The Supreme Court of the State ruled allowing the practice partway through that election.
No, they didn't.
I can only laugh to imagine a single Republican judge ruling on something and you being like "judge said so, so it's absolutely settled."
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
I can only laugh to imagine a single Republican judge ruling on something and you being like "judge said so, so it's absolutely settled."
So no new legislation, then? Which means PA.gov is providing a description of the legislation as it existed then.
If you want to rely on PA.gov as an authority-- and you've assured me its fine and accurate-- then we have our answer, don't we?
I am quite capable of recognising that judges determine what the standing interpretation of the law is, while also arguing their logic might be bunk or their ethics might be shit. Though in this case the judge's logic seems fine.
You seem to be having a problem with the idea that something can be legal/illegal even if you personally don't like the legislation or ruling. A bit like Vance recently insisting that legal Haitian immigrants are illegal because he doesn't like the scheme under which they were legally admitted.
Your monday DJTM stock update.
Well folks, we are back to square one. Its interesting, I don't have the original source handy but when DJTM went public multiple stock market analysts stated as a matter of fact that DJTM was an unsustainable meme stock and would drop back down to $12 by the end of year and here we are.
You know I honest to god think Trump genuinely thought his president campaign would provide an energy boost to DJTM or at least float it until he can cash out. Its pretty much impossible to forecast what hell ultimately do, no prophecies from me this time.
What I can tell you is that the blow to the stock came this weekend from two angles -
First the shareholders that got unlocked Thursday after trumps failed lawsuit have started trading off. Unfortunately trades are *not well published. I will try to do some digging, but the stock sites want me to pay to see actual paperwork on trades.
Secondly the market, to surprise of the supporters of BIG STRONG MAN, saw Trumps official refusal of the second Harris debate, not as a show of strength...but weakness. You can tell yourself he doesn't need a second debate, but Wallstreet thinks he lost his hat in the first one and Harris is nearing a lock of 270 votes.
"Fuck would I buy a loser stock?" would be a crass way to put it, but thats whats on the mind of the suits.
Trump Says No to Second Debate With Harris. DJT Stock Falls.
Still.. do us a favor, lovelies and vote anyway.
Last edited:
If something new is asked of the Supreme Court to interpret, then it could be considered to be discovered. In the cat declawed example, you can ask the court if that falls under animal abuse laws. If you haven't asked, then how is it the court RE-interpreting it if it's their 1st time?
What does allowing abortion break in the constitution? They decided that Roe was argued poorly and is not supported by the constitution, hence it then becomes a state issue. They didn't rule that abortion is a state issue, it just defaulted to that because Roe was overturned. There's nothing stopping Congress from passing an abortion law.
Where in Project 2025 does it say to end birthright citizenship? According to that article, Trump said he wanted to do that but didn't do it when it could just be an executive order (possibly). Pay attention to what people actually do vs what they say. Trump was already president and what did he do that was so horrible? The democrats say a bunch of shit that people want but they never do them or they do them is such a way that it makes things worse.It's one of Trumps policies for fucks sake.
Trump's Dubious Promise to End Birthright Citizenship - FactCheck.org
Former President Donald Trump misleadingly said that "under Biden’s current policies" children born to parents in the country illegally automatically become citizens. That's not a Biden policy, but rather it has been the standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment going back more than 100...www.factcheck.org
In 2023, Trump campaign officials acknowledged the Project 2025 aligned well with Agenda 47.[18] Project 2025 has, as of June 2024, reportedly caused some annoyance in the Trump campaign which had historically preferred fewer and more vague policy proposals to limit opportunities for criticism and maintain flexibility.[15] Some commentators have argued that Project 2025 is the most detailed look at what a Trump administration would look like.[15] Agenda 47 and Project 2025 share many themes and policies, including expanding presidential power such as through reissuing Schedule F,[19]: min.00:14 [20] cuts to the Department of Education, mass deportations of illegal immigrants,[21] the death penalty for drug dealers, and using the US National Guard in liberal cities with high crime rates or those that are "disorderly".[22][23][24]
The plans include constructing "freedom cities" on empty federal land, investing in flying car manufacturing, introducing baby bonuses to encourage a baby boom, implementing protectionist trade policies, and over forty others. Seventeen of the policies that Trump says he will implement if elected would require congressional approval. Some of his plans are legally controversial, such as ending birthright citizenship, and may require amending the U.S. Constitution.[25][14][26]
So the Supreme Court can overturn slavery just cuz?
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,610
- 3,141
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
If the law doesn't saying anything specifically about declawing, and the supreme court decides that declawing is animal abuse they aren't discovering that declawing is animal abuse, they are reinterpreting the animal abuse laws to cover declawing.
YOU might be discovering that the supreme court feels that declawing is animal abuse, but the court isn't discovering anything, it's interpreting, and if there was a previous interpretation of the law that didn't cover declawing than the new interpretation is a reinterpretation.
You do know that congress doesn't have the authority to just make laws on any topic they want right?
Powers of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't see "the power to regulate abortion" as a listed congressional power.
Ohio GOP Senate candidate plans new car dealership amid scrutiny of his businesses
Bernie Moreno — who is running to unseat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown and has said he has sold off all of his companies — described the project as an investment for his son.
Fucking hell, they always have to be so shady.
Used car salesmen, I hate cars, and I hate sales. I guess I am voting straight ticket the dems again.
As the ultimate judicial authority, it has the ability. It won't, for various reasons that don't apply to same-sex marriage, making this entire comparison a facile waste of time on your part.
((I assume you meant 'can overturn the criminalisation of slavery')).
My prediction is that with either a Trump or Harris administration, she will be gone. Mind you, I was one of the first people to read her college essay on Amazon, it was quite well-written. The only deal I didn't like was her killing COD for Xbox/Microsoft, which was facing an onslaught from Sony.
Is she a good FTC chair who does her job? Yes, but the momentum from donors in tech is against her, Harris is more moderate on economics than Biden. This isn't great for progressives but isn't necessarily bad because that gives Harris leeway to be more moderate in FP or foreign policy against Israel, which she is. If I am correct, China won't invade Taiwan in October due to Biden and his allies in the G7, and parts of the G20 attacking China's economy.
Harris will be a mix of Obama's dove policies on FP/foreign policy, and economics, and Biden's social policies like abortion, trans rights, and maybe education. My guess is she will lean more towards Obama, but I could be wrong; she could be a social democrat-leaning liberal who took some aspects of her Marxist economics professor father's: what works and doesn't. Or she could rebel against it completely.
Department won't provide election security after sheriff's posts about Harris yard signs
A local Ohio elections board says the county sheriff's department won't be used for election security
www.google.com
Dude, what the actual fuck? Obama was one of the most hawkish presidents we've had since Nixon, unless your definition of "hawk versus dove" is simplistically reductive to "did we conventionally invade anyone during that president's administration?" Only Clinton and Bush II were more hawkish, and that list includes Reagan who set Latin America on fire, and Bush I whose whacky mass murder hijinks were limited to Panama and our first go with Iraq.
Obama's administration set the stage for every major regional conflict today, whether that's Ukraine, Syria, Iraq (round 3), or Yemen. In the first case it was down to the Obama administration supporting right-wing extremist insurgents to bullishly and myopically provoke Russia; in the latter it was down to the Obama administration supporting right-wing religious extremists to further destabilize an already unstable region. Hell one could even attribute the current Gaza conflict in part to the Obama administration's cuckish attitude towards Netanyahu and Likud in the face of right-wing extremist domestic organization, when it could have been supporting opposition forces in Israel.
And in the middle of all that, we have the usual sanctions, NFZ enforcement, embargoes, air strikes, and the US's newest addition to its arsenal for which Obama will forever hold a place of infamacy, mass drone strikes. His presidency was quite literally the one that inflicted generational agoraphobia on the population of Pakistan (this is an actual, studied and documented phenomenon). And he still kicked the can down the road on withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, when that was the key policy issue on which he ran...in 2008.
Jesus, Trump was more of a dove than Obama.
But yeah, I'm sure Harris will actually be more Obama-esque in foreign policy. But, as I hope I've pointed out that is far from a good thing. And I haven't even touched Democratic stances on social issues in practice.
You can't spell out literally every single thing that would be animal abuse. You can define the certain criteria that deems something abuse. Then, you can see if declawing meets those criteria or not. Thus, a court wouldn't consider whether declawing is covered or not until asked.If the law doesn't saying anything specifically about declawing, and the supreme court decides that declawing is animal abuse they aren't discovering that declawing is animal abuse, they are reinterpreting the animal abuse laws to cover declawing.
YOU might be discovering that the supreme court feels that declawing is animal abuse, but the court isn't discovering anything, it's interpreting, and if there was a previous interpretation of the law that didn't cover declawing than the new interpretation is a reinterpretation.
You do know that congress doesn't have the authority to just make laws on any topic they want right?
Powers of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
I don't see "the power to regulate abortion" as a listed congressional power.
Congress can make laws on anything as long as it doesn't break something in the constitution. I don't know why you think they can't do that when they've been doing that forever. Democrats not codifying abortion in 50 years was a very common criticism when Roe was in question and then overturned.
How Congress could wield its power to affect abortion law nationally
As Democrats and Republicans react to the leaked Supreme Court draft on reproductive rights, we take a look at how a potential end of Roe is being navigated on Capitol Hill. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
www.pbs.org
Why won't the Supreme Court do that?
Court rulings change the effective law.
If the judge is ruling that the counties should be checking for errors on envelopes before election day and notifying voters of those errors, that's fine. Courts have imposed obligations like that in many ways. Court orders are a thing.
If the judge is ruling that a law has been broken by that county, that's not fine logic, they are just factually incorrect.
I have seen only second hand reporting of the ruling, I can't tell you which this situation is with certainty. The reports seem to suggest it's the latter, but they make money off of controversy like "Republicans denying rights of voters", so it's perfectly plausible its the first situation and the news is full of crap again.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,610
- 3,141
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
And there's the catch, directly in your own words. It can make laws on anything that "doesn't break something in the constitution."
What powers does the constitution give congress and who decides whether something is constitutional?
I've already provided you a link to the specific powers given to congress. I suggest you actually read those powers.
Congress (or rather parts of congress, often but not always based on party lines) often proposes laws that are outside of its constitutional scope based on the idea that those laws are necessary for the execution of government powers, or because they think they can make those laws very loosely fit into one of congress's powers. A lot of the time these laws are basically political theater where the writers know the law won't pass congress, and if it does then it still won't pass the supreme court when challenged.
That doesn't mean that congress has unlimited powers to make whatever laws on any topic it wants. If the current congress was to make a law legalizing abortion in all states it would be political theater because the current supreme court would not accept it as more than half the justices are anti-abortion. All the supreme court would have to do is say that congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to regulate abortions.
I suggest you read the following:
Loading…
crsreports.congress.gov
It shows 3 ways that congress could make a case for why they are able to regulate abortion, but based on your response to the arguments in Roe V Wade I think you would find these similarly lacking. Congress doesn't have any specific authority to regulate abortions based on the powers given to it by the constitution so they really need to twist and spin things to make their case.
The fact of the matter is, the constitution was written to give states a lot more broad powers to create laws than congress, and I believe that the current supreme court would prevent any federal measure that would make abortion legal nationwide.
Now in theory that should also mean that congress probably wouldn't be able to make abortions illegal nation-wide either, but given that congress has a lot of power over commerce they could make it illegal for the drugs necessary for abortions to be bought in states where abortion is legal, thus making abortions much more difficult. I also believe that the current supreme court would be much more likely to accept flimsy anti-abortion constitutional arguments than flimsy pro-abortion ones.
Last edited:
Obama cut the future soldier series of weapons that included everything from IFVs to Tanks to Infantry. Better weapons optics, everything. He even cut my beloved F-22 program by capping it to under 250 airframes—a stupid idea in hindsight. He didn't start a land invasion of any country. He was a dove.
Ukraine wasn't Obama, it was the Ukrainian people's economic self-interest to side with the richer West over a poorer petrostate with nukes that barely worked Russia. Russia wanted Ukraine to enter its idiotic customs union.
Syria was of Assad's making, he directed the minority Shia populace against the majority Sunni with an iron fist. I watched on TV as he set tanks on protesters after the Arab Spring, which soon became the Arab winter. Then some of the protestors start firing back.
Yemen literally was hosting AQ cells, as was Pakistan, which hosted Bin Laden, who did 9/11 near the Pakistan version of West Point.
Stop using Russia Today's talking points.
For reasons that have already been explained in this very thread.
They settle the standing interpretation of the law in cases of ambiguity or contradiction.
Fact remains: you want to use PA.gov guidance as an accurate and reliable description of the legislation. It very explicitly says satellite offices are fine.
You appear to be complaining about satellite election offices. These are as far as I am aware places to facilitate registering/voting. But we were talking about observers in terms of the vote count here, which to the best of my knowledge does not occur in satellite election offices. Plus the caveat that was mentioned that any election observer acting in bad faith is likely to more damaging to the process than beneficial, which I made then and I have made now.
Do you mean you are not happy that poll watchers were ejected from satellite election offices? (Presumably on the grounds that as these offices are not polling stations, poll watchers could not demand permission to watch?)