interesting point about the SC immunity decision. any lawfags wanna address the second half of this?
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
this is a discussion; it needs no link.
i could provide a link to the text of the supreme court decision, or links to the role of mens rea in the american legal system.
let me be clear:
I am an amateur law enthusiast....barely. I am not looking for answers from people with my own level of legal expertise. There are people on this board who actually know law. I am not one of them, and I suspect you aren't really either. unless its just the meds?
I respect the enthusiasm. I understand the urge to quash liberal arguments very well. not trying to be insulting. All of us here have different areas of expertise. But this is a moderately complex legal discussion, and if it sounds like word salad to you, then I don't think either of us are equipped to provide the answer. But someone here is.
EDIT: Genuinely, much love to the pede that replied with much vigor, and then removed their comments. I also wanted to tell this person they were a stupid liberal spewing nonsense, but what I wanted more was to provide an actual argument based in the law. I don't need to crowd-source rage against liberals....I have loads of that. Legal knowledge is where any response I could make would be lacking.
Not trying to be an ass to you. Really I wanted to understand it.
No, I'm not a lawyer. I have read a lot of the CFR for the VA, also their regulations that could be in trouble of because of Chevron Deference.
you weren't an ass at all, fren. you are chomping at the bit for liberal tears, and willing to bite off slightly more than you can chew. this is all extremely relateable to me :)
i'm very sensitive to misuse of the term 'word salad' because it has been used against me for saying things that make perfect sense to most of us here on GAW. And by my own family. And those accusations are at the root of my recurring homelessness.
So, as much as I love calling libs stupid, I always do my very best to understand their arguments, and only call them psychotic/nonsensical as a very very last resort. Most of the time they're just not seeing the whole picture, influenced by manipulation, speaking from emotion, etc. flawed as they may be, all of those are still coherent patterns of thought. living on the street around drug users and schizophrenics, I hear a lot of actual word salad, and it is a very very serious thing.
You Jew, you deleted your own comments...
No need to reply, blocked.
oh I thought you were deleting yours to clear up this comment section, and so i followed suit.
how you gonna accuse me and block me for something that you also did?
:c oh well.. i should probably take a break from the internet for today. its too nice out.
I, personally, believe the "legal people" got the US into this Communist movement from the beginning. They start by sticking the "camel's nose" under the tent, using legal arguments as to why we can't fight the process; like people have rights and we can't dispose, or take, those rights away. I do believe lawyers serve a purpose, but if you look back in history the founding fathers used very little words to say what they wanted to say and the fewer words the less chance of readers getting confused. Today most want 40 pages, or more as if they are paid by the word, to say something fairly simple. I think, and it is my opinion, that lawyers put a lot of verbiage into laws so people can take from it what they want. Simplify the statements so we can all understand them and we can understand the meaning of what is stated.
Exactly.
The problem is that the whole legal system has been placed on a pedestal, we refer to a judge as “your honour”, why they are just civil servants and are prone to bias and political prejudice as we can witness daily worldwide.
The whole system needs a simplification reset urgently.