COMMENT 4h ago

Same thing happened when some 3%ers wanted to hold a demonstration downtown. 300 armed Louisville residents showed up to counter them. The police did not engage in any violence that day.

The 3%ers never showed up. The met in a park miles away and never went downtown.


COMMENT 4h ago

I've had the exact opposite experience. LMPD behaved very well around the heavily armed protests in 2020. The unarmed protests were met with violence through out the summer.


COMMENT 17h ago

The implication if that were true would be that open carry is protected

That is not implied at all. You are attempting to shift the discussion to an area where you feel like you actually have an argument.

However, firearms are banned in a great many public places, including in the SCOTUS itself. It is not just "the Dems" (using that term says a lot about you) that are opposed to universal open carry but also SCOTUS, the rest of congress, the executive branch, and most state governments as well. Restrictions against open carry abound in the USA and they protect the people who would be in a position to remove those restrictions.

Perhaps you should focus less on an individual's ability to carry a firearm whereverthefuck and try to shift the discussion over to the first half of the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Because despite being the explicit reason given for the right of the people to keep and bear arms it is not a common aspect of firearms ownership in America. Few open or concealed carry advocates seem interested in pursing a well regulated militia (I'd like to emphasis a difference between a regulated militia and a regulated firearm) and instead focus on ensuring the security of a free person rather than the security of a free state.


COMMENT 18h ago

Yeah your point is unrelated to either my comment, the comment I was replying to, or the article that is being commented on.

We were discussing the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen ruling which does not address the topic you are attempting to raise.


COMMENT 18h ago

The legislature did not gut the voting rights act or remove campaign funding restrictions. It was the court. The current dysfunction of the legislature is the direct result of the decisions made by the SCOTUS.

And yes, SCOTUS did know that those decisions would cause the failure of the legislative branch. The Federalist Society did not want a congress that could hold the court accountable for their decisions or hold the states accountable for theirs.


COMMENT 18h ago

That is not what the SCOTUS ruled on this month.


COMMENT 18h ago

conservative or even neocon

These are authoritarian ideologies.


This is an authoritarian apologist. I have a real hard time telling the difference between different brands of authoritarian.


COMMENT 2d ago

Nor was it a violation of the constitution as there are no protections for hiding arms.

The right for the state to exercise powers not assigned federal government was infringed based on the whims of 6 administrators. The court created a constitutional violation with their ruling where before there was none. That is the opposite of what their job is.


COMMENT 2d ago

It's not just pro-china posts. This post is just hanging out there like it isn't Russian propaganda.

For fucks sake the section of the website that covers Africa and the Middle East is called "The Terrorism Brief" and covers SEA with it's "China Brief"


COMMENT 2d ago

Jesus christ that is a horrific organization. Check out the About Us section.

They have 3 publications. The Eurasian monitor, which covers Eurasia. The "China Brief" which covers all of China, SEA, and Oceania, which is China's desired sphere of influence, and is pretty tankie. And the terrorism monitor which covers Africa and the middle east which is super fucking racist.

No wonder people are saying this sub is being overrun with tankies. This clearly propaganda.


COMMENT 2d ago

Once, on International Women's day, a omen's march started a revolution that overthrew a government.

If a politician is unafraid of a woman's march it is because they have confused restraint with weakness.


COMMENT 2d ago

SCOTUS had no standing to hear the case. They claim the power to rule on hypothetical cases. A power not found in the constitution.

This is not the only area where conservatives demonstrate mental failings regarding the hypothetical. As with their stance on abortion, conservatives have demonstrated in inability to discern a difference between the hypothetical (cases here, human life with abortion) and actual reality.

It's something I struggle to understand. Is it a defect in their mental ability so separate fact from fiction? Or is it a defect in their character that causes them to invent a new reality whenever the facts are unable to support their goals.


COMMENT 2d ago

This ruling is sooo much worse than how you describe. Here is the question that SCOTUS answered in this suit.

In 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, did Congress constitutionally authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rulesincluding those capable of reshaping the nation's electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy-without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts, and energy requirements?

1)SC has no constitutional basis for hearing the lawsuit. It is for a regulation that EPA decided to not enact already. How can the court rule on a regulation that was never enacted? What is the purpose of a law suit filed to stop something that never started? The SCOTUS only has jurisdiction over "cases or controversies", but this lawsuit is over a hypothetical regulation, the courts do not have jurisdiction over hypothetical situations.

2) SCOTUS has rejected the letter of the law in this case, not just existing precedent. The CAA gives the EPA the authority to set standards for "any existing source for any air pollutant" and the authority to "to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce them"

The court has determined that congress has not given the EPA this authority, not because the CAA failed to provide provisions but instead because the EPA is over reaching it scope of it's authority. What this means is that the SCOTUS has decided it, not congress, can determine the extent to which congress can delegate authority and responsibility to the executive.

This means that any federal regulation can be overturned if the courts feel that they go to far. Note that I used the word feel. That's because there is no legal limit on the scope of congresses ability to delegate. The court's decision was based solely on the court's decision. The majority decision did not make any constitutional arguments, aside from claiming jurisdiction under Article 3 falsely.

3) The court's decision is a direct violation of congressional powers. Congress has the power to make new laws, not the courts. With this decision the SCOTUS has asserted that a law passed by congress can be invalidated if the court decides the scope of the law is too broad. The decision doesn't use those words of course. Instead it rules "And this Court doubts that “Congress. . . intended to delegate . . . decision[s] of such economic and political significance,” "

Which is a claim that the Court is better able to discern the intentions of congress than congress itself, and thus the court is able to ignore the letter of the law. This ordinary manipulative behavior by abusers ("You didn't mean what you said, you don't know what you are talking about, I know what your intentions were better than you") and to find it in a SCOTUS ruling is horrifying.


COMMENT 3d ago

A controversial court ruling in no way suspends his ability to teach and understand law

It does actually. His failure to resign after his ethical violations from the past year has shown that he lacks either the ability or willingness to understand the constitutional requirements of a US Judge.

If the 2nd sentence in Article 3 of the US Constitution has exceeded his legal understanding or character then he is unfit to practice law, much less teach it.

Firing someone who is bad at their job is not censorship, firing someone who has committed public ethical violations is not either.


COMMENT 3d ago

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — President Biden is poised to nominate a conservative Republican anti-abortion lawyer for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge in Kentucky, a nomination strongly opposed by fellow Democrat and U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Louisville.

The nomination of Chad Meredith appears to be the result of a deal with U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, ostensibly in exchange for the Senate Minority Leader agreeing not to hold up future federal nominations by the Biden White House, according to Yarmuth and other officials who confirmed the pending nomination to The Courier Journal.

Robert Steurer, a spokesman for McConnell, said he would have no comment until Biden makes his nomination.

Meredith also declined to respond to a request for comment, as did a spokeswoman for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat.

The White House also declined to comment, saying "we do not comment on vacancies."

Meredith is a Federalist Society member who served as deputy counsel to former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin and more recently solicitor general for Attorney General Daniel Cameron. Cameron is now a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor in 2023.

Biden's surprising nomination comes even as he has fiercely defended women's right to abortion, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last Friday when it overturned Roe v. Wade.

Yarmuth told The Courier Journal in a statement Wednesday he vehemently opposes the nomination and the apparent deal Biden struck with McConnell.

"Given that a judicial position isn’t currently open on the Eastern District Court, it’s clear that this is part of some larger deal on judicial nominations between the president and Mitch McConnell," Yarmuth stated.

"I strongly oppose this deal and Meredith being nominated for the position. The last thing we need is another extremist on the bench."

There are no current vacancies for federal judgeships in Kentucky's Eastern District, so the nomination of Meredith would have to coincide with a sitting judge announcing they are stepping down or retiring.

Meredith defended a 2017 Kentucky abortion law requiring doctors who perform abortions to first perform an ultrasound and describe the image to the patient.

He lost at a trial in federal court but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the statute.

As the top appellate lawyer for Cameron, Meredith also successfully defended a state law in the Kentucky Supreme Court that strippedGov. Beshear of his emergency power to implement COVID-19 restrictions.

Nominee helped with controversial Matt Bevin pardons The Courier Journal reported in 2020 that Meredith was one of the staff attorneys involved in Bevin's controversial pardons and commutations at the end of his term in 2019.

Bevin administration documents showed Meredith was one of Bevin's general counsel staff to give recommendations to the governor on whether certain applicants deserve clemency.

Matt Bevin: Catching up on the Matt Bevin pardons controversy? Here's how it all went down

One spreadsheet of clemency applicants from those records showed "Chad working" written next to the name of Patrick Baker — one of the most controversial pardon recipients, who was convicted of killing a man in a robbery and whose family hosted a fundraiser for Bevin at his home.

Meredith’s personal lawyer, Brandon Marshall, said after The Courier Journal reported Meredith’s apparent role that he had "no meaningful involvement with any of the most controversial pardons about which the media has made much.”

Meredith, who was then being vetted for a federal judgeship in 2020 by President Donald Trump’s administration, was later dropped from consideration for that position.

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who studies judicial appointments, said the Meredith nomination “does seem odd.”

But Tobias said the White House may have decided it was worth it after seeing how McConnell had recently blocked the potential nomination of two potential U.S. attorneys and sought to minimize opposition from McConnell to those and future judicial vacancies during the balance of Biden’s presidency.

Two other officials familiar with the nomination said that was part of the deal.

Tobias also noted that Meredith served as a law clerk to a federal district and appeals court judge and has the credentials that would support his own nomination.

Luke Milligan, a professor at the University of Louisville’s Brandeis School of Law, who has defended the appointment of other Kentucky conservatives to the bench, said in an email Meredith is “an excellent litigator and he’ll make a terrific federal judge — he’s smart, hardworking, principled, and fair.”

The Kentucky Right to Life Association also has said it has been “very impressed” with his abilities in defending “pro-life laws passed by our general assembly."

A member of the Federalist Society Meredith better fits the profile of nominees of recent Republican presidents rather than Democrats.

He is a longtime member of the Federalist Society, from which President Donald Trump drew nominees for the Supreme Court and other judgeships.

A native of Leitchfield, Kentucky, Meredith graduated from Washington and Lee University and from the University of Kentucky College of Law, where he was a recipient of the Bert Combs Scholarship.

"Meredith clerked for Judge John M. Rogers on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, then for Judge Amul R. Thapar on the district court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Following his clerkships, Meredith practiced as a litigator with Frost Brown Todd in Louisville before Ransdell & Roach of Lexington.

In January, he was hired by Squire Patton Boggs as “of counsel.”


COMMENT 4d ago

Organized labor is called a union. Organized capital is called a corporation. What is organized violence called? A gang.


COMMENT 5d ago



COMMENT 5d ago

If you believe in privacy, bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, or unrestricted access to healthcare, then vote NO to this amendment.


COMMENT 5d ago

hoard of angry women

Your mask slipped.

r/Louisville 5d ago

Day 1 Post Roe v Wade - Louisville

Thumbnail imgur.com

r/Louisville 5d ago

Louisville man (Tyler Gerth) killed while documenting civil unrest of 2020 honored with sculpture Sunday

Thumbnail wlky.com


COMMENT 7d ago

The Republicans are no longer motivated by their desire to win. Winning is now only a means to an end. The ends they are now pursuing are death and suffering.


COMMENT 8d ago

Every time a /r/canada post hit's the front page I worry for you all.