Another Trump Victory

[Porter]

On 12/8/2025 at 7:09 AM, DCT said:

Your president would have you to believe it is Tylenol. 😂 

Has the Democrat Party figured out the definition of a woman yet?

[Reagan]

36 minutes ago, Porter said:

Has the Democrat Party figured out the definition of a woman yet?

Speaking of which.  Is Justice Jackson’s judicial buffoonery giving black women a bad name?  From the article:  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has made a pretty strange name for herself on the Supreme Court, and it’s not because she’s carefully sticking to the Constitution. Over and over, she sounds less like a judge calling balls and strikes and more like an activist trying to steer outcomes she personally approves of or has been told to push. She feels a lot like a DEI (she is) activist judge, used more for her willingness to play the game and control than actually because she’s a fair judge.  In a recent Supreme Court exchange, Justice Jackson argued that presidents should not be able to fire so-called “experts” who run large parts of the federal government."   Where does the Constitution fit here?!  One saving grace is if the Supreme Court eventually sides with Trump and Joebama's autopens are invalid, she may be gone!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

@Big girl  @UT alum  @DCT  @Boyz N Da Hood

[DCT]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

She is a woman.
 

Midterms are coming.

[baddog]

1 hour ago, DCT said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

She is a woman.
 

Midterms are coming.

Can she define herself? Hey, are the midterms coming?

[OlDawg]

19 hours ago, Reagan said:

Speaking of which.  Is Justice Jackson’s judicial buffoonery giving black women a bad name?  From the article:  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has made a pretty strange name for herself on the Supreme Court, and it’s not because she’s carefully sticking to the Constitution. Over and over, she sounds less like a judge calling balls and strikes and more like an activist trying to steer outcomes she personally approves of or has been told to push. She feels a lot like a DEI (she is) activist judge, used more for her willingness to play the game and control than actually because she’s a fair judge.  In a recent Supreme Court exchange, Justice Jackson argued that presidents should not be able to fire so-called “experts” who run large parts of the federal government."   Where does the Constitution fit here?!  One saving grace is if the Supreme Court eventually sides with Trump and Joebama's autopens are invalid, she may be gone!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

@Big girl  @UT alum  @DCT  @Boyz N Da Hood

This is exactly why you want originalists in the Court vs. liberal revisionists. Originalists interpret intent & principles that apply across the decades. Those who say the Constitution is a ‘living document’ are full of it.

Free speech (1st Amendment), right to bear arms (2nd), illegal search (4th), etc. principles remain the same as original intent whether the Framers knew about social media, specific firearms or not. Same with the other bedrock principles.

The principles remain the same, and are just applied to current.

Anything above that, and judges aren’t interpreting—which is their charge. They’re legislating. Which isn’t their arena.