Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[Truth Detector]

What a fucking juvenile retort. And 2 more fucking juveniles thought enough of it to thank it?

^Dishonest, low IQ, hypocritical dumb fuck thinks LyingVagina426's posts aren't juvenile or moronic rants.

[Truth Detector]

And it increased voter turnout by 23 million. Any voter suppression was obviously unsuccessful.

^Dipstick thinks this is about voter suppression.

[Flash]

And they did that to protect a human child from harm
In so doing
Saying clearly that flag can cause harm

But if that flag had been there when she was given custody it would not be causing harm. It is only an issue because it resulted in a change in conditions of the home. If the child was not "bi-racial" it would not be an issue.

[Truth Detector]

which explains why 25 GOP state legislatures have passed voter suppression laws since 2020

How do they suppress any votes, you lying, low IQ dumbass? Be specific.

[evince]

The court did not say that. Kids are different than adults and are subject to more protection. You are making a huge jump in logic that is completely contrary to the court's opinion.

The father only appealed when the child's attorney wanted the mother's home to be the primary residence. If they had joint custody and her home was not the primary residence the flag is not an issue.

Prescience is now set in the law record of harm



That is how LAW works dude

[evince]

How do they suppress any votes, you lying, low IQ dumbass? Be specific.

The courts will tell you ALL THE MANY WAYS


They won’t stand up

[Truth Detector]

The courts will tell you ALL THE MANY WAYS
They won’t stand up

[evince]

How do they suppress any votes, you lying, low IQ dumbass? Be specific.

Because there was no designation of harm by that flag in the legal record



Guess what?


Those judges just found HARM and set it in the legal record


Precedence

[Flash]

That flag was deemed harmful to a human

Face what happened

It established in the law the precedence that is by now in the law

It also said she (and all other Americans and non-citizen residents) have the constitutional right to display the flag.

Unless they are in a child custody situation with a black or bi-racial kid there is no precedent that applies. They never said the flag was harmful in general and we all know we have the right to display anything we choose no matter how objectionable.

How have you ever been harmed by a symbol? Hurting your feelings don't count.

[evince]

No cock biter

[Truth Detector]

Because there was no designation of harm by that flag in the legal record
Guess what?
Those judges just found HARM and set it in the legal record
Precedence

We're going to need a moron translator for this gibberish.

[evince]

It also said she (and all other Americans and non-citizen residents) have the constitutional right to display the flag.

Unless they are in a child custody situation with a black or bi-racial kid there is no precedent that applies. They never said the flag was harmful in general and we all know we have the right to display anything we choose no matter how objectionable.

How have you ever been harmed by a symbol? Hurting your feelings don't count.

Why remove the child if there is no harm in that flag




Get it



Wether they wanted to or not they set precedence


they did

[Flash]

Prescience is now set in the law record of harm

That is how LAW works dude

Only if there is another case involving a bi-racial child custody and a Confederate flag.

Precedent can be changed by another court.

You and LV426 are not even close on this one and ignore the court's clear statement that she has the constitutional right to display the flag.

[Flash]

Why remove the child if there is no harm in that flag
Get it
Wether they wanted to or not they set precedence they did

If the mother was a drunk and they removed the child from her home that does not mean no Americans can drink alcohol because it is harmful.

You are arguing what you would like the case to say, you are not arguing anything that has to do with law.

[LV426]

If I want to display a Confederate flag in a neighborhood of black people I am free do to so as long as I exhibit no actions threatening those neighbors.And no, the Confederate flag is not an "inherent threat."

But you just argued it was in this case from NY.