I too was disappointed in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's decision. But I don't think we can expect a Justice to do exactly as a President would like just because she was appointed by him -- she needs to follow her conscience. I guess we could wish her conscience led her to a different conclusion, though.
If you look closer at that particular case, the work was performed as contracted for, whether we like it or not the money was owed, and it should be paid for. But she was still a bad choice.
I was discussing this and pointed out that contracts need to be respected, but still, the Supreme Court has to care more about the Constitution, because their rulings have much wider consequences. They should have refused to hear the case, given that any ruling would violate the separation of powers. They should have looked a little closer at grounds, if you ask me.
I was waiting for someone to call me out on that, then I would have made that same comment you made. Had the courts followed the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, they would have never ruled for or against, they would have had to rule "no standing".
I'd take a tangent on this, meaning I'd pay it or not depending on what the work was. If it was legitimate and was done to the right standard honor the contract but only after auditing the work and prior financial pathways.
If the 'work' was some DEI, anti-Western BS or anything useless, deviant or destructive, void the contracts and don't pay.
Seemed like simple Contract Law.. Like it or not, the contracted work was apparently done in accordance with the terms. Payment due. Period. Post payment and before any additional contract, cancel everything and "fix it in the mix" (old broadcast term). Sudden administrative 'chainsaw massacres' are the only sure way Change will take place. Debates, studies, and meetings provide the quicksand in which Change is lost. T.L. is correct: SCOTUS should never have taken the case. There is also a credible story that anti-SCOTUS demonstrations and threats have Barrett scared for her family. The conjecture: this has made her hesitant to rule against controversial issues. Can't prove it, but it seems logical. Garland's refusal to enforce existing laws against the demonstrators was not reassuring either. To my knowledge, nothing has changed (security for SCOTUS judges).
My mistake, Barrett. She needs to follow the Constitution, not her conscience. In this very narrow case she might have done the right thing, but when you're a Supreme Court Justice, you have to protect the separation of powers not any individual who might be harmed.
A closer examination would show over 1 million lives were lost due to Lincoln's War on the Constitution. As for the matter of slavery, history shows the Southern slave holders asked the federal government to assist in returning the slave to Africa and every attempt was ignored. With the coming Industrial Revolution slavery would have died out, for the most part.
Over the last 75 years we've often heard "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" (Dissent from the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-clich-that-the-constitution-is-not-a-suicide-pact.html ). It's been used to justify all sorts of infringement. It wasn't used in Lincoln's time, but he surely thought it was so. Indeed, the United States DID cease to exist in 1861, at least as the Founders knew it. It wasn't a suicide, it was an execution.
In addition to being a tyrant, he was a hypocrite.
This is Abraham Lincoln in an 1848 speech before the US Congress.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."
Perhaps his excuse would be the South was "inclined" but didn't "have the power". In other words, might makes right, and that's where we've been since.
Gabby, I just finished reading "Lincoln's Lost Colony". It's about Lincoln's failure to establish a colony of free black slaves in Haiti. Lincoln's own cabinet was against his colonization of blacks policy. It was DOA. Lincoln was a tyrant, murderer, and a thief. He was an evil man. And I grew up in the city named after the bastard.
All of us have to realize that we have no leader, no real leader. Trump is an old man, we need a real leader in his 40s or 50s, and not a politician or a lawyer, either. I can't think of one fairly public figure who is standing up for our people. There are plenty of people like TL who do, but no one on the national scene.
Gabby, Being President is a thankless job for a good man. Dr. Ron Paul ran three times for President. In my opinion, Paul will be the last good man to run for president of the United States.
I really don't understand Trump's fascination with putting women into powerful positions. It's early in his term and already the choices he made in putting women in positions of power is destroying his credibility.
If JD Vance has any notions of being the next POTUS, he better press hard to bring the Cabinet and various departments into compliance with Trump's agenda.
While I might agree that bills should be paid for contracts completed under the previous administration, alleged "conservative" justices are cutting the legs out from under Trump, allowing lower courts to undermine the Constitutional power of the Executive Branch.
Every day it seems that some new stench emerges that strengthens my belief that there's no hope for the survival of the United States in its present form.
Good work. As for the present system staying solvent enough to pay out for defense, and Social Security/Medicare, and interest on the national debt, I wouldn't give it five more years, if the current trillion-dollar deficits continue - and perhaps even if they don't and the debt overhang isn't trimmed significantly, half of the federal government isn't funded, and half if not more of the bureaucracy were given the bum's rush out of the Beltway. We could easily end up in the same situation as Greece - and that would be a disaster, it would end the US government in its present form. It's been a constant problem since the founding as mentioned in AntiFederalist #9: "... have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money ..." https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/just-for-the-record-antifederalist The phrase "not worth a Continental" comes to mind. *That* would slash the bureaucracy - or perhaps worse, they might be hunted down with dogs - and it would put a permanent halt to Social Security and Medicare - amongst other things...
Even though I know a lot of people depend on Social Security, if it were to end under certain terms one would be able to survive without it, especially if they've hoarded a few bits of gold and silver. When the system crashes, there aren't going to be any sheriffs around to evict you from your home. If they survive the first few evictions I'd be surprised. If money is worth nothing and the bank has taken what savings you've left in it. There probably won't be any law enforcement for a few years. Medical issues will be another thing, however.
T.L. Vigilante committees will form when the police and sheriff's departments go broke. It happened in San Francisco in the Barbary Coast Days. Social Security will have to slowly be decreased. New workers won't pay into SS. Older recipients will have their benefits frozen. It won't be good for anyone except the new workers who will have to plan for their own retirements.
The Pentagon budget has to be slashed 80%. There is nowhere else to cut that makes a difference and won't destroy society.
Stuart Lee, Regarding Trump's choice of Bolton, hell, Trump should have just bought a sharp knife and committed Seppuku. Would have saved him four years of grief.
Apparently, John Bolton published book in 2020. Not sure if it was a bestseller, and I could be wrong here, but I think the title was either: "Countries I'd like to bomb" (a door-stopper); "Pacifism for Dummies"; or "Why can't we all just get along?" (with credit to Rodney King).
Great article. Yep. The Trump honeymoon is ending quickly. Trump's bravado and boasting won't cover up his failures to succeed at anything important. Trump has 30-60 more days to DO SOMETHING! And it has to be something BIG.
I think there needs to be a come-to-Jesus meeting where people are asked if they'd like to have the record for shortest tenure in a Federal office. People (including me) want to see perp walks and prosecutions, not promises. At least some armed seizures of documents like the FBI perpetrated on DJT himself. Without some of this, support will blow away like an Obama promise. And it will happen even quicker when the economy runs into trouble with the tariffs. I'm reminded of Reagan's first two years when after the "landslide" everyone thought he'd be a one term President.
A question of pattern here; how long is long enough before patience runs out? Meaning, the deep state excels at cunning and deception, has a huge network, has had decades to burrow in deep and wide. But the question is real and germane, because it goes to expectations, and get it wrong and the Deep State wins because MAGA loses trust, then hope, and the counter-revolution stops.
Given that, is it even possible to find and disclose those many items in so short a time given the obstructions going on?
True, there is a smidge of hope, BUT when the delays, 'national security issues' show up, game, set and match. Time to move to Venezuela because all the bad ones are here anyway so there are likely cheap vacant houses available on the beaches.
But in bigger-picture, the Former USA is Balkanizing in some way, and Fedgov is at war with itself; the States are sort of forming up along battle lines but not very strongly as of yet.
I too was disappointed in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's decision. But I don't think we can expect a Justice to do exactly as a President would like just because she was appointed by him -- she needs to follow her conscience. I guess we could wish her conscience led her to a different conclusion, though.
If you look closer at that particular case, the work was performed as contracted for, whether we like it or not the money was owed, and it should be paid for. But she was still a bad choice.
I was discussing this and pointed out that contracts need to be respected, but still, the Supreme Court has to care more about the Constitution, because their rulings have much wider consequences. They should have refused to hear the case, given that any ruling would violate the separation of powers. They should have looked a little closer at grounds, if you ask me.
I was waiting for someone to call me out on that, then I would have made that same comment you made. Had the courts followed the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, they would have never ruled for or against, they would have had to rule "no standing".
95% of the laws passed by the federal government are extreme violations of the Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment.
I'd take a tangent on this, meaning I'd pay it or not depending on what the work was. If it was legitimate and was done to the right standard honor the contract but only after auditing the work and prior financial pathways.
If the 'work' was some DEI, anti-Western BS or anything useless, deviant or destructive, void the contracts and don't pay.
Just me.
Seemed like simple Contract Law.. Like it or not, the contracted work was apparently done in accordance with the terms. Payment due. Period. Post payment and before any additional contract, cancel everything and "fix it in the mix" (old broadcast term). Sudden administrative 'chainsaw massacres' are the only sure way Change will take place. Debates, studies, and meetings provide the quicksand in which Change is lost. T.L. is correct: SCOTUS should never have taken the case. There is also a credible story that anti-SCOTUS demonstrations and threats have Barrett scared for her family. The conjecture: this has made her hesitant to rule against controversial issues. Can't prove it, but it seems logical. Garland's refusal to enforce existing laws against the demonstrators was not reassuring either. To my knowledge, nothing has changed (security for SCOTUS judges).
My mistake, Barrett. She needs to follow the Constitution, not her conscience. In this very narrow case she might have done the right thing, but when you're a Supreme Court Justice, you have to protect the separation of powers not any individual who might be harmed.
She is supposed to follow the Constitution, not her conscience or her feelings.
He made another lousy AG hire this time around. Trump needs to hear about our dissatisfaction.
"The United States actually ceased to exist in 1861."
Lincoln was the first traitor and tyrant to occupy our White House.
Assassinated five years too late.
Or a bit too early, before he could return the slaves to Africa. But no, the loss of over half a million White men wasn't worth it.
A closer examination would show over 1 million lives were lost due to Lincoln's War on the Constitution. As for the matter of slavery, history shows the Southern slave holders asked the federal government to assist in returning the slave to Africa and every attempt was ignored. With the coming Industrial Revolution slavery would have died out, for the most part.
Your information makes it even more vile.
Over the last 75 years we've often heard "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" (Dissent from the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-clich-that-the-constitution-is-not-a-suicide-pact.html ). It's been used to justify all sorts of infringement. It wasn't used in Lincoln's time, but he surely thought it was so. Indeed, the United States DID cease to exist in 1861, at least as the Founders knew it. It wasn't a suicide, it was an execution.
In addition to being a tyrant, he was a hypocrite.
This is Abraham Lincoln in an 1848 speech before the US Congress.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."
Perhaps his excuse would be the South was "inclined" but didn't "have the power". In other words, might makes right, and that's where we've been since.
Exactly.
Gabby, I just finished reading "Lincoln's Lost Colony". It's about Lincoln's failure to establish a colony of free black slaves in Haiti. Lincoln's own cabinet was against his colonization of blacks policy. It was DOA. Lincoln was a tyrant, murderer, and a thief. He was an evil man. And I grew up in the city named after the bastard.
All of us have to realize that we have no leader, no real leader. Trump is an old man, we need a real leader in his 40s or 50s, and not a politician or a lawyer, either. I can't think of one fairly public figure who is standing up for our people. There are plenty of people like TL who do, but no one on the national scene.
Thank you, Gabby.
You're welcome.
JD Vance?
Gabby, Being President is a thankless job for a good man. Dr. Ron Paul ran three times for President. In my opinion, Paul will be the last good man to run for president of the United States.
I really don't understand Trump's fascination with putting women into powerful positions. It's early in his term and already the choices he made in putting women in positions of power is destroying his credibility.
If JD Vance has any notions of being the next POTUS, he better press hard to bring the Cabinet and various departments into compliance with Trump's agenda.
While I might agree that bills should be paid for contracts completed under the previous administration, alleged "conservative" justices are cutting the legs out from under Trump, allowing lower courts to undermine the Constitutional power of the Executive Branch.
Every day it seems that some new stench emerges that strengthens my belief that there's no hope for the survival of the United States in its present form.
I'm with you there.
J Jordan, I agree. How can 553 clowns in an antique building represent 325 million Americans in 2025.
I know this is a bit off topic, but, maybe we should begin considering third party again.
I would suggest considering The Constitution Party, I have and seriously considering joining.
Good work. As for the present system staying solvent enough to pay out for defense, and Social Security/Medicare, and interest on the national debt, I wouldn't give it five more years, if the current trillion-dollar deficits continue - and perhaps even if they don't and the debt overhang isn't trimmed significantly, half of the federal government isn't funded, and half if not more of the bureaucracy were given the bum's rush out of the Beltway. We could easily end up in the same situation as Greece - and that would be a disaster, it would end the US government in its present form. It's been a constant problem since the founding as mentioned in AntiFederalist #9: "... have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money ..." https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/just-for-the-record-antifederalist The phrase "not worth a Continental" comes to mind. *That* would slash the bureaucracy - or perhaps worse, they might be hunted down with dogs - and it would put a permanent halt to Social Security and Medicare - amongst other things...
Even though I know a lot of people depend on Social Security, if it were to end under certain terms one would be able to survive without it, especially if they've hoarded a few bits of gold and silver. When the system crashes, there aren't going to be any sheriffs around to evict you from your home. If they survive the first few evictions I'd be surprised. If money is worth nothing and the bank has taken what savings you've left in it. There probably won't be any law enforcement for a few years. Medical issues will be another thing, however.
T.L. Vigilante committees will form when the police and sheriff's departments go broke. It happened in San Francisco in the Barbary Coast Days. Social Security will have to slowly be decreased. New workers won't pay into SS. Older recipients will have their benefits frozen. It won't be good for anyone except the new workers who will have to plan for their own retirements.
The Pentagon budget has to be slashed 80%. There is nowhere else to cut that makes a difference and won't destroy society.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" President Andrew Jackson.
Trump’s choice of John Bolton in 2018 was an interesting one ... he's certainly had some hits and misses
Stuart Lee, Regarding Trump's choice of Bolton, hell, Trump should have just bought a sharp knife and committed Seppuku. Would have saved him four years of grief.
Apparently, John Bolton published book in 2020. Not sure if it was a bestseller, and I could be wrong here, but I think the title was either: "Countries I'd like to bomb" (a door-stopper); "Pacifism for Dummies"; or "Why can't we all just get along?" (with credit to Rodney King).
Stuart, And don't forget Bolton's previous best-seller, "How to Avoid the Draft & Come Out Smiling."
Great article. Yep. The Trump honeymoon is ending quickly. Trump's bravado and boasting won't cover up his failures to succeed at anything important. Trump has 30-60 more days to DO SOMETHING! And it has to be something BIG.
I think there needs to be a come-to-Jesus meeting where people are asked if they'd like to have the record for shortest tenure in a Federal office. People (including me) want to see perp walks and prosecutions, not promises. At least some armed seizures of documents like the FBI perpetrated on DJT himself. Without some of this, support will blow away like an Obama promise. And it will happen even quicker when the economy runs into trouble with the tariffs. I'm reminded of Reagan's first two years when after the "landslide" everyone thought he'd be a one term President.
A question of pattern here; how long is long enough before patience runs out? Meaning, the deep state excels at cunning and deception, has a huge network, has had decades to burrow in deep and wide. But the question is real and germane, because it goes to expectations, and get it wrong and the Deep State wins because MAGA loses trust, then hope, and the counter-revolution stops.
Given that, is it even possible to find and disclose those many items in so short a time given the obstructions going on?
True, there is a smidge of hope, BUT when the delays, 'national security issues' show up, game, set and match. Time to move to Venezuela because all the bad ones are here anyway so there are likely cheap vacant houses available on the beaches.
But in bigger-picture, the Former USA is Balkanizing in some way, and Fedgov is at war with itself; the States are sort of forming up along battle lines but not very strongly as of yet.