search results matching tag: supreme

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (350)     Sift Talk (31)     Blogs (23)     Comments (1000)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Big surprise…the Trump campaign was directly behind the plot to create fake slates of electors committed to Trump from multiple states that Biden won, helped prepare and submit fraudulent certification documents, and they hoped to have them counted by Pence instead of the real electors certified by the states for Biden…Giuliani even wrote Pence a letter telling him to do just that. The campaign, led personally by Giuliani, organized this fraud, this subversion of democracy.
More direct Trump election fraud. You really think he’s interested in election security when he’s the one caught red handed committing election fraud on every front? Lol.

Edit: Trump’s communications on and about Jan 6 are now released, soon to be public record. No more delays possible, he took it all the way to the Supreme Court and failed all the way at trying to hide what he did. Better start stretching, you’re going to have some Olympic level mental gymnastics to do soon.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

Just incase you're afraid of- you know- facing reality

========================================


IQ testing and the eugenics movement in the United States

Eugenics, a set of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior,[39][40][41] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States during the Progressive Era, from the late 19th century until US involvement in World War II.[42][43]

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of the British Scientist Sir Francis Galton. In 1883, Galton first used the word eugenics to describe the biological improvement of human genes and the concept of being "well-born".[44][45] He believed that differences in a person's ability were acquired primarily through genetics and that eugenics could be implemented through selective breeding in order for the human race to improve in its overall quality, therefore allowing for humans to direct their own evolution.[46]

Goddard was a eugenicist. In 1908, he published his own version, The Binet and Simon Test of Intellectual Capacity, and cordially promoted the test. He quickly extended the use of the scale to the public schools (1913), to immigration (Ellis Island, 1914) and to a court of law (1914).[47]

Unlike Galton, who promoted eugenics through selective breeding for positive traits, Goddard went with the US eugenics movement to eliminate "undesirable" traits.[48] Goddard used the term "feeble-minded" to refer to people who did not perform well on the test. He argued that "feeble-mindedness" was caused by heredity, and thus feeble-minded people should be prevented from giving birth, either by institutional isolation or sterilization surgeries.[47] At first, sterilization targeted the disabled, but was later extended to poor people. Goddard's intelligence test was endorsed by the eugenicists to push for laws for forced sterilization. Different states adopted the sterilization laws at different paces. These laws, whose constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1927 ruling Buck v. Bell, forced over 60,000 people to go through sterilization in the United States.[49]

California's sterilization program was so effective that the Nazis turned to the government for advice on how to prevent the birth of the "unfit".[50] While the US eugenics movement lost much of its momentum in the 1940s in view of the horrors of Nazi Germany, advocates of eugenics (including Nazi geneticist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer) continued to work and promote their ideas in the United States.[50] In later decades, some eugenic principles have made a resurgence as a voluntary means of selective reproduction, with some calling them "new eugenics".[51] As it becomes possible to test for and correlate genes with IQ (and its proxies),[52] ethicists and embryonic genetic testing companies are attempting to understand the ways in which the technology can be ethically deployed.[53]

Biden’s first year as President: A Beatles remix

snake eating itself

cloudballoon says...

Sorry I had a brain fart, I was thinking the Presidency, Senate & the House. The 3 that people can actually vote pople in to. The Supreme Court's not voted in by the people, and this Court is FUBAR by McConnell since the last of Obama's years...

You're absoluely spot on the split, that's why I said "bare-bone" and filibuster & super majority vote's gotta go. There are very few Houses of Representatives in the world are as dysfunctional as the USA because of it.

newtboy said:

Excuse me?!
Control of all three?! Executive, legislative, and judicial?

snake eating itself

newtboy says...

Excuse me?!
Control of all three?! Executive, legislative, and judicial? What?!

How exactly do you think a 3-6 minority in the Supreme Court is control?
How is a 48/50/2 split in the senate with two independents and two Democrats (that you mentioned) being Republican in all but their claimed party, always voting against their party and with Republicans, “control”?

I would say it’s barely even a 50/50 split, Dems have the white-house and house, Republicans have the senate and courts. That really puts Republicans in control of 2/3 since they have veto power in the senate and use it every time for any democratic bill.

cloudballoon said:

True enough. But with Manchin & Sinema, the Dems aren't doing much better to have laurels to rest on either. It just projects a whole lot of incompetence & re-enforce the frustrations and distrust Americans (and many allies) have and an easy target for ruling autocrats to laugh at. Surey that's not what people voted Biden AND control (albeit bare-bone) of all 3 branches of gov't to the Dems for...

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

What did I tell you!?! States rights! Suckers! Bwaaaahahahahaha!

“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place,” Newsom said. “But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.” Newsom said he will work with his staff, the Legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to craft a bill that would let citizens sue anyone who “manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” in California. They could seek damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees, Newsom said.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article256524466.html#storylink=cpy

I told you this would happen.

BTW, the Presidential coup Plan PowerPoint handed over by Meadows pretty much obliterated the lies that 1) it wasn’t an attempted coup 2) it wasn’t expected 3) it wasn’t planned 4) it wasn’t Trump supporters being violent and 5) the white house wasn’t directly involved.
Contemporaneous records of the planning, including texts to organizers and militias claiming that the national guard is poised to protect Trump rioters from arrest or attack….as if any non cultist needed more evidence beyond the live broadcast of the coup attempt, but now there’s publicly available physical documentation/evidence directly from the highest levels in Trump’s cabinet of their own direct involvement in the planning to overturn the certified election by fraud and force.….which I’m certain you will dismiss as fake news with no hint of evidence because your little brain can’t handle facts.

the PowerPoint laid out a plan to effectively use the military to steal the election outright, undeniably. That’s treason.

The plan was to use the military, specifically the national guard, declare a state of emergency, throw out most of the ballots from the 2020 election, and then have the national guard run by people that Trump handpicked himself count only the paper ballots that they deemed to be legitimate. essentially giving them a free ride to throw out any ballots that were for Biden. Only count the ones for Trump and boom, Donald Trump gets all the electoral votes. That's how the coup was supposed to happen. So again, these lawmakers were briefed on this two days before the capital riot. So they knew exactly what Donald Trump was trying to do, what his administration, what his friends, what his allies had suggested to him. There is no indication at all that one of these lawmakers alerted the department of justice, the FBI, local authorities, anyone, they had this information and they did nothing with it.

Any official who knew and didn’t report to the FBI or DOJ should be removed immediately, get the firing squad, and their entire estate (and their spouses estate, and minor children’s estates) seized. That’s a lot of Republicans.

Also, Fox hosts, the same ones who now claim Jan 6 was a peaceful picnic, families calmly touring congress, and it was BLM and ANTIFA and the FBI that perpetrated the violence that didn’t happen, were all frantically trying to reach the president to stop the attack on January 6, outraged he wouldn’t tell his supporters to stop attacking America, explaining how not acting to stop the coup was destroying his legacy and theirs.

dedstick (Member Profile)

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Unpack the court, it’s packed with unqualified fraudulent unscrupulous appointments now.

Democrats hold control now, and can make the court have as many seats as they like. Shitty, but those are the rules…rules they should change as soon as they take advantage of them. Not unconstitutional. No whining like you normally do….like you are now….crybaby.

Not holding a hearing when the constitution says they “shall”, not they “may choose not to until their party makes the nomination”, is unconstitutional and not following the “rules”, on top of being hypocritical, unethical, and immoral. He wasn’t denied the position by vote, like Bork, he was denied the constitutionally required hearing and vote he was constitutionally guaranteed.

Left of center, yes, but centrists. You clearly don’t know what that means. Holy shit.
Rabid leftists? far from it. You can’t say the same for the right leaners, they are extremist far right wing activist judges, out of touch with the majority of the country and the law. One is a blatant unapologetic rapist, another a dishonest religious zealot with no judicial experience.
I didn’t expect a respected serious jurist like RGB, but didn’t expect people less respectable and less serious than ODB.

I overstate! LMFAHS!! Hilarious coming from the bombastic liar completely divorced from reality that overstates everything that he doesn’t just completely make up.
If overstating everything, desperate to prove himself at every instance makes one a miserable poser and a child looking for approval, why are you so in love with and a zealous follower of a desperate miserable poser child begging for approval, namely Trump?
🤦‍♂️

I must have hit a real nerve to get you this triggered, Snowflake. Whine like a spoiled little girl some more, bobby. Your Trumpist tears are delicious….and your broken English blather makes an entertaining, if fact free, read.

Edit: more good news for ya….the DC appellate court just ruled unanimously that Trump has no say in the release of White House documents surrounding Jan 6 (or any others). The unanimous ruling makes it unlikely the Supreme Court will even consider it. We’re going to see what he’s so terrified will come to light, his complicity in the attempted coup, and exactly what he expected to come from it. Hint, it’s not what he’s been telling you.
Oh, and it sounds like there may be more obstruction of justice investigations since Trump admitted he fired Comey to derail the investigation, and if he hadn’t he would have been convicted and removed from office. His words. Not smart to admit on the air.
Aaaaaand, the full, unedited by Barr, Mueller report may be released soon. The one the investigators wrote before the one they released, including all their findings that Barr apparently refused to accept, allegedly containing lots of never before released findings, charges,evidence, and information. A FOIA request prompted the DOJ to begin vetting it for classified info, should be ready mid February. Not good for a Trump comeback, or Republican mid terms. D’oh! Don’t cry….don’t cry.

bobknight33 said:

You bitch like a little girl.
Now you want to stack the court?


Republicans had control and Garlend was denied. Those are the rules, as shitty as they are.

Shitty but not un Constitutional.

Sotomayor and Kagan are centrist in your eyes but left of center in everyone else eyes.

Kavenaugh and Barrett are conservatives. You hoped for an RGB?

The left held the majority for quite a while and now doesn't.



We all know you over state everything trying to be some beacon of knowledge light.

You just a miserable poser, desperately to prove yourself at every instance.


Do you want a cookie for your efforts? You a child just looking for approval.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

bobknight33 said:

To say that Republicans are politicizing the supreme court is nonsense. Democrats pick left leaning and Republicans pick right leaning. This is not new. Where were your complaints of politicizing when Sotomayor or Kagen were appointed?

But if you want to go there it started with Senator Ted Kennedy within minutes of Bork being picked by POTUS Reagen to be appointed took to the floor of the senate and thrown down the gauntlet.


They may be lean more conservative today however Its been leaning left last 50 years.

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

bobknight33 says...

To say that Republicans are politicizing the supreme court is nonsense. Democrats pick left leaning and Republicans pick right leaning. This is not new. Where were your complaints of politicizing when Sotomayor or Kagen were appointed?

But if you want to go there it started with Senator Ted Kennedy within minutes of Bork being picked by POTUS Reagen to be appointed took to the floor of the senate and thrown down the gauntlet.


They may be lean more conservative today however Its been leaning left last 50 years.

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

Let's talk about people defeating the Texas tip website....

newtboy says...

I love the idea, echoed by the Supreme Court, that if this methodology is found to be legal, there’s nothing at all stopping states from using it to outlaw things protected by the constitution, like arms, religions, hate speech, anything the state legislature decides is unwanted, and using cash prizes to incentivize citizens into enforcing them. One can only hope Republicans see the truth in that prognostication and quickly move to make these laws constitutionally invalid….otherwise these laws will quickly invalidate the constitution.

Edit: If California decides the bounty on anyone owning an “assault style weapon” is $1000000, what’s to stop them? What’s to stop Austonians and Houstonians voting for the same thing in Texas? Suddenly it doesn’t sound like such a great idea…..right? Republicans only love the constitution when it’s convenient….so we have to make it convenient (or make end running around it unthinkable).

The attempted US coup

newtboy says...

"True fake news".....yep, Bob. That's exactly right. Most "fake news" is actually true. "Fake news" doesn't mean it's fake, or wrong, or untrue, it just means you don't like the news. Like a two year old denying they ate the jelly despite it being all over their face.

Again, Cyber Ninjas STILL hasn't turned in any report, they've said they haven't even started writing one yet, now almost 4 weeks after their deadline. They gave a lame excuse that they all got Covid (weeks after the report was due) and haven't had an opportunity to get together and compile their report....but they have had time to get together with the Republican sponsors of their review and have a large unmasked indoor party to celebrate their review....The review they haven't produced.

They've also continued to ignore state Supreme court orders to turn over ALL work products, notes, communications, etc.

If they aren't massive and total frauds, why are they still hiding?

It's more Mike Lindel, making up ridiculous claims, giving a date long in the future when they'll publish their "proof", then never follow through. Actually, it's a Hell of a lot like Trump's birther lie...tell the lie for years, make a spectacular public event to celebrate bringing the truth to light and exposing your political enemies with the truths you've uncovered...then use that event to sell yourself and your products without ever mentioning, much less producing even one scintilla of evidence, much less proof of your outrageous lies.

bobknight33 said:

True FAKE news.

CNN trying to smear the forensic audit in Maricopa county.

Why are Democrat so afraid to a forensic audit?
IF you are innocent why are they hiding?

US sues to block TX abortion law

newtboy says...

There can be no heartbeat without a heart, which takes another 6-8 + weeks to form chambers, and 16 or more more weeks to develop valves and functional muscle tissue and actually pump blood. There is no heartbeat at 6, 8, or even 10 weeks by any definition, there's a twitch in the place a heart will one day develop.

This abdication of the state's duty to private citizens has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court when states allowed churches to veto liquor licenses and bars challenged them and won. The government cannot deputize the populace to enforce a law, nor can it pay them with the state imposed fines even if they call it a judgement...You cannot pre set a judgement amount in a law for a civil case.

There has been no medical breakthroughs that change the standard, if it can't survive outside the womb, it's not viable. Period. End of discussion. That's what not viable means.

"Mutually incompatible"!? Nonsense. Legally there is no baby to be harmed, that's the law this is trying to end run around. Covid harms everyone. It's a paper tiger argument, a total fake red herring, there is NO public health danger if a woman has an abortion, you cannot catch abortion. Covid you can catch, and spread, and it's deadly to actual, real, fully cooked legal people AND embryos.

One wonders if the Texas legal system has nothing to do and had this passed as job security...because it's the only kind of civil case they'll be hearing now.

One also wonders if the state has too much money, because there's apparently they weren't smart enough to include exemptions for the state if they help facilitate any abortions by, let's say, offering bus service, maintaining roadways, or supplying electricity and water to the buildings. Any of these is grounds to sue them for $10000. If you live in Texas, file your case now before there's no money left and they rewrite the law to just target liberals.

They'll have to defend every case filed costing another $10000+ in legal fees (they'll have to pay the plaintiff's costs too). Pair that with the companies fleeing the state to avoid boycotts, Texas is going to be so poor they become America's Hati soon. Yee haw!

bobknight33 said:

Derp ^

TX law & tattoos

newtboy says...

Massachusetts VS Grendle's Den - 459 US 116- 1982
A case in Massachusetts where the state deferred to the church in issuing liquor licenses, allowing them to veto any licenses they wished for their own reasons.
The supreme court voted 8-1 in favor of Grendle, stating clearly that it's extremely unconstitutional to allow a non governing body to apply the law based on their personal beliefs...and a blatant violation of the separation between church and state. This case is from 1982.
This means precedent is set, and the Texas law will be tossed....unless the new court ignores precedent and the constitution, which thanks to Trumpists is a possibility.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon