What a weird conversation we are having- do per capita next to compare the groups on a metric that’s level.
Per capita, LGBTQ individuals identify as democrats and vote as such… that’s pretty solid.
The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
Per capita, LGBTQ individuals identify as democrats and vote as such… that’s pretty solid.
Per capita, male partner abuse turned lesbians, use more purple hair dye than naturally selected lesbians. But both are solid at "acting".
This was beautiful. +5
Topkick
Verified Military
Well, I enjoy facts over feelings. But all you have to do is turn on the TV to see who owns the cause.
I’ll be as gracious as possible on this one- the vocal minority drowns out the silent majority on those TV channels (all of them regardless of political bent). #AstroTurfing
ANOTHA ONE. The SC woke up and chose violence today and I’m here for it.
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 785
This is gonna bite the conservatives badly in the future
Good. Judge shopping is a bad thing both parties have relied on instead of just legislating.
As @Jaknight said, it'll come back around to "being bad" for conservatives (talking heads/politicans) eventually, but thats just politics in general.
Not suprised, but a bit broader of a decision than I'd expected. I wonder how long it'll be until we see follow-on cases for less divisive topics than queer stuff.
I assume that will be when the democrats stop making 80/20 issues the bulk of their legal challenges and find a principled challenge that isn't based on "Orange Man Bad". Read- not any time soon.
ACB apparently burned Justice Ketanji Jackson to the ground... seems like maybe Justice Jackson isn't the most popular with her colleagues.
SCOTUS conservatives issue scathing rebuke of Justice Jackson in injunctions ruling
SCOTUS conservatives issue scathing rebuke of Justice Jackson in injunctions ruling
Meh, sounds like a future problem that you can't possibly support or forecast; I'll take the win in the here and now. No more activist judges acting outside of their authority at scale, the agenda moves on at pace.
With their current model of revisionist history and blame shifting, anything could happen.
For anyone like me who clicked on the link and noticed "JUSTICE JACKSON" over and over, that's verbatim from the ruling and found throughout and used by other justices. Normally I'd take all caps to have a secondary meaning, but in this instance that appears to be a "thing" in the SC's document. ACB is following a format, not yelling at another judge.
To be fair, I can totally picture ACB getting a few in her (I'm guessing white wine or whisky with little options in between, maybe a marg or two on a beach) and breaking out some mean girl shit on another woman.
In this case though, some weird court or legal format is to blame and we'll have to settle for JUSTICE JUMANJI some other day.
No, you may think that, but you are wrong.
This ruling limits the implimentation of lawfare by both sides.
Similar threads
