Perhaps The Buffoon should familiarize himself with Art. 1 Sec. 4 Cls.1 of the Constitution, known as the Elections Clause. It says,

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Posted by ScottS

I am not a Democrat. My political mentor was my grandfather, a survivor of WW1, Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. In short, a yellow dog Democrat. He was depressed with my first time to vote for Nixon in '72 and to his delight my later regret of that vote.

That said, the Buffoon is an embarrassment to everything I've learned about politics and government from my other grandfather's elections as a Justice of the Peace, to high school civics, to knocking on doors for Wallace at the behest of my Dad, to a political science degree, to 35 plus years of practicing law.

Invoking a statute enacted to deal with war with another government to deal with a drug gang is a bridge too far. It reeks of incompetence on the Bufoon's part.

I have 3 copies of the Constitution in my house and one resides on my night stand. I periodically flip through it and have read it in its entirety on numerous occasions.
#167 | Posted by BellRinger

Jesus f****g crist, get with the jist of the exchange. Court's have enjoined his stupid but the question was about discipline (sanctions). Idiot.

sanctionable

There is a fine line between sanctional court conduct and pushing the outer limits of law and precedent. A president pushing the outer limits will get the benefit of the doubt.

Yes but only for what they do in court. Not for just being idiots.

Here in Connecticut, I was once a Justice of the Peace. But, no JP Courts here (that I know of).

Hey dumbass, what do you think JP means? It means Justice of the Peace, the lowest level court in the US. Dumbass. And congratulations on your service. It requires absolutely no legal training, at least in Texas. A requirement you meet.

Early in my career I represented a lender and did many foreclosures and FED"s per month. FED's are done in JP court. Al Green was a JP court judge. I appeared before him many times. He ran his court as if he was a preacher at the pulpit. He made simple legal matters a pain in the a**. His is a minority majority district and he will be re-elected until he dies or quits. I'm not a fan. F**k 'em.

I didn't know this, when was the last war that it occurred?

You should look into what "Congress declares war" means. You'll find it doesn't mean what you think it does. Appropriating spending works just fine.

I have no problem with voter ID and have advocated for such for a long time. That said, proof of citizenship? How, a birth certificate? You gotta be shi**in' me. Have you looked at yours? What on that document proves beyond any doubt that that document refers to you, your person? Absent finger prints or such it don't. This is cosplay bovine fecal matter.

Dumbmass, the difference is evaluating equality of claims. Kinda like the part I put in bold.

Dumbmass, the difference is evaluating equality of claims. Kinda like the part I put in bold. Dumbass.

The headline supposes a view apparently not the Court's.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday was sympathetic to an Ohio woman who alleges that she was the victim of reverse discrimination. Marlean Ames contends that she lost out on a promotion that she wanted, and then was demoted, simply because she is straight. With Ames and her employer in what Justice Neil Gorsuch described as "radical agreement" that federal employment laws impose the same requirements on all plaintiffs, a solid majority (if not all) of the justices appeared ready to overturn a ruling by a federal appeals court that required Ames to meet a higher bar for her case to go forward than if she had been a member of a minority group. (emphasis mine)

Sorry, Firefox vs Chrome. The important part is this was out a few days ago.

#23 Posted by reinheitsgebot

It really sucks when news outlets don't date their articles. Anyway, I read about New Mexico a few days ago.

Based on prior case law ...

Without a citation the reference is useless.

... my understanding is that the government cannot utilize the private sector as a conduit to act on its behalf to take actions the Constitution prohibits the government from doing on its own.

In the abstract, that is generally true. However, as applied that can be a difficult to decern. What you seem to overlook is that the government has the same right of free speech as you, me or anyone else. It can ask, it can demand, it can scream, holler and pound the table. What it can't do is coerce, do this or it will do that. Kinda like what happened with Eric Adams.

How about the "test" for whether government conduct is prohibited government "coercion," behest I've not seen. Nor the court's for the most part.

Comparing private conduct with government conduct in a First Amendment discussion? Nothing relegates you to children's table quicker.

We have 3 branches of government. No agency should be able to operate outside the executive and/or legislative branch. Civics101

Civics 101. A small number of agencies have been created by Congress, legislation signed by the Executive, to operate outside the political whims of the Executive. That legislation provides a process within which Executive can operate. The Buffoon is saying, "F*k that s*t, I'll do whatever I want." So here we are with idiots defending such stupid.

Btw, this appeal is not about the merits of what the Buffoon can or can't do. It's about whether a TRO (effective for 14 days) can be stayed. Forever the answer has been no. Petulant child that he is, no for two weeks is too much for the Buffoon.

Seriously, a f*g "focus group" of 11 gd people and you idiots spent 14 hours arguing it. I mean for the lawd's sake do math, 11 divided by the Buffoons popular vote is so minuscule its not even a blip on any f*g radar. Give me something less anecdotal and more empirical. Thanks.

Yes, you did.

What did I miss?

... watch the primary source you are eagerly opining about. ...

What part of what I've written did you not get.

I tend to agree with that most of the time. However, when our allies are crapping on western values ...

So "western" values are yours? Did I miss something?

... either watch the 19 minute speech or don't. ...

As I explained, in the context of my position I have no need to.

Btw, we already agreed to disagree so why up in arms? Chit not workin out?