Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Suppressed Poet]

One of your friends suggested that it should just be ignored, but that was not my argument. My argument was that he lacked subject matter jurisdiction all together and should have dismissed the petition accordingly. Which is exactly what the court of appeals will probably do.

We’ll see in time. Good to hear you are not trying to start an insurrection.

[Parkbandit]

You certainly don't seem to mind the Executive Branch sending a group of armed right wing militia to the Capitol building at the exact date and time Congress was certifying an election.

Glass houses and all of that.

Who was armed, specifically? Last I checked, it was illegal to carry a firearm in DC unless you had a special permit.

Be specific.. how many armed individuals were there?

[Tgo01]

Be specific.. how many armed individuals were there?

The media and Democrats tried so hard to make it look like the entire group was armed, the best they could come up with was a whole THREE people.

One person was arrested at the capitol and the police found a gun in his truck, so not armed.

Another person was arrested at the capitol and the police found guns at his home, so not armed.

The final person was indeed arrested at the capitol and was armed with a gun.

So apparently all it takes to overthrow the US government is a bunch of grannies wandering around aimlessly and ONE GUN.

[Tgo01]

You've not cited any new information here, read the arguments in favor and against the judgment, the judge is ruling and come back informed..

This is all striking me as very familiar to that other judge, in Florida who inserted her personal opinion in lieu of the law and then was unanimously overruled by the court of appeals. Her being admonished by the upper Court was particularly choice. Remember when she tried to assert her authority over an executive branch function and was told that she was a dumb bitch by the court of appeals?

Oh my bad, you actually clarified the difference between the two cases I listed? Now be honest, did you actually state the differences in a coherent and meaningful matter, or did you just say something to the extent of "It's different because I say it's different!"

[Seran]

Oh my bad, you actually clarified the difference between the two cases I listed? Now be honest, did you actually state the differences in a coherent and meaningful matter, or did you just say something to the extent of "It's different because I say it's different!"

There's no constitutional argument in restricting mifepristone for one. Roe v Wade was predicated on the Constitutional argument. You'd know this if you bothered to read the source material. Do you you usually arguing from a place of ignorance on a topic, or is this one special for your people?

[Seran]

It's most telling that the judge ruled in part on the basis of the 1873 Comstock Act which at the time banned the US Postal Service from being used to mail obscene material or contraceptives. Obviously Trump.Judge had no understanding that Congress repealed most of the Comstock Act and the Supreme Court ruled it's tenants unconstitutional in two separate cases. But you MAGA folk can be bothered to be informed or to do your research after all.

[Tgo01]

There's no constitutional argument in restricting mifepristone for one. Roe v Wade was predicated on the Constitutional argument.

So....the constitution doesn't touch on abortion pills, but the constitution does touch on abortion?

Alright then.

Also why do you keep disagreeing with time4fun? Do you just want to date her?

[Methais]

See above. This isn't an instance where the federal executive authority failed in it's duties or superceded it's mandate granted by the legislative branch, this is a judicial officer issuing an injunction because the citizen's group disagrees with abortion.

You think that a district Court Judge having more authority than the Executive Branch performing duties at outlined by the Legislative Branch because of a belief their ideology supercedes law isn't a failure of our democracy? I'd be surprised if you did.

Here dude, because you really need it and can hopefully start being slightly less stupid than you already are every time you post:

[Parkbandit]

It's most telling that the judge ruled in part on the basis of the 1873 Comstock Act which at the time banned the US Postal Service from being used to mail obscene material or contraceptives. Obviously Trump.Judge had no understanding that Congress repealed most of the Comstock Act and the Supreme Court ruled it's tenants unconstitutional in two separate cases. But you MAGA folk can be bothered to be informed or to do your research after all.

I love it when you pretend to be smart.

It's my 2nd favorite thing here.. right after time4fun's "I have experience in that area because : (enter made up story here)"

[Methais]

The media and Democrats tried so hard to make it look like the entire group was armed, the best they could come up with was a whole THREE people.

One person was arrested at the capitol and the police found a gun in his truck, so not armed.

Another person was arrested at the capitol and the police found guns at his home, so not armed.

The final person was indeed arrested at the capitol and was armed with a gun.

So apparently all it takes to overthrow the US government is a bunch of grannies wandering around aimlessly and ONE GUN.

Everything the left says and does is performative.