🇺🇸 Traitor, Con-man, Insurrectionist, Sexual Predator, Convicted Felon and All-time Weirdo : The Trump Thread

[Sithborg]

I'm pretty certain there has been some US infection in the Canadian right wing parties.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm pretty certain there has been some US infection in the Canadian right wing parties.

They don't just import our blu rays.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Are they? I saw a few times where the courts were bypassed.

They are. Canadians Courts have Inherent jurisdiction going back to the formation of the Dominion. They can declare anything invalid or Ultra Vires have done so consistently to both parties.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

They don't just import our blu rays.

Don't they import our blurays because they don't like French on the Canadian packaging? At least the Canadians on the FilmJunk podcast have complained about it before.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

They are. Canadians Courts have Inherent jurisdiction going back to the formation of the Dominion. They can declare anything invalid or Ultra Vires have done so consistently to both parties.

Notwithstanding Clause (Plain-Language Summary)

Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is called the notwithstanding clause. It is also called the override clause. It is part of the Constitution o...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

 

[Silver Surfer]

I'm pretty certain there has been some US infection in the Canadian right wing parties.

No more than any other country. Our federal government powers are very weak while the provinces are suped up. Our provincial parties are also different from the Federal parties, with their own leadership, machinery, conventions, platforms etc.

The Liberal party of BC couldn't be more different than Trudeau's Liberal party for example.

This combined with the 5 different parties ruling different provinces, it's hard to get one narrative real momentum like in the US.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Don't they import our blurays because these don't like French on the Canadian packaging? At least the Canadians on the FilmJunk podcast have complained it before.

I've heard this quite a few times myself.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Notwithstanding Clause (Plain-Language Summary)

Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is called the notwithstanding clause. It is also called the override clause. It is part of the Constitution o...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

That is a temporary measure that expires after 5 years and is still subject to Court review as to not violate the 4 fundamental principles the Supreme Court laid out in the Quebec Succession case.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is a temporary measure that expires after 5 years and is still subject to Court review as to not violate the 4 fundamental principles the Supreme Court laid out in the Quebec Succession case.

5 years, yes. But the rest is not what I'm reading:

The clause can only override certain sections of the charter — section 2 and sections 7 to 15, which deal with fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights. It can't be used to override democratic rights.

Once invoked, the clause prevents any judicial review of the legislation in question. After five years, the clause ceases to have any effect unless it is re-enacted.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/moe-saskatchewan-notwithstanding-explained-1.6982715

 

[Silver Surfer]

5 years, yes. But the rest is not what I'm reading:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/moe-saskatchewan-notwithstanding-explained-1.6982715

There are many acts that prevent Judicial Review, mostly for administrative agencies and tribunals. The Courts don't care, their authority to assert Inherent Jurisdiction precedes the Charter. They can do what they want if they feel it's a fundamental rights issue.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

The Washington Post: "The person believed to have fired shots at Donald Trump’s campaign rally is a 20-year-old Pennsylvania man, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The suspected shooter used an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle, a U.S. official said."

Law enforcement recovered AR-style rifle at scene of Trump rally shooting, AP source says

Law enforcement recovered AR-style rifle at scene of Trump rally shooting, AP source says

abcnews.go.com

This could be the T-Shirt (identified on Twitter)

Demolitia T-Shirt

The Original Demolitia Shirt! PRODUCT DETAILS: 60/40 combed ringspun cotton/polyester Fabric laundered Set-in 1x1 baby rib collar Hemmed sleeves Side seamed Tear away label WASHING INSTRUCTIONS: Wash inside out with like colors. Do not bleach, tumble dry low, do not iron. SHIPPING INFO: Ships in...

www.bunkerbranding.com

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There are many acts that prevent Judicial Review, mostly for administrative agencies and tribunals. The Courts don't care, their authority to assert Inherent Jurisdiction precedes the Charter. They can do what they want if they feel it's a fundamental rights issue.

Do you have something saying that?

 

[Cap2024]

Great! That should likely make what I want the Lincoln Project and others that know what needs to be done now easier.

Stop Trump’s narrative that he’s a ”martyr” head on.

That, despite it attacking Trump when he’s down, will be relatively “easy.”

They want to talk about violence. Okay, we mention all of the extremists that Trump incited throughout and after his presidency. Their crimes range from mass shootings, attempted bombings, hit and run manslaughter, kidnapping, and an insurrection.

That (more than likely) an extremist to the farther right than Trump went after him after he dismissed Project 2025 would be par the course. Frustrated that their savior says he isn’t as far to the right as they are.

They cannibalize their own.

People might theorize that he wanted to kick off a race war or start a civil war or paint Trump as a martyr. But, these guys often aren’t that bright - just dangerous. That’s to say he had no grand master plan, the simplest reason is probably the right one: Upset that Trump spoke out against Project 2025.

Trump lights fires. That is what makes him dangerous.

If this angle turns out to be true (an extremist that Trump incited that turned against him, not a stretch at all). God willing, Biden just won the election.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Do you have something saying that?

It's all in cases going back years. Two of the more common example cited by admin lawyers when they want the Court to use their discretion to disregard legislative intent:

There is, however, the more significant historical difference that Courts of equity were regarded as having wider discretions than common law Courts. Equitable relief was said to be always discretionary.

They are granted by the discretion of court. By the very nature of equity, the remedies are unlimited.

 

[Lily Adler]

Trump MAGA Bonds. The cheapest, fascist way to your retirement fund.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's all in cases going back years. Two of the more common example cited by admin lawyers when they want the Court to use their discretion to disregard legislative intent:

There is, however, the more significant historical difference that Courts of equity were regarded as having wider discretions than common law Courts. Equitable relief was said to be always discretionary.

They are granted by the discretion of court. By the very nature of equity, the remedies are unlimited.

Okay, so why is this a thing then?

Canada province uses constitutional override to advance pronoun legislation

Saskatchewan invokes clause to push through controversial bill requiring parental consent for children to change pronouns

www.theguardian.com

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[DKDetective]

They are. Canadians Courts have Inherent jurisdiction going back to the formation of the Dominion. They can declare anything invalid or Ultra Vires have done so consistently to both parties.

While this is true to an extent, inherent jurisdiction is not boundless. It does not give our Courts endless jurisdiction to declare something invalid or ultra vires. The Notwithstanding Clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter, so the normal division of powers analysis can be used to strike down laws for jurisdictional issues.

Yes, our Supreme Court has posited having incorporated the unwritten constitution of the UK into ours through the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 means that our Constitution also includes unwritten convention and unwritten constitutional principles, the former are only really enforceable through political means, conventions is not enforced by court and the Supreme Court has never really actually used the unwritten constitutional principles to strike anything down.

I was at a chat with Justice Abella recently where she lamented how she felt the Supreme Court has walked back the unwritten constitutional principles analysis in recent years.

No more than any other country. Our federal government powers are very weak while the provinces are suped up. Our provincial parties are also different from the Federal parties, with their own leadership, machinery, conventions, platforms etc.

The Liberal party of BC couldn't be more different than Trudeau's Liberal party for example.

This combined with the 5 different parties ruling different provinces, it's hard to get one narrative real momentum like in the US.

Not quite true. The Constitution Act, 1867 was drafted to give the federal government more expansive powers than the provincial governments due to observation of how "states' rights" led to the US Civil War. Consequently, whereas jurisdiction over un-enumerated powers under the US Constitution default to the states, the peace, order, and good government provision gives that default jurisdiction to the federal government here. Similarly, the doctrine of paramountcy holds that where valid legislation by the federal and provincial governments conflict, the federal supercedes. Moreover, very important powers like criminal law are centralized at the federal government here.

Also, while you have a point about us not being a two-party system like the US, I think you grossly underestimate the state-to-state variation in the US political parties as well.

That is a temporary measure that expires after 5 years and is still subject to Court review as to not violate the 4 fundamental principles the Supreme Court laid out in the Quebec Succession case.

Not accurate. The 5-year limitation does not prevent a government from re-enacting the same Charter violating law endlessly every 5 years which is precisely what Quebec has done with its language laws. And the Quebec Succession Reference has nothing to do with the Notwithstanding Clause. It is about whether unwritten constitutional conventions or principles prevent Quebec from separating unilaterally and whether there is a requirement for the federal government to negotiate.

And with respect to the Provinces having jurisdiction over health and education, that is precisely why it is so very concerning lately that some of the Neanderthal conservative provincial governments have seemed to have been inspired by our Southern neighbours to enact gross anti-LGBTQ+ "parents' rights" laws lately using the Notwithstanding Clause to prevent them from easy invalidation for violation of the Charter. Yes, the Courts can still review them on the basis of federalism or potentially unwritten constitutional principles, but there is no hard precedent for the latter ever being successful.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I concede to the Canadian lawyer.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If the shooter was a registered Republican then doesn't that support claims that this might be a false flag attack?

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[blueharvest]

If the shooter was a registered Republican then doesn't that support claims that this might be a false flag attack?

They'll probably just say that he was a RINO that was radicalized by the far-left, or something equally stupid.

 

[Cap2024]

If the shooter was a registered Republican then doesn't that support claims that this might be a false flag attack?

These lone wolf types aren’t that smart.

Look at the kid, does he look like he’s play 4D chess? Not to be that guy, but he looks like a stereotypical low education hillbilly.

Days ago Trump dismisses Project 2025, today Trump gets shot by a Republican?

Chances are he was angry Trump wasn’t as far right as he is.

I might be misremembering things, but I thought I heard FBI during Trump’s administration warning that Trump’s incited extremists might one day turn against him if he didn’t go as far to the right as they wanted. That’s the more likely here.

 

[Cap2024]

They'll probably just say that he was a RINO that was radicalized by the far-left, or something equally stupid.

On reddit they’re already trying to.

What stands out is the shirt the kid is seen in.

Evidently that’s known to be affiliated with militia type. Those people are typically much farther to the right than the average Republican. That’s the key.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Trump Shot At Campaign Rally

Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear after a gunman opened fire at one of his rallies in...

www.yahoo.com

Trump’s re-election bid has been marked by stridently militant rhetoric. Shortly before he took the stage in Butler, Trump sent out a fundraising email to supporters referencing the rally and suggesting he might use the event to debut his running mate.

"ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE IN ONE HOUR!" Trump wrote. "When I take the rally stage, I could be making a MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT that's sure to strike FEAR into the hearts of our DEEP STATE ENEMIES."