The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim

[gatomontes99]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Bullshit. That's exactly what happened.

A hypothetical story was presented in which a hypothetical woman was asking if the bible would justify violence in defense of life, and she's already identified a public target (mayor) as a threat to life.

Of course that person should be scrutinized as a possible domestic terrorist. But you want to pretend she's being singled out and persecuted. Again, bullshit. Anybody talking about political violence should be scrutinized.

There's nothing controversial about it. 

It's  bad enough that you're up in arms about a hypothetical scenario, but if you take a closer look it's just you trying to normalize that which we once all believed was radical: open talk about committing political violence.

OMG! She asked a question! Oh sh1t! What do we do? It was a question? HANG THE TERRORIST!!!

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Yes, it too bad that 10% of citizens live in states that have been bamboozled into WASTING MONEY and VOTER SUPPRESSION.

Anyone INTELLIGENT knows that voter impersonation fraud is ineffective at stealing elections.

That's why Republicons concentrated on VOTER SUPPRESSION.

Why is it only democrats are against securing elections?

[Hodad]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

OMG! She asked a question! Oh sh1t! What do we do? It was a question? HANG THE TERRORIST!!!

Lol. The hypothetical woman in the hypothetical scenario essentially asked whether the bible would support assassinating the mayor for having a pro-choice position. 

You may think that's "just a question" and undeserving of scrutiny, but sensible people will disagree. 

I actually don't even think you believe you're making a reasonable argument. Of course people contemplating political violence should be investigated or watched. That's not really a question. 

[West]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

1. Joe Biden didn't make up the concept of Christina nationalists, lol. Or the alt right. 

2. Christian nationalists likely have many views that overlap with mainstream Christianity. That does not mean that they are the same. Many Christians are perfectly fine to let other people live as they believe. 

3. No evidence of any such activity. Please cite an example of any entity being audited by the IRS under Biden solely because of religious affiliation.

1. Joe Biden made it an issue in his most recent state of the union. If you support a speech more in line with soviet union politics then we won't agree.

2. Christian nationalism isn't even a thing. It's a smear to discourage Christians from voting and talking about issues that are political and voting against their conscience. It's vile. 

3.https://nypost.com/2021/07/21/the-irs-persecution-of-a-christian-nonprofit-should-terrify-all-of-us/

Just one of many examples

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, West said:

1. Joe Biden made it an issue in his most recent state of the union. If you support a speech more in line with soviet union politics then we won't agree.

2. Christian nationalism isn't even a thing. It's a smear to discourage Christians from voting and talking about issues that are political and voting against their conscience. It's vile. 

3.https://nypost.com/2021/07/21/the-irs-persecution-of-a-christian-nonprofit-should-terrify-all-of-us/

Just one of many examples

Noooope. 

Other politicians who promote the ideals of Christian nationalism include Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, who justified his participation in the Jan. 6 riots in religious terms and who promised that “above all” he would “bring God back” to Pennsylvania. There’s Michael Peroutka, the Republican nominee to be Maryland’s attorney general, who believes leaders should “take a biblical worldview and apply it to civil law and government,” and who has said laws supporting gay marriage are null because they violate God’s law. There’s Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”

 

And "Christians Engaged" wasn't rejected because they were Christian (see the many, many Christina organizations who have 501c3 status). They were rejected because the mission is perilously close to that of a taxable PAC. You would have to reasonably acknowledge that this is a grey area. But they were approved upon appeal. That's what the process is for. -- But if it's more fun to play the victim card, go for it!

[gatomontes99]

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. The hypothetical woman in the hypothetical scenario essentially asked whether the bible would support assassinating the mayor for having a pro-choice position. 

You may think that's "just a question" and undeserving of scrutiny, but sensible people will disagree. 

I actually don't even think you believe you're making a reasonable argument. Of course people contemplating political violence should be investigated or watched. That's not really a question. 

Well, Bradbury v Ohio tells us that speech can incite violence and still be protected. Unless she actually said she was going to use the Bible as justification to kill the mayor, then it falls into the realm of conspiracy to committ murder. But it still isn't terrorism.

[Hodad]

9 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Well, Bradbury v Ohio tells us that speech can incite violence and still be protected. Unless she actually said she was going to use the Bible as justification to kill the mayor, then it falls into the realm of conspiracy to committ murder. But it still isn't terrorism.

Why don't you go look up the definition of terrorism and get back to us.

[gatomontes99]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Why don't you go look up the definition of terrorism and get back to us.

Why don't you go read the SCOTUS case and get back to us.

[Hodad]

43 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why don't you go read the SCOTUS case and get back to us.

Sure, I'll give you the short list of why I won't do that. 

1. You're not citing a real case

2. Assuming you mean Brandenburg, it's not relevant. Even in the hypothetical, nobody was penalized for speech. Speech was simply used as a signal that the hypothetical individual merits scrutiny. (That should be common sense.)

Now your turn. I'll give you a hint. Terrorism often includes violence, but it is more than violence. What is the end goal that sets it apart?

Edited April 29, 2024 by Hodad

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why is it only democrats are against securing elections?

Why is it you believe elections are not secure against voter impersonation fraud, AND THAT is a worse threat than VOTER SUPPRESSION?

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why is it you believe elections are not secure against voter impersonation fraud, AND THAT is a worse threat than VOTER SUPPRESSION?

Well, the left used to think mail in ballots were a problem until they figured out how to exploit it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Great. Cheating wasn't an issue in the last election either. That's why you fools can't furnish even a shred of evidence, despite this being the most scrutinized election in history. That's why automated recounts and hand recounts and forensic analyses all came to the same conclusion. It's why Fox paid $800 million for lying about election fraud. It's why Trump was laughed out of court 60+ times. 

The worst part is that you don't even know enough to feel embarrassed by braying on about these baseless claims. You may not have my respect, but you do have my pity.

Don't pity me. I'm not saddled with Brandon.

As to Libbie cheating. All there is to say is "Hunter's laptop". But there's the "broken watermain", the mailin BS, and a number of other fraud issues.

But now...proper ID and no using covid to distance monitors from the counting.

BTW...seen the polls lately?

Edited April 30, 2024 by Nationalist

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Yes, it's too bad that 10% of citizens live in states that have been bamboozled into WASTING MONEY and VOTER SUPPRESSION.

Anyone INTELLIGENT knows that voter impersonation fraud is ineffective at stealing elections.

That's why Republicons concentrated on VOTER SUPPRESSION.

Wel robo-bot...since you're not concerned about voter fraud, none of the tightened measures should bother you.

[West]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Noooope. 

Other politicians who promote the ideals of Christian nationalism include Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, who justified his participation in the Jan. 6 riots in religious terms and who promised that “above all” he would “bring God back” to Pennsylvania. There’s Michael Peroutka, the Republican nominee to be Maryland’s attorney general, who believes leaders should “take a biblical worldview and apply it to civil law and government,” and who has said laws supporting gay marriage are null because they violate God’s law. There’s Rep. Lauren Boebert, who floated the idea of mandatory “biblical citizenship training,” who has said “the church is supposed to direct the government” and that she’s “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”

 

And "Christians Engaged" wasn't rejected because they were Christian (see the many, many Christina organizations who have 501c3 status). They were rejected because the mission is perilously close to that of a taxable PAC. You would have to reasonably acknowledge that this is a grey area. But they were approved upon appeal. That's what the process is for. -- But if it's more fun to play the victim card, go for it!

I think we are all tired of Democrats abusing the legal system to impose an agenda that they wouldn't otherwise be able to push if it came to a vote

[Hodad]

33 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Don't pity me. I'm not saddled with Brandon.

As to Libbie cheating. All there is to say is "Hunter's laptop". But there's the "broken watermain", the mailin BS, and a number of other fraud issues.

But now...proper ID and no using covid to distance monitors from the counting.

BTW...seen the polls lately?

Yes, pity, for someone so detached from reality that they are still clinging to debunked nonsense years later.

17 minutes ago, West said:

I think we are all tired of Democrats abusing the legal system to impose an agenda that they wouldn't otherwise be able to push if it came to a vote

Whaaaat? You mean like overturning Roe v. Wade? Lol

[West]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, pity, for someone so detached from reality that they are still clinging to debunked nonsense years later.

Whaaaat? You mean like overturning Roe v. Wade? Lol

Roe was unconstitutional. Prime example of Democrats abusing the legal system

[Nationalist]

Just now, Hodad said:

Yes, pity, for someone so detached from reality that they are still clinging to debunked nonsense years later.

Lol...poor Libbie.

The majority of Americans believe that election was fraudulent. 

History will note Brandon's term as a failure and fraudulent.

[Hodad]

53 minutes ago, West said:

Roe was unconstitutional. Prime example of Democrats abusing the legal system

No, it wasn't. This wonky court may have a different opinion, but it's silly to say that R v. W was unconstitutional.

And this ties back neatly to our conversation about Christian nationalism. Alito's opinion was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma rather than reasoned jurisprudence or a conception of individual rights.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...poor Libbie.

The majority of Americans believe that election was fraudulent. 

History will note Brandon's term as a failure and fraudulent.

Lol, no, a majority of Americans DO NOT believe the election was fraudulent. Did you pull that little nugget out of your own ass, or dig it out of Trump's leavings?

 

[User]

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, it wasn't. This wonky court may have a different opinion, but it's silly to say that R v. W was unconstitutional.

And this ties back neatly to our conversation about Christian nationalism. Alito's opinion was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma rather than reasoned jurisprudence or a conception of individual rights.

It is not silly to say it was unconstitutional, it is simply a statement of fact:

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Please tell us exactly which part you think was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma. It was also a 6 to 3 ruling, it was not just Alitos opinion. 

[West]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, it wasn't. This wonky court may have a different opinion, but it's silly to say that R v. W was unconstitutional.

And this ties back neatly to our conversation about Christian nationalism. Alito's opinion was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma rather than reasoned jurisprudence or a conception of individual rights.

It was unconstitutional. Even far left RBG said it would be overturned due to flawed logic. 

A prime example of Democrats legislating from the bench. Same with obergafell

Edited April 30, 2024 by West

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

It is not silly to say it was unconstitutional, it is simply a statement of fact:

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Please tell us exactly which part you think was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma. It was also a 6 to 3 ruling, it was not just Alitos opinion. 

No it's very silly to say it was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS determined that it was constitutional. That's why it existed. The Constitution hasn't changed in any relevant way.  We just have a new batch of activist zealots on the bench currently who hold a different view of the Constitution.  It can overrule prior decisions, but it doesn't erase that it was constitutional at that time. 

And yes, it's no coincidence that conservatives packed the court with Catholics who would be hostile to Roe not on logical grounds, but motivated by faith. I mean, my goodness he's talking about the quickening of the fetus but can't be bothered to mention the rights of citizen women to their own bodies? You won't find any mention of fetal rights in the Constitution, but somehow the government has  more interest there than in the privacy and physical sovereignty of women citizens? 

Of course, that was the goal all along. And Alito's incredibly flimsy argument--and his gloating--reveal the charade. There were many articles at the time but this one is specific to his religious Easter eggs

[Hodad]

34 minutes ago, West said:

It was unconstitutional. Even far left RBG said it would be overturned due to flawed logic. 

A prime example of Democrats legislating from the bench. Same with obergafell

Sorry, that's not how that works. The fact that is was a SCOTUS decision defines Roe as constitutional. For as long as it stood, it was constitutional. The Constitution didn't change its mind. 

Edited April 30, 2024 by Hodad

[West]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sorry, that's not how that works. The fact that is was a SCOTUS decision defines Roe as constitutional. For as long as it stood, it was constitutional. The Constitution didn't change its mind. 

Where in the constitution do you have a right to murder a child in the womb? 

[Hodad]

10 minutes ago, West said:

Where in the constitution do you have a right to murder a child in the womb? 

The construction is a charter of negative rights. Nowhere does it say what you can do, Rather it is focused on what the state cannot do to you. It says you have rights to certain things that are inviolable by the state. But were in the Constitution does a non-citizen fetus have the right to the body, blood and tissue of a female citizen? 

It's great if a woman chooses to give of herself to grow a child. I'm certainly grateful to my mother. But it's a gift, not an obligation, and when a woman chooses not to give of herself then respect that decision. Don't enslave her, violate her privacy and sovereignty on behalf of a non-person, non-citizen. Don't elevate the possibility of a person above the interests of an actual person. That's just nuts. There's no logical way to arrive at that position. It's purely on faith. 

[User]

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No it's very silly to say it was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS determined that it was constitutional. That's why it existed. The Constitution hasn't changed in any relevant way.  We just have a new batch of activist zealots on the bench currently who hold a different view of the Constitution.  It can overrule prior decisions, but it doesn't erase that it was constitutional at that time. 

And yes, it's no coincidence that conservatives packed the court with Catholics who would be hostile to Roe not on logical grounds, but motivated by faith. I mean, my goodness he's talking about the quickening of the fetus but can't be bothered to mention the rights of citizen women to their own bodies? You won't find any mention of fetal rights in the Constitution, but somehow the government has  more interest there than in the privacy and physical sovereignty of women citizens? 

Of course, that was the goal all along. And Alito's incredibly flimsy argument--and his gloating--reveal the charade. There were many articles at the time but this one is specific to his religious Easter eggs

Seeing that they are the foremost authority on what is or is not constitutional, their edicts are the determination. Now, you can certainly disagree and think they got it wrong, but the reality is that it is, in fact, unconstitutional.

It's funny that you argue that the Constitution has not changed. That was their point. Roe v. Wade was the change; it never existed when the Constitution was written. 

So... let's do the math: the Constitution without Roe V Wade has existed longer than with it.