March 24, 20223 yr 16 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Ted Cruz wants to be Vikas Ok so I looked it up and Ted Cruz is worth $3.2 million. @vikas83, how much exponentially would he have to increase his net worth in order to be you?
March 24, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Dave Moss said: Ted Cruz wants to be Vikas I find it interesting, veiled in his question, he was basically implying that those who are transgender, arrive at that decision all of the sudden, in an instant like snapping your fingers, now your a woman. Now Ted's Asian. No doubt Asian Ted is against same sex marriage, too. It's pretty discriminatory to me.
March 24, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Bill said: Ok so I looked it up and Ted Cruz is worth $3.2 million. @vikas83, how much exponentially would he have to increase his net worth in order to be you? Lol. I won’t be specific, but he needs to get to work.
March 24, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Lol. I won’t be specific, but he needs to get to work. Honestly, I found that figure to be surprisingly low. This Senator is supposedly smart? Someone needs to work on his insider-trading skills.
March 24, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Lol. I won’t be specific, but he needs to get to work. I’m just going to go ahead and assume that he needs to move the decimal place two to the right.
March 24, 20223 yr 8 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: dude she's not entering an elected office. she doesn't need to "sell herself" to the far left voter. she's going to be the next supreme court justice. this is all theatre for senators aspiring to the White House. Really? She has a life. She’s on several boards for example, including a Harvard overseer board. I’m 100% behind her confirmation and she has given the right answers in the context but she absolutely isn’t going to upset the left in public with an answer to a question that she isn’t fully prepared to answer. The entire thing is silly. Cruz is a total arse and dip sheet. Of course he shouldn't ask the question. However, it is ridiculous that this question is one that he can use in the way he has used it and that's the bigger issue.
December 16, 20222 yr Conservatives are pouring dark money to Republicans who support Independent State Legislature theory, Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper. LINK Quote Conservative donors poured tens of millions of dollars of anonymous "dark money” into groups supporting Republican lawmakers in a supreme court case that could upend American election law. The donors backed several groups that have filed supreme court amicus briefs in support of North Carolina legislators in Moore v Harper, according to a recent analysis. They are pushing for a ruling that would take ultimate decisions about voting rights and congressional gerrymandering away from state courts and hand those powers to state legislatures, of which Republicans now control the majority. They want to give state legislatures unchecked power to decide elections. Voters will have no power, with no Federal oversight nor can the Supreme Court override their decisions. The plan is completely unconstitutional, but they're trying to pay it into existence anyway.
January 20, 20232 yr Film about FBI investigation on Kavanaugh. More msm drama incoming. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/doug-liman-brett-kavanaugh-fbi-doc-justice-1235304349/
January 20, 20232 yr https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/politics/supreme-court-credibility-dobbs-roe-leak/index.html Quote The Supreme Court’s stunning report Thursday on its failure to discover who leaked a draft decision reversing abortion rights last year laid bare shortfalls at the nation’s highest court, in its technology, protocols for confidentiality and overall institutional safeguards. Further, the lack of success in discovering who was responsible raises the possibility of a security breach in the future. It already appears likely to add to the public’s distrust of the justices and accelerate the partisan rancor surrounding the court. The justices’ two-page statement and 20-page report from Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley appear intended to demonstrate the thoroughness of the investigation, with numbers of people interviewed (126 formal interviews of 97 employees) and various forensic measures taken. Yet each page rings with limitations and dead ends. It also suggests certain boundaries on who was investigated, referring only to employee scrutiny. There was no mention of possible interviews with the nine individual justices or their spouses. Hilarious that Republicans, who see deep-state conspiracies in their dreams, have nothing to say on this government institution investigating itself and, surprise, they can't figure out who's at fault. Tells you that even the right is well aware it was one of the right wing justices who leaked it in order to soften the blow.
January 27, 20232 yr https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/politics/supreme-court-chertoff-leak-investigation/index.html Quote The Supreme Court did not disclose its longstanding financial ties with former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff even as it touted him as an expert who independently validated its investigation into who leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. The court’s inquiry, released last week with Chertoff’s endorsement, failed to identify who was responsible for the unprecedented leak. The decision to keep the relationship with Chertoff quiet is a reflection of a pattern of opacity at the nation’s highest court, whose rulings affect every American. CNN has learned from sources familiar with the arrangements that the court in recent years has privately contracted with The Chertoff Group for security assessments, some broadly covering justices’ safety and some specifically related to Covid-19 protocols at the court itself. The estimated payments to Chertoff’s risk assessment firm, for consultations that extended over several months and involved a review of the justices’ homes, reached at least $1 million. The exact amount of money paid could not be determined. Supreme Court contracts are not covered by federal public disclosure rules and elude tracking on public databases. So the SC pays a guy over a million dollars and then asks him to validate their very thorough investigation of themselves that discovered no wrongdoing. Right.
January 27, 20232 yr We hold these truths to be self-evident, that due to mutative factors and the stochastic nature of allele combinatorics, the measurable characteristics of biological entities are generally either multimodal or normally distributed.
June 27, 20232 yr Author This was regarding the extreme gerrymandering that the court rejected in NC. Republicans were trying to claim the NC SC didn't have the authority to reject obviously gerrymandered districts and replace them if the NC Legislature didn't redraw acceptable maps. https://abc7ny.com/supreme-court-case-elections-moore-v-harper-decision-independent-state-legislature-scotus/13231544/ WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina's top court did not overstep its bounds in striking down a congressional districting plan as excessively partisan under state law. The justices rejected the broadest view of a legal theory that could have transformed elections for Congress and president. The court declined to invoke for the first time the "independent state legislature" theory, which would leave state legislatures virtually unchecked by their state courts when dealing with federal elections. The high court did, though, suggest there could be limits on state court efforts to police elections for Congress and president. The practical effect of the decision is minimal in that the North Carolina Supreme Court, under a new Republican majority, already has undone its redistricting ruling. Another redistricting case from Ohio is pending, if the justices want to say more about the issue before next year's elections.
June 30, 20232 yr 35 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: Gotta imagine web design falls firmly in the realm of art and is a far cry from a public accommodation (not even a physical location). This was pretty much a no-brainer. I think we need to curb against discrimination as much as anyone but we can't and shouldn't force someone to depict art that they disagree with.
June 30, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Gotta imagine web design falls firmly in the realm of art and is a far cry from a public accommodation (not even a physical location). This was pretty much a no-brainer. I think we need to curb against discrimination as much as anyone but we can't and shouldn't force someone to depict art that they disagree with. Not disagreeing but found it interesting the person who brought the case, made the whole thing up. Customer is actually straight and married 15 years and never requested a gay site. So does the mean I can imagine any grievance and just bring a lawsuit? Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court
June 30, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Tweek said: Not disagreeing but found it interesting the person who brought the case, made the whole thing up. Customer is actually straight and married 15 years and never requested a gay site. So does the mean I can imagine any grievance and just bring a lawsuit? Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court Yea that part is weird. Alleging false grievances is very much part of their playbook now but apparently it's a legit legal play if you want to get out ahead of something you think might affect your business negatively.
Create an account or sign in to comment