So long as it accelerates the movement to vote in every election, maintain the Democratic majority in the House, give us sixty-one solid liberal votes in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House. We don't get the Senate, it's Obama Electric Boogaloo 2, now with more obstruction.
They got that from the phone company. It was an amazing day when you could actually walk into a store for the first time and purchase the telephone of your choice that would be your personal property.
I'm a bit concerned by the prospect of this complete nonsense becoming precedent.
"The courts don't think you really thought out the changes to this law, therefore it is invalid". Does that sound sensible to anyone? It's not the court's place to prevent the legislature from doing something completely stupid; that's the legislature's responsibility, with the presumption that people won't vote a legislature full of complete idiots into office (and that they'll be vetoed if that somehow happened, and that they'll be voted out of office should all else fail). The court's place is to ensure that the legislature doesn't do something unjust; that people aren't stripped of their rights or treated unfairly, even if it's easier or more emotionally satisfying.
Once the courts stop asking if something is constitutional, and start instead asking if it's a good idea, then you're pretty much inviting every law to be overturned at a whim - because what law out there is flawless? It severely undermines the system as a whole.
I don't foresee any other court upholding this ruling, because of how absurd the reasoning is on its face, but if partisanship were to overcome good sense... If they don't find some other reason to justify their decision, it could do far more harm than they realize.
I read a quote from a GOP politician saying something like this. Specifically, that if ACA goes through (it hadn't at the time), people will like it and be more favorable to the Democrats.
May it happen soon for you, good luck!
Getting turned on by a plague doctor's mask is a very specific kink.
He wouldn't know how to spell the word pompous. Some aide wrote this.
That’s what they want, not just for your son, but for all of us.FYI, I don’t want that, not for you, or anyone really, except maybe them.
She was never going to suffer under Trump, but a lot of people are. She claimed to care about them, but sold them out instead. Fucking cow!
So long as it accelerates the movement to vote in every election, maintain the Democratic majority in the House, give us sixty-one solid liberal votes in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House. We don't get the Senate, it's Obama Electric Boogaloo 2, now with more obstruction.
He probably just forgot who was President but remembered that he really liked the guy.
But I bet if you googled it...
They got that from the phone company. It was an amazing day when you could actually walk into a store for the first time and purchase the telephone of your choice that would be your personal property.
I'm a bit concerned by the prospect of this complete nonsense becoming precedent.
"The courts don't think you really thought out the changes to this law, therefore it is invalid". Does that sound sensible to anyone? It's not the court's place to prevent the legislature from doing something completely stupid; that's the legislature's responsibility, with the presumption that people won't vote a legislature full of complete idiots into office (and that they'll be vetoed if that somehow happened, and that they'll be voted out of office should all else fail). The court's place is to ensure that the legislature doesn't do something unjust; that people aren't stripped of their rights or treated unfairly, even if it's easier or more emotionally satisfying.
Once the courts stop asking if something is constitutional, and start instead asking if it's a good idea, then you're pretty much inviting every law to be overturned at a whim - because what law out there is flawless? It severely undermines the system as a whole.
I don't foresee any other court upholding this ruling, because of how absurd the reasoning is on its face, but if partisanship were to overcome good sense... If they don't find some other reason to justify their decision, it could do far more harm than they realize.
We don't judge, though.
I read a quote from a GOP politician saying something like this. Specifically, that if ACA goes through (it hadn't at the time), people will like it and be more favorable to the Democrats.
No I don't just as long as it is sane, safe and above all, consensual.
Isn't there a rule about that?
Zigacly.
Rule #1 of late stage capitalism: Never let the serfs own anything. Otherwise they might think they deserve Independence.