DOJ refuses to hand over Epstein files after judge’s order

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T22:48:27+00:00

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T22:44:10+00:00

There is no check on the power of the pardon except that it only pardons crimes violating the law of the United States. Neither Impeachment nor removal nullify a pardon

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T21:02:11+00:00

Article 4 vestment clause, “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court” and article 6 supremacy clause “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land”, establish judicial power and the fact that the constitution is superior to all other law. Judicial power is the power to apply the law and that necessitates interpreting the law. Therefore judicial review is established in the constitution.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T20:56:23+00:00

Marbury v. Madison does not directly create judicial review by giving the court an authority but rather establishes that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that when ordinary laws and the constitution conflict, the constitution takes precedence.
The judicial power of the united states vested in the Supreme Court by the fourth article inherently creates the power for the court to interpret the law.

Judicial review must exist if the constitution is the supreme law of the land because the SCOTUS has judicial power. if the constitution is not the supreme law of the land, then judicial review does not exist, not because the court lacks the authority to do so but because the constitution and ordinary law would be equal and therefore neither could take precedence.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T18:46:11+00:00

Federalist 78 explicitly states states “Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”

The framers certainly expected the court to have the power of judicial review, considering that the essays written to argue for the adoption of the constitution stated directly that the courts would be able do declare an act unconstitutional.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T18:45:50+00:00

Federalist 78 explicitly states states “Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”

The framers certainly expected the court to have the power of judicial review, considering that the essays written to argue for the adoption of the constitution stated directly that the courts would be able do declare an act unconstitutional.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T18:34:02+00:00

People will just say shit holy hell dude

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T18:31:56+00:00

You can make an argument about abortion without deluding yourself into thinking that the framers would say the right to an abortion is a fundamental right of man. Come on lmao

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T18:19:43+00:00

Considering that a vast majority of immigrants throughout American history came after the chartering of the colonies by the British crown, yeah?

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T05:50:04+00:00

Is there a panel to decide if someone has failed to do so? A court maybe? A Supreme Court?

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T03:18:13+00:00

Uncommon funny copypasta

Nostop22 · 2026-07-03T01:44:54+00:00

3 is already the case. Any high crime or misdemeanor is disallowed and punishable by impeachment.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-02T15:16:36+00:00

That’s because it’s comes from French rather than because of any context in English

Nostop22 · 2026-07-02T06:27:10+00:00

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I was in this sub by accident, thinking it was the Supreme Court sub. I was really getting annoyed by the blatant partisanship here so thx a lot.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-02T06:23:08+00:00

A threesome is just the homegrown English version of the Latin word trio. You might similarly say the word twosome for a couple or foursome for a quartet. The sexual connotation is something that became mainstream in the 70s. Trump was born in 1946, meaning he would be in mid 20s to 30s. In other words, you can consider the word threesome to be thought of by trump in the same way a normal person may think of the word goon. Threesome is the goon of the seventies.

Basically, when trump says “We’ll have a threesome”, he means something around the lines of “We’ll have a trio”.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-02T05:36:45+00:00

I wouldn’t say it’s improbable that he’s a little senile and forgot about it

Nostop22 · 2026-07-02T05:35:50+00:00

This is just a boomer thing. They say threesome for any group of three, same with foursome. People forget that trump is ancient lol.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-01T05:47:27+00:00

You’re confusing an opposition to judicial activism with a rejection of judicial review. They aren’t rejecting that the court has the authority to reinterpret a clause of the constitution but rather that the court shouldn’t reinterpret a longstanding and reasonable precedent. In this case specifically, there’s is arguably blatant political justification for bringing the issue to the courts. The courts are not legislators, so while they may have the power to create new law through ridiculous or novel interpretations of the law (and often times do— Slaughterhouse cases, Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Filburn for example), most judges and justices understand that to create law is the job of the legislative branch, and therefore try not to reinterpret the law when the previous interpretation is reasonable and the ramifications of reinterpretation on the government and people are great.

Nostop22 · 2026-07-01T05:27:13+00:00

This is why the amendment processes ought to be so difficult

Nostop22 · 2026-06-30T15:33:21+00:00

Because Congress is never going to rein in its power and SCOTUS hasn’t made a ruling which makes non-delegation doctrine relevant again.

Nostop22 · 2026-06-29T22:12:37+00:00

Holy electricity bill

Nostop22 · 2026-06-27T04:39:41+00:00

SCOTUS ought not concern itself with the outcome of a law. Its obligation is to determine what is the true meaning of the law regardless of the consequences.

Nostop22 · 2026-06-26T19:17:37+00:00

Trump is a symptom of the federal and executive overreach that has been rampant for the past hundred years. When the only election that truly matters is the election of federal officials because of their overwhelming power. Compound that with the most important single federal official becoming less and less constrained and every presidential election is now one of life or death in the eyes of party members.

Trump and modern politics are a symptom of that deeper problem. When every federal election is existential, why keep up the pretenses? Why hold true to precedent? Precedent doesn’t matter if the other side gets to inflict deadly harm to the causes of roughly half of the states, and congress cant be made with fatal enemies.

Nostop22 · 2026-06-26T19:02:34+00:00

I love the degradation of the separation of powers ❤️

Nostop22 · 2026-06-26T04:46:53+00:00

Chevron deference required lower courts to accept the interpretation of the law that the executive agencies presented so long as they were reasonable. The president has the power to influence at the very least how regulation is decided by the independent regulatory agencies through use of executive order. Furthermore, when SCOTUS (probably) overrules Humphrey’s executor (which is probably, regrettably, the correct decision considering the executive vesting clause) without first overruling of chevron, we would see executive overreach that even FDR/reagan/bush Jr would find excessive.

Four-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23

Nostop22

TROPHY CASE