now you say, 'no she's not a feminist' or 'no she's not a liberal'
Um, excuse me, read more about her. ALL white women in america are feminists to some degree. Even a woman with a lot of children. Obviously she's a feminist because she's a scotus justice. Liberal? again, can't be a feminist without being a liberal
liberal also, btw, isn't a bad word. We're all liberals here. Liberalism is the very basis of our society, and it has to do with reclaiming and retaining our RIGHTS
Of course thanks to dems, we've become an illiberal (iLL + liberal) society, which means that our rights are iLL-usionary. They are pretend rights, and the STATE still has ultimate override powers
Spidey sense tells me she's dirty/compromised/infiltrator. Haitian adopted kids (only like 7 tho) is the elephant in the room. It doesn't pass muster in reality.
A friend and his wife wanted to adopt because she has MS and other things that prevent natural birth.
First, the waiting list and application process to be considered eligible as an adoptive couple is prohibitively long. Not to mention that, but...He told me it was over $40k in fees just to adopt a single child...and if race is important to you, forget it...Their choice, not yours.
That's why my spidey sense tingles in regards to her 7 kids. Now if you run the numbers directly from a Haitian adoption agency, using their own numbers You'd be shelling out around $37k per kid by the time everyone in the racket gets their piece of the exploitation game...Now multiply that out seven times for a grand total of: $259,000.00 US
But there's nothing fishy going on there yanno...I mean it's not like anyone has to pay for a huge house to house a bunch of kids, new cars, furnishings, repaying college and law school loans, and of course saving/paying for both private school for the seven AND college....That's a huge stack of money right there that's not in lockstep with the humble/conservative/christian façade that she portrays.
You may be exactly right, or someone told her her family is subject to being harmed. But something happened to her, she did have Conservative views and doesn't hold them now for some reason
I agree with you. I was just thinking about how much Trump loved Scalise.
Thinking about how he thought she would be great as his best legal scholar and student.
And I finished my thoughts with Amy is not Scalise. Everyone is their own person.
From that angle she absolutely is a huge disappointment.
Trump said go in peace he should not even be connected.
The first clue that she's a plant is the fact she has THREE NAMES
This is a rule in the conspiratorium: Three names always equals fed plant. Yes, probably even Catherine Austin Fitts, as much as we idolize her.
"Coney" what's it make you think of? Coney Island. Coney dog. It makes you think of a hot dog with chili and mustard shat onto it with onions, or also an amusement park -- vacation spot.
Oh, I re-wachted the movie Conspiracy Theory recently where the main character played by Mel Gibson explained the 3 names thing.
We were warned long ago
It is a footnote, unfortunately. But in here, she scathed the use of canon, phrased in latin, in an American proceeding. I am not sure if she meant to do so, but I kekked nonetheless.
Why? Because she uses the verb: to invoke. Usually, an incantation is used to invoke something. Using latin phrases to invoke something is kekistan worthy, since only magisters or magistrates or magi are supposed to invoke an incantation.
One has to wonder what reason could there be to invoke in latin. For the sake of argument, why not in Chinese? Let' s invoke the canon of Ni Hou, or nr.23: Babi Pangang and fried rice with sichuan sauce.
Or, one could invoke some Arabic incantations, no doubt.
The question is, why would a court bind itself to a Latin canon? wWhere does that come from? Where in the Declaration of independence or Constitution is it written? Does the Bill of Rights construct the protection of these rights to a Latin canon with the corresponding incantations?
Is the SCOTUS, of all it's alleged learned capacity, incapable of thinking for itself and finding the right moral compass, that it needs to defer to Latin Canon? Or any other foreign canon for that matter. Why not scourer the Quran for any light? As I said, consummation of a marriage with a nine 9 year old will make some people very very happy. Why not some obscure Sumerian clay tablet? I am sure the extend to which the Sumerians went in order to "write" things down, is only rivaled and surprised by us, former paper lovers and now digitally enhanced individuals.
In conclusion, there is no need, as the only canon a SCOTUS judge needs is the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution and some common sense.
As opposed to Wisemann, Andrew, who loves to expand,or rather stretch things. He also teaches how to stretch things. I think it is almost time that this man is finally caught red handed.
Although when that happens, maybe we will then be starting to comprehend why the term: we save Israel for last, not mentioned one time, really means.
It could be optics. These justices might be taking occasional opportunities to appear to be appeasing the enemy. I truly believe their lives are in danger.
I'm not a lawfag but....Amy has been a huge disappointment to me... You ?
Maybe I'm missing something that makes it hard to prosecute Antifa or BLM...
She's not a warrior for the Lord....that's obvious now...
Looks like She wants to be accepted instead of being right ...
She's a woman.
I made that point yesterday . . .
she's an AWFUL
affluent white feminist urban liberal
now you say, 'no she's not a feminist' or 'no she's not a liberal'
Um, excuse me, read more about her. ALL white women in america are feminists to some degree. Even a woman with a lot of children. Obviously she's a feminist because she's a scotus justice. Liberal? again, can't be a feminist without being a liberal
liberal also, btw, isn't a bad word. We're all liberals here. Liberalism is the very basis of our society, and it has to do with reclaiming and retaining our RIGHTS
Of course thanks to dems, we've become an illiberal (iLL + liberal) society, which means that our rights are iLL-usionary. They are pretend rights, and the STATE still has ultimate override powers
(Well, until Chevron that is)
Spidey sense tells me she's dirty/compromised/infiltrator. Haitian adopted kids (only like 7 tho) is the elephant in the room. It doesn't pass muster in reality.
👌
Same thought for a while now.
A lot of those kids from Haiti weren’t really “orphans”. Roberts has some sketchy adoption also.
Was checking comments before I said same .., esp the kids ,, dirty fkn treasonous demon !
Sure let herself get taken over by the emotional case. As if there were not enough American kids in need.
A friend and his wife wanted to adopt because she has MS and other things that prevent natural birth.
First, the waiting list and application process to be considered eligible as an adoptive couple is prohibitively long. Not to mention that, but...He told me it was over $40k in fees just to adopt a single child...and if race is important to you, forget it...Their choice, not yours.
That's why my spidey sense tingles in regards to her 7 kids. Now if you run the numbers directly from a Haitian adoption agency, using their own numbers You'd be shelling out around $37k per kid by the time everyone in the racket gets their piece of the exploitation game...Now multiply that out seven times for a grand total of: $259,000.00 US
But there's nothing fishy going on there yanno...I mean it's not like anyone has to pay for a huge house to house a bunch of kids, new cars, furnishings, repaying college and law school loans, and of course saving/paying for both private school for the seven AND college....That's a huge stack of money right there that's not in lockstep with the humble/conservative/christian façade that she portrays.
Wow had no idea it was so sick.
But not as surprised as I would have been ten years ago.
Now I'm like "ofc it's like that"...
When you start to dig on people you thought were decent, it seems like it's not long before you pull on a thread and the facade starts to unravel...
Speaking of which, I'm digging on bannon right now. Not a good guy from what I've discovered so far... more on that later.
Well, have a look at the republican debate where Guliani debated Ron Paul.
That was exposure.
No idea what you are saying about Bannon (you context shit) though.
Yeah, a very bad pick.
Examples come in both flavors ( good & evil). Good Pick.
University of Notre Dame is run by whom ?
Good pick. I think the 1st term potus put all the sleepers out front.
You may be exactly right, or someone told her her family is subject to being harmed. But something happened to her, she did have Conservative views and doesn't hold them now for some reason
I do believe their lives are in danger. They might need to appear now and then to be on the dark side, or else their families will be at risk.
I agree with you. I was just thinking about how much Trump loved Scalise. Thinking about how he thought she would be great as his best legal scholar and student. And I finished my thoughts with Amy is not Scalise. Everyone is their own person.
From that angle she absolutely is a huge disappointment.
Trump said go in peace he should not even be connected.
It is the People's House and they were invited in.
BINGO!
Amy Phony Parrot
ANY phony parrot could regurgitate what it hears from its owners . . .
She needs to step down the compromised beotch.
The first clue that she's a plant is the fact she has THREE NAMES
This is a rule in the conspiratorium: Three names always equals fed plant. Yes, probably even Catherine Austin Fitts, as much as we idolize her.
"Coney" what's it make you think of? Coney Island. Coney dog. It makes you think of a hot dog with chili and mustard shat onto it with onions, or also an amusement park -- vacation spot.
Oh, I re-wachted the movie Conspiracy Theory recently where the main character played by Mel Gibson explained the 3 names thing. We were warned long ago
I’ve heard about that 3 name thing John’s Wilkes booth. Lee Harvey Oswald. Mark David Chapin
It's like symbolism probably, to identify "their" players
“Coney” was also another name for rabbit. Other naughtiet meanings also applied. See paragraphs 3-5:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/coney
As far as I'm concerned, we have two Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The rest are charlatans and pretenders.
Scalia was her mentor, and he would have voted no. I'm glad the court overruled it.
The agreeing opinion of Jackson is also interesting to read. I Kekked out loud at this point:
red: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
It is a footnote, unfortunately. But in here, she scathed the use of canon, phrased in latin, in an American proceeding. I am not sure if she meant to do so, but I kekked nonetheless.
Why? Because she uses the verb: to invoke. Usually, an incantation is used to invoke something. Using latin phrases to invoke something is kekistan worthy, since only magisters or magistrates or magi are supposed to invoke an incantation.
One has to wonder what reason could there be to invoke in latin. For the sake of argument, why not in Chinese? Let' s invoke the canon of Ni Hou, or nr.23: Babi Pangang and fried rice with sichuan sauce.
Or, one could invoke some Arabic incantations, no doubt.
The question is, why would a court bind itself to a Latin canon? wWhere does that come from? Where in the Declaration of independence or Constitution is it written? Does the Bill of Rights construct the protection of these rights to a Latin canon with the corresponding incantations?
Is the SCOTUS, of all it's alleged learned capacity, incapable of thinking for itself and finding the right moral compass, that it needs to defer to Latin Canon? Or any other foreign canon for that matter. Why not scourer the Quran for any light? As I said, consummation of a marriage with a nine 9 year old will make some people very very happy. Why not some obscure Sumerian clay tablet? I am sure the extend to which the Sumerians went in order to "write" things down, is only rivaled and surprised by us, former paper lovers and now digitally enhanced individuals.
In conclusion, there is no need, as the only canon a SCOTUS judge needs is the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution and some common sense.
As opposed to Wisemann, Andrew, who loves to expand,or rather stretch things. He also teaches how to stretch things. I think it is almost time that this man is finally caught red handed.
Although when that happens, maybe we will then be starting to comprehend why the term: we save Israel for last, not mentioned one time, really means.
Amy & DEI hire are the canons pointed at the Pope.
It could be optics. These justices might be taking occasional opportunities to appear to be appeasing the enemy. I truly believe their lives are in danger.
This judge has different race 'adopted' blackmail children from her handlers. Take what she says with a grain of salt
Imagine adopting feral kids who literally were cannibals a hundred years ago.