LaxPower Back-Up Stick

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 11:10 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:01 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:04 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 7:50 am You'll be disappointed if you try to watch the State of the Union tonight, cradle.

I won't be disappointed. I don't watch political propaganda and I am in bed most nights by 9pm. Roxy wakes me up by 5am because she has needs...

I hope Joe can stay awake long enough to enlighten the American people. As you we'll know.. it's a big effing deal...

They’ll have him nap most of the day. At about 6 pm, he’ll be awakened, then pumped with a B1 intravenous. The window will be very tight for his state of mind and relative clarity, so you can guarantee the event stating right on time and ending promptly.

than, wouldn't the pretend CONservatives best strategy do 5 minute standing ovation, every 5 minutes or so ? For every embellishment Mr. POTUSA utters. If I were GOP king, that IS exactly what I would be ordering all GOP members of Congress to be doing during the SOU address. Make Biden stay up there for as long as possible.

You watch.......the Dems won't go longer than 30 seconds, when they stand and clap.....and only within the first 10 minutes of the speech....no more Dems cheering Biden on, so he can wrap his lies up.

Smoking game.....everytime POTUSA mentions "community college" and "moving forward" , among others. Strangely, "climate change" didn't make the list. (most likely won't be mentioned, at all )

Ukraine is about fossil fuel....so, there's that...in relation to "climate".

Regarding our "rich people only" third pillar our govt. structure: the Courts

Will the Ivy league Supremes vote to end "white" priveledge anti trust exemption, this fall ? How is the Asian, class action lawsuit, going against Harvard.

Dred Scot was the rule of law, of the land. You go Supremes.........

We need to revamp our 3 pillar of govt. This clown (moi) has already bet big coin, that the Supremes will quietely extend the anti trust exemption. (NCAA ruling/athletes likeness etc , be damned

Our US Senate has confirmed some crazy choices for Federal judge roles.....over the years. Rachel Rollins/Boston, is one of them.4 Rebuild our court system. For starters, get rid of the idiotic, if not downright criminal, practice of prosecuting only "winnable" cases. Is EVERY grand jury indictment going to trail? exactly....so much more.

As long as citizens united and Congressional insider trading stays intact. Remember, GUNS for the Ukraines......horrible USA citizens are racist, we need to take them ?

(4) US Marshalls laughed at Rollins request for "security detail". They caught her making up the "death" threats, other crap. Shhh, she's our Federal Judge now.

Can't we go back to States Legislatures choicing our US Senator's ? Themz was the days.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 12:13 pm [

If Biden’s squad had brains, they’d have him only talk about Ukraine and that’s it. Could be a perfect moment to discuss democracy (what will never be discussed is voter identification, for some odd reason.., ).

But as usual, there will be the idiocy of climate change, how we need to tax all you peasants, LGBTQI+, systemic whatever-ism, vaccines, Trudeau is a hero for seizing bank accounts without a court order, etc….

It would be far better to avoid the Democratic cultural minefields, but my hopes aren’t high on that one.

BREAKING: You may have heard that DC just got rid of their indoor mask mandate tomorrow, of ALL days! Guess Covid is over?!? Imagine my surprise!

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:02 pm https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics ... index.html

Judge Michael Luttig supports Jackson’s nomination.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:03 am More conservatives trying to counter-balance the overt racism of Carlson and others:

https://checks-and-balances.org/app/upl ... SCOTUS.pdf

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:02 pm https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics ... index.html

Judge Michael Luttig supports Jackson’s nomination.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:03 am More conservatives trying to counter-balance the overt racism of Carlson and others:

https://checks-and-balances.org/app/upl ... SCOTUS.pdf

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:02 pm https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics ... index.html

Judge Michael Luttig supports Jackson’s nomination.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:38 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:02 pm https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics ... index.html

Judge Michael Luttig supports Jackson’s nomination.

Has anyone else noticed that Republicans haven’t concocted fake allegations against this nominee?

One other note: were it not for Democrats like Biden and Durbin, there already would have been a black female Justin on the Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/remembering- ... eme-court/

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:59 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:38 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:02 pm https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics ... index.html

Judge Michael Luttig supports Jackson’s nomination.

Has anyone else noticed that Republicans haven’t concocted fake allegations against this nominee?

One other note: were it not for Democrats like Biden and Durbin, there already would have been a black female Justin on the Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/remembering- ... eme-court/

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed her nomination to court based on her record on the California Supreme Court where she exhibited "a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers' rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system."[11]

Democrats blocked Brown's confirmation because they saw her as a "conservative judicial activist who ignores the law in favor of her own political views", "one of President Bush's most ideological and extreme judicial nominees", and a "jurist who supported limits on abortion rights and corporate liability and opposed affirmative action."[12] On June 8, freshman Senator Barack Obama, in a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, characterized her judicial activism as social darwinism.[8][13] He said:

Justice Scalia says that, generally speaking, "the legislature has the power to make laws and the judiciary should only interpret the laws that are made or are explicitly in the Constitution." That is not Justice Brown's philosophy. It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.[8]

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:08 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:59 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:38 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:02 pm https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics ... index.html

Judge Michael Luttig supports Jackson’s nomination.

Has anyone else noticed that Republicans haven’t concocted fake allegations against this nominee?

One other note: were it not for Democrats like Biden and Durbin, there already would have been a black female Justin on the Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/remembering- ... eme-court/

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed her nomination to court based on her record on the California Supreme Court where she exhibited "a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers' rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system."[11]

Democrats blocked Brown's confirmation because they saw her as a "conservative judicial activist who ignores the law in favor of her own political views", "one of President Bush's most ideological and extreme judicial nominees", and a "jurist who supported limits on abortion rights and corporate liability and opposed affirmative action."[12] On June 8, freshman Senator Barack Obama, in a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, characterized her judicial activism as social darwinism.[8][13] He said:

Justice Scalia says that, generally speaking, "the legislature has the power to make laws and the judiciary should only interpret the laws that are made or are explicitly in the Constitution." That is not Justice Brown's philosophy. It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.[8]

The most partisan brain dead justices we have are the liberals whose opinions are almost always known well ahead of time for cases that count.

Let’s, though, examine the ‘very dangerous’ Janice Rogers Brown, who at the time she was to be nominated, MD very likely supported, but now that the world is upside down, she’s a ‘flaming radical’!!!


She’s a capitalist

She’s against cancel culture

She’s for free speech

She’s against socialism

She’s a deep thinker, referring often to philosophers in her opinions

She got along great with her colleagues

She is hostile to many economic regulations

She is adamantly pro-private property

She openly questioned government’s hostility to business

Now, in any other universe, we’d call Justice Brown an amazing American with American values and ideals. Unfortunately for this amazing woman who should have been the first black female justice on the court, she had a problem: her skin color. Which Democrats could not abide by. Because principles or something,

Here ends the lesson in liberal hypocrisy, today.

The Supreme Court conservatives, exuding the heady self-confidence of a team that knows it cannot lose, haven’t been coy about the jurisprudence they want to reshape or tear down.

Religious liberty, abortion, guns — the Court has recently taken up and dispensed with a whole swath of cases at astonishing speeds, often dramatically changing the bench’s long-held posture in relative silence through the shadow docket.

But perhaps on no topic has the Court telegraphed its intent more clearly than the administrative state, the power of federal agencies to regulate and make rules. The dry name belies a system absolutely critical to every corner of American life.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 6:59 pm Pretty uncomfortable when folks are being judged by their right wing activist jurisprudence ideology...and happen to be black or hispanic. Right wing folks like Petey go nuts.

I mean how could ANYONE be against an African American nominee...regardless of their right wing activist ideology?

Heads explode....

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:10 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 6:59 pm Pretty uncomfortable when folks are being judged by their right wing activist jurisprudence ideology...and happen to be black or hispanic. Right wing folks like Petey go nuts.

I mean how could ANYONE be against an African American nominee...regardless of their right wing activist ideology?

Heads explode....

Then it is also wrong to to pass judgement on left wing activist jurisprudence if your going to be consistent in your views??? IMO the answer to the objections of the FLP uber liberal left wing is simply defined as the WSBS. The audacity of any black man/woman to have conservative values can not be accepted nor tolerated under the iron fist of modern FLP ideology.

“If I want to dump chemical waste in a swamp, I’d prefer that the federal government not have power to regulate that,” Julian Davis Mortenson, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told TPM. “If I want to pay people working in my factory a miserably tiny wage, or employ 12 year-olds, I’d rather the federal government not have the power to make a rule against that.”

The Court is now stocked with justices hungry to shift the power back in the direction of those nonregulatory interests. In doing so, they’ll really be shifting power to themselves.

“If the Supreme Court truly honored the rule of law and precedent, then they would acknowledge the power of the agencies that was granted to them by Congress in order to save our environment,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told TPM of a recent illustrative case involving the Environmental Protection Agency. “But this is an extremist Supreme Court, so I’m very worried about the outcome.”

Because Congress is already paralyzed on critical issues, the prospect of a future in which the administrative state is rendered toothless is also a future in which unelected, conservative Justices become the arbiters of what the government can and can’t do. It’s a right-wing fantasy, cherished and developed for decades, come to life.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 9:26 am From the article posted above:

“If I want to dump chemical waste in a swamp, I’d prefer that the federal government not have power to regulate that,” Julian Davis Mortenson, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told TPM. “If I want to pay people working in my factory a miserably tiny wage, or employ 12 year-olds, I’d rather the federal government not have the power to make a rule against that.”

The Court is now stocked with justices hungry to shift the power back in the direction of those nonregulatory interests. In doing so, they’ll really be shifting power to themselves.

“If the Supreme Court truly honored the rule of law and precedent, then they would acknowledge the power of the agencies that was granted to them by Congress in order to save our environment,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told TPM of a recent illustrative case involving the Environmental Protection Agency. “But this is an extremist Supreme Court, so I’m very worried about the outcome.”

Because Congress is already paralyzed on critical issues, the prospect of a future in which the administrative state is rendered toothless is also a future in which unelected, conservative Justices become the arbiters of what the government can and can’t do. It’s a right-wing fantasy, cherished and developed for decades, come to life.

Steve Bannon has been crowing about "destroying the administrative state" for years now. SCOTUS seems poised to execute the idea.

THIS is the type of thing that happens with an activist, conservative high court. The interests of the private sector will absolutely overrun attempts to reign in excesses taken in the name of "freedom".

Freedom to pollute. Freedom to cheat. Freedom to avarice. Freedom to discrimination.

You know, all those wonderful "conservative values" our republic party friends keep insisting they're "for"...

It'll be a dark, dark day when these conservative activists get their way on this subject...

..

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 9:26 am From the article posted above:

“If I want to dump chemical waste in a swamp, I’d prefer that the federal government not have power to regulate that,” Julian Davis Mortenson, professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told TPM. “If I want to pay people working in my factory a miserably tiny wage, or employ 12 year-olds, I’d rather the federal government not have the power to make a rule against that.”

The Court is now stocked with justices hungry to shift the power back in the direction of those nonregulatory interests. In doing so, they’ll really be shifting power to themselves.

“If the Supreme Court truly honored the rule of law and precedent, then they would acknowledge the power of the agencies that was granted to them by Congress in order to save our environment,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told TPM of a recent illustrative case involving the Environmental Protection Agency. “But this is an extremist Supreme Court, so I’m very worried about the outcome.”

Because Congress is already paralyzed on critical issues, the prospect of a future in which the administrative state is rendered toothless is also a future in which unelected, conservative Justices become the arbiters of what the government can and can’t do. It’s a right-wing fantasy, cherished and developed for decades, come to life.

Steve Bannon has been crowing about "destroying the administrative state" for years now. SCOTUS seems poised to execute the idea.

THIS is the type of thing that happens with an activist, conservative high court. The interests of the private sector will absolutely overrun attempts to reign in excesses taken in the name of "freedom".

Freedom to pollute. Freedom to cheat. Freedom to avarice. Freedom to discrimination.

You know, all those wonderful "conservative values" our republic party friends keep insisting they're "for"...

It'll be a dark, dark day when these conservative activists get their way on this subject...

..