Judges in random districts all over the United States keep issuing orders telling the President of the United States what he can and cannot do. I just don’t see how a district court judge can issue an order that binds the entire nation. If the 9th DCA issues an opinion, it is effective only in the 9th district.
The basis of judicial power is laid out in Article III of the US Constitution. The case of Marbury v. Madison also did a good job of laying this out.
I just can’t see how the lowest court in the land can issue an order that outweighs the head of the executive branch. That makes the entire executive subordinate to even the most junior member of the judiciary. That is certainly not a coequal branch.
So again, why can’t that same logic be used as an excuse to own artillery pieces, kill people that you don’t like, or use LSD while driving down the highway, if that is what makes you happy?
It is my opinion that judges walk into the court room with a preconceived idea as to how they want to decide the case, and then twist the law and the constitution to fit that view.
Parks, athletic facilities and similar areas. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Playgrounds and youth centers. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Places of amusement, including casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums and libraries. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
Parking areas connected to certain sensitive places. Gun bans there are likely constitutional.
The private-property default rule. Hawaii’s rule banning guns on private property unless the owner gives consent orally, in writing or on a sign is likely constitutional.
Places of worship. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Gatherings that require a permit. Gun bans there are likely unconstitutional.
Financial institutions. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Hospitals and other medical facilities. State-mandated gun bans there are likely unconstitutional, but nothing prevents the owner or operator from banning firearms.
Public transit. A broad ban on carrying guns on public transit is likely unconstitutional, but a narrower law allowing the carrying of unloaded and secured firearms would likely be constitutional.
It’s a Mish mash. It isn’t even consistent. Where in the Constitution is this even found? Where in the history and tradition of the country was there a ban on weapons in bard? Casinos? But not hospitals, churches, or banks?
If you argue that schools are sensitive places and rights can be suspended to protect children, then why not suspend the First Amendment there and disallow faggotry?
Our courts are just as partisan and divided as the citizens. It’s long past time to admit that this nation is too large and varied for one set of rules to work for everyone.
This President is simply ignoring the Supreme Court while his supporters are calling those supporting his opponents “fascists.” So what is fascism? The communists on the left have redefined it to mean a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen.
Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.”
Consider some of the components of fascist economics: central planning, heavy state subsidies, protectionism (high tariffs), steep levels of nationalization, rampant cronyism, large deficits, high government spending, bank and industry bailouts, overlapping bureaucracy, massive social welfare programs, crushing national debt, bouts of inflation and “a highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure.”
Tell me if this doesn’t describe the Democrat platform…
But instead, the left claims that they are a liberal democracy that supports individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent, even while they cheat at elections, suppress dissent by deplatforming anyone who disagrees with them, and tosses their political opponents in prison.
The left claims that Trump and his supporters are fascists because they advocate for the overthrow of the existing system of government and the persecution of political enemies, even as they openly advocate for the same.
The central tenet of the solution that we recommend—Popular Constitutionalism—is that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. In practice, a President who disagrees with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative interpretation. If voters disagree with the President’s interpretation, they can express their views at the ballot box.
How can they express their feelings at the ballot box, when the ballot box is no longer a representation of the will of the people?
Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism 1914-1945, Madison: Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995, p. 7.
Natalee Holloway disappeared in 2005 while on a trip to Aruba. Her body was never found, and she was finally declared dead in 2012. She was seen leaving the bar with a 17 year old who was politically connected to his father, a judge. Largely because of those connections, he walked. Shades of Hunter Biden and Chelsea Clinton, there.
The douche even admitted on video to disposing of her body and posted it on social media. He contacted the Holloway family and offered to give them the location of her body in exchange for money. Enter the incompetents at the FBI. The paid him the ransom in exchange for what they knew was false information, and then let him leave the country with the $25,000 in payoff money.
What finally tripped him up is when he murdered another girl who found information about the Holloway murder on his laptop in 2014, and he murdered her. He was caught and sentenced to 28 years in Peruvian prison.
Now it turns out that he has pled guilty to extortion and the murder of Holloway in exchange for a lighter sentence. He got another 20 years added to the 28 he is already going to serve for the murder in Peru, and another 18 he got for smuggling cocaine into the Peruvian prison. However, Peruvian law prohibits any jail term of over 35 years, so he will be released in 2045. His plea deal says that the time he serves in Peru will also count as time served in the US.
Mr. Lott tried vacate his conviction in 2018 based on exonerating DNA results, but former District Attorney Paul Smith opposed the motion. Instead, on the eve of Mr. Lott’s evidentiary hearing, the DA offered only to modify Mr. Lott’s sentence, which would have released him from prison but kept the conviction on his record. Mr. Lott accepted the agreement on July 9, 2018. In doing so, Mr. Lott was freed after spending 35 years in prison for a crime that he didn’t commit- with 10 of those years being served AFTER the legal system knew that he didn’t commit the crime. That’s a legal system, not a justice system.
“Former District Attorney Smith’s opposition to the irrefutable evidence of Mr. Lott’s innocence was a blatant miscarriage of justice,” said Barry Scheck, Innocence Project’s co-founder and special counsel. “This unwillingness to acknowledge the truth in addition to the systemic factors at play in Mr. Lott’s wrongful conviction cost him 35 precious years — and have plagued other wrongful conviction cases in Ada for decades.”
It’s cases like this that force me to oppose the death penalty. The cops, the prosecutor, the judges, they all work for the same employer. It is virtually certain that some people have been executed for crimes that they didn’t commit. If we as a society execute one innocent person, we are all collectively guilty of murder. That is why I remain opposed to the death penalty- the system is flawed, designed to reward those employees of the government for convicting people of crimes, whether or not the convicted person actually committed them.
In this case, they took his life from him, or at least the part that counts, nearly as certainly as if they had killed him.
When you were a kid and played games with other kids, there was always one who decided to cheat. Ever tried to play monopoly when the cheater was the banker? The only thing that can be done is either cheat better, or refuse to play.
There is no longer any such thing as fair government. Everything that the government does is weaponized lawfare. Gun stores being sued into bankruptcy. Or having their ability to accept credit cards taken from them. Fined and shut down because someone misspelled a word on a 4473. Unlike childhood games, you can’t refuse to play.
