All Activity

You mean like open borders, the second amendment and free speech? All things the left has tried to change without amending the constitution before getting violent when we did not accept. You guys even tried to kill SCOTUS because they didn't rule your way on abortion. Before you try to get all high and mighty, maybe actually try being reasonable and respectable first.

Oh, please! 🙄 You guys have been predicting the end of the world for decades now. Just own it.

A good decision delayed is still the right thing to do for all that. Now we all know obsessively frugal people among our number who hate spending money, even government money. I often think it’s a great pity they are never called upon to oversee projects like this. If a particular staircase is going to help blow a, say, 50 million budget, maybe we don’t need to restore it?

If Republicans don’t like something in the constitution they should campaign to amend it. That’s the normal way to do things. Further eroding the restrictions on campaign finance is a very bad idea for ordinary people of any political stripe. It paves the way to oligarchy. The megarich will become even more influential than they already are. Political arguments should be won on their merits, not on the size of the wallets supporting them.

Laws are below SCOTUS decisions. They do not carry the weight of laws and they do not regulate individuals. You keep equating rulings to laws and that just is not the case. If a law is passed and signed, it does go into effect, even if SCOTUS rules against a similar law or EO. Remember Biden's multiple EOs giving away money to buy votes? He disguised it as a loan forgiveness. SCOTUS said no, he just changed a few words and did it again. Trump could do the exact same thing. But Kavanaugh set forth a better path. Laws are being crafted today. They will show up soon.

[Another facepalm image, because holy shit...] Library of Congress Each branch of government produces a different type of law. Case law is the body of law developed from judicial opinions or decisions over time (whereas statutory law comes from legislative bodies and administrative law comes from executive bodies). SCOTUS decisions absolutely have the force of law--law that is binding on the executive and legislative branches. Has been since Marbury. You could argue that they don't create "new" law, since they are interpreting existing laws, but those interpretations in a majority opinion do define what is legal and what is illegal. No, Kavanaugh's opinion is not important. Nor does he lay out a path to comply. He lays out a hypothetical of how his thinking could be changed. A proposition which 5 other justices just smacked down in no uncertain terms. That's not a path forward. Nor should it be.

Why do you support Nazis?

I am not defending something I did not say and you cannot quote. Wow. Ok. Do you need lessons on reading for comprehension? Nope. SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of a law (or in this case an EO). Their interpretation of why it is or is not Constitutional colors how laws are created going forward, but it does not create a new law. It creates precedence for lower courts to interpret laws going forward. The ruling is not law. This is why Kavanaugh's concurring opinion is important. He laid out a path to comply with the ruling. I am sure it will be challenged. But it is a path that the court would approve. We can modify 8 USC § 1401 and comply with this ruling.

Yes, you did. It's literally the opening premise of this thread: "Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional." Five supreme court justices just signed a majority opinion that very clearly states that the constitution means exactly what it says. Kavanaugh mused that maybe if they passed legislation to XYZ. (But nope, see majority opinion.) You then claimed that Kavanaugh's musings made the end of birthright citizenship constitutional. Because you don't know what a majority opinion is--or didn't at the time. It's an incorrect statement. And yes, a majority opinion does have the weight of law. Not just the decision of the case, but the opinion itself. That interpretation of becomes the binding interpretation that is then used by every other court and state and federal governments must follow. Again, this is just an absurd question to begin with. No legal thinker anywhere is unclear about what the constitution says or what it means. But there are some who don't like it and are twisting themselves into pretzels looking for any possible way to misinterpret plain language and overturn 160 years of common understanding.

Please quote where I said "it's a crisis". You think you can win debates by lying about what the other side says? I'll quote myself. "It's a serious but not a Doomsday scenario".

So you're saying people haven't been mating and procreating for for as long as we have existed? Or did you simply not get the point, as usual?

Sober up!

No. You believe it all and don't understand the difference. WTF are you talking about? Every day. It's called salt. And I need a big helping every time I read one of your posts. Mirror much? SO WHICH IS IT? You don't watch it at all but you know what Rosemary Barton said 'just this morning'!? Are you really that self-unaware? Or you watch CBC on FB and just parrot someone else's opinion about it? We're all laughing at you.

Well I won't hold my breath waiting for things to get cheaper, but if AI does eliminate too many jobs, that will necessitate a guaranteed income.

Like I said, they're oblivious

I think we should start Soylent Green Farming. Would not need any fertilizer, and it would help with climate change. And as an added bonus it would take care of diseases like Maple MAGA retardation. Not too mention Soylent Green wafers stay crunchy even in milk. Win, win. Far too many people on this rock.

What makes sense? That all y'all been smoking way too much catnip? 😄

It's literally the definition of an ad hominem. I'll add your lack of understanding of this term to the pile along with Dunning Kruger, cognitive dissidence and all of the other terms you misuse on a regular basis

Our governing system was absolutely constituted on the need for a prime minister. It was modeled after the british system which absolutely was designed based on the concept of a prime minister and we've had a prime minister since the very first second there was a Canadian government. And the system is based on the idea of a confrontational system. A governing party, an opposition party, Each with a leader. Why is it i'm constantly having to explain the basics of our parliamentary system to you?

Him: What you said is wrong and obviously stupid You : WAAAAHHH THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!! Well you may not have brains, but at least you've got consistency

That's hilarious - i bet they don't even see it. Everyone will be laughing at them and they'll be like 'waaaaaaaahhhttt?'

YOUR FANTASIES mean NOTHING. LMAO

It's literally what he said, how would that make me suspicious?? Starting to sound like you've been into the NyQuil again a little bit early. I suppose it is a day off tomorrow It really doesn't. It sounds like somebody childishly fabricating something in order to deflect from the wrongdoings of a current incumbent that they approve of. And that's a common theme with the left, if they can't make their fail leader look good then they'll try to make another leader look bad so that there's looks good by comparison. The pattern is that you're dishonest piece of crap who can't keep his story straight for 5 minutes. And yes I definitely see it But the fact also remains that many of them had were would have anyway converted away from social housing units. That's one of the reasons the Conservatives moved away from that model and spent the money on the Housing First initiative, which proved very successful and was vastly superior to the subsidized housing. In fact given the economics of the time it's quite fair to say that the majority and possibly all of those units would have been lost regardless. So even the statement that harper's policy lost 800,000 units is a complete and utter fabrication. Not to mention the fact He spent the money subsidizing people instead of properties and that worked out better What are you even talking about. The people before him addressed homelessness in one way which was fine and harper came at it from a different direction that proved more successful. Neither party in that did anything wrong No it's not. Carney has choices, he can do a good job or you can do a bad job. He only takes heat if he does a bad job And he's doing a bad job. I see we've got new tariffs on us from china now for our agriculture which I predicted. But you keep insisting daily that he's wonderful and doing an amazing job and we're so lucky and what a great guy etc etc This isn't some sort of general criticism, you can point to specific things and say this is wrong. What he's doing with bailing out the developers is wrong. It has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that it's corruption and it's wrong And yet once again you're here defending corruption on claiming how it's not Carney's fault for doing the corruption it's everybody else in history fault leading up to this that's made him corrupt or something What he's doing is wrong. You should call evil out for being evil when you see it. Instead, you support it.

No kid we all hear them. And at least I don't have to go around lying about what I said every 5 minutes like you do This is why nobody respects you Oh look who's jumping into a threat again with absolutely nothing to add trying desperately to make Himself feel better about his own failings by attacking his betters. What a shocker