case centers around the children and parents should be free to choose where their kids are educated. The family may be Islamic and just wants the best education they can find for their kids and if they think it is at a Christian school, then they should be free to make that decision. It all boils down to who honestly thinks some bureaucrat knows best what school some kids in Maine should be attending? The bureaucrat or the parents? I'll side with the parents any day.
I appreciate you reading even if we don't agree on stuff.
For the Grants Pass case, the law was already on the books that the town had to provide adequate shelter space before handing out fines. While I'm opposed to any punishment of the unhoused, the existing law was much more reasonable and humane. I think you should consider how difficult it is to be homeless. I've been very broke before, luckily not homeless but nothing is easy when you're struggling; a fine or 30 days in jail will not help you get out of that situation. Shelters are not expensive and that's much cheaper for society than giving them a court date and putting them in jail. Just because you 'pay taxes' doesn't mean you should abandon other humans.
The Chevron case– the EPA doesn't have too much to do with EVs yet, they're not mandated and the government ran into a supply problem with phasing out ICE cars because of tariffs on Chinese cars. Personally I think more investment in public transit and reducing the amount of cars is the solution. Phasing out an unnecessary type of stove top on a national level is an easy way to make massive reductions in carbon emissions (you can still use a grill). But the EPA has been very lenient on corporations for a long, long time. In my opinion they should've been far more aggressive in combatting climate change which we are feeling the effects of more and more each year. I understand the sentiment that you don't want too much government control but that control is in the hands of who is President- someone who is elected nationally.
The schools thing- it's not a question of choice, it's a simple constitutional issue. There's no doubt that govt funding an explicitly religious school is against the establishment clause. There's no bureaucrat involved, the voucher in Maine could go toward a non-religious private school and work just fine.
I didn't 'deface' the justices upholding the constitution... I 'defaced' the justices who voted against the raw text of the establishment clause. That's the Constitution! The conservatives are the defacers! They defaced the first amendment!
You lost my attention at 'common sense gun reform". There exists no such ludicrous thing. We are talking about a state where one's constitutional.right to be able to adequately defend themselves has is already violated to the utmost degree, yet you are irritated because they rejected even more unconstitutional BS that you so ignorantly refer to as "common sense"?! When you get some yourself you just might regain my attention.
I mean I support the ability to own guns, they're especially necessary in an age where corporations and government rule everything. It'd be great if we all have decentralized militias and had no hegemonic military. But that's not the reality we live in.
What I don't want is far-right terrorists, Nazis, school shooters and domestic abusers to have guns, especially assault weapons. So if implementing background checks or doing licensing means those people have a harder time getting guns, that's common sense.
So much wrong here I don’t know where to begin. Thank God, we have a constitutionally based Supreme Court. And it’s only gonna get better! PS freedom of religion was co-opted by the left and perverted into freedom from religion. Public schools are literally dumpsters for our kids. Every taxpayer with children should receive a stipend to go to any school they desire. That is freedom of religion!
Forcing your religion on others is against the constitution. The raw text of the first amendment is that the government cannot prohibit nor establish religion. Allowing federal funding for religious schools is fundamentally against the first amendment. I'm not sure what sect you belong to, wouldn't it be a shame if you were Protestant and the government mandated your kid be taught Catholic believes in school? Or vice versa?
You asked for examples of your obfusications, there are many, but here is your latest mis-read and mis-interpretation
Examples; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ..."
No one is forcing anyone to respect a religion! Anyone can go to any church or school they choose. Federal government run and funded public schools started in 1965, President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law. This law decidedly changed the role of the federal government in the world of K-12 education.
That began, what can only be called an attack on religion. Starting with saying the Lord's Prayer the incrementalism began. First they mandated, based on religious freedom, that students didn't have to say it or stand if they were not inclined (Constitionally sound). Next you were not allowed to stand or say it at all (Constitional violation, prohibiting the free exercise).
Next was the Pledge of Allegiance. The path to eroding away the freedoms that were the basis for this country's founding is established. More to come.
Today the government provides funded education, if and only if, they go to government schools that are today non-religious and down right athiseistic. No funding is given to any private or religious school. THAT IS "PROHIBITING OF THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".
No one is being forced. Rather citizens are being prohibited.
Your diatribe is the continuation of this destruction of understanding and is by definition an obfusication.
By instituting non-secular prayer in school, that is by definition 'establishing religion.'
The pledge of allegiance is not religious so I'm not even sure what you're talking about, forcing a kid to 'pledge allegiance' to their country is straight up bizarre, no other country on Earth does that, its straight up 1984 type shit.
How would you know how "atheistic" public schools are? Most teachers are themselves religious, they just teach in a secular manner. The only people calling public schools atheistic are religious zealots that need their kid to be indoctrinated into their religion.
The government is restricted by the Constitution which prohibits the support of religious institutions aka religious schools. That's how it was written and established in 1790 then later upheld by the Supreme Court.
Godbless you! I doubt this imbecile will ever understand. How do they not see their hypocrisy? Forcing atheism is also against the constitution bc essentially that is promoting a religion that says “we hate God and do not believe in God”
I had to smile reading this bleeding heart, full of pathos, obfusication of history.
Built on constantly repeated, past, false naritves it is tour de force of liberal ideology. Long winded, shallow in detail it cherry picks items, replacing truth with motovation and innuendo.
The communist technique of creating purported rights (none requiring any responsibility) as a destabilizing tool is again on didply, hence my smile.
This is just another piece of communist, liberal, socialist, democrat progressive (whatever they call themselves) propoganda. It's sole purpose, to persuade a poorly informed citizenry in a false history in order to project an imaginary utopian society built upon that false history (aka The Lie). A top down society with them as enlightened depots.
Same old, same old, Doom, Gloom and more doom, repeat.
Agreed, Anthony. Vincent actually reinforced the support for all of these rulings. This SCOTUS the strongest constitutional court in modern history in spite of having three incompetent liberal activist justices and in spite of Roberts being the weakest conservative on the court. There is a great chance that it will even improve to 7-2 under Trump's second term.
So basically we live in a country where it's ok and legal to own a weapon that rapid fires bullets which everyone knows is only needed by the military because our dictator Supreme Court justices ruled on a technicality definition of what an assault rifle with a bump stock is, a country where our president is essentially a king because he has immunity to basically everything, we're hard-fought women's rights were just taken away right out from under them by a dictatorship style supreme Court that has no accountability or limits. And the icing on the cake is that basically you are not really human, you have no basic rights as an earthling because you can't even exist or lie down to sleep on a patch of ground for fear of being fined and /or arrested because the greed of your own government has made it nearly impossible to survive in this world and you have nowhere to turn but sadly to a patch of Earth to lie your head on and you can't even do that now. I love the sentence about this case being the most tragic microcosm of the oppressive American empire, which is the criminalization of homeless people. Well done!
At the time of ratification, there were cannons in private possession. No permission slips involved. Letters of Marque were issued to people who had private navies, fully equipped to engage in combat.
You want your greedy, dictatorial government to decide what weapons you can own? You think your government really "needs" to drop bombs on poor people?
Only read the first sentence of your comment because it demonstrates a total ignorance of firearms which is typical of libtards everywhere. Learn something about the topic you are commenting on
Congratulations. You somehow missed a major point. We can all change the situation if we want to. All we have to do is amend the Constitution through a Convention of States and we can rewrite any part of it you don't like. Personally, I'm hoping to have every State contribute.
If you think you don't like DOGE, just wait to see the CoS.
Dude quoted the NFA's definition of what constitutes being a "Machine gun," that being a single function of the trigger.
Then dude quotes the ATF's own description of what exactly a bump stock actually does. How it uses the energy of a rifles recoil to facilitate multiple functual actuations of a trigger, thus increasing the perceived rate of fire.
Dude literally points out the glaring and obvious difference between the two (a bump stock & an actual machine gun) then concludes by agreeing with the ATF's overreach by using their illegal reclassification of bump stocks, by stating "they ARE machine guns."
Points out how 2 things are different from one another in form, function, and even classification, then immediately disregards and ignores all of it to claim said 2 things are actually the exact, same thing, according to the idiot (ATF) with the horrible track record who also has a long history of being wrong.
Yeah, so, let me take you, and everything you say, and all of your opinions seriously. And not think to myself what an obvious retarded person you MUST be to say and believe such things, despite glaring inaccuracies.
The part of the communist's plan that is side splitting, is that they kicked themselves in the balls. If you had not cheated in the 2020 election, that will be proved this coming year, Trump would be leaving January 20th, 2024. Then you could have really had the wind at your back for the next 4 years. Now you will have to watch President Trump appoint the replacements for the conservatives leaving the Supreme Court. The blue ball part of this that Justice Sotomayor has type 1 diabetes. You called for her to retire earlier this year. Now do to your games it looks like the conservatives will get another conservative justice. The sweet part is that you did it all by yourselves!!
I'm not a liberal or a democrat, I'm just a writer, not sure why you're placing this on me lol
No one cheated in 2020 you sound like a child
Huh? What? That was the most biased thing ever written by an adult. Your structure was great so it could not be idiocy.
Regardless of your political ideology, the fact that you ignore an amazing amount of evidence pointing to extraordinary election fraud in 2020 tanks your cred as a serious person. Hopefully you will grow out of it.
So Democrats cheated in 2020 when Trump was in office, but decided not to in 2024 when they had the power? Make that make sense.
It's almost like the elections were fair all along...
Oh, they cheated and we now have more proof. Additionally, as days go by.
Oh , but you see you just point for making that statement.
'No one cheated on 2020'
There is evidence everywhere of it.
I can read someone else's opinions, agree , disagree, remain at agree to disagree but when that other party writes some wash, rinse, & repeat , and they become (for me) another person denying what was what i/was right in front of them
.
Vincent, I spent the entire afternoon reading every word of this thoughtful recap of our SCOTUS post Trump appointments and the ridiculousness of their decisions- so infuriating- I could cry. I wish to learn more about you and your work- you definitely have a handle on the law. It's impossible to understand what's happened to us; what are your ideas about turning this around somehow? Thank you for your great and clear writing style.
Thank you for the kind words! In the next four years we should survive the best we can. If we have the time and resources I recommend some form of mutual aid, you can never go wrong with helping your own community. Stay positive and try to spread left ideas. Not sure where you are on the spectrum, I am a Marxist. I want to encourage and educate people to explore left ideas so that they can take action themselves. There will be plenty of time to protest and build a bottom-up movement. We can't rely on establishment Democrats, they have failed us. We need at least a serious left-populist to reenergize people and fight Trumpism.
Well , writing this from Cuba, maybe you should just move here. There are millions who would love to trade places with you.
Sorry but the Citizens United case ended American Democracy as we know it by letting corporations, individuals, etc. fund elections by allowing them to form Political Action Committees (PACs and Super PACs). This ruling took away free and fair elections. More than $1 billion was spent in 2025. People who took money from PACS now are owned by the very same.
I approve this message, This is blatant truth. Seems the media and politicians do not discuss this ruling destroying our country, well…they are all getting rich from selling their children’s future away. Immediate gratification while F’ing their children.
The cases I go over here are just from the past four years after Ginsburg passed away. But ya, Citizens United was one of the worst cases in modern history in terms of its destructive impact on our elections and by extension our democracy.
Citizens United was filed because a politician didn't want a film critical of her to be shown. Prior to this, lobbyists were still bribing politicians.
Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the lawsuit being filed or the block that the FEC placed on Citizens United. The impact of the ruling is night and day, there is no essentially no limit to the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns which is why a combined $20 billion was in on this year's election: https://tinyurl.com/3pvvfzjd
Saying that it isn't different because politicians were bribed before is totally naive and completely misses the forest for the trees. That goes for both parties, if you think money isn't central to your party, you aren't living in reality.
It was in fact a documentary critical of Hillary that was being censored. Thinking she had nothing to do with it is naive.
I don't have a party. Thinking that these problems started with Citizens United tells me your understanding of this subject is as dismal as your understanding of the US constitution. You will never find a way to keep money out of politics. It won't happen. They will always find a way. The only answer is to strip the state of power. The people who want to purchase power have been doing it since before Citizens United.
Now do the top 1,000 worst SC ruling before the conservatives took over.
Conservatives have had a majority since the 1970s, it didn't start to get really bad until Trump was able to appoint 3 justices
Too bad the majority of Americans do not agree with you. Must be so hard to take. That means the American people do not trust the Democrats or your Marxist looney tunes.
Americans clearly don't like the conservative Supreme Court; opinion polling shows their approval rating is at 34% and 48% say that it is too conservative.
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econtoplines_Khpw06c.pdf
Liking or not liking the SC is irrelevant. The Dems almost always nominate left wing activists while republicans nominate solid jurists. The rulings demonstrate that.
Trump literally admitted himself that he appointed Amy Coney Barrett specifically to overturn Roe. The conservatives are the "activists" you're talking about.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade
Roe was an illegal ruling and it needed to be overturned and sent back to the states.
First of all, Supreme Court Justices aren’t Republican or Democrat - they’re nominated by the President (whatever party he’s from - in the past, that could have been the Whig Party, the Federalist Party, the Democratic-Republican Party (aka “Jeffersonian Republican” Party)) and confirmed by the Senate. Some of the most “liberal”Justices (based on their votes on important cases) were appointed by Republican Presidents (e.g., Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Powell, Blackmun, Brennan, Stewart and, possibly the worst Chief Justice in the history of the United States, Earl Warren).
The justices take the law and apply it to the case’s facts. Rather than think of them as “liberal” or “conservative,” it’s more accurate to think of them as “strict constructionist” or “activist.” IMO, the Court should never stray from the Constitution. When it does, you get horrible opinions like Roe v. Wade that create out of whole cloth supposed “Constitutional rights” that aren’t actually in the Constitution.
I don’t know what your usual field is, but it’s clearly not Constitutional law. You should probably stick to topics you know and understand.
Saying that SC justices aren't ideological is just naive. We don't live in the high school curriculum version of reality where on paper they're not partisan, we live in the real world where Presidents chose justices to make decisions favorable to their party's interests. All these cases are ruled 6-3 with the same justices on each side. Some decisions that are less consequential see justices switching but for these big cases, they have demonstrated to always side with their partisan lines. No one is hiding this, not even the justices themselves, unless you want to make the wrongheaded claim that the court is fair which its clearly not.
The enumerated powers are in Article 1, Section 8. FEDGOV has no enumerated power to interfere in the private ownership of weapons. All federal gun control is unconstitutional.
The 9th amendment wasn't added because the founders anticipated a future where there might be more rights. The 9th was added to prevent misconstruction. The concern over adding a bill of rights to the constitution was that it would sow confusion about the nature of human rights, mainly that they were somehow a grant from the government rather than inherent to individuals. These concerns are covered in the debates, defenses, and critiques of the constitution contemporary to ratification, although even without additional reading, it should be apparent that the constitution doesn't purport to grant human rights.
Some of the best rulings ever!
I have enjoyed reading a few of these so far and hope to read more; here's my thought on what I've read: In the Grants Pass case regarding homelessness, while I feel for these people, I also feel for the tax paying citizens of this town. They should be able to use and enjoy their town parks. I don't know every detail of the situation, but I would tend to side with the residents who want to discourage homeless encampments. Cities like Portland and San Fran have voters that are more welcoming of this, so perhaps the homeless should move there - as the homeless are not entitled to dominate and control parts of the town.
Loper Bright / Chevron case my thought is that federal agencies have overstepped their roles in many cases and are often found to be acting in ways that create laws / regulations , when in fact congress needs to take action and make the laws themselves. A good example is the EPA actions on gas stoves and electric vehicles. Deciding what type of cooking, heating or mode of travel I prefer should be left up to the individual. Forcing people to cook with an electric range or a microwave is well outside the scope of what a government should be doing.
Lastly, regarding the Bangor Maine school vouchers, I think this case centers around the children and parents should be free to choose where their kids are educated. The family may be Islamic and just wants the best education they can find for their kids and if they think it is at a Christian school, then they should be free to make that decision. It all boils down to who honestly thinks some bureaucrat knows best what school some kids in Maine should be attending? The bureaucrat or the parents? I'll side with the parents any day.
I appreciate you reading even if we don't agree on stuff.
For the Grants Pass case, the law was already on the books that the town had to provide adequate shelter space before handing out fines. While I'm opposed to any punishment of the unhoused, the existing law was much more reasonable and humane. I think you should consider how difficult it is to be homeless. I've been very broke before, luckily not homeless but nothing is easy when you're struggling; a fine or 30 days in jail will not help you get out of that situation. Shelters are not expensive and that's much cheaper for society than giving them a court date and putting them in jail. Just because you 'pay taxes' doesn't mean you should abandon other humans.
The Chevron case– the EPA doesn't have too much to do with EVs yet, they're not mandated and the government ran into a supply problem with phasing out ICE cars because of tariffs on Chinese cars. Personally I think more investment in public transit and reducing the amount of cars is the solution. Phasing out an unnecessary type of stove top on a national level is an easy way to make massive reductions in carbon emissions (you can still use a grill). But the EPA has been very lenient on corporations for a long, long time. In my opinion they should've been far more aggressive in combatting climate change which we are feeling the effects of more and more each year. I understand the sentiment that you don't want too much government control but that control is in the hands of who is President- someone who is elected nationally.
The schools thing- it's not a question of choice, it's a simple constitutional issue. There's no doubt that govt funding an explicitly religious school is against the establishment clause. There's no bureaucrat involved, the voucher in Maine could go toward a non-religious private school and work just fine.
You defaced the justices in the great majority, who are upholding the Constitution.
Those are the ones you resent.
Says it all.
I didn't 'deface' the justices upholding the constitution... I 'defaced' the justices who voted against the raw text of the establishment clause. That's the Constitution! The conservatives are the defacers! They defaced the first amendment!
Lol
You lost my attention at 'common sense gun reform". There exists no such ludicrous thing. We are talking about a state where one's constitutional.right to be able to adequately defend themselves has is already violated to the utmost degree, yet you are irritated because they rejected even more unconstitutional BS that you so ignorantly refer to as "common sense"?! When you get some yourself you just might regain my attention.
I mean I support the ability to own guns, they're especially necessary in an age where corporations and government rule everything. It'd be great if we all have decentralized militias and had no hegemonic military. But that's not the reality we live in.
What I don't want is far-right terrorists, Nazis, school shooters and domestic abusers to have guns, especially assault weapons. So if implementing background checks or doing licensing means those people have a harder time getting guns, that's common sense.
So much wrong here I don’t know where to begin. Thank God, we have a constitutionally based Supreme Court. And it’s only gonna get better! PS freedom of religion was co-opted by the left and perverted into freedom from religion. Public schools are literally dumpsters for our kids. Every taxpayer with children should receive a stipend to go to any school they desire. That is freedom of religion!
Forcing your religion on others is against the constitution. The raw text of the first amendment is that the government cannot prohibit nor establish religion. Allowing federal funding for religious schools is fundamentally against the first amendment. I'm not sure what sect you belong to, wouldn't it be a shame if you were Protestant and the government mandated your kid be taught Catholic believes in school? Or vice versa?
You asked for examples of your obfusications, there are many, but here is your latest mis-read and mis-interpretation
Examples; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ..."
No one is forcing anyone to respect a religion! Anyone can go to any church or school they choose. Federal government run and funded public schools started in 1965, President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law. This law decidedly changed the role of the federal government in the world of K-12 education.
That began, what can only be called an attack on religion. Starting with saying the Lord's Prayer the incrementalism began. First they mandated, based on religious freedom, that students didn't have to say it or stand if they were not inclined (Constitionally sound). Next you were not allowed to stand or say it at all (Constitional violation, prohibiting the free exercise).
Next was the Pledge of Allegiance. The path to eroding away the freedoms that were the basis for this country's founding is established. More to come.
Today the government provides funded education, if and only if, they go to government schools that are today non-religious and down right athiseistic. No funding is given to any private or religious school. THAT IS "PROHIBITING OF THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".
No one is being forced. Rather citizens are being prohibited.
Your diatribe is the continuation of this destruction of understanding and is by definition an obfusication.
By instituting non-secular prayer in school, that is by definition 'establishing religion.'
The pledge of allegiance is not religious so I'm not even sure what you're talking about, forcing a kid to 'pledge allegiance' to their country is straight up bizarre, no other country on Earth does that, its straight up 1984 type shit.
How would you know how "atheistic" public schools are? Most teachers are themselves religious, they just teach in a secular manner. The only people calling public schools atheistic are religious zealots that need their kid to be indoctrinated into their religion.
The government is restricted by the Constitution which prohibits the support of religious institutions aka religious schools. That's how it was written and established in 1790 then later upheld by the Supreme Court.
Godbless you! I doubt this imbecile will ever understand. How do they not see their hypocrisy? Forcing atheism is also against the constitution bc essentially that is promoting a religion that says “we hate God and do not believe in God”
None of that is true and the Constitution explicitly endorses a secular government (that doesn't mean atheist).
You are amazing. Godbless you for standing up to these murderers. They have no logic!
Winner of the "Bad Takes" Gold Medal, Vincent Pagliaccio.
Citing the grossly incompetent raving lunatic, Justice Sotomayor, is icing on the cake. :-)
You are dead wrong. This is the best court in decades. Maybe you don’t care about the constitution but 200,000,000 people do
I had to smile reading this bleeding heart, full of pathos, obfusication of history.
Built on constantly repeated, past, false naritves it is tour de force of liberal ideology. Long winded, shallow in detail it cherry picks items, replacing truth with motovation and innuendo.
The communist technique of creating purported rights (none requiring any responsibility) as a destabilizing tool is again on didply, hence my smile.
This is just another piece of communist, liberal, socialist, democrat progressive (whatever they call themselves) propoganda. It's sole purpose, to persuade a poorly informed citizenry in a false history in order to project an imaginary utopian society built upon that false history (aka The Lie). A top down society with them as enlightened depots.
Same old, same old, Doom, Gloom and more doom, repeat.
It never ends.
I have to laugh to keep from crying.
When will they ever learn?
So wheres the "obfuscation" of history? All you did is go on a Rush Limbaugh rant and not dispute anything
Agreed, Anthony. Vincent actually reinforced the support for all of these rulings. This SCOTUS the strongest constitutional court in modern history in spite of having three incompetent liberal activist justices and in spite of Roberts being the weakest conservative on the court. There is a great chance that it will even improve to 7-2 under Trump's second term.
So basically we live in a country where it's ok and legal to own a weapon that rapid fires bullets which everyone knows is only needed by the military because our dictator Supreme Court justices ruled on a technicality definition of what an assault rifle with a bump stock is, a country where our president is essentially a king because he has immunity to basically everything, we're hard-fought women's rights were just taken away right out from under them by a dictatorship style supreme Court that has no accountability or limits. And the icing on the cake is that basically you are not really human, you have no basic rights as an earthling because you can't even exist or lie down to sleep on a patch of ground for fear of being fined and /or arrested because the greed of your own government has made it nearly impossible to survive in this world and you have nowhere to turn but sadly to a patch of Earth to lie your head on and you can't even do that now. I love the sentence about this case being the most tragic microcosm of the oppressive American empire, which is the criminalization of homeless people. Well done!
At the time of ratification, there were cannons in private possession. No permission slips involved. Letters of Marque were issued to people who had private navies, fully equipped to engage in combat.
You want your greedy, dictatorial government to decide what weapons you can own? You think your government really "needs" to drop bombs on poor people?
Only read the first sentence of your comment because it demonstrates a total ignorance of firearms which is typical of libtards everywhere. Learn something about the topic you are commenting on
Clueless.
"Everybody knows..." No substitute for reasoned argument. Poorly done.
On and on, right. Quit spreading lies, it tells me things about you. Women did not lose anymore. I'm going to leave it there.
Congratulations. You somehow missed a major point. We can all change the situation if we want to. All we have to do is amend the Constitution through a Convention of States and we can rewrite any part of it you don't like. Personally, I'm hoping to have every State contribute.
If you think you don't like DOGE, just wait to see the CoS.
Literally, dude who wrote this, is retarded.
Dude quoted the NFA's definition of what constitutes being a "Machine gun," that being a single function of the trigger.
Then dude quotes the ATF's own description of what exactly a bump stock actually does. How it uses the energy of a rifles recoil to facilitate multiple functual actuations of a trigger, thus increasing the perceived rate of fire.
Dude literally points out the glaring and obvious difference between the two (a bump stock & an actual machine gun) then concludes by agreeing with the ATF's overreach by using their illegal reclassification of bump stocks, by stating "they ARE machine guns."
Points out how 2 things are different from one another in form, function, and even classification, then immediately disregards and ignores all of it to claim said 2 things are actually the exact, same thing, according to the idiot (ATF) with the horrible track record who also has a long history of being wrong.
Yeah, so, let me take you, and everything you say, and all of your opinions seriously. And not think to myself what an obvious retarded person you MUST be to say and believe such things, despite glaring inaccuracies.
Have you ever heard of a difference without a distinction? Middle school must've been really difficult for you 😿