Yes I do. If you can’t find it you’re truly a moron. If you can’t find a post that you responded to in this thread, just announce, “DANC is a moron. He’s dumber than a bag of hammers. He’s also a serial liar.” Then I’ll link it for you.
Yes I do. If you can’t find it you’re truly a moron. If you can’t find a post that you responded to in this thread, just announce, “DANC is a moron. He’s dumber than a bag of hammers. He’s also a serial liar.” Then I’ll link it for you.
The question in the post YOU responded to but are too stupid to find is::
Are you seriously equating that with rioting, assaulting police and criminal trespass?
"Are you seriously equating that with rioting, assaulting police and criminal trespass?"The question in the post YOU responded to but are too stupid to find is::
Answer that, chickenshit. “That” is pulling a fire alarm.
To be clear, you actually equate those felonies with pulling a fire alarm?"Are you seriously equating that with rioting, assaulting police and criminal trespass?"
Yes, I do. They are all criminal charges.
That clear enough for you?
It's critically important for the cultists to draw false equivalencies for everything. Hillary only became deathly ill after Trump's health became a concern. Biden only became a pedophile after Trump grabbed all those pussies. That's SOP for them. As soon as their hero displays a flaw, they expand that flaw and deflect it onto someone else.To be clear, you actually equate those felonies with pulling a fire alarm?
I said they were all crimes. I didn't stutter.To be clear, you actually equate those felonies with pulling a fire alarm?
I'm sorry you don't believe your own eyes when Biden sniffs and fondles young girls and women.It's critically important for the cultists to draw false equivalencies for everything. Hillary only became deathly ill after Trump's health became a concern. Biden only became a pedophile after Trump grabbed all those pussies. That's SOP for them. As soon as their hero displays a flaw, they expand that flaw and deflect it onto someone else.
It's literally a textbook example of how cultists behave.
Before the storming starts, please give the Leviathan enough lead time to put their undercover teams together.Great, liberals can feel free to storm the court Monday and prevent the immunity decision from being handed down. It appears Roberts sees nothing wrong with that.
2 days, 2 blows agains the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
Gotta study this one.
“The subjectively right result” versus "separation of powers."@Marvin the Martian
The point you've tried to make several times in this thread is a good one, and one that lawyers defensively don't give enough credence to. For all our training, and our insistence that the law is the law, and, that we only, how did Roberts put it? Call balls and strikes? For all that, it's quite common that we instinctively understand which result is, in our minds, right, and we find a way to justify it.
Consider strict liability. That's an indelible part of American tort law now, but it was basically invented out of whole cloth by the California courts when presented with a case that demanded a certain outcome, because it was the only just one. So they invented a way to arrive at that outcome.
Obviously all of us who have already attended law school spent a lot of time learning about Chevron. It struck me immediately as one of those cases: the court found a way to get to the result it desired. Of course, try as I might, I couldn't find a reason to disagree with them. As much as I disliked the theory of Chevron, the alternatives all didn't work. So I'll be quite fascinated now to see how the law develops, once it's been put out of its misery.
But there's no question that the court constantly shifts its theory back and forth to accommodate the results it wants to see. I think it was Scalia who once admitted in an interview that he wasn't actually that good of an originalist, and was perfectly willing to throw originalism out the window when he didn't like where it took him. Quite a bit of honesty on his part in those words.
I asked if they were equivalent crimes. If you weren’t a bad faith poster you could answer this easy question.I said they were all crimes. I didn't stutter.
'Bout damn timeAnd so it begins
Biden’s De Facto EV Mandate At Risk after Supreme Court ‘Chevron’ Ruling | OilPrice.com
The tailpipe emissions limits, which the EPA finalized just a few weeks ago, look especially vulnerable in light of the Supreme Court rulingoilprice.com
You think they're the same, since the discussion is around disrupting government business.I asked if they were equivalent crimes. If you weren’t a bad faith poster you could answer this easy question.
Stop trying to slide out of this like a snake in the grass. You won’t answer the question because you know they aren’t equivalent and you’re such a bad faith poster you won’t acknowledge it.You think they're the same, since the discussion is around disrupting government business.
Both were intended to disrupt and obstruct Congressional proceedings, no? On what level are they not equivalent, because one took more people than the other? Because one was perpetrated by a member of Congress, making it much worse? Are you arguing just based on their effectiveness, because the intent was the same…The question in the post YOU responded to but are too stupid to find is::
Answer that, chickenshit. “That” is pulling a fire alarm.
Are you genuinely trying to be serious right now? Please say no.Both were intended to disrupt and obstruct Congressional proceedings, no? On what level are they not equivalent, because one took more people than the other? Because one was perpetrated by a member of Congress, making it much worse? Are you arguing just based on their effectiveness, because the intent was the same…
Do you think assault on police officers, destruction of property and criminal trespass are equivalently crimes to pulling a fire alarm? That was the question DANC wouldn't answer. Don't try to be cute. Just answer that question.Both were intended to disrupt and obstruct Congressional proceedings, no? On what level are they not equivalent, because one took more people than the other? Because one was perpetrated by a member of Congress, making it much worse? Are you arguing just based on their effectiveness, because the intent was the same…
It appears that regardless, you’re not going to be serious with a response, so you could just move along.🙂Are you genuinely trying to be serious right now? Please say no.
How could anyone be serious in response to a post like that?It appears that regardless, you’re not going to be serious with a response, so you could just move along.🙂
Those things are all very different than disrupting governmental functions. Marvin’s comment was to storm the court to prevent the decision being handed down. That can be done without assaulting officers, destroying property, no? So that leaves trespassing, which I would equate to pulling a fire alarm, causing the evacuation of the building so as to prevent Congressional proceedings. 😉Do you think assault on police officers, destruction of property and criminal trespass are equivalently crimes to pulling a fire alarm? That was the question DANC wouldn't answer. Don't try to be cute. Just answer that question.
Easily, unless one is disingenuous or unwilling to look at things objectively, or at least recognize a different POV. So, not possible for you.🙂How could anyone be serious in response to a post like that?
I asked a specific question that DANC wouldn't answer. You chimed in and also refused to answer the specific question. Why is this a hard question to answer? I just don't get it. Also, trespassing is not the same as pulling a fire alarm. What DANC is really trying to equate is obstruction charges with pulling a fire alarm and ignoring the rest. That's what he does. Is that what you're going to do? My question is straightforward, please answer. Do you think assault on police officers, destruction of property and criminal trespass are equivalent crimes to pulling a fire alarm? Yes or no will do.Those things are all very different than disrupting governmental functions. Marvin’s comment was to storm the court to prevent the decision being handed down. That can be done without assaulting officers, destroying property, no? So that leaves trespassing, which I would equate to pulling a fire alarm, causing the evacuation of the building so as to prevent Congressional proceedings. 😉
It goes back to what I said about cultists the other day. What you do, expand and deflect onto others.I asked a specific question that DANC wouldn't answer. You chimed in and also refused to answer the specific question. Why is this a hard question to answer? I just don't get it. Also, trespassing is not the same as pulling a fire alarm. What DANC is really trying to equate is obstruction charges with pulling a fire alarm and ignoring the rest. That's what he does. Is that what you're going to do? My question is straightforward, please answer. Do you think assault on police officers, destruction of property and criminal trespass are equivalent crimes to pulling a fire alarm? Yes or no will do.
PS. I asked that specific question because the most common charges for the J6 Rioters were for those crimes.
I just don't get why so many want to bypass facts and deal with hilariously false equivalencies. If you can't defend behavior honestly, maybe don't defend that behavior at all.It goes back to what I said about cultists the other day. What you do, expand and deflect onto others.
There are no shades of grey in a cult. Only black and white.I just don't get why so many want to bypass facts and deal with hilariously false equivalencies. If you can't defend behavior honestly, maybe don't defend that behavior at all.
Please do this. Congressional Republicans already look like fools, but we need as much help as possible to ensure a Democratic landslide in Congress to help counter a Trump presidency.So the MAGApublicans are pushing to actually be the law and order party, arrest Garland for contempt of congress, but the toot tootublicans are blocking it?
House Could Vote On Arresting Merrick Garland This Week Under Rarely Used ‘Inherent Contempt’ Mechanism
The House voted earlier this month to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.www.forbes.com
Restoring the authority of the state’s and restoring the legislative process is the key to restoring the Republic.So I'll start by chiming in on this one.
Judicial decisions like this are the primary reason I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 -- despite all the enmity I had (and still have) for him. I'm not going to be voting for him again. But, I do have to say: I do not at all regret voting for him previously. And it always puzzled me that so many conservatives couldn't get over that hump to do it. This is important, important stuff.
I hope to see the court continue forward in this fashion. IMO, there's a lot to fix to get our body of law back in sync with the ratified Constitutional text...and to move away from Thurgood Marshall's famous judicial philosophy of "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."
I've screamed for rule of law for... forever.. He is in contempt of congress. Put him, or any pub, in the cell in the basement. I don't give 2 shit's about temporary political loss, I want rule of law. For everyone. We (not your side) are drilling a hole in the swamp pool. gurggle gurggle gurggle.Please do this. Congressional Republicans already look like fools, but we need as much help as possible to ensure a Democratic landslide in Congress to help counter a Trump presidency.
But that’s not what Marv’s post, which is where I posted the fire alarm question & just laid out for you AGAIN, suggested. Storming the court does not necessitate anything but trespassing. Had it said storming the court, assaulting policeman,& destroying the property, that would be another story. What happens when basketball fans storm the court? I took his words as they were, you are applying your own interpreted meaning to them. If Marv meant all of those things, he didn’t articulate it in enough detail. You’re a narcissistic knucklehead though, so I’ll quit wasting my time on someone that thinks his opinion is the only one that matters in spite of your pontificating to the contrary.I asked a specific question that DANC wouldn't answer. You chimed in and also refused to answer the specific question. Why is this a hard question to answer? I just don't get it. Also, trespassing is not the same as pulling a fire alarm. What DANC is really trying to equate is obstruction charges with pulling a fire alarm and ignoring the rest. That's what he does. Is that what you're going to do? My question is straightforward, please answer. Do you think assault on police officers, destruction of property and criminal trespass are equivalent crimes to pulling a fire alarm? Yes or no will do.
PS. I asked that specific question because the most common charges for the J6 Rioters were for those crimes.
I didn’t defend anything, I just posted a whattabout, which is commonplace on this forum from folks on your team of progressives.I just don't get why so many want to bypass facts and deal with hilariously false equivalencies. If you can't defend behavior honestly, maybe don't defend that behavior at all.
Did you know the Trump administration officials ignored House subpoenas and were subsequently found in contempt by the House? Did you know they weren’t prosecuted? What do you do with these inconvenient facts?So the MAGApublicans are pushing to actually be the law and order party, arrest Garland for contempt of congress, but the toot tootublicans are blocking it?
House Could Vote On Arresting Merrick Garland This Week Under Rarely Used ‘Inherent Contempt’ Mechanism
The House voted earlier this month to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute him.www.forbes.com
Huge difference. Read the transcripts of Republicans in the chamber on Jan 6, they were scared to death. Let alone the Democrats. Pulling a fire alarm should be treated seriously, serious threats of violence are far worse. If nothing else it adds intimidation to everything.What about pulling a fire alarm?
Strict liability goes back to the 1800s in Britain. Arose to keep factory workers safe. Vicarious liability etc.@Marvin the Martian
The point you've tried to make several times in this thread is a good one, and one that lawyers defensively don't give enough credence to. For all our training, and our insistence that the law is the law, and, that we only, how did Roberts put it? Call balls and strikes? For all that, it's quite common that we instinctively understand which result is, in our minds, right, and we find a way to justify it.
Consider strict liability. That's an indelible part of American tort law now, but it was basically invented out of whole cloth by the California courts when presented with a case that demanded a certain outcome, because it was the only just one. So they invented a way to arrive at that outcome.
Obviously all of us who have already attended law school spent a lot of time learning about Chevron. It struck me immediately as one of those cases: the court found a way to get to the result it desired. Of course, try as I might, I couldn't find a reason to disagree with them. As much as I disliked the theory of Chevron, the alternatives all didn't work. So I'll be quite fascinated now to see how the law develops, once it's been put out of its misery.
But there's no question that the court constantly shifts its theory back and forth to accommodate the results it wants to see. I think it was Scalia who once admitted in an interview that he wasn't actually that good of an originalist, and was perfectly willing to throw originalism out the window when he didn't like where it took him. Quite a bit of honesty on his part in those words.
Marv was clearly implying storming the court in a manner similar to the J6 rioters, annd we know they assaulted police officers, destroyed and damaged property and committed criminal trespass. So my specific question fit into the thread where I asked it. It’s a simple question. It has a yes or no answer, though feel free to expand on it. Please answer the question because I do want to know what you think. Do something that DANC rarely does respond to what is actually in the post rather than twisting it into an unasked question and answering that.But that’s not what Marv’s post, which is where I posted the fire alarm question & just laid out for you AGAIN, suggested. Storming the court does not necessitate anything but trespassing. Had it said storming the court, assaulting policeman,& destroying the property, that would be another story. What happens when basketball fans storm the court? I took his words as they were, you are applying your own interpreted meaning to them. If Marv meant all of those things, he didn’t articulate it in enough detail. You’re a narcissistic knucklehead though, so I’ll quit wasting my time on someone that thinks his opinion is the only one that matters in spite of your pontificating to the contrary.
Calling me something I’m not is just dumb and a harmless insult.I didn’t defend anything, I just posted a whattabout, which is commonplace on this forum from folks on your team of progressives.
Zeke?