Donnie Two-Dolls (a/k/a The DonFather)
@steverino76.bsky.social
JD/MS/CPA. Retired. I despise corruption. It is a poison which is inevitably corrosive to any society. I fight it where I can.
I write extensively on constitutional theory from an originalist and textualist perspective. COTUS locuta est, causa finita est.
I write extensively on constitutional theory from an originalist and textualist perspective. COTUS locuta est, causa finita est.
OINK!!!
November 18, 2025 at 1:08 PM
OINK!!!
I can't say what I need to with a 300-character limit.
November 16, 2025 at 3:11 PM
I can't say what I need to with a 300-character limit.
2/ Ironically, under the Living Constitution, the Justices can change the meaning of the word "person" to make the law fit their preferences.
November 13, 2025 at 5:11 PM
2/ Ironically, under the Living Constitution, the Justices can change the meaning of the word "person" to make the law fit their preferences.
Forget what you have been told about originalism. No one here knows what it is.
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2
November 13, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Forget what you have been told about originalism. No one here knows what it is.
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2
Roe was a scrupulously originalist decision. Dobbs was not. Below is the detailed proof. /2
@espinsegall.bsky.social, perhaps you can help me solve one of the sweet mysteries of life: Why is it that not a single Article III judge can solve a basic grade-school logic puzzle? 🤣
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
November 13, 2025 at 5:01 PM
@espinsegall.bsky.social, perhaps you can help me solve one of the sweet mysteries of life: Why is it that not a single Article III judge can solve a basic grade-school logic puzzle? 🤣
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
A holding that Trump is ineligible to serve as a matter of law resolves every case I have seen. Even tariffs.
Impeachment proceedings begin in the House. Judge Porteous was impeached for bribery, and prosecuted for same. The AG has no part in the process, except to develop evidence.
The Framers gave us specific tools. I invoke those entrusted to me.
The Framers gave us specific tools. I invoke those entrusted to me.
November 13, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Impeachment proceedings begin in the House. Judge Porteous was impeached for bribery, and prosecuted for same. The AG has no part in the process, except to develop evidence.
The Framers gave us specific tools. I invoke those entrusted to me.
The Framers gave us specific tools. I invoke those entrusted to me.
1. Where do you find "standing" in the Constitution? You don't.
2. Violations of Art 3 good behavior tenure are not necessarily impeachable offenses. See the case of Judge Emory Speer, as laid out in Professor Geyh's book on the subject.
2. Violations of Art 3 good behavior tenure are not necessarily impeachable offenses. See the case of Judge Emory Speer, as laid out in Professor Geyh's book on the subject.
November 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
1. Where do you find "standing" in the Constitution? You don't.
2. Violations of Art 3 good behavior tenure are not necessarily impeachable offenses. See the case of Judge Emory Speer, as laid out in Professor Geyh's book on the subject.
2. Violations of Art 3 good behavior tenure are not necessarily impeachable offenses. See the case of Judge Emory Speer, as laid out in Professor Geyh's book on the subject.
That law was robust. Read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803). Also, Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13, 16 (1933) (Fifth Amendment “takings” clause implicitly waives immunity).
If Congress can take away your remedies, they can take away your rights. KBJ is a blithering idiot. DEI 2.0.
If Congress can take away your remedies, they can take away your rights. KBJ is a blithering idiot. DEI 2.0.
November 13, 2025 at 3:15 PM
That law was robust. Read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803). Also, Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13, 16 (1933) (Fifth Amendment “takings” clause implicitly waives immunity).
If Congress can take away your remedies, they can take away your rights. KBJ is a blithering idiot. DEI 2.0.
If Congress can take away your remedies, they can take away your rights. KBJ is a blithering idiot. DEI 2.0.
I'm making the case that the Roberts Six violated the condition of good behavior and yes, it is voluminous.
She had a chance to let me proceed against Thomas with the purpose of removing him from office. She sodomized COTUS on the altar of expediency. Case summarized below. Try to keep up.
She had a chance to let me proceed against Thomas with the purpose of removing him from office. She sodomized COTUS on the altar of expediency. Case summarized below. Try to keep up.
November 13, 2025 at 3:10 PM
I'm making the case that the Roberts Six violated the condition of good behavior and yes, it is voluminous.
She had a chance to let me proceed against Thomas with the purpose of removing him from office. She sodomized COTUS on the altar of expediency. Case summarized below. Try to keep up.
She had a chance to let me proceed against Thomas with the purpose of removing him from office. She sodomized COTUS on the altar of expediency. Case summarized below. Try to keep up.
Yes and no. Pure Scalian originalism doesn't allow for it ... but judges are not faithful to their principles. If a judge has a dog in the hunt, s/he will never fail to scratch it.
Trump didn't destroy the Republic; JUDGES did.
Trump didn't destroy the Republic; JUDGES did.
November 13, 2025 at 2:33 PM
Yes and no. Pure Scalian originalism doesn't allow for it ... but judges are not faithful to their principles. If a judge has a dog in the hunt, s/he will never fail to scratch it.
Trump didn't destroy the Republic; JUDGES did.
Trump didn't destroy the Republic; JUDGES did.
I am, and an authentic originalism is a cure to all our problems. E.g., imposition of a wealth tax. Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).
Grok said it couldn't be done. Grok conceded my point. 😀
Grok said it couldn't be done. Grok conceded my point. 😀
November 13, 2025 at 2:14 PM
I am, and an authentic originalism is a cure to all our problems. E.g., imposition of a wealth tax. Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).
Grok said it couldn't be done. Grok conceded my point. 😀
Grok said it couldn't be done. Grok conceded my point. 😀
When you become a judge, they cut off your balls. They never grow back.
November 12, 2025 at 2:33 PM
When you become a judge, they cut off your balls. They never grow back.
Tell me something I don't know.
November 12, 2025 at 1:57 PM
Tell me something I don't know.
The Constitution is not to be sodomized by expediency.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
November 11, 2025 at 9:17 AM
The Constitution is not to be sodomized by expediency.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
As a matter of law and logic, an oathbreaking adjudged insurrectionist not absolved by Congress cannot serve as President as a matter of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Originalism.
#nokings Genesee, in Colorado. West of Denver, on I-70. Best estimate per Grok: about 300, on an overpass in a chilly breeze. TWICE the number of last time.
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
October 19, 2025 at 1:35 AM
#nokings Genesee, in Colorado. West of Denver, on I-70. Best estimate per Grok: about 300, on an overpass in a chilly breeze. TWICE the number of last time.
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
My contribution to the fight, in DC Superior Court: www.scribd.com/document/888...
"Disabled" does have a discrete legal meaning, apart from the colloquial. But the Right can't tell the truth with a compass and a road map. Or more likely, they know how stupid MAGAns are.
October 17, 2025 at 4:13 PM
"Disabled" does have a discrete legal meaning, apart from the colloquial. But the Right can't tell the truth with a compass and a road map. Or more likely, they know how stupid MAGAns are.
More importantly, she was quoting Roberts.
October 16, 2025 at 5:12 PM
More importantly, she was quoting Roberts.
KBJ is no genius, but the current attacks on her are unfair.
October 16, 2025 at 5:06 PM
KBJ is no genius, but the current attacks on her are unfair.
I'm no fan of KBJ, but let's be fair. Knowledge is a weapon.
October 16, 2025 at 4:05 PM
I'm no fan of KBJ, but let's be fair. Knowledge is a weapon.
I'm currently fighting back in our federal courts.
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe.
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe.
October 16, 2025 at 4:51 AM
I'm currently fighting back in our federal courts.
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe.
Though we are blessed with “a magnificent Constitution,” AAUP v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY, ECF #261 at 1 (D.Mass. Oct. 1, 2025) (per Young, J.), we are cursed with a judiciary that would embarrass Zimbabwe.
Tell me what I don't know. Power minus accountability equals tyranny.
If you or I did work as shoddy as their typical output, we would lose our professional licenses within a year.
If you or I did work as shoddy as their typical output, we would lose our professional licenses within a year.
October 10, 2025 at 12:57 PM
Tell me what I don't know. Power minus accountability equals tyranny.
If you or I did work as shoddy as their typical output, we would lose our professional licenses within a year.
If you or I did work as shoddy as their typical output, we would lose our professional licenses within a year.
You can't even wish for a war criminal's demise on X.
October 8, 2025 at 1:16 PM
You can't even wish for a war criminal's demise on X.
@thelisagraves.bsky.social Do you have any usable intel on Carl Nichols? I'm seeking to remove Trump from office via a quo warranto action. Summary below.
October 7, 2025 at 2:13 PM
@thelisagraves.bsky.social Do you have any usable intel on Carl Nichols? I'm seeking to remove Trump from office via a quo warranto action. Summary below.