Hell, they've already given them unrestrained public carry and state support for religious schools.
I'm not fully decided yet, but my gut reaction is that Roberts actually got it right on the school thing.
So Jeffrey Clark gets his home searched and he's not charged with anything while Sussman lies to the FBI when the FBI KNOWS he's lying and his house isn't searched.
And you don't see a double standard - at a minimum - with that?
Wasn't Sussman prosecuted by John Durham, who was appointed by William Barr, who was appointed attorney general by Trump?
Maybe Durham didn't need to search Sussman's house, because he already had all the relevant evidence. I don't know. I do know you can't just willy-nilly search someone's home. You need to have this thing called a "warrant" which requires this other thing called "probable cause." Maybe Durham didn't have probable cause that Sussman's home would contain any evidence of a crime.
So, Clark isn't being charged with anything, but a warrant is issued to search his house?
Yeah, that doesn't sound odd at all.
How does Durham know there is no need to search Sussman's house without doing it?
Durham wasn't on a witch hunt. Garland is.
You do understand that a search as part of an ongoing investigation will often come before a crime is charged, right?
The Maine situation is unique. What I don't know is how the ruling could be applied in less singular situations. Slippery slope and all that.
Speculation was that there were concerns about destruction of evidence that might be prompted by today's hearing.
I'll have a better idea after reading the whole thing, but the worry of a slippery slope is the basis behind the dissents. Roberts gave the concern lip service in his opinion, but that's exactly the kind of limiting remark that gets dismissed as dicta by later jurists.
-Trump had absolutely nothing to do with replacing Supreme Court Justices as well as lower court justices. Blame McConnell for this horrible precedence he started.
-Still unsure why people still speak out against Obamacare. It's a freakin' healthcare plan that helps out people not qualified for Medicaid or people that can't get healthcare elsewhere. A voluntary plan that only affects less than 5% of the US population.
-"kill every environmental restriction under Obama? That's a good thing?
-Trumps tax cuts sure didn't help me. Seemed to really help the wealthy.
There is a reason scholars already have Trump ranked at the bottom for our nations presidents.
He got transparency in billing done. That's a big deal. It's stupid to focus solely on coverage. More attention should go to healthcare costs
Because all Democrats know is handing out free cheese. That's it - it's all they've got.
Competition? Nah.
Transparency? Why? Insurance picks up the tab.
Free cheese - you bet! Let's subsidize insurance so the simpletons think they're getting it for free and then raise their taxes - they won't mind if they're getting 'free' healthcare.
The Democrat playbook is a 1 paragraph - one sentence, really - statement. Throw money at any problem. Oh, and tax the rich more. End of statement.
I'm not sure you will understand what effective tax rates are, but take a look at the top 400 in this country. Then take a look at the top 1 percent versus the top 10 percent. Of course they pay more in terms of total dollars but as a percentage they are doing fine. And before you start the free cheese rhetoric I'm all for everyone paying something.
Serious question. What do you do for a living?
Ummmm, I'm not opining that Trump was a good president (did not vote for him and never will). I'm stating the reasons that Republicans liked him. As I said above, you can absolutely have the opinion that what Trump did was wrong (and I'd agree with you on a lot of those points), but he ran on promising to repeal the ACA, build the wall, update the tax code, etc. He failed at repealing / replacing the ACA, but "delivered" on several other campaign promises. You can hate the man and believe that his actions have made this country worse off than before, but still recognize the fact that he did what he said he was going to do.
On your first sentence, I disagree. McConnel was the reason that the vacancy remained open, yes (and that was absolutely wrong of McConnel and he will blatantly admit it now if you asked him), but part of Trump's platform was that he would nominate a conservative. There is a small percentage of people in this country that can't stand Trump but voted for him for the sole purpose of keeping the supreme court conservative (just as there are many people that loathe Hillary Clinton but pulled the lever for her in 2016 to attempt to get Garland in).
The problem is, half the country is not paying federal taxes. So start there.
I'm not sure you understand the top 400 in this country own businesses that employ those who don't have to pay federal taxes.
You can take every cent the top 400 have in this country and it wouldn't pay our bills very long and you'd have massive unemployment.
Taxing the rich is just a mantra without any thought to what the actual effect would be.
I'm retired and one of the suckers still paying federal taxes. What do you do for a living?
Hey, danc. We found out yesterday your boy Matt Gaetz asked Trump for a pardon. You've defended him in the past as a victim of gossip and rumors, but asking for a pardon would suggest he's done some bad things, don't you think? And the pardon request was kind of broad - - "from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things." Do you think the pardon request relates to serious crimes or "minor" affairs?
No, asking for a pardon can mean immunity from the witch hunt that is currently going on. That's why the wording was so broad.
I've never defended Gaetz on anything. I just don't accept Democrat gossip as fact, which is what you do.
If he's guilty of anything, charge him.
Witch hunt? Lol.
And he asked for the pardon in December 2020, obviously before Jan 6 and before the "witch hunt" began.
Methinks Matt has much to worry about.
Methinks Matt knows he's on the Democrat hit list.
If there's a case against him, charge him.
It's not like the FBI has a laptop with incriminating evidence and is sitting on it.
Adam Clayton Powell and Julian Bond called. Said there is nothing new under the sun.
Since NY has been prevented from ignoring the Second Amendment, and states will apparently soon handle abortion law, perhaps it’s time to ask again what rights were reserved to the states or the people? Could the Constitution guide us out of this morass of state election law miasma? Should the states handle this? Corngress? What did the Union win other than an end to slavery?
Ponder on.
Since NY has been prevented from ignoring the Second Amendment, and states will apparently soon handle abortion law, perhaps it’s time to ask again what rights were reserved to the states or the people? Could the Constitution guide us out of this morass of state election law miasma? Should the states handle this? Corngress? What did the Union win other than an end to slavery?
Ponder on.
Federal investigations take time, danc. Andrew Gillum was indicted the other day for stuff he was doing four years ago. And sex trafficking, one of the crimes that the federal grand jury investigating Gaetz is considering, does not make for a quick prosecution.
You need to bone up on your crim pro.
P.S. Stop the Steal! You always misappropriate my words (e.g. "methinks"). Use your own.
Now, why wouldn't they be required to pay federal income taxes? Is it b/c their income falls below the line to actually be in a position to have to pay federal income taxes?
Chickens and eggs, amirite?
Always make me laugh when people say the poor don't pay income tax. Uhhhhhh, probably because they live in poverty.
What's "crim pro"?
Yeah, they take time. So maybe you shouldn't get your panties in a wad like you did for the Russian Collusion Hoax. You were duped then, too.
I thought you said everyone should pay federal tax. Was that not you?
EDIT: Sorry, that was BCCHoosier. You should take it up with him.
C'mon, danc. How many times does this have to be explained to you? Mueller wasn't looking for "collusion" as it's not a legal term (except in the limited context of antitrust law). He did, though, find numerous links between the Trump campaign and Russia. ("The investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer.") So, by the way, did the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in a report addressing Russian interference in the 2016 election released in August 2020.
Take a break from watching "2,000 Mules" again and again. Read the Mueller Report and/or the Senate report I mentioned. You'll learn something and you won't keep foolishly referencing Russian "collusion."
Criminal procedure.
LOL, you must have more money than sense is your life is better (we all know you're lying) 5 dollars a gallon is better for you than 2.50?? sure, Joe Biden has never cared for anyone but himself and his family, prove me wrong. What's he ever done that was good for the country? he's a lifer, tax payer sucking politician. It's unreal that you would even say your life is better unless you're just so filled with hate for Trump that you'd rather see the country burn than benefit under Trump, in that case, I really pity you and your family. holy cow.
Things are definitely heating up in Georgia. Target letters from the Fulton County DA, who is clearly not messing around, have been sent to a number of recipients. And, as target letters "usually aim to flip their recipients," Willis almost certainly has an eye on bigger fish.
lawandcrime.com
Fulton County DA Reportedly Sent 'Target' Letters to Prominent Georgia Republicans in Donald Trump Probe. Here's What That Means.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) reportedly sent out "target" letters to prominent Donald Trump allies in Georgia, saying they could be indicted.
lawandcrime.com
And to do that, they will have to use some obscure interpretation of some insane ruling from 90 yrs ago, while spending $Millions + of the states greenbacks.
People can't stand it when someone wins while actually using the laws on the books. Especially if that person sent a mean tweet and may be a flamboyant prick.
You're claiming "fake electors" was legal at some point in history? What exactly did Trump do legally that allowed him to win, that people can't stand? And btw, it is the GOP in AZ that is trying to implement an 1800 era law regarding abortion that was basically invalidated by Roe in 1973...
It's a little ludicrous to accuse GA of relying on some obscure ruling (whatever that means) when the folks who represent your political philosophy are declaring that a modern state of 7.18 million should be governed by rulings from when that same state was a wild west era territory...
What type of catalog system do you use to have your reference articles at finger tip ready, at any time of the day, on any topic that may come up? Is it some type of AI that searches instantaneously over multiple servers anywhere in the world. Was this developed and funded by the US government? Maybe during the years of 2008-2016? Have you ever went by the name HAL? Can you open the pod bay doors for us?
