The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~ Marcus Aurelius“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“The urge to shout filthy words at the top of his voice was as strong as ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Not a civil judgement, no because they don't have to meet anywhere near the standards of a criminal conviction. And since we are seeing how many criminal convictions are full of bullshit, even then, it's a bad case of "he said, she said" and with the current culture of false assault accusations coming from buyer's remorse, just no.
I asked for neither your Opinion,
your Acceptance
nor your Permission.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3
"It took 2000 mules to install one Jackass." Diamond and Silk Watch the Movie
A civil judgement isn't enough to convict. That is why OJ is innocent, but still lost a civil case.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
He's making fun of shaft for denying some rep he left once, because he was too dumb to realize that rep stopped being anonymous several years ago, and he was like "Unless someone posts a video of me leaving the rep then it wasn't me."
EDIT: PB conveniently has it in his sig
Last edited by Methais; 01-29-2024 at 09:34 AM.
Shocker, Republicans are no longer the law and order party and at Trump's urging are now the lawless rebellion party.
Republicans now say it might be okay to ignore the Supreme Court
A consequential development of the Trump era is what increasingly looks like the Republicans’ acrimonious divorce from the rule of law.
The party that once prided itself as the law-and-order side has leaped headlong into highly speculative theories about the “weaponization” of the justice system, spurred by former president Donald Trump. Both Trump and his former lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently flouted civil defamation verdicts against them by continuing to defame their victims — cheered on by many on the right. Republican voters increasingly want a president who is willing to break both rules and laws to get things done.
But some members of the party have in recent days crossed a new threshold: by suggesting that it’s okay to disregard the Supreme Court.
After the Supreme Court ruled last week that federal authorities can remove razor wire that Texas put on the U.S.-Mexico border, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) posted on X, formerly Twitter, that “Texas should ignore it.”
“It’s like, if someone’s breaking into your house, and the court says, ‘Oh, sorry. You can’t defend yourself.’ What do you tell the court?” Roy separately told Fox News. “You tell the court to go to hell, you defend yourself and then figure it out later.”
By Friday, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) had gone on CNN and indicated that it would be okay to disregard the Supreme Court in certain circumstances.
We all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” Stitt said. “And if the Supreme Court gets something wrong — for example, if they tried to ban and say that we didn’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms — I think the Constitution supersedes somebody in Washington, D.C., telling us, you know.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...rt/ar-BB1hrItf
If we are talking about the whole thing about the Park and the razor wire, you need to read the judgement. It only says that the Feds have the right to remove the wire and so on. It does NOT say that Texas can't put it back up. Welcome to the benefits of learning to read.
I asked for neither your Opinion,
your Acceptance
nor your Permission.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3
"It took 2000 mules to install one Jackass." Diamond and Silk Watch the Movie