MAH DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Yeah, disenfranchising chicom vooootes.
Heck, its telling that the lawsuits jeep getting dismissed on procedural grounds of standing, yet the courts issue a hypothetical on disenfranchising, i.e. bringing up nameless hypotheticals that also have no standing, per their own ruling.
Disenfranchisement is a big bad, for sure. But ho boy are they misdirecting their outrage. When buddy in charge of ensuring the integrity of the election deliberately steps out of bounds and spoils the vote, that ass-ho is the one who disenfranchised your ass, not the ref who blows whistle on him.
You want to make tacos? Fine, but you can't make them until we modify the menu and put tacos on there. Just wait until its on the menu along with hamburgers ok?
That's what I was wondering...is it even a matter of being strict? Since when can governors or SC of a state make laws. Doesn't seem strict but more or less common government practice.
Agree... The WI argument will be interesting as that seems to have been agreed on by everyone for a while but not written in anywhere. I was hoping they could get the absentee ballot application in there OR the issue of indefinitely confinded.
Talk about backroom dirty dealings. "If we write it down, there is proof, and our constituents might find out someday." The issue with what they could or couldn't put in the lawsuits is that there is such voluminous and widespread fraud that they have to pick what they can prove or want to fight. Hopefully eventually it all comes out but I am not holding my breathe.
Isn’t that how the EPA was slipping a lot of things through? Get the Sierra Club or some other group to sue over something and “settle” the lawsuit in such a way that the EPA gets to do what they wanted to do anyway but would never make it through the political process
I mean, we can say the same about the ATF but they still exist. Why is a part of the executive branch writing and changing laws when their ONLY job is to enforce the laws that the legislative branch has written? Yet here we are with them arbitrarily changing whether or not braces count as stocks and attempting to turn literally millions of Americans into felons with the stroke of the pen.
I wouldn’t even call it “strict” it’s in plain English and you either uphold it or you don’t. It is worded so you literally cannot fuck it up. Like “shall not be infringed” is pretty damn clear.
Spot on
MAH DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Yeah, disenfranchising chicom vooootes.
Heck, its telling that the lawsuits jeep getting dismissed on procedural grounds of standing, yet the courts issue a hypothetical on disenfranchising, i.e. bringing up nameless hypotheticals that also have no standing, per their own ruling.
Nooooooooooo! Not a "strict intrepretation"! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Disenfranchisement is a big bad, for sure. But ho boy are they misdirecting their outrage. When buddy in charge of ensuring the integrity of the election deliberately steps out of bounds and spoils the vote, that ass-ho is the one who disenfranchised your ass, not the ref who blows whistle on him.
** I'm making tacos instead because that's what only 20% of everyone likes more but they scream and threaten me and call me a racist, so tacos it is!
You want to make tacos? Fine, but you can't make them until we modify the menu and put tacos on there. Just wait until its on the menu along with hamburgers ok?
But life at the country club is easier if they don't do their job. Just ask Roberts.
Also their cars don't explode into raging balls of fire.
Meteor strike of course.
That's what I was wondering...is it even a matter of being strict? Since when can governors or SC of a state make laws. Doesn't seem strict but more or less common government practice.
Or the Georgia consent order made in secret between the two parties without reps knowing. They do not have the power but no one dares call them on it.
Agree... The WI argument will be interesting as that seems to have been agreed on by everyone for a while but not written in anywhere. I was hoping they could get the absentee ballot application in there OR the issue of indefinitely confinded.
Talk about backroom dirty dealings. "If we write it down, there is proof, and our constituents might find out someday." The issue with what they could or couldn't put in the lawsuits is that there is such voluminous and widespread fraud that they have to pick what they can prove or want to fight. Hopefully eventually it all comes out but I am not holding my breathe.
That is amazing. Glad Sessions did something right.
Isn’t that how the EPA was slipping a lot of things through? Get the Sierra Club or some other group to sue over something and “settle” the lawsuit in such a way that the EPA gets to do what they wanted to do anyway but would never make it through the political process
Since COVID.
If you resist my blatantly unconstitutional executive orders, you're literally murdering nanna.
Hell, let's go back further. Since the Patriot act.
Just take it back to the Federal Reserve.
Feel at law and an emergency like superaids makes the constitution mean whatever madero thinks is means.
I mean, we can say the same about the ATF but they still exist. Why is a part of the executive branch writing and changing laws when their ONLY job is to enforce the laws that the legislative branch has written? Yet here we are with them arbitrarily changing whether or not braces count as stocks and attempting to turn literally millions of Americans into felons with the stroke of the pen.
I wouldn’t even call it “strict” it’s in plain English and you either uphold it or you don’t. It is worded so you literally cannot fuck it up. Like “shall not be infringed” is pretty damn clear.
Instructions unclear, take all the guns and enforce globohomo
Insert “but it’s a living and breathing document” logic
But muh "LiViNg DoCuMeNt" !!!!1