Jump to content

lemonlime

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lemonlime

  1. Any idea what this is about? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nkhxCZkJb7_9wgJuYXBn3acxcC7tOebx/view Grand juror asking for grand jury evidence to be made public. I didn't even know you could ask for that. My best guess is the juror realized after serving on the jury that the prosecutors misled them/held back evidence.
  2. The police reports: https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20392540-brad-parscale-incident-reports Which do not seem to coincide with the video footage. And of course the trumpkins will be outraged by this because he's a white guy. Which is also probably why he's still alive.
  3. Their voters will buy any nonsense. The cult is insane. If this is true, and it probably is, we should be burning down the country. If a rich person typically pays less income taxes (and not even by percentage of income, but by actual final dollar amount) by many orders of magnitude than a typical middle class person than we need guillotines. How the fuck does anyone see this and think this is a valid defense?
  4. Also not a CPA or a tax lawyer. But if you write off business expenses, it has to be the reasonable value of the expenses. And they have to be genuine. You can’t just pay your family members for “consulting” when they provided five minutes of shitty advice one. Or write off consulting expenses in the high six figures for a job that in the open market would cost you $5,000.
  5. Sure. But elections don't matter now. We have a so-called president who lost the popular vote. A Senate controlled by the party who had less votes. And a SCOTUS is which four (soon to be five) of the justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote. Right now the party with less votes controls two, arguably all three, branches of government. We need to make elections actually matter again before worrying decorum.
  6. They also all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We can see how seriously GOP Senators take their promises.
  7. It's also a complete lie. That her base eats up. Schumer is a practicing Jew leading a memorial service for a Supreme Court justice who was also a practicing Jew.
  8. 1000x this. I think his opposition to vote by mail is not only that more people vote. It's that there will be a paper trail.
  9. Yup. This twitter thread provides a good explanation for what appears to have happened. TLDR--the recent PA Supreme Court ruling that ballots not placed in the privacy envelope be invalidated led to confusion when some military ballots were received not in the privacy envelope. Edit to add a good one tweet summary of what happened and the bullshit being instigated by the GOP.
  10. That's not what happened. The driver of the truck rammed a protestor and then drove off. Although people in the crowd did try to get the hit and run driver to stop. There's plenty of video out there of it.
  11. It's bullshit. Have ballots even been mailed out yet in PA?
  12. Meanwhile, And what's with the passive reporting on this. They weren't magically "struck by a car." Someone chose to drive into them, and leave the scene.
  13. Still whining. Looks like he's about to cry in this clip.
  14. Even if they “knocked and announced” someone knocks on my door in the middle of the night when I’m sleeping, says “police” a second later which I may or may not have heard, and another second later knocks down my front door with a battering ram, and you expect me to act rationally and also not think it’s a criminal breaking in 2 seconds after being woken up in the middle of the night. Fuck anyone trying to defend this or that the cops only got charged for the bullets that missed.
  15. This belongs in the circumstantial evidence is inadmissible understanding of the legal system.
  16. I don't want to keep going back and forth on this, and I'm not sure of an exact definition I can put into words. But I do want to know more about extreme views. By way of example, and I'll take Judaism only because I'm Jewish and don't want to comment on others' religions. But Judaism teaches to welcome the stranger. I would hope if there was ever a Justice Lemonlime I wouldn't base holdings on Jewish teachings, but I would come into immigration cases with those beliefs. As would that my atheist parents taught me that we have an obligation to look out for the weakest among us. Or that I have family members who were refugees after WWII. I don't care whether a Jewish nominee goes to synagogue, how often they go to synagogue, their opinions of various Jewish beliefs, etc. But if there were somehow a nominee who was an ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jew, a sect in which men and women aren't even supposed to walk on the same side of the street, and which does not believe in reading books other than religious texts or using the internet or in newspapers, it would be fair game to discuss whether they believe women should be given equal access to education or whether they think government censorship of books that address homosexuality is okay or whether they would be able to rule fairly on cases involving First Amendment freedom of the press. I'm not sure how to define where the specific line is, but there is a point where membership in a certain group, religious or otherwise, could have negative implications on someone's ability to serve as a judge, and when that happens, questioning them on extreme views is appropriate.
  17. Only if they're going to an church services in an extremist sect. I don't care whether or not a nominee is religious, how devout they are, or the basic tenets of their religion. If they choose to affiliate with an extremist group, religious or otherwise, I care about that.
  18. You're right. We should ask nominees if they believe scientists.
  19. Extremist: "A person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics." So I don't care if a Catholic judge goes to church, was divorced, etc. And I'm sure that Catholic teachings have impact on her worldview. I do care if someone chooses to be a member of an organization that was the basis for the Handmaid's Tale.
  20. The Senate. Since they're supposed to give advice and consent. If the nominee is a member of the Flat Earth Society, Q-Anon, People of Praise, Haredi Judaism, etc. their choice to associate themselves with an extreme movement, religious or otherwise, is fair game. Asking them about the basic tenets of Judaism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, whatever religion of your choice is not fair game.
  21. What burntorangebongos said. Also, I don't believe in going after anyone because of their religion. I do think people who hold extremist views, religious or otherwise, should be asked about them if we're considering appointing them to one of the most powerful positions in the world for decades.
  22. Actually, the more I think on it, I think religious extremism is a fair attack. The actual religion is not. Religious extremists should not be imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. Someone with dangerous world views shouldn't be a judge.
×
×
  • Create New...