Democrats love to protest

[dmallord]

View attachment 2572325

That's a mouse.

It doesn’t matter, it’s the same thing.

Kind of like the King Felon's dementia and Joe's dementia are equivalent, amirite? But who gives a rat's ass about Joe right now? The rat's ass that is screaming about shitting on America and hiding the Epstein files is grabbing the headlines. Amirite?

Mouses get no respect, I tells ya! It All goEs to Da RaTs!

 

[dmallord]

looks like the same ad used at Trump rallies!

It was the same ad, just rebranded here to try and apply it to Soros.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Perhaps.

Perhaps you have read it (or at least the few paragraphs I quoted) and don't like it, but can't dispute it?

Why should I waste my precious time disputing something with you that you obviously have no intention of having an actual discussion about?

 

[mstrman]

Amirite?

 

[LilKitKat]

Apologies all for the long-winded reply...

Re: the Alien Enemies Act:
President Trump’s EO invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1789 and his claim that the AEA grants him the authority to remove people—in this instance, alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren De Aragua (TdA) gang—without due process appears to be both illegal and unconstitutional. First, the Fifth Amendment was a direct rebuttal to such abuses as it requires that “[n]o person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” extending these protections beyond just citizens. Several lower court judges have issued orders prohibiting the removal of anyone under the AEA without due process. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the government must provide individuals targeted by this EO the due process right to challenge their removals through the legal process. Though not legally binding, the Declaration of Independence shines a light on the illegitimacy of Trump’s actions; it decried the English king subjecting people in the colonies to “a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,” “depriving [people] in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,” and “transporting [people] beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.”

Furthermore, a Trump-appointed judge in the Southern District of Texas recently ruled that the president’s invocation of the AEA to remove people “exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.” To that effect, the AEA—invoked only three times in American history—requires a “declared war” or an “invasion or predatory incursion” “by any foreign nation or government” for invocation, none of which is present here. In reviewing invocation of the AEA, a judge appointed by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush opined that “an invasion is a military affair, not one of immigration.” A recently declassified intelligence memo indicates that the Venezuelan government is not directing TdA in the United States, further undermining President Trump’s claims that the AEA was appropriately invoked.

As of May of this year (so, several motnhs old now) the Trump administration has sent more than 260 individuals—more than 100 of whom the administration says are members of TdA—to an El Salvadoran prison without constitutionally required due process. This includes Abrego Garcia, who had a judicial hold on his removal that granted him protection from being deported. Despite admitting that Abrego Garcia was removed due to an “administrative error,” the administration has vigorously pushed back against court orders that the government facilitate his return. As a result, one federal judge has already found probable cause to hold the government in criminal contempt of court for defying his orders around AEA removals. A second judge is conducting expedited discovery in the Abrego Garcia case with the apparent purpose of determining whether contempt proceedings should proceed.

 

[LilKitKat]

An Article II authority

For engaging in a conspiracy against rights and against the United States.

For violating federal law, committing perjury, and engaging in a conspiracy against rights

In order to carry out and “faithfully advance the Constitution’s promise of colorblind equality before the law.” His EOs in regard to DEI assert that federal contracting and funding must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Title VII, other civil rights statutes) and that some DEI programs are allegedly in tension with those laws. For instance one EO directs agencies to include in contracts or grants a term that the contractor “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.


He cannot run for a third term, that much is civics, not speculation. What you’re witnessing is Trump in his highest academic form: Troller-in-Chief, temporarily borrowing my chair as Professor of Triggernometry, orchestrating a controlled experiment in mass hysteria. The objective? To measure just how fast your community can dissolve into outrage over shadows. It’s time to wake up. He’s 20-0 before the Supreme Court, dismantling deep-state fictions and progressive misreadings of the law with surgical precision. And if precedent holds, he’ll soon be publishing a few more case studies in his ongoing dissertation on Democratic cluelessness in constitutional interpretation.

Re: punishing law firms
President Trump has issued several EOs targeting large law firms for representing clients affiliated with the Democratic Party, lawyers involved with the January 6 Committee, and former Democratic officials. These EOs strip the security clearances of all attorneys affiliated with the firms and prohibit them from accessing federal buildings. The EOs also require government contractors to disclose their affiliation with targeted law firms, which could result in the loss of their government contracts.

These EOs appear to be unconstitutional and in violation of multiple sections of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, a federal judge just ruled that President Trump’s EO targeting the law firm Perkins Coie was “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints … contrary to the Constitution.” That court found that the EO violated the First Amendment through retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, the Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court did not address whether the EO served as an unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder”—imposing punishment on targets without trial—but suggested that the president cannot independently do what Congress is specifically barred from doing and that the matter could be addressed at a later time. As scholars have noted, “Even under the most tyrannical monarchs, the king never asserted unilateral authority to issue bills of attainder—a power the president now asserts for himself.” (emphasis in original)

Three other law firms subject to these EOs have already received temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether several other powerful law firms will now back out of agreements they made with the Trump administration to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of pro bono work to the government.

re: punishing his political opponents
The president can’t order that political opponents be punished but he can theoretically order that they be investigated, although such actions have long been considered beyond the pale of presidential action. In doing so, President Trump has destroyed the long-established independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its freedom from political influence. Furthermore, by initiating sweeping investigations against his political opponents, Trump is taking upon himself a power that the founders explicitly rebelled against in 1776. As Joseph diGenova—President Trump’s former lawyer and a former U.S. attorney—stated, “The power to investigate and prosecute is the power to destroy.”

Indeed, directing pretextual investigations against political opponents for their constitutionally protected acts may well violate the Constitution in multiple ways. The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States from prosecution based on their free speech unless it constitutes a “true threat,” which does not apply to the cases described below. The Fifth Amendment equal protection clause also protects these individuals and institutions and prohibits the “illegitimate exercise of government power.” Furthermore, constitutional protections against bills of attainder could apply here as well.

These legal and constitutional principles should apply to the EOs directing the criminal investigation and stripping of security clearance of two political appointees from President Trump’s first term: Chris Krebs, former director of the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Deprtment of Homeland Security. These EOs appear to be wholly in retaliation for Kreb’s and Taylor’s past statements critical of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle democratic institutions and elections during his first term.

Beyond the Krebs and Taylor investigations, Attorney General Pam Bondi and former interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin appear to be pursuing this agenda of political retribution through abuse of the criminal justice system. While interim U.S. attorney, Martin sent letters to Democratic members of Congress and senators purporting to investigate their public political speech as criminal threats. Martin has told top law schools to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or their graduates would be blacklisted from DOJ jobs. He has also sent threatening letters to top-tier medical journals, such as The New England Journal of Medicine, accusing them of bias in publishing research articles. Martin is now an associate deputy attorney general and is in charge of a so-called DOJ “Weaponization Working Group.” Although this group is purportedly intended to de-weaponize DOJ, Martin has affirmed that it will be criminally investigating federal, state, and local officials who previously investigated President Trump, including special counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and the DOJ personnel tasked with prosecuting January 6 insurgents.

Many of the targets of these investigations are already pushing back against the Trump administration’s seemingly unconstitutional actions, though the status of the cases remains unclear as they have not landed before a court.

 

[LilKitKat]

An Article II authority

For engaging in a conspiracy against rights and against the United States.

For violating federal law, committing perjury, and engaging in a conspiracy against rights

In order to carry out and “faithfully advance the Constitution’s promise of colorblind equality before the law.” His EOs in regard to DEI assert that federal contracting and funding must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Title VII, other civil rights statutes) and that some DEI programs are allegedly in tension with those laws. For instance one EO directs agencies to include in contracts or grants a term that the contractor “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.


He cannot run for a third term, that much is civics, not speculation. What you’re witnessing is Trump in his highest academic form: Troller-in-Chief, temporarily borrowing my chair as Professor of Triggernometry, orchestrating a controlled experiment in mass hysteria. The objective? To measure just how fast your community can dissolve into outrage over shadows. It’s time to wake up. He’s 20-0 before the Supreme Court, dismantling deep-state fictions and progressive misreadings of the law with surgical precision. And if precedent holds, he’ll soon be publishing a few more case studies in his ongoing dissertation on Democratic cluelessness in constitutional interpretation.

re: punishing priv comapnies about diversity

President Trump has issued a slew of EOs targeting and attempting to eliminate DEI initiatives within and outside of the government. The administration has declared DEI “illegal,” issued EOs to eliminate DEI programs in the federal government, created a list of more than 250 words (including “accessible” and “woman”) to target and remove from government-maintained webpages, threatened to defund public schools that maintain diversity programs, threatened to cancel government contracts with companies and grant recipients if they use or encourage diversity programs, and initiated investigations against public and private institutions for using or having diversity programs.

Yet President Trump and the administration have not defined what they consider illegal about DEI. Simply put, their efforts to punish private individuals and organizations for vaguely prohibited speech and actions appear to be arbitrary and capricious and thus illegal. The First Amendment prohibits the government from mandating a speech code and prohibiting free association for the public. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from punishing people and privately held organizations without due process of law. As the EOs appear to prohibit people and organizations from speaking and associating freely and to punish those who do not comply with the president’s view of DEI, they appear to be facial violations of the Constitution.

The administration’s declaration that DEI programs are illegal stems from its expansive reading of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. That case narrowly held that universities could not use race-based admissions systems but could consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life.

Since the EOs were issued, at least 240 colleges and universities have deprioritized or eliminated diversity reforms for fear of being defunded. Some of America’s largest companies—including Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, Warner Bros., and The Walt Disney Co.—are eliminating or modifying DEI programs for fear of losing government contracts or facing intrusive federal investigations.

No statute or Supreme Court ruling states that advancing or considering diversity interests by private citizens or organizations is illegal. A Maryland federal district court judge recently barred implementation of the EOs because they were unconstitutionally vague and likely violated the First and Fifth amendments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit later narrowed the lower court’s order based on the government’s assertion that it would not act to violate the Constitution while the case proceeds on the merits. A concurring judge noted that “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the [EO’s] narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns.”

The administration’s recent move requiring all state education departments to affirm that their K–12 schools will not engage in DEI initiatives—again, without defining DEI—or be cut off from federal funding appears to fall squarely under the courts’ concerns. This threat seems to run afoul of Supreme Court precedent as illegally coercive. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—involving Congress’ efforts to cut off Medicaid funding to states—the court held that unduly coercive efforts requiring states to adopt federal policies are unconstitutional. The court explicitly stated that “‘the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.’ Otherwise, the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.” That very same reasoning should apply directly to a president attempting to coerce states to adopt his policies, especially when they are not backed by law.

The president’s threats to cancel education funding due to ideological disputes contravene settled constitutional and legal principles. President Trump enjoys many powers under the Constitution, but the power to unilaterally, absent any due process, force states and institutions to comply with his shifting policy demands or lose federal funding is not one of them. Individuals, organizations, universities, and states themselves should be wary of bowing to the president’s demands because anticipatory obedience to an illegal order wreaks just as much havoc on the nation’s democratic system as the illegal orders themselves.

TL DR: yeah he violated the consitution, supreme court backs this up, so yer full of it

 

[Rightguide]

Re: punishing law firms
President Trump has issued several EOs targeting large law firms for representing clients affiliated with the Democratic Party, lawyers involved with the January 6 Committee, and former Democratic officials. These EOs strip the security clearances of all attorneys affiliated with the firms and prohibit them from accessing federal buildings. The EOs also require government contractors to disclose their affiliation with targeted law firms, which could result in the loss of their government contracts.

These EOs appear to be unconstitutional and in violation of multiple sections of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, a federal judge just ruled that President Trump’s EO targeting the law firm Perkins Coie was “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints … contrary to the Constitution.” That court found that the EO violated the First Amendment through retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, the Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court did not address whether the EO served as an unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder”—imposing punishment on targets without trial—but suggested that the president cannot independently do what Congress is specifically barred from doing and that the matter could be addressed at a later time. As scholars have noted, “Even under the most tyrannical monarchs, the king never asserted unilateral authority to issue bills of attainder—a power the president now asserts for himself.” (emphasis in original)

Three other law firms subject to these EOs have already received temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether several other powerful law firms will now back out of agreements they made with the Trump administration to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of pro bono work to the government.

re: punishing his political opponents
The president can’t order that political opponents be punished but he can theoretically order that they be investigated, although such actions have long been considered beyond the pale of presidential action. In doing so, President Trump has destroyed the long-established independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its freedom from political influence. Furthermore, by initiating sweeping investigations against his political opponents, Trump is taking upon himself a power that the founders explicitly rebelled against in 1776. As Joseph diGenova—President Trump’s former lawyer and a former U.S. attorney—stated, “The power to investigate and prosecute is the power to destroy.”

Indeed, directing pretextual investigations against political opponents for their constitutionally protected acts may well violate the Constitution in multiple ways. The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States from prosecution based on their free speech unless it constitutes a “true threat,” which does not apply to the cases described below. The Fifth Amendment equal protection clause also protects these individuals and institutions and prohibits the “illegitimate exercise of government power.” Furthermore, constitutional protections against bills of attainder could apply here as well.

These legal and constitutional principles should apply to the EOs directing the criminal investigation and stripping of security clearance of two political appointees from President Trump’s first term: Chris Krebs, former director of the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, and Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Deprtment of Homeland Security. These EOs appear to be wholly in retaliation for Kreb’s and Taylor’s past statements critical of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle democratic institutions and elections during his first term.

Beyond the Krebs and Taylor investigations, Attorney General Pam Bondi and former interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin appear to be pursuing this agenda of political retribution through abuse of the criminal justice system. While interim U.S. attorney, Martin sent letters to Democratic members of Congress and senators purporting to investigate their public political speech as criminal threats. Martin has told top law schools to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or their graduates would be blacklisted from DOJ jobs. He has also sent threatening letters to top-tier medical journals, such as The New England Journal of Medicine, accusing them of bias in publishing research articles. Martin is now an associate deputy attorney general and is in charge of a so-called DOJ “Weaponization Working Group.” Although this group is purportedly intended to de-weaponize DOJ, Martin has affirmed that it will be criminally investigating federal, state, and local officials who previously investigated President Trump, including special counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and the DOJ personnel tasked with prosecuting January 6 insurgents.

Many of the targets of these investigations are already pushing back against the Trump administration’s seemingly unconstitutional actions, though the status of the cases remains unclear as they have not landed before a court.

Let’s be clear Kat, painting routine executive oversight as some dystopian assault on democracy is pure theater. Stripping security clearances, reviewing contractor affiliations, or probing potential misconduct is squarely within presidential authority, especially when national security or government integrity is at stake. These measures are not criminal punishment, not bills of attainder, and not viewpoint-based persecution; they are safeguards, period. Courts and commentators treating them as unconstitutional assume the president is powerless to protect federal operations, which is nonsense. Likewise, investigations into potential malfeasance by former officials or firms are exactly what the executive branch is designed to do, not some novel “political vendetta.” Framing competent oversight and lawful inquiry as tyranny ignores centuries of precedent and inflates procedural caution into an existential crisis. In short, critics here are not analyzing law; they are performing a melodrama starring themselves as the moral arbiters of power. A lot of things "may well violate the Constitution in multiple ways," but the question is, do they? So far the SCOTUS has sided with the president.

 

[LilKitKat]

So far the SCOTUS has sided with the president.

when ya pack the courts with questionably qualified knee-benders, of course they side with the faux-king

also...I am Kit. Kat is another user on here

 

[stxjimmy]

Kind of like the King Felon's dementia and Joe's dementia are equivalent, amirite? But who gives a rat's ass about Joe right now? The rat's ass that is screaming about shitting on America and hiding the Epstein files is grabbing the headlines. Amirite?

Mouses get no respect, I tells ya! It All goEs to Da RaTs!

I admire your righteous anger, more please.

 

[Saint_Ann]

when ya pack the courts with questionably qualified knee-benders, of course they side with the faux-king

also...I am Kit. Kat is another user on here

The Dems did that with the lower courts and then used them to disrupt Trump's first term. Yes or no?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Trump thinks he has the powers of a king, but he's wrong. Once Democrats are back in power he'll be impeached, removed from office and tried.

He’s been impeached. Twice. Acquitted. Twice. Tried in civil courts and criminal courts. And re-elected. He’s back.

 

[Rebel5soul]

He’s been impeached. Twice. Acquitted. Twice. Tried in civil courts and criminal courts. And re-elected. He’s back.

Apparently they can't read the Constitution, or understand it if they can read.

 

[LilKitKat]

The Dems did that with the lower courts and then used them to disrupt Trump's first term. Yes or no?

not exactly no.
Merrick Garland anyone? Yeah...GOP delayed it so Trump could take office, then deny his nomination, then replace him with drunks.

 

[LilKitKat]

He’s been impeached. Twice. Acquitted. Twice. Tried in civil courts and criminal courts. And re-elected. He’s back.

you forgot about all of his 34 felonies, then having the supreme court pass this bs to allow a president to basically do anything he/she/they want without consequences.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Apparently they can't read the Constitution, or understand it if they can read.

And they never learn from their mistakes. They unwittingly helped re-elect the president.

 

[LilKitKat]

And they never learn from their mistakes. They unwittingly helped re-elect the president.

no, that was Starlink/Musk..and Russia actually

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

you forgot about all of his 34 felonies, then having the supreme court pass this bs to allow a president to basically do anything he/she/they want without consequences.

I mentioned the criminal courts. The public wasn’t particularly bothered by the classification of hush money payments to a porn star through his lawyer as “legal expenses.” He was re-elected and is our president again.

 

[AlwaysHard35]

Really?
Trump wants to control every aspect of society and government (which he thinks is him) own businesses

What happened to "limited government" republicans? What happened to yelling "socialism" every time a meal was given to a hungry child?

You KNOW that Trump cares zip about the constitution or rule of law. And now (conveniently) he hates limits on executive power

And you mock protests?
Feel free to relocate to N Korea

This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on here

 

[AlwaysHard35]

I mentioned the criminal courts. The public wasn’t particularly bothered by the classification of hush money payments to a porn star through his lawyer as “legal expenses.” He was re-elected and is our president again.

You don't have to look very far to know just what news stations they are watching, with these comments

 

[Rebel5soul]

And they never learn from their mistakes. They unwittingly helped re-elect the president.

Trump is fulfilling his oath of office by enforcing the laws passed by congress and now the Communists among us are apoplectic. Sad for them but they are fun to watch.

 

[Rightguide]

when ya pack the courts with questionably qualified knee-benders, of course they side with the faux-king

also...I am Kit. Kat is another user on here

As I was sitting here by the fireplace contemplating my upcoming hunting trip, this news story came up on the screen. I thought I should paddle you with it before returning to my maps and gear list.

US appeals court lets Trump send troops to Portland​

By Dietrich Knauth
October 20, 20254:10 PM PDTUpdated 2 hours ago

Oct 20 (Reuters) - A divided U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday that Donald Trump can send National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon, despite objections by the leaders of the city and state, giving the Republican president an important legal victory as he dispatches military forces to a growing number of Democratic-led locales.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Justice Department's request to put on hold a judge's order that had blocked the deployment while a legal challenge to Trump's action plays out.

The court said that sending in the National Guard was an appropriate response to protesters, who had damaged a federal building and threatened U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

The unsigned majority opinion was joined by Circuit Judge Bridget Bade and Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, who were both appointed by Trump in his first term. Nelson also wrote a concurring opinion saying courts have no ability to even review the president's decision to send troops.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...trump-send-troops-portland-oregon-2025-10-20/

That will be the case when he decides to use the Insurrection Clause as well.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Losing is becoming habitual for the Communists.

 

[ll74]

MILITARIZE the country!

 

[AlwaysHard35]

Trump is fulfilling his oath of office by enforcing the laws passed by congress and now the Communists among us are apoplectic. Sad for them but they are fun to watch.

It’s hard to believe how many people are out there that have no clue what is going on in this country, so many believe what the main stream media tells them