Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Biden Drops HISTORIC Supreme Court BOMBSHELL on TRUMP!" video.

  1.  @WolfRaven-jm1cm  The difference is who wrote the Constitution, and who actively supports and defends the Constitution. The "immunity" decision is unconstitutional because it repudiates the Constitution. The Constitution, by its own express terms, is the SUPREME Law of the Land. The three co-EQUAL branches of gov't, which include the Supreme Court, are SUBORDINATE to the Constitution.
    38
  2. Scalia's Heller and its progeny need to be overturned.
    7
  3.  @brendahhstiles9992  The British monarchy is a part of the UK gov't, so does have a political role. But it is limited. The same is true of other European monarchies, such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, which also have democratically-elected parliaments, and socialist economies -- and are not tyrannies
    5
  4. Nope. Be nice if you'd READ the Constitution and learn from it that there is already a process for nominating and appointing judges. And learn the weaknesses in POLITICALLY ELECTING judges who are expected to be NON-political.
    2
  5. I am impressed and relieved that there are young people -- Adam, and Luke Beasley as two examples -- who are actually informed about the rules and what is actually happening, and that they present informedly and intelligently.
    2
  6. Yes. And that could be done in the same Amendment. But it might be best to make that a stand-alone, so future courts wouldn't have too much room for "parsing".
    2
  7. Nope: "A system of Laws, and not of men." -- John Adams. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
    2
  8.  @vetinaris1297  They are typically born into. HOWEVER, they are not in the positions of dictators: their systems of gov't include DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED parliaments -- legislatures -- which make the laws. AND they have SOCIALIST economies BUT ARE NOT TYRANIES. Their gov'ts SERVE the needs of their people according to the wishes of their people, not instead according to the wishes of a small handful of the wealth that wants the majority impoverished.
    2
  9. The January 6th insurrection was an instance of "direct democracy". And you imagine replacing the Electoral College with "direct democracy" -- correct?
    1
  10.  @terrancekayton007  As a co-EQUAL branch, Congress can overturn the Supreme Court.
    1
  11. The difference is, at very minimum, is that President Biden has read and complies with, the Constitution. Trump has always rejected any rules that would limit his actions to within civil norms and civility, which is why he's a convicted criminal.
    1
  12. Roberts is also "Federalist Society". HE wrote the unconstitutional "immunity" decision. He was not appointed by Trump. Trump also did not appoint Thomas and Alito, and they too are part of the corruption.
    1
  13.  @WolfRaven-jm1cm  The Supreme Court does not have the authority to ignore parts of the Constitution, or to write in parts that are not there. that is what this Court is doing with the "immunity" decision. Ordering the assassination of a political opponent in a DEMOCRACY is not an "official act"; it is MURDER, which is a crime regardless who commits it. Nor is it proper to rule beyond the scope of the instance case -- to invent "answers" to questions not posed by the instant case. And, no: the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution; it gives the Court the authority to interpret the facts of cases in relation to Congressional statutes. See _Grove Hall_, in which the Rehnquist Court ignored the actual text of the relevant statute -- "Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, As Amended," in order to hold against the scope of that statute as expressly stated in the statute. And, as Congress is a co-EQUAL branch to the Court, that decision and its progeny were OVERTURNED with the "Americans with Disabilities Act". The difference between you and I is this fundamental principle -- I adhere to it, and you are ignorant of it and of its meaning: "Justice and the Rule of Laws are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. Another difference is that I have an education in law, and you are law-illiterate: Trump is a law-illiterate criminal who DOES NOT get to determine the law -- but you believe him anyway because too stupid to know the difference between law and politics, between rule of law and CONVICTED CRIMINAL. ___ "No Collusion"? Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia. This is Webster's definition of "collusion": "Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose". How many Trump campaign members lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION? THIS IS THE LAW: The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE: We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony. In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property. And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia. That conspiracy is an additional felony. ____________ PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
    1
  14.  @davebrown9725  "The Federalist Society" is an active seditious conspiracy. Sedition is a crime. And its members on the Supreme Court are the authors of the glaringly unconstitutional "immunity" and Chevron decisions.
    1
  15. Investigate ALL SIX who authored and agreed with the "immunity" and Chevron decisions, along with their associates, including "The Federalist Society" and Neo-Nazi Crow.
    1
  16.  @pamelacole2756  If the monarchy is not part of the gov't then it can't prorogue the gov't.
    1
  17.  @siegfriedchulainn88  Domestic propaganda has long been prohibited. But that changed with the Cheney-Bush regime.
    1
  18.  @RedRose4141  He seems to be okay with being owned by a Neo-Nazi.
    1