tvc184

Also, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter. Articles I, II and III in the Constitution list the separation of powers. Article II gives the president complete control over the Executive Branch of government. The FTC is under the authority of the Executive Branch. It is therefore controlled by one person, the president. Trump came into office and fired two members of the FTC because they were appointed by Democrats and they did not agree with Trump‘s position. For that reason, Trump said, you’re fired! One of them, Rebecca Slaughter did not like that. He filed a lawsuit saying that you can’t fire me. A 1935 lawsuit ruled on by the Supreme Court said that Congress funds and created the FTC so the president cannot fire anyone on a commission that he and only he is ahead of. So basically, he cannot fire his own employee even though the his employee said, I don’t agree with your agenda, Mr. President. So Trump took to court and the circuit court said, yes, Mr. President, you were prohibited from finding members of a commission that you and only you are ahead of. You are forced to work with people that do not want to work for you or for your agenda Trump has been appealed to the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision said, what kind of nonsense is this. Sure, a president can fire a member of an executive commission that he alone controls. Who wants to work with a subordinate who can basically tell you to get screwed? So just because Congress does not like it, under the separation of powers, they do not control executive committees and commissions. Congress can create committees but once created, they are under the authority of the president and can be terminated. Again, the vote was 6 to 3 that the president alone in Article II, controls the Executive Branch. Any guesses on which 3 justices said to heck with Article II, the president should not be able to control all aspects of his administration?

The Supreme Court just granted certiorari or review to two cases for the next term. These cases deal with the ban on AR-15 and other “assault” rifles. The Supreme Court has finally decided to step in and rule whether a government can prohibit semi automatic rifles under the Second Amendment. By the time they schedule oral arguments to hear the cases and then write an opinion, it will probably be near the end of the term at about this time next year. So the can is no longer going to be kicked down the road. We are about to soon find out if about half a dozen states are violating the Constitution by prohibiting the possession of certain semi automatic weapons. Did I mention that I think this is huge?

That was a forgone conclusion.

This morning the Supreme Court issued another ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. WV was being sued by a biological male (B. P. J.) wanting to play on female teams. The question was, does Title IX of federal law on sex based discrimination, keep states from banning biological males from female sports. Title IX wasn’t originally for sports but at least that seems to be where the main impact and attention has been. The law says that in educational benefits from grade schools through college, sexes must have an equal access in educational programs. For example if a high school had 10 boys sports and only 2 girls sports, it was seen as not having equal access. It has obviously improved funding for girls sports in schools and in college and that’s a good thing. Look at some of the popularity of some female sports now. But this case was not about that. West Virginia, Texas, Idaho and other states have passed laws banning biological males from female sports. Also the NCAA recently banned males from female sports. Lawsuits were filed saying that banning males from female sports violated Title IX by discriminating against the males by denying them access to sports. So a West Virginia case made it to the Supreme Court to see if it was a constitutional violation of male rights by banning them from female sports. To me it seemed like a simple answer. Men are not denied access to sports. They are only banned from joining female teams. So a male does not have to be allowed to join a female basketball team. He has equal access to sports and can join the men’s team. It’s so simple, right? Not so fast!! The Supreme Court had to settle this decision. It was not unanimous. The vote was 6-3 that banning males from female sports was not discrimination against males. This is like beating a dead horse…. 🫪 Can anyone guess which three justices voted that it is discrimination if a boy is denied playing on a girl’s team by claiming that he is a girl and he apparently has no access to sports? Is he denied educational (usually sports) access? Here is a hint and this is a spoiler alert. One of the justices who voted that males should be able to play on female teams and it is guaranteed in federal law and the Constitution by way of Title IX, is not sure what a male or female is anyway.

On Thursday the Supreme Court handed down a big decision in the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. It deals with the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA) that allows people to seek asylum in the US. More specifically it deals with the definition of the word “in”. This kind of flashes back to the Bill Clinton deposition about Monica Lewinsky when he famously said when asked about sex with her, it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is. That’s right folks. We had a multi page Supreme Court decision on the definition of the word “IN”. Jumping ahead to give y’all time to think about it, it was a 6 to 3 vote on the definition of the word “in”. Guess which three did not agree with the definition? On with the show….. The INA said that a person may seek asylum when he “arrives in the United States”. That’s basically the case. Of course it goes on for pages to give other cases to explain the intent of the law, etc., however, the question is, can you apply for a political asylum in the United States when you were not the”in” United States? The answer was no, but here is the funny part. Justice Alito in authoring the decision to explain what being “in” the US actually means, wrote this: “The running back does not arrive in the end zone (and six points do not go up on the scoreboard) when he is tackled at the 1-yard line by the defense. The guest does not arrive in the house when the homeowner locks the door right before the guest tries to open it. The army does not arrive in the city when the city’s defenders repel the attack outside city limits. And the letter does not arrive in the mailbox when a dog assaults the carrier a step away from the mailbox. A person arrives in a destination only when he enters it, and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks entry. A person arrives in the United States, then, only when he enters it.” That’s about as simple and in plain English as you can get. Therr was no need for legalese to explain the situation. The dissent said that being outside of the US is the same as being in the US. 🤣🤣🤣 🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁 After the drum roll, the question that everyone has been wondering about…… which three justices did not agree that being in the United States meant being in the United States? Clue: One doesn’t know what a woman is.

The Supreme Court this morning struck down an absolutely ridiculous handgun carry law from Hawaii but other states I passed similar laws. This case overturned the Hawaii (and other states) Vampire Law. It was called the vampire law because lore has it that a vampire cannot enter your home without being invited in first. Hawaii and other Progressive/Socialist states were forced by the Supreme Court In NYSRPA v. Bruen to issue licenses to carry at least concealed handguns. About half a dozen states threw a temper tantrum and said basically, okay, we will comply with the “shall issue handgun licenses” order from the Supreme Court. However….. We will pass laws that say you can carry a concealed handgun in public as long as you have a license, but you can essentially never leave the public roadway. Like a vampire, you cannot go onto or into a private property without being invited into/onto the property specifically by the owner. To do so would cause you to commit the felony of possessing a firearm on private property without consent. Basically, it meant that the state will issue the license as required by the Supreme Court but it could never be used because the first time you drive off of a public roadway to get gasoline or buy a Dr Pepper on the way home, you would become a felon. This case was so egregious that the Supreme Court took it away from the Ninth Circuit Court in California and didn’t wait for a ruling, which is almost unheard of. So this morning the Supreme Court dropped the hammer on Hawaii (and CA and NY and NH…….) by saying the vampire laws clearly violate the Second Amendment on its face. This is copied directly from the Supreme Court website: “Held: Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 13–24. (a) The restrictions imposed by Hawaii’s challenged law fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is presumptively unconstitutional. No party disputes that petitioners are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment or that they seek to “bear” “Arms.” Therefore, “the plain text of the Second Amendment protects” what petitioners want to do: carry handguns for self-defense……” It naturally goes on for many pages like always to describe why they came to that conclusion. The partial summary quoted above from the Supreme Court website cuts to the quick. IT’S CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The case is Wolford v. Lopez And…. Three Supreme Court justices voted against this ruling. Any guesses?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yeah. In 1973 I was was making $1.70 an hour. By January 1974 it was around 46¢ a gallon and I was making $2.00.

The case of US v. Hemani was released today dealing with current federal law on the use of prohibited substances (even if not convicted of a crime), making such use a felony under federal law. It puts an illegal drug user, in this case, marijuana, in the same category as a convicted felon. Any possession of a firearm as a user of an illegal substance makes you a felon. In this case, Mr. Hemani from Texas was found to possess firearms in his home and also marijuana. He was arrested and convicted under federal law for being the user of an illegal substance, even though he had not been convicted of such a crime. They made possession of marijuana in his house with the firearms and his admission that he used marijuana about every other day, to convict him as a felon. Hemani appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals in New Orleans, who ruled against the federal law. Mere use of an illegal substance does not make a person an automatic danger to the public. The Supreme Court left open the possibility of a felony if the user was could be proven to be a danger due to an addiction instead of mere use of an illegal substance. We can all imagine a crack cocaine user who is looking to rob stores or people on the street or break into homes to support his habit. The decision pointed out that the right to keep it bear arm was a fundamental right of all Americans, unless the government could show a compelling reason to take away that right such as a danger to the public. They ruled that it was presumed to be lawful to keep and bear arms with the burden on the government to prove the person was an addict and danger. But what was the vote count between the right and left wings of the Court? 9-0 Yep, the federal law making the mere use of an illegal substance a felony to possess a firearm was just removed by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision.

She pretty much nailed it on why Anthony didn’t take the stand in his own defense.

I don’t remember anyone celebrating a teenager killed. I am sure it happened though. I don’t celebrate anyone getting killed however there are some people that made their own bed. Where was it a couple of days ago that I saw two teenagers break into a home or business and one was shot and killed and the other got away? Am I happy that a couple of teens made a terrible mistake and one paid with his life? No. The parents now have to live with the grief from what happened but there’s a good likelihood that the parents caused it. I know that it wasn’t addressed to me but I don’t find it hypocritical to say that Anthony committed murder and Martin and the teen in the news a couple of days ago likely caused their own demise.

… and yes, 4 year olds aren’t usually that bad but you can see it coming sometimes.

Geez…. So a Beaumont teen went to Houston and is accused of killing two teenagers. I don’t take solace in the fact that it didn’t happen here. Two teenagers are dead. Where they are from or where they were at the time doesn’t really matter. If convicted of Capital Murder there are only two punishments available, life in prison without parole or the death sentence. If this guy is guilty, let’s hope that he had already walked his last free days on this Earth.

This is my 2¢ opinion. Such shooters usually (not always) do not want to be taken alive. It is sometimes their last act of defiance. Kill as many innocent people as possible, especially if a police officer, and then before being arrested, end their life or be killed by the police so as to keep anyone from seeking retribution. It’s like, I created mayhem and killed people and there’s nothing you can do about it. Starting at Columbine, that seems to be a common motive. When Klebold and Harris figured out that they were cornered and/or had run out of easy targets, they each committed suicide. Before that the police had fired about 140 rounds. So Klebold had Harris didn’t mind exchanging fire with the police, knowing that they were eventually going to end it. In the Mildland shooting it would not surprise me either way that the police killed the shooter or (perhaps more likely) he killed himself.

It’s over. 35 years

Hours….. In Texas there is a second trial that starts immediately if there is a guilty verdict and if the defendant chooses the jury to set punishment. Both sides will call witnesses to testify on behalf of the state and defense. They will try to convince the Jury to give a more harsh sentence or a more lenient sentence. Basically it is a trial of character witnesses. It really shouldn’t last very long as both sides should be able to make their case fairly quickly. Mama will probably get up there and say my son is a good kid and he just made a mistake and other such witnesses. The prosecution will try to show bad conduct like in trouble at school, a previous criminal history, etc., and ask for significant time in prison, probably even life. The Jury, will then go back and decide what the fate of Anthony is. I don’t know what the defense will bring up however, I think the penalty range will be 2-99 years or life.