Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[REDSTATEWARD]

Really I'd prefer if the NY Gov sets down some rules (according to the color code or whatever) and then religious orgs can work with the local health officials to get waivers if they put a viable plan into place. 

Simply, some churches are large and can easily distance 25 or even 50 parishioners, while others are smaller and maybe 10 or 20 is the right amount.
And it helps if they demonstrate a plan for ensuring mask wearing and maybe use temp checks upon admittance.   Maybe some behaviors/parts of services should be modified, etc.

Such waivers could provide the narrow tailoring the court wanted.  And it seems a good thing if local health officials and religious groups are coordinating their anti-virus strategies.  Religious services and participation are important to some folks and making some accommodation for that seems reasonable.

So I'd favor localization and cooperation.

I see you are still ignorant on the details of our Constitution.

[kidcarter8]

Such great work by this administration - cant see it continuing on this level under Biden

The president also is pressuring Berlin to scrap the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which would import Russian energy. “Germany will have almost 70 percent of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas,” Trump said in Brussels in July 2018. “You tell me, is that appropriate?”

Rather than let America’s friends — German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her people — become addicted to Kremlin-controlled energy, Trump urges Merkel to buy U.S. liquefied natural gas.

While America and Germany sometimes disagree, the United States will not shut the gas spigots in deepest winter to demand concessions, as Russian President Vladimir Putin did in January 2009. Moscow halted natural gas from going to Ukraine, and downstream customers shivered.

“Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey all reported a halt in Russian gas shipments,” NBC News reported. “Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, and Poland reported substantial drops in supplies.”

Putin did likewise with oil shipments to Belarus last January.

A back rub for Angela? No. Tough love? Yes.


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/national-security-adviser-robert-obrien-deroy-murdock

[bodiddley]

So you got nothing as usual ...

Otherwise, the Constitution is rather short on details.
Case law is where the Constitution gets explicated and details emerge.

You're welcome ...

[bankshot1]

Trump wins (for his people) again

Lobster from Maine will no longer be subject to 8% tariff.

Now they're working on eliminating tariffs on lobster bibs!

[REDSTATEWARD]

So you got nothing as usual ...

Otherwise, the Constitution is rather short on details.
Case law is where the Constitution gets explicated and details emerge.

You're welcome ...

Article One is a nice starting point.

[josh]

The man is delusional.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/26/trump-thanksgiving-inauguration-biden-question-vpx.cnn

[kidcarter8]

Whoa!

"I personally observed USB cards being uploaded to voting machines by the voting machine warehouse supervisor on multiple occasions,” Stenstrom testified. “This person is not being observed, he's not a part of the process that I can see, and he is walking in with baggies of USBs"


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pa-poll-watcher-a-navy-vet-alleges-missing-usb-cards-up-to-120000-questionable-votes

[Yankguy1]

Kid simply doesn't realize what a fool he's making of himself.

[bankshot1]

Red seems to have a difficult time grasping the idea that the Constitution can be interpreted differently by those with different perspectives, as new circumstances are called on to be adjudicated.

While the recent 5-4 vote upheld the right of religious congregations to assemble with no restrictions as to the # of congregants, despite the heightened risks of spreading disease they may pose to society, that vote likely would have been 5-4 the other way if held 6 months ago without Justice Serena Joy on the court.

Article One would still have been a nice starting point but I'm not sure Red would cite it to affirm that hypothetical SC decision. 

[oilcan]

So you got nothing as usual ...

Otherwise, the Constitution is rather short on details.
Case law is where the Constitution gets explicated and details emerge.

You're welcome ...

Maybe this will help Forest "Ward" Gump....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/26/what-conservative-majority-court-really-means/

[josh]

So you got nothing as usual ...

Otherwise, the Constitution is rather short on details.
Case law is where the Constitution gets explicated and details emerge.

You're welcome ...

Article One is a nice starting point.

Ward is basically saying that every time that the court ruled the other way prior to this on such matters, they were wrong, because the majority of Justices did not understand the Constitution, but he does.

Ward's delusional, too.

I commend reading Sotomayor's dissent to those who think and care about human life. It dismantles the bogus arguments used by the majority to support their fallacious conclusion.

I would, oh so terribly surprisingly, argue that this decision is far more in keeping with SCOTUS' decisions than the reverse would have been, not because it is consistent with law, but because inconsistency with regard to religion is a hallmark of their decision-making.

Oh, it's okay that Nebraska start their legislative sessions with prayer, because notwithstanding the religious component of it, they've been doing it a long time.

Oh, it's okay that this city puts up a creche - it's just celebrating a national holiday, after all.

Sure, you can say "In God We Trust," as that is not promoting a specific religion.

Sure, you can restrict certain businesses from operating on Sunday or make others pay workers more on it. Has nothing to do with religion.

SCOTUS has never been honest with itself about its own biases on religion.

We should not expect that to be better now than it has been, but worse. And with its being worse, so too will be the quality of "reasoning" made to support that dishonesty.

[kidcarter8]

Kid simply doesn't realize what a fool he's making of himself.

Why are you ignoring evidence?

Do you wish all future US elections to involve shenanigans?  Why?  Why not fix some things?

[oilcan]

Red seems to have a difficult time grasping the idea that the Constitution can be interpreted differently by those with different perspectives, as new circumstances are called on to be adjudicated.

While the recent 5-4 vote upheld the right of religious congregations to assemble with no restrictions as to the # of congregants, despite the heightened risks of spreading disease they may pose to society, that vote likely would have been 5-4 the other way if held 6 months ago without Justice Serena Joy on the court.

Article One would still have been a nice starting point but I'm not sure Red would cite it to affirm that hypothetical SC decision.

Red also fails to consider that restrictions applied even MORE vigorously to businesses in NY,  so it's really hard to argue churches or temples were singled out on a basis prejudicial towards religion.   And other case precedents  have affirmed that restrictions applied generally across society are not a discriminatory abridgement of religious worship. 

[kidcarter8]

While the recent 5-4 vote upheld the right of religious congregations to assemble with no restrictions as to the # of congregants, despite the heightened risks of spreading disease they may pose to society, that vote likely would have been 5-4 the other way if held 6 months ago without Justice Serena Joy on the cour

Sure.

Food for thought - makeup of the court right now is not really 6-3.

[oilcan]

Kid simply doesn't realize what a fool he's making of himself.

Why are you ignoring evidence?

Do you wish all future US elections to involve shenanigans?  Why?  Why not fix some things?

Rumors?   Any real evidence,  pal?