True, the SC thing was omission that I wish I mentioned in hindsight.
Did you see the TX response, its pretty magical.. and makes a legal case at least to dissolve their agreement to join the union since one side of this deal is not upholding their obligations under the agreement.
Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.
A wider question is, why can a court refuse to do their job and throw a nation into chaos, allowing crime.. without consequences to the justices? Anyone else did this, there is a case to fire them or at the very least stop paying them. When the dust settles on this, I dont see much relevance for the SC going forwards.. if it exists at all.
Yeah, I saw the TX response, after picking my jaw up of the floor from reading the SCOTUS statement.
I was getting real 1861 vibes from all of it and was wondering who was going to blink first. It certainly had the feel of one of those turning points in history taking place right before us, and we were little more than passengers along for the ride.
Another one of the things I was wondering about was the effective lack of representation / ability to have a say / influence that anyone really had as it was all playing out. The veneer of "They work for us" I think was stripped away.
It is said that WWI was a family argument between cousins that cost the lives of millions. Right now, it feels that there are people who've embedded themselves into power who are playing it out without consideration for the masses being swung about by their decisions. I know, sounds kind of Marxist when you look at it that way. The proletariat shall rise again!
I agree with your viewpoint on the future for SCOTUS, but the broader question I think is what happens / what is the effect on the entire judicial branch? If SCOTUS validated their existence with Marbury vs Madison, they may have invalidated their existence with not taking on this case and, by extension, shown that judicial processes are not inviolate. The judiciary is one of those functions that exists because people allow it. If enough people feel that the judiciary aren't doing their job properly it becomes vigilantism and the judiciary are invalidated.
The whole ""[SCOTUS] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it!" thing again. I might not agree with everything Andrew Jackson did or said, but he made a really good point here.
From a broader viewpoint, who else falls under the judiciary? The FBI. Now, I can't see Hoover's personal blackmail agency disappearing that easily, but I think the future will probably see more challenges at ground level against the reach and authority of the FBI (and other alphabet agencies). It probably won't go through the courts, though, as SCOTUS has just shown its hand as to the thumb on the scale.
There were some good points made about how Trump saw very few mass shootings during his first term. I worry that someone or some people are setting themselves up to repeat Ruby Ridge (yes, I know that was a debacle) once the Uniparty retake power and there is going to be the same slanders repeated via MSM.
On the SC, I think they have been one of the larger frauds of the last 4 years. Every confirmation hearing filled with so much disruption and drama - as though we were supposed to believe that so much pivoted upon the outcome. So with an unprecedented 3 placements under Trump (Gorsuch, Kav, ACB ) it still failed spectacularly. What more could have been done to get a court that was functioning? I take a dim view on people so incompetent that no matter what easy-mode task they are given, they still are an utter failure.. no one else has infinite leeway to be a bum at huge cost to the nation, and they shouldn't either.
So what can be done, can it be repaired or reformed or does it need to be thrown away? At a minimum I think it needs a clean sweep, firing each and every one of the justices. Its pretty clear that the supposed rigour of confirmations are a farce, with open liars accepted like Christine Blasey Ford, and leftist sit-ins and disruptions in the buildings and hearings being tolerated. If as an institution its going to be kept around, there has to be an investigation of would-be justices at the level done against Trump himself - full finances, all comms and records, travel movements, emails, phone records, socials etc going back decades. How many criminals and pedos do they know on a first name basis etc. A lot easier to blackmail and control the SC than any other governmental branch given the fewer people who constitute it. Though to be fair we watched an entire presidential election get stolen too with consequences also lacking (though not for much longer!) A compromised SC is small fry next to that.
Term limits, health mandates (no more ginsburgs etc) are probably nice to haves as well... if you are too ill to move or think, how can you make coherent valid rulings? And constant NSA-grade monitoring of comms and activities while a justice is serving.
True, the SC thing was omission that I wish I mentioned in hindsight.
Did you see the TX response, its pretty magical.. and makes a legal case at least to dissolve their agreement to join the union since one side of this deal is not upholding their obligations under the agreement.
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4JGC5I0/texas-gop-perhaps-lawabiding-sta/c/
A wider question is, why can a court refuse to do their job and throw a nation into chaos, allowing crime.. without consequences to the justices? Anyone else did this, there is a case to fire them or at the very least stop paying them. When the dust settles on this, I dont see much relevance for the SC going forwards.. if it exists at all.
Yeah, I saw the TX response, after picking my jaw up of the floor from reading the SCOTUS statement.
I was getting real 1861 vibes from all of it and was wondering who was going to blink first. It certainly had the feel of one of those turning points in history taking place right before us, and we were little more than passengers along for the ride.
Another one of the things I was wondering about was the effective lack of representation / ability to have a say / influence that anyone really had as it was all playing out. The veneer of "They work for us" I think was stripped away.
It is said that WWI was a family argument between cousins that cost the lives of millions. Right now, it feels that there are people who've embedded themselves into power who are playing it out without consideration for the masses being swung about by their decisions. I know, sounds kind of Marxist when you look at it that way. The proletariat shall rise again!
I agree with your viewpoint on the future for SCOTUS, but the broader question I think is what happens / what is the effect on the entire judicial branch? If SCOTUS validated their existence with Marbury vs Madison, they may have invalidated their existence with not taking on this case and, by extension, shown that judicial processes are not inviolate. The judiciary is one of those functions that exists because people allow it. If enough people feel that the judiciary aren't doing their job properly it becomes vigilantism and the judiciary are invalidated.
The whole ""[SCOTUS] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it!" thing again. I might not agree with everything Andrew Jackson did or said, but he made a really good point here.
From a broader viewpoint, who else falls under the judiciary? The FBI. Now, I can't see Hoover's personal blackmail agency disappearing that easily, but I think the future will probably see more challenges at ground level against the reach and authority of the FBI (and other alphabet agencies). It probably won't go through the courts, though, as SCOTUS has just shown its hand as to the thumb on the scale.
There were some good points made about how Trump saw very few mass shootings during his first term. I worry that someone or some people are setting themselves up to repeat Ruby Ridge (yes, I know that was a debacle) once the Uniparty retake power and there is going to be the same slanders repeated via MSM.
Thanks for the reply.
On the SC, I think they have been one of the larger frauds of the last 4 years. Every confirmation hearing filled with so much disruption and drama - as though we were supposed to believe that so much pivoted upon the outcome. So with an unprecedented 3 placements under Trump (Gorsuch, Kav, ACB ) it still failed spectacularly. What more could have been done to get a court that was functioning? I take a dim view on people so incompetent that no matter what easy-mode task they are given, they still are an utter failure.. no one else has infinite leeway to be a bum at huge cost to the nation, and they shouldn't either.
So what can be done, can it be repaired or reformed or does it need to be thrown away? At a minimum I think it needs a clean sweep, firing each and every one of the justices. Its pretty clear that the supposed rigour of confirmations are a farce, with open liars accepted like Christine Blasey Ford, and leftist sit-ins and disruptions in the buildings and hearings being tolerated. If as an institution its going to be kept around, there has to be an investigation of would-be justices at the level done against Trump himself - full finances, all comms and records, travel movements, emails, phone records, socials etc going back decades. How many criminals and pedos do they know on a first name basis etc. A lot easier to blackmail and control the SC than any other governmental branch given the fewer people who constitute it. Though to be fair we watched an entire presidential election get stolen too with consequences also lacking (though not for much longer!) A compromised SC is small fry next to that.
Term limits, health mandates (no more ginsburgs etc) are probably nice to haves as well... if you are too ill to move or think, how can you make coherent valid rulings? And constant NSA-grade monitoring of comms and activities while a justice is serving.