Thomas Wants to Address What ‘Arms’ are Protected by Second Amendment

The question before the courts should be simple: How did people at the time of the Constitution’s ratification define “arms”? [More]

“Weapons of war” are precisely what the Founders had in mind.

Running Interference…

Received via email:

MoveOn has raised almost enough to launch our ambitious plan to take over the front page of The Washington Post with hard-hitting ads calling on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case that could determine whether Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted for his crimes.

Aren’t there obstruction/interference laws against this?

On the plus side, it’s not like throwing $ at WaPo is going to change any minds…

Why, Indeed?

Why Raskin wants Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from potential Trump ruling [More]

Because he’s the legacy forwarding heir of a treasonous communist, of course…

Not that the statist apologists at USA Today (a Gannett Publication) will tell you that.

[Via Jess]

A Plan Comes Together

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said. [More]

Don’t be surprised to see charges from a functionary of the party of citizen disarmament. They need him out before the court takes up “assault weapons.”

Verified by MonsterInsights