I have always thought precedent, when it comes to interpreting laws, should have an expiration date. If congress doesn’t pass a law to support the precedent, then it is no longer valid after that date. For constitutional interpretations, once past the expiration, a lower court can’t use it as justification anymore.
Honestly, I don’t think it is the men saying you can’t be topless. It’s other women. I am pretty sure that even though I would get used to boobs everywhere, I would still be in a generally better mood. Boobs just make most guys happy. I don’t know if it would make women who are attracted to women happy too, but maybe.
Wonder if after a few transgressions he can declare them a terrorist organization.
" His answer is that the nation is fundamentally not based on the idea of equality or freedom or any other ideal. Nor is it accessible to people of all races and religions. "
Well he isn’t wrong about that. Fundamentally it was a nation for “new money” people to own.
This is probably just another distraction. I don’t think the executive brach has the power to declare someone mentally ill for the purposes of existing gun legislation. They would need a new law through congress, and they won’t get enough votes for that.
I don’t think blackmail is needed. These are ambitious people who won’t let anything get in the way of thier success. To them, ignoring genocide is just a way to curry favor. (That can’t be the right curry, can it?)
I don’t think the “law” they passed said anything about the permission slip. It was all about aressting them for not being present. I could be wrong of course.
Then trump has won you. He needs people like you to keep his enemies fractured and disorganized. Great job helping him out.
Exactly. And if in thier opinion, not voting, or 3rd party voting is the best choice, we shouldn’t claim they supported someone who clearly goes against thier beliefs simply because the system was setup to give them no good choices.
Fair point on the word mistake.
But the rest of my point stands. No matter who you vote for you are supporting something evil. And you are saying that not voting is supporting something evil. So a person is just evil for existing. That makes all citizen who are allowed to vote evil. And if that is what you saying, then who cares. Everyone is evil no matter what they do.
I hear you, but no. If, and that’s a big if, the local state courts didn’t put an immediate stop to any of the illegal things you suggest they can do, then the federal would.
And you are conflating multiple issues. They can have the police follow her, as far as I know that isn’t illegal. So she can easily say that she is not a flight risk. But, she will also have broken no laws by leaving the capital building. So if they arrest her, the local courts will 99% just dismiss it and let here go.
She isn’t joe nobody. She has the weight of the democratic party behind her. That’s a lot of lawyers, and a lot of money.
They are just posturing on the part about not being allowed to leave without signing the note.
I know the english language is hard and actually pretty crappy. Saying a person who refused to support evil in all forms voted for evil by not voting is a logical fallacy.
It’s also basically victum shaming.
Not sure which side you are on, but the responses so far have been full of mental gymnastics for sure.
So you are saying that by not voting, you voted for everyone. That’s a new to me take. Sounds like you are also saying that there is no way to not vote for at least someone. And if so, then there should be no blame for someone who refuses to participate in a corrupt system.
What if all the cadadites were fascists. Plenty people here would say anyone supporting a fascist is a fascist, so if you can’t not vote for anyone, then you are a fascist for existing.
See, I don’t think it would be physically enforced. They can only arrest her or not. They can’t restrict her to a location by force. The cops know that. And nothing in the “rule” says leaving without signing the slip is an arrestable offense. Even if they did arrest here, she could get out on bail very fast.
I don’t agree with any of the BS the GOP is trying to do there. But I feel like her staying is more of a stunt then actually being physically held against her will.
I am an equal opportunity polotician hater… Has she tried just leaving? Nothing I have read has said anyone has actually stopped her. I think both sides are showboating for thier base. But that is what we get when we choose our representatives via popularity contest.
Thats not how words work
I think Trump cares more about the Epstein files than his supporters do. He is actually the one making a big deall out of it.
I just don’t get why.
For the orders part, I believe there is a JAG hotline to call and get a “ruling” or advice. That would in theory take the legal ramifications of the decision off the guardsman. But I don’t know how well that actually works in practice. It is unlikely to be a smooth as it sounds since the person on the phone doesn’t want to put their skin on the line either.