PB>>18787779
That and so much more. I came upon an older woman and we discussed Q but she said to me, she had been watching the board for years (she used lurker, thats how i knew it was true), she never posted but had a keen knowledge of what was happening. It was quite amazing and truthfully anons should not be surprised how many are here.
Question if a person lurks are they still included in the numbers?
2 hours ago.General Ryder completely dodged direct questions from journalists on the border, National Guard! pathetic. Todd Bensman: "I'm being told that the whole system is already off the rails."
13:00 minutes of shocking excrement and bullshit from the military
Troops are going to assist and facilitate immigrants to come in, NOT stop them
https://rumble.com/embed/v2j3zqg/?pub=4
This is fucking shocking, expect riots, anons protect your families. Stay away from the crowds.Some serious shit her
Greg Abbot is not shutting down the bridges down soon, but too late….this is hell for people in that area
700,000 to 1,000,000 rushing the border and only sending 1500 national guard to help them come in and sending $50-$70 million to accommodate the immigrants.
Everyone needs to be safe in that area, protect your families. This is absolute evil incarnate
So???
They get paid much more for unemployment, still going on
Whatever we do, don’t get in the fray, protect your families if you are on the border. I’m not an alarmist. Something feels very off and intentional to me.
But this seems to be setting up the patriots by allowing this bum rush.
If you can go away for a couple of days or week, because this is a set up to prosecute Americans. Don’t be tempted. This is gut reaction, do you what you need to do.
I think there will be people sent there to handle this, but I have no idea.
Anons on the border, be safe and sages with decisions
Terrorist attacks, set up for MAGA you know “the extremists”
To be clear the NG is only there to help process the 700,000 to 1 million illegal immigrants to enter,Not to stop them and turn them around
6:07 minutes the help by NG is to help them bring illegal immigrants in
==Former Ice Agents: 2 hours ago
Victor Avila: "It's lawlessness down there and its been like this in Arizona, Texas, Brownsville.."==
https://rumble.com/embed/v2j4ado/?pub=4
He says crimes in CT calling and saying illegal immigrants crime gangs are invading rich homesdemanding the border states stop the invasion. He’s getting calls from all over the country to stop this invasion, prior ICE agents
Short video watch it
1 hour ago
Mike Davis: Nonsense 'Political Smear Job’ against Clarence Thomas. We are at the point of Revolutionary France to destroy the SC by the democratsAlito said this weekend he was afraid is being assasinated this weekend
https://rumble.com/embed/v2j4o6c/?pub=4
‘Disgraceful’: GOP Senators Accuse Dems of Threatening to Yank Supreme Court Justices’ Security Funding
Mary Margaret Olohan / @MaryMargOlohan / May 02, 2023
Ted Cruz Josh Hawley in suits
Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., condemned Democrats for threatening to yank security funding from Supreme Court justices. Pictured: Cruz gestures as Hawley looks contemplative in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Merrick Garland on March 1 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Republicans are denouncing Democratic senators’ attempt to leverage the Supreme Court budget in exchange for an enforceable ethics code.
During a Senate Judiciary hearing on Supreme Court ethics reform, Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., tore into their Democratic colleagues for “threatening to cut off the funding for the security at the Supreme Court,” as Cruz said.
“The Left is willing to threaten the lives of the justices,” said the Texas senator. “This is disgraceful.”
Hawley similarly accused Democrats of threatening the justices.
“The threat is, ‘We will deny you security, unless you do what we want. We will deny you security unless you do what we want,’” he said. “We had an assassin come to the home of Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh and try to murder him.We have had credible threats on the lives of other justices. And now members of this body say ‘We will deny you security for you, your families, your children, unless you do what we want.’”
“Extraordinary,” Hawley said, shaking his head.
The Supreme Court had just asked Congress to increase funding to help protect the justices: $5,897,000 for the “expansion of protective activities” and a separate increase of $585,000 for new IT security positions in “cybersecurity, software development, and network engineering.”
“This request would expand security activities conducted by Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices,” the protective activities request says, before specifically citing the presence of threats to the justices.
“On-going threat assessments show evolving risks that require continuous protection,” the request continues. “Additional funding would provide for contract positions, eventually transitioning to full-time employees, that will augment capabilities of the Supreme Court police force and allow it to accomplish its protective mission.”
Fifteen members of the Democratic Caucus have proposed language to be attached to next year’s Supreme Court funding bill requiring the court to adopt new processes for recusals and ethics allegations—essentially making the court answerable to Congress.
“The Supreme Court should have a code of ethics to govern the conduct of its members, and its refusal to adopt such standards has contributed to eroding public confidence in the highest court in the land,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told the Washington Post. “It is unacceptable that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from the accountability that applies to all other members of our federal courts, and I believe Congress should act to remedy this problem.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/02/disgraceful-gop-senators-accuse-dems-threatening-yank-supreme-court-justices-security-funding/
I’m trying to find this video at senate,can any anons help with this?
Ketanji Brown Jackson disclosure errors spotlighted in Senate Supreme Court hearing amid Thomas scrutiny
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's transparency gaps were brought up during a hearing on high court ethics reform by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who asked why the Democrats didn't levy the same scrutiny against her as they did with Justice Clarence Thomas.
Kennedy's questions came during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ethics after reports revealed Thomas failed to disclose paid trips he went on with wealthy GOP donor Harlan Crow. Democrats have called on Congress to impose ethics rules, while Republicans largely say the justices are capable of governing themselves.
"Justice Jackson made multiple amendments three days after President Biden nominated her. Not one senator brought that up during her confirmation hearings. Not one of my colleagues here walked into her hearings with the buckets of mud that they've thrown against Justice Thomas. Not one," Kennedy said.
In September, Jackson disclosed that she had “inadvertently omitted” information about self-employed consulting income that her spouse received from consulting on medical malpractice cases. Her revisions also revealed new information about reimbursements for travel and board memberships stemming back to at least 2014, according to Bloomberg.
Kennedy then blasted the news reports surrounding Thomas, saying that "some Democrats and their media allies" have "attempted hit pieces" on the longest-serving sitting justice and his Republican-appointed colleagues.
The Louisiana senator was referring to at least two separate reports from ProPublica that highlighted Thomas's failure to disclose travel gifts from Crow and one Georgia property transaction the donor had with the justice, though Thomas recently said he didn't report the sale because he didn't make a profit. Last week, Politico reported Justice Neil Gorsuch was the joint owner of a Colorado property he sold to a major law firm CEO.
"This is untenable," committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Tuesday. "Ethics cannot simply be left to the discretion of the nation's highest court. The court should have a code of conduct with clear and enforceable rules."
Durbin had called on Chief Justice John Roberts to testify for the hearing but had his request denied last week. Roberts issued a letter signed by all the justices that included "a Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices to which all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe."
The high court has repeatedly maintained it consults a code of conduct followed by lower court federal judges. The main difference is that the already advisory code for lower court judges is hardly enforceable for the high court, given the limited number of nine justices, legal experts have said.
Earlier in the hearing, ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the recent reports on the justices a "concentrated effort by the Left to delegitimize the court and to cherry-pick examples to make a point."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/kbj-disclosure-errors-senate-hearing-clarence-thomas
==Supreme Court to decide major case on federal rule-making power
Republican lawmakers have been critical of a decades-old doctrine that gives deference to agencies==
The Supreme Court will decide a challenge over how courts assess federal rule-making, setting up a major case for its next term that could change the balance of power between executive agencies, Congress and the judiciary.
The case the court announced Monday, Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, centers on a challenge to a Commerce Department rule on fishery inspectors. But the justices said they will reconsider a 39-year-old legal precedent that has been used to uphold thousands of agency rules across the entire federal government.
Federal agencies, from the Justice Department to the EPA and the Federal Communications Commission, regularly assert what’s known as “Chevron deference” in defending their rules in court.
That doctrine stems from a 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., in which the court found that judges should defer to the agencies’ interpretations of a law if it is ambiguous.
Republican lawmakers and the conservative legal movement have been critical of the doctrine for years, describing it as a way that regulatory agencies go beyond what Congress intended when it passed laws.
With the high court’s current majority of six justices appointed by Republican presidents, federal agencies have been met with increasing skepticism. Several justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, have questioned the Chevron decision.
Doctrine questioned
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commerce Department rule from a challenge from fishing companies.
The fishing companies in a petition called the rule a “threat to efforts to rein in agency overreach” because it would require them to pay the inspectors overseeing their fisheries directly. That rule is a way to get around Congress deciding how much funding there should be for fisheries inspections, they argued.
The petition said the Chevron doctrine has been a “disaster in practice” and led to the widespread growth of federal agencies.
“Lower courts see ambiguity everywhere and have abdicated the core judicial responsibility of statutory construction to executive-branch agencies,” the fishery companies said. “The exponential growth of the Code of Federal Regulations and overregulation by unaccountable agencies has been the direct result.”
The Biden administration defended the fishery rule as well as the broad agency deference under the Chevron decision in a brief meant to dissuade the justices from agreeing to decide the case. The administration argued that the doctrine has been used in thousands of cases across four decades and is relied on daily.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has recused herself from the case, which means only eight justices will decide. Prior to her confirmation to the Supreme Court, Jackson participated in oral arguments in the case as a judge on the D.C. Circuit.
The case granted Monday would likely be argued sometime in the Supreme Court’s next term, which starts in October, and decided by the end of next June.
Previous challenges
In a 2021 oral argument in the case American Hospital Association v. Becerra, the trio of Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch questioned whether Chevron should stand and what to replace it with.
The court ultimately did not address Chevron when it ruled against Medicare on a drug pricing program last year.
The court last year also advanced what it called the “major questions” doctrine in analyzing federal rule-making in a case known as West Virginia v. EPA. There, the court found that Congress must be explicit when giving a federal agency power to address issues of “economic and political significance” through rule-making.
Congressional Republicans have targeted the doctrine in recent years, including a bill that passed the House in 2017 that would have overturned the Chevron case. That measure did not advance in the closely divided Senate.
“If Chevron requires courts to abdicate their own obligation to adjudicate legal questions by elevating an agency’s views over Congress’s intent to favor veterans, then it patently violates the basic structure of our Constitutional design,” the brief stated.
Anons if you had to chose, why you believe the Senate or Supreme Court?the makeup of the court has everything to do withthe decision
https://rollcall.com/2023/05/01/supreme-court-to-decide-major-case-on-federal-rulemaking-power/
You are an idiot if What you are saying this is not possible. Their lives were in danger due to whoever released the Hobbs decision in advance,even you as an agent should know that, although you may be infected already
Don’t overwhelm him, he’s not even close, we will look crazy. Calm down
Yeah but the French believes democracy rules their country we believe in the republic. Its shunned here to revolt unless its a revolution
And their leadership could care less, have you seen the last four years of yellow vests protesting for that long?
Not bad though anon
Geez I always wondered what these were about. At such odd times