4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,222
they can lay down and give him everything he wants, which they've been doing (re chuck the cuck)

Ahead of Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Elon Musk PAC offers cash for pledge
Less than two weeks out from Wisconsin's high stakes Supreme Court election, Elon Musk's political action committee is offering voters $100 if they sign a petition opposing "activist judges."

We have already been witness to Donald Trump poisoning the judicery and now he is openly bribing (via the auspices of Elon Musk) the public to stop 'activist judges'.
As I see it, the problem is 'legislative activism' has no legal defintion.
I've read quite a few definitions but all of them include at least one subjective element.
I note that judges can refer back to The Senate. How would The Senate react? Can they fail to define a legal definition? It's liable to be subjective in it's own right BUT with a majority, won't the current US government be able to obtain a definition favourable to themselves?
I'm reminded that Kurt Gödel (eminent logician) famously found a loophole in the US constitution:
In his 2012 paper "Gödel's Loophole" F. E. Guerra-Pujol speculates that the problem involves Article V, which describes the process by which the Constitution can be amended. The loophole is that Article V's procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a "downward" direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future. So even if, as is now the case, amending the Constitution is difficult to bring about, once Article V is downwardly amended, the next attempt to do so will be easier, and the one after that easier still.
I am in no way asserting that Donald Trump is aware or is using 'Gödel's Loophole' but if a team of legal experts were employed to highlight every ambiguity in the US constitution and only persue clarification on those weaknesses that profit them, isn't that the smart thing to do?