The Supreme Court

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
congrats on paying attention in middle school civics and for making my point.

now let's hear more about your christian hero and his rape conviction and how you plan to overturn it.  

I took civics in high school but paid enough attention to understand that Trump has not been convicted for rape.  

Hiding behind the semantics of NY State law is really a very weak defense...

When E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump went to trial last spring over her sexual assault allegations, a nine-person civil jury found that Trump sexually abused her but that she failed to prove he raped her.

The former president made hay of that distinction when he sued Carroll in June, alleging Carroll defamed him by saying she was raped in a media interview after the verdict.

The counterattack was quickly shot down.

Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in August that the jury verdict showed Carroll's rape allegation was "substantially true" and dismissed the counterclaim.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/

You do know that he inserted his fingers into her vagina without her consent, not sure why you think that isn't rape.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yeah, I'm not sure he meant for his blinding support of the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist to make him seem anti-death penalty..  - but here we are.

however, I, too, congratulated him on his anti-death penalty stance and have encouraged him to speak to his fellow church goers on the evils of 'murder'.

By "blinding support" of Trump you mean not voting for him in the MI primary and not voting for him in November?

BTW, many if not most of the  church members that I know are against the death penalty but again for a leftist, narrative > truth

Actions speak louder than words. They can say they are against the death penalty but the value of a human life is not great enough for them to vote against people and policies that support the death penalty. At the end of the day, as long as they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they KNOW FOR A FACT WITHOUT A DOUBT that they are going to Heaven.

Jesus love me, this I know.

For some book that was written and edited by humans and based on oral retellings of mythical stories tells me so.

A Supreme Court justice actually said this in a current case about freedom of speech:

""My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods"

Zurn wrote:A Supreme Court justice actually said this in a current case about freedom of speech:

""My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods"

Seriously Dude?

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:A Supreme Court justice actually said this in a current case about freedom of speech:

""My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods"

Seriously Dude?  

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

Protecting the people from what?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Seriously Dude?  

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

imagine thinking that 'free speech' had absolutely no limits at all.

my god, America is a stupid country and we get exactly what we deserve.

Well, I've been told that Court decisions are always correct and any questioning of them is literally an attack on the Constitution and democracy itself.

Will bump when this one plays out.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:



Seriously Dude?  

The "Freedom of Speach" thing is not an absolute, and one of the reasons we have courts at all is to determine which of the competing goods, in this case government actions to protect people verses "free speech" are more important.

Protecting the people from what?

The negative effects of shouting "Fire" in the Italian Meeting Hall in Calumet.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
imagine thinking that 'free speech' had absolutely no limits at all.

my god, America is a stupid country and we get exactly what we deserve.

Well, I've been told that Court decisions are always correct and any questioning of them is literally an attack on the Constitution and democracy itself.

Will bump when this one plays out.

I suggest in your ignorant way you should start disobeying all the court's rulings since you seem so skeptical of their legality.

Trapper Gus wrote:

The negative effects of shouting "Fire" in the Italian Meeting Hall in Calumet.

Is that what this case is about?

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The negative effects of shouting "Fire" in the Italian Meeting Hall in Calumet.

.

Is that what this case is about?  

It is one of the many examples of when you don't have a right to free speech

Did you post a link to some court case that you are talking about?

I thought you were talking about a Justice noting, correctly, that the right to free speech isn't absolute.

Trapper Gus wrote:

I thought you were talking about a Justice noting, correctly, that the right to free speech isn't absolute.

Everyone accepts that free speech isn't absolute. but that wasn't what her comment was referring to.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I thought you were talking about a Justice noting, correctly, that the right to free speech isn't absolute.

Everyone accepts that free speech isn't absolute. but that wasn't what her comment was referring to.

The government has a responsibility, so as to protect us from foreign propaganda attacks, to inform social media when they know that the positing is from foreign government actors using social media clandestinely to effect voting. What the private social media companies do with that is their business.

Is that the case you have your Depends in a knot about?

Keep in mind that the lower courts have already ruled against the federal government in this case and there is every expectation that the SCOTUS will too.

Not surprised that Trapper Gus and his pals stand against free speech.

Zurn wrote:Keep in mind that the lower courts have already ruled against the federal government in this case and there is every expectation that the SCOTUS will too.

Not surprised that Trapper Gus and his pals stand against free speech.

Keep in mind that it is the 5th circuit court, the one that has said the US government isn't sovereign, something the Constitution directly states the opposite of, that you are talking about.