US Politics : Biden 100 days edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kieppie

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,239
buka001 said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1437423923864367104
Click to expand...
She should have said "incorrectly perceived as" to avoid confusion.

She spoke as a guest of honour at a 30th anniversary celebration for the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville saying that the Supreme Court is a non-partisan institution and that the justices should not be viewed as political operatives.

Nothing more nothing less.
This is just a poor attempt to rehash the whole confirmation story incorrectly claiming it is the same as with Garland.
 
wbot

wbot

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
9,698
Lol how is she "working class"?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1437582513757724676

AOC-tax-the-rich-met-gala-dress.jpg
 
DA-LION-619

DA-LION-619

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
13,777
OrbitalDawn said:
So... that's a no, you haven't done even the most basic reading on what the law does.

It's not simply about "reporting" a murder or attempted murder. The law outsources enforcement of the law to random members of the public ("the mob", if you will). It creates, in effect, a bounty system where people can cash in by dobbing in whoever they want to, and there's no recourse (literally by design in the law) for defendants falsely accused or sued.

Is enforcement of anti-homicide laws outsourced to random members of the public? Do you think that's a good idea?

Here's a libertarian take on it:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1437090076039729161

Unsurprising how paper thin your commitment to individual rights and civil liberties are when you like the cause that infringes on them.
Click to expand...
I await the bounty on reporting the non-vaccinated
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
OrbitalDawn said:
Is enforcement of anti-homicide laws outsourced to random members of the public? Do you think that's a good idea?
Click to expand...
RwLnTv4.jpg

What do you think the second amendment is? It gives ordinary citizens a right to enforce the state's anti-homicide laws.

So my question:
Should a father be able to sue an abortion provider for killing his child?
 
Kieppie

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,239
konfab said:
View attachment 1147132

What do you think the second amendment is? It gives ordinary citizens a right to enforce the state's anti-homicide laws.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that is what they intended with that amendment. It's almost like the incorrect application of the fourteenth to support abortion.

konfab said:
So my question:
Should a father be able to sue an abortion provider for killing his child?
Click to expand...
Unless paternity involved a crime being committed, then yes the father should have this right.
It's the logical flip side of laws requiring a father to pay child support if a mother chooses not to end her pregnancy.

One would hope that such decisions are mutual though. Another reason why people should try to pick their potential partners better.
 
B

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,981
Kieppie said:
She should have said "incorrectly perceived as" to avoid confusion.

She spoke as a guest of honour at a 30th anniversary celebration for the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville saying that the Supreme Court is a non-partisan institution and that the justices should not be viewed as political operatives.

Nothing more nothing less.
This is just a poor attempt to rehash the whole confirmation story incorrectly claiming it is the same as with Garland.
Click to expand...
Yeah of course mate. Totes no partisanship, why else would the GOP delay a partisan pick for a justice, to make sure they got their partisan choice in, when they were in power?

How on earth could anyone have that perception is beyond me.
 
Kieppie

Kieppie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
9,239
buka001 said:
Yeah of course mate. Totes no partisanship, why else would the GOP delay a partisan pick for a justice, to make sure they got their partisan choice in, when they were in power?

How on earth could anyone have that perception is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Because that is their purview. We already had this discussion in depth previously. And as you recall the circumstances between the two were not the same.
We came to an agreement that although they as a person may have different political leanings this should not reflect in their rulings.

Either way they have done nothing to warrant the allegations of being partisan.
Those that claim such are rather themselves guilty of being partisan hacks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top