Kangen Shows Why Liberals On The Court Are So Stupid

[norwegen]

Where was Kagan when Circuit City lost its revenue stream?

 

[Fang]

The Four Dissenting Votes In The Travel Ban Ruling Are A Dangerous Sign

OK, lets turn the argument. This claims that a president can go on record and say he will do something that's objectively unconstitutional . If he then does what he said he would do but gives a different constitutionally valid rationale in his EO. The courts can't take his previous statements in consideration but have to take the EO at face value? Does this apply to all confessions, or just the ones that POTUS does?

No. I'll give you a great example. Obama sold the Obamacare mandate as a "penalty" to the public. He knew he couldn't use the word "tax" on the stump because it probably wouldn't pass public opinion. However, when the mandate went to the SCOTUS, Obama's lawyers argued it was a "tax". This is how it got past Justice Roberts in a 5-4 decision. But in your scenario, shouldn't Justice Roberts have taken Obama's sales pitch to the public of a "penalty" into account and thus shot down the mandate as illegal?

 

[norwegen]

I would be embarrassed if I was the law school that gave Kangen and the "Wise Latina" their law degrees. The "Wise Latina" gave an equally embarrassing decenting opinion on the "travel ban".

I don't have the quote handy, but it was emotional, for sure.

And these snowflake leftard judges deny their activism.

 

[J.E.D]

She complains about how unions will lose a "secure source" of revenue.

That is how you adjudicate a law ?

What a turd.

Spell her name correctly, then get back to me about her lack of intelligence.

Dipshit

The He/She isn't worth spending the time to look up the correct spelling of it's name.

Well, you’re a dumb ass, so...

 

[Mr.Blonde]

I would be embarrassed if I was the law school that gave Kangen and the "Wise Latina" their law degrees. The "Wise Latina" gave an equally embarrassing decenting opinion on the "travel ban".

I don't have the quote handy, but it was emotional, for sure.

And these snowflake leftard judges deny their activism.

I was reading it and thinking "since when did we have to give none citizens first amendment rights?" In civics class they told us that the government has to give everyone regardless of citizenship basic human rights, but they don't get thfull

 

[Mr.Blonde]

She complains about how unions will lose a "secure source" of revenue.

That is how you adjudicate a law ?

What a turd.

Spell her name correctly, then get back to me about her lack of intelligence.

Dipshit

The He/She isn't worth spending the time to look up the correct spelling of it's name.

Well, you’re a dumb ass, so...

After spending less time and money on school I know the difference between a rational legal argument and an emotional argument.

I maybe dumb, but at least I am smarter than it.

 

[forkup]

The Four Dissenting Votes In The Travel Ban Ruling Are A Dangerous Sign

OK, lets turn the argument. This claims that a president can go on record and say he will do something that's objectively unconstitutional . If he then does what he said he would do but gives a different constitutionally valid rationale in his EO. The courts can't take his previous statements in consideration but have to take the EO at face value? Does this apply to all confessions, or just the ones that POTUS does?

No. I'll give you a great example. Obama sold the Obamacare mandate as a "penalty" to the public. He knew he couldn't use the word "tax" on the stump because it probably wouldn't pass public opinion. However, when the mandate went to the SCOTUS, Obama's lawyers argued it was a "tax". This is how it got past Justice Roberts in a 5-4 decision. But in your scenario, shouldn't Justice Roberts have taken Obama's sales pitch to the public of a "penalty" into account and thus shot down the mandate as illegal?

No, because legally tax or penalty

The Four Dissenting Votes In The Travel Ban Ruling Are A Dangerous Sign

OK, lets turn the argument. This claims that a president can go on record and say he will do something that's objectively unconstitutional . If he then does what he said he would do but gives a different constitutionally valid rationale in his EO. The courts can't take his previous statements in consideration but have to take the EO at face value? Does this apply to all confessions, or just the ones that POTUS does?

No. I'll give you a great example. Obama sold the Obamacare mandate as a "penalty" to the public. He knew he couldn't use the word "tax" on the stump because it probably wouldn't pass public opinion. However, when the mandate went to the SCOTUS, Obama's lawyers argued it was a "tax". This is how it got past Justice Roberts in a 5-4 decision. But in your scenario, shouldn't Justice Roberts have taken Obama's sales pitch to the public of a "penalty" into account and thus shot down the mandate as illegal?

I did not find any such stump speech. Not saying it doesn't exist but I didn't find it. I found Obama opposing an Individual mandate but no reference to penalty. I don't know if tax or penalty makes a legal difference

It could be a decent argument if you can back that Obama refered to the individual mandate as a penalty and if you can establish legally it makes a difference. Can you?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

She complains about how unions will lose a "secure source" of revenue.

That is how you adjudicate a law ?

What a turd.

Spell her name correctly, then get back to me about her lack of intelligence.

Dipshit

The He/She isn't worth spending the time to look up the correct spelling of it's name.

Well, you’re a dumb ass, so...

That makes you brain dead.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

She complains about how unions will lose a "secure source" of revenue.

That is how you adjudicate a law ?

What a turd.

Spell her name correctly, then get back to me about her lack of intelligence.

Dipshit

Dear Butthurt,

You get an invitation to Kennedy's retirement party ?

 

[Norman]

She complains about how unions will lose a "secure source" of revenue.

That is how you adjudicate a law ?

What a turd.

They obviously have an agenda that is other than the law.

I bet that when slavery was outlawed these same judges were complaining about how the slave owners would lose a secure source of human labor.

This is a huge victory for freedom. Trump wins again!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

She complains about how unions will lose a "secure source" of revenue.

That is how you adjudicate a law ?

What a turd.

They obviously have an agenda that is other than the law.

I bet that when slavery was outlawed these same judges were complaining about how the slave owners would lose a secure source of human labor.

I mean...what you can say ?

She can't do better than that.

 

[Snouter]

Spell her name correctly, then get back to me about her lack of intelligence.

How do you know Kangen is a female? What we do know, ne/she is among the least qualified Supreme Court justices in history along with Ginsberg and Sotomayer.

Did anyone here Hussiane pronounce Massachusetts in the vid above?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Supreme Court will be made great again soon!

And a little later (providing Ginburg finally kicks it) it will be even greater.

Time for America to get to work !!!!

 

[Lysistrata]

I read the transcript of the oral argument in the Whole Women's Health case. The male justices who are followers of the Catholic faith questioned nothing ,even though the solciter general was arguing ideas that already had been refuted by the professional medical associations of the United States, such as the American Medical Association,the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. We already have justices on the high court who are biased and bigoted.and who represent only their ideologies. People like Robert are not the purveyors of justice.