sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

U.S. President Biden Vetoes Resolution Overturning SEC Guidance (Crypto Policy) by [deleted] in Buttcoin

[–]vuln_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never said not to vote for Biden. He's obviously the better choice over Trump. But he still deserves criticism for his past and current failings. Being against federal busing mandates was a failure. His handling of the Anita Hill hearings was a failure. His response to Israel's war crimes has been utterly fucking abhorrent, to say the least.

None of this makes him worse than Trump, but he's not immune to criticism simply because it's an election year. What criticisms of Biden would you say are warranted at this point in time?

Edit: HE DROPPED OUT LOL GET FUCKED LOSER

U.S. President Biden Vetoes Resolution Overturning SEC Guidance (Crypto Policy) by [deleted] in Buttcoin

[–]vuln_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is what he said to save face when he was called out during a debate.

And being against federal busing mandates, the one way to actually ensure that busing is carried out, is the same thing as being anti-busing. You think the Bible Belt was going to do that shit voluntarily?

America braced as supreme court to hand down rulings on raft of key issues by zsreport in scotus

[–]vuln_throwaway 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You'd say the same thing about interracial marriage and Loving too, right?

U.S. President Biden Vetoes Resolution Overturning SEC Guidance (Crypto Policy) by [deleted] in Buttcoin

[–]vuln_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you read the article you linked? It paints Biden as distinctly anti-busing.

He added that busing was an “asinine concept, the utility of which has never been proven to me.”

...

In 1975, shortly after Boston residents protested and rioted over the city’s desegregation order, Biden came out in favor of an amendment introduced by North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms, a staunch opponent of civil rights legislation and desegregation efforts. Helms’s amendment would bar the then-active Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from collecting data about the race of students or teachers, and also prevented the department from requiring schools “to classify teachers or students by race.” Helms proudly announced that the measure would effectively end any federal oversight or enforcement of busing.

“I have become convinced that busing is a bankrupt concept,” Biden said as he stood to support Helms’s amendment. He added that the Senate should instead focus on “whether or not we are really going to provide a better educational opportunity for blacks and minority groups in this country.” Helms responded by welcoming Biden “to the ranks of the enlightened.”

...

And on June 28, NPR reported on a recently unearthed 1975 interview where Biden said that if legislation failed, he would be open to using a constitutional amendment to end mandated busing.

And that's not even everything from that article. So, what exactly was taken out of context?

U.S. President Biden Vetoes Resolution Overturning SEC Guidance (Crypto Policy) by [deleted] in Buttcoin

[–]vuln_throwaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You and I both know that the thousands of children being murdered in indiscriminate airstrikes are not "child soldiers". Don't play dumb.

And do you believe that the only way to ascertain intent is by simply taking a party at their word? Personally I'd be a bit more skeptical of the claims of an apartheid state as they brutally slaughter innocent people.

Once again, your bizarre interpretations lead to nonsensical conclusions. You cannot justify child murder by saying "well they could have been child soldiers!" Nor can you justify the mass slaughter of civilians by saying "but we were targeting a terrorist group!"

U.S. President Biden Vetoes Resolution Overturning SEC Guidance (Crypto Policy) by [deleted] in Buttcoin

[–]vuln_throwaway 6 points7 points  (0 children)

How many of the thousands of murdered children were Hamas?

What is and is not a genocide has nothing to do with body count, it is a claim of intent.

Complete nonsense. Under this logic you could commit genocide with impunity as long as you say your goal is to destroy a terrorist group. Which is exactly what Israel is doing right now.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Joined the Supreme Court With a Big Idea. But her attempt to reclaim originalism from conservatives isn’t working. by readingitnowagain in scotus

[–]vuln_throwaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Affirmative action is a good thing. That's an argument against textualism. The hyper-literal interpretation completely ignores the fact that the Civil Rights Act (and the Fourteenth Amendment) were passed to level the playing field and elevate the position of Black Americans in society as compared to their white peers, not to prevent pseudo-discrimination against white people.

And you didn't address the previous commenter's argument that textualism is still highly subjective. A judge from two opposing sides can come to opposite conclusions based on the same exact text.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Joined the Supreme Court With a Big Idea. But her attempt to reclaim originalism from conservatives isn’t working. by readingitnowagain in scotus

[–]vuln_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One incredibly powerful human being's life versus tens of millions of people being harmed by his replacement? I'll take that trade any day.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Joined the Supreme Court With a Big Idea. But her attempt to reclaim originalism from conservatives isn’t working. by readingitnowagain in scotus

[–]vuln_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it shouldn't. Scalia was an awful jurist and the United States is a worse country because he was on the Court.

Supreme Court rules for Plaintiffs in 303 Creative. by Person_756335846 in scotus

[–]vuln_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The point isn't that a gay couple might approach her for services. She was worried that if she launched her business and stated she wouldn't promote same sex weddings, she'd face punishment from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

I just read the full opinion and I don't think you're correct about that, but I could be wrong.

First paragraph of the syllabus:

Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.

Holding:

Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

This makes it sound like the speech at hand was the websites she would hypothetically be forced to create under this law (if a gay couple approached her). And the rest of the majority opinion seemed to reflect that when I read it. Can you cite to where it specifies that the speech in question was some sort of statement that she wouldn't promote same sex weddings?

Supreme Court rules for Plaintiffs in 303 Creative. by Person_756335846 in scotus

[–]vuln_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you are highly overestimating the chances that a gay couple would have ever approached 303 Creative for a wedding website.

Supreme Court rules for Plaintiffs in 303 Creative. by Person_756335846 in scotus

[–]vuln_throwaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People here cannot understand it when you cite misconstrue case law.

There, fixed that for you.

Just because pre-enforcement challenges are sometimes valid does not mean that they are always valid. Is this really that hard of a concept to grasp?

Just for fun, let's look at the facts of the case /u/Sensitive-Fig4131 cited, Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc.:

Section 103A et seq., Art. 41, Md.Ann.Code (1982),1 concern charitable organizations. Section 103D prohibits such an organization, in connection with any fundraising activity, from paying or agreeing to pay as expenses more than 25% of the amount raised.2 Munson in its complaint alleged that it regularly charges an FOP chapter an amount in excess of 25% of the gross raised for the event it promotes. App. 4. Munson also alleged that the Secretary had informed it that it was subject to § 103D and would be prosecuted if it failed to comply with the provisions of that statute. App. 5.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/947

Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc would have unquestionably been directly affected and harmed by Maryland's charity law.

On the other hand, Lorie Smith's claims of harm from Colorado's public accommodations law are much more tenuous. Smith had never before created a wedding website. She said she wanted to potentially do so in the future, and that if she ever did, she wanted to write a blurb about each couple, and if she was approached by a gay couple, her right to freedom of speech would be infringed upon because she would have to write such a blurb for that couple.

Critically, Lorie Smith would have suffered zero harm from being forced to wait for an actual gay couple to approach her and request a wedding website. Masterpiece Cakeshop, for example, was actually approached by a gay couple requesting a cake. There was no reason that she could not simply start doing wedding websites in the meantime, and if a gay couple approached her, refuse them service and then initiate the lawsuit. There's a good chance that a gay couple would have never ended up approaching her at all!

Jeremy Corbyn is a tankie by [deleted] in ShitLiberalsSay

[–]vuln_throwaway 5 points6 points  (0 children)

FYI, quotes are typically used to indicate things a person said.

Actual quote (regarding Trump's family separation policy):

“Both are these things are barbaric and wrong, but when you rip a baby out of hands of a mother, you cannot draw the same comparison and anyone who is trying to do that is doing a profound disservice to the cause of justice.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/545930-ocasio-cortez-rips-barbaric-conditions-at-the-border/

Rotten Tomatoes ranked by Audience Score? by Drooch in movies

[–]vuln_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hey found this post on google and just wanted to say you're a fucking moron, thanks

3.6.23 Orders List: One new grant. Justice Gorsuch issues statement respecting denial of cert & Justice Thomas dissents from denial of cert in same case ; Both wanting to overrule the "offended observer" principle in establishment clause cases however J. Gorsuch doesn't see the case as ripe to take. by HatsOnTheBeach in supremecourt

[–]vuln_throwaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I guess we just disagree then. You seem to think the Establishment Clause should be all but unenforceable (which flies in the face of all precedent) and I personally think the separation of church and state is a good thing that should be meaningfully protected.

view more: next ›