Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38479
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. I imagine that's why he did it, not out of fear that they would be convicted and sentenced, but that you can beat the rap but not the ride. Criminal venue is quite narrow and would likely place most of these cases in DC, so fears of more Cannons are overplayed. And she's an outlier even so.
  2. Although it is a form of corporate welfare, I can't say that I really disagree with it. It's a policy that applies to all vaccine developers and manufacturers, and, although Pfizer and Moderna made out financially, I'm not sure that's true for all vaccines and I think the landscape would be considerably different without it.
  3. Guess how long such immunity has been around? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22 The point is that vaccines serve a greater public good, even if they are not perfect and even if some people are injured by them. Guess whatever it takes to support a position you want to support. Notorious librul rag questioning the calls for Fauci's prosecution https://reason.com/2022/12/16/what-do-republicans-want-to-prosecute-fauci-for-exactly/ And, no one sane is calling for Fauci to be prosecuted, it's only performative assholes like Rand, Ted Cruz, MTG, Biggs and the rest of the fuckwad squad. They're not serious people.
  4. And he's also been gobbling Trump crank for a year or more. And he's South African. And a grifter deluxe. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/patrick-soon-shiong-taxes-nanthealth-foundation-236728
  5. No it isn't. What's horrendous is the demands for prosecution for a government official, who has official immunity, incidentally, and an apparent willingness of the president-elect to prosecute. The pardon is a symptom, not the disease. And Rand Paul is a full-time cunt about everything, always. Ask his neighbor. I'm sick of these fuckers.
  6. Unlike the Trumpian fantasies of the prosecutions mounted against him, these will be actual bullshit charges that should be dismissed or acquitted hastily.
  7. And, if that happens, we're about to see how those procedural protections provided defendants who are inclined and able to take advantage of them work.
  8. Yeah, the precedent is a candidate-president-elect openly threatening to prosecute his enemies, which the pardons preempt.
  9. Responsibility for the Covid pandemic? Really? Really Rand? You cunt. You pube-headed cunt. If anyone wonders why rationals balk at anything put forth by conservatives on this issue, this pretty much explains it in a nutshell.
  10. Well, she does seem to have more parts in common with an Electrolux than an actual human female. Or maybe a Dyson.
  11. I'm not, that's why the third paragraph of my post indicating that it's all a load of shit. But orignalism, such as it is, is just a form of textualism, expanded. And both of them preceded the postmodern Supreme Court by decades. All constitutional interpretation is a load of shit, insofar as it purports to provide the "one true rule." But they do have legitimate theoretical underpinnings. And, I have always contended that Supreme Court jurisprudence is calvinball and always has been. The justices pick and choose interpretive devices to justify decisions reached on other grounds, and always have. It's just a bit more naked now, and certain of them, anyway, contend that orignalism is the one true rule. And when you employ textualism and orignalism, you get stuck with a document as-written and as-understood in 1789. That is, a retrograde and fairly unimportant document.
  12. Well, instead of admitting that Elmo spent Soros^3 money to influence the vote, he's pretending that Elmo fixed the Dominion and Smartmatic computers so they couldn't rig the election. Or he actually believes that. Now that he's said it, he probably actually believes that.
  13. Hoors.
  14. Funny thing, although Dad was a vet and qualified for USAA even under its old rules, we had Allstate because Dad worked for Sears early in his career. We switched to USAA when I got my DL because it was the cheapest, and cheapest across the board. I think part of USAA's problem is having increased the coverage pool
  15. Vivek Rama-Ramas-not-gonna-work-here-anymore.
  16. Good, Tom, fucking impeach him. Unfortunately, Congress can jawbone about this until they're blue in the face, but there's little legal recourse.
  17. So, apparently, Tik Tok went dark yesterday as a result of the ruling. Today, it is back and crediting Trump for bringing it back. This is the worst fucking timeline.
  18. Oh, I think there are enough smart people, but remember, now, intelligence and education is elite or woke or some shit. So the electorate is not going to defer to the smart ones.
  19. That's not at all what I said. He's got a bad rap. Some of it deserved, most of it not.
  20. Weird law, I can't quite figure it out. Most federal laws end up codified into US Code ("U.S.C.") and part of it is here, at 15 USC 9901. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/9901 But parts of it specific to TikTok don't seem to have been codified yet and can be found here, in the general statutes. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-118publ50/pdf/PLAW-118publ50.pdf around p. 66.
  21. The other big question on Tik Tok is why the fuck Byte Dance isn't offshoring itself from the PRC with all deliberate speed. That may tell you all you need to know, right there.
  22. The technical answers are: a) the Supreme Court did not actually decide that the law was constitutional, but in a "shadow docket" decision decided that it was "constitutional enough" not to be enjoined pending the real appeal on the merits b) the "take care" clause generally permits some leeway or discretion in enforcing or otherwise carrying out laws, short of outright defiance Finally, there's little mechanism for enforcing the take care clause, other than impeachment. Finding standing to assert that the 90-day executive order violates the take care clause would be difficult and would certainly not conclude before it became moot.
  23. This is much like saying "all politicians lie."
  24. You missed my point. The textualist/originalist foundation is that the Constitution is interpretable only as understood around the time it was drafted, rather than It being a statement of principles that can be adapted to modern concerns. Thus, if there is something that isn't addressed by the text or original intent or understanding of the Constitution circa 1789. then the Constitution doesn't provide for it. If the Constitution is to provide for it, it must be amended or otherwise re-written to accomplish that end. That is both a "classically conservative" position (incremental and measured change) and a "post-modern conservative" justification for revanchism. The more liberal position is something like the second clause of my second sentence: the Constitution is a statement of principles from which even modern problems can be addressed and solved. All of this is kind of a load of shit, because no single interpretive philosophy can realistically get the job done. But your concession that the Constitution can't get it done is a justification of textualism and originalism. And, one of the problems of rewriting the Constitution is that all of the revision would basically have to be approved by popular vote supermajority. And, aside from current hyperpartisanship, Americans are too fucking stupid to design a proper government.
  25. I suppose, had Biden withdrawn earlier and in time for a normal primary "season" and election, it is conceivable that a better candidate and "platform" might have emerged, which possibility includes Harris honing her message.
×
×
  • Create New...