As a native Chicagoan, I must confess that I have little patience for Mayor Brandon Johnson, a politician who has been a disaster for the city. One of the most unpopular mayors in the city’s history, Johnson has been using the increased ICE operations to try to ride a wave of rage back into popularity. His language has become more and more inflammatory in calling for citizens to “resist” and “fight” federal law enforcement. Now, he is claiming the authority to not only mandate “ICE-free zones” in the city but to arrest federal officers.
Ironically, Johnson has declared that President Donald Trump wants a “rematch of the Civil War.” However, it is Johnson who is pursuing antebellum policies. It was the South that claimed independence from the Union and fought to expel federal troops.
Johnson signed a ridiculous executive order creating “ICE-Free Zones” to ban federal agents from using city-owned properties and property of unwilling private owners as staging areas for immigration enforcement.
The federal government has its own jurisdictional authority and can enter city and private property in pursuit of lawful operations. In terms of “staging” operations, the Constitution, not Brandon Johnson, protects citizens from having their property seized or used for the quartering of troops.
Most importantly, the City of Chicago cannot arrest federal officers who are conducting federal operations. This point was correctly noted earlier by Chicago Police Supt. Larry Snelling, who said that CPD officers will not arrest federal law enforcement, “because someone deems what they are doing is illegal.”
Nevertheless, Johnson was back to his signature chest-pounding bravado: “We’re going to see people in court. As far as other authority that allows for us to be able to enforce this ordinance, we’re exploring.”
In the meantime, Gov. J.B. Pritzker has been using equally inflammatory language about a few hundred National Guardsmen “occupying” the city and, most recently, told Rachel Maddow that the National Guard would intimidate voters at polling places and it might even seize voting boxes or ballots to steal the upcoming election.
Both leaders are attempting to marshal the mob for political purposes. At a time of rising political violence, including the recent sniper attack on an ICE facility and the Charlie Kirk assassination, Pritzker and Johnson are fueling the rage.
The federal government has the right to enforce these laws to deport individuals. Congress passed these laws and, if these politicians oppose them, they can seek to rescind deportation laws in the democratic system.
Johnson has continued to double down on his reckless rhetoric, declaring that
“The Trump administration must end the war on Chicago. The Trump administration must end this war against Americans. The Trump administration must end its attempt to dismantle our democracy.”
Threatening the arrest of federal officers enforcing federal law is not defending the rule of law or democracy. Indeed, a similar claim was made by Southern politicians not only before the Civil War but during the Civil Rights era. It was governors like George Wallace who insisted that he could stop federal officials and the National Guard from enforcing federal law.
Likewise, it was George Wallace who objected to the “unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted, and force-induced intrusion” in his state by federal law enforcement.
Before Johnson attempts to arrest federal officials, he might want to take another look at the Constitution and review some history on the subject. Wallace also tried to ride the wave of rage to power after “standing at the schoolhouse door in person, if necessary.” It did not work. The federal government prevailed, and Wallace was left as a tragic relic of history.
Komrade Johnson is a good little droogie for the left. His marxism outshines any hint of intelligence. He would make George Orwell proud indeed !.
Indeed, the senile corrupt criminal cult leader would make George Orwell proud. Taking over cities, especially predominantly black cities, using National Guard from the antebellum Southern states is peak 1984. Well, honey, the midterms are coming and there is going tote a recking for MAGA fascism. The investigations, trials and prosecutions will be coming soon!!!
Back into the crackpipe again, Hunter?
Everybody cites George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door as some great refusal to abide by federal law. The narrative has swallowed the truth. The whole thing was “staged.” Right inside the door was standing a DOJ attorney, out of camera sight. Wallace was allowed his moment and everyone went back to business. Wallace clearly recognized federal supremacy.
Apparently Brandon intends to actively obstruct federal law enforcement.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/watch-chicago-mayor-brandon-johnson-declares-rebellion-against
I hope he does.
Turns out he is actually stupider than I thought and that is a very low bar.
GeorgeX again re-posted one of his favorite Karen responses: Now President Donald J. Trump MUST implement his rendition of “The Lincoln Era,”
Chief Justice William Rehnquist spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate Commie GeorgeX’s Marxist wet dreams and revisionist historical and Constitutional analysis of both Lincoln and the Confederate Democrat Civil War (as seen through the eyes of today’s Democrat Kluxxers who have now turned to communism when their Civil War ended in a crushing FAFO).
Given that George has proved his reading comprehension has never gotten beyond what he developed in kindergarten, Justice Rehnquist’s work and explanations may as well be laying on the surface of the moon as far as George is concerned.
For everybody else who are normal Americans:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
The greatest singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile, seditious DNC.
The Confederate DNC who have embraced communist strategies since losing the Kluxxer Civil War and now put their fellow communists like Justices Jackson and Sotomayor on SCOTUS, polluting that court in hopes of continuing to get from SCOTUS what voters consistently reject at the ballot box.
Take your meds!
Call 911 immediately!
Rehnquist wouldn’t know a fundamental law if it bit him on the a–.
It was distinctly not “war” in 1860; it was not prohibited and fully constitutional secession—”Crazy Abe” attacked, sans rationale, an innocent and sovereign foreign nation.
Rehnquist put it in 300 words when Taney put it in three brief paragraphs; Lincoln couldn’t read English, but, ultimately, Taney possessed absolutely no executive power and was compelled to defer and acquiesce.
To wit,
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
Hey, Anonymous/GeorgeX: isn’t your favored Democrat source the same Confederate Kluxxer Chief Justice Taney who assured you Democrat Kluxxers that you could keep Dred Scott and other black Americans as slaves because they weren’t human, they were merely property?
And leave poor GeorgeX alone, will ya?
If ICE people commit state crimes they should be arrested and charged just like anyone else. Unaccountable police is what fascists use.
That’s a big insinuating “IF” that you’re laying out there, cupcake. That said; here’s your character test: if Democrat street thugs like Antifa commit any crimes against either “ICE people” or federal property, they should also be arrested and charged just like anybody else, can we agree on that?
Or would you prefer they continue to be unaccountable as Obama’s police state fascist Attorney Generals and FBI Directors have succeeded as being?
Any comment on Democrat police state fascist law enforcement like former FBI Director Comey never being held accountable for the four times he perjured himself to Judge Boasberg’s courts? Repeatedly stating under oath that the felonious Clinton/Obama ‘Russia Dossier’ was 100% verified under that courts mandatory Woods Procedures.
In the Democrat Borg, is it fascist for Comey to be allowed to remain unaccountable for his perjury to obtain fraudulent counterespionage warrants in order to commit the additional felony of stripping THOUSANDS of Americans of their civil rights by color of law?
False. Federal law supercedes state law in those areas where the Federal government has a constitutionally delegated power – such as immigration.
No state can make a law that in anyway interferes witht eh federal govenrment execution of legitimate federal law.
All these idiotic laws that various states are passing are unconstitutional.
Congress can mandate that ICE can not mask. No state can do so.
Congress can preclude ICE from entering specific building types. No state can do so.
No state can regulate the way that federal agents perform their job.
A state can prosecute a federal officer for murder as an example – but not if the alleged murder was committed while the officer was performing a federal law enforcement task.
But a state can not even prosecute a federal officer for speeding if they are executing legitimate federal law enforcement actions.
This is not even a close call.
I would further note that we fought a civil war over very nearly exactly this.
Not only did the supreme court decide this long ago – but the US Civil war permanently resolved the limits of states rights.
The federal government and the white house are not synonymous. There is that useless, inactive, gutless legislative branch that supposed to form part of the federal government.
And if they don’t?
Illegally entering our country and the stealing tax dollars via services is fraud and a crime.
Calling out this delusional & farcical character that somehow ended as a mayor of a major city (..no doubt the ss 0r 0s machine at work…) without becoming enRAGEd is challenging…… well done, Prof. Turley!
The Trump peace deal has now been accepted by both Israel and Hamas. This will upset leftists with TDS because it might reflect well on Trump. They’d rather have mass killing and bloodshed continue for many more years than have anything reflect well on Trump.
Old man. The part that worries me. Hamas isn’t going to give up this easy.
Israel has demonstrated the fallacy of the presumption that peace can be negotiated with a recalcitrant oponent without force approaching total victory.
Obviously you are correct about Hamas – but Israel – despite the idiocy of many european countries and with atleast the unofficial support of many mideastern countries is seeking a permanent peace – not a few years of relative peace.
That required the total destruction of Hamas – or atleast there distruction as a consequential player.
This peace deal is close to an unconditional surrender.
I do not think Hamas accepted this willingly – they had no choice,
OTHER Gazans groups were starting to execute Hamas members.
Hamas lost the support of the Gazan people.
As I understand the deal – Hamas disarms. Gaza will form a new govenrment. Hamas will not be part of that.
I think that there are several significant factors in reaching this.
First despite the stupidity of the EU and many western countries Israel made clear this ended when Hamas was gone. That peace with Gaza required something very close to Hama’s unconditional surrender.
Next as mentioned above – many Mideast nations are tired of this nonsense.
They can not recognize Israel or work for good relations with Israel so long as the pelesinian conflict is ongoing because of the hold of islamic fundimentalists over a significant portion of their people.
But these countries WANT good relations with Israel.
Israel is inarguably the most potent military power in the mideast and the only nation in the mideast that has the ability to defeat Iran as an example. The Saudi’s are wealthy and have Billions in advanced US equipment, but have demonstrated in their war with Yemen that they just do not have what it takes to be a major military power and no amount of money will fix that. These nations need good relations with Israel to counter Iran until Iran’s nut job government collapses.
Next – Trump is not Biden. He wants peace – and he is willing to put the screws to israel to get peace,
But Like Israel itself he wants REAL Peace – not a dealy of a few years before the next major uprising.
And he wants Israel to be able to establish better relations with the rest of the mideast.
That requires SOLVING the Palestinian issue. not kicking the can down the road.
This is also relevant to evolving US foreign policy. Some of this is attributable to Trump – but mostly this is inevitable. The US is moving away from its role as the worlds policeman – frankly it is incredibly expensive – and we can not do it. Changes in energy – the access to substantial energy outside the mideast have radically decreased the US national security interest in the mideast. The US is slowly downscaling its role in Europe, the mid-east and Africa, and increasing its role in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific rim. At this time that is where our economic and national security interests lie. This is not happening overnight – but it has been in progress since BEFORE Trump was president, and we should have made much more progress on it. This is also a major part of the deep state role in “Get Trump” It is NOT accidental that all the Deep State actors seeking to take Trump our are tied to Europe/Russia or the Mideast. These people NEED endless conflict in these regions AND US Interest in those conflicts to maintain their power.
And the final and most critical element is that the Hamas had to be removed from power – and that required the Palestinian people to abandon them, and that required weakening them militarily AND persuading the Palestinian people that their lives would be hell until they abandoned Hamas. It appears that has been met.
We can not know what is to come. But there is good reason to have hope.
The West Bank Palestinains STAYED OUT of this conflict. In fact several major sheiks in the West bank approached Israel seeking their own deal – local autonomy, in return for a peaceful relationship with israel. That has not made alot of news but was a big deal.
Iran has atleast for the moment been disempowered, Their ability to fund and supply Yemen, and Hamas and Hezbolla has been radically impaired. Iran does NOT have the resources to keep its own people peaceful, persue its nuclear program, rebuild from the US/Israel destruction, and fund regional terrorism. Further the regime in Syria – though not good guys – is Hostile to Iran AND Israel has occupied parts of Syria – this blocks any land route from Iran to Lebanon to supply Hezbolla. This means there is not merely hope for Peace in Gaza, but in Syria, and Lebanon. That does NOT mean these countries will suddenly become good actors. Just no longer rogue terrorist nations. It appears the syrian govenrment has its hands full governing Syria. The Damage to Hezbolla means the posibility of a more peaceful govenrment in Lebanon.
Hamas really has no friends left of consequence – not even in Gaza – or atleast we can hope that is the case.
Next – I am less sure of the West Bank – but while Trump was trolling regarding taking over Gaza – the FACT is Gaza is the one palestinian occupied region that has excellent reason to be capable of thriving on its own. It is a bread basket – or it was before Israel pulled out in 2005. It can be a fishing center, it can be a major tourist center.
But all of this requires LASTING peace.
I expect that the US and Israel will put in alot of work rebuilding Gaza – because long term peace requires prosperous people who do not want war and are not living off foreign handouts.
Anyway I am cautiously optimistic.
That place is rife with problems . Saudis can buy a mercenary military. Maybe Gaza can change its name to Palestine.
Crazy place…
All they understand is force. Freaking stone age. There are crazy people in the world. All anyone can do is superior force. What a place.
Look at congress. Omg.
You have nailed it. Those points are correct and there is more hope for peace now then at any time during the last 70 years.
As soon as Hamas gives up the hostages, Israel should wipe them out, leaving inly the smears of them shltting their pants behind.
Dustoff: I agree. Sons and daughters of diabolical Hamas are out there.
Trump succeeded here because Hamas was forced to accept that the war was lost. The same is required in Ukraine. The war will end when Zelensky is forced to accept that the war is lost. There could then be a settlement involving territorial concessions, neutrality and recognition of minority rights in the 80% of Ukraine that remains.
Daniel
The war between Russia and Ukraine is a bit different. Russia may have the troops, but Ukraine has leaned to kill them even faster. At this point, neither is winning. But who knows.
There is enormous propoganda from both sides regarding the Ukraine war.
But there APPEARS to be some reason to beleive that a tipping point may have been reached and Ukraine will no longer lose a war of attrition. Russia is appears to be running out of money and material.
This war has resembled WWI more than anything else from the start – and it may end similarly.
When the armistice was signed – Germany had very nearly reached the atlantic and split the allied forces.
On the Map Germany appeared to be winning. But their economy was collapsing. They threw every last thing into their last thrust to split the allies and fell short, and with each passing day more fresh US reinforcements were arriving.
Again all information on the Ukraine war must be taken with large grains of salt But it appears that the quality of Russian troops, their training, their supplies their weapons their tanks, and their economy is all slowly degrading over time.
Thje difference between an eventual russian vicory in a long war of attrition and a Russian defeat may be very small. It is possible that tipping point is near or has already been passed.
Domestically, Trump is causing violence, injury and death (1 death in Franklin Park, Chicago) by letting his ICE thugs use rubber bullets, throwing people to the ground, rounding up families like cattle…
DJT is responsible for thousands of job losses; his tariffs have caused prices to rise and inflation to grow.
Middle East peace? We’ll see if it holds. Hamas and Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for the genocide. Most sane people do not want to see it continue.
People who do not follow the law cause violence.
That is ALWAYS how it is. If the law is enforced – the potential for violence is unavoidably their.
Any law that government is NOT willing to use violence to enforce – is in effect NULL.
If you do not pay your taxes – eventually men with guns will come and haul you away – if you resist – you could end up dead.
We all want the law to be peacefully enforced. But law only exists – government only exists, because if necescary it will use FORCE – violence to enforce the law.
If you do not like the law – we have a congress you can petition to change the law.
That is done at the US Capitol – not ICE detention centers.
Congressmen CAN do something about the law – Law Enforcement cant.
To those in the country illegally – GO HOME – the US govenrment will literally pay you to return home AND pay for the ticket AND once you get home, allow you to try to return to the US legally.
If you wait until ICE deports you you will a NEVER have any chance of coming to the US legally,.
You are free to protest Trump enforcing the law. You are free to protest ICE officers – thou that is stupid.
Proptest at the WH or Better still at the capital – where you have atleast a tincy chance of getting your way.
But protesting and interfering with law enforcement are Completely different
impede – even passively law enforcement – and you are likely head to jail
If you do not want rounded up – enter the US legally.
If you do not want thrown to the ground – do not fight with Law enforcement.
Your free to not like what they are doing – you are NOT free to interfere.
Doing so WILL result in the use of FORCE – because that is what Government is FORCE.
“DJT is responsible for thousands of job losses;”
Nope, the reduction in Jobs is entirely adjustment to the Bogus figures put out by Biden’s staff.
You can not lie for 4 years without it catching up.
Further most people KNOW getting a job form 2021-2024 was harder than normal – not easier – it is really hard to lie about such things.
Inflation is still too high – about 2.8% same as it was through 2024. Inflation will come down when Federal Spending comes down – or GDP grows more than money supply for a while.
Tarriffs have zero to do with inflation.
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena – Milton Friedman.
Are you saying you know better than one of the 4 greatest economists of the past century – The other 3 almost certainly agreed.
Tarriffs are a tax on consumption that is all they are.
They are the most efficient and least economically damaging form of taxation.
“Middle East peace? We’ll see if it holds.”
Correct – it may not, But there is more hope than in a long time.
One of the reasons there is hope is because Trump allowed Israel to nearly destroy Hamas.
If Hamas recovers from this – there will be no peace. If Gazans turn their back on Hamas there will be.
No there is no genocide – idiots saying that are clueless.
Hitler killed 3.5M jews – nearly anhilating all european jews.
Pol Pot killed over 2M cambodians.
The Huti murded 800K Tutsi in just oer 90 days.
The Turks murdered 1.2M Armenians.
These are genocides.
There have been FAR fewer civilian casualties in the IDF action in Gaza than in the US invasion of Iraq
and that was not a genocide.
When you use words that badly you just make yourself look stupid.
Most Sane people want a real lasting peace – not a repeat of the last 75 years.
Israel has managed to make peace with each of its neighbors AFTER it defeated them.
But not while they still thought they could drive all Jews from Israel.
If this peace is a lasting peace it will be because Hamas has been neutered.
It will NOT be because of some words Trump, Netanyahu and Hamas sign.
It will be because the Palestinian people have learned that they will be crushed in a War and choose the good peace offered them.
If there is Peace it will be because Palestinians understand that they will lose even worse if there is another war.
If they have not learned that – then Israel did TOO LITTLE, not too much.
The IDF does not take pleasure in killing people.
But that is what nations do when threatened.
And if they do not threaten that enough and make good one th threat
Then any peace will be short lived.
You’re knee jerk enough that you probably buy the lie that illegal immigrants are predominantly dangerous criminals and mental patients (it is a proven lie that Central American governments are opening their jails and send them here) when the fact is they are predominantly hard working aspirants to the same goals are ancestors had when they came here, and we need them desperately if we want a growing economy (we don’t reproduce enough to replenish the workforce). We are screwing ourselves by cheering on the masked thugs Trump has aimed at political opponents and you’re dumb enough to buy it.
“The Trump peace deal has now been accepted by both Israel and Hamas.”
For a war to truly end, there has to be a victor, not only in the field or the treaty, but in the head. The loser has to know, deep down, that it’s over. World War I never reached that point. Germany signed papers but never gave up its belief that it had been wronged. The Treaty of Versailles stopped the shooting, not the thinking. By contrast, in 1945, the Allies forced a surrender. That stripped both Germany and Japan of the very ideas that made war seem holy or inevitable. That is why peace held.
The Middle East never had that moment. The same old doctrines still breathe. The Koran even says that when weak, agree, and when strong, fight. That is exactly how this conflict works.
“From the river to the sea” and “Kill the Jews” aren’t slogans; they’re marching orders that pass through generations. Bullets stop men, but not ideas. Paying ransom or offering concessions only feeds the beast. Jefferson figured that out with the Barbary Pirates. He stopped paying and sent the Navy instead, because once you pay, you’re marked as someone who will keep paying.
Peace doesn’t hold when outsiders broker deals that block real victory, or when Western governments nod along with a “new” Palestinian state even though one already sits across the Jordan. That kind of peace is a mirage. It’s an interruption mistaken for an ending. I’m not satisfied with it, and no one should be. It’s a truce dressed up as hope, waiting for the next round to start.
S. Meyer,
I don’t trust this peace deal either. I’m genuinely concerned that Trump may end up being our generation’s Neville Chamberlain. Like Hitler, has Hamas ever honored any of it’s agreements? Not that I know of.
To be blunt and honest, the reason why Japan finally surrendered at the end of WWII, was because 210 thousand lives lost, in a matter of a few fractions of a second, minutes, hours and days, turned out to be a price higher than Japan was willing to possibly continue paying.
Unless, or until, Hamas is faced with a price too high to pay, they’ll just keep doing what they’re doing. It’s no more complicated than that.
“I don’t trust this peace deal either.”
We agree there, but I don’t see Trump as a Chamberlain figure. It might be the best option, though I doubt it. Real victory means total defeat, and it’s hard to call it that when Israel must free 2,000 violent prisoners to recover 40 citizens, 20 already dead.
This is a political arrangement to appease a mixed crowd, not all friendly to Israel. Even unconditional surrender doesn’t end a war of ideas. Hamas has seeded itself across the West Bank, feeding militias and stirring unrest under the Palestinian Authority’s nose. Its reach is now more ideological than geographic — yet it’s spreading far beyond the Middle East.
Israel should control Gaza as MacArthur did Japan: occupy, rebuild, and reeducate. Instead, we follow a 20-step plan with an uncertain ending. And once terrorists profit from kidnappings, more will surely follow.
With 13 federal appeals districts and the 9th so large, there need to be 14 Associate Justices on the Supreme Court to “ride circuit” so to speak. Then with the Cheif Justice, the full supreme court should have 15 justices.
The orderlies at your facility should be fired for allowing you access this late at night.
Four hour time zone difference.
Learn to think!
I’m on the west coast dum dum.
And its 3 hours from west coast to east coast, ya demented fool.
Which made it almost 9:00 when you posted, a full 53 minutes past lights out, and well past sundown, unless you are suggesting you’re in Alaska.
And one cannot learn if one cannot think, so you’re illiterate as well.
Might wanna double up on the Rexulti tomorrow, genius.
Yeah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that would be no!
FDR is long gone, let his body rest
Or SCOTUS should be reduced to 5 justices.
There is actually plenty of evidence that not just judicially – but in general the larger you make a body the less it can get done.
We do need some changes to our federal courts – but what we really need is NOT consequential change to the Supreme court – but the creation of a US Superior Court.
A layer between the Circuit appellate courts and the Supreme court to reduce the Supreme court workload.
Something with possibly 4 judges apointed from each circuit, serving in randomly appointed panels of 5 hearing cases that would normally go to the supreme court. With similar nationwide jurisdiction to the supreme court, but still apealable to the supreme court.
Or we can just continue as we are. That is not actually working all that badly.
I’m almost shocked that you’re advocating for Trump to appoint six more justices to SCOTUS. Surely you realize that your fellow Democrat Marxists would be outraged when the only mechanism that has provided them with what they actually want (as they watch the ballot box fail them) slips out of their control for generations.
Just a common, dime a dozen street thug
Bring back the Outfit. The Chicago Democrat party didn’t survive the FBI breaking up “the mafia.” It went downhill fast after Tony Accardo died.
This punk is nothing more than a low-level racist/socialist democrat parasite.
His approval rating in Chicago is around 4%. Not much different than the previous worst Chicago mayor in history, Lori Lightfoot. The voters of that fair city have a habit of electing the most ridiculous people and then immediately despising them. Perhaps they see it as some sick kind of game of self-harm.
The time has come. Eliminate the filibuster now, and reopen the government.
If/when the democrats regain power, the lame duck Republican Congress can pass legislation, making 60 votes for cloture a statutory requirement for all time.
In the meantime, pass legislation:
Abolishing the unconstitutional Senate Parliamentarian.
Adding 4 SC justices immediately and fixing the number at 13.
Fixing the number of states at 50.
Pass legislation making it a felony to cross our border illegally the first time.
When you say to add four Scotus justices, you’ve kind of lost it.
I say that because establishing a permanent majority on the court is EXACTLY what the democrats attempted to do. They intended to do it just because they could.
But thanks for making such a lucid, logical, compelling argument for why its a bad idea.
Now, GFY.
No, I’m not going to GFM. You think going to 13 will be a “permanent majority”? What planet are you from. The next time the Dems get power they’d expand it to 23 or 33. You thin a law can be passed that “fixes” it at 13? What planet are you from? The next time the Dems get power their law expanding it to 33 will simply be written to repeal that law. You really don’t have much of a brain, do you?
You should be more careful jacka$$
Earth to Kansas!! Earth to Kansas.!!
You are not thinking old man. Dementia??? You miss the whole point.
If the filibuster is established by legislation, it would require SIXTY VOTES in the Senate to repeal or eliminate ANY legislation the Republicans pass between now and such time as they may lose the Congress.
Filibuster established by legislation? That makes no sense. A filibuster is something senators do. They filibuster. It’s a verb. If you want to make a point, you need to at least make sense.
Wow dude i never really noticed how much you argue like a libtard.
I called it cloture when i explained the whole plan in the first post. Go back and read it again and come back with your next stupid response.
As a side note, you just used the word filibuster as a NOUN, right before you said its a verb. LMAO
Lets ask AI
In the U.S. Senate, a filibuster is a tactic used by a minority of senators to delay or block a vote on a bill, resolution, or other measure.
Is this George posting as OMFK???
Let me make it make sense for you, dum dum.
Legislation would allow unlimited debate the Senate, and SIXTY VOTES to end debate.
Are those words small enough for you?
*debate in the Senate
Didnt want to confuse you.
Since you mention “small”, I wonder how you manage to type with such tiny little hands.
Oh aha ha aha aha haha ha ha
You so funny, jester. Small hands = small gloves.
Sore about getting your dumb a$$ handed to you on “charging”??
You think seven Democrats are going to join with 53 Republicans to end cloture to pass such a law? What planet do you live on, anonymous, low-IQ troll?
Old man, you cant possibly be this stupid.
Seven democrats arent needed. The first step is to END THE FILIBUSTER. Right now, that requires only a simple majority.
Where were you when democrats voted to end the filibuster? They needed 50 votes and the VP. They did t get Manchin and Senema, or they would have done it and passed any legislation they wanted.
Goddam i get fvcking tired of dumbing down the argument for George, why should i have to do it for you as well???
The low IQ demonstrated thus far has ALL been by you,
Do you want to quadruple down on stupid?
Anonymous – let’s say GOP ended the filibuster and passed legislation expanding Scotus to 13. You said that would be a “permanent majority.” So when the Dems get 51 senators, what’s to stop them from doing the exact same thing and expanding Scotus to 33 and packing it with all left-wingers? If your answer is legislation that makes 60 votes for cloture permanent, that won’t work because the number of votes for cloture is a matter of Senate rules, not federal law. See U.S. Const art. I, section 5 (“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”). There is no way in the world a law purporting to impose a supermajority onto Article I, Section 5 would be upheld in the courts. You’d need a constitutional amendment. Legislation alone cannot change the meaning of a provision of the Constitution.
Listen to you, old man, actually making a lucid argument instead of just spouting nonsense.
However, what you’re saying is that the Senate can make a rule that imposes a supermajority, but not a law.
You make the same ignorant argument that John Say tried. He also claimed that there is the Constitution, and there are Senate rules, and NOTHING in between. There is an ENTIRE SECTION of US Code with statutes delineating how the Congress is to be run.
If you’re argument that REQUIRING 60 votes to pass a law is Unconstituional, then its always unconstituional.
But thats not what it is. Its simply about how DEBATE is ended. The Constituion does not address how debate is conducted in the senate. Where is the Senate Parliamentarian mentioned in the Constitution? Yet there it is. Established in 1935!
My argument is that a law requiring 60 votes to change the Senate’s internal rules would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. If I’m right about that (and you didn’t deny it), then it’s impossible to lock in the 60-vote requirement for cloture so as to prevent any future expansion of Scotus beyond 13, which is the linchpin of your proposal.
“My argument is that a law requiring 60 votes to change the Senate’s internal rules would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. If I’m right about that (and you didn’t deny it)”
Except that you give no substantiation for your argument. So I will deny it, based on precedent.
The Constitution does not mention the conduct of debate and how it is ended.
The Constitution also does not establish a “Deputy President Pro Tempore” of the Senate. Neither do Senate rules. It is established by 2 USC 61. Is that position unconstitutional?
So my suggestion is NOT a vote to change Senate rules. The Pres Pro Temp is not a senate rule, because it was established statutorily. My suggestion is a statute which establishes the process for ending debate in the Senate. Then the Senate cant arbitraily change that rule whenever they please.
Just because the Senate made that concept a rule (128 years after the Constitution, by the way), does not make it somehow sacrocinct, and off limits to be made a statute.
My argument is based on the text of Article I, Section 5, which says that each house “may determine” the rules of its proceedings (only expulsion constitutionally requires a super-majority). To “determine” the rules includes the ability to change the rules.
An act of Congress purporting to limit any such changes to those having super-majority support would be imposing a new meaning on the Constitution, which legislation alone cannot do. It would limit the Senate’s ability to “determine“ its own rules, thereby purporting to remove a power from the Senate that is granted by the Constitution. I expect you will disagree with me, but that’s how I understand the meaning of Article I Section 5 based on my understanding of the English language.
Except that you are suggesting that just because the Senate calls it a rule, that process cant become a statute.
By that logic, a statute establishing a method to end debate would have passed your muster in 1916, because no such Senate rule existed then.
Thats ridiculous on the surface. If the Congress of the United States wants a position of Deputy pro tempore, they can create one by Statute. They can then make the RULES for what that position can do. And they did. And many others.
If the congress of the United states wants investigative committees in the Senate, they can establish them and the RULES under which they operate, as in 2 USC 6.
There are MANY STATUTES that direct how the Senate functions and operates, and their “RULES” must comport with those statutes, not the other way around.
Do you really think that the original concept of the founders for “rules” for the Senate would include allowing any given Senate to have a rule that effectively sets a minimum number of votes for a law to pass?
If a statute said “60 votes [or make it 100 votes] are needed to end debate on a bill,” that would deprive the Senate of the ability to “determine” that it can end debate with 51 votes. You’re saying that would be consistent with Article 1, Section 5?
Or phrased another way, what does the plain English of Article 2 say about how many votes are rquired to pass legislation in the Senate?
It darn sure doesnt say 60. There were not 60 Senators then.
Does it say that a simple majority is all that is needed? Well, sort of. While not explicitly stated Its implied by the phrase “The Vice President will have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”
So where does the Senate get off making a “rule” that effectively requires 60 votes to pass a law?? There is ZERO evidence anywhere that that was ever intended. ZERO. So its either Constitutional or its not.
Your argument is that the Senate can by rule change the plain meaning of Article 2, but not by law.
Thats really weak sauce. It sounds a lot like George’s, “cuz thats what I think”.
“If a statute said “60 votes [or make it 100 votes] are needed to end debate on a bill,” that would deprive the Senate of the ability to “determine” that it can end debate with 51 votes. You’re saying that would be consistent with Article 1, Section 5?”
Many Statutes in 2 USC deprive the Senate of “determining” how it conducts its business.
The Senate can determine anything they want, consistent with Section 5 AND existing law.
I meant Article 1, not 2
You’re just declaring that. It’s not in the Constitution. The Constitution does authorize the Senate to determine its internal rules for conducting its business (such as the number of votes required to end debate on a bill), and it does not make that authorization subject to statutory law.
I’m just declaring what?
YOU are the one substituting the words ONLY, SHALL for the word MAY, or suggesting they mean the same thing.
What you are saying is Congress can make NO LAW infringing the Senate right “to determine its internal rules for conducting its business”
And I’ve cited numerous examples of how Congress did just that. So precedent is on my side. Your interpretation is the only thing in your corner.
Nor have you commented on whether you think the authors intended that the Senate could make a rule that circumvents the simple majority requirement for passing legislation.
If the Senate made a rule that the “Executive Director of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, shall adopt rules referred to in subsection (a) in accordance with the principles and procedures set forth in section 553 of title 5″…..
Would that be Constitutional for the Senate to “determine” that rule for themselves?
Well guess what? They didn’t. Its a STATUTE. I guess its unconstituional, because 2 USC 24 told the Senate how to conduct their “internal business” (your made up term)
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
I read that to preclude a statue saying “the Senate may not reduce the number of votes required to end debate on a bill to a simple majority.”
“I read that to preclude a statue saying “the Senate may not reduce the number of votes required to end debate on a bill to a simple majority.””
LOL wow, you read a lot into that.
You read it to say there are some things that a statute may dictate wrt Senate proceedings, just not that. Ohhhhhhkayyy.
As i said, I have precedent (which you keep ignoring, very George-like) on my side. You have your interpretation.
You read it to say there are some things that a statute may dictate wrt Senate proceedings, just not that.
Where, when did I say that? I said the Constitution says the Senate “may” do something (determine the rules of its proceedings), which in my view precludes a valid statute saying the Senate “may not” alter the “rules of its proceedings” so that a simple majority is enough to end debate on a bill. That’s all I’ve said.
I have precedent (which you keep ignoring, very George-like) on my side.
What precedent? You have not cited to where any statute has ever done that. Even more importantly, you have not cited to any case in which any such statute, or any similar statute, has been tested in a court of law and been ruled constitutional.
I gave you several examples where Congress has written RULES for how the Senate must operate. Except they are called Statutes.
Why would you ask what precedent? You arent that stupid. I gave you several examples. In fact you demonstrated knowledge of these examples by suggesting they hadnt been “proven constitutional”.
I thought you were a lawyer? This should be clear to you. Congress clearly has the power to make STATUTES for how the Senate operates. Whatever is left over after those statutes are followed constitutes the “rules” they “may determine”.
If you claim a statute in 2 USC is unconstitutional, its incumbent on you to cite a court case substantiating that. A statute is legitimate until its ruled UNconstitutional.
In addition, you created the red herring that the statute would read, “the senate cannot…”. Thats dumb. It should simply state what the requirement is. Just like it does in EVERY OTHER STATUTE IN 2 USC.
So, is it your position that 2 USC is unconstitutional?
Or is it your position that the Senate can make a rule that stands in opposition to any statute in 2 USC?
Your position cannot be that “Congress cant make a law telling the Senate how to operate”, because they ALREADY DID.
*end debate (for cloture)
The GOP has a simple majority in Congress, not a supermajority. You think you’ve come up with a super-clever way for the GOP to lock in its power forever with just a simple majority, a method that nobody in the history of America has ever thought of before, not even the smartest political theorists and operators. It takes some pretty astounding arrogance, not to mention stupidity, to believe that.
You dont need a supermajority moron. It takes only a majority to eliminate the filibuster.
Naw, i didnt think of it, dipshlt the goddam democrats did, and they tried it. Manchin stopped them.
The only difference is that they didnt plan to ever lose power because they were going to add 2 blue states and 4 blue Senators.
The arrogance of you challenging me is what is hilarious, ya dunce.
Nice attempt to change the argument after i handed you your a$$ on your previous low brow comments.
Let me apell this out for you one more time, so you can STFU and stop looking stupid.
1. Simple party line vote to eliminate the filibuster during this Congress.
2.simple party line vote to eliminate Senate Parliamentarian. See step 1
3. Simple party line vote to pass any and all legislation on party line votes. See step 1
4. Simple party line vote to pass legislation making the rules concerning cloture statutory see step 1
If you have a LEGITIMATE REASON why that cant be done, lets hear it. “You aint all that smart” is not a good argument.
So far all you’ve done is prove you arent as bright as i thought you were.
Its pretty pathetic that your argument has been reduced to “that cant be right cuz nobody else ever thought of it”
You do realize other people are reading this, right? Save yourself some face and stop while you’re behind.
I answered you above.
Kansas, there seems to be confusion based on the large number of posts on this subject. I will put my two cents in.
Kansas is correct:
Constitution: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” A majority of a quorum is sufficient to change the rules per a Supreme Court decision.
Therefore, one can say, once a quorum exists, the rules of its proceedings are determined by a majority vote.
Thank you Meyer. My last comment was at 10:39 AM and Anonymous has not yet answered it. Time will tell if he does eventually respond.
The dispute, distilled to its essence is: Anon says a statute can lock in a 60-vote requirement to end debate, preventing the Senate from lowering that threshold to a simple majority. I say essentially what you did: the Constitution says the Senate “may” determine the rules of its proceedings, which of course is done via a majority vote on a rule change (as you noted). That means the Senate “may” alter the 60-vote threshold to a simple majority without having to pass new legislation.* It seems to me that any statute which says the Senate “may not” do that cannot be reconciled with Article I, Section 5 which says the Senate “may” do it. And we know that when a statute and the Constitution are irreconcilable, the Constitution wins.
*When Article I, Section 5 says “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” that plainly does not contemplate legislation, since legislation cannot be enacted by a single House acting alone.
Kansas, you were very clear from the start and throughout. He wasn’t getting it because the Constitution wasn’t clear enough with the implied majority rule. Majority rule was clarified by a Supreme Court decision many years ago.
Meyer – Anon seemed to posit that the nuclear option – used in 2013, 2017, and 2025 – can be precluded by legislation that includes getting rid of the Senate parliamentarian. That appears to be the nub of the disagreement. The way I read the plain text of Article I, Section 5, it does not permit such an outcome.
no, that’s not what I’m saying.
I am saying that there are laws on the books for how the Senate can operate.
You, keep saying that there can’t be any such law because the constitution doesn’t allow it
The entire text of two United States code is telling Congress how to operate
Res ipsa loquitor
The rules they get to make for themselves are what is left over after all of those statutes are followed.
This is not a difficult concept You are denying reality, which is what George does
A statute which establishes the requirements for ending debate in the Senate, is no more unconstitutional than a statute that creates a deputy president pro tempore of the Senate and delineate what his duties are. Where in your Interpretation of article 1-5 Is the authority to do that?
Are you saying for the record that two United States code is unconstitutional?
so you are also saying that two United States code is unconstitutional
You might as well say, the moon is made of cheese
No, I am saying that on this issue, many people are confused, and you are one of them. The confusion was significant enough that the Supreme Court adjudicated the claim and found that a majority of a quorum could change Senate rules.
Ano
Pass legislation making it a felony to cross our border illegally the first time.
___________________________
We are talking about the dem-o-rat party RIGHT.
Never happen, just pay attention what Biden did with all these illegals.
I understand your frustration.
But I am in no hurry to reopen govenrment.
I am in no hurry to pass new legislation.
There is nothing a lame duck GOP congress can do that an incoming democratic congress can not undo.
Further the constitution would have to be changed to pass legislation regarding the rules of the house and the rules of he senate. The constitution says they get to make their own rules.
I want less supreme court justices not more.
It is already a crime to cross the border illegally – and we do not need to make it more of a crime.
“But I am in no hurry to reopen govenrment.
I am in no hurry to pass new legislation.”
Spurious and immaterial, since you have the power to do neither.
“The constitution says they get to make their own rules.”
I see you didnt bother to read any of the discussion between myself and OMFK and just repeated what he said. You claim “the moon is made of cheese” in the face of all evidence to the contrary. 2 USC is chockablock full of “rules” for Congress to operate by. They are just called STATUTES. Can the Senate make a rule that violates those statutes?
“I want less supreme court justices not more.”
Who cares? Is that an argument?
“we do not need to make it more of a crime.”
Again, another opinion from John Say without substantiation.
Here is my equally worthless rebuttal: we do need to make it more of a crime.
So here’s the question. Can the Senate make a rule that violates 2 USC?
” Can the Senate make a rule that violates those statutes?”
Absolutely – this has been previously discussed in the context of the various “laws” congress has pass governing how congress certifies an election.
The ONLY constraints on Congress that can not be override by congress are those in the constitution itself.
This is why as an example the 27th amendment was necescary – because otherwise one congress can ignore the rules or laws passed by another.
This is also part of the reason that the US supreme court determined that the Graham Rudman law dealing with the way congress deals with budgets.
Congress can not make a law that controls congress that is constitutional.
While it has done so many times in the past, and often these are followed and never challenged,
In the instances any such laws have been challened they have been found unconstititonal.
““I want less supreme court justices not more.”
Who cares? Is that an argument?”
It is exactly as much of an argument as “I want more”.
““we do not need to make it more of a crime.”
Again, another opinion”
Correct – as such it does not need substantiation.
Though I would note that It is also a fact – Government is expensive – and I do not just mean that it costs several trillion dollars – I mean that government is a an expense that provides small value in return for its costs.
4th ranked economist in the World – Harvard’s Robert Barro has compiled the world largest database of government spending and the value of that spending. His work has found that with little variation accross the world Govenrment spending delivers between 0.25-0.35 for each $1 of revenue it takes in
So if the US govenrnment consumes about $6T in revenue – at best it is creating $2T in Value. That means that the entire rest of the US economy must create an addition $4T in value just to end up with ZERO growth.
To get a 3.8% Growth rate the economy must create another 1.2T+ in value – so the reality is that the US economy must grow by about $5.2T/ year to get 1.2T in real growth.
If your argument is that spending is not the same as Crime – True – but atleast part of that budget is spent on law enforcement – crime.
Arguably even if the tangible value of prosecuting Murder is not equal to the cost – the intangible value is.
If we do not prosecute what nearly everyone agrees is a crime – when end up with anarchy and that is expensive.
But like very many things – criminal law falls on a curve. Too little criminal law – you approach anarchy and standard of living declines and faith in government tanks. Too much criminal law and you approach totalitarianism standard of living declines and faith in govenrment tanks.
One of the many reasons that governments do not enforce lots of the laws – is because there just is not enough money to do so.
That does not mean people are getting away for crimes.
It means we have too many laws.
While I do not owe anonymous posters any evidence to support my arguments much less my opinions – I have provided some, and there is far more if you want it.
Why did the USSR fail – because too much govenrment supresses growth while concurrently decreasing everyones pay for a double whammy.
Most laws are not worth the harm they cause – even under optimal circumstances.
“we do need to make it more of a crime.”
when you use a naked pronoun paragraphs and multiple posts away from its object, you end up with meaningless nonsense”
Regardless, your making an incredibly bad left wing nut argument – I am presuming that because you are trying to appear to be a law and order type, that you are not a left wing nut – so why would you make a bad left wing nut argument.
While we CAN arguably make anything a crime – though the constitution does place some limits on that.
We CAN NOT do so and end up with a functional society. ‘
The actual “Rule of law” does not mean the enforcment of any law that congress manages to pass. It means the obediance to and he strict enforcement of ONLY the truly necescary laws.
The “Rule of law” – when constraint to limited legitimate law, actually brings about greater freedom.
Because Anarchy delivers less true freedom than limited govenment.
When government reduces actual freedom – we have too much law – and we passed that along time ago.
And if you want a source for that – the certain failure of too much law – where too much is the majority of law, is a restatement of Coases Law to a more limited domain.
I think one of the 4 greatest economist of the past century is a credible source.
“So here’s the question. Can the Senate make a rule that violates 2 USC?”
Absolutely – see above. Regardless the CORRECT question is “Can Congress make a LAW governing its own actions” – and the ANSWER is NO.
Gotta draw the line when you just outright make up a goddam lie.
Name a single statute in Title 2 of the US Code that has been ruled unconstitutional and the case.
Just like the others, you claim the moon is made of cheese with the moon rocks right in front of you.
“Can Congress make a LAW governing its own actions” – and the ANSWER is NO.”
So you assert that Title 2 of the US Code is unconstitutional, with ZERO citation of Supreme Court ruling.
Only its not. So there’s that.
“we do need to make it more of a crime.”
when you use a naked pronoun paragraphs and multiple posts away from its object, you end up with meaningless nonsense”
Lmao what a hoot. You’re the imbecile who just posted meaningless nonsense. I made that statement right after quoting you saying “we dont need to make it more of a crime”. If you cant follow the reference, you’re nonsensical.
And an opinion does need to be substantiated unless you want to be ignored. But your rants do hint that you dont want to be taken seriously. And i dont care if you care if i take you seriously, before you go down that idiotic road as usual.
Please name the Senate Rule in the 119th Congress which violates any provision of Title 2 of the USC. Or admit you made that up
The 27th Amendment LMAO??? Seriously dude??
Cant even have a conversation with someone who makes up more shlt than the left wing nut George.
That has NOTHING TO DO with what we are talking about.
“While I do not owe anonymous posters”
What a weird way of saying “I’m a chicken shlt and here’s why”.
My name is Waters, dunce. And it should be clear to you who I am, ya arrogant a$$.
Nevertheless, I am no more anonymous than you.
If you choose not to “explain yourself” because i dont have a screen name, then feel equally free to not engage me in a conversation i am conducting with someone else. Your silence will be appreciated much more than your worthless opinion.
“Can the Senate make a rule that violates 2 USC?”
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 5 Proceedings
Clause 2 Rules
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”
Any actual originalist conservative would have to say “absolutely”
Really originalist?? What does the word “may” mean to you. Could you substitute the phrase “shall solely” for that?
Would an originalist argue that the authors of Article 1. section 5, clause 2 intended that the Senate should be able to enact a rule that effectively requires 60 votes for a bill to become law? And that the same Senate could remove that requirement or modify it with a simple rule change?
Really think thats what was ORIGINALLY MEANT by that clause???
Go ahead and say you do. I expect nothing less.
There are two ideologies that have NEVER been truly put into practice – socialism, and libertarianism.
But BOTH have had many many attempts.
Socialism fails in direct proportion to how close an attempt comes to actual socialism.
Libertarianism succeeds in direct proportion to how close an attempt comes to actual libertarianism.
I would further note that while there is no pure libertarian govenrment ever.
There is a REAL example of something MORE extreme than libertarianims – Anarcho-capitalism.
That is exactly the way the nations of the world relate. We have NEVER had any other form of “world government” – it works badly – but nothing else has or can work better.
What they literal fvck are you blathering about???
Sometimes i am certain that you type just so you can read it.
Easy for you to say that you are in no hurry to reopen the government.
It’s a real thing with real consequences. It’s not an opportunity for you to express your libertarian views. I’m not going hyperbolic, but what you consider inconvenience is more than that to some people.
Shall I give examples or are you smart enough to figure it out for yourself?
“Easy for you to say that you are in no hurry to reopen the government.
It’s a real thing with real consequences.”
Yes the longer the shutdown goes the more we come to realize how little of the federal govenrment we actually need.
“It’s not an opportunity for you to express your libertarian views. ”
Of course it is, it is also an oportunity to see how little government we really need.
During a shutdown “essential” govenrment functions are allowed to continue.
Why shoudl we EVER have non-essential govenrment functions ?
Again back to Coases law – which won a nobel prize.
Restated Coases law is “Anything that can be accomplished by free people through negotiation, will produce better results than trying to accomplish the same thing through FORCE – aka Government”
And just in case you are skeptical of Coases law – in the 21st century Nobel prize winning economist Elenor Olstrom demonstrated that even the alleged problems like “the tragedy of the commons” – are actually myths.
The rarely if ever happen in reality – because Just as Coases law states – people will solve the problems most efficiently through bargaining. Government serves on a few limited legitimate roles – Nation security is one of those – without it you do not have a nation and we are back to anarchy. Precluding people from using FORCE such that bargaining is always free, is another. Enforcing freely entered agreements is a third.
There are very few other legitimate or on net actually beneficial functions to government.
Or put differently – Govenrment has to do lots of things it should not do to waste 0.65-0.75 of every dollar it collects.
So is the nobel prize winning work of Multiple economists plus major work of one of the current worlds leading economists enough source for you ? Regardless – google is your friend.
“I’m not going hyperbolic, but what you consider inconvenience is more than that to some people.”
Absolutely – also irrelevant.
You seem to beleive that Government is supposed to be “robin hood” – stealing from some to give to others.
Enforcing the truly important criminal laws is an “inconvenience” for some – while being critical for the rule of law and the quality of life for others.
Contra the left – everything is not zero sum. But almost everything has both winners and losers.
I am not arguing that some will not be inconvenienced by a shutdown. Certainly those swilling at the public trough will be inconvenienced.
But just as heir are losers – there are winners learning how little of govenrnment serves a useful purpose is a big win. At the same time – the shutdown will end unfortunately and will will move forward spending way too much – The loudest voice tends to get the attention. Those benefiting from less government are far more numerous and far less vocal than those who are harmed.
“Shall I give examples or are you smart enough to figure it out for yourself?”
Why ? There is very little that happens on earth that does not inconvience someone and benefit others.
Looking only at the costs and not the benefits is just idiocy.
Lets look at just ONE thing – govenrment employment.
Every single govenrment employee furloughed who goes out an gets even a crappy job during the shutdown raises GDP and the standard of living for everyone – maybe only a small amount, but still a real benefit.
Those that decide to quit and take a PERMANENT actually productive private job – not only benefit themselves but all of us. They go from consuming resources with little to show – See Barro’s work, to producing with alot to show.
Now we do have alot of problems with shutdowns – because we have stupid laws that deprive of us the benefit.
We are by law EVENTUALLY obligated to pay for the government services that no one received during the shutdown. That’s like telling Musk he can cut staff at Twitter by 70% – but still has to pay them all forever.
How is that going to make Twitter more efficient ?
I didn’t read beyond 3 sentences. No one adversely affected by the shutdown give a good goddam about your worthless ravings.
But thanks for declaring how out of touch you are.
“Why ? There is very little that happens on earth that does not inconvience someone and benefit others.”
I am constantly amazed at what constitutes legitimate argument for you.
Smart as you are, you act like a serious dumba$$.
I guess that like George you think you’re clever. I know clever, and you’re not.
NONE of your fiscal fantasy is EVER going to come about as a result of a shutdown. None of it. You get that? Because its relevant.
Nothing is going to change because of this shutdown. Even if it results in fewer govt employees, it will only be temporary, and a lot more added when the Dems regain power because the MSM convinces the gullible public that its all the Republicans fault.
Sometimes politics is more important than policy. Thats reality, not fantasy.
A federal judge dismissed all charges against former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday after Donald J. Trump’s handpicked US attorney misspelled his name as “Homey.”
The attorney, Lindsey Halligan, begged the judge to overlook the error, which she blamed on “frickin’ autocorrect.”
“This is the first time I’ve charged someone,” Halligan pleaded. “Indictmenting is hard.”
In yet another embarrassing spelling goof, Halligan referred to the attorneys she ordered to charge Comey as his “persecutors.”
^^^Moron who doesn’t know the difference between “charging” (not a thing in Federal law) and indictment by a grand jury.
The court jester, who typically in trying to be funny, looks like an idiot instead.
You may want to contact the DOJ and let them know that “charging” is not a thing in the Federal system.
They are operating under the obviously false belief that “charging” is an integral part of Federal Criminal Procedure.
Here is a link to a section of the DOJ procedure manual for US Attorneys.
You will note the title of “Charging”
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging
You might want to contact Sesame Street and ask them for reruns so you can learn how to read.
But thanks for giving us another pristine example of how you spastic libtards get your information. A five minute Google search to substitute for a lifetime of learning.
Here’s what’s below the headline in your link, dunce.
After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information they gather from talking with the individuals involved, the prosecutor decides whether to present the case to the grand jury. When a person is indicted, they are given formal notice that it is believed that they committed a crime. The indictment contains the basic information that informs the person of the charges against them.
The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury.
See that?? I highlighted it for your simple mind. Maybe if you look hard you can find a “pre justice 101” tutorial. Claearly, You’re not ready for this one.
For those of us who didnt wake up from a nap today and decide to learn some civics, it’s well known that a Federal prosecutor cannot CHARGE a felony. A Grand Jury must INDICTE someone.
“Here is a link to a section of the DOJ procedure manual for US Attorneys.”
And by the way, thats not a “procedure manual”. LMAO what a stooge. Only Biden appointed US Attorneys need a third grade explanation of what a grand jury does.
Its a tutorial for simpletons trying to learn a little something about the Federal legal process.
LMAO cant make this shlt up. You people are priceless.
Now we know why you spend most of your time here posting funny-not funny little memes you found. Because you’re an idiot.
Now give the phone back to mommy and go clean your room, jester.
And before you double down on your stupidity, let me save you the trouble. The issue here is Federal PROSECUTORS charging a felony, Twice your goofy childish post referred to attorneys “charging” someone. State attorneys and local prosecutors can CHARGE crimes. Federal attorneys cannot charge a felony.
“Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury”
Pretty sure that the US constitution trumps your misreading of justice.gov.
If only you were actually Funny – BTW, A grand Jury just indicted Leticia James for Mortgage Fraud.
Big deal. Grand Juries rarely refuse an indictment. But Trump’s bumbling AG’s are making history with grand juries returning no-bills in record numbers.
Letitia James’s case is just was weak as the one they have on Comey.
Whats the record for no-bills, George?
Or are you just making shlt up again?
Can we add Letitia James to the list of cases you predicted would be dismissed, George?
How many AG’s does Trump have, George?
“Letitia James’s case is just was weak as the one they have on Comey.”
Hey George, which of the following were you correct about??
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Comey case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hunter gun case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hunter tax case
“The case is certain to be dismissed before any trial.”
—-George, about the Hannah Dugan case
Alhysteria O’crazio Corkheads, Stephen Miller is 4’10”!
Re 410, it’s double talk. .410 is a small caliber Shotgun used to kill redneck pests, anon.
Clever girl in the spirit of ill will. Expect nothing good from that. She should be removed. It’s known as evil.
When ill will dominates good is eclipsed.
*. I remain deeply concerned for the good souls of American citizens trapped in the lawless city of Chicago and greater Illinois and unable to leave through no fault of their own.
These are citizens of the United States and the federal debts do have presence in rails and airports as well as in many other areas. Illinois somehow thinks it’s an independent nation?
I sometimes think rescue missions should be run in and out of Chicago leaving the murderers and thugs behind. There’s a train now from Chicago to California. The feds should be at both ends.
Chicago is a swirling vortex of crime with many victims. It’s criminal not to see it. The feds send money in there? Marked bills hopefully.
Democrat Biden donor charged with starting Palisades fire in L.A.
A former Los Angeles resident turned Florida man has been arrested and charged with starting one of the most devastating wildfires in city history – a blaze that ripped through Pacific Palisades in January 2025, killing a dozen residents and reducing multimillion-dollar homes to ash, federal authorities announced Wednesday.
Prosecutors say Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29 – who also went by “Jonathan Rinder” and “Jon Rinder” – maliciously set the fire that became the Palisades Fire, igniting a catastrophe that scorched some of LA’s wealthiest hillside neighborhoods.
The Melbourne, Florida, resident was arrested Tuesday and charged with destruction of property by means of fire, a federal felony that carries a mandatory minimum of five years and up to 20 years behind bars if convicted.
According to journalist Matt Foldi, Rinderknecht donated to the Biden campaign.
Full story here:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/florida-man-charged-deadly-pacific-palisades-inferno
Katie Porter, candidate for Governor of California, let’s her incompetence shine through! Hilarious meltdown –
Thanks Floyd, that was hilarious to watch.
A perfect snapshot of democrat anger, intolerance, arrogance and entitlement.
Their true colors are shining through. The Biden Administration and the left wing radicals who ran it, subverted federal law and flooded this nation with 15,000,000 illegals during his four years. Now they even protect killers and predators. Who does this? That is insane!
The mob of anarchists are physically impeding federal agents from completing their duties. Finally, some of these thugs are being arrested, identified and will face federal prosecution. They look terrified once they are arrested. More will be arrested and identified and the radicals within the blue states and other sanctuaries will lose in court.
15,000,000 additional illegals competing for housing, medical and in many cases “free” stuff. No wonder housing is more expensive and it is nearly impossible to get a medical appointment. Our E.R. Looks like a third world country and one can wait for days.
They broke the law and continue to break the law in many cases by hindering federal officers. Finally, some are finding out.
I feel badly for many of the illegals but not for the cartels who trafficked (and traffic) many of them and who terrorize the rank and file. I would have come if I were in their shoes. But that is not the point.
We are watching and feeling the winds of true insurrection and rebellion.
“15,000,000 additional illegals competing for housing, medical and in many cases “free” stuff. No wonder housing is more expensive and it is nearly impossible to get a medical appointment. Our E.R. Looks like a third world country and one can wait for days. ”
The illegals are a big oart of the current problems you mention. But the root cause is an unconstitutional and unaccountable Federal bureaucracy that is organized along the lines of Karl Marx slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” That BS must stop, and the Federal government must get entirely out of the business of reallocating resources that it did not earn, and does not by any defesnsible moral or legal authority have any rights to.