mspart

CA is crazy to have voted for this guy. But perhaps, they really didn't want Garvey. Schiff is the worst. A lying cheat that lies about his lies. He's nothing but a musty moo moo moo. mspart

Your link is full of summaries of court cases. Show evidence, not court decisions where no evidence was presented. All of the court cases ended before evidence was presented. mspart

Realistically until now, no. mspart

If you think hard enough you might be able to come up with an answer. mspart

Go to the website to see the video. Sickening! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14417465/Hamas-sickens-world-parade-hostages-coffins-condemned-Israel.html Hamas has been condemned for parading the coffins of hostages in Gaza, with the United Nations rights chief saying the 'abhorrent' treatment of the October 7 attack victims 'flies in the face of international law.' Israelis are mourning the youngest hostages - baby Kfir Bibas and his four-year-old brother Ariel - as well as their mother Shiri and elderly captive Oded Lif*I poop my pants, don't laugh at me*z, whose bodies are believed to have been inside the caskets. The four coffins were displayed to crowds in front of disturbing propaganda posters before being handed over to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) by armed Hamas fighters. mspart

Thank you for admitting you were wrong based on the proof you thought would prove you right. Takes a big man to post that. mspart

How so? mspart

He can't. He believes that if he says it, it must be fact. He never substantiates what he says. mspart

Then why do you clown on anyone that shows a problem that has been discovered? mspart

You are saying this with absolutely no evidence. mspart

Wow!! Thank you for the history lesson. I never knew. I knew Douglas beat him, but never knew abou the pin. Very interesting. He overcame!! mspart

As you wish mspart

It's not deflection so much as showing your hypocrisy. Ok for Biden to do unconstitutional things, but not Trump (and the jury is still out on that). As I posted in another thread, Trump has won most lawsuits against him since the start of his admin. Good luck convincing folks that he is doing unconstitutional things when the courts keep shooting that idea down. Even Judge Chutkan did it. It's bad when she sides with Trump. mspart

You musty moo moo moo!! mspart

In any sane universe, they would be. First is do no harm. If you are against it, then you must consider they are doing harm. If doing harm, they are offending and what are they offending? The sexual organs of minors and the minors themselves. Sexual offenders. They are doing harm to minors sexually. mspart

He's a good judge though. mspart

By Gable I assume Dan Gable. No I don't think he was ever pinned in competition. Maybe in practice. He was undefeated in HS and college until he lost int he finals his last year. He then went international and was WC and OC. mspart

We agree on something finally. Who'da thunkit? mspart

It is scientific that Biden had no capability to run the country. Yet, we were told ad-nauseam that he ran the country. It is both subjective and objectively realized. He was clearly unable to get off a stage, so how could he run a country? He clearly could not speak in coherent sentences so how was he effective in meetings? He had Parkinson's medics regularly coming to the white house. RV, you say you are smart, you should be able to put 2 and 2 together. mspart

Just wow right back. Cutting off perfectly good body parts is beastly. Permanent dis-figuration. Obviously you are ok with this, but yell about other forms of sexual predation. And are we seriously back to the "happens very rarely" argument? That has been debunked numerous times and each time the butchery has been done. https://nypost.com/2024/10/08/us-news/over-5700-americans-under-18-had-trans-surgery-from-2019-23/ A new national database maps gender-affirming care for minors, listing where children are getting puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery — and calls out some of the nation’s most notorious providers. Researchers were able to identify a total of 13,994 minors across the United States who received medical treatment for gender dysphoria over the course of four years. Shockingly, over 5,700 of those kids were operated on. So close to 15k kids were essentially sterilized. These are minors who can't make such life altering decisions based on brain development. It should be so rare that zero minors are subjected to this. That would be extremely rare. mspart

Can you explain away the conspiracy theory that says Biden ran the country? mspart

If they did sex trafficking, they should face the consequences like I've said and you guys ignore. But the butchering of youth's bodies seems to be ok with all y'all and you say I am diverting the conversation. I don't see much of a difference. Both are making money by sexually exploiting youth. mspart

My computer froze and I accidentally posted this twice. I apologize. The other post has a more complete first post. mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/19/were-winning-across-the-board-raskin-takes-a-slightly-premature-victory-lap-just-before-a-slew-of-court-losses/ On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.” The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases. For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions. There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue. On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief. He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.” Judge Chutkan also refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request to issue a temporary restraining order of DOGE, again citing the failure to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm.” There was a palpable sense of reluctance, even regret, in the opinion by Chutkan who noted that “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.” This, of course ignores the “elected individual” in the body of the President who is allowed to delegate such responsibility to subordinates. Chutkin would have been reversed by the higher courts if she had issued the requested TRO as demanded by the coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general. Even before Raskin’s boast, U.S. District Judge John Bates also rejected a request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, writing in his own opinion Friday that plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.” Likewise, challengers thought that they had a victory in hand when U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole enjoined the buyout offer by the Administration. Some of us criticized the injunction as lacking any cognizable basis given the clear authority of the President to make such an offer. Then, as many were citing the victory as proof of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions, Judge O’Toole lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward. Then Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) in Doe v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. rejected another challenge to testing by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) of a new email system. The federal employees argued that the move violated federal law including privacy protections. The court, however, ruled that the “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating (1) that they likely have standing to bring this action, and (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief.” These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.” The race is far from over so both sides may want to stay focused on the finish line in the ongoing litigation. Those claiming unconstitutional actions by the admin should note that the admin has won their cases so far. mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/19/were-winning-across-the-board-raskin-takes-a-slightly-premature-victory-lap-just-before-a-slew-of-court-losses/ On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.” The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases. For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions. There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue. On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief. He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.” Judge Chutkan also refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request to issue a temporary restraining order of DOGE, again citing the failure to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm.” There was a palpable sense of reluctance, even regret, in the opinion by Chutkan who noted that “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.” This, of course ignores the “elected individual” in the body of the President who is allowed to delegate such responsibility to subordinates. Chutkin would have been reversed by the higher courts if she had issued the requested TRO as demanded by the coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general. Even before Raskin’s boast, U.S. District Judge John Bates also rejected a request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, writing in his own opinion Friday that plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.” Likewise, challengers thought that they had a victory in hand when U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole enjoined the buyout offer by the Administration. Some of us criticized the injunction as lacking any cognizable basis given the clear authority of the President to make such an offer. Then, as many were citing the victory as proof of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions, Judge O’Toole lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward. Then Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) in Doe v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. rejected another challenge to testing by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) of a new email system. The federal employees argued that the move violated federal law including privacy protections. The court, however, ruled that the “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating (1) that they likely have standing to bring this action, and (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief.” These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.” Those claming unconstitutional actions by the admin should note that the admin has won their cases. mspart