44 Comments

Vincent, I spent the entire afternoon reading every word of this thoughtful recap of our SCOTUS post Trump appointments and the ridiculousness of their decisions- so infuriating- I could cry. I wish to learn more about you and your work- you definitely have a handle on the law. It's impossible to understand what's happened to us; what are your ideas about turning this around somehow? Thank you for your great and clear writing style.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the kind words! In the next four years we should survive the best we can. If we have the time and resources I recommend some form of mutual aid, you can never go wrong with helping your own community. Stay positive and try to spread left ideas. Not sure where you are on the spectrum, I am a Marxist. I want to encourage and educate people to explore left ideas so that they can take action themselves. There will be plenty of time to protest and build a bottom-up movement. We can't rely on establishment Democrats, they have failed us. We need at least a serious left-populist to reenergize people and fight Trumpism.

Expand full comment

Well , writing this from Cuba, maybe you should just move here. There are millions who would love to trade places with you.

Expand full comment

So basically we live in a country where it's ok and legal to own a weapon that rapid fires bullets which everyone knows is only needed by the military because our dictator Supreme Court justices ruled on a technicality definition of what an assault rifle with a bump stock is, a country where our president is essentially a king because he has immunity to basically everything, we're hard-fought women's rights were just taken away right out from under them by a dictatorship style supreme Court that has no accountability or limits. And the icing on the cake is that basically you are not really human, you have no basic rights as an earthling because you can't even exist or lie down to sleep on a patch of ground for fear of being fined and /or arrested because the greed of your own government has made it nearly impossible to survive in this world and you have nowhere to turn but sadly to a patch of Earth to lie your head on and you can't even do that now. I love the sentence about this case being the most tragic microcosm of the oppressive American empire, which is the criminalization of homeless people. Well done!

Expand full comment

At the time of ratification, there were cannons in private possession. No permission slips involved. Letters of Marque were issued to people who had private navies, fully equipped to engage in combat.

You want your greedy, dictatorial government to decide what weapons you can own? You think your government really "needs" to drop bombs on poor people?

Expand full comment

Clueless.

Expand full comment

Only read the first sentence of your comment because it demonstrates a total ignorance of firearms which is typical of libtards everywhere. Learn something about the topic you are commenting on

Expand full comment

Sorry but the Citizens United case ended American Democracy as we know it by letting corporations, individuals, etc. fund elections by allowing them to form Political Action Committees (PACs and Super PACs). This ruling took away free and fair elections. More than $1 billion was spent in 2025. People who took money from PACS now are owned by the very same.

Expand full comment

The cases I go over here are just from the past four years after Ginsburg passed away. But ya, Citizens United was one of the worst cases in modern history in terms of its destructive impact on our elections and by extension our democracy.

Expand full comment

Citizens United was filed because a politician didn't want a film critical of her to be shown. Prior to this, lobbyists were still bribing politicians.

Expand full comment

Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the lawsuit being filed or the block that the FEC placed on Citizens United. The impact of the ruling is night and day, there is no essentially no limit to the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns which is why a combined $20 billion was in on this year's election: https://tinyurl.com/3pvvfzjd

Saying that it isn't different because politicians were bribed before is totally naive and completely misses the forest for the trees. That goes for both parties, if you think money isn't central to your party, you aren't living in reality.

Expand full comment

The part of the communist's plan that is side splitting, is that they kicked themselves in the balls. If you had not cheated in the 2020 election, that will be proved this coming year, Trump would be leaving January 20th, 2024. Then you could have really had the wind at your back for the next 4 years. Now you will have to watch President Trump appoint the replacements for the conservatives leaving the Supreme Court. The blue ball part of this that Justice Sotomayor has type 1 diabetes. You called for her to retire earlier this year. Now do to your games it looks like the conservatives will get another conservative justice. The sweet part is that you did it all by yourselves!!

Expand full comment

I'm not a liberal or a democrat, I'm just a writer, not sure why you're placing this on me lol

No one cheated in 2020 you sound like a child

Expand full comment
User was indefinitely suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment

Oh, they cheated and we now have more proof. Additionally, as days go by.

Expand full comment

Regardless of your political ideology, the fact that you ignore an amazing amount of evidence pointing to extraordinary election fraud in 2020 tanks your cred as a serious person. Hopefully you will grow out of it.

Expand full comment

So Democrats cheated in 2020 when Trump was in office, but decided not to in 2024 when they had the power? Make that make sense.

It's almost like the elections were fair all along...

Expand full comment

The enumerated powers are in Article 1, Section 8. FEDGOV has no enumerated power to interfere in the private ownership of weapons. All federal gun control is unconstitutional.

The 9th amendment wasn't added because the founders anticipated a future where there might be more rights. The 9th was added to prevent misconstruction. The concern over adding a bill of rights to the constitution was that it would sow confusion about the nature of human rights, mainly that they were somehow a grant from the government rather than inherent to individuals. These concerns are covered in the debates, defenses, and critiques of the constitution contemporary to ratification, although even without additional reading, it should be apparent that the constitution doesn't purport to grant human rights.

Expand full comment

Now do the top 1,000 worst SC ruling before the conservatives took over.

Expand full comment

Conservatives have had a majority since the 1970s, it didn't start to get really bad until Trump was able to appoint 3 justices

Expand full comment

Too bad the majority of Americans do not agree with you. Must be so hard to take. That means the American people do not trust the Democrats or your Marxist looney tunes.

Expand full comment

Americans clearly don't like the conservative Supreme Court; opinion polling shows their approval rating is at 34% and 48% say that it is too conservative.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econtoplines_Khpw06c.pdf

Expand full comment

Liking or not liking the SC is irrelevant. The Dems almost always nominate left wing activists while republicans nominate solid jurists. The rulings demonstrate that.

Expand full comment

Trump literally admitted himself that he appointed Amy Coney Barrett specifically to overturn Roe. The conservatives are the "activists" you're talking about.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

Expand full comment

Roe was an illegal ruling and it needed to be overturned and sent back to the states.

Expand full comment

First of all, Supreme Court Justices aren’t Republican or Democrat - they’re nominated by the President (whatever party he’s from - in the past, that could have been the Whig Party, the Federalist Party, the Democratic-Republican Party (aka “Jeffersonian Republican” Party)) and confirmed by the Senate. Some of the most “liberal”Justices (based on their votes on important cases) were appointed by Republican Presidents (e.g., Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Powell, Blackmun, Brennan, Stewart and, possibly the worst Chief Justice in the history of the United States, Earl Warren).

The justices take the law and apply it to the case’s facts. Rather than think of them as “liberal” or “conservative,” it’s more accurate to think of them as “strict constructionist” or “activist.” IMO, the Court should never stray from the Constitution. When it does, you get horrible opinions like Roe v. Wade that create out of whole cloth supposed “Constitutional rights” that aren’t actually in the Constitution.

I don’t know what your usual field is, but it’s clearly not Constitutional law. You should probably stick to topics you know and understand.

Expand full comment

Saying that SC justices aren't ideological is just naive. We don't live in the high school curriculum version of reality where on paper they're not partisan, we live in the real world where Presidents chose justices to make decisions favorable to their party's interests. All these cases are ruled 6-3 with the same justices on each side. Some decisions that are less consequential see justices switching but for these big cases, they have demonstrated to always side with their partisan lines. No one is hiding this, not even the justices themselves, unless you want to make the wrongheaded claim that the court is fair which its clearly not.

Expand full comment

You are dead wrong. This is the best court in decades. Maybe you don’t care about the constitution but 200,000,000 people do

Expand full comment

I had to smile reading this bleeding heart, full of pathos, obfusication of history.

Built on constantly repeated, past, false naritves it is tour de force of liberal ideology. Long winded, shallow in detail it cherry picks items, replacing truth with motovation and innuendo.

The communist technique of creating purported rights (none requiring any responsibility) as a destabilizing tool is again on didply, hence my smile.

This is just another piece of communist, liberal, socialist, democrat progressive (whatever they call themselves) propoganda. It's sole purpose, to persuade a poorly informed citizenry in a false history in order to project an imaginary utopian society built upon that false history (aka The Lie). A top down society with them as enlightened depots.

Same old, same old, Doom, Gloom and more doom, repeat.

It never ends.

I have to laugh to keep from crying.

When will they ever learn?

Expand full comment

So wheres the "obfuscation" of history? All you did is go on a Rush Limbaugh rant and not dispute anything

Expand full comment

Agreed, Anthony. Vincent actually reinforced the support for all of these rulings. This SCOTUS the strongest constitutional court in modern history in spite of having three incompetent liberal activist justices and in spite of Roberts being the weakest conservative on the court. There is a great chance that it will even improve to 7-2 under Trump's second term.

Expand full comment

Some of the best rulings ever!

Expand full comment

It's why they decided to file the lawsuit.

I don't have a party, and I said nothing at all about money not being central.

Prior CU, the government was still corrupt, corporations still found ways to get influence.

The only solution is to strip the state of power.

Expand full comment

Vincent, At least you started by saying you have no legal expertise. If I had the time (or inclination) to refute the misstatements in your post I would do so. However, based on your inability to grasp even the most basic legal principles, it would clearly be a waste of my time.

Expand full comment

All of the arguments I make have been made by lawyers, just simplified to fit in the article.

Are you a lawyer? What's your expertise in law?

Expand full comment

I don't care what other countries do, that their business. Most other countries do not recognize the individual as a sovergien citizen as we do. They relegate them to subjects.

Recognizing the existence of a Creator is not establishing a religion.

There are four references to God in the Declaration of Independence.

The "laws of nature and nature's God" entitle the United States to independence.

Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienatable rights,"

Congress appeals "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."

God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.

I was in high school at the time and did not see any of the hate that you keep mentioning. You really need to stop reading Anthony Zinn.

Expand full comment

Not even sure what you mean by "Most other countries do not recognize the individual as a sovergien citizen as we do. They relegate them to subjects." Most countries, if not all countries, recognize people who live in their country as citizens. I'm not sure you know anything about other countries, do you seriously think the rest of the world is stuck in feudalism?

Saying that "Recognizing the existence of a Creator is not establishing a religion." is so intentionally ignorant its not even worth responding to, so unserious

Expand full comment

So much wrong here I don’t know where to begin. Thank God, we have a constitutionally based Supreme Court. And it’s only gonna get better! PS freedom of religion was co-opted by the left and perverted into freedom from religion. Public schools are literally dumpsters for our kids. Every taxpayer with children should receive a stipend to go to any school they desire. That is freedom of religion!

Expand full comment

Forcing your religion on others is against the constitution. The raw text of the first amendment is that the government cannot prohibit nor establish religion. Allowing federal funding for religious schools is fundamentally against the first amendment. I'm not sure what sect you belong to, wouldn't it be a shame if you were Protestant and the government mandated your kid be taught Catholic believes in school? Or vice versa?

Expand full comment

You asked for examples of your obfusications, there are many, but here is your latest mis-read and mis-interpretation

Examples; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ..."

No one is forcing anyone to respect a religion! Anyone can go to any church or school they choose. Federal government run and funded public schools started in 1965, President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law. This law decidedly changed the role of the federal government in the world of K-12 education.

That began, what can only be called an attack on religion. Starting with saying the Lord's Prayer the incrementalism began. First they mandated, based on religious freedom, that students didn't have to say it or stand if they were not inclined (Constitionally sound). Next you were not allowed to stand or say it at all (Constitional violation, prohibiting the free exercise).

Next was the Pledge of Allegiance. The path to eroding away the freedoms that were the basis for this country's founding is established. More to come.

Today the government provides funded education, if and only if, they go to government schools that are today non-religious and down right athiseistic. No funding is given to any private or religious school. THAT IS "PROHIBITING OF THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF".

No one is being forced. Rather citizens are being prohibited.

Your diatribe is the continuation of this destruction of understanding and is by definition an obfusication.

Expand full comment

By instituting non-secular prayer in school, that is by definition 'establishing religion.'

The pledge of allegiance is not religious so I'm not even sure what you're talking about, forcing a kid to 'pledge allegiance' to their country is straight up bizarre, no other country on Earth does that, its straight up 1984 type shit.

How would you know how "atheistic" public schools are? Most teachers are themselves religious, they just teach in a secular manner. The only people calling public schools atheistic are religious zealots that need their kid to be indoctrinated into their religion.

The government is restricted by the Constitution which prohibits the support of religious institutions aka religious schools. That's how it was written and established in 1790 then later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

Winner of the "Bad Takes" Gold Medal, Vincent Pagliaccio.

Citing the grossly incompetent raving lunatic, Justice Sotomayor, is icing on the cake. :-)

Expand full comment