To "86" something came from the restaurant industry long ago but was adopted into the mainstream.

It was always a quick way to communicate that something is removed or gone when it runs out on a menu.

"86 the steak special! the chef shouted at the waiters hurrying by"

This sanctimonious dickhead Comey knew FULL WELL what that meant and his attempts to act innocent aren't working out.

I'm gonna go ahead and say he also didn't find the shells arranged that way, he did it himself.

5 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing On Nationwide Injunctions, Birthright Citizenship

Authored by Sam Dorman and Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court on May 15 heard oral arguments in relation to the Trump administration’s request to lift nationwide injunctions placed on the president’s birthright citizenship order.

The decision could determine how judges can address presidential actions.

During the argument, the justices posed questions about how far lower court judges could go in issuing relief from particular policies.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that nationwide injunctions exceed judges’ authority under Article 3 of the Constitution.

While members of the Supreme Court have criticized nationwide injunctions in the past, they seemed skeptical that it was appropriate to remove the injunctions in this case.

President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, signed on Jan. 20, states that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

The executive order has prompted debate over the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Here are some takeaways from the arguments, as well as considerations surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling.

1. No Final Ruling Expected on Constitutionality

The argument stemmed from an emergency request made by the Trump administration to limit three separate nationwide injunctions blocking the president’s birthright citizenship order.

At such an early stage in the litigation, the justices wrestled more with procedural considerations such as the scope of relief rather than the constitutionality of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

However, judges can still consider the likelihood that each side will succeed with its arguments about the more substantive issues. The issue could also reach the Supreme Court again after further deliberation in lower courts, teeing up an opportunity for the justices to make a more definitive ruling on birthright citizenship.

Sauer could have asked the Supreme Court to delve deeper into the constitutional issues, but he did not. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed him on this point and asked why he wanted there to be more consideration by lower courts before the justices took on the issue.

“So this one isn’t clear-cut on the merits?” she asked.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that if Trump’s order is legally wrong, allowing the administration to continue implementing it would be inconsistent with the rule of law.

“It seems to me that your argument says we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc.,” she said. “And I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”

Solicitor General nominee, D. John Sauer, prepares to testify during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Feb. 26, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

2. Several Judges Critical of Trump’s Order

During the May 15 arguments, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan seemed to think that the administration had misinterpreted the 14th Amendment when it ordered a halt to illegal immigrants’ children receiving birthright citizenship.

“As far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Sotomayor told Sauer.

Later, Kagan suggested to Sauer that the administration would continue to lose in defending its policy before lower courts. She was asking what incentive the government would have to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if another judge had not issued a nationwide injunction.

“If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case, so you just keep on losing in the lower courts, and what’s supposed to happen to prevent that?” she asked.

3. Dispute Over Courts’ Historical Authority

Justice Clarence Thomas seemed the most sympathetic to Sauer’s position and suggested that nationwide injunctions do not have a solid historical basis.

Sauer had argued that the first nationwide injunction was issued in 1963 and that the court had consistently said relief should be limited to plaintiffs.

“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked.

Sotomayor, meanwhile, asked New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, “We’ve had universal injunctions in some form—correct?—since the founding.”

Both justices asked about the history of courts issuing orders known as “bills of peace,” which resolve a dispute for multiple parties. Sauer described the practice as similar to a modern class action and different from a nationwide injunction. Sotomayor disagreed with that comparison.

4. Alternatives to Nationwide Injunctions?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that class actions, or lawsuits in which multiple plaintiffs sue on behalf of a larger group of plaintiffs, could take the place of nationwide injunctions.

If nationwide injunctions were not available in this case, people could file class actions, which could “solve a large part of the problem in a way that complies with the rules,” the justice said.

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts attend inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Kelsi Corkran, an attorney for immigration advocacy groups, disagreed, saying such an approach is “just channeling the problems through a different mechanism.”

Kagan said the state of New Jersey, a litigant in the case, is arguing that without the availability of nationwide injunctions, it could face “administrative costs and ... workability problems” as a result of possibly inconsistent court rulings being issued in different states on the citizenship question.

This could also lead to a “magnet problem” as “everybody moves to the state where the more favorable rule exists,” Kagan said.

5. Difficulties Involved in Suing Over Birthright Citizenship

Jackson said the government’s proposal to curtail nationwide injunctions would make it more difficult for people to sue to vindicate their rights.

“Your argument seems to turn our justice system ... into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime ... where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights,” she said.

Sauer disagreed, saying that given the status quo, “the ‘catch me if you can’ problem operates in the opposite direction where we have the government racing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, having to sort of clear the table in order to implement a new policy.”

“Many of us have expressed frustration at the way district courts are doing their business,” Kagan said.

The current system encourages forum-shopping, she said, referring to plaintiffs choosing to file a case in a jurisdiction where they think that the judge will be sympathetic to their case.

During the first Trump administration, litigants sought favorable rulings by filing in courts perceived to be friendly in San Francisco, but in the succeeding Biden administration, litigants filed in Texas, Kagan said.

“There is a big problem that is created by that mechanism,” she said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...rthright-citizenship

quote:

Originally posted by Ranger41:
My recollection is "Deep Six" is a nautical term meaning throw it overboard...

Like we did with bin Laden.


.

Ugly ass building and it's falling apart, literally

FBI Director Kash Patel announced Friday that the bureau is leaving its longtime DC headquarters in the J. Edgar Hoover Building and transferring 1,500 employees to locations around the country

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Ugly ass building and it's falling apart, literally

FBI Director Kash Patel announced Friday that the bureau is leaving its longtime DC headquarters in the J. Edgar Hoover Building and transferring 1,500 employees to locations around the country

Well, he promised this on Day One, but this, I would consider, Promises Kept!

I am liking Kash at the FBI. He's quiet and I'm pretty sure a FAFO sort of guy. Comey might have a few problems coming his way.

Trump has put together an unbelievable team. Rubio, Patel, Hegseth, Bessent, ... winning!

quote:

Comey might have a few problems coming his way.

If so, I hope it's for more than the shells in the sand. Comey has always been an arrogant prick and he undermined Trump in the first term.

President Trump Holds Press Gaggle On Air Force One After Departing Middle East For U.S.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...t5sLc3FaUydcxKLxQ%3D

House Budget Committee Rejects GOP Bill to Enact Trump’s Agenda

The tally was 16–21 as five Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against it.

Five Republicans joined Democrats on the House Budget Committee on May 16 to reject a sweeping policy bill to enact President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The vote tally was 16–21. Republicans could not afford to lose the votes of more than two of their own members on the committee. On the House floor, Republicans cannot afford to lose the votes of more than three of their own members.

The no vote by the panel marks a setback for House Republican leadership, who hope to pass the bill by Memorial Day. They are still negotiating with both fiscal hawks and blue-state Republicans who want changes to various provisions of the package.

The bill would make income tax cuts enacted in 2017 permanent and would implement measures to secure the border and unleash American energy. It would increase the cap on the State and Local Tax, or SALT, deduction from $10,000 per household to $30,000.

The SALT deduction allows taxpayers who itemize deductions, especially in high-tax states such as New York and California, to claim a deduction on their federal income tax return for certain state and local taxes.

The SALT cap has been a point of contention with members of New York’s congressional delegation, including Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who are calling for the cap to be lifted.

Five Republicans on the committee, Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), and Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) joined all Democrats in voting against the bill.

Smucker, who has been outspoken in saying the bill cannot add to the deficit, changed his vote from yes to no.

“Sadly, I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out,” Norman said.

Norman later told reporters that it is problematic that the bill’s reforms and cuts to Medicaid would not take effect until 2029.

“This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits,” Roy said.

“I am a no on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday.”

Clyde said: “Unfortunately, the current version falls short of these goals and fails to deliver the transformative change that Americans were promised ... Substantive improvements are needed.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters ahead of the committee meeting that the changes can’t happen overnight.

“We’re all in agreement on the reforms we want to make. We want to have work requirements. We want to phase out a lot of these green subsidies,” he said.

“It’s not as quickly as saying you just turn it off tomorrow. Some things the administration does have to actually create a process to implement it, and we want to make sure that the Trump administration has the time they need, while pushing it as fast as possible.”

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told reporters that the bill could be better, but he will still support it.

“We could have made bigger reforms, cut more spending, but at the end of the day, this is going to get the economy growing for the American people,” he said.

Democrats said the bill was a benefit for the wealthy and a detriment for the not-so-rich.

“It’s an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the American working class to the richest and most powerful people on the planet,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.).

Democrats introduced motions to change the bill, but those motions were all rejected.

One, introduced by Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), would raise the top income tax rate. Amo said it would “make the rich pay their fair share.”

Trump last week had expressed openness to raising income taxes on top earners.

“Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!” he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social.
However, he warned that “even a ‘TINY’ tax increase for the RICH” would cause Democrats to “go around screaming ‘Read my lips’”—referencing the famous quote by George Bush.
With the bill not making it out of the Budget Committee, it is likely that changes will have to be made to bring it up again and advance it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...UktNugPWClle%2BKE%3D

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Illegal Immigrants Accused of Crossing Into Military Zone

The judge stated that the Illegal immigrants may have overlooked the signs declaring the area as a military zone.

A federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed the charges against dozens of illegal immigrants who were accused of violating security regulations by trespassing on a military zone along the U.S.–Mexico border, according to court documents filed this week.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth ruled that the federal government had failed to demonstrate that the illegal immigrants knew they were entering the restricted New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA).

According to court filings dated May 14 and 15, the government argued that it had placed signs in both English and Spanish to declare that the area is a military zone and that any unauthorized entry is prohibited.

But Wormuth stated that this was insufficient to prove that the illegal immigrants knew they were violating security regulations when they entered the areas, as the defendants may have missed the signs.

“As the United States concedes, the NMNDA spans over 180 miles of ‘often difficult and mountainous terrain,'” the judge stated. “The mere fact that some ‘signs’ were posted in the NMNDA provides no basis on which to conclude that the defendant could have seen, let alone did see, the signs.”

Assistant Federal Public Defender Amanda Skinner said that Wormuth dismissed the trespassing charges against all illegal immigrants who made initial court appearances on May 15. They still face charges for crossing the border illegally.

The Epoch Times sought comment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico, which filed the charges against the illegal immigrants last month, but did not hear back by publication time.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico began charging illegal immigrants with violating security regulations for crossing into the restricted military zone on April 28, on top of illegal border crossing charges. At least 339 people have been charged for entering the military zone as of May 9, according to the attorney’s office.
The military zone includes the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide corridor owned by the federal government running along the border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

The Interior Department transferred control of nearly 110,000 acres of federal land along the border to the U.S. Army on April 15, granting the military control of the border zone for three years.

The U.S. Northern Command announced on May 1 a second military zone dubbed the Texas National Defense Area, a 63-mile stretch that runs east from the Texas–New Mexico state line in El Paso.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has previously warned that any unauthorized attempt to enter the national defense areas would lead to an arrest.

“Any illegal attempting to enter that zone is entering a military base—a federal, protected area,” Hegseth said in a video message on April 25. “You will be detained. You will be interdicted by U.S. troops and Border Patrol working together.”
Hegseth said that this marked only the first phase, as the Defense Department plans to expand military zones along the U.S. border to further strengthen border security.

“If you have attempted to evade, that’s evading law enforcement, just like you would any other military base. You add up the charges of what you can be charged with misdemeanors and felonies, you can be looking at up to 10 years in prison when prosecuted,” he said.

President Donald Trump issued a memorandum on April 11 authorizing the military to take control of the land to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
“Our southern border is under attack from a variety of threats,” Trump wrote in the April 11 memo. “The complexity of the current situation requires that our military take a more direct role in securing our southern border than in the recent past.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...ycSBw0Q2KHvG488YE%3D

Supreme Court Extends Block on Deportation of Some Alleged Venezuelan Gang Members

Trump signed a proclamation in March to allow removal of alleged Tren de Aragua members under the Alien Enemies Act.

The Supreme Court on May 16 agreed to block the government from deporting some alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

“The application for an injunction pending further proceedings is granted,” the court said in an unsigned order.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The court also agreed to schedule an oral argument in the case known as A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. v. Trump. A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. are the initials of two of the detainees.

“Additionally, [the detainees] suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted,” the order said.

A writ of certiorari is a court order that allows the justices to move forward with hearing an appeal. When certiorari is granted, the Supreme Court typically holds an oral argument in the case.

On March 14, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation in which he officially declared that Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization associated with Venezuela, “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.”

The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to authorize the “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal” of members of the group who are Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older and who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States.

The Supreme Court had on April 19 issued a temporary block preventing the Trump administration from deporting an unspecified number of alleged Venezuelan criminal gang members currently in immigration custody.
This is a developing story and will be updated.

Time to bypass these obstructionist motherfuckers.

^^^ They are making my blood boil!

If the administration's action with regard to these illegals runs afoul of the law, then the damned law needs to be changed.

Congress needs to get off its ass and get something done.

Me thinks this is a ticking timebomb. The courts need to be put back into their rightful place. They are way out of their lane and judges need to start suffering consequences. Time for the gloves to come off.

The Republicans (all of them) need to man the fuck up soon or all hell is going to break loose. 70+ million Americans are losing patience.

quote:

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The only two that can be counted on to be sensible and rule in the favor of law and Constitution. The way the Dems railed and spit venom at the confirmations of Kavanaugh, Barret and even Roberts you would have thought we had a firm group on Constitutionalists on the court. What the hell happened? Why even have a government with Presidents and legislators? Judges rule the day.

quote:

pending further proceedings is granted

Doesn’t sound that serious to me. A procedural delay, common enough at SCOTUS.

Don't you think THIS is reaching a boiling point?

[FLASH_VIDEO] [/FLASH_VIDEO]

Fuck the Supreme Court and its quislings.

Do what you need to do to get the thugs out of my home and take the bitches on the court and deport their asses to Somalia.