@AverageJoe1 saidWhy are you still talking?
If we all live on an island and pay into health care, and there is a loser who gives us the finger and smokes, eats all bad foods to become obese, and dallies with catching AIDS, all voluntary......., If he gets these med conditions, is it logical that he tap into ou health system? You will not answer honestly.
So what will THAT be 'talking'? 🤔 my fave emoji
@Suzianne saidYes SCOTUS does not 'take possible consequences; into account. They are not ruling as GOD. They are ruling from that which speaks to them,,,,,the Constitution.
Further argument that the SC does not take consequences into account in their rulings.
Corruption über alles!
I'm sure Clarence Thomas thinks he's white. Just another Trump fanboi Oreo.
If a guy is going against Constitutional law when marketing fertilizer, he will lose in their court, and not market anymore illegally.. So, all of his buyers are not going to have his product to grow their crops. The farmers have a hell of a problem in growing crops. They lose money, maybe the farm.
So you think that because of that 'consequence' that SOTUS should make an exception and let him keep on violating the constitution?????? Help me Rhonda.
Ohhhhhhhh sue
@AverageJoe1 saidNow I know why you speak in analogies.
Yes SCOTUS does not 'take possible consequences; into account. They are not ruling as GOD. They are ruling from that which speaks to them,,,,,the Constitution.
If a guy is going against Constitutional law when marketing fertilizer, he will lose in their court, and not market anymore illegally.. So, all of his buyers are not going to have his product to grow their ...[text shortened]... an exception and let him keep on violating the constitution?????? Help me Rhonda.
Ohhhhhhhh sue
1) You can lie your ass off basically without repurcussion, and
2) you avoid the hard work of having a point.
@Suzianne saidWhy, indeed....why don't you tell us if you think that we pay for the healthcare of this loser?
Why are you still talking?
Hmmmm, maybe it is a trick question...... damed if you say yes, damed if you say no
Yeah, I see that now. Never mind, AvJoe does not like to put people on the spot. So tell us about epstein
@Suzianne saidSuzianne does not get my off-the-cuff analogy.
Now I know why you speak in analogies.
1) You can lie your ass off basically without repurcussion, and
2) you avoid the hard work of having a point.
Here, Sue… I figure you as a fan of baseball.
Asking the Court to decide cases based on consequences is like asking a referee to change the rules of a game mid-play because the outcome might upset the crowd.
The referee’s job is to apply the rules as written—not to manage the scoreboard or keep fans happy. Once they start doing that, the game isn’t governed by rules anymore, but by whoever has the loudest reaction.
My my, you sound as if you want the court to act as lawmakers or politicians, creepy stuff, Suzanne. You need to run this by marauder, as he is much more well-versed in the constitution than I am..
If
It’
And if
@AverageJoe1 saidI like analogies and would be glad to do another one if it still doesn’t gel with you.
Suzianne does not get my off-the-cuff analogy.
Here, Sue… I figure you as a fan of baseball.
Asking the Court to decide cases based on consequences is like asking a referee to change the rules of a game mid-play because the outcome might upset the crowd.
The referee’s job is to apply the rules as written—not to manage the scoreboard or keep fans happy. Once they st ...[text shortened]... s by marauder, as he is much more well-versed in the constitution than I am..
If
It’
And if
Ha, a doctor has a diagnosis, he knows the facts of the person’s body to be terminal. He does not tell the patient because it may be too upsetting and emotional ……. So he tells them something else to make things work out, based on what the consequence might have been rather than doing his sworn duty.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidDid it cross your mind to ask why the R's are so focused on the southern states?
Did democrats gerrymander?
@wildgrass saidDon’t avoid my question hypocrite…do democrats jerrymander?
Did it cross your mind to ask why the R's are so focused on the southern states?
@Suzianne saidIt is not the job of scotus to consider “consequencies”.
Further argument that the SC does not take consequences into account in their rulings.
Corruption über alles!
I'm sure Clarence Thomas thinks he's white. Just another Trump fanboi Oreo.
They rule based on the law as written. You libs are some dumb fuks!
@Mott-The-Hoople saidSue knows now that a referee cannot change the rules of a game midway if the crowd is likely to be upset, and suffer consnnnnnseeequeeeences.
It is not the job of scotus to consider “consequencies”.
They rule based on the law as written. You libs are some dumb fuks!
Libs want everyone to be happy!!!, thanks to Sue I have more support of that fact to enter into my journals
@AverageJoe1 saidThey want everyone to be happy except for straight white people, you know, the people that puts food on their table
Sue knows now that a referee cannot change the rules of a game midway if the crowd is likely to be upset, and suffer consnnnnnseeequeeeences.
Libs want everyone to be happy!!!, thanks to Sue I have more support of that fact to enter into my journals
@Mott-The-Hoople saidOh, holy sh--.
They want everyone to be happy except for straight white people, you know, the people that puts food on their table
You did not just say that.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidNo, they don't. Stop lying.
It is not the job of scotus to consider “consequencies”.
They rule based on the law as written. You libs are some dumb fuks!
They are activists. They rule based on what THEY want, what they think America needs. That is some evil Trumpublican stuff right there.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidYou're such a child.
Sue knows now that a referee cannot change the rules of a game midway if the crowd is likely to be upset, and suffer consnnnnnseeequeeeences.
Libs want everyone to be happy!!!, thanks to Sue I have more support of that fact to enter into my journals
Get ready to cry in November.
@AverageJoe1 saidAre you fking KIDDING? The WHOLE idea is to FUK black votes and OF COURSE being a nice tame Trump propagandist and a flaming sociopath just like Trump then you back it totally, not a single blue county in Tenessee, YEA, you would say.
Your first sentence,, you state what the result would be if they gerrymander the one blue county. The result would be, you say, that it would 'just about eliminate black votes'...
Please see what you are saying. with all due respects, your comment is based on race, it is a racist comment. It implies that the decision of gerrymandering SHOULD be based on race. Y ...[text shortened]... k, Sonhouse.
So, you want to regulate the race of people that are in the voting booth.
Race.