cajunandy
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | New Orleans |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | LSU Fan |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 885 |
| Registered on: | 11/26/2015 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by cajunandy on 3/31/26 at 12:49 pm to omegaman66
quote:
China, no more half price oil deals.
Paid in US dollars, Iran has been accepting the yuan
1
re: DOJ reaches settlement with Gen. Flynn
Posted by cajunandy on 3/25/26 at 7:50 pm to Night Vision
If Strzok and Page can get a combined $2 million then Flynn should get at least 3-5 times that amount.
quote:
someone made a killing, who do you think it was
Pelosi and Crenshaw?
:dunno:
Barron is like 6 10 might be a tad to tall.
SCOTUS just granted writs on this issue in two cases. They have already scheduled oral arguments for the latter part of April (which is really fast) From my quick review of the briefs these stays will be voided.
SCOTUS order granting writs
SCOTUS order granting writs
quote:
This is exactly what we did in Syria for that regime change.
That's not what "we" did. It's what your heroes Barry Obama and Hillary Clinton did. It is plan stupid to even think that Trump is going to do what those two did.
what a difference an hour makes
quote:
Republicans will be the ones who remove him. You should prepare yourself for that.
He will be "removed" on January 20, 2029 at 12pm at which time he will pass the baton off to another Republican President. Once an honest census is done in 2030 and blue states lose 8-10 seats dimocrates will not see the oval office for another 20 years. Enjoy the wilderness.
:doublebird:
quote:
God Dam double down on the stupidity Patton!
He's not Patton He is Lloyd Fredendall.
this case was argued in front of the Supreme Court on Feb 25, 2026. County had a poor showing.
SCOTUS case number 25-95
SCOTUS case number 25-95
Colion Noir put out a video on this yesterday.
Pretty good one
Pretty good one
re: Rev. Jesse Jackson RIP
Posted by cajunandy on 2/17/26 at 10:29 am to hogcard1964
One of those situations where if you can not say something nice. Also, I like to think that those on the right are better than those on the left in these situations.
Rev. Jesse Jackson RIP
Posted by cajunandy on 2/17/26 at 10:23 am
re: To My MS friends. GOP trying to screw you with House Bill 828
Posted by cajunandy on 1/22/26 at 8:07 am to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
it's the only state in the union where dog hunting is legal.
I guess you don't hunt in Louisiana.
re: Ketanji Brown Jackson Cites the Black Codes as Constitutional in Gun Control Case
Posted by cajunandy on 1/21/26 at 10:27 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Whatcha got for me?
There are actually very few 2nd Amendment rights cases. The first important case was DC v Heller in which DC banned the possession of handguns. Scalia wrote the opinion in which he analyzed the the 2nd amendment and then articulated a two part test in analyzing 2nd amendment cases. !st is whether the 2nd amendment is implicated, then the Constitution protects that behavior and the burden is on the state to show that there exist a history of gun regulation to justify the present regulation. In that Heller only concerned a federal law, the states took the position that it did not apply to the states. McDonald v Chicago rejected this argument.
An issue that has yet to be decided is when looking for historical regulations to support the law have far back do you go. When the 2nd amendment was passed in 1791 it only applied to the federal government Not until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed did the BIll of rights apply to the States.
So now the issue is how far back do you have to go to find gun regulations that would support modern regulations. For real 2nd Amendment supporters one must look to the 1790's to find supporting analogs. For gun controllers they want to use the period after the Civil war,. Their problem is most if not all of these laws are based on race and are unconstitutional. The gun controllers are so desperate to find some historical support they appear to be willing to overlook that part including Jackson.
re: Ketanji Brown Jackson Cites the Black Codes as Constitutional in Gun Control Case
Posted by cajunandy on 1/21/26 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There's a USSC case Bruen that created a test that involves a historical analysis
Bruen did not creat the test it affirmed the test as provided by DC v Heller.
quote:New York Rifle and Pistol v Bruen.
Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
In McDonald v Chicago, SCOTUS applied the two part test to the states.
re: Bengals' Ja'Marr Chase makes football history never done by another NFL WR
Posted by cajunandy on 12/29/25 at 10:52 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
The GOAT, Les Miles, recruited Chase to play safety. Chase has had a remarkable career considering that he has been playing out of position(according to the GOAT).
:geauxtigers:
:geauxtigers:
re: Big Mike was at Mar-a-Lago last night?
Posted by cajunandy on 12/17/25 at 1:58 pm to wareaglepete
quote:
I see pawn shop guy
Is that James O'Keefe of Project Veritas next to him?
re: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted by cajunandy on 12/5/25 at 2:56 pm to lionward2014
quote:
ACB is a procedural stickler. Gorsuch is fairly strict on procedure as well.
That may be why they have not granted writs on the other case as some believe there is an issue with standing.
That is the odd part of this case. It is not on final judgment, rather this is on an interlocutory appeal. SCOTUS rarely grants an interlocutory appeal.
During oral arguments on universal injunctions Gorsuch actually asked why the government did not include the citizenship part. He came across as though he was disappointed that birthright citizenship was not before them.
Lastly, I believe Sotomayor has a tell when she is on the losing side. She was clearly angry during oral arguments with the government and she was on the losing side. Her anger also included the governments attack on birthright citizenship.
re: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted by cajunandy on 12/5/25 at 2:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:yes, but I will not. do your own work.
Can you
re: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted by cajunandy on 12/5/25 at 2:15 pm to lionward2014
quote:
I think it'll be 7-2 against Trump,
6-3 in favor of Trump
read the briefs
Popular
15
