The TLDR version is that the old leadership was corrupted and misappropriating funds for personal uses. There were several lawsuits and the old leadership has been mostly ousted. The new leadership are trying to reform the organization to prevent abuse of the prior administration from returning.

They are still around at a reduced role. Other groups have popped up like GOA (Gun owners of America) and FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition).

About 40% of the time they are unanimous. And it has been that way since at least when FDR appointed 8/9, probably longer. But people care about controversy more than consensus in their news.

That is just dog bites man vs man bites dog.

I’m glad to help, headlines and sadly even the body of news articles rarely capture nuance. Law and Politics both have their controversies but they are not synonyms. When you peek behind the curtains of headlines, things start to make more sense, because, most everyone thinks that they’re being rational. But most of us are simply viewing the matters from different perspectives. There are bad perspectives, but, unfortunately, there is not a best one.

The 5 judges were from the lower court’s dissent. It wasn’t 5 justices at the Supreme Court. It takes 4 Supreme Court justices to grant cert on a case and hear it. It sounds like only Gorsuch and Thomas voted to hear it.

Gorsuch is arguably the most pro-Native American justice the court has ever seen. He started his majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma with this sentence “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise.”

Thomas and Gorsuch joined Alito in a 77 page dissent, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia explicitly calling to overturn a prior case that infringed on Native American’s religious liberties by denying benefits to a peyote user.

Well it was Madison if you want to know who held the quill, but upon the consent and order of the Confederation Congress which our current Congress acts in the continuity of. See Art. XI Clause I (proclaiming the debts of the Confederation’s Congress maybe held just as valid under the Constitution’s Congress).

Your question is vague and it would be hard to give you an apt response, if you rephrase it with more clarity I’ll get back to you.

I was not talking about case law. I was talking about text. But if you want my thoughts on prior precedents let me know which ones.

Who do you think called for and commissioned the Constitutional Convention? Who do you think proposes amendments under Article V? Pick up a book.

In this thread people who haven’t read one CJ Roberts opinion in its entirety. That fault lies square only Congress and ourselves. The role of the judiciary is not the draft bill or pen amendments to the Constitution. It is to decide cases based on the law Congress made.

mandatory storage safety with inspections

Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people’s homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.

Whole Young Chicken: $1.69 / lb

Chicken breast: $2.99 / lb

Every year about 8,000 people file their cases for cert at the Supreme Court. Each year they grant cert on about 80. Roughly 1/1000 odds. Those about 8,000 cases include cases that have also previously filed in past years without cert.

Amicus briefs are not uncommon. They often don’t grant cert when there are no novel legal questions. The Supreme Court simply doesn’t not have the ability to hear every appeal. Them not granting cert in any case should not be taken as a dispositive.

Makes a sense in a pre-industrial pre-citizenship world. The broad idea is that you establish that the people voting on things are members of the community to be impacted. That way you don’t have transient people impacting the outcomes of elections.

The real question is why the hell is a governor engaging in international trade or diplomacy? Art. 1 Sec 8.

College students can be eligible for SNAP & HUD.

9/10 sovereign citizens are victims. 1/10 are charlatans selling a fiction to those in dire need of a way out of legal trouble.

That still would be barred by Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). If they do any on that basis they’d instantly get sued. 7/9 of the justices are the same since then. 4 members of the majority remain on the court and the two new appointments both should be predicted to uphold the precedent.

Put musk in the title so people with filters don’t have to be reminded.

All liberty is guarded by four boxes. The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. They are in order.

Political violence is largely a terrible idea that results in continued suffering or retribution. People online flock to it as a remedy and often aren’t fully aware of the structure of their local government. The best means of change are by convincing locals of a better alternative that is amiable to all parties. Online activism has a broader net but ultimately reaches less people in positions likely to be able to remedy local matters. Carrot beats stick.

Yeah that’s how it works.

Other comments in this thread reflect a lack of appreciation for the prior system. Once upon a time the king’s men could arrest legislators unfavorable to him to bar unfavorable legislation. Today we have legislation barring the arrest of representatives while the house is in session.