Huge!@blazers, hits just keep coming for you.
Supreme Court rejects controversial election law theory
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the 6-3 majority.news.yahoo.com
Read with what type of interpretation though? Isn't that key?
I've said before, some of the really big rulings have bite. If trust in the court erodes enough, the masses are going to be pissed and politicians (pandering or otherwise) might do something (pack court or term limits for example, etc, etc).
It is absurd to divide people into good or bad. People are either charming or tedious.
"Interpretation" is the concept that justifies your creationism. It's a living breathing document that must be twisted to keep up with the times is exactly the problem with rulings and I'll go back to Roe. The Constitution does not have a right to abortion in it. I dare you to read it and point it out to us. Good luck. But the politics of the time provided justification for the Court to magically find it in there. That's what judicial activism gets us. Instead of using the actual methodology and amend the Constitution, activist, progressive judges go around the barn and then some to create what they can't get legislative because it isn't as universally popular as you want to believe.
that question is key. There are those who interpret according what seems to them to be the intended meaning, and there are those who take advantage of any lack of clarity to interpret according to what is desired or seems appropriate to current conditions. The latter is completely wrongheaded. If the Constitution doesn't serve a changing country or the desires of the majority or the rights of the individual, change the Constitution.
That's good enough to earn you an F minus. It's pretty obvious that you want me to obsess over you. Maybe clinically we should be addressing your emotional loneliness, yeah?
@blazers, hits just keep coming for you.
Supreme Court rejects controversial election law theory
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the 6-3 majority.
#timestamps
No doubt. I didn't see yours initially because of the way my feed came up since I was replying to blaze's comment to my earlier post (which he posted after yours about the new case). Saw no point in deleting or editing what was my second paragraph after I realized you had already posted the yahoo link as mine was from CNN with a different headline for him to read. I didn't know it was a race to see who posted first or it even mattered, but you definitely won if we were.
The haha was just @blazers laughing at my use of an old OOTB rule, which is the #timestamp rule. It's a callback to a hilarious thread on radar.
While I've been on THI for years and years, spend almost no time on radar as four corners has always provided the premium/moderated content I want. Radar always seems to be redundant in terms of what's actually happening and seems to many times go off in a direction that has little to do with reality (I have a friend, who has a friend, that talked to his neighbor that heard X kind of thing). Only came to OOTB relatively recently as I enjoy the debate, relaxed site rules, and the often good humor. Still learning the unwritten rules I suppose. And while you may be 100% correct about blaze on this specific occasion, I give credit where it's due as he is very talented at avoiding the actual issue and only pushing the bullet points he gets from the overlords. All good.
the bill was originally incredibly fat and dripping with giveaways; once it was gutted, it became more palatable and only then did it pass. Even then however, there was plenty reason to vote against it. Actually addressing our infrastructure was almost an afterthought in the original bill.
So, your saying that the post on twitter was ultimately incorrect and misleading. As such, shouldn't Blaze be in favor of and really advocating that the account, Republicans against Trump, that tweeted it be suspended/banned for spreading disinformation?
Agree with this completely. Btw, I don't think he's pulled back as much as he's probably otherwise busy and having a hard time seeing orange all the time when so many things are happening that are anti-trump.
Another joke flying over gunslingers gullible head. TBH, i think it is a horrible (and pointless) joke to make given how many people MAGA there are in america though.tHeY'rE nOt TrYiNg To TuRn YoUr KiDs GaY.
Just ask @blazers
LGBTQ activists defend 'We're coming for your children' chant
LGBTQ activists defended drag queen marchers who chanted "we're coming for your children" — a chant they claim has been used for years, according to a report.www.foxnews.com
Can't have your cake and it eat too. There would be NO money from this bill if everyone voted against it.
The court's rulings speak for themselves, and the ruling on specific matters speak most loudly.
I can't name the 50-yard-line or the Maine-school or any other church-state-sep cases, but that doesn't mean I don't like the interpretations that led to the rulings.
The NY gun ruling has spawned appeals and cases in lower courts all over the place. And majority of OB-GYNs say they're having more trouble offering solid healthcare because of the dobbs/roe stuff. These rulings do change things.
So right-wing media isn't coordinated? And doesn't discuss rulings?
what part of the bill being a good one to not vote for are you missing? Just because a bill you didn't vote for and didn't want to pass doesn't mean you don't take advantage of it when it does anyway. Am I missing something?
some joke. And some misleading reporting...
lol, yeah that must be pretty disorienting for him. But regarding the rhetoric, he laid it on so heavily back then that I seriously wondered if he was taking a class in it and was assigned homework to use as many rhetorical devices as possible in some public forum.
some joke. And some misleading reporting...
" "The news articles provides no evidence of the ‘we’re coming for your children’ chant being done for years at pride nor does it quote specific individuals that make this claim," the note reads. "This is very irresponsible reporting." "
I don't care if it was sarcasm, I don't want our kids exposed to people like this who want to be considered normal.....
I don't want to eat that cake but if it's the only cake going, I'm damn sure going to get a piece. A better cake is what I really want, but the libs won't let me have it. No money from that bill would be a wonderful thing if a different bill was offered that truly addressed only our need to spruce up our infrastructure. As it is, the bill still is mostly trying hard to play daddy to people instead of responsibly addressing our hard core infrastructure problems.
I am very strongly for people being what they want to be and doing what they want to do, as long as our toes aren't being stepped on. I consider these public displays of complete social disfunction to be stomping on our toes, one because they are just what you say, and two because I do NOT want our kids accepting these sickos as normal people.
that's great news for the idiots that caused the problem to start with. I have no doubt that the dems are congratulating themselves and bragging about getting out of the hole they created. Then there are those of us who understand that we may never be the same because of their idiocy.
Dems created global inflation?
our huge economy has no effect on the global economy?
do you mean after destroying so many jobs and blugeoning the economy, why is it ridiculous to crow about seeing jobs coming back? Or are you talking about the gazillions spent to keep millions and millions at home, a scheme that worked too well?
You might as well be talking to a brick wall, blazers. @bluetoe's typical MO is to write something completely absurd and then lie about what he wrote after he's called out. And as lies he calls everyone else a liar.
