Who's "THEY" ???

The fuck are you talking about, I do not recognize the phrase "basically erase" that's not the same as erase? "wash away" etc?

https://duckduckgo.com/
https://www.torproject.org/download/

https://ahmia.fi/ or http://msydqstlz2kzerdg.onion/ if you're already on Tor WARNING this is ACTUALLY uncensored everything. (as in regular + deep + dark web) Be sure to report anything that constitutes a crime to the FBI "Hey, I'm not associated with this, but I just came across it on the internet accidentally, https://www.fbi.gov/tips " lest you potentially can be charged with abetting would - be crimes that you are actually not responsible for.

Now you can find anything. Done.

----------------------------

BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL that's not really what you believe, just what you've been saying.


I remember the cakeshop, I thought it was okay to do that if you were a private company?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations


Remember? Good, right? A privately (non-gov) owned business can kick out and not provide service to anyone they want right? Conservative. The private businesses aka google and amazon, decided they don't like your nazi bullshit. AND you're glad they're able to kick you back to the 14th page right? It's their right to do so thanks to the new conservative SCOTUS yes? Happy? Dumbass.

IF YOU GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR ONE GROUP IT'S NOT JUST GAY WEDDING CAKES IT'S EVERYONE'S RIGHTS.


That case they argued was a free speech case. The bakery has the freedom to not display messages in the form of pixels on the screen errrrr frosting on the cake. Just like Google can choose to not display messages in the form of frosting on a cake errrrrr pixels on a screen. What do you think the rest of us were so pissed about? You're over there cheering on them taking away our rights and now it's come full circle. What? you didn't think it would affect your rights to say things?

Shouldn't have listened to that Golden Idol.

This is what is fundimentally wrong with being able to "vote with dollars" - some people have more dollars than me. That doesn't make me any less of a person. But just try asking conservative supreme court justices about that.

Wait, you said clearly that if the truth doesn’t help your case, it’s the right thing to do to lie, even under oath, only stupid people would tell the truth if it hurts their case. Now you think you have a leg to stand on calling someone a liar? Get a grip.

This points out in great clarity how biased and untrustworthy Rand Paul and most republicans are.

Investigations galore, multiple recounts, signatures were compared, over 60 cases tossed for lack of evidence, a few for lack of standing, only about what, +-70 votes actually in question for fraud now that the dominion lie has been quashed, far fewer prosecuted, and they were Trumpsters voting twice or more, the rest are cases of minor technicalities that Republicans thought meant since two people in one Republican county weren’t afforded the same help some people in other counties got like ballot curing or a chance to fix a signature that was missing or considered different from the one on file before election day (because the republicans in that county specifically disallowed it) they think those other counties must be discarded completely, a few million votes should be discarded to make up for two republicans that Republicans screwed over.

How many times did Paul lie about what Stephanopilous had just said? I lost count.

We had the debate, repeatedly. Paul is lying again.

We had thorough examinations in every state, full recounts in some, multiple in Georgia. Republicans are all liars who want to rehash the election in different ways and venues until they win, then stop the process. Too bad you lost so badly, in such a massive landslide with such a clear mandate across the board that no amount of rehashing, not an ocean of their tears could change the outcome.

The conservative Supreme Court heard umpteen challenges to election rule changes and found NONE to be illegal, Paul is just lying again.
If every single claim thrown out of court for lack of evidence was won by the right, Trump still would have lost bigly.

You are such a willing tool for the lying right. If lying were a crime, republicans would all be in prison for felony level dishonesty. Where you go one, you go all....into the mouth of madness.

I do like that you tagged this ridiculous lie fest from Paul as “lies”, and the reporting by Stephanopolis “news”. That’s a step back towards sanity.

Notoriously unqualified. Barely a lawyer.
Notoriously a pure political appointment, not a real judge, never heard a case before her appointment.
Notoriously dishonest.
Notorious political stooge.
Notorious religious zealot.
Notorious for insisting Catholics recuse themselves from death penalty cases because their religion wouldn't allow them to make any decision that was pro death but shouldn't recuse themselves from abortion cases for exactly the same reason....so if you disagree with her you should always recuse, but if you agree with her, don't recuse no matter what.

Notoriously awful.
Notoriously incapable of holding a candle to RBG.
Notoriously unqualified.

Time to make the supreme court have 13 justices to negate Trump's court packing.
Deal with it.

I think that's at the discretion of the judge, if you asked for 15%, likely you'll get your principal back, if you asked for 1500%, chances are you won't get a dime back as punishment, and may end up owing the borrower if you went overboard trying to collect.

I live in California, building codes change constantly. I agree, it is maddening and often backwards. He was specifically talking about codes for building stand alone solar, which are newer building codes. Even old building codes are often poorly thought out and contradictory. I'm not saying there isn't an abundance of red tape here, especially for building.
That said, his contractor should have been aware of all codes, submitted his plan, and would have approval or notes on what to change in weeks tops. There's something wrong when it takes over a year to get a shed built, some reason his plans weren't approved like they weren't to code.
Citation : personal experience - I installed solar in California, it took 3 days for my permit approval....and only that long because my contractor was being lazy.

That's the thing I disagree with, no new laws are needed at all, just a removal of exemptions/deregulations for businesses that pay large enough bribes (contributions) to elected officials. Even making all credit businesses operate on the same rules, allowing them 30% interest, seems ok, but that isn't reality today. It's unconscionable to allow 1600% interest on loans peddled to desperate people that don't actually qualify for a real, legitimate line of credit, many of whom don't understand it's what they're agreeing to, but the payday loan lobby is well funded and connected.
Citation:
Although U.S. states set their own maximum legal interest rates, a Supreme Court interpretation of the National Bank Act of 1864 preempted state usury laws and created a path toward a national consumer lending economy. The most important federal case in credit card interest rate deregulation was decided in 1978.

Her problems were multifold. The predatory loan took a fixable issue, her terrible customer service, and compounded it with insurmountable and ever expanding debt, which in turn undoubtedly hurt her customer service more, thus increasing her debt..... It sounds like she never should have purchased a service oriented business, and likely overextended herself from day one just to do it.

I'm unsure of your point in the last paragraph.

Hyperbolized like a true traitor, I'm speaking like a true patriot who's forefathers founded this great nation and who wants to prosecute 1/5 (70 million/350 million) of the country because they attempted a violent murderous coup, an overthrow of the American government by force, violence, and threats of violence, and around 60% of them think it was great and intend to try it again this week, not because they voted for a traitor, but because most still back him after the failed coup and intend to try again.

I would love to round you all up, put you on trial with exactly the same criteria members of ISIS/Daesh faced as members of a terrorist organization, and give you all the same treatment you all cheered on when it was done to brown skinned people. (Just one reason I shouldn't be appointed supreme leader) They/you are members of a violent, anti America terrorist organization and movement. Do you think Daesh members should be set free if you cannot prove they directly killed someone but can prove they are active Daesh members, including those who say clearly they support the anti American violence and terrorism and are just waiting for an opportunity to plan more attacks? A slap on the wrist is inappropriate. Letting it slide is not just inappropriate, it's incredibly dangerous and unpatriotic...indeed that would be giving comfort to enemies of the state, a crime itself.

Anyone that crossed police lines actively attacked America and democracy. That precludes them from being patriotic (unless you mean patriotic to Iran or some other foreign adversary), and it makes them enemy combatants. Those usually get the death penalty. When they are American citizens it's called treason. Does this describe you?

Hey, shithead.

Let me make something clear.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY LOYALTY IS TO DEMOCRACY - TO THE REPUBLIC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Storming the capital building, shooting people, and planting bombs, is not democracy.


---------------


Let me know how you feel, because right now my sense of it is

-the voters can't be trusted
-the poll workers can't be trusted
-the voting machines can't be trusted
-the media can't be trusted
-Bill Barr can't be trusted
-the guy who was in charge of election security can't be trusted
-the lower courts can't be trusted
-the appellate courts can't be trusted
-and the Supreme Court can't be trusted

-Only donald trump can be trusted.


----> Is that accurate?????????????????????????


Because,
THAT does not sound like a Democracy.
THAT does not sound like a Republic.

Welfare check.

You haven't been heard from since all states certified irrevocably and the supreme court refused to hear Trump's last gasp coup attempt (the Texas vs any state that went for Biden case isn't a real lawsuit, btw, there's clearly no standing edit: and has now been dismissed) Are you ok?

We don't need to send @BSR to your house, do we?

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1326230270421426183 ooo maybve you get your wish for second term after all? I see he's having more rallies???? what's that about? gonna unveil the swastika & new emergency powers for the supreme chancellor?

Did your house of cards get destroyed by that landslide?

Go loot, burn, and kill. Give us more reason to label Republicans a terrorist organization....

But do it at Bill Barr's house, and Fox stations, and against any republicans that didn't stand behind Trump and against America, and don't forget the Republican supreme court justices that didn't hand him the office....or are you already there?

Bye Felecia

What? Are you replying to another post? What do bad acts not excusing bad acts have to do with court packing? You are arguing that republican court packing isn't a bad act, so what are you talking about?

Republican court packing, the unprecedented denying dozens of a sitting presidents nominees a hearing despite the constitution stating they shall hold one in order to steal court seats was arguably unconstitutional but worked because they had the power and democrats had no recourse to remedy the crime since they didn't have the votes to force them to adhere to the constitution.

Adding seats is not unconstitutional nor is it unprecedented, the founding fathers did it themselves repeatedly. Not holding hearings for a nominee is unconstitutional, congress SHALL, not can or may.

No, they ignored a clear constitutional obligation knowing they couldn't be forced to follow it. Senate rules did not allow that, but a majority allowed the laws and rules to be ignored.

Lol. "Trashing them" by asking them to answer questions and accusations pertinent to the job is the same to you as denying a hearing in your opinion?!? I suppose you feel the same about republicans trashing democratic appointments, even outright denying them hearings required by the constitution....nominees who have NEVER had a problem clearly describing the rights codified in the constitution, which is the job they're nominated for...right...because certainly you aren't just a hypocrite.

🤦‍♂️

So, republicans played hardball by ignoring their constitutional obligation to hear nominees to steal seats, now you're whining that Democrats shouldn't play constitutionally allowed hard ball too by increasing the number of seats?!? Oh shit...you done fucked up.

I refer you to this page to see the list of Obama nominees trashed, refused, stalled, and or filibustered by Republicans....dozens of empty seats stolen by McConnell and handed to Trump to fill.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

Also, turnabout IS fair play. Bad acts by one group do excuse similar bad acts against them.

Edit: I see it this way....Republicans have set the bar for governing at "you can't stop us"...Democrats need at least 4 years in the same position to reverse the damage, probably 8 since they're so wishy washy and don't often play hardball....Biden is still talking about bipartisan committees to figure out how to get back to working civil governance, starting with balancing the supreme court...but what's needed is pure partisanship like Republicans display. Nasty, ruthless, unethical, even illegal partisanship at every turn on every issue.

A few judicial assassinations aren't off the table either. Anything goes is the rule of the day, thanks Trump.

you are free to guess, and will certainly be wrong...

Bad acts by members of one group don't justify worse acts by the opposing group. That road leads to genocide...

And the Republicans didn't "pack" the supreme court - they exercised the authority that the Constitution and Senate rules afforded them - no less so than the Democrats used their authority and rights to trash every supreme court nominee that has been put forth by Republican administrations. If you want to play hardball, you won't get much sympathy from me when you complain that the opposition elects to play hardball too...

Happy to see this clip disappear...

Since it's exactly what the right promised to do, and the reason they broke all norms and precedents to pack the supreme court with anti choice judges, I don't understand your misplaced dismissiveness.
Shall I guess which side of the issue you stand on?

As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

It would be incredibly likely that any attempt to add new seats to the Supreme Court would be found unconstitutional.

However, it wouldn't be the first time we have had more or fewer judges. This isn't something new as opposing political entities have done their best to stack the court, one way or the other, from the very beginning.

If it happens, it happens. Although I suspect it might lead to another civil war if it is obnoxious enough. Maybe we can end up in Districts this time, with some sort of gladiatorial display to keep the masses calm?