Candace Owens says she will force Brigitte Macron to undergo INDEPENDENT medical exam to prove she's female.

[Into the Night]

Where does the constitution say the SC has the power to decide if something is constitutional. Don't tell me they do it all the time - i know that and it's wrong. The 10a says it's up to the states.

The SC has the authority, like any court, to determine if a law conforms to the Constitution. They can then officially nullify that law.
They do NOT have any authority OVER the Constitution. They are compelled to conform to the Constitution.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

The SC has the authority, like any court, to determine if a law conforms to the Constitution. They can then officially nullify that law.

That is another lie on your part. The constitution does NOT give the SC the power to declare a law unconstitutional. If you think it does, show us where it says that.

The 10A says only the states have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Thomas jefferson said the same thing.

 

[Into the Night]

That is another lie on your part.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

The constitution does NOT give the SC the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

Yes it does.

If you think it does, show us where it says that.

Go read Article III to see what authority courts have.

The 10A says only the states have the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

No, it doesn't. It says that all authority not specifically granted to the federal government belongs to the States or to the people.

Thomas jefferson said the same thing.

Void argument fallacy.

 

[Diesel]

And this pussy doesnt have the guts to reply directly.

Like @TOP? That miserable cunt doesn't reply directly to anyone.

 

[Diesel]

I just don't see where there has been actual damage. I have no idea when Candace Owens became so crazy... but dayum.

"Became crazy"? She was always an hysterical twat.

 

[Diesel]

That is another lie on your part. The constitution does NOT give the SC the power to declare a law unconstitutional. If you think it does, show us where it says that.

The 10A says only the states have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Thomas jefferson said the same thing.

Have you heard of Marbury v. Madison? It's the first day lesson in first year law school.

 

[TOP]

Fake ignore is the best

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Have you heard of Marbury v. Madison? It's the first day lesson in first year law school.

Yes exactly. The SC just GRANTED themselves the power to declare laws unconstitutional. That doesn't make it so. You are really dumb.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Still waiting. Can someone show where the constitution gives the SC authority to declare laws unconstitutional.? The very first words after the preamble are , "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

 

[Walt]

if she wants monetary damages for claiming something medical about her is a lie, than I disagree....STRONGLY

She has given birth to three children, and only women have been known to give birth to children, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, when all she needed was a preponderance of the evidence.

2 things must be proven

1 - it is false
2 - she knows it is false

Or that she had a reckless disregard for the truth. For instance, if she had ignored that Macron had three children... Which she did.

false. she will also need to demonstrate actual malice.

• Actual Malice: For public figures, the plaintiff must prove the defendant made the statement with "actual malice," meaning they knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Even you admit now that all Owen had to have was a reckless disregard. The fact she is doubling down on the lie proves a reckless disregard for the truth.

the defense attorneys will easily show no malice.

There are two almost mutually exclusionary defenses. Either Owens was factually correct, or she was wrong, but tried to correct it as quickly as possible. Owens' doubling down on the attack makes the no malice claim nearly impossible.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

She doesnt have to do anything and doubt shes trying to get money of out candace. i suspect shes just trying to shut her up but someone as crazed as candace seems to be wont go away so ignoring her is the best tactic. Only a psycho would would say they are going to force macron to get an exam

don't let your Zionism make you hate black people.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Yeah. I would not care if some idiot in France said my wife was once a man. I simply could not care any less what some idiot like that may think. I cannot believe that she would submit to some genetic testing to prove someone that she was a woman "all the time"... And I thought women can have y chromosomes nowadays anyway. What would two X chromosomes prove in today's world where men can get pregnant and boys need tampons in Wisconsin restrooms?

Streisand Effect.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

I looked up the complaint, you got me interested.

Owens is charged with 22 civil counts, they are:

Defamation – Libel

Defamation – Slander

Defamation Per Se

False Light / Invasion of Privacy

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Civil Conspiracy

Aiding and Abetting Defamation

Aiding and Abetting Invasion of Privacy

Aiding and Abetting Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

Tortious Interference with Prospective

Economic Advantage

Fraud

Constructive Fraud

Negligence

Gross Negligence

Negligent Supervision and Retention

Declaratory Judgment (Defamatory Falsity)

Permanent Injunction

Punitive Damages

I don’t have time to look up all the elements required for each count.

this proves Brigitte Macron is a man.

 

[Jarod]

this proves Brigitte Macron is a man.

Careful, the Macron’s might add you to the lawsuit!

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Careful, the Macron’s might add you to the lawsuit!

I would be honored.

 

[zymurgy]

She has given birth to three children, and only women have been known to give birth to children, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, when all she needed was a preponderance of the evidence.


Or that she had a reckless disregard for the truth. For instance, if she had ignored that Macron had three children... Which she did.

that is a losing argument. Someone across the pond is reading the news available, including how locals make a claim that she refused to prove with science. You do know that a French Citizen is sitting Scott free after saying the very same thing? That suit was tossed.