Is that so? Which laws are they breaking? Where have these so-called "activist judges" erred in their rulings? Surely, the Supreme Court could may real hay taking these rogues to task with detailed call outs and lengthy dissertations about the actual legal principles being ignored. If the bullshit is so easy to refute, why haven't they done it?
There is no Tolerance Paradox. Allowing bad speech doesn't "enable" bad acts. If that were the case then absolute intolerance of bad speech would prevent bad acts, but it categorically does not.
Whatever there is to be said about Charlie Kirk (the less, the better, IMPO) he was not violent. He was not a source of violence. He did not initiate violence against anyone. Could his ideas have inspired someone to violence? Maybe. But inspiration is not culpability. If violence is the only political answer that remains, then (in that case) it should only be directed at the actual source of violence. The American Revolution wasn't fought by butchering royalist authors.
Only the finest most terrificest people. Wonderful people. The best of the best.
"The Way to Stop Discrimination on the Basis of Race Is to Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race." --John "SCOTUS Chief Justice" Roberts, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007Oof. That aged like fine milk.
Quick. How many US troops/federal agents have been injured or killed by, oh let's be generous, anyone in a boat in the past... uh, how about fifty years?
Can't wait for the shadow docket reversal to spend more words admonishing the circuit court for not "reading the room" than explaining which parts of the law they apparently got so wrong.
I bet they were just saying "Boo Urns".
You can tell when you're doing something right when politicians get mad about it, personally.
Here here. All hail Ranked Choice Voting.
It doesn't really matter. That petition could be signed by 100,000 people and it would mean just as much. This administration doesn't care. Not just that they don't care about RFK doing a terrible job, y'know, their own guy. Not just that they don't care about the people suffering from a headless DHHS, y'know, their constituents. Not even that they just don't care about what everyone working at the DHHS, y'know, their employees. Hell, they don't even care what their own base thinks. It doesn't matter. MTG or Laura Boebert or whoever is left commentating on Fox News these days could scream at the top of their lungs about how messed up things are (they could, on this issue they won't, but they could. They do it for Epstein stuff all the time) but it wouldn't make a difference. A good government is supposed to be for all Americans, even if they don't want it (that's why we fight about it so much). A bad government, might be for only half the people: its supporters. Certainly, that's the type of government that the Trump Administration wants to appear to be. They want to make the appearance of being a brutal weapon for 170 million people to be used on the other 170 million. But that's not what we have here. The Trump Administration is not a bad government, it is a catastrophically terrible government by, for, and of only one person. It is a brutal weapon for 1 person to be used on the other 340 million.
A fee that you are required to pay by law is a tax.
So what are we even doing here?At the risk of invoking Poe's Law: "Getting the radical leftist pinko woke SJW MSM-gobbling groomers to kneel and admit defeat, to acknowledge the fundamental and incontrovertible truth of my beliefs, and give me something to point at later and go but look here you said THIS in order to get that job, that makes you a HYPOCRITE (the worst thing you can be). See!? We got you to admit it once!"
I would generally agree with the circuit court on the point that drag shows are not inherently political, but since when was "political" speech the only kind that is protected? Also, I feel like standing in a courtroom and telling a judge that he should side with you because you'll ignore the law and do whatever you want if the court doesn't agree with you is (or at least should be) a nearly instantly fatal legal argument. Maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer.
I don't think it's jury nullification in the sense of jurors conspiring against the evidence to reach a verdict based on whatever internal beliefs or prejudices they have. I think the government is just throwing astoundingly weak cases at the wall either to see what sticks, to use the process as the punishment, or (the most likely in my view) because all the competent attorneys are gone and the only people left are real Grade A Schmucks.
“Sometimes I think that if Elon Musk himself were fully informed about this matter, he would likely be deeply ashamed.”Ha HA. It's pretty rare to see a sentence that long in which every single word is so completely off base from reality. Sorry Mr. Halimi. This is what the USA is now: cruelty first, thinking never.
If there’s been an administration more tolerant of totalitarianism or less supportive of the rule of law, we certainly haven’t seen it since the final days of the Nixon administration.Pretty sure we left mere Nixon-levels of criminality in the dust way back in Jan 2021.
I dunno. If someone hit me with a lawsuit arguing for a trillion dollars in damages I might just say "okay" and write them a check with a lot of zeroes on it or pay them in literal monopoly money or something. It's a request so completely ridiculous that it deserves a ridiculous response. They obviously can't collect it. They can't even collect a fraction of 1% of it because it doesn't exist, even if you dissolved the company and sold the office furniture for fire wood. And like... who would they even sell it to? They can't sell the company because its debts are worth more than the GDP of half the world's nations put together. Just demand that they hit you with the full force of those statutory damages because reality will cause their demand to fall apart and force them to reckon with the actual harm done.
Not at all. I'm saying that if you are faced between the choice of Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper you can't say everyone unwilling to murder women in alleys with gusto hates Jews (especially if they didn't affirmatively choose Hitler as an alternative). The Republicans 100% own how awful Trump is, but the Democrats must also own how awful Harris is. You can't just throw whatever out there and say "well, look at the alternative". Honestly, how hard is it to find someone anyone better than what goes for the Democratic party these days? Walk outside the party headquarters, spin around blindly three times, and pick the first person you point at. It's all made even more poignant by the fact that there were more than two choices on that ballot. I picked Chase Oliver because I believed he was the least worst person on the ballot by a country mile. He was on the ballot in all 50 states. You could have voted for him too, or someone else if you felt so inclined. You didn't have to vote for Harris, and you also didn't have to vote for Trump. Lesser evil is still evil, and I just won't do it.
Once is an "oops" (in normal times, a "you'll never work in this town again" oops). I can't wait for 3 years and 3 months from now when we'll start finding out how many top secret war plans were accidentally (or "accidentally") emailed straight to the Kremlin.