Leaderboard

In wrapping up this session the Supreme Court finished strong. In the last couple of days we have: Trump v. Casa - The Supreme Court said that federal district judges have been greatly overstepping their authority in issuing universal injunctions. As an example from what I googled, G W Bush had 12 universal injunctions in 8 years. Obama had 20 in 8 years. Trump has had 40 in less than 5 months. Of those, 35 were issued in only 5 districts. So out of almost 100 federal district courts, 5 have been used as a hatchet job. Anything that Trump does, take it to one of those federal courts and end it. Had Obama had this happen so the same pace as Trump, he would have had 900 universal injunctions, not 20. Mahmoud v. Taylor - In Montgomery County, Maryland, the school board decided that several LGBTQ books would be used from Pre-K through 5th grade. The district however had an opt out option if the teacher used the books for class assignments. Not so shockingly, the school district was stunned at the volume of opt out requests. So they changed the policy to no opt outs allowed for any reason. The Supreme Court struck down the ban on an opt out choice as it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Apparently some people have forgotten or haven’t understood that freedom of religion at school doesn’t mean only that religion can’t be pushed at public schools but it also can’t be denied. Seriously, who thinks that reading books on sexuality starting at 4 years old is a good thing… much less forced. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton - Yep, a Texas case. Texas passed a law where accessing online adult content sites required age verification. The FSC claimed that it violated the free speech of adults to require age verification. The Texas law did not ban anything but only required age verification. The FSC claimed that showing your age violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that the state governments already restrict such material from over the county sales and a person can be asked to verify age by producing an ID. The same is true for tobacco and alcohol sales as examples. So why should digital media have less of a standard? The Supreme Court said that it didn’t and having as age requirement for online material that minors might access is no different than face to face, over the counter transactions. Overall it seems like a great couple of days from SCOTUS.

@DCT what’s to laugh at…. i get there is some nonsense from the right but it doesn’t compare to the all out ridiculousness the left puts out there. just look at the 3 cases tvc mentioned…..we’ll look at the last two cause we all know that the 1st can’t be looked at without “orange man bad” hatred. the last two….all sexual…..typical left nonsense…. yes or no is that not “left nonsense”

Trying to decide if that’s a xxxx, reformed skinhead, or a not yet grown conehead…

If we are talking about non-qualified folks in administrations.......Meet the ex-deputy assistant secretary of spent fuel and waste disposition of the office of nuclear energy......

Life without parole with no chance to appeal isn’t a bad deal though. Hopefully he will live to be 95 and spend more than 3 generations in a cell.

And I’m glad Trump isn’t wasting his time trying to satisfy them.

Easy to complain when nothing will make you happy

Yeah I’m hearing UTSA for what you said, as well as Rice to get Houston market, and UNT to get the DFW.

Just flip last year's schedules and that will be this year's schedules.

@Big girl @DCT Did you not read TVC's post. He is MORE than qualified...... On another note, who cares🤣 This is just giving grants not fighting terrorism.....

You’re a DEI advocate and now you require experience. You can’t have it both ways.

It’s a full time job battling the nonsense the left tries to push on the American people.

I would say any news organization that broadcast on TV or has a proven track record.....You took one random dude with 75K worth of followers who makes his income on clicks...... Why post something like that when literally with 30 seconds of research you could of found out it's not true.

Captain bone spurs is what I refer to the doofus as! Draft dodger and can't legally purchase a weapon, yet in charge of the military... American politics is a joke, I still believe to run this country you should have some form of military background.... age requirement and citizenship ain't cutting for me... same with term limits, need to be in place.. it'll never pass tho, they won't vote to cut their own throats

If it says that then there would be no question. The Constitution doesn’t say that however. There are two huge words in law. They are “and” and “or”. Whenever there is an “and” and more than one requirement or element of that law, all requirements must be met. So if a law, amendment or other statute says, “This, that AND the other thing, all three elements must be met or the law doesn’t apply. If the law/Constitution/statute/whatever says “or” in the same type of situation, any one of the elements is sufficient. So if a law says “This, that OR the other thing”, any one of them stands alone. The Fourteenth Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States Note that it says AND and not OR. It says born or naturalized AND subject to its jurisdiction. It would be clear if they didn’t throw that little AND in there. That is a point often ignored like it was an afterthought that didn’t matter. Ignored apparently is Elk v. Wilkins which I have already mentioned. Elk was born in US territory and an Indian reservation. So a Native American born on American soil. No question right? Not so fast. The US Supreme Court said that he was not a US citizen at birth. Even though born on US soil, he was subject to the jurisdiction of another country. That would be the Winnebago Indians. Being from a foreign country (in the US no less) but being born on US soil did not make a Native American an American. That decision has not been overturned. Did the US Congress believe that he and other Native Americans were born as Americans even born in this country? Apparently not because under their authority over immigration and naturalization in Article I of the Constitution, in 1924 passed the Indian Citizenship Act. Let that sink in. After WWI, the US enacted a law that finally made Native Americans citizens if they were born in the US. Did we grasp that? In 1924, almost 60 years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Americans born on American soil could finally claim citizenship at birth. Feel free to point out the federal law passed by Congress that made people subject to a foreign government’s jurisdiction, citizens at birth? I’ll wait…… On another note, I think the Supreme Court will throw up their collective hands and simply ignore Elk and say being born here makes a person a citizen. If only the Constitution said anyone born on US soil was an American as you claimed, it would have been settled 100 years ago.

[Hidden Content]

Really?

The same people applauding Rand Paul are the same ones who almost attacked him in the streets. He feared for his life. Typical.

I’ll be at the game today 4-1 this year.. let’s see if I can make it to 5. Pregame meal at Pappasitos for lunch right now, margs and fajitas, meeting with friends at Biggio’s for appetizers and drinks at 330, late night dinner at Pluckers. Fun filled day, Geaux ‘Stros!

I'm curious to see what the Berry kid can do, I mean he has been on varsity since he was a freshman and has never seen the field .................................🤷‍♂️

There's one thing that's been toppling great leaders for many years. This particular thing is undefeated in that regard.....

He identifies as black, like Kamala. Since when did experience matter to you?