President Biden thread...

[p1_]

So that gives some classless unprofessional person the right to bellow out? It is pretty clear both her and that bimbo from Georgia are just hateful individuals.

hardly much of a bellow. I think Sheik might make her scream pretty good, tho.

 

[NoDak]

hardly much of a bellow.

No. Not much of a bellow, as was claimed. But, I hope you aren't expecting a reply.

 

[Sheik]

Lauren Boebert I think her name is? She would get the D for sure. Pretty much anything she wanted as long as she’s not shitting or pissing on me. Maybe she could piss on me. Maybe. Depends on what else is on the table. No pissing on my face or in my mouth. That’s my line.

She’s a bit crazy and will say shit that makes you cringe. That said, she isn’t wrong. That whole operation was a clusterfuck that nobody has been held responsible for. Biden has used his son as a political crutch, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, he used his late wife and kid(s) as a sympathy card forever.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no line in politics any longer. Democrats under the age of 60(and politicians of all ages D or R) are generally scum. They don’t think they can go too far, but they think center right politics are racist and bigoted. They started playing the game, now they don’t like it when the other side takes part.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Lauren Boebert I think her name is? She would get the D for sure. Pretty much anything she wanted as long as she’s not shitting or pissing on me. Maybe she could piss on me. Maybe. Depends on what else is on the table. No pissing on my face or in my mouth. That’s my line.

She’s a bit crazy and will say shit that makes you cringe. That said, she isn’t wrong. That whole operation was a clusterfuck that nobody has been held responsible for. Biden has used his son as a political crutch, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, he used his late wife and kid(s) as a sympathy card forever.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no line in politics any longer. Democrats under the age of 60(and politicians of all ages D or R) are generally scum. They don’t think they can go too far, but they think center right politics are racist and bigoted. They started playing the game, now they don’t like it when the other side takes part.

And the truth is those 13 were someone's son, father, husband or whatever and their loved ones should be outraged.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cotton]

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Did anyone catch his reason for opposing her? Because she wasn't abiding by stare decisis. And what is Jackson known for? Having even very liberal courts above her reverse her decisions for overstepping her bounds.

Just shows how radical the party has gotten in only 15 (actually fewer) years.

 

[Smitty]

Did anyone catch his reason for opposing her? Because she wasn't abiding by stare decisis. And what is Jackson known for? Having even very liberal courts above her reverse her decisions for overstepping her bounds.

Just shows how radical the party has gotten in only 15 (actually fewer) years.

To be fair, the left never truly cared about stare decisis anyway, they only cared when they were the opposition party.

 

[Cotton]

To be fair, the left never truly cared about stare decisis anyway, they only cared when they were the opposition party.

Okay, I'm an idiot. What is stare decisis?

 

[Sheik]

Okay, I'm an idiot. What is stare decisis?

Basically not accepting precedent as a baseline for decision making.

 

[Smitty]

Okay, I'm an idiot. What is stare decisis?

Literally "to stand by things decided." It is a doctrine (not a law itself) which means you shouldn't be overturning prior judge's decisions, you should be deferential to them.

In our court system, in fact, lower judges are BOUND to stand by the decisions of higher judges. So when the US Supreme Court decides something, all lower court federal (as opposed to state) judges are bound by that decision (and sometimes even the state ones, depending on whether the issue is one that deals with a federal law's state impact, ie, like, the Bill of Rights, a State cannot overrule that).

It's an issue when discussing a matter that may come before a court that has been addressed similarly in the past. Take Roe v. Wade. It's a precedent. A Democrat would say "Stare Decisis," should be honored. A Republican would say "Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned by the only people who can overturn it -- new Supreme Court Justices who are not bound by the decision of the old Supreme Court Justices."

My point is that Biden is saying "Stare Decisis!" there, but Democrats are generally the ones who want to change all the old decisions.

To be fair, I have my fair share of prior rulings I'd like to see overturned (Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzalez v. Raich, the Sebelius decision (the ACA upheld under the tax clause of the Constitution), etc).

 

[Cotton]

Literally "to stand by things decided." It is a doctrine (not a law itself) which means you shouldn't be overturning prior judge's decisions, you should be deferential to them.

In our court system, in fact, lower judges are BOUND to stand by the decisions of higher judges. So when the US Supreme Court decides something, all lower court federal (as opposed to state) judges are bound by that decision (and sometimes even the state ones, depending on whether the issue is one that deals with a federal law's state impact, ie, like, the Bill of Rights, a State cannot overrule that).

It's an issue when discussing a matter that may come before a court that has been addressed similarly in the past. Take Roe v. Wade. It's a precedent. A Democrat would say "Stare Decisis," should be honored. A Republican would say "Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned by the only people who can overturn it -- new Supreme Court Justices who are not bound by the decision of the old Supreme Court Justices."

My point is that Biden is saying "Stare Decisis!" there, but Democrats are generally the ones who want to change all the old decisions.

To be fair, I have my fair share of prior rulings I'd like to see overturned (Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzalez v. Raich, the Sebelius decision (the ACA upheld under the tax clause of the Constitution), etc).

Thank you. That makes a ton of sense.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cotton]

 

[bbgun]

Yep. If the oil is gonna be used anyway (to the detriment of the environment), what's the point of not drilling for it ourselves?

 

[Cotton]

Yep. If the oil is gonna be used anyway (to the detriment of the environment), what's the point of not drilling for it ourselves?

And, saving your citizens tons of money at the same time. But, considering they hate America, they don't give two shits about the American people. Hell, just look at how more engaged they are about the Ukraine border when our border is wide fucking open, and they don't give a damn about our border.

 

[bbgun]

You're not helping the environment (the oil will be used anyway), you're bankrolling our enemies and their war machine, and you're hurting the US economy unnecessarily. Brilliant.

 

[Cotton]

You're not helping the environment (the oil will be used anyway), you're bankrolling our enemies and their war machine, and you're hurting the US economy unnecessarily. Brilliant.

Dude, they don't really care about the environment. This is all theatrical bullshit to appease a niche section of their voter base. It's ridiculous and it's detrimental to our economy and international standing. And we still have 3 more years.

 

[Cotton]

Ya think?

 

[Sheik]

It turns out the global warming/climate change retards are way outnumbered by adults who work for a living.