8
dems_be_crazy 8 points ago +8 / -0

Nope. The law prevents government entities and private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination for employees or customers. Desantis is only high lighting the fact that even as a government agent, you will be fined. Whether his actions matches his words is another story, but he's saying the right words.

2
dems_be_crazy 2 points ago +2 / -0

John Roberts clerked for Justice William Rehnquist. It was used to sell his status as a conservative judge.

2
dems_be_crazy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Based on my limited research, there are some common misunderstandings of her positions.

  1. She did not claim that she must do what the Pope told her to do. She wrote an article that discussed catholic judges and the death penalty. Her argument was that some could not morally condone the death penalty and they must recuse themselves. She didn't believe it meant that all Catholics must recuse themselves from death penalty cases, however, since there is a complex understanding of the death penalty in Catholicism and many have no problem with it. This is a reasonable position.

  2. She did not rule in favor of lockdowns or BLM. There were two legal questions:

a. Can the governor treat political speech differently than religious speech. The context being, church gatherings received more lenient rules than political rallies. The court ruled that he could. I don't know if it was a good decision, but the question wasn't whether the lockdown was constitutional.

b. Should the order be voided because the governor was endorsing the BLM marches while shutting down other political gatherings. The court ruled that the words did not change the order and that there was insufficient evidence to say the difference in treatment was at the influence of the governor. Again, I don't know if this is a good decision, but it wasn't in favor of BLM.

Any judge on the list is going to be much better than RBG. The question is, which can we get confirmed in time for the election? Some of Barretts positions, real or perceived, makes it a decision with a lot of risk.

1
dems_be_crazy 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't care who she clerked for. It's all politics when it comes to clerks for the SC. Some of the worst judges clerked for some of the best judges.

1
dems_be_crazy 1 point ago +1 / -0

We have to remember that any of the judges on Trumps list are miles better than RBG. I don't know on an argument who is going to make the best judge -- I do know that historically it has been a roll of the dice.

I am seeing that both sides are over-stating their claims about her. Honestly, I think she may be one of the hardest judges to pass a vote because of the perceptions about her and abortion. There is a narrow window and it's going to be a razors edge to get enough votes to pass anyone.

This had made me agree with Barnes that Lagoa is the logical choice. She checks identity boxes that makes her harder to attack from the left, has a good life story and solid judicial record.

My fear with Barrett is that she causes a few republicans to vote no and then time is up before we can put forward a new justice before the election. Then we have to deal with election litigation with a 4-4 court that cannot over turn bad decisions from lower courts that have a tendency to make bad decisions.

3
dems_be_crazy 3 points ago +3 / -0

After reading the court ruling, this was my take. The republicans argued that political speech could not be limited more than religious speech. The EO gave a more lenient carve out to church gatherings than political gatherings.

The court ruled that there is precedent that political speech and religious speech can be treated differently.

The second argument was that the governor was selectively enforcing the law by expressing sympathy/encouraging BLM protests. The court decided that the governor did not change the law by making his comments and that it would would be difficult to prove anything beyond local officials not enforcing the law.

3
dems_be_crazy 3 points ago +3 / -0

No, she didn't. The argument was that political speech (Republicans gathering) carried as much weight as religious speech (much looser rules in lockdown EO). So, the court ruled it does not.

Yes, one outcome, had they won, could be that the more favorable rules would be removed.

However, the ability of the government to limit free speech and association (political, religious or otherwise) is not constitutional, itself. There is no carve out in the constitution for emergencies or pandemics.

2
dems_be_crazy 2 points ago +2 / -0

We were. I went back and it was Allison Rushing that is too young and that he likes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdvK7Qxyto

2
dems_be_crazy 2 points ago +2 / -0

That would be his number 1 pick in a vacuum because she is the best judge. He doesn't believe she can make it through a vote because of how young she is. Lagoa is his second choice.

7
dems_be_crazy 7 points ago +7 / -0

Barnes made a good point about Eid, whom is his favorite. It will be difficult to get her on the bench because she is so young. We have to get somebody that that can make it through a vote. Barrett is not good. Lagos is better than Barrett and ticks identity boxes that make it harder for people to vote against. Any of the three is an upgrade over RGB, but Barrett tends to affirm the state and corporations an awful lot.

8
dems_be_crazy 8 points ago +8 / -0

She recently ruled that illinois could limits church gatherings and selectively enforce those rules in regards to blm protests. She will side with the state or corporation on just about any issue. No thanks.

4
dems_be_crazy 4 points ago +4 / -0

I don't care that she's catholic. I do care that she has bad rulings:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/illinois-coronavirus-lockdown-court-challenge-408747

She joined the ruling saying that it is fine for the Gov to selectively target religious gatherings and ignore BLM protests.

Wood’s 22-page opinion was joined by Judges Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve, both appointees of President Donald Trump. Barrett has been repeatedly mentioned as a possible nominee if Trump gets to fill another vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Logoa is better in every possible way.

5
dems_be_crazy 5 points ago +5 / -0

R&D and regulatory costs are expensive and we already have a mechanism by which we reward them. They get exclusivity for years before a generic can be made.This isn't about R&D. If they sell the same drug in the US and Canada, but they sell it cheaper in Canada (or Africa, or Asia, or Europe), then they are expecting us the subsidize the costs of those nations.

We're just opening the market and making them compete. The specifics of this order are not released, but the one done in July is perfectly fine. Unfortunately, there's too much bad law surrounding health care that helps drive the costs up.

1
dems_be_crazy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Things may have been better if the police had done their job and enforced the curfew rather than have a circle jerk 3 blocks away as to not get in the way of looting and pillaging. This guy is trying to shift and deflect to make sure nobody notices that he did nothing.

1
dems_be_crazy 1 point ago +1 / -0

The cognitive dissonance in real-time as they try to figure out how voting for somebody they've just declared a racist is the morally superior choice to the perceived racist is fascinating. The ignorance of the left is not new. As a group, their fanaticism to act on their ignorance is the change that has accelerated our problems.

2
dems_be_crazy 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is what infuriates me about Dan Crenshaw. He believes this is not Obama's party any longer. Despite the fact I agree with him on most things, his judgment is impaired. This is exactly what Obama wanted. Everything we see now is an extension of his ideology.

The scary part is, it is evident that the other republicans are just as clueless about the the enemy we fight. This milk toast weasels think they are preserving civility by sticking their heads in the sand. They are selling our country out for the low, low price of appearing to be above the fight.

McConnell should have ended the filibuster rule on day 1. They should have shored up every protection of our elections, required voter id and addressed immigration and border security. I can understand their reluctance to fight off tech companies that pay for their silence, but I can't accept it.

Instead, the House was passing bills and starting investigations while the Senate did as little as possible. I'm tired of hearing about how many judges the Senate approved. That is one part of their job and the only part they did. Everything else got the excuse 'mah feely buster'.

As soon as Democrats have control, it is gone. We'll have amnesty for the tens of millions of illegals and the rest of the promises the radicals have offered. That will be the end of a political process as an option.

2
dems_be_crazy 2 points ago +2 / -0

He's right. How many average ducks are killed on a given day compared to abortion?

1
dems_be_crazy 1 point ago +2 / -1

I agree. Unfortunately, the pushback to the lefts hero worship of Floyd has been pushed too far, itself. No matter how flawed he was, it doesn't absolve the police of the recklessness that lead to his death in this case. That's not how justice works.

Crenshaw is certainly virtue signalling, but he's not wrong. It saddens me that a man lost his life in this way as well.

Hopefully, the initial over-reaction to the response will mellow and we can see there is indeed a problem and we should offer solutions because the socialists and race peddlers are.

5
dems_be_crazy 5 points ago +5 / -0

Properly treating a company as publisher or platform based on their actions is not giving more power to the deep state. I normally respect Shapiro's arguments, even if I disagree with them, but this is garbage. We carved out a special sweetheart deal for tech companies so they could thrive and they used it to censor opinions they didn't like.

They want you to believe this is the government coming in and telling private companies how to do business and that because they're private, they can do whatever they want. That's not quite true though. They were legally protected private companies. Now that the government isn't going to give blanket protections to bad actors doesn't mean they are extending their power.

They are allowing the companies to be legally subjected to existing law the way any newspaper is if they decide they want to no longer be a publisher. You can't eat your cake and keep it too.

3
dems_be_crazy 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's alright. We've all been there, but it is good that you can take this and learn from it.

One lesson I've learned over the years is to always ask myself if I'm focused on the problem or the symptom.

In the context of early release: Is it ever a good thing under any circumstance? Is it early release that is the problem or is it the piss poor judgment of those making the decision to release? If it is the poor judgment, why? Why are they deciding to release people for a minor virus?

It leads to an elaborate rabbit hole until you boil it down to first principles (principles that rely on no other assumption). What is prison for? Retribution, incapacitation, deterrence or rehabilitation?

4
dems_be_crazy 4 points ago +4 / -0

It is all the more important that we win the war for the hearts and minds of those whom are watching. With everything you post, you must be aware of how somebody that is on the border of agreeing with our cause going to react. They are who matter right now.

You have to avoid the land mines left by democrats. They are hoping we reinforce the image of "ists" (racist, misogynist, etc) so those that might agree with us stay away. So, culture matters. Suggesting lynching in the context of a black man committing a crime only sets off land mines.

We must win this war because the fate of our children and our grand-children depends on it. Socialism can never be allowed to win and Cultural Marxism must be destroyed. That only happens when we have won over enough people to see this lunacy for what it is.

4
dems_be_crazy 4 points ago +4 / -0

They are certainly being tried in the media. The initial facts didn't look good even if you grant that Arbery was illegally trespassing. The fact that he went after the gun does not release the men from following and stopping him at gun point. In normal circumstance, you cannot track somebody down after a crime is committed and you'll be held accountable for anything that results from that.

However, there have been some indication that the police may have asked for their help and this all hinges on the facts of that. If they were within the granted police authority to arrest him, then this case should be dismissed. If not, they should be held accountable for his murder.

Don't be the media. They'll deny the sky is blue if Trump claims it. Disregard their propaganda and look at the facts in relation to the law, but hold final judgement because we know the full story has not been reported (that would involve real reporting).

I hope they are fairly judged either way.

3
dems_be_crazy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Words have meaning. Lynchings are extra-judicial punishments regardless of trial. It is mob justice and anytime you add a descriptor to the word justice, you are no longer talking about justice.

Perhaps your chose poorly in your wording. Your problem doesn't seem to be with life in prison, but democrat governors letting them go because they might get the flu. If that is true, I'd focus on the core of the problem.

view more: Next ›