Wasn’t it Gore that claimed to have invented the internet 30 years ago?Answer Yes
Al Gore Oscars 2007 GIF by The Academy Awards - Find & Share on GIPHY
Al Gore Oscars 2007 GIF by The Academy Awards - Find & Share on GIPHY
We need a general tweet of the day thread
- Thread starter RaceBannon
- Start date
And of course Gore has no response because he knows that Maher is right.
"But they're saying climate change is a hoax invented by China!!" Who's they, you fucking loser? Go cry it out in the corner.
Maher's laughing all the way to the bank on all these interviews. He just hands them a mic and lets the jokes wrote themselves.
Last edited:
Jesus those gang banging out of control need to spend a few nights in jail. Guaranteed the one with the red bandana is a blood. I guess the positive is there was no student with a gun.
This shit didn't start two years ago. It has been going on for a while. I went to Franklin High. I saw things. Kid got stabbed week one or two of my freshman year. KOMO 4 buttfuckers.
Last edited:
Last edited:
As I have said, my high school had a gun range in the basement and kids brought their 22 match rifles to school on the bus. Pheasants were still in the Willamette Valley and kids brought shotguns to school in their cars and trucks and went hunting after school let out. Good times and no one was shot for some unknown reason (at least to leftards). Hunter's safety was taught as an elective in middle school.
I dropped off my daughter at college in Idaho and a pick up truck parked behind a neighboring fraternity had a rifle in the rack. Unlocked.
I've never bought this, but I'm not denying it either
@Sledog
They're correct. Not a
Natural born citizen.
Dumbass Canadians would prefer China be in control.You can see why Trump wants Greenland
They already areDumbass Canadians would prefer China be in control.You can see why Trump wants Greenland
I'm assuming that KBJ is still talking about the infinite definition of being a woman And Barrett is looking for the next commie Pope. Interesting that the top five talkers are all women and by far the least two are the most conservative on the Court and are men.
It’s not difficult if you’re a constitutionalist to decide whether something is legal or is illegal under it.I'm assuming that KBJ is still talking about the infinite definition of being a woman And Barrett is looking for the next commie Pope. Interesting that the top five talkers are all women and by far the least two are the most conservative on the Court and are men.
The more activist judges are typically looking for ways to expand what is a literal document and wrote their extra-constitutional thoughts into their opinions.
Side note, I think Trump should float a non-commitment trial balloon on expanding SCOTUS to 13 just to make the Left’s heads explode. Something like “Democrats were talking about expanding the Supreme Court and maybe it isn’t such a bad idea. Maybe we will take a look at it.”
Last edited:
The biggest issue facing the Supreme Court is what "due process" mean. It isn't defined in the Constitution. IMO as Justice Arthur Goldberg declared in a 1963 Supreme Court case, the Constitution 'is not a suicide pact. '" Under current interpretations that illegal aliens captured at the border on US territory can be summarily expelled. The rest have at least some ight to a hearing. The issue would be does an illegal alien subject to an administrative judge deportation order (had his right to a hearing) have the full Constitutional right to a court hearing and right of appeal to the US Supreme Court. This is what the faces the squish of a US Chief Justice Roberts faces. Go suicide pact and decide that due process means that US President can ignore US immigration law as passed by the US Congress and signed into law by past US Presidents and open the borders to mass millions of unvetted illegal aliens but then once in the US they are effectively treated as full US citizens and entitled to a court hearing. Or are they subject to limited due process and that if they are illegal and didn't present themselves to the asylum process at a border point of entry then they may be summarily deported. I've talked about binary choices and we are faced with one right now. There needs to be a very bright line on this, not a half-assed decision like the last Supreme Court squish decision in support of one US District America Last Judge.
FWIWhttps://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population could not be deported without an opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.1 In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.2
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.3 The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, [e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.5 Accordingly, notwithstanding Congress’s indisputably broad power to regulate immigration, fundamental due process requirements notably constrained that power with respect to aliens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.6
Yet the Supreme Court has also suggested that the extent of due process protection may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.7 In various opinions, the Court has suggested that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.8 Thus, while the Court has recognized that due process considerations may constrain the Federal Government’s exercise of its immigration power, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States.
FWIWhttps://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population could not be deported without an opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.1 In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.2
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.3 The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, [e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.5 Accordingly, notwithstanding Congress’s indisputably broad power to regulate immigration, fundamental due process requirements notably constrained that power with respect to aliens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.6
Yet the Supreme Court has also suggested that the extent of due process protection may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.7 In various opinions, the Court has suggested that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.8 Thus, while the Court has recognized that due process considerations may constrain the Federal Government’s exercise of its immigration power, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States.
Didn't deserve its own thread.
I admit it was a busy weekend under the Nisqually River Bridge but I didn't expect this to be virtually on no ones radar. Not even my Pinoy facebook friends have a post about something a couple hours away.
I admit it was a busy weekend under the Nisqually River Bridge but I didn't expect this to be virtually on no ones radar. Not even my Pinoy facebook friends have a post about something a couple hours away.
Media only cares about Asians when a white guy kills some manicurists and they can start an “Asian Hate” narrative. That went away when pretty much every one of the following cases were some black guy killing an Asian.