Below is my column in the New York Post on the historic ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, reinforcing the authority of presidents in managing the executive branch. After more than 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor is dead and Trump’s legacy is established on the expansion of presidential powers. The other winner is President Franklin D. Roosevelt who was right all along: he had the right to fire William E. Humphrey (right) as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission in 1933.
Here is the column:
On Monday, Donald Trump sealed one of the most lasting parts of his legacy. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court reaffirmed and reinforced the authority of presidents to determine who will carry out the functions of the Executive Branch. In so doing, the Court overruled one of the long-standing limits of presidential power in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
Humphrey’s Executor is hardly a household name. Yet the demise of the 1935 case represents a seismic shift in the balance of power within our constitutional system.
In this case, the court decided that President Trump had the right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.
For decades, scholars and jurists have questioned where the Court found the authority for Congress to create a hybrid creature like the FTC — part legislative and part executive, with officials protected from removal by a president.
Various presidents have chafed at this limiting doctrine. But Trump pushed aggressively against the precedent and appointed three justices who would prove critical in ending Humphrey’s Executor after more than 90 years.
In a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled that the president could not fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
Both the win and the loss were vintage Trump. The win because he was unrelenting in his assertion of inherent powers.
The loss in part because he is equally unrelenting in his use of social media to carry out policy.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that more than a tweet and conclusory letter is demanded in such a removal from the Federal Reserve, which has always held a unique position in the government and prior cases.
Roberts wrote, “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment — an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
That does not mean that Cook cannot be replaced, but it requires due process, not a “thank you for your attention.”
It is hard to overstate the transformation of the new executive branch during the Trump terms.
The Slaughter case follows the Loper Bright decision, which ended the huge deference given to government agencies “interpreting” law to their own ends.
Past Republican presidents have criticized the ““administrative state” that was iron-plated under the prior Chevron doctrine.
The result is that our government will remain markedly different from that of many of our allies, particularly the United Kingdom. In the UK, ministries operate with a considerable degree of independence and insularity. It is difficult for a prime minister to force through major changes when opposed by ministry civil servants.
The United States has long maintained that our elections have consequences and that presidents should be able to carry out the mandates of voters.
Trump came to power with a pledge to transform our government by making it smaller and more responsive, as well as to carry out sweeping reforms in areas such as immigration enforcement. He was stymied by lower courts imposing dozens of injunctions and even federal officials who gummed up the works.
The Court has cleared much of that away for the president, and he carried out a wholesale house cleaning of agencies.
It is important to remember that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the next president is a Gavin Newsom or a Kamala Harris, the same powers will be used to reverse these policies.
The greatest danger, however, is the pledge of Democratic leaders to make the one impulsive change that could endanger the entire enterprise.
Various Democrats have called for packing of the Court with an instant liberal majority. Such a move would destroy an institution that has served as a critical moderating element in our constitutional system for 250 years.
Of course, Democrats did not balk at the Court reversing long-standing precedent when the results aligned with their views. Now, they would pack the Court to force through an agenda currently considered unconstitutional, including reversing many of the decisions in the last 10 years.
The truth is fully on display this week. This Court has exercised considerable independence. That includes repeatedly ruling against, and being repeatedly denounced by, this president.
The great philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville described this country as “a land of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion and every change seems an improvement.”
We will remain an impatient people, but the only thing that should not change is the constitutional framework for change, including the institutional integrity of the Court itself.
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.“
The Supreme Court arbitrarily and high-criminally amended the Constitution and must be impeached and convicted.
“Jurisdiction” is not qualified in the 14th Amendment and, therefore, constitutes FULL jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction, the FULL jurisdiction, and nothing but the FULL jurisdiction, so help you God.
Illegal aliens, Chinese Birth Tourists et al. are not “subject to the [FULL] jurisdiction thereof.”
They may be subject to territorial jurisdiction, but they are not subject to the unqualified and full jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court failed to exercise JUDICIAL POWER and, rather, illicitly exercised LEGISLATIVE POWER.
No power to amend the Constitution is vested in the judicial branch; the judicial power means to judge only whether actions comport with law.
The Supreme Court engaged in treason, as “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” by supporting “Chinese Birth Tourism,” illegal alien invaders, etc.
Xi Jinping and Chinese officials know they are the enemy, while the U.S. Supreme Court may not, which is entirely implausible.
If visitors to the country are not subject to the jurisdiction, what crimes can they commit that will be excused from? What laws are they immune from?
entering the country illegally inside their mother’s womb is excused but mommy is a human smuggler.
They played the long multi-generational game and got one past our Constitution. The preggo invasion has started!
Try Neuralink.
“THROW OFF”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Tom Kean, Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania, has finally returned to Congress after an unexplained 4 month absence.
He had been hospitalized for severe depression.
Further proof that supporting fascist authoritarianism is either bad for one’s mental health or one has to be mentally ill to support it.
The next time a bill comes up that would support mental health treatment, he’ll vote against it.
Of course he will.
He voted for that Big Ugly Bill that took away health insurance for millions of other Americans suffering from depression.
Must be nice to have the best insurance and health care available!
Republicans love 2 things.
Taking full advantage of taxpayer paid services and cutting services for taxpayers.
I can’t think of a single employer who would give their employees four months of paid time off to get their heads back on straight.
Especially if they don’t explain their absence until after they come back to work
Left-wing anonymous trolls have reached a new low, which I didn’t think was possible.
At least the nut should space out his one-fool back and forth to make it more credible.
It takes a while to recover from an empathectomy. Gotta dig it all out or the empathy can return.
Evil, heartless left-wing commenters yammering on about empathy? Is that meant to be ironic?
Charlie Kirk once said, “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.”
Kirk was correct. Empathy, the way it is used now, is suicidal for a civilization. A woman in NYC was so empathetic that she refused to press charges against a Black man who mugged her. That man therefore stayed at large and murdered an innocent man. The murder would not have happened but for her empathy. There is a town in Michigan in which the woke inhabitants were so empathetic toward the Muslim immigrants that they voted them into the town council. The town has now banned the pride flag. Queers for Palestine is empathetic toward people who would throw them off buildings. When empathy replaces logical thought, a civilization cannot survive for long.
And when he was killed his fans demanded empathy for his tragic death. He didn’t deserve empathy. Empathy is for the weak.
Name a fan who demanded “empathy for his tragic death” – a phrase that doesn’t even make any sense. Death is not a person the another person can have empathy for. Have you ever learned the English language?
Some Republicans rape children, therefore all Republicans are rapists of children?
Or so that line of reasoning leads.
A person who is arrested for a mugging will eventually be released. Whatever the motive of a mugging victim, the killer will be a killer regardless. Blaming empathy for that is something that a psychopath would believe.
^ Incomprehensible gibberish combined with abject denial. The victim would not have been killed but for the misguided “empathy” of a liberal white woman. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. Liberal white women – the destroyers of civilizations.
Tom Kean voted to gut affordable healthcare for Americans.
Tom gets great healthcare paid for by the very American taxpayers who have been denied affordable care.
Get a job. Buy yourself a healthcare policy. It’s America. You’re free to take care of yourself.
OT – Re: the SCOTUS ruling upholding “birthright citizenship”. I find the basis of Roberts’ reasoning on jurisdiction exercise via exercised sovereignty highly questionable, but the outcome was not unexpected. Rand Paul has proposed a Constitutional amendment banning that right. I would like to see such an amendment passed and ratified, but I think the chances of that happening are exceedingly slim. However, for the sake of argument, why could a Republican majority Congress not tackle the issue from a different direction – an “outside the box” approach, as it were? A foreign citizen obviously cannot give birth in the US unless she is physically present here. How about requiring all non-citizen females entering the country as tourists or for other purposes of shorter than 9 months duration to sign a document declaring that they are not pregnant (possibly backed up by tests)? Any non-citizen female admitted for purposes that could exceed 9 months duration would be required to sign an additional document declaring that she will not become pregnant while in the US. False statements on those documents would be made crimes subject to severe punishment. That is pretty draconian, and under better circumstances I would never favor that kind of approach, but it seems like it could effectively address the problem, and afaik such requirements are within the Constitutional authority of Congress to pass, and the Executive to enforce, without requiring an amendment, or being subject to SCOTUS rejection. And just maybe passing such a law, or showing the realistic threat of same, would move the needle on the possibility of an amendment to address the subject in a reasonable manner once and for all. YMMV.
Hmmmmmm yes, yes. Every foreign born woman upon entering the country shall IMMEDIATELY subject themselves to a pregnancy test. Here’s another problem though – how do we KNOW they are REALLY women – what with all the TRANS FREAKS out and about these days. Therefore – every foreign born woman upon entering the country SHALL FIRST be stripped naked and examined to ensure they have female genitalia AND THEN undergo a pregnancy test. Yesss – that’s much better.
Try to make sense. If the objective is to eliminate birthright citizenship, why would it matter if a female impersonator attempting entry failed a pregnancy test? Are you contending that we are at some kind of risk because foreign female impersonators will have babies here who are declared citizens? Seriously?
P..S. I am aware that there has been at least one bill introduced to modify the interpretation of the “jurisdiction” qualification in the 14th, but I am extremely skeptical that would pass Constitutional muster if scrutinized by SCOTUS. Separation of powers reserves interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court; Congress can only make laws that are consistent with what that document already stipulates, not change it through “interpretation” embodied in legislation. Hence, my suggestion, which does not redefine any part of the 14th, it merely imposes an additional requirement (of an unusual kind, I must admit) on women seeking to enter the country.
How might President Mamdani staff the regulatory agencies?
Or President Cortez?
Trumpers cheering yesterday’s decision should think ahead a few years.
Trumpers cheering yesterday’s decision should think ahead a few years.
This is the kind of moronic media talk we’ve grown used to. No Trump supporter was unaware that a left-wing Dem could one day be president. That has been part of the discussion since day one. Trump supporters like myself tend to favor Scotus rulings that are solidly based on the actual text and meaning of the Constitution. By contrast, it is a left-wing trait not to care about that and focus solely on the political result of the ruling. It is also an exercise in projection to assume everyone else only cares about the political results, as you have done.
Old man, the constitution is like the Bible. Any fool can find a passage to support their views.
The Constitution is a legal document. Like other legal writings, it sometimes needs to be interpreted. There are sound ways to engage in that interpretive exercise, and illegitimate ways. Treating it as a “living document” that changes with the times is illegitimate, IMO. The most valid way is to seek an understanding of what the text actually means within the context in which it was written.
In the context in which it was written, the second amendment was to prevent the creation and maintenance of a standing army. To have every citizen capable of repelling a foreign invasion and guarantee no army under the control of the President existed to potentially be used against Americans.
Now the National Guard is patrolling the National Mall, arresting people for touching water, at the behest of the President.
The problem with your argument on 2A is the way it’s structured: it has a prefatory clause, and an operative clause. The meaning of the operative clause is the only thing that matters because the prefatory clause, while giving some historical insight, does not change the meaning of the actual words of the operative clause.
Militia service was mandatory; every man was compelled to keep and bear arms, directly or effectively, by law.
And?
And “Voila,” you have the 2nd Amendment, specifically, the operative clause.
Oh, okay. I thought you were suggesting the mandatory nature of militia service somehow affected the proper interpretation of the operative clause today. But you’re just saying that “voila” we have it.
WTF ? Second Amendment?’
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to ‘raise and support Armies.’ This is what was used to establish the National Guard as a military reserve organization under both state and federal control–to control DOMESTIC insurgence. Second Amendment????????????
“In the context in which it was written, the second amendment was to prevent the creation and maintenance of a standing army.”
What??? Said no constitutional scholar, ever.
agree
“the constitution is like the Bible. Any fool can find a passage to support their views.”
Does that mean that there is a passage in it that would support someone claiming that they could murder you with impunity? Please point it out!
Trump supporters were unaware that Trump would start wars with seven countries, jack the price of fuel and energy and groceries and build monuments to himself rather than help Americans.
All they are ever aware of is Trump is making poor people suffer and suffering people hurt worse. He extracted billions of dollars from Venezuela and was so gracious to offer $150M after the massive earthquakes killed thousands, surely something a typical Trump supporter looks at and wants to know “Why can’t Trump hurt impoverished Americans that way?”
Trump has stopped eight wars, but his biggest contribution to peace has been to defang the most war-mongering country in the world: Iran. Whose stated and consistent goal is to get nuclear weapons and start World War III, by using them the moment they get them on Israel and America. They have proved their ICBMs are capable of reaching every major capital in Europe and that the range increases every year. Oil prices are $70/barrel, inflation is way down compared to Biden, the borders are closed, America is energy independent, and girls’ sports are free of creeper males.
WINNING!
I was unaware that Trump! would have this much success. Iran hobbled with clock ticking, Closed border, win after win in court, DEI dead, economy booming, gas cheap enough as long as the IR is paying for it, fraud fighting, dumbocrats flailing, AND commie insulting on top for lolz. My head is spinning as he has surpassed what I thought possible. and all our adversaries heads too and yours but that’s due to your incurable TDS. Rent-free buddy, rent-free. There’s still a bare spot on Mt. Rushmore
Gas is $6 in CA, would you impeach “Goofy” Gavin Newsom?
Booooooooo hooooooooo.
NPR reports Justice Alito has announced his retirement. They got one small detail wrong: Alito did not announce his retirement. Ooops!
https://nypost.com/2026/06/30/us-news/npr-erroneously-reports-samuel-alito-is-retiring/
Looks like Justice Jackson gave the legal equivalent of the middle finger to Justice Thomas. After arguing the Constitution is “color-blind” all of a sudden Thomas claims the 14th amendment was race based. Crazy hypocrisy.
“ Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott,’ post, at 56, and those who shared with them certain characteristics … It is for this reason, he says, that ‘children who were born in the United States but [to parents] not domiciled here’ are not entitled to claim birthright citizenship. … But that narrow vision of the Fourteenth Amendment bears little relationship to the history of its ratification. Even worse, Justice Thomas’ telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery.”
She sure put it into perspective.
yah, you and she forget that Thomas was JUSTIFYING why Dred was overturned. Stay off of AI, you understand it less than a newspaper summary.
@X
Why are people over 50 (you) the most enamored of algorithms? Have you no thoughts of your own?
Leonard Leo must be getting hammered today, emptying $1000 bottles of scotch right down his miserable throat.
Are you suggesting Clarence Thomas is hypocritical? The same guy who didn’t disclose all the financial gifts and free trips he was getting from his benefactor Harlan Crowe? Well, I never…..
Wow, X, that AI engine has you tied up in knots dude. Take a break from it.
If you want a perspective, choose Judge Jackson if you want people to think you have an IQ of 80
The birth-right ruling should have been unanimous. But as a usual the originalist and textualist hardliners were not able to prove their argument would work.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority determined that children born in the United States to parents “unlawfully or temporarily present” are indeed “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and are citizens at birth.
“In any case, postenactment history cannot override the text,” Roberts wrote. “If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design.”
The plain wording of the law won out. Even Alito would be hard pressed to disagree if he actually followed his own philosophy.
Yes – Kavanaugh’s opinion should have been the unanimous majority opinion – it is the ONLY opinion that is actually correct.
Revising the rules of citizenship are NOT executive powers.
while despite the hype this is an inconsequential decision.
The number of children born of illegal aliens is small, Their citizenship does not alter the FACT that their parents must be law be deported.
The children can stay of go as their parents please.
Citizenship tourism is more of an issue – and that too can easily be handled – the State department can refuse visa’s to pregnant women.
There is no constitutional right for a non-citizen to travel to the US.
While I personally would PREFER if the constitution actually said what the majority claimed – it does NOT, and contra the majority – the prior and subsequent history is that the power to decide the citizenship of people not born in the US of legal residents rests with CONGRESS.
I do not have any problem with citizenship for nearly everyone born in the US. And AGAIN that is the CORRECT way to handle citizenship.
That is NOT what the 14th amendment says. I have not read Gorsuch Alito or Thomas yet – but the correct ruling was
Executive orders can not change the law or constitution – they can only change the conduct of those in the executive, and only consistent with the law and constitution.
As I have said repeatedly – I do not love any single justice. They ALL get it wrong some of the time, and some of the time – justices that I like less get it right when all others get it wrong.
Kavanaugh’s concurance in part should have been the unanimous opinion of the court.
The majority opinion is correct – in that Jus Soli is the best approach to citizenship.
But it is NOT the courts job to decide what is best.
It is their job to decide what is constitutional.
(John Say: I agree with you about Kavanaugh and his distinction of constitutional vs. statutory (and case law) effect (although some of his words seem more muse than declaration). We can talk more when the good professor starts us off on the Barbara case; right now I do not want to get us all OT.
Glad to see that John Say is the sole pillar of being right, standing above the Court.
Delusions of grandeur are just one of John Say’s many psychiatric disorders.
But then again the same can be said of his cult leader, so hardly surprising.
Nice reply to yourself, delusional one. Irony seems lost on you, as becomes a double digit IQ.
He’s been wrong on everything today. LOL!
By praising Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence as the “only correct” path, you inadvertently expose the exact legal gymnastics you claim to despise.
You claim the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship for these children, and Congress holds the absolute power to dictate it. Ridiculous.
You are contradicting your own preferred justice. Even Kavanaugh explicitly agreed with the majority that Trump’s executive order was invalid and illegal. He did not say the President had the right to unilaterally rewrite citizenship rules via executive order. Kavanaugh’s outlier argument was that Congress might have the statutory authority to create exceptions because of a hyper-specific 19th-century diplomat loophole. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, completely rejected that. Roberts applied a strict textualist reading of the Citizenship Clause: if you are born here, you are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and you are automatically a citizen. There is no “parental residency” exception in the text.
The decision is minor because the number of children is small and parents can still be deported? What an idiotic assertion. Preventing the executive branch from unilaterally disenfranchising entire generations of residents is the furthest thing from “inconsequential”.
You claim that prior and subsequent history proves that citizenship rests entirely with Congress.
That’s already been ruled by Supreme Court over a century ago in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Court explicitly ruled that the 14th Amendment established jus soli (citizenship by birth on soil) as a supreme constitutional right that neither the President nor Congress can dismantle by standard law. Roberts didn’t “decide what was best” based on policy preferences; he enforced the settled, plain-text meaning of the Constitution—which is exactly what judges are supposed to do. You, just like the modern originalists always do when faced with an outcome you don’t like, choose to abandon the principle for political and ideological expediency.
Upholding a 150-year-old constitutional baseline against unprecedented executive overreach is a massive, historic decision—no matter how much you try to minimize it.
X, if you really believe and UNDERSTAND what you wrote, you would not feel the need to sign in as anonny.
President Trump restores freedom to repair vehicles:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/06/lowering-the-cost-of-living-by-promoting-the-freedom-to-fix/
It’s a worthless piece of paper – State’s rights, after all, so having no effect on the California CARB.
I presume it is an appeal to those who configure diesel pick up trucks to belch soot at pedestrians and bicyclists; not really a repair of any kind, but purposely disabling pollution controls.
Trump Cashing In
Steve Rattner details all the business deals Trump has made to profit off the presidency. These schemes are important to consider in light of yesterday’s ruling. If the regulatory agencies are packed with political hacks, grifters like Trump could get filthy rich off the presidency.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1357333946497255/?mibextid=CDWPTG
Lets see the first few seconds of the video show a chart of Trump’s net worth that is completely bogus – Trump’s networth was 7.5B when his social media empire went public. the chart in the vide does NOT reflect that, and that occurred when Trump was NOT president.
Even Forbes – which too has altered its own past history for Trump cedes that Trump’s net worth has increased primarily through his Crypto which has absolutely nothing to do with his presidency and again started before he was president.
Scotus rules that states may limit women’s sports to actual women. That we needed a Supreme Court decision for something this common-sense speaks to the lunacy of our times.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-transgender-athletes-ban-west-virginia-idaho/
OldManFromKS,
OLLY and I once discussed Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While reaching the top most level of self-actualization and “metamotivation,” a term coined by Maslow for a person to go above and beyond basics needs and strive for constant betterment of oneself, we also seemingly can embrace the absurd.
Like the need for the SC to make such a ruling.
And some of the other absurd things leftists are pushing for, like tampons in men’s bathrooms, or passing a law calling a mother a “gestating parent,” or a father a “non-gestating parent.”
Leftists are in open revolt against reality. They think these things are racist: time, math, life, science, work.
Fake Farmer
It appears you have come into the light from the Dark Side.
Maslow was a socialist. He considered the New Deal welfare state to be the ideal form for society.
Apparently you now embrace liberal, socialist wokeism.
Welcome to the real world.
You could not be more wrong. As usual.
What Maslow’s personal belief’s do not apply to his professional contributions to the field of psychology.
I have no problem with liberalism in the traditional sense.
Illiberal, socialism, and wokeism is stupid and crazy.
And that is the real world.
Good response, Upstate. Anony-moron’s comment was the equivalent of if someone said to her: You like dogs? Hitler liked dogs. So you must be a Nazi.
OldManFromKS,
Ah! Yes! The simplistic, child like logic of the annonys always trying to conflate liberalism (traditional) with wokeism.
One of the reasons why I bring up traditional liberals like Musk, Bill Maher, the good professor and my own sister point out, repeatedly, the stupid and crazy of the illiberal woke leftists.
Clearly, the two are not the same!
Reading down a few replies to you, you really got your dumb a$$ handed to you. Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Maslows Hierachy is an incredibly important concept.
ALWAYS what are luxuries today will become necessities of tomorrow – so long as productivity increases.
Further we ALWAYS start to take for granted what we had to commit our lives to acquiring once that becomes ubiquitous.
This is true of the current generation – it is also true of our own generation and the generations before.
My father worked hard for things I take for granted. I had to work hard for things my children take for granted.
I think one of the many problems for younger adults today is there a no great injustices left to correct.
My parents parents fought fascism. Their children fought communism and fought for civil rights.
Fascism is dead, Communism is dead – everywhere but in the heads of college professors and young adults.
While we have made mistakes regarding civil rights for various groups – virtually no one is opposed to equal rights for man and women, blacks, whites and all races, people regardless of their sexual preferences – so long as they do not harm others.
But the woke left has gone bonkers today.
Many problems will actually solve themselves – more and more private businesses have “family restrooms” – single larger bathrooms that are suitable for handicapped, or mothers of fathers changing a baby. More and more we have men’s womens or family – or even just family. I was at Longwood Gardens a week ago – and there was a long cooridoor of individual restrooms.
Again most problems will solve themselves – WITHOUT government.
And that is a problem for neo-Marxists who depend on conflict to bring about the revolution and utopia. 150 years ago it was class conflict, but that doesn’t work in America where most people think of themselves as middle class. So they have to gin up new categories of people to be in conflict, which is why we get so much tribalism. For leftists, the revolution is always the goal. Consequently, their worst fear is that people largely become satisfied with their situation in life.
OldManFromKS,
Interesting idea about class conflict.
I see it mostly as people making excuses to want to take the fruits of the labor or investment/risk someone puts into an endeavor.
Take Musk. In his early investments, he saw a possibility or had an idea, applied his own knowledge/capital, and took the risk of it either succeeding or failing.
Good on him.
He has built successful companies. People see what he has done and want to invest as they see his companies as good investments. Did it make him the worlds first Trillionaire? Sure.
Good on him.
I got to where I am today by doing something similar. I worked hard, learned a lot, saw opportunities/investments, took various risks and have succeeded.
Good on me.
All the more reason why the leftists, namely those in academia and other like activists, like to create all these little boxes and try to put us all in one or more as some kind of grievance or victim hood against . . . other people in other boxes we are not in.
Then when we refuse to be put into boxes, academia likes to look down at us and tell us we are uneducated or unenlightened.
Nope.
I see them as being envious of others and wanting to control others. To make us fit into their boxes.
Of course those whom have been brainwashed into believing this nonsense, try to check off as many boxes as they can to justify their . . . whatever.
In the Year 2525:
Lefty: OK. we did Great!. We made our Make America’s Second Revolution a fantastic success! We got rid of all the old fogies, the Constitution, the Amendments, SCOTUS, and Republicans. Now we can take control.
Lefty II: YAY! We showed them how to run a good country, relying on Social Justice and Freedom and Equality!
Lefty III: Yes, we finally did it! YAY! YAY! YAY!
(pause)
(silence)
Enter stage left, Lefty IV.
Lefty IV: OK guys, good. Now let’s get started. What do we do next? Where do we start? Where do we go from here?
(pause)
(silence)
(all look at each other)
Lefty II: Gee, I dunno.
Enter stage right, Mamdani
Mamdani, smiling: Oh, the collective warmth in this room! So comforting! We all are now united, equally, in sharing this warmth. What’s next?
CHORUS: (pause) (silence)
Lefty II: Gee, I dunno.
Lin,
Good one!
If I may add to your wit,
Mamdani: Okay! We made quite a mess in our little collective warmth Revolution. So, who is going to pick up the trash, bury the bodies?
Lefties I-IV all suddenly start looking at the ground, the ceiling, none making eye-contact with Mamdani.
Mamdani: Okay. We will revisit that later. Who can grow food?
Lefties I-IV look questioningly at each other.
Lefty II: Well, why dont we just go to one of your state ran grocery stores? That is where the food is right?
Mamdani: Normally, yes. But we ate all the food. And nearly all the farmers were Trump supporters and we shot a lot of them, or they are hundreds if not thousands of miles from here. And most of the truckers were Trump supporters. Those we did not kill, they all went home to their families and are not coming out anytime soon. So, someone is going to have to grow the food here.
Lefty IV: But, it is like, 80 degrees, hot and humid out there. Growing food sounds a lot like work.
The other Lefties agree.
Lefty I: Can we just go out and pick tofu off the tofu plants?
Mamdani: (facepalm) That is not how that works.
Lefty III: I know! We just have to get the internet back on! Then, we can just order from Amazon, or Walmart, or Uber Eats!
Other lefties nod in agreement, all smiling.
Mamdani: (facepalm) During our Revolution, the electrical infrastructure was damaged. Like the farmers and the truckers, a lot of the people who keep the electrical grid up and running were Trump supporters. We either killed them, or they went home to their families. Even the ones who were not Trump supporters went home to their families.
Lefty II: Well, we go to their homes and hold their families hostage at gun point and demand they get the grid back up so we can order from Amazon, or Walmart, or Uber Eats or we shoot their families!
Mamdani: (looks at ceiling for a moment) That idea has merit. But lets try not to shoot the women and children. Not yet.
Lefty IV: I got it! We form the Democratic Socialist Revolution People’s Socialistic Society of Socialism Congress! We then pass a law that says all the farmers, truckers, the people who kept the grid up and running, they have to do their jobs to get us food or we will shoot both them and their families in the head! Twice!
Mamdani: Lefty IV, I admire your enthusiasm and am seriously thinking about promoting you to head the Department of Peace and Freedom, but shooting them, twice, in the head, might not be such a good idea. Now, holding their families hostage at gun point, offering them slightly better accommodations to things like food, alcohol, cigarettes, housing, as a means to secure their loyalty, might be better. Meanwhile, we enroll their children into the Democratic Socialist Revolution People’s Socialistic Society of Socialism education system were we . . . educate, them into proper Democratic Socialist Revolution People’s Socialistic Society of Socialism citizens where they will take their parents place in state employment, and then we let them shoot their parents in the head. Twice.
The Lefties all nod excitedly in agreement.
Three years later . . .
Lefty I: I am thinking this might not of been such a good idea. (rubs hands before a 55 gallon barrel with a fire going)
Lefty IV: (whispering) You speak of blasphemy against the Democratic Socialist Revolution People’s Socialistic Society of Socialism!
Lefty I: When was the last time you had a decent meal that was not a rat burger? Meanwhile, he dines on steak. Potatoes. Real vegetable. Bread that is not moldy or has worms. Drinks fresh milk and water, with his pals, the central members of the Democratic Socialist Revolution People’s Socialistic Society of Socialism. And what do we have? Nothing.
Lefty IV: (whispering) I have read reports, in the MAGA freedom zones, their children eat well! Even fat and happy!
Lefty I: (Looking into the fire with wonder) I have heard rumors, they all eat well. It has not been the same since Lefty II’s children died. The Ministry of Truth said it was a MAGA designed flu, COVID-47, but it was obvious. They were malnourished. Months before they died, I could see how gaunt they were, Their rib cages.
Lefty IV: Yes. After they died, Lefty II and his wife were not the same. Then they just disappeared. No word from the Ministry of what happened to them. It was like they never existed.
Lefty IV takes a drink from a bottle of illegal, non-state alcohol and passes it to Lefty I.
Lefty IV: We could only be so lucky.
Upstate – that gave me Atlas Shrugged vibes, haha.
Democratic Socialist Revolution People’s Socialistic Society of Socialism
I love it!
“that gave me Atlas Shrugged vibes”
Hmmm. Your remark conjured a vision for me of Musk as a John Galt/Henry Rearden amalgam. I’m not sure Rand would like it, but it has some appeal to me.
“we ate all the food. And nearly all the farmers were Trump supporters and we shot a lot of them, or they are hundreds if not thousands of miles from here. ”
Sounds like South Africa.
Tampons are good for plugging bullet holes and should part of the education from 2nd grade on up as to how to use them for that, considering that killing kids in schools is a nearly uniquely American event.
The laws about transexuals in schools and sports exceeds the number of actual transexuals in schools and sports. One would think they were wearing bomb vests and doing damage that priests and Republican leaders do to children.
^ Stupid liar idiot moron dunce ^
Who has been some of the most school shooting?
Unhinged transexuals. More than a few wrote some seriously messed up manifestos on it.
You mean like the transexual that killed those kids in Nashville???
This all started with Vanita Gupta’s Dear Colleague letter at the end of the Obama Administration suggesting “sex” in Title IX really meant “gender” all along, which led KBJ not to know what a woman is.
Next Term the Justices can decide whether states MUST limit women’s sports (and private areas) to women.
SCOTUS refuses to hear Trump’s appeal of E. Jean Carroll’s win and now must pay her millions of dollars.
In what was widely regarded as the ultimate humiliation of Donald J. Trump, on Monday workmen in midtown Manhattan began putting writer E. Jean Carroll’s name on Trump Tower.
The name-change was mandated after Carroll rejected Trump’s attempt to pay the millions he owes her in Trumpcoin, sources said.
In a desperate bid to keep his name on his signature building, he offered Carroll the naming rights to Eric Trump, which she immediately refused.
Although Carroll has yet to decide how to spend Trump’s millions, she reportedly is mulling large donations to the World Windmill Foundation, Save the Algae, and the Obama Presidential Center.
She’d make a far better President than the current purveyor of green slime.
Immeasurably better
My dog would make a better president
So would my dog, and he died 3 weeks ago.
your dog’s POOP would…
VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE HERE—IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE.
BAN FOR LIFE!
VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE HERE—IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE.
BAN FOR LIFE!
EJC is certifiably nuts, She has accused every male person she knows of Rape – in writing in her books – something like 80 people, BEFORE she accused Trump.
If you beleive her – you are just proving that you are clueless.
That’s a flat out lie John Say. She details exactly two instances of sexual assault: one by Donald Trump in the mid-1990s and one by former CBS television executive Les Moonves in the 1970s. Both men denied the allegations, but she has never made accusations against dozens of people.
Carroll lists various men she encountered throughout her life—including friends, boyfriends, colleagues, and acquaintances—and asks a rhetorical, biographical question about what role men play in modern society. She does not accuse them of crimes. Transforming a list of life acquaintances into a list of “rape accusations” is a deliberate fabrication.
E. Jean Carroll and American adjudication.
No witnesses, no security video, no police report, no rape kit, no reported injuries, no complaint for 27 years, no credible circumstantial evidence, no nothing, and yet a $5m award from Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, whose wife, at Random House, undertook a very favorable biographical piece on Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of all people.
Why wasn’t Joe Biden sued for “assaulting” Tara Reade?
ATS – you drift from reality to flat attempts at humor
Jokes are fine – but they are supposed to be funny.
Trump owes Carol nothing – the important verdict came in November 2024 – the american people decided that YOU and she are liars.
Will she get money – I still would not bet on it.
But if so – that would be typical of the left – get by stealing other peoples money.
She will get her $5 million. The Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal is the final ‘appeal’ attempt. The lower court ruling stands. Trump was legally required to transfer $5.5 million (the award plus interest) into a court-controlled escrow account to even be allowed to pursue his appeals. He already paid. It’s just a matter of the court releasing the money to Carrol. Today Carroll’s attorneys formally petitioned the federal judge to release the $5.5 million from the court account directly to her. It will be paid out in short order.
The self medicating comedian strikes again. If only his dog poop were funny.
He of course finds it entirely plausible that a middle aged man managed to get an erection and dry penetrate a woman in a coat and 4″ heels, standing face to face in a closet, with her leggings pulled down around her knees.
Too bad that same idiot jury found it not plausible. And totally ignored the legal premise falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
The three dissenting left-wing justices claimed that the ruling invited hyper-politicization of federal regulatory agencies, but at the same time, leftists see nothing wrong with packing the Supreme Court.
Packing the court is constitutional. It’s allowed by law. If the majority party wins control of both houses and the president by a large veto-proof majority they CAN pack the court as they see fit. Nothing really stops them from doing that.
That’s why the Keep-9 Amendment is needed now more than ever. Democrats are a danger to “our democracy.” Packing the court would make us little different from a corrupt third-world nation.
There are lots of constitutional amendments I would like to see.
But honestly I am not all that worried about Democrats packing the court.
As Sun Tzu wrote do not interfere when your enemy is making a mistake.
I want Republicans to pass the SAVE act.
I do NOT want them to abolish the Filibuster or try to game reconciliation.
Just bring it to the floor, let democrats do a speaking filibuster and do not bring anything else to the floor until it passes.
Might take a couple of months, but it will eventually pass.
And the SAVE act is more important than any other thing before congress.
The Founders opposed the “dictatorship of the majority,” the “poor,” which is Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The vote was severely restricted of necessity at the inception of democracy in Greece in 508 B.C.
The Chinese Republic severely restricts the vote to a maximum of about 7% of the people.
Turnout in the U.S. in 1789 was 11.6%, by design.
______________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote…
But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
______________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
Lots of things that are legal and constitutional are stupid.
Something those of you on the left NEVER grasp.
Win the trifecta in 2028 and pack the court.
See how that turns out for you.
The next Republicans can pack it even further.
So eventually you get a 800 justice supreme court.
Wise people do not do stupid things – just because they are legal.
Has to be an odd number.
Exactly where in the Constitution do you see that stipulated? I won’t force you to try to overcome your literacy challenges by actually reading it – it doesn’t. The number is specified in 28 US Code 1, which is what would be changes by Congress to expand the Court. Congress could specify any number, even or odd. Odd numbers are more convenient to forming a majority opinion, but are not strictly necessary. Any significant expansion would likely make it less important through a variety of effects.
An odd number is preferable, but it doesn’t have to be. It was changed from 10 to 9, so there would be an odd number.
The right is already calling for packing the court after this ruling. Sean Davis is calling for court packing.
“Packing the court is constitutional. It’s allowed by law. “
Your jejune failure to understand makes it clear that in grade school, you had difficulty choosing what the subject was. That myopic view remains with you to this day.
S. Meyer, For someone so desperate to sound smart, you sure ran away from the actual text of the Constitution pretty fast.
Let me use very simple words so your superior grade-school intellect can keep up:Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, but it gives Congress the absolute authority to decide how many justices sit on it. The number has changed six times in American history. It is a literal black-and-white fact of constitutional law.
Hiding behind a dictionary to hurl words like “jejune” and “myopic” doesn’t change the fact that you got completely schooled on basic civics. Try reading the document next time before you try to insult someone’s education.
You are much dumber than I thought. Where did I say Congress didn’t have that right? The opposite is true. Here and elsewhere, I have discussed where and when Congress changed the number of justices. I have even discussed the change from 10 to 9, and the first change by Congress from 6 to 5 when Jefferson was coming into office.
“…words like ‘jejune’ and ‘myopic’”
Are you unaware of those words? I have to laugh and refer you right back to my first sentence in this reply.
Stupid comment by S. Meyer.
SCOTUS is not a “federal regulatory agency”. You are quite deliberately obfuscating with a completely irrelevant and false equivalence.
This is a classic example of apohenia, the tendency of the human mind to find connections, and see patterns, between completely unrelated observations. This is a common tendency of a normal human mind, but when taken to extremes, as is common in the MAGA cult, and also with this particular commenter, it is indicative of significant underlying psychiatric disorders.
Perhaps you missed Meyer’s valid point. He’s saying the Left is railing against hpyer-politicization while at the same time advocating for hyper-politicization in a different arena. Your response is basically, “that’s a different arena.” Nobody was disputing that.
OldManFromKS,
Reading comprehension was never the annonys strong point.
Upstate – no, reading comprehension is definitely not annony’s forte.
Yet another example of apohenia.
Clearly indicative of a serious underlying psychiatric disorder, but par for the course in the MAGA cult.
Obviously a requirement for admission to the cult.
Just saying I’m a member of a cult is no response to my calling out what you missed in Meyer’s original comment. But par for the course of a TDS sufferer with serious mental health issues.
oldman
I am not simply saying you are a member of a cult. I am drawing a reasonable conclusion from observations.
I am saying that you display the features of a high level of apohenia, consistent with a psychiatric disorder.
Apophenia and its related psychiatric disorders are well known findings in those who fall into the clutches of cults.
Thus, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that you are a cult member with a typical underlying psychiatric disorder.
Anony-mess:
this is the umpteenth time you have tried to impose pseudo-medical opinions on fellow commenters. Do you keep the DSM in your back pocket, along with a dictionary? Sure have a lot of time on your hands. were you fired from your medic job? (sorry, don’t mean to be heartless, but your juvenile MAGA complaints ARE getting quite threadbare.) (and I’m not afraid to sign my comments and open myself up to criticism; what’s the DSM for fragile ego inferiority couched in anonymity?)
Lin,
Well said.
Here we have the annony trying to sound like a professional . . . something.
The reality is, he is a nothing.
But this is also likely the same anonny who responds to his own comments in rapid fire sequence thinking it makes him . . . something.
You clearly saw through him.
Tom Kean voted to gut affordable healthcare for Americans.
Tom gets great healthcare paid for by the very American taxpayers who have been denied affordable care.
“this is the umpteenth time you have tried to impose pseudo-medical opinions on fellow commenters. Do you keep the DSM in your back pocket, along with a dictionary? Sure have a lot of time on your hands. were you fired from your medic job? what’s the DSM for fragile ego inferiority couched in anonymity?”
lin
Hey, if it walks like a duck….as they say.
I’m just making perfectly valid professional observations.
professional book-reader and AI-summarizer?
Professional? I didnt know that you could get paid to be an idiot.
Lin, this is likely Sigmund the Fraud who is intermittantly found straying without his strait-jacket. He likes to use big words, but doesn’t know how to spell them. To Oldman he wrote, ” you display the features of a high level of apohenia, consistent with a psychiatric disorder.” The word is apophenia and I corrected him earlier. He will disappear as soon as the men with strait-jackets arise.
Meyer, Meyer, Meyer.
I wouldn’t be so fast in criticizing an obvious typo.
There is no such word as intermittantly. It is spelled intermittently. There is no “a”.
And there is no such word as strait-jacket. The word is straitjacket. There is no hyphen.
And from what exactly will the men with straitjackets “arise”? I think you meant “arrive” not “arise”.
Your abominable spelling and minimal grasp of the common usage of the English language indicates that English is most likely your second language, and you still struggle with its use.
“And there is no such word as strait-jacket. The word is straitjacket. There is no hyphen.”
Sigmund the Fraud, you spelled apophenia wrong three times. That is not a typo; it is a fundamental misspelling of a word that was entirely new to you.
“Strait-jacket” is a classical variant that historically retained the hyphen. Given the generation Sigmund lived in, I preferred keeping the hyphen, especially since you currently live with a hyphen up your a$$. To become as mentally incapable as you present yourself, you must have sat on your head, piercing it with that very hyphen, leaving this forum with an incompetent fool.
Final Grade: Intellectual Non-Entity, Timestamp Accountant, and Fraudulent Stylist.
What about “intermittantly”???
And tell me again, when do the men with straitjackets “arise”, and what exactly are they “arising” from ??????
There is nothing to say about “intermittantly.” Was that word used three times like apophenia? No. The hyphen really destroyed your brain, and now you wish me to recant why I used a hyphen in strait-jacket? Get a neurosurgeon to remove that hyphen from your a$$ and stop sitting on your head.
Final Grade: Intellectual Non-Entity, Hyphen Mechanic, and Fraudulent Stylist.
Ad Hominem masked as pseudo science and faux psychology is still a fallacy.
Looking for connections is a NORMAL human attribute.
In langauge we produce simile’s and metaphors.
AI itself is nothing more than massive computer driven pattern matching.
SM correctly identified a pattern. In the real world patterns are never a perfect match.
As to differences – “packing” an administration is normal and trivially correctable.
Legitimately win an election and you can pack your administration – until you lose.
Packing the courts is radically different Federal judges are for life. The remedy for your failed packing is the opposite parties failed scaled up packing.
A poacked administration ends when the administration changed.
A packed court ends when the wheels fall off and the rule of law descends into anarchy and chaos.
And here, with John Say, we have a quintessential example of someone with obvious psychiatric problems.
Apophenia is actually the least of his problems. His completely irrational, delusional comments are a much stronger indicator of his profound psychiatric disorders.
“this is the umpteenth time you have tried to impose pseudo-medical opinions on fellow commenters. Do you keep the DSM in your back pocket, along with a dictionary? Sure have a lot of time on your hands. were you fired from your medic job?what’s the DSM for fragile ego inferiority couched in anonymity?”
Hehehehe this is a good one. Keep throwing it onto his every stupid comment.
I thought S. Meyer was saying it’s all one big arena and the response was disputing that.
OMFK,
Oh, I see. So Meyer’s “valid point” is just a spectacular exercise in false equivalence, and you’re here acting as the translator.Let me break down the “different arenas” for you, since nuance seems to be a real struggle here.
When the Supreme Court abandons its own legal doctrines on the exact same day to gut consumer rights while shielding Wall Street, that is hyper-politicization of a non-political branch. It breaks the judiciary.
When Congress uses its explicit Article I powers to alter the size of the court or reform it, that is the political branch doing exactly what the Constitution designed it to do to check a rogue judiciary.
Conflating an abuse of judicial power with a constitutional check and balance isn’t “advocating for politicization”—it’s called constitutional accountability. But please, keep pretending that a corrupt umpire and a manager challenging a bad call are the exact same thing.
No the court is not a federal agency – packing the court is far WORSE.
No the comparison is not irrelevant. nor is it a false equivalence.
Connecting things that are not connected is the norm for those of you on the left.
MAGA is obviously not a cult – while the woke left unarguably is.
You correctly note rising mental health problems in the US.
The rate of anxiety and depression in the young is double that of the old.
That of the left is double that of the right.
That of women is double that of men.
If you are a young white woke female – 74% of you SELF REPORT debilitating levels of anxiety and depression.
While if you are an older white conservative male the rates are less than 8%.
Sane people grasp the world is improving slowly over time – often DESPITE the left.
It is not going to h311.
The US survived the damage done to our country by Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden.
We even managed to thrive – though not as much as we could have.
Trump has been both good and bad – and we will survive.
In the unlikely even democrats take congress in 2026 – or worse still the trifecta in 2028 the country will survive – and even thrive, just less than it would have otherwise.
I doubt those will happen, but it is only a small issue.
The first thing you need to do is get your own “connections” corrected; the word is spelled apophenia.
Next, you need to recognize that you have an intellectual short circuit preventing you from grasping the actual subject of a comment. I never said the Supreme Court was a regulatory agency. I exposed the contradiction of leftists who weep over the “politicization” of agencies while simultaneously trying to pack the Court.
Finally, you must read the Constitution and understand that the Supreme Court is the third coequal branch of our government, not the bureaucratic sandbox leftists treat it as. Your reading comprehension is as broken as your spelling.
Meyer, leftists will see nothing wrong with packing the regulatory agencies with communists.
You need to bulk up on your foresight!
Why do I need to bulk up my foresight? Much of what I write already directly addresses the threat of communists.
Leave the administration of the law to the executive, and the creation of the law to the legislature – as the constitution intended.
Here’s a perfect example of this ruling was apparently trying to solve.
The tallest building in the entire world has its windows cleaned by a team of guys using “bosun chairs” – basically guys sitting on a plank of wood with a full body harness.
Although it’s old technology derived from sailors on boats, bosun chairs are safer than ladders and safer than the motorized platforms most high rise window cleaners use in the United States. Most fatal accidents happen at less than 30ft.
OSHA is a vitally important agency with really great federal employees with the best of intentions. But in the USA apparently it’s a rule or suggestion (ambiguous nobody really knows) that “bosun chairs” can’t be used on sky scrapers exceeding 300 ft tall.
World wide “bosun chair” access is proven safe technology used on buildings exceeding 1000ft tall. In the USA workers think it’s 300ft (not clear regulations). This work is safer than tree workers and wouldn’t make the top ten most dangerous professions when using bosun chairs. The U.S. Navy uses this technology on large ships.
There are things OSHA could require to make “bosun chairs” even safer instead of an absolute ban over 300ft. OSHA could require the use of rope bags (eliminate rope tails hanging below), emergency rescue systems (if building is 400ft tall require an 800+ft rope so firefighters can lower workers in a risk free manner) or bottom tie-offs to counter wind gusts.
If you make a living doing this kind of work, it’s nearly impossible to get these regulations changed since Congress deferred the regulations to the agency. This is no criticism of the agencies but of the regulatory process.
Not sure how firing federal employees without cause solves this regulation deferment problem?
Yeah.. OSHA did a bang up job during Covid.
OSHA is not vitally important – they are completely useless – get rid of them.
While I agree that the Fed should remain as independent as possible so as not to become yet another political football controlled by either Party, I am very encouraged that this ruling yesterday will help keep these unelected executive branch agency heads from implementing powers they were never intended to have.
Of course, the “pack the court” Democrat/Communists will be more hysterical than ever, but that will only serve to help Republicans in both the midterms and 2028, so I’m happy to let them spew whatever garbage they can muster.
And many of those miseducated young people will start to see these lunatics with whom they’ve been associating as just that, and will slowly start to walk away. 😉
Just get rid of the FED
Riddle me this. Congress creates an agency (THE Federal Reserve), that employs people who can’t be fired? Where in the Constitution, and please be specific, does Congress get the “authority” to create unaccountable-to-the-people government positions for anyone? –Curious in Flyover Country.
Packing SCOTUS with more justices of the caliber and temperament of KBJ will render our Constitution a dead letter. Our written Constitution describes the 3 coequal branches and defines their boundaries preserving individual freedom in a self-governing framework. The Dems openly state they would transfer power from the citizens to the government controlled by their party. Our freedom, security and prosperity would come to an end. The Dems have been working towards this goal for a couple of decades without voicing which economic system they would choose but their policies trend towards socialism. It appears they are now in a panic because a new player is making that decision for them.
14th Amendment upheld!! Death to MAGA. Power to the people!
Parents can be deported and it’s up to them if they take their kids.
MAGA scum can be shot on site. Perfect.
you better follow our laws anarchist or we will lock your ass up!
Left wing nut murders can be executed by lethal injection.
chinese preggo paratroopers incoming.
Ah, but the Democrat aim is not the perpetuation of our system of government, but the assumption of POWER! The gent who that wrote that those who don’t read history are doomed to repeat it is correct. Unfortunately, those of us who do read history are rightfully fearful of experiencing it.
It’s not a perfect comparison but illustrates the problem the court was trying to solve.
In my state, the state legislature (state’s version of Congress) instead of writing laws for occupational licensing of private contractors largely defers their constitutional authority to the state’s executive branch agencies.
The state’s executive branch agency (doing the job of the legislature) created a board of “active competing” contractors to write the rules for new start-up businesses.
In other words, the agency’s law writers are writing rules to govern and their own future competitors. Instead of state legislators writing those laws. Essentially the Fox guarding the Henhouse.
Naturally this creates lawsuits from small and start-up businesses, since the rules are designed to prevent competition. The libertarian law firm “Institute for Justice” suggests if the legislature (like Congress) defers to agencies – that the agencies create “All Citizen Boards” instead of executive branch employees or active competitors. If the Legislature won’t legislate, then allow regular citizens to write the rules (but allow experts to give feedback).
At the federal level, this seems to be the problem. Congress (legislature) is not writing the detailed regulations but deferring to the executive branch agency.
The problem with Congress abdicating their duty to legislate is it’s less democratic and if you are unfairly harmed by the regulation it’s harder to amend, challenge or appeal bad regulations. Not sure the U.S. Supreme helped solve this problem.
If Trump was elected with a mandate to make govt smaller he has failed to do so. His focus has been on amalgamating power in the executive, but has shown absolutely no inclination to reduce govt power, choosing simply to rearrange it.
First, restoring proper executive power taken away by a poor SCOTUS decision is not “amalgamating” power. Second, “rearranging” the budget so that wasteful spending on pet liberal programs that have no benefit and actually hurt Americans is making government smaller.
“If Trump was elected with a mandate to make govt smaller he has failed to do so.”
Correct – Republican and libertarian are not the same.
Though Government has gotten Smaller under Trump – there are significantly fewer government employees.
” His focus has been on amalgamating power in the executive,”
Every president does that. Nothing new.
Nor are Trump’s powers unusual.
Both Obama and Biden fired people – and SCOTUS upheld those firings.
SCOTUS has been slowly reversing Humphries executor for a long time.
Nothing new.
SCOTUS is ALSO reducing the executive power to assume legislative functions – reversing Chevron Deference.
This disempowers the President
SCOTUS has PROPERLY been giving the president more of the power the constitution delegates to him, and less of the power it delegates to congress.
SCOTUS is working towards better separation of powers.
That is a good thing and an important step toward more limited government.
“but has shown absolutely no inclination to reduce govt power, choosing simply to rearrange it.”
Trump is not libertarian – but in Many – not all areas he has acted to REDUCE government – cutting staff. deregulating, eliminating waste.
Cutting government programs not authorized by congress.
Again Trump is far from libertarian – while at the same time being the closest we have had to a libertarian as president since Coolidge.
Separately no president is going to make everyone happy.
No president is going to make even their own party happy.
There are 350M of us and we have 350m different ideas of what we want as president.
No one is getting what they want. That is not possible.
The reversal of the Chevron doctrine is significant. Think about the voluminous rule making by the SEC under Gary Gensler during the Biden Administration. Thankfully, much of that has disappeared.