Clarence And Virginia Thomas Have An Impressively Corrupt Activist Judge Scheme Going

They left plenty of evidence, moron.
iu


Gorsuch ................. Kavanaugh ................ Barrett

I presume those three chimpanzees represent the three justices that Trump put onto the supreme court.
 

Would a different source make her less of a hack?

So, too, do certain statements she made in presentations at Berkeley and Duke, respectively, the former arguing that a Latina necessarily sees the law differently than a white man, the latter suggesting that, at least to some degree, judges make rather than interpret law.

Nope.
 
If you don't think Trump agreed with these tyrants over the intelligence community you're an absolute moron.
Please post an example.
He was asked that with putin standing right next to him. Do you honestly expect a president to answer a question like that?
Yes.
If Trump can't stand up to Putin..... well that's obvious why in this case, you don't tick off your boss.
 
If you don't think Trump agreed with these tyrants over the intelligence community you're an absolute moron.
Please post an example.
He was asked that with putin standing right next to him. Do you honestly expect a president to answer a question like that?
Yes.
If Trump can't stand up to Putin..... well that's obvious why in this case, you don't tick off your boss.


1618082759026.png
 
If you don't think Trump agreed with these tyrants over the intelligence community you're an absolute moron.
Please post an example.
He was asked that with putin standing right next to him. Do you honestly expect a president to answer a question like that?
Yes.
If Trump can't stand up to Putin..... well that's obvious why in this case, you don't tick off your boss.

When has Biden ever "stood up" to Putin?
 
So, too, do certain statements she made in presentations at Berkeley and Duke, respectively, the former arguing that a Latina necessarily sees the law differently than a white man, the latter suggesting that, at least to some degree, judges make rather than interpret law.
Actually that is true. The court views the world through different eyes and experiences. That's why Sandra Day O'Connor based her GITMO decision on the war on terror lasting no longer than any other war.
Or Scalia no longer seeing any racial prejudice to sustain the voting rights act.
 
I'm fine with letting biological males dominate all sports, whether they are cisgender or trans. We should just acknowledge that's what would happen after ending said segregation by sex.
Any advantage severely diminishes after the current 1 year transition delay. And absolutely no advantage after 2 years. So any influence you would see in womens sports would be at best short lived.
Another dog whistle issue.
Bone mass is a perfect example where that's not true. Biological males have denser bones than women and, even after years of hormone treatments, there is a significant difference between biological males and biological females.

You can also see this in the weightlifters that have transitioned from male to female in terms of strength.

The only cases where said differences would diminish nearly entirely would involve males who transition in their teens or early 20s. Plenty of others transitioned after a decade of athletic training, which is why their differences remain. Hormone treatment doesn't get rid of a decade or more of bone accumulation or of that much muscle mass.
 
So, too, do certain statements she made in presentations at Berkeley and Duke, respectively, the former arguing that a Latina necessarily sees the law differently than a white man, the latter suggesting that, at least to some degree, judges make rather than interpret law.
Actually that is true. The court views the world through different eyes and experiences. That's why Sandra Day O'Connor based her GITMO decision on the war on terror lasting no longer than any other war.
Or Scalia no longer seeing any racial prejudice to sustain the voting rights act.
That isn't how the law is supposed to work, moron. Law that is different for one race than it is for another is unjust law. That's what we had during the Jim Crow era. You just endorsed it.
 
Last edited:
Biden stood up to Putin before he was elected
And stood up to Putin in his first phone call to Putin

NEXT !!!!!
Before he was elected he stood next to Putin in a press conference and attacked him? Please post a link to this fairy tale event.

Please post a link this phone call Biden made to Putin where he accused him of foul deeds. How did the press listen to both sides of the call?
 
When has Biden ever "stood up" to Putin?
Jul 20, 2020 — Former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday issued a stern warning to Russia and other foreign government not to interfere in U.S. elections.


Biden raises election meddling with Putin in first phone call ...
https://www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-55819769


Jan 27, 2021 — The Russian leader says his first call with the new US president was "business-like and frank".
ROFL! issuing a statement is the equivalent of standing next to the man in a press conference and accusing him of crimes against the United States? You're serious?

We only have Biden's description of the call. How do you know that's honest?
 
Unless you live in a very urban area, however, you'll find that a lot of average citizens are pretty moderate and sometimes right of center on many social issues -- particularly on the trans stuff.
In other words, if you're NOT part of 80% of the population, you are right of center on many social issues.

“Right” seems to be an underestimation for a majority of our resident loony birds.
First off, they ain’t conservatives as they don’t give a crap about 8 trillion in deficit spending.
 
Unless you live in a very urban area, however, you'll find that a lot of average citizens are pretty moderate and sometimes right of center on many social issues -- particularly on the trans stuff.
In other words, if you're NOT part of 80% of the population, you are right of center on many social issues.

“Right” seems to be an underestimation for a majority of our resident loony birds.
First off, they ain’t conservatives as they don’t give a crap about 8 trillion in deficit spending.
...and the Democrats do?

Fiscal conservatism is something neither party practices, so yes, the GOP isn't fiscally conservative. Plenty of voters would prefer fiscal conservatism, but it doesn't get much traction in Congress.

Granted, the majority of the country does unfortunately tend to support higher government spending in various avenues. These are often the same people that want lower taxes as well, but they don't realize how the 2 contradict each other.
 
Unless you live in a very urban area, however, you'll find that a lot of average citizens are pretty moderate and sometimes right of center on many social issues -- particularly on the trans stuff.
In other words, if you're NOT part of 80% of the population, you are right of center on many social issues.

“Right” seems to be an underestimation for a majority of our resident loony birds.
First off, they ain’t conservatives as they don’t give a crap about 8 trillion in deficit spending.
ROFL! Democrats in Congress have to vote for most of that, NAZI. Biden wants to pile another $7 trillion on top of it. In the next year. It's utterly hilarious when you morons whine about deficit spending.
 
in fact this Court has voted against what Conservatives would have wanted them to vote. Just stop with incessant chicken little shit.
They voted against, because the positions the conservatives put to them had absolutely no support in law. And no matter how much they might try to manipulate their view to give it legal support, there was absolutely nothing in the constitution or case law to support it.

Bullshit, sorry.
 
Actually that is true. The court views the world through different eyes and experiences. That's why Sandra Day O'Connor based her GITMO decision on the war on terror lasting no longer than any other war.
Or Scalia no longer seeing any racial prejudice to sustain the voting rights act.
That isn't how the law is supposed to work, moron. Law that is different for one race than it is for another is unjust law. That's what we had during the Jim Crow era. You just endorsed it.
You confuse the melting pot. A stew is made by adding more ingredients.
Thus justices each bring a different perspective to the collective table.
 
Unless you live in a very urban area, however, you'll find that a lot of average citizens are pretty moderate and sometimes right of center on many social issues -- particularly on the trans stuff.
In other words, if you're NOT part of 80% of the population, you are right of center on many social issues.

“Right” seems to be an underestimation for a majority of our resident loony birds.
First off, they ain’t conservatives as they don’t give a crap about 8 trillion in deficit spending.
...and the Democrats do?

Fiscal conservatism is something neither party practices, so yes, the GOP isn't fiscally conservative. Plenty of voters would prefer fiscal conservatism, but it doesn't get much traction in Congress.

Granted, the majority of the country does unfortunately tend to support higher government spending in various avenues. These are often the same people that want lower taxes as well, but they don't realize how the 2 contradict each other.
Everyone wants higher spending for their particular piece of the pie, but they don't want higher spending on the whole.
 
Please post a link this phone call Biden made to Putin where he accused him of foul deeds. How did the press listen to both sides of the call?
I already posted the link to the article where Putin admitted

The Russian leader says his first call with the new US president was "business-like and frank".
 

Forum List

Back
Top