The Supremes' Latest Hit??

 As demonstrated by the latest Supreme Court ruling, there is no word less understood by bureaucrats than "temporary". I had hair when many of the immigrants with Temporary Protected Status came to the United States. Now that the Supremes have ruled that "temporary" actually has meaning, the masses seek to take action to remain here where they all claim to feel threatened. I just don't understand. 

In online parlance, "digital creator" is the new "unemployed". Make no mistake about it, I am not a "digital creator". All I do in this space is transfer my scribblings from my spiral-bound data base (pocket notebook) to the computer for easier sharing. I am just curious. Apart from a pulse, what are the requirements to be a "digital creator"? My wife claims that the only digital creating that I do happens when I wave my middle finger at other motorists.

Liberals now want the United States to be the "Baby Daddy" to the world.

WOW!! The Supreme Court actually agreed that states have the right to limit women's sports to actual women. 

In his 91-page dissent on the Supreme Court ruling on the 14th Amendment, Clarence Thomas showed us why he should be the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and why John Roberts should be hearing shoplifting cases in Chicago. I am not going to refer to the Supreme Court majority in the 14th Amendment case as something as crude as "Four Cunts and a Clown", but readers are left to their own imaginations.

There is no truth to the ugly rumor that I am holding a fundraising drive to buy the Chief Justice a pair of balls.

The 14th Amendment did not give birthright citizenship to American Indians or Native Americans (you pick). Congress finally did that in 1924. So, if it wasn't about birthright citizenship in 1868, why is about birthright citizenship in 2026? Because it is not about birthright citizenship, it is about Democratic voters. If the mobs in Minneapolis, LA, Chicago and New York City voted Republican, Chuck "the Schmuck" Schumer and the Dollar Tree Barack Obama (Hakeem Jeffries) would be loading those illegal asses onto the next bus to the border. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. This is the only way that the Democratic Party can grow!

Let me just go ahead and lob a grenade on the fire here. I believe that there is a strong case to be made that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution are all legally invalid. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that the states that formed the Confederacy had never actually seceded from the Union as secession is constitutionally illegal. 

Just for the record, on the Federal government's following the law with "Reconstruction", the Supreme Court decided the Texas V. White case in 1869. The case was decided on April 12, 1869. By that point, seven states had already been "readmitted" to the Union. Despite the ruling that the states had never left the Union, the last four states were not "readmitted" until 1870. Let's have that conversation about whether or not Congress obeys the law. At that point, what they were doing had been ruled to be a violation of the Constitution by the US Supreme Court. It didn't even slow those Radical Republicans down.

As the southern states were not represented in the Congress that passed those amendments, were those amendments actually legally passed with the required majority? The US Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass constitutional amendments. Was this possible without the southern states voting in the affirmative?

The US federal government required southern states to ratify the three "Reconstruction Amendments" before they could be "readmitted". Why? If you can't legally leave, then you don't have to be "readmitted".  So, if they weren't in the Union, their votes didn't count. And if they were in the Union, you can't tell them how they have to vote. We are back to square one, were those amendments legally passed? If the 14th Amendment was not legally passed, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says that it means. If Congress passes a law without the required majority, it's not a law. Case closed.