Predictions?
https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815087772216303933
Actually, Justice has emerged victorious but Judge Cannon’s ruling will make the Biden DoJ shit their drawers.
Our Friend Ed Bonderenka interviewed Daniel Greenfield on his new book. Catch the broadcast or the podcast.
I always knew world history better than American History. I was misled on what I did know. I bet I’m not alone. It’s a fair bet this interview will provide all of you with startling new material. It appears “evil never gives up” still holds water.
For reasons unknown, the display of the twitter file has left off Ed’s introduction. I’m adding it as an update.
Saturday at 2pm Eastern, Ed Bonderenka interviews Daniel Greenfield, the author of Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers’ Fight Against the Left, which came out in April.
This book fills in some holes in the historical narrative left empty by many educators who would rather not talk about them. But Daniel Greenfield fills those holes!
Listen in WAAM 1600 AM or https://waamradio.com/player/
Did you know the Left wanted to ruin George Washington? No wonder our Left lets their radicals tear down his statue. Tune in Sat, July 6, hear it from Daniel Greenfield. https://t.co/X3TENWjUY0 pic.twitter.com/0Wep7iNTer
— Pascal Fervor (@PascalFervor) July 6, 2024
CLICK HERE FOR THOSE WHO MISSED THE BROADCAST OR WANT TO HEAR IT AGAIN.
The Story of Jake “McNasty” McNiece Airborne Legend
SCOTUS just rolled back the most destructive tool belonging to the administrative state-
From the article-
The APA “specifies that courts, not agencies, will decide all relevant questions of law arising on review of agency action—even those involving ambiguous laws—and set aside any such action inconsistent with the law as they interpret it.” Roberts continued. “And it prescribes no deferential standard for courts to employ in answering those legal questions.”
“The deference that Chevron requires of courts reviewing agency action cannot be squared with the APA,” the justices said. “In the decades between the enactment of the APA and this Court’s decision in Chevron, courts generally continued to review agency interpretations of the statutes they administer by independently examining each statute to determine its meaning.”
“Chevron, decided in 1984 by a bare quorum of six Justices, triggered a marked departure from the traditional approach,” the majority determined. “Neither Chevron nor any subsequent decision of this Court attempted to reconcile its framework with the APA.”
“Chevron defies the command of the APA that the reviewing court—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret statutory provisions,” Roberts found. “It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.”