A judge’s duty is to apply the law as written. They are not there to judge the impact of the law but to apply it.

In the zombie movies the rule is “If I become infected, kill me.” And in most zombie movies a loved one becomes infected and instead of destroying them then and there a judgement is made as to the impact. “It will hurt me to much to lose my child/wife/husband so I’ll ignore the law.”

It almost always ends badly.

In the opinion, the three liberal justices repeatedly warn of the devastating impact of the end of Roe, while emphasizing that the majority’s ruling breaks with core tenets of court procedure.

We’ve been having discussions about the impact of Row v. Wade for years. How many women will be affected by restricted access to abortions vs. the number of babies killed by abortion?

The Dobbs opinion ignores the impact and instead focuses on what the law actually says. What was written, the Rule of Law.

This is the difference between progressives and conservatives. A conservative can be very unhappy over an opinion but will judge that opinion by the Rule of Law. We’ve lost cases because the law wasn’t in our favor. And when those rulings go against us, we attempt to modify the law through legislative means.

A progressive judges everything by its impact. As part of that they apply modifiers based on who is arguing. Thus they can argue the states should have the right to pass laws in one breath and the next argue that the federal government should make the controlling laws. They feel no conflict because they judge based on the impact, not the Rule of Law.

Paul Schiff Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said dissenting opinions help foster “a culture of argument” around America’s laws.
Advertisement

“It reflects the idea that law is not just a set of rules but is an argument about how to put society together,” Berman said. “Even a view that is not going to be the law of the land at a particular moment in history nevertheless gets articulated in the public arena, so people can see that there is a debate going on that they can be part of and that these things change over time.”

The progressives want the court to be another legislature. The goal is to create an opinion that achieves the outcome the left wants. It is not the rule of law but “how to put society together.” It isn’t about careful, critical analysis of the issue at hand but in writing for the masses with what they want to hear.

The descent of the liberal judges always have emotional foundations. The arguments are seldom about why the conservative opinion is wrong on a legal stand point but rather how it is wrong on an emotional or pseudo moral basis.

— The Guardian What the liberal justices’ scorching dissent reveals about the US supreme court

Growing up we didn’t have a TV until I was in the 3rd grade. And then it was a small black and white. We were only allowed to watch TV for an certain number of hours per week. My brother and I would go through the TV guide trying to decide what we would watch.

But what was unlimited was music. All sorts of music. Some music is just a joy to listen to. You can close your eyes and be transported. My parents had an amazing collection of music.

On a weekend I would head over to the stereo, put on the good Sony head phones, cue up my favorite music and just listen.

Some of the songs told stories. Stories of conflict, stories of love, stories of sacrifice and of success.

Over time, I learned that some of the songs were of real events. Of history. Other songs were not of any particular event, but instead of a series of events that were historically accurate.

Sort of like this painting from 1846, George Caleb Bingham’s The Jolly Flatboatmen (1846). This is a “photoshoped” image. The artist had sketches of all these events but at no time did this event take place with these people at this location.

Songs could be like that too.

Here is one of the first songs I remember that caused me to go learn more:

There are movies and books about this battle.

https://twitter.com/ViralNewsNYC/status/1546597523225284608?t=uCmMw8wete4KKAtyVGufWQ&s=19

The lesson here is simple: DO NOT CLOSE DISTANCE ON A MAN WITH A KNIFE.

That was one lucky slash that hit the victim right in the neck and clearly severed a major artery.

He went from standing to stumbling to down gushing blood in seconds.

That knife looked fairly small too.

Take knives seriously as weapons and don’t let someone armed with one withing striking range.

https://twitter.com/ArchdukeSippy/status/1546533440714985472?t=k2gcREiRKAiRglkR9veecQ&s=19

I’m calling it.

Joe fucked Hunter as a little kid.

Everything about Hunter’s behavior, the drug abuse, prostitution, banging his brother’s widow, this shit with his niece, it is all the classic symptoms of a child who was sexually abused by an elderly family member.

He is incapable of having a normal sexual relationship.  He is incapable of separting sex from platonic familial love.  And he is self medicating his trauma with the hardest narcotics he can find.

I guarantee you that Hunter has said as much and maybe even has proof of it in his files somewhere.

The conclusion is inescapable.

We all know the veterans that spent their time in the military behind a desk. They only time they touched their weapon was when they were in boot camp or when they had to qualify. The vets that never deployed but have a strong opinions.

We see them when a former general says “fully semi-automatic” when describing an AR-15. Or the vet that says “I know what the AR-15 can do, no civilian should own an AR-15”. They lay claim to an authority of opinion that they have not earned and do not deserve.

This image came from my Lady. She was laughing because this proved that the poster really wasn’t a vet.

Yeah, the forward assist is not a selector switch. Nor is “armored infantry for the Coast Guard”.

Except context matters. This was a troll posting. War Path is a name I’ve seen before and not as a wannabe. So yeah Trolling.

This tweet was in response to this one:

When I was in the Army, we kept our M-16’s locked up in the armory. The only time we brought them out was for guard duty — or when we trained for war.

— Lakota Man (@LakotaMan1) July 6, 2022

And Lakota Man responded, you can see it in the image above “Exactly. Thank You.”

Trolling accomplished.

Context matters.

Michael Moore, who everyday looks more and more like an old lesbian cat lady, decided to draft his perfect Constitutional Amendment to eliminate our right to keep and bare arms.

XXVIII AMENDMENT

SECTION 1.
The inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof must not be infringed and shall be protected by the Congress and the States. This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.

SECTION 2.
Congress shall create a mandatory system of firearm registration and licensing for the following limited purposes: (a) licensed hunters of game; (b) licensed ranges for the sport of target shooting; and (c) for the few who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection.

All who seek a firearm will undergo a strict vetting process with a thorough background check, including the written and confidential approval of family members, spouses and ex-spouses and/or partners and ex-partners, co-workers and neighbors. A mental health check will also be required. There will be a waiting period of one month to complete the full background check.

SECTION 3.
Those who meet all the requirements for the restricted gun owners groups and successfully pass the background check must take a firearms safety class and pass a written test on an annual basis.

SECTION 4.
The minimum age for the restricted groups who can own a firearm is 25 years old. Renewal and review of the firearms license will occur on an annual basis.
Share

SECTION 5.
Congress will stipulate and continually update the limited list of approved firearms for civilian use, including weapons in the future that are not yet invented. The following firearms are heretofore banned:

• All automatic and semi-automatic weapons and all devices which can enable a single-shot gun to fire automatically or semi-automatically;

• Any weapon that can hold more than six bullets or rounds at a time or any magazine that holds more than six bullets;

• All guns made of plastic or any homemade equipment and machinery or a 3D printer that can make a gun or weapon that can take a human life.

SECTION 6.
Congress shall regulate all ammunition, capacity of ammunition, the storage of guns, gun locks, gun sights, body armor and the sale and distribution of such items. No weapons of any kind whose sole intention is the premeditated elimination of human life are considered legal. Congress may create future restrictions as this amendment specifically does not grant any American the “right” to own any weapon.

SECTION 7.
Police who are trained and vetted to use firearms shall be subject to comprehensive and continuous monitoring and shall be dismissed if found to exhibit any racist or violent behavior.

SECTION 8.
Persons already owning any of the above banned firearms, and who do not fall into the legal groups of restricted firearms owners, will have one month from the ratification of this Amendment to turn in their firearms for destruction by local law enforcement. These local authorities may organize a gun buy-back program to assist in this effort.

First and foremost, it is an grotesque affront to our Constitution that any Amendment exist to curtail the freedoms of Americans.

Our Constitution exists to limit the powers of Government, not the people.

Only one previous Amendment has ever done that and it was the 18th Amendment instituting prohibition.  It was repealed by the 21st Amendment 14 years later.

Any true American who understands the point of our Constitution would be offended by the idea of another Amendment restricting the rights of the people.  But Moore is a Progressive, like the Progressives of the temperance movement, and he believes he can make the world better by restricting rights.

A more specific reading of his Amendment shows that it is impossible.

The inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof must not be infringed and shall be protected by the Congress and the States.

Exactly how is this enforced?  How does the government keep you safe from gun violence and fear?  Does law enforcement not try to do that now?  Will making it a Constitutional Amendment make government more effective at doing what they are ineffective at doing?

But the biggest takeaway is that just like the 18th Amendment, this version of prohibition will also plunge the nation into a crime wave.

Will criminals who have guns give them up?  Doubtful, because currently they don’t despite state laws.

Law abiding citizens will be disarmed and preyed upon.

The demand for guns by criminals and the previously law abiding who want to own them will create a massive black market.  Crime empires will rise on the trade if illegal guns.  It will be war in the streets.

The federal government will create new federal law enforcement bureaucracies and freedom restricting laws to try and stop the problem they created.

It will be the Roaring 20s all over again, but worse.

But at least Moore can feel like his did something.

Hunter Biden arguing with a hooker about how much crack he has https://t.co/LFgbYeBw5c

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 10, 2022

Why would a guy film this and upload it?

Clearly he has something very wrong with him.

The drug abuse and sexual proclivities, I suspect that he was severely abused as a child.

This is a grown man with severe daddy issues.

If he wasn’t such a corrupt piece of shit that has aided the corruption of the presidency, I’d feel bad for him.

And it’s obvious that Joe did horrible things to Hunter to turn him into that.