so what does it all mean anon?
seems like the fuckery that goes on by design here
dont know why it is designed that way but it is
email and ask anon
walmart has a lot of 3rd party vendors now like amazon but even amazon has problems with them
if walmart knows and keeps then attack
anon why would Q answer your question before you explain your post to other anons?
i didnt post the question for no reason
>anon why would Q answer your question before you explain your post to other anons?
>i didnt post the question for no reason
>Poland expands the Supreme Court
ANONS funny coincidence lawfag just posted recently about increasing SCOTUS justices
worth a repost
i plan to write a series of short articles about the US Consitution - i remember "CONLAW" from law school - it was confusing so i worked hard (usually didnt have to) - got top grade in that class.
Now i look back and understand - so now i call the course "UNCONLAW" it was so much bullshit that centered on SCOTUS and what they did - with little or NO attention given to the actual constitution!
that is so wrong - backward actually as ALL study of ALL law should BEGIN with the constitution! There is no confusion - no chaos - no parsing there - just plain concise and easy to understand english - in fact the constitution should be the bedrock of ALL public education so by the time of HS graduation a student knows it by heart.
That said - and with all the focus on the SCOTUS in the POTUS agenda - all the shit SCOTUS has pulled - of course the first article is SCOTUS- right now we are all gleeful that POTUS will remake the court in our image - me included - but are we missing a bigger opportunity? and are we missing a key element of the deep state that needs fixing?
already the deranged left is plotting yet another comeback. it appears the 4am talking points already moved past the midterms! i say this as i saw a new USA Today (mclean VA mcpaper) which disclosed their latest "Blue Firewall" here is the link:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/02/make-supreme-court-lots-bigger-59-justices-more-like-america-column/749326002/
this article outlines the latest plan - to win back the white house AND the Senate AND the House in 2020 - THEN to expand the SCOTUS with more judges appt. by the new liberal POTUS to negate our winnings. Quite a plot!
anons may not recall that in 1937, President FDR tired to do just that. He proposed to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges to "make it more efficient". Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal. The idea failed but FDR eventually packed the 9 judge court - and caused many of today's problems
But this libtard plot got me thinking about the idea so i dug a bit and this is what i found. first the USA Today writer actually rejects this FDR idea because he recognized that this would give R's a massive issue to campaign on - and that it could backfire exactly like the Harry Reid nuclear option did.
Yet he goes on to point out that leaving the most important and divisive issues to a panel of 9 unelected judges is also a problem. And he is correct - how many times have we heard this complaint? Many times.
OK so what to do? significantly - the constitution does NOT specific 9 justices or any number. Congress decides how many. So it would ony be a matter of federal legislation to increase the number. I for one think that is an excellent idea - so that the bulk of cases could be decided by a smaller panel - say 3 justices - just like the appellate courts. Then the full panel for cases of more public import. This would effectively dilute the vote/power of each individual justice - which is a good thing.
In fact believe the reason congress has not done this is entirely deepstate - it is easier to manipultate and control a group of 9 than a larger group - and we have all seen the results of this - quite a dismal record.
then on to the 2nd big question - how many and how appointed? Here the USA Today writer blunders. He suggests keeping the nine appointed by the president, and add one from each state, to be appointed by governors, and then confirmed by the Senate.
This actually would be a major BOON to us anons - because there are more red states and we would dominate SCOTUS forever. But the writers idea has a fatal flaw - Under the Consitution ONLY POTUS may appoint SCOTUS justices (confirmed by the Senate) This duty and authority CANNOT be delegated by POTUS. Already SCOTUS cases are clear on this.
But I think the idea to turn to the states for one pick each is very good and politically feasible - So to fix the flaw the law would simply need to include a provision for states to nominate a candidate but only as a request/advice to POTUS - who could accept or reject it.
In this manner I imagine only a handful of state picks would be rejected for good cause. This would mean that the elite/cabal strangle hold on SCOTUS nominees would end and the judicial process with a larger group would be very hard to assail or pervert.
What say you anons? A good idea? Comment and it goes out in the universe of ideas. We will remake America with our ideals!
i agree with you anon - except that requires amendment of the constitution - too difficult for now
also public focus is heavy on scotus now
that is why i posted a scotus plan that does not require this
>Roe v Wade will soon be overturned
wont happen anon
nor should it
unwanted pregnancies and babies are a nightmare worse then early terminations
always been that way
the idea that every potential life is sacred is a cabal lie
even the bible did not prohibit termination
please dont quote scripture to the contrary
do your own homework on it first