Well done and Bravo 7Nick9!
I have almost 50k now but still no girl Pepe. I will celebrate yours regardless should you be so fortunate.
She really need good secret service prolly now too.
This is unreal. The tape is out. What a sleezebag.
No you don't LOL.
High praise indeed. Thanks! EDIT: Can't remember if I saw it here but Draino had a Twitter post about how the fact that the executive branch has authority to handle all aspects of immigration could be a huge boomerang when Trump has to go into the states and deport the illegal immigrants. Here's a link:
I don't know why this observation has me in hysterics but it does.
I was just wondering if this was photoshopped. It seems unbelievable that they'd intentionally create a flag with upside down stars, but there it is.
Injunctive relief is asking the court to make someone to refrain from doing something, or to do something they don't want to do. In order for injunctive relief to be granted on an emergency basis while the matter is being debated, the court has to find both that there is a "strong likelihood of success on the merits" AND that there would be "irreparable harm" to the party to whom the thing is being done (or not done). Irreparable harm is usually a pretty high bar. In other words, there is a strong bias in favor of leaving whatever the "status quo" is while the matter is being decided by the court.
I haven't been following this one closely but the Fifth Circuit apparently ordered the Feds to stop cutting the razor wire - i.e., found that Texas would likely win on the merits of the case AND that there would be irreparable harm to Texas if the Feds were not "enjoined" from continuing to cut the wire.
According to this article. the SCOTUS justices didn't give a reason for their respective votes. However it is possible, for example, that some of the justices voting with the majority have simply found that regardless of whether Texas would likely prevail on the merits, the harm in the Feds cutting the wire is not "irreparable." If I had to guess the liberals think that Texas will/should lose on the merits and that there is no irreparable harm, and Roberts and Barrett just think there's no irreparable harm and that there shouldn't be court action until the case is fully decided.
I am somewhat curious to read the arguments and if I have time and can find them readily I may do so. I suspect that the administration is saying immigration matters are solely within the jurisdiction of the executive branch and that Texas is going lose on the merits.
He does troll us a lot just sayin'. "Sooner than you think", loves and reposts "Trump 2023", "four months from now", I could go on. Still love him though.
I believe you can be pardoned before conviction though. Fake POTUS thing could still be a problem depending upon how that shakes out.
Thanks for this info! Interesting to hear how the sausage is made LOL. The public comments thing is just a sham to make the little people think they have some say in government.
I used to think the administrative state was just a natural progression, sort of a side effect of a country that got much bigger and more populous over two centuries. I now believe that it has become behemoth by design. We are now a country of men and not laws. When you think of the millions and millions of pages of rules now in place, who isn't "guilty" of something? The rainwater on your driveway is undoubtedly in violation of some EPA reg. All they have to do is decide who they don't like, find the violation, and bury the target in litigation. The punishment is the process.
Great comment. The administrative state is very troubling indeed.
I am obsessed with Chevron and have been for years. It is a huge source of our current woes, a main enabler of deep state chicanery, and overruling Chevron would be a good FIRST STEP to reclaiming our Republic. The system as it is currently working goes like this:
-
Congress passes a law like Obamacare with stated (usually Utopian and retarded) goals, and at the outset identifies an "implementing agency", in this case, for example, Health and Human Services. The implementing agency for new tax law would be IRS, for environmental, EPA, etc.;
-
All kinds of "rule making" powers are then delegated to "The Secretary" which in this case is the Secretary of HHS, at the time Kathleen Sebelius;
-
The unelected executive branch bureaucrats then draft volumes and volumes of "rules" that we are all stuck with, because we have no power over these unelected people. These "rules" are what actually govern your day to day lives. It's the reason why Pelosi said "we have to pass it [Obamacare] to see what's in it."
It seems so blatantly obvious to me that "Rule making" by unelected administrative agencies is totally and completely unconstitutional. Under Article I the elected representatives have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND DUTY to make law. They are not allowed to delegate it to the executive branch bureaucrats. Rule making is just law making by another name, and there should be no "rule making" by the executive branch minions whatsoever. Draft legislation and pass it, or don't. And then answer to your constituents. There should be no such thing as "we have to pass it [Obamacare] to see what's in it." The statement is a flagrant admission that the legislature has totally abrogated it's solemn and exclusive right and duty to make law.
The discreet issue before the court regarding Chevron is whether court's should defer to the executive branch in interpreting Congressional intent where the intent is arguably ambiguous. For example, if the law says that it applies to "members of Congress and their staff" who gets to decide what the word "staff" was intended to mean? Does it mean someone's personal assistant or more specifically, Congressional Staffers? Under Chevron, HHS gets to decide because the law is arguably ambiguous. Overruling Chevron would mean that the courts get to decide.
As a practical matter, the proliferation of "rules" exploded after Chevron. Overruling Chevron would be a huge step forward. But in my opinion, the entire implementing agency structure needs to be dismantled. We are being governed by people we do not elect. They quite literally do not represent us.
Even before that Rona Barrett was talking to him about it. That was 1980. Lettermen too, and I think JFK Jr. at some point.
Same. He’s funny
Very thought provoking
He won’t do anything that weakens his position. That’s why he doesn’t drink either.
"Unfortunately, it does open up presidents to politically motivated persecution after they have left office, which could have a chilling effect on what they do while in office. SCOTUS will need to be very careful on how they resolve that problem."
Definitely a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.
I do believe he is one of the good ones.
It makes me sick to my stomach when I think about it. SO many people.