She was wrong, she shouldn’t have tweeted it, I’m no fan of the squad!
SCOTUS Issues
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Take two Covfefes and come back next week.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
i hear Rudy is also hucking a pair of pleated slacks that can be removed as quickly and easily as these cheap-ass jail house thin flops. Comes in handy when he's about to boink an underage chick!
And this was always the root of it, the projection is sickening!
thehill.com
10-year-old girl denied abortion in Ohio
A 10-year-old girl was denied an abortion in Ohio after the Supreme Court ruled last week that it was overturning Roe v. Wade, demonstrating the tangible impacts that the high court’s decision is h…
thehill.com
Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
Not surprised You would know what comes in handy for blinking an underage chick.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Ooof. Rekt me.
Politico Hit Piece on Clarence Thomas Goes Horribly Wrong
Earlier this week, Politico made a horrible attempt to attack Justice Clarence Thomas in a hastily written “fact-check” that turned out to be false.
According to Politico, Thomas claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were developed from cells from aborted children, a claim Politico insisted was false.
“They object on religious grounds to all available COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas said in a quote cited by Politico. In response to this claim, Politico insisted, “None of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses.”
There were, however, two problems with this so-called fact check.
First, Thomas didn’t actually make the statement. Politico eventually learned this and issued a correction:
The next problem is that the claim wasn’t that the vaccine contained cells from aborted fetuses. It’s that these cells were used in the development of the vaccines—which is factually correct, and even Politico acknowledges this in the following sentence after claiming it was false.
Regardless of who claimed how the vaccines were developed, the claim wasn’t that they contain cells of aborted fetuses; it was about how the vaccines were developed. This correction about who said what is really beside the point. No one said the vaccines “contain the cells of aborted fetuses,” as Politico implies. They were trying to destroy Clarence Thomas and didn’t care about the facts, so they falsely attributed a claim to him and then distorted the claim to suggest it was wrong.
Needless to say, Democrats in Congress are angry. Really angry.
But apparently not quite angry enough to actually get up off their butts and do anything meaningful about it. Best they can do is stuff like what Democratic Reps. Mike Levin and Katie Porter are doing. Brace yourselves, guys: they’ve written a letter. A strongly worded one:
But apparently not quite angry enough to actually get up off their butts and do anything meaningful about it. Best they can do is stuff like what Democratic Reps. Mike Levin and Katie Porter are doing. Brace yourselves, guys: they’ve written a letter. A strongly worded one:
The history of the case, as Reason's Ron Bailey sketches out here, is long and complicated. It stretches back to 2015, when the Obama administration's EPA issued its Clean Power Plan, which would establish cap-and-trade markets for greenhouse gas emissions in each state. The regulations would have phased out coal-generated power plants over time.
The Clean Power Plan proved immediately controversial. The Supreme Court paused its implementation in 2016. Former President Donald Trump tried to replace it with more limited rules during his tenure—a move that was also shot down by the courts.
The Biden administration attempted to revive the Clean Power Plan. The court's decision yesterday puts an end to that effort.
Writing in The Washington Post, conservative commentator George Will argues the decision was a win for separation of powers that might put some outer bounds on executive authority and encourage Congress to resume its role of actually legislating.
"If, as is desirable, the decision presages similar ones, they could, cumulatively, revive Congress by compelling it to resume its proper responsibilities," writes Will. "This would limit the excessive autonomy currently enjoyed by the executive agencies that are the increasingly autonomous, unleashed and unaccountable administrative state."
Lawmakers themselves who supported the Clean Power Plan have taken a somewhat dimmer view of the decision.
reason.com
The Clean Power Plan proved immediately controversial. The Supreme Court paused its implementation in 2016. Former President Donald Trump tried to replace it with more limited rules during his tenure—a move that was also shot down by the courts.
The Biden administration attempted to revive the Clean Power Plan. The court's decision yesterday puts an end to that effort.
Writing in The Washington Post, conservative commentator George Will argues the decision was a win for separation of powers that might put some outer bounds on executive authority and encourage Congress to resume its role of actually legislating.
"If, as is desirable, the decision presages similar ones, they could, cumulatively, revive Congress by compelling it to resume its proper responsibilities," writes Will. "This would limit the excessive autonomy currently enjoyed by the executive agencies that are the increasingly autonomous, unleashed and unaccountable administrative state."
Lawmakers themselves who supported the Clean Power Plan have taken a somewhat dimmer view of the decision.
SCOTUS Said Ambitious Climate Regulations Need To Come From Congress. Lawmakers Are Furious.
The Supreme Court's decision turns everything back over to the democratically elected branches of government to decide.
reason.com
ontheriver
Well-Known Member
Or, you could just not read them.Bad bot, less of these stories.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Where did they find this goofy looking child and where does she get her assumed expertise.?
Is she America's lame excuse for Greta Thunberg? Even Greta doesn't look that goofy