Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani.
At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not “consistent with the Second Amendment.” Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner.
Gorsuch wrote that the “historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”
However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the”‘history and tradition’ metric” and called for the Court to “revisit” the case.
Declaring Bruen “unworkable,” Jackson called for the restoration of the “means-end scrutiny—the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen’s ‘history and tradition’ metric—offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.”
The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, “it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.'”
Justice Jackson added that “Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”
The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to “resolve contemporary problems” under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded “solutions” for contemporary problems.
That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power. Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions.
Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”
These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.
It is not simply the desire to immediately overturn prior cases but to establish a largely untethered jurisprudence driven by judicial fiat and impulse. It is certainly an easier way to write opinions and would clear the way for a stated agenda on the left to maintain power indefinitely.
Before voters “unburden” these jurists, they need to seriously consider the costs of eviscerating an institution that has been vital in maintaining this Republic for the last 250 years.
Here is the opinion: United States v. Hemani
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
DEI director at JO Morgan dumps huge mountain of trash onto the street in Manhattan and steals the trash can. Sheesh, talk about illegal and antisocial. She committed theft and littering but has not been charged with any crime, because, Alvin Bragg and all that.
https://x.com/WorldLatinHoney/status/2067990215772270766
The white guys were busy smashing cars and destroying property.
^ Typical low-IQ deflection. Most people didn’t break the law, moron ^
Trump Unplugged From Reality
President Donald Trump accused Tehran of making “false statements” on Tuesday, after an Iranian official said his government had not agreed to allow international inspectors access to their country’s damaged nuclear facilities, despite U.S. claims.
Trump claimed that Iran had already agreed to the inspections for an indefinite period of time and suggested it was one of many points of progress in recent days. “If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
From Today’s Washington Post
* * * * * * * * *
President Trump says the peeling blue coating and algae blooms that mar his $16.4 million renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool are the fault of vandals working with “knives” in the “dark of night.”
But government documents obtained by The New York Times show that while National Park Service workers found two cuts in sections of foam between the pool’s expansion joints, those were not directly related to the “American flag blue” coating that is now peeling, or to the algae that has turned the pool a bright shade of green.
From Today’s New York Times
……………………………………………
In both of these of these stories one sees a disturbing pattern: ‘Trump is making claims that can’t be verified.’ That’s a serious problem for a president. Trump has no credibility.
Had the Roberts court chose to hear Jack Smith’s case, this country might have been spared a lot of grief. Instead they unleashed an unstable felon on the world.
Relates to the article today?? Riddle me that!!
K, we’ve never seen you before. Just popped out of nowhere?
Been here for years!! DF ANON!!
Jack Smith is fighting to keep his ass out of jail. He cut too many corners in his politically directed with hunt.
Of course the claims can be verified – Iran is not a soldering pile of ash right now.
Absolutely Iran i going to try to riggle out of everything
They have done that for 47 years – what is new.
Iran absolutely can walk away from the deal they agreed to, they can deny they agreed.
But if they do – the blockade restarts and the bombing restarts.
Hormuz saw more oil flow through it today than ever before – and Iran did nothing.
Frankly they had lost the ability to do anything of consequence quite some time ago.
Ships are traversing the north side under protection of US warships
Why ? Because if Iran tries something that gives US warships a few more minutes to shoot it down.
The only thing worse for Iran right now than hitting a ship would be missing.
They would immediately have to pay the price and they would have proven they can no longer close the strait.
Iran is selling oil in US dollars and can only use those to buy US food and other humanitarian aide.
Did they agree to that ? Does it matter ? Trump controls their money. Everything is going in escrow.
Do you think any nations is going to risk trying to pay Iran directly ?
How can we verify that Iran not Trump is lying ? Because for all the bluster and game playing – they are still at the table.
Trump says – this is what the deal was – Iran say not it was not – and then they stay.
Why is the US at the table ? There is nothing left to blow up that would not primarily harm the Iranian people.
Because Iran which was in pretty bad shape BEFORE this war, is now facing a humanitarian crisis.
Because whether they agreed with Trump’s terms or not they no longer have the capability to move forward for years on anything that Trump says they agreed to stop.
Hezbollah is in Deep Schiff right now – but like Iran does not know when to tap out.
Lebanon is cooperating with Israel to take out Hezbollah.
Even Syrai has isolated Hezbollah from Iran – and even if that was not so – Israel has occupied a buffer zone in Syrian along the lebanon border since the Syrian Civil War. Hezbollah is isolated and rotting on the vine.
They are done for – it is just a matter of time.
And Iran could not aide them if they wanted too – what are they going to send Rocks ?
Iran has sustained $1T in damage – you honestly think isolated from the world with no deal they are even capable of rebuiding their war machine and nuclear program without being overthrown first ?
Acording to Iran as part of this deal the US has agreed NOT to arm Irainian revolutionaries.
Without a deal the US will start airdropping weapons to iranian revolutionaries all over the country.
Iran killed 30,000 of its own people in February – do you think if those people get their hands on weapons that there is not going to be a blood bath ? The iranian people have taken out numerous IRGC and Bassij leaders so far without US or Israeli help.
Iran is going to hem and haw and whine and deny and deny and deny publicly – it is even possible they may act stupidly and get b**ch slapped a few times.
The people we are negotiating with are NOT THE GOOD GUYS. They are bad guys who have no future without a deal.
Aside from the threat by the Iranian people – there is a significant risk the Iranian military says F$%K this to the Irgc and Basij.
There is already friction and assassinations between the IRGC and the political leaders and the Mullahs.
It is entirely possible that it will not matter whether there is any deal – that Iran will come apart from infighting.
You seem to think that a few americans pi$$ed over gas prices briefly back to Biden levels is comparable to 90M Iranians who blame each other for the current mess their country is in.
John Say, we know Iran is evil. No one’s questioning that!
We’re questioning Trump’s ability to ever get facts right. These aren’t isolated cases. Trump always had a problem with facts. But now it’s become too obvious to ignore.
“Trump always had a problem with facts. But now it’s become too obvious to ignore.”
No question that Trump has shown the ability and, at times, inclination, to spin and doctor the truth in public pronouncements in order to produce a desired outcome. Vance, however, strikes me as a straight shooter (at least for a politician), was a direct participant in the negotiations with Iran, and made an unambiguous statement that Iran agreed to international inspectors on the ground to verify their compliance with a no nuclear weapons development requirement. I’m inclined to believe that Vance is accurately reporting those discussions.
JS: Well said! Great facts.
John Say is hilarious. Trump has no leverage. None. The Iranians know this. Trump is in a weak position, especially a weak negotiating position. He has no idea what he’s doing.
He asserts that Trump completely “controls their money,” that everything is locked in escrow, and that Iran can only buy food and humanitarian aid with US dollars. Wrong.
The U.S. Treasury Department explicitly issued “General License X”. Far from restricting Iran to mere escrow food accounts, this license actively rolled back long-standing sanctions, giving Iran a 60-day window to trade crude oil, petroleum, and petrochemical products directly in U.S. dollars. If the U.S. had achieved the absolute stranglehold John claims, the administration would not have spent the week restoring Iran’s direct access to the global dollar-denominated oil market.
He scoffs at the idea that the U.S. is facing any real domestic pressure, writing off high gas prices as just “a few Americans pissed over gas prices briefly. He once claimed Trump would take control of the strait within weeks. It never happened because it’s much more difficult in reality.
Geopolitical and military experts, including former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, have openly stated that domestic panic over skyrocketing gasoline prices at the pump is the primary driver pushing the White House to the negotiating table. Because Iran successfully disrupted global shipping corridors via the Strait of Hormuz, the ensuing global economic shocks forced the U.S. to seek a diplomatic exit rather than letting hostilities drag on indefinitely. It’s also hitting Trump’s ego harder. He can’t stand the idea that he’s getting blamed for this fiasco. He’s desperate to get out of it instead of resolving it.
John Say argues that Trump dictated every line of the deal, that there is nothing left to negotiate, and that Iran is “done for.”
ROFL! BS. Trump is too stupid. He can’t negotiate at all much less dictate anything.
The newly signed 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding contains massive concessions. Notably, the agreement completely omits any restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program or its domestic defense capabilities, requiring only a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the framework commits a whopping $300 billion international fund for the economic reconstruction of Iran. A nation that was “blasted back to the stone ages” does not successfully negotiate a $300 billion rebuilding package while retaining its entire state missile arsenal. That’s a capitulation not a win. Trump had been lying so much and has lost any credibility that anything he says is always suspect. The Iranians have been more honest than Trump.
While Iran has suffered devastating infrastructure damage and over 3 million internally displaced citizens, international observers note that the regime’s public services remain stable. Furthermore, the mass protests that hit the country were a response to economic mismanagement, not a sign that a U.S.-backed armed revolution is imminent. Dictating terms by threatening a massive civilian bloodbath is a gross mischaracterization of actual U.S. foreign policy.
It’s Iran’s resilience that took Trump and U.S. military planners by surprise. All they have to do is survive. Trump cant wait them out. Not without looking like an idiot here at home. He’s losing at the polls and hurting the economy, for what? What are we getting out of this? Trump wants to walk away, badly. But he can’t just do a without looking like a moron. It’s looking more likely every day and everyone knows it.
If Trump ‘won’ an absolute victory, please explain why the final 14-point deal allows Iran to keep its entire ballistic missile program untouched while securing a massive $300 billion international reconstruction fund. Independent geostrategists are openly pointing out that Iran managed to drag the U.S. into a war of attrition and walk away with a ceasefire heavily favoring Tehran. But sure, keep pretending that a $300 billion rebuilding package and restored global oil-trading rights is an absolute defeat for Iran—I’m sure they’re completely devastated by those terms.”
“.Trump has no leverage. None. ”
ROFL
“The Iranians know this. Trump is in a weak position, especially a weak negotiating position. He has no idea what he’s doing.”
Because you say so ?
“The U.S. Treasury Department explicitly issued “General License X”. Far from restricting Iran to mere escrow food accounts, this license actively rolled back long-standing sanctions, giving Iran a 60-day window to trade crude oil, petroleum, and petrochemical products directly in U.S. dollars. If the U.S. had achieved the absolute stranglehold John claims, the administration would not have spent the week restoring Iran’s direct access to the global dollar-denominated oil market.”
Do you read what you wrote ? For the US to control Iranian funds they MUST trade in DOLLARS – the US has ZERO ability to control exchanges in Rubbles, or Yen.
They are trading oil for US dollars – The US controls the Dollar, we control the Banks that uses Dollars.
“He scoffs at the idea that the U.S. is facing any real domestic pressure, writing off high gas prices as just “a few Americans pissed over gas prices briefly. He once claimed Trump would take control of the strait within weeks. It never happened because it’s much more difficult in reality.”
The entire conflict so far has been what 16-17 weeks ?
At this very moment traffic through the strait is greater than it ever has been.
Aside from Ranting and making crazy lie claims that the strait is not open – what is Iran doing to close the strait ?
It is LIKELY that it is still in their power to close the strait – atleast breifly – but they are not doing so,
they are not doing so despite claiming the strait is not open.
They are not doing so despite claiming their is no deal.
They are not doing so despite myriads of claims that YOU buy completely – that make ZERO sense if Iran is not impotent.
I said Trump could open the strait in weeks – and HE HAS.
To be clear – I EXPECT LOTS OF SPEED BUMPS.
Honestly I still do not expect the current regime to survive – One of Trump’s problems is that having chopped of the head, and the neck and the chest of the regime – the arms and leggs are fighting over who is in control – it is POSSIBLE that someone manages to consolidate power and become the rough equivalent to the Ayatollah.
It is also possible that the fighting for control causes the entire country to come apart.
I am not going to predict exactly what will happen – only that Irans INTERNAL problems – even independent of the massive numbers of Iranian people who want their leaders GONE – are huge and far more important than negotiations with the US.
“Geopolitical and military experts, including former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, have openly stated that domestic panic over skyrocketing gasoline prices at the pump is the primary driver pushing the White House to the negotiating table.”
Your citing John Bolton ?
Are Gas prices and mid terms a factor – absolutely Trump would like to win the mid terms, or atleast not lose badly. That will have significant impact on what he can do for the next 2 years.
FDR played games before elections during WWII – but your claim that Iran has Trump over a barrel is total nonsense.
Trump may well loose the mid terms no matter what. He may win them no matter what.
It is also completely within his power to do exactly as he said and ignore the midterms as a factor. No matter what he is NOT facing re-election in 2028.
Further – if it take another 20 weeks to get what he wants out of Iran – Republicans will be in an excellent position in 2028.
But I do not think Trump cares alot about that.
What is MORE important to Trump is HISTORY.
Trump wants to be remembered as the person who brought peace to the mideast,
who ended the Ukraine war,
Who transformed US foreign policy
Who changed the US relationship with China and the world.
Who brought about economic prosperity.
And what he absolutely does NOT want is to have started another forever War with Iran or to be viewed by history as the reason Iran got a nuclear weapon.
I would bet that YOU could add a few other things to the list of things Trump WANTS
While YOU are intent on denying them to him – even if that screws the US – I think, I hope you are still smart enough to realize that the Mid Terms are ONLY a political factor for Trump because of their impact on his ability to cement his legacy.
With specific respect to gas prices or “affordability” – NO MATTER WHAT – those are temporary problems.
Inflation is double what is should be – but that is temporary – there are no structural problems – as with Biden causing high inflation.
And inflation will come down RAPIDLY the moment this is all truly resolved – that MAY be days – that MAY be months.
But it WILL happen
Further – Gas prices MAXED OUT. US production boosted – Texas made a fortune during this conflict.
Oman, UAE and the Saudia MAXED OUT oil through the trans arabian penesula pipeline – delivering 50% of what normally flows through the gulf.
They are well into the process of ending Irans ability to use the straits as a choke point.
Canals new pipelines etc will not be built by midterms – but they WILL BE Built – and quickly.
If Iran had the actual power to close the straits – that power would last months – maybe 2 years – and then they would be done.
The Iranians know this, Trump knows this – everyone but YOU knows this.
If absolutely no deal at all comes out of this – Trump has Still POSITIVELY reshaped the mideast for decades.
Even YOUR claims that Iran has power – if absolutely true are short lived at best.
The most likely endpoint for new Mideast pipelines is Haifa – that is ISRAEL – The Gulf states are engaged positively with Israel in ways that never occured before.
Whiled Trump has an excellent relation with Gulf states – For good reason they do not trust the US – Trump will not be president soon enough.
There could be another Biden – or worse. Further – while Trump absolutely wants PEACE in the Mideast and he wants historic credit for it.
He has been telegraphing for decades that the US interests are NOT in the Mideast anymore.
We do not need the Mideast. You rant about Gas prices – Trump can TRIVIALLY solve that problem. He can Tariff US oil exports at 100%, and suspend the Jones act.
That would make it near impossible for US oil companies to sell oil outside the US and TX would start shipping oil to the east coast.
US prices would drop back to where they were in February.
Trump si NOT going to do that – it would screw Europe royally, and it would even pi$$ off gulf states.
And that is only ONE possible move Trump could make if this is all just about gas prices.
Regardless – the US is NOT likely to be the player in the mideast over the long run it is now – and even if Vance is elected in 2028 – the Gulf States know that US elections can reverse almost anything good a US president does for them.
The Gulf nations are looking to Israel – – because Israal is NOT going away. They are STUCK in the mideast.
And Israel is inarguably one of the most potent militaries in the world.
Their air-force is 2nd only to the US, and contra the claims of the left – what the IDF did in Gaza – US forces were NOT able to do in Iraq.
They kept their own casualties low, they minimized Palestinian casualties – despite stupid claims of Genocide.
The IDF is an unmatched military force.
If the Gulf states are going to have a hostile Iran – they Want good relations with Israel.
The military connections between Israel and the gulf states that have been massively strengthened in this conflict are incredibly important.
We have the prospect of an entirely new Mideast in the near future.
Lebanon is actually cooperating with Israel to eliminate Hezbollah – that is huge – Lebanon was once a stable prosperous country.
The Syrian civil war – cut hezbollah off from Iran – and Israel took advantage of the collapse of the ASAD govenrment and has occupied a buffer zone – blocking supplies from Iran to Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is going to be eliminated soon.
The Gaza peace appears to be holding.
The West bank stay out of all the recent conflicts.
We are on the verge of an entirely new mideast.
Further – Trump has been b**ch slapping Europeans for not helping
Ultimately THIS IS THEIR WAR – not ours. The oil from the mideast – goes to china and Europe – not the US (right now the US gulf states are making up much of the difference). Europe is dependent on the mideast or Russia for Energy – the US is not.
Europe needs a peaceful friendly Mideast more than we do.
And as I said before – Trump has been messaging – WE ARE LEAVING – not tomorow, not next year, but the mideast is NOT in US national interests.
This is likely the last consequential US conflict int he mideast – and that is ALSO why the gulf states are looking to Israel.
The Gulf states have massive amounts of money – some have bought enormous amounts of weapons from the US. They have very capable people in their own militaries. But despite that the Saudis were not able to defeat the Houthis in Yemen. No one in the mideast has the military capability of the Israelis.
Israel is the acknowledged military power in the region – and this war cements that. In creasingly it will be Israel that other mideast nations will be looking to for securtity guarantees
“Because Iran successfully disrupted global shipping corridors via the Strait of Hormuz, the ensuing global economic shocks forced the U.S. to seek a diplomatic exit rather than letting hostilities drag on indefinitely. It’s also hitting Trump’s ego harder. He can’t stand the idea that he’s getting blamed for this fiasco. He’s desperate to get out of it instead of resolving it.”
Oil prices maxed out at $120bbl, Gas at about 4.75 – this is LOWER than Biden peaks. A problem ? Sure, an unendurable disaster ? ROFL.
Does Trump wish not to be blamed for a fiasco – absolutely. But we are talking about blame years or decades from now.
Do you really think Trump gives a schiff what YOU think now ?
“John Say argues that Trump dictated every line of the deal, that there is nothing left to negotiate, and that Iran is “done for.””
Again you keep misrepresenting my claims.
First – like mkany on the left – I am not so sure there is any actual deal.
I am not entirely sure that Trump did not say – I want to announce a peace deal on my 80th birthday and I am just going to do it.
And Iran has said No, no , no there is no deal – and then showed up in Switzerland to negotiate.
As I noted before – the straits are OPEN – is that absolutely critical ? Nope. But it does MEAN SOMETHING.
It EITHER means Iran is not able to close them anymore.
Or it is afraid to try
Or despite public rants it really does want to negotiate a way out.
With respect to various documents – I agree with the critics – sort of – THEY ARE MEANINGLESS.
It does not matter what the agreement says – The JCPOA was even weaker – but the BIG difference is that
Obama was NOT enforcing the JCPOA – the JCPOA was Obama doing Neville Chamberland.
Trump is not negotiating on Paper – he is negotiating with Bombs.
The Trump offer is pretty clear – Do as I ask or your dead.
And he has demonstrated that he can deliver on that.
As to Iranian missiles – Thjat is not a US issue absent Iran getting a nuke and an ICBM – neither of which is happening soon.
It is Israel and the gulf states and to a lessor extent Europe that care about Iranian missles.
I am sure that the US has discussed Iranian missles with Israel and SA and Qatar and ..
My guess is that there are already agreements to provide everyone defenses against Iranian missles.
The war in Ukraine and the War in the Gulf are also military learning episodes.
Both have show the threat posed by Drones. But drones are actually quite easy to deal with,
But Urkaine, Russia and the US were caught unprepared.
The Iranian long range Drone is LESS CAPABLE than a German WWII V-1 buzz bomb – it is slower and less range.
The brits were taking out Buzz bombs with fighter planes. The US and Ukraine have had problems doing that – because Jet Fighters STALL at the speeds that Drones fly.
That is one of the reasons that A-10s were brought to Iran – and why Ukraine badly wants the A-10s the US has mothballed in the Nevada desert.
We were supposed to be retiring the A-10 – but it is proving to be an excellent weapon for dealing with Drones – cost effectively.
It is also unmatched in ground attack and against small boats and similar asymmetric weaponry.
Regardless, The Urkainians learned how to deal with Drones, and the US is learning too.
turning those lessons into solutions takes months – not years.
A squadron of A-10s in the golf ends the Iranian drone threat.
Nor is the A10 ther only drone solution – The Ukrainians are shooting down Drones with sniper rifles.
Regardless there is no reason to negotiate to the death over a threat that Iran is not capable of materializing in the short run and is meaningless in the longer run.
Let Iran build all the drones they want for the next conflict.
Their missles are NOT an asymetric weapon – Their IRBM’s cost MORE than the interceptors that take them out.
US production oif interceptors is ramping up – and I am sure the US defense industry would love to sell massive numbners to gulf states – as would Israel that has comparable Anti missle technology to the US. Iran went Hard after Isreal – but thousands of missles and drones were largelyu ineffective against Israel.
Iran inflicted more damage to gulf states.
Regardless there is no reason to negotiate the elimination of weapons that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce in quantity for a long time, and which effective counter measures already exist and better ones are on the way.
Why should the US care about Irans domestic defense capabilities ?
First – as has been made clear REPEATEDLY in the past year – there is absolutely nothing produced outside the US that US and Israeli forces can not EASILY deal with.
Venezeula’s and Iran’s air defences have proven a waste of money REPEATEDLY.
If Iran wishing to buy morew Russian SS400’s or Chinese knockoffs – let them.
Again you do not negotiate over things you do not give a schiff over.
The money to rebuild Iran is coming from Gulf nations – and that is actually incredibly important.
Iran NEEDS that money extremely badly – and that “aide” is being controlled by the US and gulf states.
They can cut it off whenever they want.
Regardless, Irans missle and drone arsenal as well as its production capability has been attritted about 80%.
It is going to be a long time before those pose much of a threat again.
No Iran was not “blasted to the stone age” – but their ability to threaten their neighbors has effectively been destroyed.
Absolutely they can rebuild – but so can everyone else. And they are the ones starting from Rubble.
There were rumours that the US was running out of interceptors and the other weapons used in Iran – and I strongly suspect that is atleast partly true, and partly why the cease fire. BOTH SIDES are running low on weapons.
Historically only idiots bet against the US military industrial complex.
BEFORE this conflict started the US has been letting contracts for CHEAP crusie missles. While the defense of Taiwan was a major driving force on this – the asymetric nature of the Iran war is also a factor. As we demonstrated in Iran the US can keep major assets – ships and carriers far enough from Iranian defenses that what little can reach them can be dealt with easily. BUT that means that the US is expending more expensive long range weapons
GWI was the debut of Stealth and the debut of smart bombs.
GWII was the pinnacle of Smart bombs.
But more and more the US is relying on stand off smart weapons and those are expensive.
But right now we have MASSIVE numbers of lower cost smart stand off weapons in the pipeline.
Further both the Ukraine and Iran conflicts have allowed the US to burn through stockpiles of older weapons and to rebuild with stockpiles of newer better weapons.
Regardless I do not know if we are in a lull while both sides rearm, or real peace negotiations or both.
Next you claim Iran has Trump over a barrel – fundamentally over gas prices and the mid terms.
Whjile Trump is demanding a deal in 60 days – what prevents Trump from stalling – keeping a cease fire with low gas prices until after midterms and THEN going back after Iran ? I doubt that is what is going to occur – but my POINT is that you think incredibly shallowly – you do this CONSTANTLY, you do this about EVERYTHING.
You do not EVER consider that there are far more factors than you have thought about, you do not ever consider possibilities besides the ONE that appears obvious to you.
You see that Iran has some ability to close the straits of Hormuz and that that is negatively impacting gas prices and the mid terms – and you idiotically conclude that is FOREVER – that is just plain stupid.
While I do NOT beleive as Trump says that Iran agreed to everything. I am also smart enough to grasp that IT DOES NOT MATTER.
The leverage YOU claim Iran has ENDS
If Trump can open the strraits of Homruz – and they are now open – whether by negotiation or US force.
if Trump gets passed the mid terms. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS in the mid terms – afterwords Irans leverage is GONE.
Do I think Iran is pulling every trick in the book – absolutely.
Do I think they really fully agreed to everything Trump claims – NOPE.
Do I buy you stupid claim Iran has all the leverage – NOPE.
The ONLY leverage Iran has is its ability to close the straits,
That leverage may allready be gone entirely.
But even if it is not – that leverage ENDS with midterms.
The same clock you think has Trump over a barrel – has Iran over a barrel too.
The longer they drag out the fighting – the greater the unreverseable impact on midterms and the LOWER their leverage is.
Contra your claim – Their leverage is very limited and they need to negotiate now or lose it – if they have not already.
And that is presuming the regime survices another week or month or …
With respect to Irans public services – they did not have more than half the water they needed BEFORE this started.
Irans public services were total Schiff BEFORE this started – that was a major force behind the muiltimillion people riots in February
Nothing has gotten Better.
But the US has DELIBERATELY avoiuded targenting anything that would turn the iranian people against us.
“While Iran has suffered devastating infrastructure damage and over 3 million internally displaced citizens, international observers note that the regime’s public services remain stable. Furthermore, the mass protests that hit the country were a response to economic mismanagement,”
Correct – they were because public services like WATER were FAILING – they still are.
Increasingly over the past several years they have been diverting water from farming to drinking – because they are WAY WAY WAY short.
Now they do not have enough food – they have been importing food for a long time – despite having sufficient farmland – they do so because they had the money to afford to buy food to make up for lost farm production. Now they have no money, no water and no food.
Iran did not suddenly become able to manage their economy with the first bombs.
” not a sign that a U.S.-backed armed revolution is imminent.”
The US was not backing anything in February – you are absolutely correct – without US backing the Iranian people took to the streets by the millions and tried to get rid of a hated regime. Several things have changed since. Conditions in Iran have WORSENED, The IRGC, Bassij, and Mullahs are weaker and fighting among themselves.
The Army – which has been non-political in the past and mostly NOT part of theis conflcit OR the supression of protests is rumoured to be fed up with this nonsense.
30,000 protestors were murdered. The Kurds are moving weapons into parts of Iran, and if the US does nort get a deal Trump likes – we can provide even more weapons
” Dictating terms by threatening a massive civilian bloodbath is a gross mischaracterization of actual U.S. foreign policy.”
The only people threatening a civilian blood bath are the Iranians – as the cost to stay in power.
The US has been incredibly careful NOT to significantly impact Iranian civilians.
Regardless – in both Venezuella and Iran thus far Trump has shown no real inclination to get behind insurgents.
While I expect Trump wants the socialists in power in Venezuela and the mullahs and IRGC in Iran gone. He appears to be unwilling to risk what occured in Libya when the US took out Kadaffi. He appears to want regime change to occur peacefully without US fingerprints. And absent that he would rather deal with the tyrants we know rather than the chaos that might occur if they are displaced.
That does NOT change the threat posed to the Iranian regime by Millions of iranians angry with the regime.
“It’s Iran’s resilience that took Trump and U.S. military planners by surprise. All they have to do is survive. Trump cant wait them out. ”
This is more complex than you are claiming. Absolutely the IRGC etc have created a more decentralized arrangement that survived decapitation.
But all the leaders down to the 3rd level are DEAD – do you really think those jockeying for power now want to join their predecessors ?
Regardless that structure came at a cost – Iran has No command and Control. They are gambling – correctly, that the US will not put forces on the ground – because if we did, they do not have the structure necescary to remain a cohesive force. What you are calling resliliance is simply – “You can not kill all of is”
That is NOT much of a strategy. Yes I suspect Trump and most other world leaders expected that Iranian leaders were not suicidal.
But the fact that they were is NOT a survival tactic – it is a reason they must be utterly defeated.
Regardless you have TWO choices at the moment – either Iran is UNABLE to continue to fight to close hormuz, or the actually want to negotiate.
The strait is open, if they are unable to close it – their leverage is gone. And even if they are able – if they attempt to do so – negotiations are over.
The fact that they negopptiate – no matter what they are saying – means they want out.
“He’s losing at the polls”
Nopt accoring to reality – the RCP trend has him rising, Daily mail has him at 47%, Rasmussen at 44, RCP at 42.5 – alll are higher numbers than Bush and Obama in the same place. I am sure Trump would love polls in the 50’s – but he has not dropped below 40 this term – that is better than any 21st century president.
You have ranted repeatedly that Trump is unpopular – but depite the MASSIVE efforts you have done to destroy him – he is doing FINE.
“hurting the economy”
The economy is fine – it is better than Bush, it is better than Obama, it is better than Biden. Workjing class workers have regained half what they lost under biden and continue to improve.
Things are not perfect – inflation is too high – but temporary and not even close to Biden – it is NOT structural. Job growth is steady – but much more important it is CITIZENS getting jobs.
“Trump wants to walk away, badly”
Nope. Trump wants to end his presidency with communists out of power in Cuba and the US on good terms with socialists in Venzeulla particularly – but throughout south and central america out of power – With Iran neutered, With Russia neutered – with Peace in the Ukraine, with peace deals throughout the mideast and likely long term future regional stability. With a massive shift in the US relation to the world completed. With a booming economy and with the US working class thinking he is the greatest president in history.
Those and similar things is what Trump WANTS.
“If Trump ‘won’ an absolute victory, please explain why the final 14-point deal … ”
Because the MOU even the negotiations DO NOT MATTER.
“allows Iran to keep its entire ballistic missile program untouched ”
I have no idea whether that will be the final result – nor does it matter.
As I noted before there is no reason to negotiate over things that do not matter.
Irans missles DO NOT MATTER – while significantly attritted right now – they mostly proved INEFFECTIVE.
But more importantly – they will be EVEN LESS EFFECTIVE in the future.
“while securing a massive $300 billion international reconstruction fund. ”
Controlled by the US and funded by neighbors. Subject to being cut off anytime Iran misbehaves.
The gloabl oil market is currently just shy of $7T, it will grow to $20T in the next decade. The Gulf is 20% of that.
The funds to Iran are pocket change.
“Independent geostrategists are openly pointing out that Iran managed to drag the U.S. into a war of attrition and walk away with a ceasefire heavily favoring Tehran. ”
You mean people like Bolton ? ROFL.
Wiser people have pointed out that Iran – which had enough Uranium by its OWN ADMISSION – to build 11 Atomic bombs now Further admits – all that Uranium is under 300M of crushed rock and concrete and they can not get at it.
They have no navy, they have no airforce, they have no air defences. They could not stop an invasion if we wanted to.
Maybe maybe they have shot down one or two aircraft – more were destroyed in accidents.
They shot theire wad at Israel and their gulf neighbors – and did extremely minimal damage – they have not touched a US warship,
They really have not accomplished anything beyond chosing suicide over negotiations,.
This was NOT a war of attrition – if it was – Iran lost.
As I have said before I do not thing the terms of the ceasefire matter AT ALL.
Trump might just as well have unilaterally stopped for the moment.
I honestly hope that Iran comes to their sense and negotiates a good deal for all – I doubt that will happen.
But I would like to see Iran reintegrated into the global community – as a freindly competitor in the mideast rather than a state sponsor of terror.
Regardless Iran has done everything it is currently able to do – and the impact globally and on its neighbors has been negligible.
What are the terms in a deal that you think are critical ?
There is not a single item that the US needs to negoiate with Iran that is actually critical.
It would be nice if they agreed to get rid of their nukes. and never develop nukes again.
But if they don’;t ? They admit they can not get at what they have – and if they try we will know.
Their infrastructure for buiilding nukes refining uranium, building drones building missles – has been nearly entirely destroyed.
Can they rebuild ? Absolutely – with time and money – a great deal of both.
But even if they magically did rapidly – All the weapons the US expended will be replaced in a few months.
We started a massive program for these types of weapons – at massively reduced costs BEFORE this started.
It is possible we started under the late Biden admin, if not it was early Trump.
While it is broader than this – you should look into the Rapid Dragon program. But the big problem with Rapid Dragon is a lack of standoff cruise missiles
We started building Many thousands atleast a year ago. Rap[id Dragon allows a C-130 flying From the US to drop 5-45 Cruise missiles at a cost of $100,000 each – not millions from a standoff range of 500-1200 miles. Just to be clear this is ONE system using new and cheap cruse missiles.
The newest iterations of patriot as well as Israel’s Iron dome have proved themselves against what should have been a capable foe. But these are being improved with lessons learned. With certainty we are building more Patriots and more interceptors as rapidly as possible – and the Gulf states are paying for them.
And we are working on better and cheaper.
I would not say we got caught flat footed by Drones – but we could have been better prepared. Our normal warplanes are marginally effective against slow drones.
But we have adapted – the A10’s are back for that job as well as a few others. We retired A10s because they are slow and not survivable in a contested airspace.
But we have proven we can clear all existing air defenses easily – and they are cheap and effective against drones, and boats and small ships and pretty much any situation where you can use a highly portable cannon. The Ukrainians have been begging for our mothballed A10’s since the start of this.
Taking out slow flying drones is quite easy – we were able to do it during WWII with V1s and ordinary prop driven fighters. But we can not do it effectively with F16’s and F15’s and F25’s and … A guy in a Cessna with a rifle is a better solution than an F16 – which is what the Ukrainians discovered. Regardless the A10s are extremely effective against Drones and have many other roles that we improperly retired.
Regsardless the core point is – the Deal does not matter.
What does matter is that if Iran misbehaves – We Will be back.
We will have rearmed long before Iran. We will have even newer and cheaper and better weapons. While it is unlikely Iran will sit on their asses – in a future conflict they need a magic bullet that they do not have. I would not ever rule out creativity by an opponent – Ukraine has very effectively dealt with Russia by fighting much smarter.
But at this time I do not see a future weapon from Iran is large numbers that is going to change the outcome.
DoD in the US is looking for a $1.5T defense budget – What has Iran got to spend to develop something that will change everything ?
So what part of ANY deal matters – if the US can come back and repeat what it just did to Iran anytime we want ?
“But sure, keep pretending that a $300 billion rebuilding package and restored global oil-trading rights is an absolute defeat for Iran”
You seem to be under the delusion that we actually Want Iran driven back to the stone age
What we WANT is a well behaved Iran back in the global community.
I have noted that the US controls the money and controls Irans ability to trade globally – that is precisely why we want them trading in Dollars.
While I am sure we would like a new regime – the US and the world would be perfectly happy with the current tyrants – it is not like we do not have allies that are equally bad – even in the region, who behaved – who were no longer a state sponsor of terrorism, or a global nuclear threat.
I am sure Trump would be ecstatic to have the world 4th largest supplier of oil back on the market.
Gas at $2/gal and midterms would likely crush your blue wave.
The deal does not matter at all. The whole process is just charades.
What matters is that Iran behaves in the future.
Honestly it does not even matter if they get Nukes – if they are no more dangerous with them than North Korea.
” He’s losing at the polls”
Poll: Trump’s approval rating surged after Iran peace deal
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/poll-trump-s-approval-rating-surged-after-iran-peace-deal/ar-AA26mJKl
Here with an agenda huh? well here’s mine.
Enjoy the burden of history:
Sep 26, 2012
“Trump Unplugged From Reality
“. . . after an Iranian official said . . .”
Do you often rely on totalitarian dictators for your view of what’s true?
Yeah? YOU have no credibility! trump! has enough credibility to be elected president and you can’t stop vaping in your mom’s basement.
ANON SAYS Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson is Lincoln’s fault!! Ha ha ha ha
“Justice Jackson’s Curious Call to Overturn Bruen”
“Shall not be infringed”
Clearly, the Supreme Court, if not the entire judicial branch, is outside the law and possibly treasonous, as its agenda is to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” (i.e., sedition and insurrection) as promoted by a high-criminal imposter who must have been struck down by that court and that branch as ineligible for the presidency as a candidate who is not a “natural born citizen,” per the only treatise in history that defined that phrase employed by Washington and Jay, the Law of Nations, by Vattel (1758), which was in the hands of “the members, now sitting,” at the Constitutional Convention.
Nearly a year ago, a group of Antifa domestic terrorists attacked an ICE facility in Texas, injuring a police officer and destroying property. They have now been sentenced to federal prison, as follows:
Benjaman Song – 100 years
Maricela Rueda – 70 years
Cameron Arnold – 50 years
Savanna Batten – 50 years
Zachary Evetts – 50 years
Bradford Morris – 50 years
Elizabeth Soto – 50 years
Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada – 30 years
Other participants will be sentenced in the coming weeks.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/leader-antifa-cell-members-north-texas-sentenced-100-years-prison-terrorist-attack-ice
Thank you.
Yes, thank you. Good news.
No one who raped children supplied to them by Epstein has been prosecuted.
Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender’s jet much more than previously known
“Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known
“They have now been sentenced to federal prison…”
~+~
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 30 to 100 years in prison: Useful Idiocy self-actualized.
We have to wonder if those who hold the strings to these marionettes–very long strings stretching from the apexes of protected, ivory towers–aren’t just laughing to themselves at these fools going to the joint for the rest of their lives. Nobody respects useful idiots, especially their handlers, who view them as fully expendable objects to be exploited and discarded. In fact, I propose those in high places who encourage ANTIFA don’t even care about ANTIFA’s goals but have recognized that they have a small degree of utility in causing trouble that benefits their bigger picture.
The recruitment is simple, encourage a cadre of idiots to staff a local ANTIFA cell in the hopes that it will become self-sustaining, let it do the damage and make the news, and if they get arrested, nobody will care enough to save these fools from rotting in jail or prison. They will take the full brunt of the law, while the ivory tower can move on to their next charade…safe and secure in their own world.
The easiest way to avoid becoming a useful idiot is to not get involved in other peoples’ private wars. Make the best of your own life, and try to do something interesting and reasonable that suits you, not firebrands or charlatans. But if you choose otherwise and want to be such a disrespected fool or idiot, well good luck with that. Sucks to be you.
+1
Most of the recruitment starts with the left media agitators. Take away their FCC licences? NO, arrest them!
Good news. However, we all know that the published term of prison sentences is, if possible, even more inflated that the US dollar. How long are any of these cretins actually likely to be behind bars?
It’s the feds, serve 85% with max good time.
If they are lucky enough to get a terminal disease they might get out a little early with the length of these sentences…
Antifa is just another name for the marxist, This is how the communist revolution is going so far for these losers, locked up!
Commies: You live in a free society where you have freedom of ideology, not freedom for your violence, and we prosecute!
Trump has announced that the Reflecting Pool has been renamed.
Henceforth it will be known as the Strait of Warm Ooze.
Travis Longo called himself the first drag queen elected to a public school board. He has now been arrested on charges of sexual misconduct against children and child pornography.
VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE BY IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE.
BAN FOR LIFE!
LAME ANON!
Still on the Reflecting pool ?
Lets see – first it was – this never happened when Obama was president – except it did – all the time.
Then it was Blue is causing the pool to over heat – because Blue absorbs more heat than …. What color was the pool before – Grey. Oh, Never mind.
Then they caught left wing nuts dumping algea in the pool.
Then they caught left wing nuts carving slices in the pool – many of whom were arrested – but others are being sought from video of them damaging the reflecting pool.
And just to make it clear how much the left hates the country – the same groups have been arressted defacing the lincoln monument and the washington monument and ….
But yah right – it is all Trumps fault.
The reflecting pool will be fixed, and alot of left wing nuts are headed to jail.
Polls say the majority of democrats do not want to live in this country.
Fine LEAVE – but quit trying to burn it down. The overwhelming majority of people love this country.
And want to be here.
John Say,
“ Then they caught left wing nuts carving slices in the pool – many of whom were arrested – but others are being sought from video of them damaging the reflecting pool.”
You’re already peddling BS? Trump is lying his head off making excuses for shoddy cheap work done by a no bid contractor who happens to be his neighbor at Mar-a-Lago.
You’re as gullible as it gets. Trump is lying to your face.
Where’s your evidence for these claims?
“ Then they caught left wing nuts dumping algea in the pool.”
BS.
The National Park Service explicitly stated that this specific bloom was triggered because water supply lines sat dormant during the eight weeks of construction, allowing organic material to build up. Furthermore, scientists noted that the pool is so massive that dumping a jar of fertilizer or outside algae would have a completely negligible effect. The pool turned green because of biology and summer heat, not a progressive conspiracy.
The pool’s brand-new “American flag blue” sealant is peeling off on its own. When the pool turned green, workers treated it with heavy doses of chlorine and hydrogen peroxide to kill the bloom. The harsh chemical treatment, combined with poorly cured paint on a wet surface, caused the blue coating to bubble, detach from the floor, and float to the surface in large chunks.
They used cheap paint. The cheaper the materials the more money they keep. Nobody cut a 200-350 ft gash with a knife. That knife would never manage to cut that length. It would dull out before making a 350 ft cut. Trump is making stuff up to hide the embarrassment of the failure that happened.
While the administration announced arrests to validate the vandalism narrative, look at who they actually detained. One high-profile arrest was David Hearn, a former U.S. Olympic canoeist, who was out on a 52-mile bicycle ride. He stopped to look at the pool, noticed the new blue lining was already peeling off the bottom, and reached his hand into the water to feel the loose rubber. Park Police detained him for five hours for “vandalism” simply for touching water. The administration is weaponizing routine park behavior to manufacture a “sabotage” narrative and cover up a $14 million engineering blunder.
Trump is making poor excuses for the shoddy work that reflects on him. He’s already spending way more than he claimed. He’s a moron.
John, it must be exhausting living in a world where basic summer pond scum is a coordinated Antifa operation.You are unironically claiming that left-wing commandos sneaked onto the National Mall with scuba gear and box cutters to slice a 350-foot gash in a pool, all while smuggling in laboratory-grade algae to ruin a paint job. In reality, the contractors simply did a rush job, the paint didn’t bond to the concrete, and the National Park Service had to dump gallons of hydrogen peroxide into the water to kill a completely normal summer algae bloom, which caused the cheap blue liner to curl up and float away like a bad sunburn.
X – there are numerous people who have been arrested – nor is the vandalism confined to the reflecting pool ?
Do you think some unscupulous contractor is graffettiing the Washington and Lincoln monuments ?
Some of this vandalism has been caught on video. People have been arrested dumping Algae into the reflecting pond,
All this is incredibly well documented.
If you wish to argue that the damage to the reflecting pool is the result of Vandalism AND contractor failure – Go for it.
But the vandals who have been actually caught as well as those who have only been caught on video so far obliterate your narrative.
Whatever the primary actual cause of problems with the reflecting pool – you won the first round – but the conduct of the left wing nut vandals has cost you the narrative – atleast with rational people.
Addressing your other nonsense – Contractors post bonds for their work – once again you rant about things you do not know. If the contractors work was actually poorly done – they will have to eat the cost of the repairs and possibly other damages.
I am personally opposed to “no bid” contracts – I will be happy to join you in legislation to further restrict those.
But they are not something new to the Trump administration and no bid federal contracts come with a variety of constraints too.
You keep ranting that Trump is lying – as video shows the vandals caught in the act and being hauled away by national park police. YOU are burning your own credibility not Trumps. Not mine.
Are the problems at the reflecting pool ENTIRELY caused by vandals ? I have no idea – nor do you.
I do know the contractor is already making repairs AND that the contractor is on their own documenting evidence of vandalism – because if the contractor can establish vandalism – he will get paid for the repairs, otherwise he or his bonding company will have to eat the cost.
I also KNOW that the contractor has documented 217″ long roughly parallel slices in the coating that were clearly made by a razor knife. As well as numerous other instances of damage that is clearly man made.
But all this will likely get settled in court later.
Regardless the left has LOST the narative.
It is not Trump supporters who are proving Gulible – it is AGAIN left wing nuts like you.
And again – MAYBE there would be some credible debate over the reflecting pool – but left wing nuts are committing acts of vandalism all over the mall. The Lincoln memorial and washington monument did not graffetti themselves.
Your left wing nut vandals are stupid – if you want to persuade people that the problems with the reflecting pool are the result of Trump’s incompetence – which is stupid regardless as your claim is design or construction errors – and Trump is neither the designer nor the contractor, regardless – if you are shilling that narative – you do not get caught dumping algae into the reflecting pool, and you do not get caught vandalising the pool and worse still you do not vandalize the surrounding national monuments so that people see Vandals all arround and no longer buy the idiotic malinging of Trump.
“The National Park Service explicitly stated”
And YOU are to be trusted as a source ?
The park service has also arrested a number of vandals.
” Furthermore, scientists noted that the pool is so massive that dumping a jar of fertilizer or outside algae would have a completely negligible effect. ”
These would be the same “experts” who were posting here earlier trying to claims that blue paint absorbs more radiation than Grey paint
You really do not understand how badly YOU have burned your credibility.
And your claim that dumping algae would have a miniscule effect is completely absurd.
With absolutely ZERO doubt the initial source of the algae was TINY. Its Growth was exponential – because conditions were optimal. That is true NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE.
Dumping a small amount of Algae in the pool would result in the whole pool filled with algae uickly – under the right conditions.
When the pool was refilled – there was no visible algae for some time. Did the algae come fromt he supply pipes as you say ? That is certainly possible. Regardless when the pool was filled and for some time after – there was no observable algae – and then very rapidly there was alot – that is how Algae grows when conditions are right.
Were the vandals the primary source ? Who knows ? But you lost the narative when they were caught.
I would further note that it is not likely the algae in the sitting pipes OR the Algae left wing nuts dumped int eh pool that is the actual problem – but the presence of massive amounts of all the right nutrients. There are numerous condictions reuired for a rapid algae bloom – one of the more significant is nutrients. There is all kinds of competing information on that – pollution in DC water, runnoff from Farms in MD as well as stories of left wing nuts dumping fertilizer into the pool.
At some time it is likely this will get sorted – long after people have moved on.
Regardless – outside the far left YOU LOST THE NARATIVE.
And you did that to yourselves.
With respect to your claim that the contractor did a $hitty job.
That is possible – it does happen – but having ACTUALLY been in construction for MY ENTIRE LIFE – I was on constructions sites with my Father when I was 4 yrs old.
Contractors RARELY pull this kind of crap. Labor is a far more important factor in construction than materials costs,
and playing games with materials can save you TINY amounts of money at ENORMOUS risk.
The biggest controlable cost on a construction site is labor – and the biggest control on labor is time.
Get the job done uickly and get out. Most construction uality problems tie to Rushing, or even more common to stoping and starting and stopping and starting – again – get in and get the job done.
Private construction projects cost significantly less than public projects – because private owners allow the project to move significantly faster. A private project that takes 9 months start to finish takes two years as a public project, and costs 150-200% more. Why – staffing the project for more than twice as much time.
Regardless, while it is possible that the contractor used cheap materials – that is one of the least likely construction failures.
With coatings the most common causes of failure are the poor condition of the surface you are coating, in adeuate cleaning before applying the coating, and bad weather conditions immediately after you apply the coating.
We put a spray on roof coating on about a million sft of roof in the 80s. That roof coating was dirt cheap and is still in place today – 40 years later – that is absolutely incredible. BUT for ONE DAY when the roofs were being coated the humidity got too high and that roof failed in a few months. Worse still it was over the US CEO of the companies offices.
My point is that like always – you do not know what you are talking about.
“”Nobody cut a 200-350 ft gash with a knife.”
That knife would never manage to cut that length. It would dull out before making a 350 ft cut. ”
Regardless – absolutely you can cut long gashes in a coating with a knife – that is just stupid.
“Trump is making stuff up to hide the embarrassment of the failure that happened.”
No – YOU are the one making stuff up.
“One high-profile arrest was David Hearn, a former U.S. Olympic canoeist, who was out on a 52-mile bicycle ride. He stopped to look at the pool, noticed the new blue lining was already peeling off the bottom, and reached his hand into the water to feel the loose rubber.”
So he says – again there is video.
Regardless – why would you reach in to the water at the reflecting pool ?
People had ALREADY Been arrested. And Contra YOUR claim – he was TOLD by Park Police to get away from the edge of the pool and to keep his hands out – He did not listen After SEVERAL attempts to get him to get his hands out of the pool he was arrested. Again all on video.
Further Hearn is associated with other left wing nut violence separate from the reflecting pool.
Nor is Hearn the ONLY person caught.
There is video of 5 people late at night vandalizing the reflecting pool.
If you want to TRY to make the argument that vandals are a SECONDARY cause of damage – Be my guest.
But there is ZERO doubt that not only the pool but many other monuments in Washington are being vandalized by left wing nuts.
You lost the narative – and the argument that – “Our vandalism was NOT the primary cause” is not going to fly with anyone but the far left.
This is DC and it will be very hard to convict these people of anything – this is the place that released the violent kavanaugh protesots without any arrests – even returning the Axe that one put through a Senators desk, and prosecuted grannies for walking peacefully through the capital.
This is not Texas where shooting at an ICE officer results in a 100 year sentence.
But whether these people get off with a slap on the wrist – or possibly on the back
or get held accountable – YOU LOST THE NARATIVE
And it is YOUR OWN FAULT.
As to the rest of your nonsense – as usual – you misrepresent the facts, you misrepresent what I have said.
But none of it matters – whether you like it or not – people have heard about the vandals, and outside of the far left – they have lost interest in YOUR stupid narative.
It is just another of a long list of left wing nut hoaxes.
You really do not fully grasp the extent to which YOUR lies have burned your credibility.
In your post you wrote a number of very specific claims – purpotedly sourced elsewhere.
Years ago I would have googled each one and found that you were misrepresenting the facts significantly.
Most of the time today – I do not bother.
If YOU say the national park service said ….. – I am near certain they said something uite different
But this is not just about me – Most of the world is not listen to you and your ilk anymore.
Harvard/Harris just came out with this years illegal immigration poll – last year the numbers were damning – most americans want ALL illegal immigrants deported. supermajorities want criminal illegals deported.
So after a year of anti-ICE protests and riots and violence – has the left made any traction – any gains in public support ?
Accross the board the already high numbers seeking mass deportation when UP 6-8 percent.
Democrats are losing ground in the generic ballot – in the past they needed to be +4.5 to overcome the conseuences of their self gerrymandiering into major cities, But the gerrymandering wars of last you have netted Republicans a likely +11 additional seats. The odds of Ds taking the house have dropped. Things are still far from clear – it is remotely possible that D’s will take the senate – but it is eually likely that R’s will gain senate seats.
Trump’s approval according to Daily Mail is 47% – according to Rassmussen it is 44%.
It is above Bush 18months into his 2nd term and above Obama.
You have spent YEARS trashing Trump – and you have gotten NOWHERE.
There are lots of Republicans unhappy with the peace deal – they want Trump to go back and bomb the schiff out of Iran until they unconditionally surrender.
You constantly confuse the “commie Corridor” in NYC with the nation.
People HATE the left – and increasingly the democrat party.
Democrat approval is barely into double digits.
No one beleives you about anything anymore.
oh good X, we found one you’re gonna try to defend. OK take a look at the 2012 algae and let me know what you think. Shoddy work or a constant problem many have attempted to solve? Even if what you say is true (never!), WHO CARES that Trump! didn’t have the time to micromanage a company while he’s running the entire world. Only you dummys care about ballrooms cause it hurts you petty egos to have been humbled by Trump!
While you rail against a pool, Trump! is defeating all your friends worldwide and you just can’t take it. TDS much? can you imagine hating a president for a pool, a ballroom, his name on the Kennedy center, LOL he’s trolling you right into a nervous condition! Let’s hear your take on Iran again! LOL
John Say,
Well said.
Their obsession with the Reflecting Pool is another sign of their stupid and crazy.
“Their obsession with the Reflecting Pool is another sign of their stupid and crazy.”
That and Leftists are tools.
In 2012 under Obama, some $30 million was spent on reflecting pool repairs. (About $60 million in today’s dollars.) Within weeks, the pool was drained and cleaned (at a cost of some $250k in today’s dollars) because of — wait for it: algae growth.
Since its installation in the 20’s, algae growth has been a persistent problem.
Guaranteed this reflecting pool is gonna be one of the reasons dumbocrats try to impeach Trump(!).
My GUESS is that the story of the reflecting pool is complicated. That left wing vandals are not ENTIRELY responsible
But what actually matters is that the left has been LYING – shilling a false narative as well as engaging in vandalism – not just at the reflecting pool but throughout the mall.
We are approaching our 250th year celebration – for many americans this is a very big deal.
Most americans are proud to be american and proud of the country – that is true even of half of democrats.
Vandalizing the Mall to try to make the country look like schiff during our 250th celebration is really really disgusting.
X wants to argue details about how far a knife can cut and coating failure and how algae blooms – all things he knows NOTHING about – and which frankly DO NOT MATTER.
Vandals were caught – on camera and by the NPS. Even the MSM – though trying to spin has covered it.
People already distrust everything the left says and pretty much assume the media will lie about Trump.
Further – no matter what is happening with the reflecting pool – the vandalism of other monuments is undebateable.
The left is making themselves look like “pond scum”
Which si appropriate.
Did you see the 2012 reflecting pool algae CNN youtube video?
Forrest Gump had to go IN that water!
And to think we could have had Kamala for president too! Wouldn’t that have been fun?
The cackles. The word salads. “Okay guys, AI is fancy, it’s two letters.” Four yeras of that. ARGGGGHHH!
This woman….even though she/it doesn’t know what a woman is….is an affirmative action dolt and should be impeached. A true racial idiot!
Funny, a lot of people think Clarence Thomas is an ‘affirmative action dolt’.
Those people are wrong. His record speaks for itself. It is far more distinguished.
These people are precluded by the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, when their ancestors could not be admitted to become citizens by duly enacted legislation of the American Founders commencing in 1790, within the year of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
In a society of laws, the laws must have been and must be strictly adhered to.
🎤 DEBATE in 1 Hour !!!
The Steamboat Institute ~ 4:15-5:30pm
June 21, 2026 (MDT) Time in Laramie, WY
[Link] timeanddate.com/worldclock/@7174238
Jonathan Turley and Todd Wolfson:
“Is institutional neutrality necessary to preserve the university as a forum for open inquiry rather than an actor in political disputes?”
[YouTube Livestream]
https://www.youtube.com/live/6Fl7_FmoIyI
How’d it go? Slow down, Wolfson, and be easy as the old folks will die off?
SMART W0RK I was kind of worried about the entire thing. I’ve never worked from home, But Yeah, (D11) I did just join and all is good. so I will post back how it goes!_____
The benefit of Justice Jackson is that almost all but the willfully blind can see the catastrophe of DEI.
We can all thank the efforts of James Comey, William Brennan, Mark Zuckerberg, Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz, James Clapper. Barack Obama and the millions of voters that weren’t legal to vote in a federal election, for Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson.
Thank you! I was worried that maybe she was the best this nation had to offer!
Charlie KIrk might still be alive but for the “worthwhile tradeoff” idea he and others espoused, saying the current level of gun murders in America (>10,000 / year) is “worth it”. “It” meaning govt. is denied the power to disarm the population on the way to a totalitarian police state.
It’s only “worth it” if there are no better ways to rebalance public safety with 2nd Amendment rights. To give up on perfecting that balance is a total screw job for those innocents yet to be mowed down in coming years. I wish Charlie were here to discuss the “tradeoff” that cost his life and cost America his unusual gifts.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m grateful we’ve prevented an all-powerful police state in the US, and owe it to posterity to keep to that promise. I just think we could be much more concerned about lowering the cost in blood to be paid for it, and therefore be more open-minded and curious about smart policies that might save those precious lives.
His craven assassin deserves no less than the death penalty, preferably, to be Drawn and Quartered.
Firing Squad without blindfold.
Fitting
“Firing Squad without blindfold.”
Too quick. Unless they deliberately shot nominally less than lethal body parts, then left him to die squirming in his own leaking bodily fluids – that idea holds some promise of justice…
That is beneath you, pbinca. You’re parroting one of those left-wing echo chamber talking points that has no correspondence with reality.
Tightening gun laws in some way, e.g. excluding purchases by mentally unbalanced people, may reduce gun deaths. But a bigger source of unnecessary deaths is the CAFE standards which mandate lighter motor vehicles. Experts have testified that at least 2000 lives could be saved every year by removing these rules. If the 2nd Amendment is the totem of conservatives, environmentalism serves a similar religious purpose for liberals.
The guns used in the murders are no coming from individual law abiding gun owners. Vast majority of gun death are gang related and suicide. The use of privately own guns are used in legal self defense in hundreds of thousands per year. That is a fact the strong points out anti gunners have a hard row to toe.
God save us from stupid. Even the Obama admin tried to get the CDC to find that guns resulted in more crime and murders.
And they had to withold the report – because it found that guns prevented 3times as much crime. oops.
Firearms are not a public safety issue – Charlie Kirk was not killed by a Gun – he was killed by a person who hated him.
Do you think that if all guns were banned – that Kirk would be alive ? If you do your an idiot.
Despite draconian gun laws – crime has been rising all over Europe.
*”It is not simply the desire to immediately overturn prior cases but to establish a largely untethered jurisprudence driven by judicial fiat and impulse.”*
Really, I mean, what judicial system has Turley been working in for much of his life?
Do you seriously mean to say the members of the Supreme Court do not understand what “shall not be infringed” means, understanding that penalties for crimes or incapacity infringe by their nature and that public and private properties may “claim and exercise” dominion, which allows them to infringe?
The right in 2A is conditional upon “A well regulated militia being necessary…”. “Well regulated” at the time meant preventing firearms misuse (illegal use), things like habitual drunks, abusive husbands terrorizing wives, and keeping the insane (mentally ill), the immature, the senile away from firearms — in the interest of public safety.
The key historical question is “Who is supervising firearms usage?”
That responsibility was placed in mature, older adults with proven trust, leadership and responsibility — NOT in the hands of govt. officials. Keeping this supervisory role widely distributed and grass roots — to prevent over-concentration of power in a few hands — was as important as the public safety mission.
The idea that individuals should be free to plot to use firearms illegally with zero visibility or supervisory oversight from family and friends is a perversion of law and custom properly labelled as “radical individualism”. The core tenet of this belief is that individuals enjoy absolute rights decoupled from responsibilities. It is disempowering to the larger community to uphold standards and norms, placing the self-centered interests of the individual above the interests of the larger group.
The continued massacre of innocent Americans by deranged (mostly young, male) gunners shows how out-of-balance the current gun policy is. If young gun owners needed an older adult sponsor to co-sign for liability (criminal and civil) for illegal use of a firearm, we could re-establish a highly decentralized system similar in principle to the militia captains’ role in 1790s public safety. That approach would be smart in the way it adds back in the missing dose of responsibility — and completely Constitutional by a “history and tradition” standard.
1. The Prefatory Clause
Text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
Function: An absolute phrase serving as a preamble that sets the context, rather than granting a right.
2. The Operative Clause
Text: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Function: This is the main and only, binding command.
The operative clause breaks into:
Subject – the right
Action- keep and bear
Prohibition- shall not be
It’s a thing of beauty written by people with far superior intelligence than seen today.
Thanks for the capstone link.
pb,
Anon is correct in the grammar lesson. The reading of the 2nd is not difficult. If you don’t like it you can work towards amending the founding document. Amendments are difficult intentionally so no whinging🤣
Perhaps we should add “and for other purposes” at the end of the prefatory clause as a clarifying amendment.
You do that, comrade. Let us know how that goes.
Comrade? Again ANON adds ZERO!!!
DON’T TOUCH IT
At the time this nation was founded, “militia” meant the body of armed citizens that could be called upon to repel invaders or throw off an oppressive government, and “well regulated” meant the thing worked well.
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in use of their arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison
May I add to the Madison quote:
The Militia Act of 1792
“…That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, a knapsack, a shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack…”
The “right” to bear arms was an obligation for an able-bodied male 18-45 American citizen.
I don’t think that law is the Governing Law today.
It was then.
Thanks for posting that Meyer. Very helpful. Brings the original intent of the Founders into sharp focus.
Clearly the original intent, as explained by Madison, is that all citizens should arm themselves with a good musket, a few dozen balls and a quarter pound of gunpowder.
I don’t see any mention of AR-15’s, 9mm semiautomatic pistols or high capacity magazines. Clearly these are outside the original intent of the Founders and can obviously be banned or regulated.
I think any good “originalist”, including the “originalist” conservatives on SCOTUS would have no problem with citizens arming themselves with muskets, but would clearly have to draw the line at modern semi-automatic weapons, don’t you agree.
Quite clearly the original intent of the Founders does not allow for modern semi-automatic weapons.
Of course, if you believe otherwise, then you are not really an “originalist”, and are really nothing more than a hypocrite.
That is not a logical argument, nor is it a “gotcha” of Meyer, although you appear to think it’s both. Meyer quoted a statute, which you then overlaid onto the Constitution, which is totally illogical. When two legal writings use different words, different meanings are generally ascribed. So . . . the statute uses “musket” whereas the Second Amendment uses “arms” – meaning the intent was different.
Madison drafted the Second Amendment using the word “arms” rather than “muskets” on purpose. The Bill of Rights purposely uses broad language that’s not restricted to specifics of the day. The Founders, including Madison, were well aware of the possibility of technological advances and purposely drafted the language in such terms.
For example: the First Amendment does not mention specific religions, specific means of communication, or specific types of media. It refers instead to “freedom of speech,” the “exercise of religion,” and “the press.” The Fourth Amendment talks about people being “secure” without mentioning specific ways the government might intrude into individual privacy. Although searches and seizures would have been physical – e.g., bursting into a home to search it, stopping a person on the street and rifling through his pockets – using the generalized “secure” also protects against other ways of government prying.
The Second Amendment is no different. As noted above, it purposely uses the word “arms” rather than naming specific types of guns, even though Madison was well aware of how to list out particular firearm types if that had been his goal.
oldman
The “originalists” especially the “originalists” on SCOTUS are vehement in proclaiming that the Constitution must be interpreted based on its meaning at the time it was written.
Scalia famously said, “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.”
Scalia and the originalists that followed him, Thomas and Alito, believe the Constitution is dead, with a meaning fixed when it written. They have always said that the Constitution is not a living document that can be interpreted in light of modern changes in society.
We can divine the “original” intent of the Founders with regard to the second amendment from Madison’s writings. The Constitution may use different words, but the INTENT is crystal clear from Madison’s writing. And, according to the “originalists”, it is the INTENT at the time of its writing that matters, not modern interpretations.
The clear intent expressed by Madison is that muskets are just fine. If you want to interpret Madison’s writing as covering modern weapons, then you are not an “originalist”. To interpret the Constitution in a modern context is to treat it as a living document, which is the exact antithesis of the stated beliefs of the “originalists”. It is treating the Constitution as a living document.
So the “originalists’, like you, Thomas and Alito are being profoundly hypocritical by proclaiming the Constitution to be a dead document that is not subject to modern interpretation, while simultaneously doing EXACTLY that by re-interpreting the Founders clear intent in a modern context.
You can’t have it both ways.
Hell no, quite the opposite. After a person serves their sentence they are a restored citizens.
“I don’t see any mention of AR-15’s, 9mm semiautomatic pistols or high capacity magazines. Clearly these are outside the original intent of the Founders and can obviously be banned or regulated.”
Why do you think this is clear ?
There was no internet, no radio or TV, no social media, no cell phones – yet the use of all of these is as protected by the first amendment as Ar-15’s by the 2nd.
In 1787 the 2A allowed people to have the best weapons available at the time.
The question is NOT why does the @A protect AR-15’s today – but why can congress ban machine guns today ?
BTW TODAY you can perfectly legally own a Cannon or a Gattling Gun.
“I don’t see any mention . . .”
And I don’t see any mention of microphones or computers in 1A. So based on your calcified “reasoning,” 1A only applies to speech expressed using quill pens and paper handmade from cloth (the tools of the time).
“Clearly these are outside the original intent of the Founders . . .”
“Original intent” means the *principles* articulated in the Bill of Rights. Yours is a ham-fisted attempt to reduce those *principles* to the particular technology of the time. The Founders focused on the timeless and the future of government action. You, and the rest of your Leftist usurpers of rights, stare at a moment in time.
I did not see the word musket used anywhere. Tell us why these great men with more knowledge than you or I, who were very specific, didn’t use the word musket. Find contemporaneous statements at the time that an AR-15 cannot be used.
I searched for a few CONTEMPORANEOUS statements by well-known people of the time (and one modern one), none of which specified muskets. Can you find any contemporaneous statements saying only muskets could be used, or AR-15’s were not allowed? You can’t because you are hallucinating, trying to prove an ignorant point. Arms are any arms. They are permissible to protect the people from an ambitious government.
Being armed: no weapon mentioned: armed is a generic term.
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition…”— James Madison, Federalist No. 46 (1788)
No restrictions on the use of arms: Since swords were mentioned not guns does that mean only swords could be carried.
“Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
— Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette (1788)
No restrictions:
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Draft Virginia Constitution (1776)
Scalia talking to the frivolous and ignorant anonymi.
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way… Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”— Justice Antonin Scalia, D.C. v. Heller
Since this appears to be a definitional problem, let me add Noah Webster’s (1787–1828) definition from his original dictionary.
ARMS, noun plural. “Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”
That definition defines arms based on function and portability, not their mechanical configuration.
Since the ignorant anonymi want more proof, let’s hear what Madison said from his grave.
We protected the right, not the hardware. If you can’t grasp the difference between a fundamental liberty and the machine used to exercise it, I honestly regret giving you the right to vote. But unfortunately for both of us, the First Amendment protects your right to be loud and wrong across all technology.
When you understand the composition of that “well regulated” militia, you understand that is not the primary clause in the Second amendment. Who is in that well regulated group? Gang bangers, crooks, kidnappers, bank robbers and criminals of all types.
Something wrong with that? They go into war don’t they?
“The right in 2A is conditional upon “A well regulated militia being necessary…””
Nope the militial clause is NOT a conditional nor did well regulated mean preventing firearm misuse.
It meant working as expected.
Arguably there were more alcohol problems in 1787 that today – Everyone drank.
With certianty there were more abusive husbands and every male from the age of 16-65 was required to own a gun.
And no there were no consequential “public safety” laws regarding firearms. There were no red flag laws.
Our founders did not even bar criminals from owning firearms.
Kbj is founding a new nation and unburdening the burden of the history and tradition metric.
More KBJs to come if the Dems pack the Court.
You can thank “Crazy Abe” Lincoln for the destruction of the United States of America.
He told you so in his Lyceum Address:
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”
Lincoln was the AUTHOR and FINISHER.
LincolnDerangementSyndrome Anon repeats almost daily!!
Brilliant!
Simply Brilliant, Einstein!
Do contribute when you are so motivated.
MORON ANON(and a DF) posts again!!
More brilliance from the dunce. Go back to your corner, fool. You have nothing to offer.
BRILLIANT ANON!! YOU can type while sucking your thumb!!!
Yes, do please continue your dazzling and unassailable rebuttal.
You are indubitably, nay, manifestly a distinguished professor of wit and refutation.
And thank you for reading again.
Bring up Lincoln again!! ha ha ha
I’m guessing you’re ~ 12 years old? C’mon, give it up, admit it and we’ll try to help you grow up. In the meantime, here’s a grownup suggestion: stop the silly snide remarks and name calling.
Just stooping to your level ANON!! You post daily CRAP!!
He’s trying to help those in the Cult of Lincoln escape and lean to have an occasional objective thought. I know it’s hard. Keep trying, practice, breath the fresh air of freedom from slavish devotion to the single worst POTUS ever.
learn …
Lincoln was a despot, a tyrant, and the blood of Americans who died in the Civil War, both combatants and civilians, is on his head.
A. Lincoln cared little about the slaves and a whole lot about Northern hegemony within his American System framework. He started the war and unleashed bloody hell on the Southern states waging unlimited war, burning, looting, murdering his fellow Americans.
Nearly every ill we suffer today at the hands of a gigantic, Frankenstein, central government can be laid at the feet of dishonest A. Lincoln.
The article is on Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson; not Lincoln– you DUMB BOZO!!
It is a sure sign of a limited intellect that ends his sentences with sophomoric name calling.
I specifically commented on his comment about A. Lincoln, the despot, the worst POTUS in the history of this republic.
Take a deep breath, maybe read a book? You might like it! Here’s one you could try:
https://mises.org/library/book/real-lincoln
AGAIN TURLEYS ARTICLE IS ON Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson!!! You can’t figure that out?? Maybe bring up Lincoln another time???? DUH
The imbecilic affirmative action project, Kentaji Brown Jackson, wouldn’t even be here if not for the wholly unconstitutional and anti-American “Crazy Abe,” and she’ll be gone when “Crazy Abe” is finally reversed and struck down in the same manner as Roe v. Wade.
Secession was not prohibited and was fully constitutional, and everything Lincoln and his successors did, subsequent to denying secession, was also unconstitutional, all the way through the anti-American “Reconstruction Amendments” supported by Lincoln’s fellow traveler, Karl Marx.
The Lincoln Cultus cannot hear you, me, or anyone who doesn’t genuflect at the Lincoln Memorial. It’s idolatry by any other name.
Marx apparently wrote Lincoln complementing him. Fitting …
Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson is the topic today!! TOO TOUGH FOR YOU TO FIGURE OUT?????
You are a coward if you can post an opinion under your own name
I have to say, this Jackson concurrence does not sound that radical to me. While she prefers means-ends analysis to the historical tradition approach, Breyer and others also felt that way. And the historical tradition approach does have its problems, especially after Rahimi which focused attention not on the analogues themselves but the principles that support them.
There are many good reasons to challenge Jackson’s jurisprudence, but I don’t see this as being one of them. And she couldn’t even get Kagan on board. She joined Alito’s concurrence in the judgment. She no doubt realises that the historical tradition ship has sailed.
By the way, Clarence Thomas often writes separately when he thinks the court has made a doctrinal error, even when there is little hope of changing it. He even did that in this case, saying the commerce clause could not authorise Congress to pass the law in question. No one joined him.
Pretty good.
Means ends is just a relabeling of Rational Basis which is pretty much no protection at all for a right.
Heller established Strict Scrutiny as the basis for the 2A – just like every other enumerated right in the bill of rights.
McDonald used the 14th amendment to extend that to the states – again the last enumerated right to be protected by the 14th amendment.
Means ends is a million miles shy of Strict Scrutiny.
Further the entire debate is stupid – First every time the left attempt to ban guns – people go out and buy Millions of whatever is being banned or restricted. We now have more guns than people.
You are as likely to get away with banning guns as you are banning cars.
You do not have enough police to enforce any consequential broad firearms regulation.
And if you did and only one in 10,000 gun owners resisted – you would have 40,000 violent conflicts with law enforcement.
The left has gone Ape schiff over the attempted deportation of at most 1/10th as many people as own guns in the US.
We have actually deported about 1/100th of the gun owners – and had violence all over the country in response.
Do you really think that gun owners are going to go more quietly than left wing nuts ?
John Say keeps rearing his legal ignorance.
John Say confidently asserts that District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) established strict scrutiny for the Second Amendment. This is an objective, easily disprovable falsehood.
Justice Antonin Scalia—the majority author in Heller—explicitly declined to adopt strict scrutiny. In fact, lower courts spent the next 14 years trying to figure out what test to use precisely because Heller left the level of scrutiny completely blank.
Heller, Scalia explicitly listed a variety of modern gun regulations that are completely constitutional—such as banning guns in schools or government buildings, and restricting possession by felons and the mentally ill. He did not subject these to a strict scrutiny test; he stated they were “presumptively lawful” based on standard legal reasoning. John is aggressively attributing a rule to Scalia that Scalia explicitly refused to write.
He argues that “Means-ends is a million miles shy of Strict Scrutiny” and claims it is just a sneaky relabeling of “Rational Basis.”
He’s been thoroughly refuted on these false claims. Saying strict scrutiny is separate from means-end scrutiny is like saying a Chevrolet is separate from an automobile. Strict scrutiny is a type of means-end scrutiny.
Means-end scrutiny is the overarching category for how courts analyze government actions against rights. It consists of three tiers: Rational Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny. By arguing that means-end scrutiny is a “left-wing plot” to erode rights, John is accidentally arguing that strict scrutiny itself is a left-wing plot, revealing he has no idea how these legal tests are structurally categorized in American jurisprudence.
You are pounding your chest about Heller establishing ‘strict scrutiny’ when Antonin Scalia explicitly refused to do any such thing in that very opinion. To make matters funnier, you’re claiming that means-end scrutiny is ‘a million miles shy of strict scrutiny,’ which is an incredible statement given that strict scrutiny is quite literally a subset of means-end scrutiny. That’s the equivalent of screaming that a square is a million miles shy of being a rectangle.
Since your ’23 Supreme Court Rulesbook’ turned out to be a total hallucination, you’ve now shifted to painting a wild picture of 40,000 violent standoffs between gun owners and the police. John, nobody is trying to ban your car or your guns in this thread. We are talking about whether a guy who smokes a joint should go to federal prison for owning a rifle. You are moving the goalposts into a completely different timezone because you can’t admit that your idealized historical test has been thoroughly rejected by your own favorite conservative justices. Put down the tactical gear, step away from the keyboard, and actually read Heller before you accidentally declare Antonin Scalia a left-wing operative.
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
Heller.
Throughout Heller while Scalia does not committ to a standard of review – he repeatedly Rejects every standard of review that differs with all other enumerated rights.
As to your claim that he allows for some limits on that right – READ HELLER – No Right is without limit. But limits on enumerated rights must meet the highest standard of review.
Atleast a dozen times Scalia openly states the 2nd amendment is to be treated no different from the first.
AGAIN READ HELLER
Clearly you have done nothing but cherry pick a few phrase someone fed you.
I would note that Scalia and thje majorityu explicitly rejected several other relabeled versions of Means-ends – not merely rejecting them but noting that such nonsense effectrively means their is no rights and converts a right into something at the discretion of judges – which has been my point from end to end regarding all of this.
Judges do NOT decide what is a good idea or a bad one – they decide what is lawful and constitutional, and they do so using a consistent set of rules that if scrupulously followed always produce the same result.
That is the rule of law.
You clearly have NOT read heller – as noted before – Scalia AND THE MAJORITY rejected Stevens proposed relabeled Means-ends testing.
Scalia rejected it not merely with regard to Heller and the 2a – but totally completgely in its ENTIRETY for Any purpose.
Judges doi not get to decide whether something is a good idea or a bad one. They are limited to determining lawful and constituitioinallity and they must do so through a textual and historic process of analysis that is independent of their personal ideology.
“Heller, Scalia explicitly listed a variety of modern gun regulations that are completely constitutional”
And he similar noted that first amendment rights are not unlimited.
You are under the delusion – common to left wing nuts – that any allowed infringement on a right allows ALL infringement on rights.
Again READ HELLER – that is nonsense.
“such as banning guns in schools or government buildings, and restricting possession by felons and the mentally ill”
No one disagrees with those.
“He did not subject these to a strict scrutiny test; he stated they were “presumptively lawful” based on standard legal reasoning.”
He did not subject them to ANY test at all – because they were not questions before him.
While all the restrictions mentioned would pass strict scrutiny – stating that something is presumptively lawful in a opinion on an unrelated matter is NOT dispositive in anyway on whether it is ACTUALLY lawful.
I would be shocked if Scalia or any other justice found the limits Scalia mentioned unconstitutional – but we can not know that, until those specific issues are before the court.
Every time Scalia said that 2A rights are not limited he ALSO said just as 1A rights are not limited.
“John is aggressively attributing a rule to Scalia that Scalia explicitly refused to write.”
Again – please choose your words with more care – misrepresentation is LYING.
Strict scrutiny is not a rule – it is a standard of review.
Scalia and the majority explicitly rejected a relabling of Means -ends which is the same as rational basis.
And he repeatedly set the standard for the 2A as the same as the 1A.
But you are correct that he did not explicitly establish strict scrutiny as the standard of review – he implicitly did – he Explicitly rejected rational basis – or means ends, or whatever name Stevens relabeled it as.
“Saying strict scrutiny is separate from means-end scrutiny is like saying a Chevrolet is separate from an automobile.”
No it is like saying a chevrolet is not a cow.
” Strict scrutiny is a type of means-end scrutiny.” Nope
“Means-end scrutiny is the overarching category for how courts analyze government actions against rights.”
Nope.
“It consists of three tiers: Rational Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny.”
Nope – each of these is completely independent and means – ends is just relabeled rational basis.
YOU have explicitly cited KBJ’s definition of means ends – and it is identical to rational basis.
Rational basis review is for laws that are rationally related to a govenrment interests – such as Public Safety.
It does not EVER apply to fundimental rights and even more so it NEVER applies to enumerated rights.
You and KBJ (and Stevens disent in heller) are just trying to return the 2A to an inapplicable standard of review that govenrment ALWAYS winds.
Regardless there is not a chance in the world that Hermani meets Strict Scrfutiny.
And if you stupidly wish to argue that “means-ends” is just strict scrutiny by a different name – then the debate is over.
While means ends is NOT strict scrutiny – and Hermini could not possibly meet strict scrutiny
I have zero problems with you calling Strict Scrutiny Means -ends – so long as you do so consistently forever, and so long as you do not use that relabling to change the requirements that a law must meet to pass strict scrutiny review.
“By arguing that means-end scrutiny is a “left-wing plot” to erode rights, John is accidentally arguing that strict scrutiny itself is a left-wing plot, revealing he has no idea how these legal tests are structurally categorized in American jurisprudence.”
ROFL
Permanently Barring people convicted of Marijuana possession from “bearing arms” absolutely positively can not meet strict scrutiny.
“You are pounding your chest about Heller establishing ‘strict scrutiny’ when Antonin Scalia explicitly refused to do any such thing in that very opinion.”
Again FALSE – you keep misrepresenting what people write. Scalia did NOT explicitly reject strict Scrutiny. He did almost explicitly reject rational basis, and he implicitly specified strict scrutiny by repeatedly demanding that the 2A be treated the same as the 1A – over and over and over and over.
In fact the very restrictions that YOU listed as Scalia stating they were presumptively lawful – was in a paragrapph where he ALSO listed limits on the first amendment that are lawful. NO right is absolute. Further while the specific limitations Scalia mentioned are more than “presumptively lawful – they have been upheld in subsequent cases, “presumptively lawful – was not part of the holding – and even if it had been the phrase presumptively lawful is explicitly intended to REMOVE that conclusion from the holding. Pre3sumptively lawful means – I beleive these are lawful – But that is NOT AT Issue in this case and if you want an authoratative answer you need to bring a case against these restriction.
You CONSTANTLY misrepresent what others say.
” To make matters funnier, you’re claiming that means-end scrutiny is ‘a million miles shy of strict scrutiny,’ which is an incredible statement given that strict scrutiny is quite literally a subset of means-end scrutiny. That’s the equivalent of screaming that a square is a million miles shy of being a rectangle.”
Nope – means ends is rebranded rational basis – it is a far lower standard of review with no overlap with strict scrutiny.
Using yuour analogy again – Strict scrutiny is a square and mens ends is a circle – they are both geometric figures – that is all.
“Since your ’23 Supreme Court Rulesbook’ turned out to be a total hallucination, ”
I link it TWICE. I also quoted a couple of paragraphs from it.
Are you actually arguing that there is not such thing as “the rules for statutory construction” ?
As noted before – this is Ancient legal requirements.
In fact Scalia and Ganer wrote a book about them – explaining them in detail.
In Scalia’s cannons – there are 57 rules
To be Clear Scalia’s rules are NOT identical to those of the supreme court – those of the supreme court are BINDING – Scalias are not.
“Scalia and Garner’s canons of construction are a set of interpretive rules designed to provide greater certainty and predictability in legal interpretation. Their book, “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts,” outlines fifty-seven canons that emphasize the importance of the text’s ordinary meaning and context.”
“The need to interpret written rules is as old as writing itself. However, the American approach to statutory construction has deep roots in English Common Law. Early English judges believed that they were discovering a pre-existing, “natural” law, and statutes were seen as mere corrections to this common law. This meant statutes were often interpreted very narrowly. ”
US Law explained.
Books – such as Scalia and Garners are written on this – and statutory construction is a required course at most law schools.
“you’ve now shifted to painting a wild picture of 40,000 violent standoffs between gun owners and the police. John, nobody is trying to ban your car or your guns in this thread.”
I have not shifted to anything – Just making a point.
No one outside the left misunderstands that the goal of the left is the confiscation of all firearms. And please do not try to claim otherwise – there is not a single gun law that those on the left do not support. Since Heller and McDonald – myriads of blue states have passed idiotic and stupid gun laws.
Bruen BTW is NOT some special precident it is just Thomas Telling the state of New York – “cut this stupid nonsense out – your law was unconstitutional and you knew it” Bruen was 4 years ago and New Your is STILL fighting to impose gun laws that it was told REPEATEDLY – By Scotus and numerous other federal courts were unconstitutional
I forget the name of the series in CA that has had to be sent back to CA courts repeatedly – and is STILL oputstanding because even though b**ch slapped by SCOTUS Twice – it is the 9th circuit and they are still pretending that they are not part of the US nor subject to the supreme court.
VA is in the process of the same nonsense – with stupid gunlaws that stand no chance of being upheld – and VA has atleast twice been told – this law is DOA and is STILL trying to push it.
When you claim you do not wish to ban guns NO ONE BELEIVES YOU.
You FAWN over the UK and AU and NZ – which have done so – or at least pretended to – to no effect.
Criminals have no problems getting guns anywhere. Prior to the US constitution – the UK and US were pretty much identical and headed the same way on gun rights.
But wealthy land owners in the UK sought to ban any hunting they did not control and so in the 19th century the UK headed off in a different direction and has been insane ever since. Now they have banned knives – well except for the sharp cerimonial religious ones used to murder Henry Nowak while the police handcuffed the victim and told him he was the perpetrator as he bled out.
Regardless my POINT – ios not just about the violent disaster that you would provoke if you got your way – but how STUPID you are about it.
The 90s AWB – banned scary looking weapons – it had absolutely nothing to do with whether those weapons were dangerous or not.
The current VA law is has added “cool looking” to as well as “scarry looking”
But then you can notg actually ban weapons because they are dangerous – That is the POINT of firearms – thney are intended to be DANGEROUS
You can not defend yourself against a violent criminal using cotton balls or a pillow.
“We are talking about whether a guy who smokes a joint should go to federal prison for owning a rifle.”
No we are talking about what infringements on 2nd amendment rights are permissible – and what is the standard for determining that.
In is justice KBJ engaged in the same idiotic word games that left wing nuts always do – particularly when guns are involved.
My point regarding YOUR nonsense – is that those of you on the left NEVER think about what you are saying or doing.
I completelyh agree with YOU and Scalia that people with mental health issues should not have firearms.
And if the question is are such laws constitutional – the answer is YES.
But we have real world data that demonstrates the right answer is no. If you bar firearms to people with mental health issues – then people stop seeking help.
Is that what you want ?
At the same time if I was a judge and I was asked to rule on the constitutionality of a mental health red flag law – the answer (depending on details) is probably yes it is.
It is NOT for the courts to decide if a law is a good idea or not, or if it will work. It is only for them to decide if it is constitutional.
it is up to the legislature to not do something stupid.
“You are moving the goalposts into a completely different timezone because you can’t admit that your idealized historical test has been thoroughly rejected by your own favorite conservative justices.”
???
Point out the stupidity of the left and how even when you manage to get what you want – it works out badly. Has exactly What to do with the remainder of your stupid remark ?
What you call an idealized historical test – is again just a standard part of statutory construction.
ONE part of that is – a law that infringes on a right that is very similar top similar laws that existed at the time that right was enumerated – is likely a legitimate infringement. While one that is not – does not pass muster.
Nothing idealized at all.
Who is my favorite conservative Justice – I would love to know, since I do not have a favorite and disagree with the best of them approximately equally.
But once again we get bad mind riding from a left wing nut.
” Put down the tactical gear, step away from the keyboard, and actually read Heller before you accidentally declare Antonin Scalia a left-wing operative.”
ROFL
I have ACTUALLY read it. I have CITED it and parts of it – often the same parts you did – EXCEPT fulling in context, which removes your distorted twists.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
Clearly YOU have not read it.
If you want to “resolve contemporary problems” by creating new interpretations of the Constitution without being bound by long-decided precedent or historical evidence of the intent behind a particular clause, then feel free to work toward getting Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment so it will read the way you like and can be interpreted the way you prefer. That is what a “living Constitution” really is – one that can be amended to reflect new contemporary norms. It should not be one where judges can just decide Constitutional issues based on their feelings or personal or political preferences. Get the whole country on board through the amendment process or be content with how it has been interpreted throughout our nation’s history. Those are the only proper options.
“That is what a “living Constitution” really is”
To the leftist idiots a “living constitution” is more like a shapeless heap of quivering protoplasm that can be molded into any form that best suits whatever they decide the most important of their various nefarious objectives might be on any given day.
Link to today’s debate? ☺
Après moi, le déluge.
Oui. C’est vrai.
Black robe fatigue
Pretty good 🙂 Sounds Darren-y.
🙂
Interpret, modify, and amend; do anything and everything but simply impartially ensure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law, aka “judge.”
This is an antithetical and constitutional usurpation and exercise of legislative power when ONLY the judicial power, the power to judge, is vested in that branch.
This judicial overreach is felonious and impeachable.