That is gonna leave a mark…
The statement from Justice Amy Coney-Barrett on Justice Jackson will live forever as one of the most brutal smackdowns ever written into a Supreme Court decision. Yes, she was writing for the majority on nationwide injunctions!!!
Basically, Jackson wanted the court to be able to override the President…
At least this one was a win for the administration, as they lost to the Senate Parlimentarian who said removing short-barrel rifles, shotguns and suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA) would have to be scrubbed.
It’s time for us to start writing our Congresscritters to get this one back in the bill! And it’s time for 2AF, NRA, and all the other gun organizations to put their oars and political folks into action!!!
Grrr…
Yeah Barrett didn’t hold back . Good to see , called her a no knowledge dumbshit pretty much . The Lower Courts were getting way out of bounds in a concerted effort to thwart the Executive Branch .
All these folks screaming about an Imperial President conveniently forget the, “I have a phone and a pen”, community organizer.
My mind goes numb when I try to read court decisions in their fullest, so I don’t. However, I have read every word of Justice Barrett’s writing for the pure enjoyment of it.
Justice Jackson is a PRIME example of what can happen when evil politicians control membership of the judiciary.
Boats- Agreed!
WSF- Snerk…yep!
Bob- I hear ya on that!
Regarding Hopey-Changey, it’s okay when their side does it.
What gives the parliamentarian the authority to tell Congress what they or can’t put into a bill?
Barrett smacking at Jackson is just an estrogen fit… they don’t like each other and this was an opportunity for Barrett to rub Jackson’s nose in it. As for the “parliamentarian” blocking NFA changes….he was doing the GOP’s bidding. The GOP is just as anti 2A as the Dems, they just have to pretend they are pro gun to keep their voter base from rebelling.
The parliamentarian was selected by McConnell, is a democrap, and was a Gore advisor; tells you all you need to know. And Thune could replace her, but rolled over and showed his belly(and lack of balls) instead.
Both sides of the isle hate and aren’t even pretending anymore.
All- Good points.
Whether it’s in the BBB or a separate congressional bill, the Short Bill and the Suppressor Bill must be placed before the legislature. We need to know who to “primary” in the next election cycle.
Everyone in House and Senate now is suspect. We are before realignment really kicking in (supposing that it does), and we ‘know’ that previous Republican leadership in those bodies has done an effective job of pretending to work with Trump or Republican voters, but in reality being a traitor to the voters, and valuing more collaboration with the Democrats. To some extent, this could also easily be explained by inflexible mindsets, and them over relying on sources and methods about their voters or about policy consequences that are tainted by university based networks. (I more default to the university-bureaucracy-congress explanation that congress has been paying the universities to support terrorism.)
Every established Republican with seniority and connections seems likely to be trying to use normal politician methods to restore or preserve the circumstances that allowed them to get elected in the frist place. It is kinda nice that the will to power nutjobs in the Republicans are not solely the ‘troubled times of change’ career path sorts, and do not only know how to gain power by breaking things when people are stressed and desperate. But, that seems to have often come at the cost of seeking power since they were at least in their mid teens, and having frozen a lot of their real core values and assumptions to what they had in their mid teens.
So lot and lots and counterfeit second amendment supporters, who do not want to be held accountable for lack of support.
The law side winds up have a center of gravity for the annoyance that is a combination of the most blinkered conventional thinking, and a naked will to power that cares to preserve nothing at all. Sotomeyer, Jackson, Harris, and Obama are unfortunately definitive examples of a type. Whatever game they see themselves as playing in whatever present, they think that it is the only game that they will ever play in the future, and that they rules they break for this round of play will never have costs for them.
I’m willing to consider different rules of play, but I kinda want everyone to have the same set enforced, and for those to stay enforced in the future.
I very definitely have some unorthodox views on what the rules should be, but basically where I have preferences many would say are insane or at least unusual, I can trace those back over decades of my mental history.
I have a strong bitter angry desire to coerce people who did some of the rule changes to recant and apologize, or to go forward with enforcing the new rules so that they are badly hurt by them. However, these goals are my own hate, and strictly speaking might be distinct from the real necessities. Some amount of deterrance seems like it might be important for a real necessity, but actually this is attaching of a theory to human behavior, so I should be skeptical; I can think of at least one viable alternative path that is more of a mess to think about in thoery. But, emergent or accidental paths that do not need theory understood in advance can quite beat pursuit of theoretical paths.