These conversations were beforehand and you can't concede to being wrong. Why should I concede to you when you won't admit when I'm right?
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Ahh, you see, it's quite simple-- I don't think you are.
I'm not even asking you to concede anything. You explicitly said you had sources. I'm just asking you to provide what you literally said you could provide.
Your sources can't trump Supreme Court justices.
Regardless of how each judge leaned, they all agreed.
Of course. SCOTUS justices' opinions are certainly true, which is why we all accept the outcome of Roe v. Wade and it hasn't been overturned.
In a sense, SCOTUS justices' opinions are automatically "true" (or at least, the majority opinion).
The law is not a reflection of an external reality. It's an artificial, self-referential construction. Whatever the highest legal power in the land says is true is legally true. SCOTUS could rule on a law in a way plainly contradictory to what is written in law or the Constitution or evident in external reality, and that is law. There would undoubtedly be a cost for SCOTUS to do so - ramifications in terms of loss of trust in SCOTUS and potentially even impeachment of justices should it offend the government - but as far as the law is concerned the matter is now settled. The only mechanism to overturn that is send a law back to SCOTUS to be reviewed.
This is the point of stacking courts and why authoritarian regimes do it - because even authoritarian regimes like to present the image that they are doing things fairly and by the book.
Harvard University becomes latest Ivy League to reinstate SAT, ACT for admissions
Harvard University said that the decision to reinforce standardized testing after a gap of almost four years was based on a “a number of factors."
www.usatoday.com
So Moviebob (and others on Twitter) are pissed off at A24 now because something about Tim Pool and the film Civil War because the film doesn't come out and go "republicans & Orange man bad" and instead chooses to not explicitly tell the audience about either sides ideology in the this modern day Civil War but instead frame the story as following journalists trying to cover the events as one side has citizen journalists on the streets while the other has control of the major media networks.
When all the judge give a unanimous decision on something, it means more than if they didn't. Funny how you love your scientific consensuses when they actually aren't a consensus but when a judicial decision is a consensus, you don't like it.
It wasn't a majority opinion, it was a consensus.
You just pick and choose what authority matters based on whether they agree with your preconceived notions.
Well, I tend to value the research of scientific experts over the opinions of political appointees.
Of course, on the medical topic we were actually discussing, you were incapable of providing any source at all. So that's a bit moot. I would side with six agreeing expert sources over.... zero contesting ones.
Never stops being hilarious seeing another fool proudly stand upon the same old lifeless ragged strawman body convinced they did anything of any value to anyone outside their own imagination 🤌
You do realize you can bend science and studies quite a bit to tell you what you want them to say, right? You ignore the scientific experts that disagree with your scientific experts and then say "scientific consensus!!!" as if that proves anything.
Still waiting you to concede or counter the previous discussion and just admit you were wrong about the Trump ballot case.