"If you have enemies? Good! It means you stood up for something at least once in your life." -Winston Churchill

@NiedsG Are you kidding me

I don’t think normies fully understand just how unprecedented the J6 judges’ behavior was and is. It’s insane. I practiced in federal court for three decades before leaving practice. I’ve never seen anything like this. I’m used to dumb judges, and I’m used to liberal judges. But this is a whole new level of wrong. These judges seem to have no conception of the damage they’re doing to their branch. They’ve completely cut the limb out from under any establishment Republican who might wish to go out on a limb to defend the judiciary. How could you argue that we’re supposed to respect this system? How do you argue to fellow conservatives that we should apply these alleged norms when the other side has zero intention of applying them to us? The only good that’s come of it is that, with the help of Biden, they completely undercut the ability to push back on the J6 and other pardons and helped break our infatuation with The Federalist Society nerds. I don’t want originalists. I want conservatives. Rant complete.

Our @NoahCRothman notices that a lot of what we were told was "misinformation" about the Los Angeles fires by various MSM fact-checkers has now proven to be verified by a bombshell Los Angeles Times investigative report; most notably, “aging and severely deteriorated” and “leak-prone” pumping stations were never upgraded despite warnings.

To repeat one of my constant refrains, the reason why Trump is being so effective right now with EOs is because Congress has over the long term unconstitutionally ceded too much of its law-making powers to the Executive Branch. It's great that Trump is doing all this, but the next Democrat President can undo all of it the same way. We need to reform the Administrative Procedure Act, undo the damage created by now-overturned Chevron deference, and generally restore the balance between the three branches of the federal government, as the Founders intended. The President--ANY President--should not have this much power.

The most GenX story ever. 😂

If SB25-003 were to pass in both #coleg chambers and signed by @jaredpolis, it would become the most unconstitutional gun law in the country. #copolitics #Colorado #2A Let me explain: SB25-003 would ban virtually all semi auto rifles, shotguns and some pistols that accept a detachable magazine. These firearms are commonly used for lawful purposes and protected by the 2nd Amendment (2A). It would also violate the Fifth and 14th Amendments. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled on 5 cases over the last 86 years affirming our 2A constitutional right. Miller (1939): The Court held that weapons “in common use” are protected. Semi-auto rifles and shotguns that accept a detachable magazine are in fact, “in common use". Heller (2008): SCOTUS struck down Washington D.C.'s draconian handgun ban and requirement for firearms in the home to be kept nonfunctional, declaring such measures unconstitutional. SCOTUS made it clear that the 2A protects an individual's right to own firearms, independent of service in a militia. The court made it perfectly clear in Heller that firearms in “common use” are protected by the 2A and it was made clear that the government can not arbitrarily restrict firearm ownership. McDonald (2010): SCOTUS found Chicago’s handgun ban unconstitutional. Affirmed that the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2A which makes it applicable to states and incorporated the 2A to apply against state laws. Caetano (2016): SCOTUS overturned a Massachusetts ban on stun guns (yes, stun guns). This decision expanded on the principles established in Heller and reaffirmed that the 2A extends to all bearable arms, including those that did not exist at the time of the Founding. This case reinforces the principle that a government body cannot arbitrarily exclude certain types of arms from constitutional protection. Bruen (2022): This landmark case affirms the 2A extends beyond the home. SCOTUS also rejected the "interest-balancing" test often used to uphold gun laws, which weighed the government’s objectives against individual rights. The case also established "text, history, and tradition" framework, requiring that any law restricting the right to keep and bear arms must be consistent with historical firearm regulations from the time of the Founding or Reconstruction. This means that modern gun control laws cannot be justified merely by appeals to public safety or policy goals but must demonstrate roots in the historical understanding of the 2A. SB25-003 clearly violates the Bruen standard. Additionally, SB25-003 may also violate the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. By effectively banning the transfer or replacement of specific firearms already owned, the bill deprives individuals of the value of their lawfully owned property without proper compensation, particularly if those firearms are rendered unusable or lost. SB25-003 may also violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. By grandfathering existing firearm owners but prohibiting future acquisitions, the legislation creates a class of individuals who are privileged to own certain firearms while denying the same rights to others. This unequal treatment could be interpreted as arbitrary and discriminatory, undermining the principle of equal protection under the law. Furthermore, limitations on firearm transfers, such as passing them down to heirs, may impinge on property rights and interfere with personal and familial decisions protected by the due process guarantees of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The legislators that vote for SB25-003 should lose legislative immunity for voting for unconstitutional bills. Share this and share it broadly.