Obama to annouce supreme court nomination at 11am EDT

[sarahtasher]

What should I hide? In addition to being the largest, Protestant nation on the planet, the country was established and guided by White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants for the overwhelming bulk of its existence, yet there are no WASPs on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Founding Stock is experiencing significant losses across all spectrums due to this cabal of usurpers. Instead, we have four Jews and four Catholics (our historical enemies) - among which, one is a closest lesbian; one is a token Hispanic; one is a token Negro with a European wife; and there are several Marxists, one Jewish radical as well as a motley collection of individuals that believe the Court has the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution as a "living" document. In other words, the nation-state is up "****'s Creek without a paddle."

All right, so I'm just noting that you don't consider Catholics as fellow christians...

[Endus]

No, that is not damage by itself, there has to be much much more context to prove damages then what you have provided here.

Yet again, you don't "prove damages". Damages are what are awarded. They're the monetary compensation the judge provides the plaintiff in their ruling. It's a term that has nothing whatsoever to do with harm suffered.

And again, if it's determined you suffered emotional distress under the measure provided, that is "harm", and damages can (and are, regularly) awarded.

[Rukh]

Right. Though I'd suggest that my original statement doesn't preclude protection against the government, just the focus was not on the individual. The purpose was to protect the state against the other states and the federal government, if need be. And prior to Heller the court's reading of the Second Amendment allowed for states to restrict gun ownership however they would like since it was the protection of the state that was the primary purpose of the amendment.

In my opinion, countries like Israel and Switzerland that have mandatory service probably are closer to the spirit of the second amendment than the US is.

[PC2]

Yet again, you don't "prove damages". Damages are what are awarded. They're the monetary compensation the judge provides the plaintiff in their ruling. It's a term that has nothing whatsoever to do with harm suffered.

And again, if it's determined you suffered emotional distress under the measure provided, that is "harm", and damages can (and are, regularly) awarded.

Yes they are awarded that justly when it is proven they experienced provable damages via emotional distress. Simply causing someone emotional distress isn't illegal without damages.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No, that is not damage by itself, there has to be much much more context to prove damages then what you have provided here.

Well since I guess you didn't see it, I asked what was your excuses for all those times Trump sued for mean words, and how do you feel about him extending libel laws to make it so that any criticism of him can be punished by law?

[Reeve]

so Obama in 2006 says ones records ones politics should be under consideration on confirmation not just if the person has the qualifications which are none written in the constitution on what qualifications a supreme court justice has to have

Meanwhile, the Republicans aren't even considering. They're just stonewalling.

[PC2]

Well since I guess you didn't see it, I asked what was your excuses for all those times Trump sued for mean words, and how do you feel about him extending libel laws to make it so that any criticism of him can be punished by law?

Yeah Trump is a piece of crap on that issue. He talks about other people being babies, but if you dish it out you have to be able to take it as well.

[Reeve]

Looks like they're already at it. I expected them to at least wait until Noon. Edit: Ah, timezones. Article was posted at 12:04 so I guess I got my Noon wish.



Video in the link.

The people had a voice in 2012, when they elected Obama.

[Pangean]

What should I hide? In addition to being the largest, Protestant nation on the planet, the country was established and guided by White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants for the overwhelming bulk of its existence, yet there are no WASPs on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Founding Stock is experiencing significant losses across all spectrums due to this cabal of usurpers. Instead, we have four Jews and four Catholics (our historical enemies) - among which, one is a closest lesbian; one is a token Hispanic; one is a token Negro with a European wife; and there are several Marxists, one Jewish radical as well as a motley collection of individuals that believe the Court has the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution as a "living" document. In other words, the nation-state is up "****'s Creek without a paddle."

"Clayton Townley: I told you, I'm a businessman. I'm also a Mississippian, and an American! And I'm getting SICK and TIRED of the way us Mississippians are getting our views distorted by you newsmen and on the TV. So let's get this straight. We do NOT accept Jews, because they REJECT Christ! And their control over the International Banking Cartels are at the root of what we call Communism today. We do not accept Papists, because they bow to a Roman dictator! We do not accept Turks, Mongrels, Tartars, Orientals nor Negroes because we are here to protect Anglo-Saxon Democracy, and the American way!"

[Matchles]

In my opinion, countries like Israel and Switzerland that have mandatory service probably are closer to the spirit of the second amendment than the US is.

I wouldn't be opposed as long as there are avenues of service that are not military or protection based. Something like a domestic Peace Corps. program or Habitat for Humanities type service.

[araine]

sure, but can you explain how 1.9% of the population ends up with 40%+ of scotus judges?

For the same reason the bottom 98% have no reps on the court or congress for that matter. it is all paid for by the rich to do the business of the rich

[Reeve]

and I find it spectacularly hypocritical position for a foreigner to tell us what our constitution should and shouldn't mean how it should or shouldn't be read

What's hypocritical about it? It'd be hypocritical if he were telling you not to comment on his constitution. Maybe you mean something other than hypocritical?

[Matchles]

sure, but can you explain how 1.9% of the population ends up with 40%+ of scotus judges?

Oh so now you are for affirmative action.

[GennGreymane]

Oh so now you are for affirmative action.

For the record

Law is a very popular field for people of a Jewish background. I am unsure of the number of Catholics, but in my school and area, there are many Catholics.

[Hiricine]

Yeah Trump is a piece of crap on that issue. He talks about other people being babies, but if you dish it out you have to be able to take it as well.

Technically you're talking about slander at worst and not libel. And just as protected speech does not include fighting words, words meant to incite panic/rioting, and profanity, it also doesn't protect slander and libel. Of course traditionally its hard to charge someone with libel because you not only have to prove that they lied about you but that they meant you harm in doing so, the presumption is that Trump would like to lower that standard.

[Pangean]

What's hypocritical about it? It'd be hypocritical if he were telling you not to comment on his constitution. Maybe you mean something other than hypocritical?

I am sure he thinks it really is hypocritical. The problem is if he understands what hypocritical actually means.

[Endus]

Yes they are awarded that justly when it is proven they experienced provable damages via emotional distress. Simply causing someone emotional distress isn't illegal without damages.

Again, you're just straight-up refusing to acknowledge what my source would tell you, if you bothered to read it. You're fundamentally wrong about this. While there are measures that require the emotional distress to be of a certain severity, and that the provocation of it be outrageous enough to be considered actionable, it's the distress itself that is what qualifies as "harm". You don't need to demonstrate financial harm as a consequence of the emotional distress, nor any other consequence. Just the distress itself.

[Felya]

Again you're just being obtuse, no not all Jews are zionists but you essentially claimed Jews weren't a people

By saying that Jews are just like everyone else, I'm saying we are not people? Again... WTF?

Here is my quote:

Because we are no different from anyone else, making the distinction moot.

How exactly am I being obtuse?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yeah Trump is a piece of crap on that issue. He talks about other people being babies, but if you dish it out you have to be able to take it as well.

Yeah, pretty much, which is why I don't understand why people want him for prez because he might say a couple of things they like and a bunch of other shittastic unconstitutional things.

[Breccia]

The people had a voice in 2012, when they elected Obama.

The people had a voice when they voted for their Senator, too. Why don't they just vote "no"? Is that really worse for them than stonewalling?