tvc184

America might be, the Democrats certainly aren’t.

Yeah and the Miranda warning was for Ernesto Miranda and Brown v. Board of Education was a ruling for Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington DC. Supreme Court rulings don’t typically only give a verdict in a single case but are guidelines for all lower courts. In fact the judgments from the Supreme Court don’t decide money damages, guilt or innocence, etc. That is for trial courts. The Supreme Court only decides if the Constitution was violated. For example, a person might get his case overturn by the Supreme Court. That does not mean he is innocent or does not have to pay damages. It typically means that a piece of evidence was galined outside of the Constitution. So, if a guy is convicted of a murder and part of his trial was a confession, and it was later ruled to be inadmissible, he is not all of a sudden innocent. The DA can bring the same person back to trial for the same crime but simply can’t use that confession in the trial. The person can still be guilty even after the Supreme Court threw out his conviction. Unless you want to suggest that discrimination by Harvard is unconstitutional but discrimination by Yale would not be.

Therein lies the problem of relying on articles for court rulings. The “some legal experts” (whatever those are) is a clue. Some legal experts think that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to private gun ownership. See how that works. The proposed law ( it is not a law as of yet) doesn’t say anything about pronouns. It says that intimidation of another person due to sex, race, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., is a hate crime. That’s it. So apparently some people would have you believe that it is perhaps okay to file charges on a person if he is intimidating or threatening another person due to his sex, or sexual orientation, or race, etc., but if you do the same because a man wants to dress in dresses, it is okay. Here if the proposed law…. It is a crime to use force or violence against a person, cause bodily injury, intimidate, damage-destroy or deface property or threaten any of those actions. That is the proposed law. I generally don’t like hate laws but this discussion (news articles) has a lot of political spin from the “experts”.

That is false. To the contrary, the Supreme Court addressed exactly that issue. This is a quote from the actual decision from Supreme Court’s government website, not a news organizations spin on the decision. “Universities, may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly” So the Supreme Court itself has specifically said that the applicant for admission cannot simply write an essay “or other means” as a way to get around the decision. It followed up by saying that if you cannot do it directly, you cannot do it indirectly, which is what the notion of an essay or similar means would attempt to do. Not only does it not allow essays or some other minority base discussion on an entrance application, the decision strikes down the blanket acceptance of race, national origin, sex, etc. as a means of allowing entry that might otherwise be denied. To that extent, it seems that it would now allow what previously was not allowed and that is to have individual student applicants file a lawsuit for discrimination if denied entry based on race, etc. Prior to this decision, a university could accept a possibly less qualified applicant and if another applicant disagreed, the university could fall back on the law, saying basically, oh, well, we can do it. Now they likely can’t without risking continuous litigation.

It seems like a stupid law but using the “wrong” pronoun is not a crime in the proposed law. If it was, it would be nullified by the First Amendment. Basically they want to add pronouns to hate crimes.

I think that is correct however that is a state level issue, not from SCOTUS. If the federal government passed a law next week (and they obviously don’t have the numbers to do so) about not carrying a firearm without a license, those state laws would be overturned unless SCOTUS stepped in.

Said while looking into a mirror?

Constitutional carry has not been secured.

The Supreme Court actually brought that up in their decision. From the Supreme Court website: ”Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”. I believe that affirmative action had its place. Three generations later it seems to be time to move on. The Supreme Court agreed

It appears that the 14th Amendment finally applies to everyone. [Hidden Content]

Who is “these people”? Are you trying to imply that Trump supporters are the only people that are so stupid as to commit crimes or attack the police?

This thread was posted about Democrat candidate. You don’t really expect an answer about that do you? Orange Man bad!!

I must have missed something because I saw nothing in the article about the National Anthem. The article also didn’t mention the Pledge of Allegiance. You did nothing but toss up a straw man. The article claims that Kaepernick didn’t think that Blacks could be liberated (whatever that means) under capitalism. He was all for capitalism when he was making millions of dollars from it. I have no clue as to what he feels being liberated means but I am assuming that you are very successful at your career. Apparently Kaepernick doesn’t like that.

Liberation?

RFKjr is still a social liberal but at this point in time that might be a huge relief from the insanity.

He saw the walls closing in and hurried up into a probation for misdemeanors before some heavy prison time could be give. So President Biden’s DOJ cuts a deal to end his son any further investigation with a mere misdemeanor plea.

Obviously there are no plans to build a railway across the Indian Ocean. It really should not take any research to know that we aren’t sinking thousands of pylons 3 miles deep in an ocean. Imagine trying to build a railway 3 miles high above the continental US. If you can’t do it on land…. The point is that he is always out there in La La Land. He was certainly 100% correct in his closing statement, however when he said: ”I can go on, but I’m not. I’m going off-script. I’m going to get in trouble.” Exactly. The guy can barely speak from a teleprompter. How is he going to compose rational thoughts “off-script”? After watching this video, we could all probably agree

He is a Republican in Florida and in fact in the heavily democratic area of Miami yet I believe he won by a landslide. I have nothing to base this on and have not read it but I’m guessing that he is trying to get exposure to be the next governor of Florida. Ron DeSantis is about to be term limited and is running for president so Suarez probably has no expectations of winning the presidential primary, but certainly expectations of getting national exposure and moving him up into a good position to take over for the DeSantis.

And they all look like and act like the aliens in the Mel Gibson movie, Signs.

The witnesses have that said they are chameleons and can apparently also blur their surroundings so as to not make them appear clear. Very convenient..

But it seems to contradict the 8 foot tall alien. In this evidence it seems to be very short. Maybe some were babies.

This newer video is proof. Ñ

This is like the photo of Big Foot so many years so. This blurry photograph is proof!!!

Yeah, it’s a political hot potato so I think the legislature will try hard but any tax eliminated will have to go elsewhere. The “elsewhere” will obviously be the problem. Who else is going to take the hit?

But is that bad or smart? What service are we paying for? Did we get a product? The claimed service was walking around the car to see if your headlights work, your tail lights work and your horn still functions. We can do that for free. If someone is inclined, he can go to the auto shop and pay them money out of his pocket and have the mechanic do the same. In fact, if you go get your oil changed, they want to charge you about $25 extra to do their umpteen point inspection. Coincidental that most lube shops do inspections? We had to go out of our way by taking time out of the day, and at very limited specific locations, with the state to justify a tax. The bottom line is is that they raised taxes without raising taxes. Instead of having to raise taxes elsewhere to increase revenue, they took a pain in the butt chore that we had to face and eliminated it. Two birds with one stone?