JoeWeber

Who wrote that? Would you have any of your own thoughts on the matter?

That takes some brass. Two words: Judicial overreach. The SC is legislating from the bench and undermining our democracy. At least that much should be obvious.

Yep. And instead of owning up to it they adjust the facts to fit a more favorable narrative where they become the apparent victims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npPf0huC4d0&ab_channel=BrokenSockmonkey

Of course not. He's a scheming, lying, duplicitous, manipulative asshole. Same as Alito and Barrett.

Are you seriously that twitterpated about a policy that on average would cost the US treasury about 20 Billion a year? Depending on which data set you prefer that's more or less the annual payback rate for $400 Billion in student loans. In the big scheme of things, and for our economy, that's just pinball money. So, yes, I am cool with the POTUS having that amount of power to make things better in America.

Why? Well, he told us: "It's really not complicated. I didn't provide all the details, all the evidence was there."

When they should be standing up for freedom from religion. Every business should be able the "right to refuse service to anyone", but not everyone of a certain race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. To be able to do so, it seems to me, is a violation of our social compact whereby we each and all pay into the infrastructure that we each and all rely on to conduct our businesses and grow the economy for our mutual benefit. That such a departure is now codified in the name of brotherly love makes it all the more odious, I think. Moving on to student debt you only need to look to how the legal justifications arise, those inspirational bits of incisive jurisprudence and analyses by way of analogies, to get a feel for how such clever minds saw standing where none existed so to then be able to jump quickly to the so called "Major Questions Doctrine" to justify cancelling the cancellation of a small amount of student debt: "A second hypothetical centered on a babysitter who took the kids to an amusement park for the weekend, having been given a parent’s credit card and told: 'Make sure the kids have fun,'" CNN reported. "Emboldened, the concurring babysitter takes the kids on a road trip to an amusement park, where they spend two days on rollercoasters and one night in a hotel." -Amy Coney-Barrett I'll give Justice Barrett this much: her reasoning definitely does give rise to some major questions.

“God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society.” “These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years,” Attributed to Clarence Thomas, when he was EEOC chairman in 1983.

You'd have thought that when misguided touchy feely Liberal Activist General William Tecumseh Sherman had his ridiculous Field Order 15 revoked and every temporarily fortunate former slave had to give back their 40 acres, and in some cases a mule too, the libtocracy would have learned. Any attempt at helping the socially disadvantaged and obviously harmed, even if it is a net benefit for all of society, is wrongheaded and doomed. Folks need to make themselves some boot straps out of stuff just laying around and pull themselves up. Who knows, it just might become an exercise fad and they'll make millions on youtube. Enough maybe that they can afford to secretly fly Supreme Court Justices around the world on vacations that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and give free housing to their mom's. Ah, the American Way.

Somewhere from Westside Story? Some day Some where We'll find a new way of living We'll find a way of forgiving Some where

Unbelievable. Are you saying that if you get your news from your facebook feed and don't take a single second to verify it before believing it to be true and reposting it on the internet you might get spoofed?

When entitled asshats feel free to use an employer's place of business to make a video political statement things have gone too far. It's time to rise up and demand that Joe Biden stop creating so many jobs.

Is that like a Dreamliner but Rum based?

Sure, and there are 5 Court locations in the Southern District. It could be argued that the crimes happened closer to the West Palm Beach courthouse but the Division of Origin rule doesn't get that granular. If Cannon is actually being defensive it's a better argument that it's her normal venue and a shorter drive. Miami Courthouses Fort Lauderdale West Palm Beach Fort Pierce Key West

Interesting. Putin just announced he would be hopping mad if Ukraine used US or UK weapons in Crimea. Must be why.

Because everyone loves a parade?

Or the date of his immaculate conception.

Please don't tell me the Battle of Thanksgiving wasn't on the third Thursday in November.

Alto Adams Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida is where Cannon normally hears her cases and also negates any arguments about her long drive.

The real question is that when he does how will Cannon respond? Jack Smith must be jonesing for anything worth appealing the the 11th circuit.

As you've said before...I'll say anything except something.

Sad but true but it is so smarmy. Now, I can see the poor, convicted bastard invoking God and Fucking Damnit, too. But the Judge, not so much.

Unless she does something appealable to the 11th Circuit, or recuses, she's the judge. Apparently she's a religious type who is known to invoke God at sentencing's. No clue if that's good or bad now.

We'll eventually more fully develop the concept here, but the truth is that we are now in a situation where we are separated less by how our held views are organized than by how our brains are organized. Clever people, who by any usual measure are in full possession of their critical reasoning faculties, remain impervious to provable truths that run counter to their own very much socially supported on a local level beliefs. Facts aren't a big part of the equation because their framework for seeing the world is run through a sieve. So, much like when talking to the religious, they own a peculiar license when answering.

Maybe if your posts were less deceptive in construct what you say or believe would be more apparent. "You sound like that, "I did not have sex with that woman" guy. So demanding! It's been said that the louder they are, either they have something to hide or just like to intimidate." Was that more water cooler talk? Another misdirection in advance of stating your vote is none of my business? Well, when of your own volition you said that you have never gone into the box and pulled the R lever when the subject was three Republican presidential candidates you made it a fair inquiry. If you want to keep spinning your hula hoop instead of answering the actual question, that's your call, but please know that circling around to now saying that you are flat denying that you voted only for R candidates in those elections which has nothing to do with your original statement that prompted my original question isn't helpful to your cause.