tvc184

I listened to part of the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court. This was from the opening statement (I think) by the NRA. Taking Petitioner's allegations as true, that is what Respondent did here. In the Lloyd's meeting, she explicitly threatened to bring an enforcement action against Lloyd's unless Lloyd's "ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA." The claim is that Maria Vullo from the NY Department of Financial Services, with regulatory authority over insurance, companies and others, coerced the insurance companies to cut ties with insuring the NRA and others because Vullo didn’t like the NRA’s political speech. NY’s stance is that telling or suggesting that insurance companies cut their affiliations with those groups for purposes of “political speech”, is not against the First Amendment and free speech. Then to do so at the threat of possible regulatory actions against the insurance companies. Things that make you go hmmmm….. So a guy is standing on the sidewalk stating his political belief about some issue. A cop comes along and tells him, if you don’t stop giving your opinion, I’m going to find a reason to put you in jail. Now the officer has not stated a specific crime that you might have committed but he’s going to do his best effort to try to find a reason to put you in jail because he doesn’t like what you were saying. Is that coercion or just a suggestion which is what I drew from NY’s claim. Violation of free speech? Along comes Brown Jackson who is having a hard time determining if that is coercion or just giving a talk on the importance of reputation. Like a member of the government can say under the First Amendment, people should take more Omega-3 fatty acids (typically in fish) because it’s heart healthy. That would be free speech and the pork industry would not have free speech grounds to deny that statement from the government. Brown Jackson’s suggestion in the oral arguments was that even though you have regulatory authority over an industry, is it okay to just suggest that it’s in their best interest if they stop insuring a company because you don’t like their political speech? So her query was, is it really coercion to tell people that the government “might” take action against you if you don’t stop insuring people due to their political speech or is it really a person making a suggestion such as, we recommend you cut down your body mass index. I guess if she has a hard time defining a woman, she has an equally hard time with a government official threatening a person, but the other person should just take it as a well-being suggestion.

I wonder if the public had voiced concerns to the board members about the results or hardships of 4 days. I am assuming that the issue had to be brought up from somewhere for there to be that much interest. Obviously most employees would rather be off for 3 days instead of 2 but does that help the students or the parents? I have no clue but I don’t think it’s likely that this just floated down from the sky.

This thread has obviously run its course. It was about passing an immigration law but has skewed off into attacks and comments that have nothing to do with the topic.

There is no fallacy as it was a question. If I ask you do you like tacos or hamburgers better, that’s not a fallacy because they’re 1000s of other foods. Was Biden was chosen because of hundreds of other candidates weren’t as capable? Sorry but you don’t have hundreds to choose from.

All amendments do the same. The Sixth Amendment doesn’t grant us the right to an attorney, it denies the government the authority to stop you from obtaining counsel. The First Amendment doesn’t grant us freedom of religion, it denies the government the authority to force a belief. And so on….. I am a strong believer in the Second Amendment however it’s just like the others.

So does a leader of anything represent what you stand for? What do my family values have to do with a president or candidate? Jimmy Carter was probably one of the most down to Earth, decent and very religious leaders to ever hold the office and certainly in my lifetime. He led the country down the drain however and got kicked out by a landslide after one term. Which is better, a devout Christian who almost no one questions his sincerity and personal life but a horrible leader or a person who had some transgressions in his past but whose policies lead to prosperity? Neither stops me from nor leads me to my personal beliefs and values. Does the President, no matter who it is, affect yours?

If I was voting for a spiritual leader then none of them would get my vote. From JFK’s well known flings to Clinton's Oval Office affair that he was compelled to address on national television, to one time front runner to be the president in Democrat Gary Hart and so on, the Republicans hardly have a monopoly on infidelity. Trump’s accusation as far as I know happened well before he became president however the two Democratic presidents that I mentioned happened in their term and in the White House. I think I will look elsewhere for moral guidance other than the Democratic Party…. 🤣🤣🤣

The Great Switch Myth…. 🤣🤣🤣

You are probably correct… there are millions of Canadians pouring across the border in caravans but for some reason have gone unnoticed. I hear that Detroit and Seattle now have a huge homeless population because of all the White Canadians streaming into this country.

Looking at the KFDM photo, it’s actually almost at the back door of the station.

At least the police didn’t have to go far since it is half a block from the police station. They could have walked to the crime scene.

WRONG!! They are of an excellent design, I am sure paid for at a high engineering and consulting cost. These signs scream of success!! Seriously, if you are going to waste money on such an endeavor, that is the best they could come up with? On the order hand, maybe one of the big oil companies donated the money and it really has no bearing on the taxpayers. On the other hand is it any different than the money wasted on the Welkom To Nederland sign?

Maybe they would prefer unlawfuls.

Because millions of people aren’t crossing illegally. Would you pull thousands of agents off the southern border and send them to the Canadian border?

This bill would force the US to enforce their own law and detain illegal aliens who commit burglary (breaking and entering) and theft. The Democrat leader in the House said the Republicans were, “throwing together legislation that targets immigrants”. Immigrants? The Dems just laid their cards on the table and broadcast what try are trying to gain. People illegally enter the country and then commit a crime and the Democratic parties refers to them as immigrants, otherwise known as unregistered Democrats. Thirty-seven Democrats crossed the aisle and voted for this bill.

So where did Phelan’s $9 million come from, local donors? I can only find Covey with almost $1 million but I am still looking. I am assuming they some of these pages aren’t updated. You define radicals as anyone that you don’t agree with. I guess school choice is radical. It is certainly okay if you don’t like conservative politics but that doesn’t make them radicals. It only means that you lean left and don’t agree.

Feeling matter, results don’t…..

Is the failure (as noted by BS Wildcats) the person who has the constitutional right to complain or the legal body that issues a ruling that clearly is unconstitutional? In this case we have a 91 year old former Republican lawmaker who was butt hurt over January 6 and made the sole determination that it was unconstitutional for Trump to be on the ballot. Like you, she was likely blinded by her anyone but Trump hatred but that is a protected right. This supposedly famed Colorado (first woman state leader) Republican in the article that you posted said that the Founding Fathers contemplated a candidate like Trump. She knew he was ineligible to run again. (quoted from the article) “She knew!!!” The Founding Fathers?? This doddering old fool has apparently lost enough of her marbles that she forgot that the Fourteenth Amendment came out after the Civil War as a response to civil rights for Blacks almost 100 years after independence was declared and the Founding Fathers have long since left the Earth. With this brilliant insight into the Constitution and history, she solely made the determination that Trump was ineligible. Utterly brilliant!! Of course she still has enough beans rattling around in her brain to know that her absolute knowledge of the Constitution had to be upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. So who is the on the Colorado Supreme Court and how are they selected? A Colorado Supreme Court justice is selected by the governor of Colorado. So the only way to be appointed as a Colorado Supreme Court justice, the sitting governor has to make the appointment. They each later face a 10 year term for reelection by the public in a general election. All current Colorado Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrats. Some? A majority perhaps? Nope, the entire Colorado Supreme Court was appointed by a Democrat governor. So again, who owns the failure? A person who complains like this old biddy that deemed herself as a constitutional scholar and out to (again from the article) save the Democracy or the duly constituted body who by law is supposed to make decision based on the US Constitution? Sorry but this falls squarely on the constitutional body who was selected by the Democratic governors. A body who a unanimous US Supreme Court slapped down because they collectively couldn’t understand this section from the Fourteenth Amendment: Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Again, it doesn’t say a state legislature, a state Supreme Court, a state attorney general, an old woman who thinks that the Founding Fathers were still around after the Civil War or anyone else other than Congress. BS Wildcats was 100% correct. It wasn’t an old Republican lawmaker who has the First Amendment constitutional right to free speech and also the First Amendment right to redress the government for grievances. It was the 100% Democratic Supreme Court of Colorado who could not understand a single sentence and in particular a single word, “Congress”.

Reading the decision, it should be very clear simply by reading the entire Fourteenth Amendment and not cherry picking sentences. In Section 3 the amendment says that no person shall be a federal official whether senator, representative, president, etc., if the person had taken an oath of office and then was involved in an insurrection or rebellion against the country. Nothing is defined however. What is an insurrection? What is a rebellion against the country? People come debate that topic all they want but as a Supreme Court today, pointed out, you have to read the entire amendment. The people with TDS simply stopped reading at the point that they liked. “Oh, an insurrection stops a candidate!!”. But let’s review Section 5. Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. So who can define what an insurrection is and who can be on a ballot? OH WAIT…. The actual amendment says that it is the authority of “Congress” with appropriate legislation, to enforce the provisions of the amendment. It doesn’t mention state Supreme Courts, state attorney generals or anything about a state whatsoever. So what has the US Congress passed since the ratification of the 14th Amendment that determines exactly what an insurrection is and who gets to make that decision? Here is the law on insurrection or rebellion. 18 United States Code 2383 Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. So they passed a law that said, a person can be convicted of insurrection and defined what is an insurrection or rebellion. This seems like a ridiculously easy determination for the Supreme Court, simply by reading Section 5. Congress has the authority to enact a law to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, they have an enacted such a law that defines what the insurrection is including a conviction. Colorado or any other state simply needs to put forth evidence that Trump has been charged with and convicted of an insurrection.

I am assuming that there is no way this could ever happenbut one of the sub articles on the page you cited, has the LA Times saying that Schiff is a team player and willing to compromise. 🤣🤣🤣 HUH?

The sign might not be impressive but I bet it sure makes you want to come to Port Arthur now, right? Like: Geez, what have I been missing!!?

There was one article that I saw on another forum that said, Ketanji Brown Jackson sides with Trump. No, she sided with the Constitution. If anyone wants some entertainment, look at some of the news articles or videos of the left coming unhinged that the Supreme Court didn’t rule against the Constitution and then did so in unanimous fashion.

TDS yet again on display.

It clearly appears that everyone knew this was nonsense to begin with. Listening to some of the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court, even the very liberal justices had a hard time accepting anything from Colorado. I think it was Kagan or Sotomayor who asked something like, if this is allowed, could other states then remove Biden from the ballot?

… and I still think that Trump is going to pick someone who is not being discussed.