thetragichippy

I completely agree.  If you have family members that are there please make your rounds and at least give staff the impression that someone is always looking over their shoulders.  You have to be that voice.

More than the money, having to change their policy is more important.

PASSED THE SENATE AND BACK TO THE HOUSE
 
ON SCHEDULE TO BECOME LAW ON INDEPENDENCE DAY

Elon is the poster child of the American Dream.  The contributions he makes to better the world are amazing.  We had stranded astronauts at the space station and the USA did not have the equipment to pull off a rescue......but guess who did. 
It is a sad day when NASA cannot go to the space station with our own equipment...hopefully that changes pronto.   

Result of the agreement on lawsuit could reach north of $30 million with $16 million upfront
 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

Biden left egg prices at $7.86. Trump has them down to $2.55. National averages. 
America wins with Trump. 

Trump’s Tariffs Collect $81.5 Billion in Revenue, Expected to Grow to $2.8 Trillion in the Future!

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up @Big girl  @DCT  @Boyz N Da Hood

…..and this is when gas prices usually go up due to summer driving demands.
but, but he said he would stop the Ukraine war on day one….lol.

July 4: Gas prices to hit their lowest level since 2021

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up and Waffle House ended their 50 cent sir charge on Eggs
things are finally turning around....and wait till the tariff deals are finalized..... 

Agree, too bad so many folks base their opinion on a policy or a person simply on their relationship with Donald Trump.
TDS will be live and well until 2028, then it will become VDS.

SMH.
Is this the case in all aspects of your life? 

I’m sure he’s very disappointed that you don’t approve of the choice, but that’s the consequences of losing.

Easy to complain when nothing will make you happy
 

@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.....

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......
 

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......
 

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. 

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.  

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. 

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.

Yes, and his grandfather was a long time member of the KKK🙄

Who mentioned you? Thought you didn’t like making it personal.

Yes but it can be done.
 There are about 900 federal district court judges. They are, like I mentioned, the federal equivalent of our county courts. So if one judge doesn’t like a political executive order, if someone files for an injunction with the stroke of a pen he banned the other 900 judges from an opinion.
There are more steps in certifying a class action lawsuit or injunction. The class has to be so large as to make it a burden to file individually. The class has to have the same claim of the violation. Such as, is a person being deported because of an overstayed visa, the person had a green card but was convicted of a crime, the person entered the country illegally, etc. While they all deal with deportation, they are from different causes so they may not fit in a class. I believe there must be a finding that the class will win in the action. There must be a belief that all members of the class will benefit from the action. Again, is being deported because asylum was denied the same as being deported as a legal resident but being convicted of a crime? If no, in my opinion they aren’t in the class. Also the claims of a defense must be the same. So my deportation is illegal because I have a permanent resident green card whereas another person may say, my deportation is illegal because I asked for asylum. Those are not the same defenses.
So while a class action is certainly possible, there are more hoops to jump through to make it universal (nationwide). A federal judge always has the authority to issue an injunction in his district. The issue is can he force other courts across the country into his decision?
I suspect that even though the lower courts have been admonished by the Supreme Court, some will soon disregard the decision by simply certifying everything as a class action. 

Today, the Supreme Court made a ruling that appears to permanently end what has become too commonplace lately, universal or nationwide injunctions.
In the last couple of decades, it has become an issue with federal district judges issuing a ruling in court that stopped a nationwide law or presidential executive order.
Federal district judges are the federal equivalent of a county felony judge in Texas. If you get indicted for a felony in Jefferson County, for example, you will go to trial in one of the three felony courts in Jefferson County in Beaumont. The district judge’s authority deals with a motion or a trial in front of that judge. The district judge is not an appeals court level but the trial court level.
The Supreme Court just issued a ruling that the universal (nationwide) injunction was beyond the authority of the federal district judges. 
So when Trump or any future president issues an executive order or the DOJ tries to enforce a federal law, one of the trial court level federal district judges can’t with the stroke of a pen end the order or the law.
 The case is Trump v. Casa about birthright citizenship. The ruling today has nothing to do with that case which still has to be hurt. What it seem to do was to stop the federal district judges for putting a nationwide halt to executive orders.
It seems like this has been brewing for a long time and the Supreme Court finally stepped in.
Also Justice Amy Coney Barrett blasted Justice Brown Jackson who dissented in the ruling. Her comment was that Brown Jackson: “Decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary”.