Oh hell, this is epic.
EPIC
Trump: "Kamala. Kamala. You know, if you don't pronounce her name exactly right, she gets very angry at you." (No.) "And then she starts - you know what she does when she gets angry? She starts laughing. Like she did on 60 Minutes. Uncontrollable laughs. That means she's angry."
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 29, 2020
He really doesn’t understand.
Wasn’t Gorsuch who held that a truck driver should have frozen to death in his cab rather than abandon his employer? A soulless ghoul…
I hope this is a serious question but when, and they will, GOPers in the minority in the Senate and House as well as assorted other GOP operatives sue the Democratic House, Senate and President over the legality of expanding the Appellate courts and SCOTUS who will be the final arbiter of that challenge if not the current SCOTUS?
So I’m tired and I read this as :“The new SCOTUS is no longer calling balls & strikes, they are calling whinners & losers” Which I hope is not what is happening.
I agree. They are more evil then they are dumb.
But if the state constitution was approved by the state legislature and it grants the state court the power to interpret state law, then the state court decisions deserve as much deference as the state legislature.
Interesting that if you go to The Conservative Twitter, they are on fire, Crime of the Century but then this;
The dog ate my conspiracy theory
It was digital to begin with so they printed it out and nobody copied it the digital version or scanned the documents they printed
Maybe Geraldo has it in Capones Vault
Yeah - I’m going through my Indicas at a much faster rate these days. Going for that couch-lock brain dead zombie buzz.
I haven’t had a chance to read Gorsuch’s reasoning, but wouldn’t the test have to account for Declared States if Emergency including those accepted Nationally and the fact DPA was invoked?
One thing I haven’t heard of is impeachment. Why go thru all the mess of expanding the court, when there appears to be several instances of impeachable actions by these judges. Add four or impeach two. Which is easier?
In other words, Gorsuch is willing to throw out long standing judicial precedent and rules regarding deference to the legislatures’ and agencies’ determination of the facts in order to insert his own self-serving facts in their stead.
LMFAO…might be the best yet lol
It’s probably just me, and probably because I’m not a lawyer, but this and other stories I’ve read on the NC ruling seem really weird in that they either don’t mention or barely mention the “5” part of this 5-3 ruling. 4 of the 5 aren’t named, and Bart is only named as not dissenting. Maybe because the concurring justices aren’t mentioned in the ruling itself, but all seems odd to this layperson.
It does seem that they are cherry-picking based on where extensions work to the advantage of a party, but maybe I’m just over analyzing things…
Fortunately, presidential elections are actually 50+ mini-elections with each state following their own laws. When you hear Repugnicans insist that all ballots must be tallied on the day of the election for them to be legal votes, know that they are lying. In fact, every state has its own deadline for certifying their election results, and those dates range this year from November 5th to December 11th. Tennessee, Hawaii, Rhode Island and New Hampshire don’t even have deadlines. North Carolina’s certification deadline this cycle is 11/24/2020.
That’s him.
What he actually held was the employer was within his rights to fire the driver for abandoning his load. Gorsuch had better never vote to back any corporation’s claim of force majeure in a contractual dispute with an individual.
Soulless ghoul is a fair characterization of him.
Adding four is far easier.
Successful impeachments that result in removal from office require a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
Please name the dozen or so Republican Senators who will vote to convict.
We’ll wait.