The Supreme Court MUST step in, at least in America. This unconstitutional garbage needs to be stopped before it moves along any further. This is NOT public good, it is tyranny.
The Supreme Court MUST step in, at least in America. This unconstitutional garbage needs to be stopped before it moves along any further. This is NOT public good, it is tyranny.
In that vein of thought, why don't they step in and end the mockery of the Justice system in regards to the Trump indictments. By letting this go on, they are rendering themselves irrelevant .
100% agree. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also amazed that thousands of lawyers aren't jumping into this and figuring out how to craft an appropriate suit to bring before the SC challenging ALL the BS that's going on, like DA's beholden to soros, DOJ's not doing their jobs or upholding the oath of office, the state and federal governments CLEARLY defying the constitution and trying to implement UN agenda 21. It's so obvious a child could see it.
SCOTUS demonstrated its complete disregard for constitutional governance some months back by its refusal to rule in Brunson v. Adams. It is every bit as treasonous as Congress and POTUS
That would be the same court that said blacks were not fully human, that killing the unborn was a "right", that neutering men, lobotomizing was accepted, and that a 'corporation' can be a person able to donate wads of green to whomever, by 'law'.
To have those currently writing and enacting those 'laws' be the same ones in charge of enforcing them, down to D.A.'s, is to have given your children to pedophile team of sitters. Literally.
When did they say blacks were not fully human? I also think there is a bit of nuance to what you said. Either way, none of that is part of our constitution.
And if you're using the 3/5ths clause to support the statement that "blacks were not fully human," that was clearly not the basis.
And what happened there? Not arguing that it was a good decision at all, but it was based on citizenship, still in contention at the time. It was not based on "not being fully human."
And it wasn't Dredd v Scott.
$10 if you can tell me the actual parties in the suit?
Dred Scott and John Sanford. My bad, thank you for highlighting it.
(Time to reread a lot of history, for me).
It is a convoluted case of ownership of property transferred among various parties, until an earlier party repurchased, and then freed Dred, allowing he and his wife, Harriet, to be freemen.
Justice Roger Brooke Taney, the chief justice, who filed the brief on his finding for the majority, made multiple statements derogatory about the nature of black people and their contributions to a society quite candidly, in the local and national press.
To say that any human being may be the property of another is to place one human above another. To be subjugated to another is in complete contrast to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
While the D of I may not be canon, it is all that any reasonable decent person needs to aspire to, to fulfill the law of God.
Thank you for correcting me on it, requiring a reread on my part.
Nonetheless, my statement regarding the Supreme Court in all it's foulness, stands.
I didn't read the opinion on that one, but I didn't think it had much of a chance when I read the petition. It seemed very well drafted, but was "all encompassing." Not that I think that's a problem for me, but I just didn't see them taking it up.
I had hoped that it would be redrafted for another go-around. I'd also hoped that more people would have been spreading the word about it.
But, in regard to your last sentence...if it truly is, then we're done. We can fight, sure, and I will in every way I can, but I don't have much hope...if what you said is true.
I went grocery shopping today. Store was clean of any one with a mask! At the check when the bill hit $532 plus change the cashier guy looked at the bags being loaded by an Autistic young man (I had to save my bag of bread loaves (which I will freeze) from being covered with a bag of canned goods. The hamburger buns did not get saved as I was still busy emptying the cart on the conveyor) and asked if I had a large family. I was in slacks and a sleeveless tank top with a ball cap on weighing all of 95 lbs. I said it is all for me. He looked dubious so I said I have once again started the routine of only grocery shopping once a month. Ah, he said.
I am assuming the close by $ general will not require masks this time either, just in case I need to pick up some food items in between my monthly shopping sprees to come. It is a shame they do not carry produce like veggies and fruit.
Mike, it just struck me as funny when you said that SCOTUS must render, " at least here" (paraphrase) ... and, in my feeble mind, thinking you'd inferred its jurisdiction extended beyond the 50 states.
Did I say render? Maybe I got "autocorrected." I'll have to go check, but no I only meant here. Personally, our constitution is the ONLY thing "holding the line" right now. Not even that anyone is defending or upholding it, just that it exists.
If it didn't, we'd be like AU right now. Sure, some would take up arms and fight, but that would be quelled quickly.
Just look at the J6 defendants. We need immediate, and VERY dramatic legal response to that...and so many other things.
Consider all the head scratching decisions and votes by ALL the supposedly conservative politicians and judges.
Why do you think they made those decisions and votes when they were antithetical to their supposed core beliefs.
Now, do a Brave search for "DHS data storage facilities", and you may be able to answer these questions.
NSA is collecting and storing EVERY bit and byte of data from all over the world, but more importantly, they are surveilling every American phone call, text, computer keystroke, and usage of electronic devices that depend on the internet for data.
Does it start to make sense now.
Take Justice John Roberts, for example.
He cast the deciding vote to enable the socialist inspired Obama-care.
There are rumblings of improprieties associated with the adoption process involving his two children.
We have absolutely no idea as to whether this is true or not...but NSA knows.
I can't argue with anything you said here about what the NSA does. I'd have to look at the head-scratching decisions again, but I usually read the decisions as they come out, and most have made sense, with exception of maybe a couple, and especially "obama-care." Wasn't Roberts helping draft it?
The SCOTUS is totally corrupt along with the rest of organized USG. Roberts is compromised and will not take cases related. Do not look to them to rescue the US. It's going to have to come from us.
The Supreme Court MUST step in, at least in America. This unconstitutional garbage needs to be stopped before it moves along any further. This is NOT public good, it is tyranny.
In that vein of thought, why don't they step in and end the mockery of the Justice system in regards to the Trump indictments. By letting this go on, they are rendering themselves irrelevant .
100% agree. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also amazed that thousands of lawyers aren't jumping into this and figuring out how to craft an appropriate suit to bring before the SC challenging ALL the BS that's going on, like DA's beholden to soros, DOJ's not doing their jobs or upholding the oath of office, the state and federal governments CLEARLY defying the constitution and trying to implement UN agenda 21. It's so obvious a child could see it.
SCOTUS demonstrated its complete disregard for constitutional governance some months back by its refusal to rule in Brunson v. Adams. It is every bit as treasonous as Congress and POTUS
That would be the same court that said blacks were not fully human, that killing the unborn was a "right", that neutering men, lobotomizing was accepted, and that a 'corporation' can be a person able to donate wads of green to whomever, by 'law'.
To have those currently writing and enacting those 'laws' be the same ones in charge of enforcing them, down to D.A.'s, is to have given your children to pedophile team of sitters. Literally.
It also allowed the 18th Amendment, banning alcohol in 1919.
When did they say blacks were not fully human? I also think there is a bit of nuance to what you said. Either way, none of that is part of our constitution.
And if you're using the 3/5ths clause to support the statement that "blacks were not fully human," that was clearly not the basis.
Correct me if I've missed something.
Dred Scott decision. Rather well known. Chief Justice Taney wrote and spoke of his complete disdain for black Africans quite openly.
And what happened there? Not arguing that it was a good decision at all, but it was based on citizenship, still in contention at the time. It was not based on "not being fully human."
And it wasn't Dredd v Scott.
$10 if you can tell me the actual parties in the suit?
Dred Scott and John Sanford. My bad, thank you for highlighting it.
(Time to reread a lot of history, for me).
It is a convoluted case of ownership of property transferred among various parties, until an earlier party repurchased, and then freed Dred, allowing he and his wife, Harriet, to be freemen.
Justice Roger Brooke Taney, the chief justice, who filed the brief on his finding for the majority, made multiple statements derogatory about the nature of black people and their contributions to a society quite candidly, in the local and national press.
To say that any human being may be the property of another is to place one human above another. To be subjugated to another is in complete contrast to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
While the D of I may not be canon, it is all that any reasonable decent person needs to aspire to, to fulfill the law of God.
Thank you for correcting me on it, requiring a reread on my part.
Nonetheless, my statement regarding the Supreme Court in all it's foulness, stands.
I didn't read the opinion on that one, but I didn't think it had much of a chance when I read the petition. It seemed very well drafted, but was "all encompassing." Not that I think that's a problem for me, but I just didn't see them taking it up.
I had hoped that it would be redrafted for another go-around. I'd also hoped that more people would have been spreading the word about it.
But, in regard to your last sentence...if it truly is, then we're done. We can fight, sure, and I will in every way I can, but I don't have much hope...if what you said is true.
Bet they put on masks
I went grocery shopping today. Store was clean of any one with a mask! At the check when the bill hit $532 plus change the cashier guy looked at the bags being loaded by an Autistic young man (I had to save my bag of bread loaves (which I will freeze) from being covered with a bag of canned goods. The hamburger buns did not get saved as I was still busy emptying the cart on the conveyor) and asked if I had a large family. I was in slacks and a sleeveless tank top with a ball cap on weighing all of 95 lbs. I said it is all for me. He looked dubious so I said I have once again started the routine of only grocery shopping once a month. Ah, he said.
I am assuming the close by $ general will not require masks this time either, just in case I need to pick up some food items in between my monthly shopping sprees to come. It is a shame they do not carry produce like veggies and fruit.
At least, in America. Hilarious!
He maybe is referring to the REALLY Supreme Court
No, referring to the actual Supreme Court, as it should exist. No activists, no party acolytes, just constitution based decisions.
Mike, it just struck me as funny when you said that SCOTUS must render, " at least here" (paraphrase) ... and, in my feeble mind, thinking you'd inferred its jurisdiction extended beyond the 50 states.
That said, I think your points are valid.
Did I say render? Maybe I got "autocorrected." I'll have to go check, but no I only meant here. Personally, our constitution is the ONLY thing "holding the line" right now. Not even that anyone is defending or upholding it, just that it exists.
If it didn't, we'd be like AU right now. Sure, some would take up arms and fight, but that would be quelled quickly.
Just look at the J6 defendants. We need immediate, and VERY dramatic legal response to that...and so many other things.
Meaning, at least we have a constitution. Not that many are (or have been for 40 years) paying attention.
Consider all the head scratching decisions and votes by ALL the supposedly conservative politicians and judges.
Why do you think they made those decisions and votes when they were antithetical to their supposed core beliefs.
Now, do a Brave search for "DHS data storage facilities", and you may be able to answer these questions.
NSA is collecting and storing EVERY bit and byte of data from all over the world, but more importantly, they are surveilling every American phone call, text, computer keystroke, and usage of electronic devices that depend on the internet for data.
Does it start to make sense now.
Take Justice John Roberts, for example.
He cast the deciding vote to enable the socialist inspired Obama-care.
There are rumblings of improprieties associated with the adoption process involving his two children.
We have absolutely no idea as to whether this is true or not...but NSA knows.
You can continue to fill in the blanks from here.
Oh, BTW, Justice Scalia was murdered.
I can't argue with anything you said here about what the NSA does. I'd have to look at the head-scratching decisions again, but I usually read the decisions as they come out, and most have made sense, with exception of maybe a couple, and especially "obama-care." Wasn't Roberts helping draft it?
One glaring head scratcher was Pence's decision to certify the election.
The SCOTUS is totally corrupt along with the rest of organized USG. Roberts is compromised and will not take cases related. Do not look to them to rescue the US. It's going to have to come from us.