Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[Into the Night]

But they can (and did) order her to remove the rock if it is causing increased conflict between parents.

That doesn't reduce conflict.

Courts frequently order a parent(s) to take parenting classes which may be aimed at reducing conflict.

That doesn't reduce conflict either.

In this case one of the factors considered in determining the best interest of the child is whether the parent is fulfilling court ordered actions such as drug or alcohol rehab. In this case one factor against the mother is that she did not attend court mandated parenting classes.

so?

 

[Into the Night]

Federal courts can interpret the Constitution and have done so many times.

They do not have authority to.

A court of appeals just struck down the North Carolina anti-abortion law.

So?

You claim the federal courts cannot interpret the Constitution but you wanted them to do just that with the Texas v. PA case.

Nope. Had nothing to do with the Constitution.

And, you wanted them to interpret it incorrectly by confusing disputes between states with disputes between citizens of different states (neither of which applied in the TX case).

Nope. Had nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Please describe where the words 'free expression' or a 'right of free expression' occurs in this amendment.
Note that this amendment does not apply to the State of Texas at all.

The term "freedom of expression" is used to cover free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.

This is a NY case and does not involve Texas at all. Also, it is not a 1st amendment case but a child custody case.

Also, the 1st amendment has been made to apply to all the states since 1925 unless you completely ignore the entire incorporation process which made major changes in court interpretation of the entire Bill of Rights. The fact that you don't recognize incorporation does not mean it does not exist and apply to all 50 states.

Into the Night 12/31
Currently, it looks like GA is going to choose Republican electors.
AZ looks like it might also, but seems to be further away from actually choosing.

 

[Flash]

They do not have authority to.

So?

Nope. Had nothing to do with the Constitution.

Nope. Had nothing to do with the Constitution.

Of course it had to do with the Constitution. The plaintiff (crook Ken Paxton) filed the case under the original jurisdiction of the Constitution; so, yes, it involves the Constitution .

The N.C. anti-abortion cases illustrates the power of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Please describe where this 'freedom of expression' comes from.

1st amendment. It even includes nude dancing.

 

[Into the Night]

The term "freedom of expression" is used to cover free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does the phrase 'freedom of the press' occur anywhere in this amendment? Where does the phrase 'freedom of the assembly' occur in this amendment. Where does this amendment concern NY law? Oh...that's right...you do not recognize the constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State.

This is a NY case and does not involve Texas at all. Also, it is not a 1st amendment case but a child custody case.

Also, the 1st amendment has been made to apply to all the states since 1925 unless you completely ignore the entire incorporation process which made major changes in court interpretation of the entire Bill of Rights. The fact that you don't recognize incorporation does not mean it does not exist and apply to all 50 states.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course it had to do with the Constitution. The plaintiff (crook Ken Paxton) filed the case under the original jurisdiction of the Constitution; so, yes, it involves the Constitution .

The case itself was not about the Constitution dumbass. Semantics fallacy.

The N.C. anti-abortion cases illustrates the power of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution.

The courts do not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

1st amendment. It even includes nude dancing.

Where does the phrase 'freedom of expression' occur in the 1st amendment?
Where does 'nude dancing' occur in the 1st amendment?
What as any of this got to do with New York?

 

[Flash]

The case itself was not about the Constitution dumbass. Semantics fallacy.

The courts do not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

The case was not heard because it does not meet the constitutional meaning of disputes between the states. You wanted this case heard which would have involved finding some constitutional provision and interpreting it in such a manner as to overturn the election result. That would have certainly involved constitutional interpretation.

Courts interpret the Constitution whether you think they have the authority or not.

 

[Flash]

Where does the phrase 'freedom of expression' occur in the 1st amendment?
Where does 'nude dancing' occur in the 1st amendment?
What as any of this got to do with New York?

The child custody case which you have been posting about is a NY case.
Nude dancing can be a form of expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment
Freedom of expression is a broad term to include speech, assembly, and press freedom

 

[Into the Night]

The case was not heard because it does not meet the constitutional meaning of disputes between the states. You wanted this case heard which would have involved finding some constitutional provision and interpreting it in such a manner as to overturn the election result. That would have certainly involved constitutional interpretation.

Courts interpret the Constitution whether you think they have the authority or not.

The case itself was not about the Constitution dumbass.
The Courts do not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

The child custody case which you have been posting about is a NY case.
Nude dancing can be a form of expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment
Freedom of expression is a broad term to include speech, assembly, and press freedom

The phrase 'freedom of speech' doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. 'Freedom of expression' doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

The case itself was not about the Constitution dumbass.
The Courts do not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

It was about the Constitution in that it gives states the power to determine their own election laws and to determine whether the state acted under the authority of state constitution and laws.

The plaintiff was under the false assumption that TX can interfere with the right of other states to govern themselves. It made the additional lame assumption that it constituted a dispute between states.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The phrase 'freedom of speech' doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. 'Freedom of expression' doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution.

Dumbass, so what? We all have unalienable rights. The Constitution limits the Feds, not you or me. You're a idiot if you think the Constitution gives you your rights.

 

[Flash]

The phrase 'freedom of speech' doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. 'Freedom of expression' doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution.

You need to read the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You need to read the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

INT may prefer this version:

Конгресс не принимает никаких законов, касающихся установления религии или запрещающих свободное исповедание религии; или ограничение свободы слова или печати; или право народа на мирные собрания и ходатайство перед правительством о возмещении жалоб.

 

[Pax Mongolica]

Lots of the super patriots on JPP don't seem confident, and none of them were willing to back up their big mouths with action on 1/6.

So if the election wasn't legitimate, then how come none of the super patriots who claim it wasn't showed up to DC on 1/6 to do anything about it?

Not fighting election theft is anti-American.

I have a better question. Does it matter? Stolen or not, the same people tend to run the system no matter who wins. This isn't a problem in and of itself, since every system has its ruling elite, but the problem with the American system is that its elites are particularly disgusting.

 

[LV426]

I have a better question. Does it matter? Stolen or not, the same people tend to run the system no matter who wins. This isn't a problem in and of itself, since every system has its ruling elite, but the problem with the American system is that its elites are particularly disgusting.

Not a better question.

It does matter because it undermines confidence in our elections and threatens the peaceful transition of power, which is a staple of our democracy.

 

[Pax Mongolica]

Not a better question.

It does matter because it undermines confidence in our elections and threatens the peaceful transition of power, which is a staple of our democracy.

There isn't much reason to have confidence in our elections. That's been the case for a long time now. You remember the fiasco in 2000, right?

The peaceful transition of power is more an illusion than anything else, because there isn't much of a "transition" to begin with. The same lobby groups fuel each party. Yes, each party has its social issues that it throws bones to in order to appease certain political bases, but overall, both parties still vote for invading foreign countries, spending trillions on corporate welfare, and letting multinational corporations do what they please.

We have a veneer of democracy that works well in keeping people complacent, but oligarchy or plutocracy are more accurate terms for our system.

The only difference today is that more people seem to realize that the system is a farce. We see this with both Trump supporters and with Antifa.

For now, I guess the government's attempt at keeping people happy is throwing more stimulus checks at them, but when inflation finally catches up, it won't work anymore.

 

[LV426]

There isn't much reason to have confidence in our elections. That's been the case for a long time now. You remember the fiasco in 2000, right?

Well, the fiasco in 2000 wasn't about the election, it was about the Supreme Court STOPPING a recount in progress.

That's not anything to do with the election and everything to do with the court.

The peaceful transition of power is more an illusion than anything else, because there isn't much of a "transition" to begin with. The same lobby groups fuel each party. Yes, each party has its social issues that it throws bones to in order to appease certain political bases, but overall, both parties still vote for invading foreign countries, spending trillions on corporate welfare, and letting multinational corporations do what they please.

If you cannot tell the difference between Republican and Democratic administrations, you're either lying to yourself or others.

BoThSiDeS is a lazy argument to make because it doesn't consider distinctions and differences, and is made purely by someone who is looking to establish their own profile rather than deal with the facts.

There is no legitimate argument to be made that bOtHsIdEs ArE tHe SAme because they are not.

The only difference today is that more people seem to realize that the system is a farce. We see this with both Drumpf supporters and with Antifa.

Antifa has never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever tried to undermine the electoral process.

All antifa is is anti-fascism. If you are not anti-fascism, then you are pro-fascism. There is no such thing as ambivalent fascism.