Skip trying to use the tribal restroom. Head for a Harvard Law professorship and the US Senate. Of course, I'm just kidding. Never happen.
We need a general tweet of the day thread
- Thread starter RaceBannon
- Start date
I have heard Orkin offices are sympathetic to these issues and their bathrooms are open to all.Skip trying to use the tribal restroom. Head for a Harvard Law professorship and the US Senate. Of course, I'm just kidding. Never happen.
Texas has faggy Austin holding them back.
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming are where the real ones live.
Last edited:
TurdBomber
Active poster
Gotta keep them two-spiriteds safe and clean.I have heard Orkin offices are sympathetic to these issues and their bathrooms are open to all.Skip trying to use the tribal restroom. Head for a Harvard Law professorship and the US Senate. Of course, I'm just kidding. Never happen.
I mean, who wants to watch a tranny poo and pee in their crawlspace?
To be fair, two-spiriteds are predominantly bi.
Last edited:
This Karen will make some unlucky guy soi boi one miserable person and it couldn't happen to two more deserving dems.
Trump broke everyone of these fuckers. Party before Country. America Last.
Who could have seen this coming. Decline is a choice.
He voted for this. By the way that's a big fucking carbon footprint. But solar panels so no worries
Pretty much a summary of the decision.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court issued a ruling this morning that it is legal for President Donald Trump to be the president.
In a 6-3 decision, the court held that since Trump was, in fact, elected to be president, his ability to "do president things" was protected under the law.
"The court hereby rules that a president can be president," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned the decision for the majority. "By virtue of being president, that person is the president. I can't freaking believe I'm having to explain this."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a scathing dissent for the minority, arguing that she really didn't like that presidents could do stuff and also that it was very unfair how pretty Justice Barrett is for her age. "I'm really getting sick of looking at her still-youthful face," wrote Jackson. "Also, I hate laws. Laws are stupid. Case closed."
At publishing time, Justice Jackson had challenged Justice Barrett to a pay-per-view cage match.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court issued a ruling this morning that it is legal for President Donald Trump to be the president.
In a 6-3 decision, the court held that since Trump was, in fact, elected to be president, his ability to "do president things" was protected under the law.
"The court hereby rules that a president can be president," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned the decision for the majority. "By virtue of being president, that person is the president. I can't freaking believe I'm having to explain this."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a scathing dissent for the minority, arguing that she really didn't like that presidents could do stuff and also that it was very unfair how pretty Justice Barrett is for her age. "I'm really getting sick of looking at her still-youthful face," wrote Jackson. "Also, I hate laws. Laws are stupid. Case closed."
At publishing time, Justice Jackson had challenged Justice Barrett to a pay-per-view cage match.
Pitchfork51
Active poster
he has insurance
I mean it's not the Swiss franc but seems like an issue
Well, Katanji isn't a biologist so who can blame her for not being able to define a woman. On the other hand, she is supposed to be a Harvard Law grad, editor of the law review and passed the bar, but "legalese" and "dry technical arguments" are beyond her capacity to incorporate into an opinion. Apparently, if an argument makes her vag ache she can use her feelings to guide her decisions. Her having a black vag doesn't make her a woman but it did get her a Supreme Court seat.https://ace.mu.nu/
The opinion states that Congress never granted lowly district court justices the power to grant "equitable relief" (injunctions) to anyone except the exact parties in court in front of them. They cannot simply just say that their rulings apply across the country to anyone else who might make a similar complaint.
Katanji Brown-Jackson wrote an illiterate dissent in which she railed against "legalese" and "dry technical arguments" to assert that yes, lowly district court judges can overrule the nationally elected constitutional chief executive officer whenever they feel that liberals really need a win.
Coney Barret blasted her, accusing her simply ignoring 250 years of constitutional practice in order to create an "imperial judiciary."
She doesn't seem to grasp that "legalese" is what makes up the law. She seems to dismiss it because she can't follow it.
Now, for a layman, this is understandable. Laymen don't understand legalese and are impatient with it.
But this is, allegedly, a Supreme Court Justice. Shouldn't the "legalese" and "dry technical arguments" (as she dismisses all legal reasoning) be of some concern to her?
The opinion states that Congress never granted lowly district court justices the power to grant "equitable relief" (injunctions) to anyone except the exact parties in court in front of them. They cannot simply just say that their rulings apply across the country to anyone else who might make a similar complaint.
Katanji Brown-Jackson wrote an illiterate dissent in which she railed against "legalese" and "dry technical arguments" to assert that yes, lowly district court judges can overrule the nationally elected constitutional chief executive officer whenever they feel that liberals really need a win.
Coney Barret blasted her, accusing her simply ignoring 250 years of constitutional practice in order to create an "imperial judiciary."
The full passage is worth the read. Amy Coney Barret calls Ketanji Jackson-Brown dumb, in so many words, incapable of reading, understanding, and applying the law, simply acting like a panelist on The View popping off about what she thinks the law should be while complaining about the "legalese" in the law.
She doesn't seem to grasp that "legalese" is what makes up the law. She seems to dismiss it because she can't follow it.
Now, for a layman, this is understandable. Laymen don't understand legalese and are impatient with it.
But this is, allegedly, a Supreme Court Justice. Shouldn't the "legalese" and "dry technical arguments" (as she dismisses all legal reasoning) be of some concern to her?
