69
Comments (53)
sorted by:
54
DNA1 54 points ago +54 / -0

So they're blatantly going to violate the Hyde Amendment while lying that they are not violating the Hyde Amendment. This type of shamelessness is certainly consistent, like the "peaceful" protests as prime example...

35
Medicnz3 35 points ago +35 / -0

It’s not shamelessness it’s sedition and corruption

26
Mpetey123 26 points ago +26 / -0

You know how they will get around it? They'll just do it, claim it's a violation of the civil rights act, because POC are disproportionately affected. Every paper, news channel, and shill will defend the "protection of democracy." And when they get sued they'll just keep funding, knowing the Supreme Court will strike it down, but who cares it will take awhile. And when it gets struck down in court they'll pretend they were just following legal precedent, of a law the executive created illegally two years ago.

It's pretty much what they did with the Vaccine mandate

16
the_nybbler 16 points ago +16 / -0

And after it's struck down by the Supreme Court, they'll change the wording and do it AGAIN.

18
JustHereForTheSalmon 18 points ago +18 / -0

Why not? Who's going to stop them?

39
APDSmith 39 points ago +39 / -0

... as determined by who?

Also:

a right that was around for almost 50 years,

That right there - in a country 246 years old - is an indication that somebody somewhere pointed looks at the Burger Supreme Court was just plain making shit up. US rights date back 246 years, not fifty. Unless you guys overthrew your government and started again without mentioning it, that is...

41
MaximumHonk 41 points ago +41 / -0

The US government has been subverted gradually over the past century or so. It now serves globalists over the American people. So in a way it has been overthrown.

40
APDSmith 40 points ago +40 / -0

The US Federal government is certainly acting more and more like a hostile power that has conquered the individual States, and seems set on being about as accountable.

29
when_we_win_remember 29 points ago +33 / -4

Don't notice too much. Someone will call you a stormfag

-8
Gizortnik -8 points ago +6 / -14

Be quiet, dummy.

There's a difference between Stormfag Leftists who want that level of federal power for themselves, and someone who is actually aware that the feds are operating in contradiction to the law.

7
APDSmith 7 points ago +11 / -4

I didn't even mention small hats...

But yeah, I'm always puzzled by this apparent opinion amongst some quarters that one particular ethnicity has a monopoly on all the assholes in the world.

One would think prior experience would indicate that there are more than enough to go around...

24
Euphemism 24 points ago +25 / -1

I don't think anyone has ever said that any one group has a monopoly on jerks.

Merely, that one specific group of jerks seem very over represented in the halls of power when a country goes through this shit..

Not sure why any place would have an issue with noticing that - especially if they have no issues noticing any of the other situations when one group of people seem to be over represented in societal issues.

Seems to me, and I really could be wrong - but those that scream about stormfags tend to be the same type of person that screams about any inconvenient facts/figures/stats out there. Mentally weak IMO.

2
Gizortnik 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's just Leftists trying to balkanize people into hating a bourgeoisie, and trying to wear nationalism and patriotism as a skin suit.

Like other Leftist Racialists, they like to avoid the responsibility of the members of their preferred race in the level of violence, degeneracy, and corruption they complain about.

1
when_we_win_remember 1 point ago +1 / -0

No one said one ethnicity has a monopoly on being assholes. I would argue one ethnivity has a monopoly on money which is tbe thing that runs the government though.

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

I would argue one ethnivity has a monopoly on money

Musk is Jewish?

1
when_we_win_remember 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's not the Feds it's (((the Fed)))

2
Gizortnik 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, faggot. White people aren't rich, powerful, or colluding.

Name one wealthy white person! I dare you!

2
Mpetey123 2 points ago +2 / -0

Put in succinct and beautiful terms

13
Medicnz3 13 points ago +13 / -0

1913

4
MaximumHonk 4 points ago +4 / -0

What are you referencing specifically?

4
Medicnz3 4 points ago +4 / -0

Federal reserve act

3
Gizortnik 3 points ago +5 / -2

Hang on a second!

They're correct: hear me out.

SCOTUS doesn't have absolute authority over the constitution. In fact, it's power is so centralized that entire political administrations are decided by whether they get to pick a justice or not. The court was never given that much power. It gave itself that power. It never actually was given authority to overturn congress.

So...

Lets overturn Marbury v. Madison.

12
GodEmperorOfHumility 12 points ago +12 / -0

The court is obligated to respect the Constitution as the highest law of the land, and is therefore obligated to resolve any conflicts between legislation and Constitution in favor of the Constitution. So the Supreme Court has not just a right but a duty to nullify unconstitutional legislation.

The point that's overlooked is that duty is not uniquely the Supreme Court's. Every government employee in every branch is obligated to follow the Constitution and to reject laws which violate it.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is a difference between nullification of the law, and a rejection of it.

Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law. It doesn't matter what congress said, thinks, or does, only SCOTUS has the authority to saw what the law is, even if the people who made the law disagree.

Here's the best part. Say you overturn a SCOTUS decision with a constitutional amendment. Guess who gets to decide that that constitutional amendment doesn't mean what you wrote down it meant? SCOTUS.

Marbury v Madison, is and was, unconstitutional.

1
GodEmperorOfHumility 1 point ago +1 / -0

Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law.

It says no such thing. The decision is not long or hard to read, and I encourage you to read it yourself: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison

Marshall argues unequivocally that testing laws against the Constitution is part of the responsibility of the courts, but nowhere does he say anything that would exclude other branches from the same duty- in fact, he explicitly asserts the opposite:

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. (emphasis added)

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bullshit:

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

Those agencies don't get to enforce the law outside of the court's opinion. That's his point. No agency gets to say that the law isn't the law. Only the court says what the law is. Only the court may decide if a law is repugnant to the constitution. That is the mechanisms that departments and agencies are bound by: the court's declaration on the state of the law.

I've read the decision, and I know the impact as well. No one may challenge SCOTUS without a constitutional amendment, and SCOTUS may interpret that amendment as it sees fit, which is exactly what Justice Marshall argued many times, and in that very opinion specifically said that only the judiciary can say what the law is. Not the people who wrote it, not the people who enforce, just the courts.

SCOTUS may then order and compel all courts, including state courts, and all federal agencies and entities, and all state agencies and entities, to operate in compliance with it's 5-4 ruling thanks to the Supremacy Clause as well.

Any agency or entity that is NOT in compliance with the court's decision is operating outside the law, because only the court can say what the law is, and no one else. The lower courts can't say it. The appellate courts can't say it. Only 5 people on SCOTUS, ever, can tell you what the law is. If one federal agency is operating outside of the court's decision, it is operating outside the law, and the other federal agencies must bring it to heel, either by coercion, removal, or by criminal charges. Whether or not you think this is what the decision says is kind of irrelevant, because that is how the decision has been handled since it was decided.

This is in direct contrast to the English common law system. It is a much more decentralized system that (before the invention of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair) didn't accept the arbitration of the God Kings of Law. Courts still had the ability to have judicial review at lower levels, and at appellate levels, and argued about whether or not the law violated ancient English rights and liberties. SCOTUK was made intentionally to end that, and operate as the God Kings of Law. They had their own Marbury v. Madison moment a few years ago when they made an identical decision to seize power by asserting that SCOTUK asserted it had the ability to rule on legislative procedures within the House of Commons, since the UK (infamously) has no Separation of Powers doctrine.

Their stunt was the same that Marshall pulled in 1803: give themselves the power of sole arbiter of the law by deciding what it is.

Luckily, the court doesn't have it's own private enforcement arm yet, and has to rely on the Executive branch to enforce most of it's orders. That doesn't mean they don't have any enforcement mechanism. SCOTUS spent decades basically purging the lower courts and State SC's of judiciaries who were arguing against Brown v. Board because they over-reached.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

His last line is right though, they won a revolution about 50 years ago and don't talk about it. (except when convenient to pander to the base)

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'd say more like 100 years ago at least. Fabian Socialism came to power under Hoover for all intents and purposes. FDR turned the US into Democratic Socialism. I think many people loathe to admit it, but it was Kennedy who liberalized the US out of Socialism. LBJ put it back into "Social Democracy" territory where it stands today.

24
-Fender- 24 points ago +24 / -0

Pretty sure the members of the Supreme Court have a far deeper understanding of the Constitution than you swamp creatures.

20
MegoThor 20 points ago +20 / -0

A couple of them, at least.

24
Unknownsailor 24 points ago +24 / -0

I guess they will just do whatever the hell they want, won't they?

OK fine, guess I'll do that too with all your bullshit gun control laws, then.

3d printer goes brrrrr, because fuck you.

17
realerfunction 17 points ago +18 / -1

the judicial is the final arbiter of what is constitutional, not the executive.

10
GodEmperorOfHumility 10 points ago +10 / -0

No. Every branch is obligated to respect the Constitution and to reject any laws which conflict with it.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +3 / -2

Actually, neither are supposed to be. The court gave itself that power.

14
TisDaRhythmOfDaNight 14 points ago +14 / -0

this seems like an uncharacteristic strategic mistake from the Democrats.

the left's modus operandi nowadays is energizing their voter base with The Current Thing. yet they've been finding it harder and harder lately as the population grows increasingly lethargic. in particular, evidence suggests global warming was their Next Thing after Ukraine, but that it failed to generate the expected response.

that said, Roe vs Wade actually made quite a splash. so why would they lose their legitimacy here? as long as the Roe vs Wade ruling is in effect (no matter what the ruling actually means), they can present themselves as the opposition. publicly disregarding the ruling doesn't seem like a good idea.

13
APDSmith 13 points ago +13 / -0

so why would they lose their legitimacy here?

I think they're working on the assumption that with a friendly media covering for them, they won't.

Remember, as long as they do what they're told by a bunch of unelected, unaccountable billionaires, they'll have almost every media organisation in the US going to bat for them.

8
Gizortnik 8 points ago +9 / -1

this seems like an uncharacteristic strategic mistake from the Democrats.

You have far too much faith in democrats.

This is energizing thier base.

Just to be clear, their base wants to dissolve the senate, dissolve the electoral college, and pack the courts, and make them an elected body.

They want the entire government to be the US House of Representatives. If you want to see how that works, look at the UK.

13
Steampunk_Moustache 13 points ago +13 / -0

Uh... Technically treason...?

1
MargarineMongoose 1 point ago +1 / -0

If that actually mattered you would be able to count the number of politicians left alive on one hand.

9
BlueDrache 9 points ago +9 / -0

I declare Biden's occupation of the White House illegal and unconstitutional with assistance from the corrupt Congress.

I vote that they should ALL hang. Good, bad, indifferent. All are complicit in the corruption.

5
barwhack 5 points ago +5 / -0

Medicaid is state-funded. It will be state-by-state, but such funding will be legit, as directed through non-federal state-level Leftist (D or R) party machinery. Vote with your feet now. Concentrate the killers together in child-murdering state-nests, via migration. Let's watch the demographics diverge by state. Yes.

4
MaverickBoobies 4 points ago +4 / -0

I have a feeling CNN would be scre ching if this was reversed...

3
KingLion7 3 points ago +3 / -0

Looking more and more like there will be a civil war. Or at least a bunch of different groups making power plays.

3
Brennus 3 points ago +3 / -0

As usual the White House needs to be informed that it is not their job to determine that

3
krypt_o 3 points ago +3 / -0

States need enact some laws ASAP criminalizing getting out-of-state abortions. Make the punishment first-degree murder. It was planned, after all. Also charge the out-of-state doctors and their clinics/staff. Make it so these fucking degenerates never leave their commie hell-holes.

2
OmegaBird 2 points ago +2 / -0

So, doesn't that make the white house in contempt of court and now officially pushing illegal actions? Doenst this instantly invalidate the ENTIRE government?

2
Kienan 2 points ago +2 / -0

UHM. UHM.

A) Not your jurisdiction. B) Fucking Hyde Amendment?

Then again, this is completely in keeping with this regime, so no real surprise.

The Founding Fathers would be so ashamed of us due to the fact that our politicians are free, alive, and still in power.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

White House declares SCOTUS ruling on Roe 'unconstitutional,' confirms Medicaid to be used to fund abortions

Non-sequitur. The ruling wasn't about Medicaid funding. As another comment pointed out funding is directed by the states. Unless they make a law punishing whoever funds an abortion, it's perfectly legal. Oh wait, what's this?

As for the first part, this is a bold precedent setting move that I've always wanted the executive to do. It's every branch's responsibility to follow the Constitution, and not only defer to SCOTUS. I hope Republicans take this even further when they get in power. Knowing Republicans, they won't.

1
bloodguard 1 point ago +1 / -0

OK. Defund Medicaid.

1
OldBullLee 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bald-faced pandering like this will not salvage this halfwit's fucked up Presidency, especially when you consider this "declaration" has ZERO weight. It's on the same level as "I don't like pistachio ice cream."

Who cares if some slut uses Medicaid to get an abortion? Now if it paid for sex "reassignment," I would have a beef.