Enough said.
4 Likes
I hear ya the voting for the lesser evil…
thing is we the people do NOT pick who runs for office… the parties do…
so??? what ya gonna do???
3 Likes
If the parties pick the nominee, this morning’s “choice of left leaning” news suggest Democrats quickly pick another nominee. Technically, that can be done at the convention.
As for me, I would rather forfeit my guns than vote for Trump. With local gun murders every day, and no money to go on vacations, that statement is as straight forward as I can get.
The problem is that anyone who doesn’t think that Trump is the bees knees gets labeled with TDS. Throwing that label around is like throwing the communist or Nazi cards out there. Those labels are designed to shut down the ability to have any kind of a critical discussion about a person’s true merits or actions.
The Dems were the same way with Biden. For the past several years they have been ignoring his obvious cognitive decline because anyone bringing it up was just a Biden hater. Sooner or later even the most devout supporters have to face reality.
This is of course all being said by someone who is suffering from a clearly severely incurable case of TDS.
If you are truly in a hurry to forfeit your right to own firearms then I would argue that voting for either Biden or Trump will likely get you where you want to be. Both have expressed their support for Red flag laws without due process and banning large swaths of firearms based on broadly defined features, abilities and capacity.
1 Like
Follow
809.1K Followers
Supreme Court delivers blow to power of federal agencies, overturning 40-year-old precedent
Story by Lawrence Hurley
• 3h • 4 min read
[image]
Supreme Court delivers blow to power of federal agencies, overturning 40-year-old precedent© Provided by NBC News
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has been a target of the right because it is seen as bolstering the power of “deep state” bureaucrats.
In a ruling involving a challenge to a fisheries regulation, the court consigned to history a 1984 ruling called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That decision had said judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous, thereby giving regulatory flexibility to bureaucrats.
It is the latest in a series of rulings in which the conservative justices have taken aim at the power of federal agencies, including one on Thursday involving in-house Securities and Exchange Commission adjudications. The ruling was 6-3 with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices dissenting.
“Chevron is overruled,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”
He said that the ruling does not cast into doubt prior cases that relied on the precedent, but going forward lower courts “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that a “longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority.”
The ruling would hobble agencies with specialistic scientific knowledge that will now be second-guessed by federal judges, she said.
“It puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject — because there are always gaps and ambiguities in regulatory statutes, and often of great import,” she added.
“What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges? What will the nation’s health-care system look like in the coming decades? Or the financial and transportation systems? What rules are going to constrain the development of AI,” Kagan wrote.
At the time it was decided, Chevron was a win for the deregulatory efforts of the Reagan administration. It was initially seen as a benefit to Republican officials in the administration who wanted to make regulations less onerous on businesses.
In practice, the ruling meant that both Democratic and Republican presidents could take advantage of the flexibility it gave to agencies in implementing new regulations on a wide variety of issues.
But Chevron over the years became increasingly criticized on the right because of the claim that it gives too much power to agency bureaucrats to interpret the law.
Groups on the left, including environmental activists, have defended Chevron, in part because it gives leeway to address issues like climate change.
Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, warned in a statement that the ruling is an impediment to ensuring clean air and water as well as climate policies.
“It undermines vital protections for the American people at the behest of powerful polluters,” she added.
The underlying issue before the justices concerned a federal regulation that would require fishing vessel operators to help fund the cost of collecting data that would assist with fishery conservation and management.
Roman Martinez, a lawyer for some of the challengers, said the court “has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach.”
Operators of fishing vessels active in the herring fishery off the Atlantic coast challenged the 2020 rule applying to New England fisheries. Lower courts in both cases ruled for the federal government.
The challengers argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal body that oversees ocean resources, did not have authority to issue the regulation under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The rule implemented a monitoring program that vessel operators are required to fund. The challengers said that operators would have to pay up to $710 a day at certain times for independent observers to board their vessels and monitor operations. The cost would be burdensome for small owner-operators, the challengers said.
The fisheries dispute is one of several in the current court term in which the justices are considering attacks on federal agency power led by business interests and the conservative legal movement.
The Trump administration had embraced the war on “deep state” agency power, selecting judicial nominees in part based on their hostility to the federal bureaucracy. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority includes three Trump appointees: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
The Supreme Court has already addressed the issue of agencies’ exerting broad power without clear congressional instructions from another angle in recent rulings that struck down President Joe Biden’s federal student loan debt relief plan, blocked his Covid vaccination-or-test requirement for larger businesses, and curbed the EPA’s authority to limit carbon emissions from power plants.
Those cases did not rely on the Chevron analysis but instead said simply that on issues of broad national impact, there needs to be an explicit authorization from Congress, an approach known as the “major questions doctrine.”
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
5 Likes
Follow
105.5K Followers
Supreme Court rules against Biden DOJ in high-stakes Jan. 6 case
Story by Kaelan Deese, Washington Examiner
• 3h • 2 min read
[image]
Supreme Court rules against Biden DOJ in high-stakes Jan. 6 case© Provided by Washington Examiner
The 6-3 decision narrows the scope of applying an obstruction charge to hundreds of riot defendants charged for their conduct on Jan. 6. The case revolved around whether Section 1512(c)(2) could be applied to hundreds of defendants, including Fischer and former President Donald Trump, who faced charges of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. The decision was mixed along ideological lines, with liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the conservative majority and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberal bloc.
The court’s decision ruled against the Biden administration’s interpretation of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s provision. This provision, initially aimed at addressing corporate fraud, was deemed by the court to be too broad when applied to Fischer’s actions during the Capitol riot. The majority of justices concluded that the law should not be used as a broad tool for prosecuting a wide range of behaviors unrelated to its original intent.
Fischer’s legal strategy focused on the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding,” which is found in the statute. His attorney, Jeffrey Green, argued that the law’s primary intent was to address evidence tampering, not to prosecute actions such as Fischer’s. The court’s majority agreed, with Justice Samuel Alito being a major voice of skepticism during oral arguments about the government’s broad reading of the statute.
The decision is a major setback for the Biden administration, which has relied on the obstruction statute in cases that affect more than 300 people involved in the Capitol riot. More than 50 of these defendants had pleaded guilty to the charge. The ruling raises questions about the future of these cases and the potential for appeals and overturned convictions.
Fischer, who had been facing up to 20 years in prison, will see the obstruction charge dismissed, though he will continue to face other charges related to the riot.
The ruling also has implications for Trump, who faces similar charges in a separate case related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Supreme Court’s decision could influence the legal strategy and outcomes in Trump’s case, further complicating the legal landscape as the nation approaches another presidential election.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
6 Likes
TDS is strong in this one. 
7 Likes
Your statement doesn’t make any sense???
I’m sure if you call the atf&e I heard they will have you sigN your 2A rights away.
Just say-BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
5 Likes
For the win!
5 Likes
That was a bone that set a very dangerous precedent that Biden has and still is actively utilizing to attempt to take even more of our rights away.
I have mentioned some of his other actions, threats and inactions while President around here in the past:
He had his justice department argue before the Supreme Court to not take up a case that could have removed suppressors from the NFA.
He voiced his support for red flag law gun confiscations without due process.
He threatened to unilaterally ban “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines if Congress didn’t pass laws doing so.
Most importantly, with two years of Republican control in the House and Senate he and his fellow Republicans failed to even bring to the floor for a vote a single notable gun rights bill.
His kids may be pro 2A but Trump himself has a long history of anti 2A statements both before choosing to run for President as a Republican and while President. I am significantly concerned about what he will attempt to do after the next mass murderer event. Especially since he would no longer need to worry about alienating his base voters anymore. And also because I don’t believe the other vote pandering supposed 2A supporters on the Republican side of the aisle would stand against his anti 2A threats the way they have been against Biden and his fellow hoplophobes on the left.
Let’s encourage him to forfeit any guns he has here, first, for a good price to anyone who might want some additional hardware. No point turning them into the ATF (assuming they’re not junk or stolen) 
4 Likes
which part? that the DNC better pick someone else? that one is obvious. that I’d rather chance a Democrat with my guns? hey, even Janet Reno didn’t knock on my door, and no one is scarier than her.
and seriously … someone cannot post their opinion without drawing out sheep emoji? have I textually attacked you?
1 Like
Everything I have stated is based on facts. I have gone the extra mile to make sure that I am not just parroting anti Trump propaganda that is not based in any facts.
And I don’t think Trump is any worse than the other politicians out there. I just don’t feel he is any better.
I believe it is pretty clear that a lot of the positive things that happened during Trump’s term were more due to where we were at in the economic cycle than any actions he took. It takes years for government policies to trickle down and affect the economy. Most if not all of the boom during the Trump years was due to the reinflating of the bubble after the 07/08 melt down. It took 11 plus Trillion in Monopoly money from Obama and Bush to hide all the cracks in our broken economy. Trump added almost 8 Trillion more in just 4 years.
Biden sucks in every way but Trump would have been dealing with the majority of the same inflationary pressures had he been in the White House these past 4 years. Spending what you don’t have makes for a great short term party but eventually the bills come due.
There is no one but Prez Trump. Anyone else is a danger to our Republic.
And please put your firearms up for sale first. 
/s
2 Likes
Maybe if you stopped talking about him so much like your obsessed, we wouldn’t
we wouldn’t poke you about it so much.
2 Likes
never meant the man… might not like him in person…
thing is…
the way things were while he was in office were much better then now…
so…
perhaps you would care to share we you feel as you do???
3 Likes
I am just trying to add a small amount of counterbalance to all those “obsessed” with bashing Biden.
Biden deserves most of the bashing he gets but the disaster we are living has been decades in the making. Passing all the blame onto him lets all the other responsible parties off the hook to continue on with their disastrous practices.
Plus most of my pointing out of Trump’s less than perfect record are in response to people either asking me questions or saying my points are baseless, etc. Not responding to those would be rude and likely have coward and person who can’t defend their arguments with facts added to my list of faults alongside my supposed communist beliefs and incurable case of TDS:)
2 Likes
Politicians are bad for the most part, but THIS clown is a traitor. That’s why I am obsessed with bashing him.
5 Likes
I suppose a person can believe anything they want. I believe the above stated is purdy much what you see coming out of the south end of a northbound horse.
Deregulation and tax cuts had a profound impact on the state of the economy by letting businesses know they could invest without government interference and by putting money back in the consumer’s pockets through tax cuts. These were the driving factors in getting the economy rolling and businesses creating jobs.
Pedal that cycle somewhere else.
3 Likes