jamesdeandaydream.bsky.social
Swiftie, skeptic, independent, on the spectrum, takes no shit. “Tryhard TERF bitch.”
845 posts
79 followers
29 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yes. If the President does something illegal, that is grounds for impeachment.
LOL. IKR?
comment in response to
post
Clients be clientin’.
comment in response to
post
A friend of mine is to the point where he thinks we just can't do redistricting any more, period. He wants to go to statewide at-large. I'm not quite there yet; I really resist the idea that humans can't figure this shit out. But it's hard to deny that these problems are becoming intractable.
comment in response to
post
She thinks she's saying something smart and clever but actually the government can 100% ban viagra and literally no one thinks it couldn't.
comment in response to
post
The fact that you're fighting the hypothetical doesn't suggest that you're used to thinking carefully about legal issues.
comment in response to
post
Are you really saying that if it were written as in the hypothetical, your answer is yes, Congress *can* infringe speech?
comment in response to
post
“A well informed populous being necessary to free elections, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” If the first amendment said that, could Congress abridge speech unrelated to elections?
comment in response to
post
If I could, I would.
comment in response to
post
Roe was controversial (and wrong) the day it was decided, never became less controversial (nor less wrong), yet still it took a focussed, decades-long campaign that involved wholesale change (improvement) in judicial thinking to expunge it. That is hardly the model if we want a case overruled.
comment in response to
post
Responding to being called out on a wild conspiracy theory with a Youtube video! LOL. You really are acting just like them. And we hate them, right? We hate their gullibility; their confirmation bias, information bubbles, inflammability... They're dumb. Quit acting like them.
comment in response to
post
It's the shamelessness of the lie that must never lose its power to shock.
comment in response to
post
There's always the next grift.
comment in response to
post
People follow the nutrient gradient.
comment in response to
post
Well then you are very stupid, and as conspiracy-addled as the Trump cult.
comment in response to
post
They say a diamond's a girl's best friend. They're wrong; it's a Hitachi Magic Wand.
comment in response to
post
That 84 page paper was not written by Justice Jackson, its discussion of what Justice Jackson wrote involves the familiar Youngstown framework not the Posse Comitatus Act, and in any event the paper doesn’t actually say what you seem to be citing it for, so I think you’re very confused.
comment in response to
post
It literally doesn’t. Here’s the whole posse comitatus act, soup to nuts. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/.... It says nothing about the national guard. Your heart’s in the right place, and other statues may say that, but the one you cited doesn’t. You’re not helping by circulating false information
comment in response to
post
They sacrificed everything else on the altar of Trump; why would the Second Amendment not be next into the pyre?
comment in response to
post
It's obviously impossible that someone could learn something in the space of six years.
comment in response to
post
Find him. Prosecute him.
comment in response to
post
Wait. A girl let Stephen Miller touch her?
Like—why? How?
comment in response to
post
In 2009, Democrats had a choice. Bristling with potency, they could do healthcare or they could do immigration. It was clear at the time that they had made the wrong choice, and it has become more clear (and more wrong) every year since then.
comment in response to
post
Right. It’s the judges that are the problem. It’s the judges who threaten tyranny.
comment in response to
post
The delulu that fascism will be “destroyed” by words is unfathomable.
comment in response to
post
That used to be a reasonable position.
comment in response to
post
I can be disgusted by more than one person at a time..
comment in response to
post
At this point, courts should presume this government acted lawlessly unless it can prove otherwise.
comment in response to
post
Hard to imagine many statements more true, in the short term, than "abortion rights in the state will remain far from settled." It'll take a couple of generations for this to all shake out.
comment in response to
post
You got it exactly. It's an act of political vengeance—that's what all of this is—and no they don't care about the consequences.
comment in response to
post
In a few days or months, he’ll be dead and no one will miss him and everyone will be glad. And he knows it.
comment in response to
post
It’s a cancer on capitalism.
comment in response to
post
Elections at this level are never “general.” They’re always about the specifics of person and party involved. And they’re also in a context: I don’t know where you get this 5% figure from, but in reality, Rs vote for the R candidate, Ds vote for the D, and Is vote for their gestalt.
comment in response to
post
Remember, findom (I didn't stutter) is a thing. Whatever it is, someone's into it, no matter how weird.