dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Anons lawfag here with a report on an important case/step in the war vs the DS and restoration of the RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION - first an short context intro on the concept of STARE DECISIS - which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of "legal precedent" and is so ingrained in our legal system it is nearly a sacred cow. BUT should it be? Is this a good thing or another cabal device?

The state goal of this doctrine is certainly rational: deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes. Sounds good right? But is there something wrong here? IMO yes. As with most govt. practices it has been MIS-used as both sword and shield to acheive and maintain govt, power. Surprised? Doubt it. (I could give plenty examples but then anon would post the "you wrote so much text" meme)

Now - with the restructuring of the court system under POTUS and THE PLAN that question is now front and center and showing results. In their writings and nomination hearings, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both saluted the flag of "stare decisis" but it now appears they are very willing to depart from this to correct basic wrongs in the system - good for them! Heres this weeks example:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATT

No. 17–1299. Argued January 9, 2019—Decided May 13, 2019

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J.,

filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN,

JJ., joined. - YUP - 5-4 AGAIN OUR WIN

In all honesty anons the case is BORING and technical and that matters not. In fact I wont even bother to summarize the particular facts and law cuz that is not the point of My post. if you want read it link provided KEK…

NOPE: here is the takeway direct from the opinion: "Stare decisis is “‘not an inexorable command,’” and is “at its weakest” when interpreting the Constitution. The Court’s precedents identify, as relevant here, four factors to consider: thequality of the decision’s reasoning, its consistency with related decisions, legal developments since the decision, and reliance on the decision. The first three factors support overruling (precedent in this case) As to the fourth, case-specific reliance interests are not sufficient to persuade this Court to adhere to an incorrect resolution of an important constitutional question."

THE KEY ITEM: "Stare decisis is “‘not an inexorable command,’” and is “at its weakest” when interpreting the Constitution."

ITS HABBENING…………..

LINK TO DECISION: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/franchise-hyatt.pdf

>>6498415

scrolling this board now is no bedder than strolling the streets of san francisco

human shit all over the streets = muhjoo shitposts all over the bred

attacks will intensify - YUP - massive muhjoo shitposting still every bread - waves of trash pouring in under multiple UID's - and we know where POTUS stands - with Jews and Israel - so the shitposters latest goal post move was to attack POTUS! - yes along with the NY Times - would any US patriot commit or condone this attack on our beloved POTUS? NO.

Any mystery where all the muhjoo shilling comes from? Nope - its the left, the globalists, the corrupt media who have all adopted muslims as their spearhead to destroy western civilization - and the tip of the spear is the MUHJOO narrative - that is why it is shilled so relentlessly by useful idiots doing the bidding of the cabal - by belief or by payment.

But - as Q has posted - this will not succeed - in fact we are watching them destroy themselves with this hysterical nonsense which is why Q allows it to continue - never interfere with an enemy destroying themselves - KEKS abound. Anons know.