0
VoterIDMatters 0 points ago +2 / -2

There is a lot of pressure. Palin is a threat to Murkowski. Romney got his start in “business” from Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine’s father, and she is in custody - I’m sure she’s got dirt on Romney that he is afraid of getting out. Probably thinks he can curry favor with the president when it comes out.

No. It doesn’t worry me at all.

Yo don’t think trump has a better handle on it at his level than you do at your level?

10
VoterIDMatters 10 points ago +10 / -0

Exactly.

Which is why the Scalia comment was meant to trivialize him and why they said nothing political about RBG because it was meant as an insult toward Scalia and a compliment to RBG.

1
VoterIDMatters 1 point ago +1 / -0

When he said this, they were already in possession of two swords. He certainly knew of those swords already. When he asked, he said those were enough.

If he KNEW THEY ALREADY HAD ENOUGH SWORDS, then surely he was not LITERALLY SUGGESTING THEY SELL THEIR CLOTHES AND BUY SWORDS.

He was obviously speaking in purely metaphorical terms since by his estimation and clarification they already had enough swords.

Tell me more about understanding.

13
VoterIDMatters 13 points ago +14 / -1

Which technically means they are getting better...becoming aware of and admitting you have a problem is the first step in solving the problem.

17
VoterIDMatters 17 points ago +17 / -0

For real. Chain of custody much?

18
VoterIDMatters 18 points ago +18 / -0

Are you really going to pretend that calling a justice by their assumed political party is praise?

It isn’t. That’s why they didn’t say “the left wing beacon Ginsburg” because justices are not political. They weigh the law against the constitution.

1
VoterIDMatters 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, I don’t think congressional hearings are even appropriate.

And it goes down to this issue: trump started his speech acknowledging that picking a scotus justice is his most sacred and important duty as president. I trust that he vetted her better than any of his poor cabinet picks. It solves nothing to post concern troll bullshit (which is what this is) to this forum.

It’s consensus cracking.

2
VoterIDMatters 2 points ago +2 / -0

Does it bother anyone else that this takes slightly longer than 1 second?

1
VoterIDMatters 1 point ago +2 / -1

Hayek I’ve read, Rothbard, Von Mises etc

I think I had Kafka mistaken for someone else

-2
VoterIDMatters -2 points ago +1 / -3

Did Barrett agree to every single line of this decision, which was not written by her? How does that work? Because she agreed with the ruling itself, does that mean conclusively that she is in 100% agreement with every single line written in this document that was written by another person she shared the bench with?

(No, it doesn’t. That’s why your case is weak. If you want to stir controversy, at LEAST use decisions that she herself wrote.)

1
VoterIDMatters 1 point ago +2 / -1

Ok, you got me there. I have not read Kafka and therefore should not have insulted you on grounds I do not understand.

-2
VoterIDMatters -2 points ago +1 / -3

Depends on what aspect of the Jacobsen decision they were citing, Kafka.

If that’s your case against ACB, it’s fucking weak. You’re grasping at straws.

2
VoterIDMatters 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love how she talked about her husband doing more than his fair share of the household chores, being a better cook etc

Was exceptional narrative strategy

-6
VoterIDMatters -6 points ago +1 / -7

You’re a fucking shill

Even your username makes it obvious

Still trying to divide even after the nomination, hoping to get cover for Rino’s to vote against confirmation

Fuck you, shill

-2
VoterIDMatters -2 points ago +1 / -3

Except it wasn’t in this case so your point is moot

-2
VoterIDMatters -2 points ago +1 / -3

You have poor reading comprehension.

Pritzker’s order had a religious exemption allowing more than 50 people to gather at a church for the purposes of religious services.

1
VoterIDMatters 1 point ago +3 / -2

he Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that

"the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars."

Not very unreasonable, if you ask me

3
VoterIDMatters 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not confirmed yet...

1
VoterIDMatters 1 point ago +11 / -10

List the rulings you’re not in favor of, with links. Or does your hesitation come from the deluge of shill posts on this site over the last couple of weeks which without evidence (no links) suggested it?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›