Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1. Pro-tip: Never lie to the judge. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never.
    81
  2. "Sex assigned at birth." Stop right there.
    71
  3. Is a ban on lobotomies constitutional? Or does it discriminate based on mental health status?
    33
  4. WHY doesn't EVERYONE talk like this?
    28
  5.  @benny360  The first sentence of the description of this video says "opening remarks." So . . . this lady risked her life for her country, and you can't read a sentence before you criticize her. (She just mentioned something public scrutiny . . .) Here's a question: why should anyone lift a finger for you, much less be willing to give their life to protect you? Help me with this.
    26
  6. Of course it will happen again. Do you realize how rich they all got??
    15
  7. Not what the Court held in the American case, coming from the baker in Colorado, however. The US Supreme Court sidestepped the core issue, because the baker was deprived of his constitutional due process rights before the state commission that ruled against him. They never gave him a fair chance to make his case. That basically meant that Colorado could not sanction him, given that he never got a fair opportunity to be heard on his First Amendment claim (oh the irony).
    13
  8. ​@timogul False. It's exactly the opposite. The drugs are not generally indicated, because in most cases the risk significantly outweighs any expected benefit. But if the Court doesn't strike down the statute, then no one can have it, regardless of individual need. The point of the question was that the brief provided incorrect information to the Supreme Court. Way to go . . . .
    13
  9.  @benny360  The first sentence of the description of this video says "opening remarks." So . . . this lady risked her life for her country, and you can't read a sentence before you criticize her. (She just mentioned something public scrutiny . . . hm.) Here's a question: why should anyone lift a finger for you, much less be willing to give their life to protect you? Help me with this. Wait. On second thought, don't.
    12
  10. No, HE is. SHE is correct on the First Amendment and ambiguous speech. HE is correct, however, on fundraising.
    11
  11. ​ @Tanouuuu Most are "ethnic" French, too.
    11
  12.  @benny360  The first sentence of the description of this video says "opening remarks." So . . . this lady risked her life for her country, and you can't read a sentence before you criticize her. (She just mentioned something public scrutiny . . . hm.) Here's a question: why should anyone lift a finger for you, much less be willing to give their life to protect you? Help me with this.
    11
  13. Do you trust anyone who says "pregnant people?"
    10
  14.  @christophereverett2353  No. That's not what the Court held, because it didn't reach the issue. Jack Philips was denied due process, and the denial was considered particularly serious because he was attempting to vindicate his First Amendment rights when the Colorado Commission basically showed their bias against him and refused to give him a fair hearing. That's why it was 7-2; states can't do that to people. If he had won what you said, then the current case would not be before the Court. The law would already be crystal clear. I explained the Colorado baker case in my prior post.
    9
  15. Dress rehearsal
    9
  16. These are matters for Title VI lawsuits, not Congressional pseudo-trials. Congress should occupy itself with whether we should fund wars and what we should do about inflation.
    9
  17. This got into Yale?
    9
  18. No one could threaten your spelling.
    8
  19.  @themightykabool  The arrogance of not doing her job, as though that's not a thing for her. I guess doing your job is for little people? What was more important than familiarizing herself with this crucial report? Even if (especially if?) her agency intends to disagree with it. Please do tell.
    8
  20. I don't understand why nothing has been done.
    8
  21. How so?
    7
  22. Did Kamala struggle to maintain a straight face, or was that my imagination?
    7
  23. And here I thought we were against cancel culture.
    7
  24. Why? If you are discriminated against, file suit under Title VI or Title VII. The Asian student association did, and won. IOW, do something real.
    7
  25. @timogul  I knew what you were talking about. Outside of the realm of American commercialized medicine, you're flat wrong.
    7
  26. 💯
    6
  27.  @abusufiansiddik567  Exactly. Israelis are protesting against Netanyahu, but Americans can't? How did it come to this??
    6
  28. ​ @fourtysixandtwo4556  Accurate, sadly.
    6
  29.  @DeadPresidents408  What's wrong with the Fifth Amendment, or the First? I support the Bill of Rights. I'm glad she refused to bend. Vote her down, and be done with it. Instead, Hawley said "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers/nonanswers.
    6
  30. ​@Unshackled. Oh please, this was performative. Let's see what any of these people actually DO. Don't take this as a substitute for actual investigation and action.
    6
  31. @StephaneVorstellung  If Set A contains many more elements than Set B, and an attorney arguing before the United States Supreme Court swears that Set B contains vastly more elements than Set A, and everyone knows it's true, then at the very least, she does not know more than he does.
    6
  32. Wow, he does not lie. I understand why that may be disconcerting at first, it feels so unfamiliar.
    5
  33. You must have missed the gilets jaunes.
    5
  34. Did they PAY her to read it? Well then why should she read it? What, do they expect her to be a patriot or something? /s
    5
  35.  @ritatharp5238  Thank you. If only we could organize and make it happen.
    5
  36.  @tonydevinci1031  Liar. Most of the participants are French "de souche."
    5
  37.  @L1LP0E  Where do you see that I said Congress should "fire" them? What non sequitur is this? Congress can call for its own investigation, and Congress has impeachment powers.
    5
  38.  @justtryme2020  So what? Good. Why should she bend to any politician? Let them vote her down. They have the power. Do you respect Biden? Harris? I don't.
    5
  39. @stevepalpatine2828  I'd say determined at conception, but cool. Observed is cool.
    5
  40. ​@Nate_K111 That's not true, actually. In minors, sex distinctions can be constitutional.
    5
  41. Because they do not want to be defendants in a Title VII/defamation lawsuit. Could that be it?
    5
  42. ​@Sheila-su5he I know, it's just a stutter. And Hunter has great expertise in many areas of law and business and international development and energy and, oh yeah, human rights.
    5
  43. @roxinator69  The DC Circuit case is the most important, in my opinion, and is very easy to find --- a unanimous decision that he has no immunity from civil suit stemming from his actions on January 6th. Chief Judge Srinivasan wrote it. Immunity forecloses liability, and the court determined that immunity does not apply. Immunity would have meant no way to get the case before a jury at all, and is granted far too often in all kinds of cases. I'm assuming that is a final decision.
    4
  44. Personnel matters are confidential. He just told you that he was advised by counsel not to get into specifics, while litigation and administrative process are pending.
    4
  45. ​ @fairandinformed6477  Vance, for more crowd incitement. This got into Yale, then billionaire circles.
    4
  46. SHE pled guilty.
    4
  47. ​ @Planet_Xplorer This excerpt was.
    4
  48. The Supreme Court always publishes the briefs, so I can tell you what they are arguing about: there is a long line of precedent that permits consideration of race in addition to a number of other factors, and previous Courts have ruled that a limited use of race in that way was legal as long as things like legacy admissions weighed so strongly against all non-Europeans. Seth Waxman, who was Solicitor General and is in front of the Court all the time, is arguing that the criteria for using race in a limited way was clearly met by Harvard's admissions policy. Well, now you can guess what the other side is arguing: they believe the line of precedent that allows using race should be overturned. The lead attorney for the other side is a U of Chicago and Cambridge (UK -- that Cambridge) grad who once considered becoming an astrophysicist. This gives you an idea of the brainpower applied to this case. What is at stake also is that Harvard can forgo federal funding. It's a private school, and can continue its admissions policies exactly as they are, as long as it accepts no federal funds. Its policies are not the type that would easily trigger scrutiny under other federal laws. So, in the end, it's about the money. The big question is why Harvard grads are so heavily advantaged for the rest of their lives. Chief Justice Roberts was a Harvard undergrad and Harvard Law graduate. He really did do well in school his whole life, however, and he wasn't admitted as a legacy. He actually worked in a steel mill one summer.
    4
  49.  @Baratheon.  No one said any such thing. We are talking about the difference between being UNQUALIFIED for a job based (among other things) on unresponsiveness to a Senator, and a CRIME for which she should go to prison. That seems to escape you. There is nothing subjective here. Have you ever met a US Attorney? (Have you ever been inside a law school, like, to visit a friend?) You know, a lot of not very nice people in the world are happy to see what has become of you. Do you grasp that at all? Don't put on a show of how much you despise the Bill of Rights and how little you are capable of understanding basic facts because someone scared you. Keep it to yourselves.
    4
  50. ​@Tzhz It must be nice to live in your head, where every abomination in this world is just a "Conspiracy Theory."
    4
  51. @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  A full description of exactly what he did wrong was here but now it's gone. Do you do ad hom most of the time, or just for Fauci?
    4
  52.  @awaitingthetrumpetcall4529  LOL, I just want to keep it real. I know my politics are different from this woman's but I love her anyway. She's a hero. She believes in the Bill of Rights, and was willing to die for it. Someone has something critical to say, about her brilliant, sincere, totally heartfelt opening remarks? WOW how low can we GO??? DON'T TELL ME, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.
    4
  53.  @christophereverett2353  Jack Philips never sued anyone, he was sued.
    4
  54. You don't know these are French?
    4
  55. WHO is fast talking here??
    4
  56. What did the letter say that created a basis for an investigation of those organizations? Can someone write a letter about me, or about some group I belong to, and because they don't like my opinions, I can be fired from my job or removed from a class? Or, it's enough to trigger an Investigation?
    4
  57. Did they PAY her to read it? Well then why should she read it? What, you think she's a patriot or something? /s
    4
  58. You think he has morals? He has a very good argument here. That does not mean he has morals.
    4
  59. Then prevent them from entering. That's fair. You put someone in jail, you give them a lawyer. Hello.
    4
  60.  @TheRoxinatoR  Found the Colorado trial court order, over 100 pages . . . Yes, Trump did intervene. It took a bit of time to find. Will now look for Maine.
    3
  61.  @TheRoxinatoR  In Maine, the Secretary of State held hearings on challenges to Trump's petition/application to appear on the primary ballot. It was a legal process, but not a court.
    3
  62. @dpcwing729  You think legal questions of this gravity are based on "common sense?" Did all your Facebook Friends say so? Thumbs up?
    3
  63. @ariellaurent5422  Students fear for their lives now?? Oh, I see. You mean those three Palestinian students from Brown who were shot. Yes, I see your point, of course.
    3
  64. They made money.
    3
  65. The most expensive city to insure a luxury car has always been Paris.
    3
  66. Don't tell me, let me guess: "the walls are closing in"
    3
  67. Sure something will be done: a worse crisis will be cooked up.
    3
  68. He stood up to this nonsense better than any Ivy League president did. He was right to refuse to provide details about pending litigation and personnel actions. That's exactly what he was supposed to do.
    3
  69. Oh yeah? HE JUST SAID : "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers. Not one of you believes in the Bill of Rights unless you have a dog in the fight.
    3
  70. Finally a witness is holding Stefanik accountable for her performance art.
    3
  71.  @fish9905  You are being so duped. All of these performances are for campaign financing.
    3
  72.  @Baratheon.  What do you think constitutes "perjury?" I mean, under the law, not on social media. Have you ever read any cases that were prosecuted? No one is ever convicted on the basis of statements that are vague, or lacking in comprehensiveness, or open to more than one reasonable interpretation, or where faulty memory could be a factor -- for example, if she tweeted all the time, and the vast majority of her tweets were about pets or recipes, and she forgot about the handful of offensive ones, or didn't appreciate that they were offensive. Stuff like that isn't a crime, it's a disqualification from having a serious job -- or at least it used to be. What "projection" are you talking about? Where did you pick that up from? Freud was the gaslighter extraordinaire.
    3
  73. Nothing done? Stefanik is fundraising. Fundraising is Job 1.
    3
  74. Sums it up perfectly.
    3
  75.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  Reported
    3
  76.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  A human didn't look at it. This is Fauci's tactic for avoiding FOIA obligations, lol.
    3
  77.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  Who are "you people?"
    3
  78. @totoroben  But this is exactly what Fauci sought to avoid by doctoring emails in a way that legitimate search terms from a well-founded request for information would not work. FOIA has no analogy to a search warrant. Private actors with a right to certain information generated by public officials, in the course of the activities of those officials that legitimately concern the public, are the ones making the request. Does anyone actually think (I mean this hypothetically) that a public health official could work behind the scenes to impose universal acceptance of a medicine he knows to be flawed, and hide evidence of that knowledge? The minute he starts working to get it approved and to get people to use it, he has an obligation to tell everything he knows about it, good and bad -- assuming that his job didn't require him to share that information in the first place. But if he engages to push it, he absolutely cannot hide information, "for our own good" or anyone else's. No one is pushing wiretaps. We rely on sworn testimony or audio recordings made and kept in the course of business for that information.
    3
  79. Watch, he'll get in.
    3
  80. File suit then. That's illegal under Title VI and Title VII.
    3
  81.  @warr1973  He stood up to Stefanik and refused to discuss details about pending litigation and personnel actions. That was exactly what he was supposed to do. Funny, the president of Columbia University was unable to stick the landing.
    3
  82. @CHRON-GEN There are a lot of cases that treat those issues. Even a peaceful protest cannot be too close to the house of a judge. If he can hear them while inside, it is likely too close. If he has trouble getting into his driveway, it IS too close. But further down the street it is protected speech, most likely.
    3
  83. Do you think she was passed over because of her race? I don't. Read a few biographies of really successful people -- and I don't mean celebrities or billionaires. I mean an Annie Ernaux, a Haruki Murakami, a Kurt Godel, a Martha Argerich. They are, frankly, nothing like your daughter. It's a different mold. She reminds me a little of the disfavored brother in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Murakami and Ernaux (and J. M. Coetzee and Rebecca Goldstein) all have more in common with Einstein or Socrates than they do with your daughter. I hope she learns a different lesson from the one you seem to have in mind.
    3
  84.  @jeffreyrichard2575  Actually, they are discriminating against Asians in favor of whites. Read the brief.
    3
  85. ​ @liseklerekoper2441 If you did your research, you would know Israelis have expressed that very concern in the pages of Haaretz for years. You would know that Israel has a peace movement. I wish American did.
    3
  86. PLEASE BECOME A CIVIL LIBERTIES LAWYER. PLEASE.
    3
  87.  @jeremiahdavis360  I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones, who truly distinguished themselves? That is one way to add real diversity to their class and base it on merit as well. I wonder if they ever thought of that.
    3
  88. I guess you missed the gilets jaunes.
    3
  89.  @giganoob1968  A lack of recursive thinking is not a good sign. I mean for present and future cognitive health.
    3
  90.  @cremebrulee4759  So did Jeffrey Epstein by that logic.
    3
  91. @christopherjahn2044  Why didn't Wray say precisely that, clearly and directly, and offer to share whatever he could in a high security setting, if indeed anything? This is one long repeat of high school. Ugh.
    3
  92. The statute has no definition of "near." There have been decades of pro-life rallies held near the Supreme Court, all of which were protected speech and assembly. First Amendment. A lot of people are going after the First Amendment lately. Watch for that move. This looks like a good-cop, bad-cop routine with one goal in mind, and it's not to help you.
    3
  93.  @L1LP0E  Prior to Cheatle's resignation: "Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) said he will be filing articles of impeachment against Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle."
    3
  94.  @reneeg4817  I agree, in general. Marriage and fathering children doesn't prove a person's character. Multiple divorces, cheating scandals, multiple bankruptcies, or frequenting Jeffrey Epstein may say more. A lot of our "leaders" fit one of those descriptions.
    3
  95.  @babasheeny3634  😅😅😅 I think we can guess.
    3
  96. I can tell you what it is: the result of 40+ years of a trade deficit with China. My mom and I pledged to look for American made always.
    3
  97. HE JUST SAID : "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers.
    3
  98. For having a backbone? I'm glad someone is pushing back. Vote her down and be done with it.
    3
  99.  @waynemorris2342  I can appreciate why you doubt that anyone with a JD would bother with you. I was going to say bother with you without being paid, but that kind of money . . . Never mind.
    2
  100. ​ @denisekoltys3019 Do American reporters speak fluent French? Can you rely on headlines about America? UK? Much less Latin Europe . . .
    2
  101.  @denisekoltys3019  So who told you what the kid was trying to do? That you see fit to repeat it? 🤣
    2
  102.  @sketchartist1964  Psst. People will say anything they get paid to say. Have you noticed? 🤣
    2
  103.  @sketchartist1964  SMH. If state schools ignore due process, the taxpayers will be on the hook. Do the math.
    2
  104.  @laertesindeed  Say. I have an idea. Shut up and read the briefs. Your identification of me? I bet you don't even know whether I'm a man or a woman. You don't strike me as too swift on the uptake. You would also benefit from a good book on writing. Style: Ten Lessons In Clarity and Grace is my favorite. Also, Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. A must-read.
    2
  105. ​ @cindygreleski5376 Yup, loved it.
    2
  106. Wow is fundraising waaaay too easy for politicians these days.
    2
  107. ​ @Superassassinman15  Don't be jealous.
    2
  108.  @Lauwit  The consequence is always money changing hands.
    2
  109. He was? Now I understand.
    2
  110.  @Baratheon.  Where do you have proof she lied? She failed to answer the question in a substantive way.
    2
  111.  @christ-centeredcrypto  There is a big difference between this case, and the guy (th/s/he/y) who turned out to be a serial suitcase thief. God help us. I see no other solution.
    2
  112. This guy made more sense than any of the Ivy League presidents.
    2
  113. So Depp isn't your darling anymore.
    2
  114. No it's not. We have a Fifth Amendment and a First Amendment. So, she refused to bend. Fine, vote her down. Leave it at that.
    2
  115. ​ @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  It's all there if you sort by Newest. You saw before you posted.
    2
  116.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  Amazing how different this thread looks under the Newest sort. 😁🤡🌎
    2
  117.  @nikitaw1982  So that's who has them. 😂😂😂
    2
  118.  @totoroben  Cool. Thank you. Agreed across the board.
    2
  119. First of all, Justice Barrett was examining the argument that they should be held guilty in violation of a specific subpart of a specific federal statute, contrary to what this lawyer is arguing. He's trying to get the case overturned. Justice Barrett seems skeptical of his argument. Second, there is no word salad, from anyone. Look at the opening brief if you actually care about what's going on. The first page will tell you.
    2
  120. Thank you for that.
    2
  121. Fictional, of course. I think of the people they assassinated. That's why I respect this lady -- it's obvious no one could get her to do such a thing.
    2
  122. All of the final pool from which they draw the students they will admit are eminently qualified. That's what this fight is really about -- there are far, far fewer seats than there are truly qualified applicants, of any race. Also, you might not be aware of this, but at Harvard, "blacks" are often children of African immigrants or are actually Africans themselves. Children of prominent Africans are often admitted to Harvard, another Ivy, or Oxford, or Cambridge. Congrats on your college career. That's a perfect strategy.
    2
  123. Because some other group wrote a letter? I thought we were against cancel culture.
    2
  124. ​ @chadwalrod795 😂😂😂
    2
  125. The politicians should never influence you either for or against vaccination. Tune them out. They will never give you sound health advice.
    2
  126. The statute has no definition of "near." There have been decades of pro-life rallies held near the Supreme Court, all of which were protected speech and assembly. First Amendment. A lot of people are going after the First Amendment lately. Watch for that move. This one looks like a good-cop, bad-cop routine with one goal in mind, and it's not to help you.
    2
  127.  @christophereverett2353  Who are you talking about? Jack Phillips, the Christian baker in Colorado? There was a ruling against him recently, for refusing to create a birthday cake for a transgender woman celebrating her "rebirth" after her transition. It is currently on appeal, I believe.
    2
  128.  @yolandabrinkman2653  There is no general "hate crimes" law. Who told you there was?
    2
  129.  @DeadPresidents408  False. Every intelligent person does.
    2
  130. I think it's worse. I think she really doesn't know. She didn't expect to have to know.
    2
  131.  @verityveracity6704  If that's true, OMG. More money changed hands?
    2
  132. The purpose of the deficit is to juice the stock market.
    2
  133.  @magnump.i.7700  Too much information. (We know you always start with yourself.)
    2
  134.  @barbaraculy121  Oh, mob justice? Your favorite flavor. Too bad your mobs are soooo old.
    2
  135.  @giganoob1968  Fundraising for these Congressional clowns has become too easy. You'll have more show trials, less governance, while they up the ante on surveillance and support for war.
    2
  136. Except that we didn't fight a civil war to eliminate racial discrimination.
    2
  137.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Look up the articles, which predate the controversy and the pandemic. It will be up to independent experts to decide on the scope and limits of the term "gain-of-function" within the meaning of the regulation, and then determine whether it applies to the facts. Or, you could just let the government office that is under scrutiny swear they didn't violate any regulations. I don't care anymore. I'm emigrating by 2025 at the latest. I don't understand your wager. I only know the attacks on me have been nonstop. So. Who cares?
    2
  138. Yes, and there are easily 1000 students who did exactly that for every one seat at an Ivy League school. What do you think this debate is about? I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones, who really distinguished themselves? That would increase black and Latino enrollment right there, as well as contribute to diversity.
    2
  139. I disagree. They can vote as they like, every time. They have her posts, so they know. I admire her refusal to answer these questions BECAUSE it is a First Amendment issue. So let them vote her down. I like backbone. So, vote her down. Why do you want her to bend as well??
    2
  140. For a second, I thought of the president, lol.
    2
  141. Why are set-theoretic replies hidden from view?
    2
  142. Yes she will.
    2
  143. Oh now I get it. The letter was from a group with MORE MONEY than the groups that then got investigated and banned. Silly me. That took way too long.
    2
  144. 1. No sympathy lost for Dershowitz. I truly dislike him. 2. All of his points are very well taken. 💯
    2
  145. Seth Waxman is very likely the best lawyer for Supreme Court arguments that America has. He was Solicitor General and is friends with all the Justices.
    1
  146. ​ @TheRoxinatoR  Which cases are you referring to?
    1
  147. @MattSlash-di4oy  Did you read the Colorado Supreme Court opinion, and the one US Supreme Court case on the subject?
    1
  148.  @MattSlash-di4oy  Most of it, yeah. Not all of it yet. It is quite complex, actually. I'm a lawyer. It's what I do.
    1
  149.  @AdrianneJH  Which opinion are you referencing?
    1
  150. @roxinator69  I didn't say you did. I know he has not been. Did he make an appearance as intervenor in either trial court?
    1
  151.  @TheRoxinatoR  No, you don't know. That's clear.
    1
  152.  @TheRoxinatoR  The case in Maine was not before a court.
    1
  153. @roxinator69  Reality is not legal documents. Reality is your parroting of talking heads. Although you do have a point: the talking heads are richly paid. Court documents and other legal papers are available for free download, but then, on top of everything, they must be read. Okay . . . That's decisive. I withdraw my objection.
    1
  154. @roxinator69  If Trump is so dangerous, why didn't the DNC decide after the November 2016 election to get serious and beat him decisively? They are not even sure they can do it this year. This doesn't worry you? It should. As the world gets more dangerous and the dollar is under threat, we have no one marginally competent, much less statesmanlike, to assume the presidency.
    1
  155.  @TheRoxinatoR  THE CASE IN MAINE WAS NOT BEFORE A COURT. Go look it up.
    1
  156. @roxinator69  The reality is this: we have a Supreme Court full of right-wing ideologues. If the Supreme Court is called upon to rule, it could decide the US President is NOT an officer of the state, so that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment never applies to the presidency, no matter what a president may do. This would not be good, OBVIOUSLY. It is what the Colorado trial court deduced, so it is not farfetched at all. Other possibilities are less bad, but some are quite bad. The risk isn't worth it. I hope that if they rule, it will be on narrow grounds, without foreclosing future suits against a president on Section 3 grounds. We might need Section 3 again soon.
    1
  157.  @ariellaurent5422  A true threat to safety requires police, not bureaucracy. I thought we decided that during the flood of accusations of SA. We revisit that, now? Why?
    1
  158. @ariellaurent5422  I don't mean that as a talking point. Real danger requires police response and community meetings with police, to deal with the matter and to coordinate campus and city police. You don't agree?
    1
  159. I remember decades of anti-Roe v. Wade, pro-life protests before the Supreme Court. You don't?
    1
  160. He proved nothing at all. The key to the law is the word "near." It is nowhere defined by either of them.
    1
  161.  @KJWEBMEDIA  The First Amendment preempts any law to the contrary. The perimeter around a home -- anyone's home -- is larger, and should be, than around the Supreme Court, but it does not extend to infinity. Nor is it based on intent. All the pro-life demonstrators intended to make their views known to the Justices, and had every right to. Too bad we can't handle rights any more.
    1
  162.  @KJWEBMEDIA  The statute he quoted on the poster board says "a building housing a court of the United States." Pause the video and read the whole thing.
    1
  163.  @KJWEBMEDIA  Why is everyone stupid, suddenly? What a luxury.
    1
  164. Valley girl?
    1
  165. Wrong. He talked about a letter. What did the letter say? Did it contain evidence that student organizations were fronts for terrorist cells or were terrorist sympathizers? Or is a letter all you need, with the right accusations? I thought we were against cancel culture.
    1
  166.  @denisekoltys3019  You don't know that he tried to run over a cop. You just repeat that.
    1
  167.  @denisekoltys3019  Fix your spelling.
    1
  168.  @denisekoltys3019  The officer already apologized, i.e., confessed.
    1
  169.  @jenblankenship5350  Obvious what this spiel is about. Of course that's his plan.
    1
  170. You're in skool? 😂😂😂😂
    1
  171. @markasbury1084  Show me where in the United States that happened. You think you're Elizabeth Eckford of Little Rock?
    1
  172.  @stevenschuyler9527  A joke.
    1
  173.  @stevenschuyler9527  I think it suits the grammatical structure of the OP.
    1
  174. @koppsr  He very clearly stated that he was advised by counsel not to comment on pending matters. This isn't Facebook Gossip Hour, this is real. And Stefanik knows it.
    1
  175.  @sketchartist1964  They are asking for fundraising purposes. Of course they know that his answer is true. This is a performance, for 💰, to finance the upcoming election. How does anyone STILL get taken in?? Wow, just wow. Check on how much they've pulled in since they started these pointless hearings.
    1
  176. @sketchartist1964  My clear, cogent, and unequivocal reply is nowhere to be found now. I wonder why that is? Of course he's telling the truth and of course they know he is.
    1
  177.  @sketchartist1964  Don't you find it funny that clear statements of fact or law get disappeared, but trash talk is amplified? Huh. Odd.
    1
  178. @sketchartist1964  No he is not. He stood up to Congress better than any of the Ivy League presidents did. He is not supposed to comment on pending matters, whether they be pending in administrative hearings or in litigation. Because he represents state schools, he is bound by Due Process. Blabbing could end up costing the public tax money.
    1
  179.  @sketchartist1964  I hope you can see the above.
    1
  180.  @sketchartist1964  It's not a matter of how it sounds. Harvard has a private foundation to cover all costs of lawsuits. Public schools have property taxes. You know that! Look at your bill.
    1
  181. Yeah. Buy only Made in America. Oops, too late.
    1
  182. And to think they're not vaccinated, or under surveillance for terrorism. Aren't we?
    1
  183. Let's not forget how often gender is no longer obvious. 😮
    1
  184. Not the case. It's a multi-pronged standard.
    1
  185. The existence of a treatment, plus the fact that fully vaccinated people do still contract and spread COVID, undercuts vaccine mandates.
    1
  186. Constitutionality isn't an issue. Harvard is a private university, and its admissions are protected by First Amendment freedom of association. Their problem is that they accept a ton of federal funding, which means their admissions can be scrutinized. A limited use of race in admissions has been legal up until now, based on a long line of Supreme Court cases. The other side wants that precedent overruled and to have all use of race declared illegal for any university accepting government funds. The briefs are really interesting. The Court always publishes them.
    1
  187. In prison, huh? Did anyone go to jail for banning Henry Miller, or Hustler magazine, or the musical Hair? How about for refusing to register the marriage of an interracial couple? Or running a segregated pizza parlor? 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  188.  @laertesindeed  All right, so you will try to string together words you may not understand to console yourself. Please do. Your feelings about criminal law have nothing to do with reality, but they are your feelings. No argument there.
    1
  189.  @laertesindeed  The issue in this case concerning whether Harvard's admissions policy discriminates based on race has nothing to do with the Constitution. The case is based on federal statutes, and the fact that Harvard takes federal money every year.
    1
  190.  @laertesindeed  You really have something wrong with you -- the only question is how much. In any case, enough that I wouldn't want you prowling around my house or garage. Blocked. Get a good book on writing. You want to write well, but can't yet. Study, and you will improve. Make that your resolution.
    1
  191. I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones, who truly distinguished themselves in uniform? That is one way to increase black enrollment.
    1
  192. What was the reason for firing the Inspectors General? The President's nominees were all just confirmed by the Senate to head the various agencies and departments. Perhaps it would make sense to seek out their views on how to improve efficiency and cut costs? Why do you think Patel and Gabbard immediately told their employees not to respond? Because they want to hide fraud?
    1
  193. If the price is right they would.
    1
  194.  @republicansthatdidntvotefo1605  I am chagrined that people are this quick to give up rights -- one obviously grandstanding congresswoman making her career with outrage p**n is enough. I'm starting to wonder how we ever got them in the first place. Look up RAV v. City of St. Paul. RAV is a case where a St. Paul ordinance banning cross burning, swastikas and similar symbols was struck down as unconstitutional. A liberal decision? No, a Scalia opinion, with concurrences coming to the same conclusion for different reasons, from Justices who didn't like his approach but agreed the ban was unconstitutional.
    1
  195.  @acloserlook5823  Absolutely it is. But if you see how those cases were written, then you can figure out why they turned out the way they did at the time they were decided. The briefs in this case are actually fascinating and are worth the time to read. I was surprised that the petitioners, representing Asian students, were so direct in their request that those cases be overturned. This isn't an easy case, and everyone called in their top guns for a reason. (EDIT: "at" changed to "that")
    1
  196. Or Musk sent an intermediary or . . .
    1
  197.  @brighteyes6559  On all matters of law, it is correct that the Supreme Court defers to no other court. On matters of creating a factual record, the district court's findings of fact are presumed to be accurate, though not beyond scrutiny, obviously.
    1
  198.  @pensiveintrovert4318  I literally laughed out loud, very loud. Now I can go to bed happy. That was wonderful.
    1
  199.  @bubbagump6625  Have you seen a recent copy of that "standardized test?" It makes me wonder who the test makers are, and how they determine what the test should consist in.
    1
  200.  @donaldkasper8346  You are telling me they CAUGHT all the burglars?? In my city, they don't catch the murderers.
    1
  201. @grimus  That, too. What goes around comes around -- although this might have other, more sinister, roots. I only hope the investigation is honest.
    1
  202. Stefanik was the one wearing blue. Good call.
    1
  203.  @alexandriaocasio-smollett5078  Stefanik is doing it for fundraising.
    1
  204. What did the letter say that created a basis for an investigation of those organizations? Can someone write a letter about me, or about some group I belong to, and because they don't like my opinions, I can be fired from my job or removed from a class? Or, it's enough to trigger an Investigation? Just a letter, calling me a racist, etc.? I thought we were against cancel culture.
    1
  205. HSBC. Find out what the US did when it uncovered the laundering of drug cartel money. The British press wrote about it.
    1
  206. Oh my goodness. And you just reaffirmed the Dunning-Kruger effect. Seth Waxman was Solicitor General and has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other living person. You have no clue what he was talking about -- or that he is friends with all of these Justices, for that matter. But if you get 300+ Likes, well then, you must be right.
    1
  207.  @lukedaniell  You beat me to it. Thank GOD. This was scary.
    1
  208.  @Lucy-q1b  Try looking up the briefs and at least skim those. You might have an idea of what the argument is about if you were to take the time to step away from the YouTube and finding something real to look at.
    1
  209.  @Lucy-q1b  No, he was referring to the trial record in the case, to demonstrate that Harvard is in full compliance with the line of Supreme Court cases that permit considering race in admissions. The other side is asking the Court to overturn those precedents, straight up. That is the only issue stated in their petition for certiorari. Quite remarkable, actually.
    1
  210.  @trumpforever6706  SMH
    1
  211.  @user-xd4rs6vr4n  And who would you be, to say who belongs where? You sound like an American.
    1
  212.  @Petal4822  France has the highest marriage rate of any country in Europe between immigrants and "native"/"ethnic" French, and has for generations.
    1
  213. @Petal4822  Yes it is, lol.
    1
  214. Private college, so it actually can. That literally could tip the balance one time in 15 years, or something.
    1
  215. @abusufiansiddik567  AIPAC has been a threat to Israel's Labour's Party many times.
    1
  216. ​ @fish9905  You believe this? How is that critical thinking? I want to see some evidence.
    1
  217.  @fish9905  Oh I see. You just believe what the performance-for-fundraising Congress members spout.
    1
  218.  @Lauwit  Stefanik made money, at your expense. You don't see through it.
    1
  219. ​@Tati8796 Not all Israelis believe the existence of Israel means Palestinians must be occupied and cannot be free. Are you suggesting the slogan is literally always a dog whistle? In other words, coded speech made to sound nice but always hiding a criminal, malevolent intent? Not everyone agrees, but . . . Can you prove they are naive in that?
    1
  220.  @Tati8796  You did not answer my question. Perhaps you are responding to a different post. I asked a First Amendment question, not a geopolitics/Third World development question. Did you recognize that? Or no?
    1
  221. They are a private university. I wouldn't expect them to base admissions on those criteria.
    1
  222. If they pose a national security threat, why are we lining their pockets? Once they have money, guess what? In a free economy, they can spend it as they please short of bribery.
    1
  223. More like a coward and compulsive conformist, easily lead.
    1
  224.  @Allenrobinson9  Except that that is nonsense.
    1
  225.  @joeladams2540  No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
    1
  226.  @kaelynn4744  No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
    1
  227.  @Baratheon.  There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said previously that she usually posts about may indeed be what she usually posts about, and some of the posts he asked her about are unimportant enough for her to have forgotten about them. In this hearing, she was substantively unresponsive. That is not the same thing as committing perjury. I don't understand where you all think you saw or heard "perjury on live television." How do you think US Attorneys go about bringing federal charges? Based on Facebook polls? YouTube impressions? The Senate's job is to vote, not "make her talk." I'm assuming she won't be confirmed.
    1
  228.  @Baratheon.  I'm not lying for her. Prove up your claims. I'm not supporting her for confirmation. I think most people in government are objectively unqualified by any standard. That's not the same thing as calling her a criminal because of this. If you believe she is, then you have the burden of proof -- especially if there are Bill of Rights implications. Feel free to leave keywords; I know actual links are likely to be shadowed. I am genuinely interested. If you show me it's true, I'll believe it. BTW, I had the good sense never to open FB or Twitter accounts. I only joined this when the snakes shut down the economy -- and I did so under a pen name that is a version of my real name. So, what would they do to me?
    1
  229.  @heavenlysonshine  Reported and blocked 🤣
    1
  230.  @kiyosenl.3889  No it wasn't a "blatant lie." What she said previously that she usually posts about may indeed be what she usually posts about, and some of the posts he asked her about are unimportant enough for her to have forgotten about them. In this hearing, she was substantively unresponsive. That is not the same thing as committing perjury. I don't understand where you all think you saw or heard "perjury on live television." How do you think US Attorneys go about bringing federal charges? Based on Facebook polls? YouTube impressions? The Senate's job is to vote, not "make her talk." I'm assuming she won't be confirmed. I have no problem with that. It's the screeching for criminal charges that astounds me. Man are you dim.
    1
  231.  @stevenwebster3286  Huh?
    1
  232.  @sueblood7793  I see you cleaned up the original post. Maybe you should watch for the indictment come down, LOL. Blocked.
    1
  233.  @MK-mj9gx  In my private life? First, I wouldn't be asked that question because I do not have a FB or a Twit account. Second, that is none of your business.
    1
  234.  @sueblood7793  I am a lawyer. If you had read all of my posts (and I wonder which are shadowed?), you might have picked up on that. Reading Is Fun.
    1
  235. Did they PAY her to read it? Well then why should she read it? What, you think she's a patriot or something? /s
    1
  236. We borrow from one of the BRICS to pay for war against another. Let's think this through? 🤔
    1
  237. The purpose of federal spending is to juice the market, and reward friends in general. If that wasn't obvious before the Great Recession, it should have been obvious since.
    1
  238.  @Heart2HeartBooks  This is Seth Waxman, who was Solicitor General and has probably argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other living lawyer. Chief Justice Roberts went to Harvard, too. They know each other well.
    1
  239. What do you mean by blew the whistle? Asked him to resign? Or had him arrested, ruined his record, etc.? I would never arrest anyone for food theft. Never, ever. (Remember Les Miserables?) But obviously he can't stay at that job, either.
    1
  240.  @sleepfighter  Say what? You mean he reported this to the authorities? What does race or gay have to do with stealing a loaf of bread, or a bunch of grapes? Was this grape trafficking, in quantities, for profit??
    1
  241.  @sleepfighter  I'm sorry, this is an internal matter. You ask him to resign. You NEVER, and I mean NEVER, report someone for stealing food for personal consumption. It's like, a thing you don't do, since the French Revolution, since Victor Hugo wrote. What happened to moral values? Someone is getting 15 minutes of fame and a twitter storm, over this?
    1
  242.  @sleepfighter  blocked
    1
  243. Not that many, but it was shocking how US government websites were bragging about funding Ukrainian biolabs. Department of Defense funded most of them. After Nuland's testimony, they did not even take it down.
    1
  244. "Near" the court or residence is the key to the statute. Do you see a definition here? The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. Are memories that short? These are two political animals duping you. They have their own interest$ at heart.
    1
  245. She was a spousal hire. Funny how you don't know that she got her job the old-fashioned way: first, she was very good in her field. Then, she made sure that was noticed, by the right people. She married one of those people.
    1
  246.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  She certainly was. She became an expert on bankruptcy law and the laws that pertain to personal finance, and she met her future husband at a prestigious conference.
    1
  247.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Chief Justice Roberts went to that school.
    1
  248.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  Maybe she was very good, and she was an opportunist, too. She is a lawyer, after all. The best ones are both. (She was really very good. BTW. But as we all know, that's never enough.)
    1
  249.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  You're making my case for me. She practiced law and was "dishonest." Okay. Now, this is a problem? How? She was a lawyer. It is (considered) a skill to present your case in the very best light possible, without technically committing fraud or deceit. Harvard law profs also practice law, or they become high ranking government advisors and officials. None of them are just "teachers." They argue Supreme Court and appellate court cases. They write books that influence the Supreme Court. Warren is a Senator. I guess you don't know any Harvard-trained lawyers? I'm not understanding your point.
    1
  250.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  She is a leading expert on bankruptcy law, and she'll stop at nothing to promote herself. That was my original point. She has a lot in common with Hillary, only she is a much better lawyer than Hillary. Wait. Do you think hard working, highly accomplished lawyers are all virtuous, TOO?? Yeesh.
    1
  251.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Then read some of her technical articles, not her partisan stuff.
    1
  252.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Okay, honey. Whatever you say.
    1
  253.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Michigan Law Review would qualify as technical. Stuff she wrote speaking as a politician, partisan.
    1
  254.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Chill. Seriously. None of these politicos is worth this much of your precious time. We all know what the prevailing criteria are for being a "good" lawyer. Warren did meet them, amply. I told you where to look to verify that statement. No one suggested lawyers compare with being an astrophysicist, or even a good novelist. Although, the lawyer representing Asian students in their discrimination suit actually did study to become an astrophysicist. Now that is interesting. Of course he is smarter than Warren. But that wasn't the issue.
    1
  255. ​ @LetsAllDrinkToTheDeathOfAClown  Liar. Learn to speak French. Then maybe you can follow their reporters, rather than making up your preferred narrative (= story).
    1
  256. There is that, also. When a teenage girl has sudden onset dysphoria, a qualified therapist needs to gently probe. She may have been bullied, or . . . Much worse.
    1
  257. School = reverse psychology Better tell them not to mention it.
    1
  258. What was the reason for firing the Inspectors General? The President's nominees were all just confirmed by the Senate to head the various agencies and departments. Perhaps it would make sense to seek out their views on how to improve efficiency and cut costs? Why do you think Patel and Gabbard immediately told their employees not to respond? Because they want to hide fraud? 😂
    1
  259. @paaao  You might pay closer attention to his role in circumventing the Obama-era ban on funding gain of function research, and hiding his tracks when COVID escaped from the experiments he funded.
    1
  260.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  Did you notice that jeers and name calling are no problem, but a cogent post is? They want us to look stupid and be stupid.
    1
  261.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  Who are "you people?" It's in the emails. Did an alien write them? Did AI doctor them? I expect to be dealing with the latter soon, and you should, too. In order to be ready, stop being so rigid. Mindless ideology.
    1
  262. They only care about cha-ching 💰
    1
  263. The case fatality rate is about 2% overall. But you still have a point, especially for children and teens, and even people under 30.
    1
  264. I thought she could. Wow.
    1
  265. That is normal. No, I'm serious.
    1
  266. ​ @tuckerwalden2049 This was a pro bono case that her Prestigious Law Firm took for more prestige and stuff. Partners don't write this stuff, either.
    1
  267. ​@tuckerwalden2049 The judges I worked for were far more hands on.
    1
  268. ​@christineadam6764 She said she read it, and that it's ten years old. I don't defend her answer, but if that is her worst, yawn.
    1
  269. Barrett's questions suggest exactly the opposite.
    1
  270. The only one I'd believe if he said he did not know is Mike Pence. They'd hide big time from Mike Pence.
    1
  271.  @alesh2275  First of all, Harvard is private, so it does not have to abide by the Equal Protection clause. In fact, the First Amendment freedom of association gives it a lot of leeway in how it determines admissions. What Harvard cannot do is accept federal funds and use impermissible racial criteria to determine any applicant's admission. Up until now, there was a line of Supreme Court cases that allowed limited use of race in addition to other factors, for the purpose of building a diverse class (private schools all do this, starting with private kindergartens). Waxman was arguing that Harvard meets these criteria. The other side wants the whole line of precedent that permits using race in college admissions to be overturned -- or to force Harvard to stop accepting federal funds, and admit whoever it wants on its own dime.
    1
  272.  @alesh2275  Seth Waxman was Solicitor General. These guys all know each other since forever.
    1
  273. The line of Supreme Court cases Waxman relies on all say that Harvard can use race in the way Waxman claims they did. The other side wants those cases overturned. The first discrimination Harvard performs is legacy and "special development" vs. everyone else. All legal, because Harvard is private. Too bad Harvard has the influence it does.
    1
  274.  @christines8529  No, a university is not a business, nor does it open its doors to commerce or to the general public. I suggest you read the briefs. UNC is a state university, so its admissions are subject to scrutiny for racial discrimination, but Harvard is in this particular lawsuit, and its admissions practices are being scrutinized, only because it accepts federal money. If Harvard didn't, then it could basically admit whomever it wants -- but it has to do that strictly on its own dime. Really sorry to see that we are at the point where we think universities are "a business," but I'm not surprised.
    1
  275.  @christines8529  What federal laws govern all private university admissions? Meaning, regardless of their charter and regardless of whether they accept federal funds in any form. Please tell me. Have you never heard of women's colleges, the historical black colleges (where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Justice Thurgood Marshall were educated), very strict religious colleges that train people for the ministry? Read the briefs.
    1
  276.  @christines8529  The pertinent statute is Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. -- 42 United States Code Section 2000d (emphasis added) That's from the Asian students' petition for cert and brief in support of granting relief.
    1
  277. ​ @christines8529  No, Harvard DOES benefit from federal funds, even though it's a private school, which is why it must also obey federal anti-discrimination laws. That's why this lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court. It is rich enough to finance all of its needy students and to extricate itself from depending on public money. But that is surprisingly hard to do, and complicated, so it won't. Besides, the money is green. What I really think is that these elitist institutions shouldn't have the stranglehold on society and politics that they do. I think their legacy pools and "special development" pools are just as discriminatory, or more, than anything else they do. If they want to be modified four-year country clubs for the Jared Kushners (or Chelsea Clintons) of the world, bless them, they can rely on First Amendment freedom of association and go their merry way. But then they go on to affect the lives of the rest of us, and of the rest of the people on this planet -- and they do it for their benefit, on our dime. A really interesting read was the letter Harvard's President wrote when it was revealed just how much Harvard was mixed up with Jeffrey Epstein. Am I changing the subject? No. To me, this is the heart of the matter. We argue about who is qualified to be admitted to Harvard -- and I say, who cares? Why are they then "qualified" to control the lives of the rest of us? They clearly are not. That's what I care about. There is no way to make Harvard admissions fair. There are too many qualified people vying for too few seats, and too many people who want to game the system, and can. Why do so many people apply? Because it really is as close to a guarantee of success in life as you can possibly find at age 18. But why is it?
    1
  278. For what? Naming buildings and schools after major donors, instead of people of real stature? Agreed.
    1
  279. ​ @jailman1  Wait. Are you this crazy? It's not possible. No one is this crazy.
    1
  280. Not from this excerpt.
    1
  281.  @LegoAnimationGuy1  That's called legacy admission, and it's legal.
    1
  282.  @schokoladenritter7969  A lot of immoral things are legal.
    1
  283.  @schokoladenritter7969  My point is that admissions are not on the basis of merit, and that a private university is allowed to admit using criteria other than merit. Funny how that is. Follow the money, as usual.
    1
  284. Or not being able to get rid of her for some other reason.
    1
  285.  @Prophet_of_the_ORB  Then who would sign up? You'd need to triple the salary and perks.
    1
  286.  @rogerdoger3376  He didn't touch Fauci.
    1
  287. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  You cannot criminalize incompetence. There must be some level of intent, or at least recklessness, which is more than incompetence.
    1
  288. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  Because it flies in the face of the most basic difference between mere negligence or incompetence and crime: mens rea. You must have some level of intent to be a criminal. Your superior is supposed to know if you're competent. If you lie to him about your credentials or any other aspect of your knowledge base or your experience, that can be a crime. You cannot lie to a government agent involved in enforcing the laws (as Martha Stewart found out).
    1
  289.  @Prophet_of_the_ORB  Citizenship revoked, lol.
    1
  290. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  Okay. Do what you want with your failing society. Every proposed cure is even worse than the disease. Every time someone gets mad, they want to do something to repeal constitutional protections -- one of the very few good things we've still got going at this point. Have at it.
    1
  291. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  You will need a draft soon, to man your military. You don't see that? You already cannot find competent people to fill essential posts. You should ask why the incompetent are attracted to this line of work, and fix that, pronto. Because incompetent law enforcement is appearing at all levels. Remember Uvalde? Or currently, Sonya Massey?
    1
  292.  @Prophet_of_the_ORB  Ah, so you do want to trash the Constitution. Go ahead.
    1
  293.  @Prophet_of_the_ORB  And you're qualified to do that? 😂
    1
  294. "Near" the court or residence is the key. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge pro-life protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. All of those protests and rallies were legal. Are memories that short?
    1
  295.  @jacappy111  reported, blocked
    1
  296.  @Jeangrey567  The tech giants who censored this enjoy Section 230 immunity, a federal law that preempts any state's laws. A lawsuit would be dismissed. They would move to have the lawyer fined for filing a frivolous nuisance suit.
    1
  297. What gets you admitted is being in the legacy or special development pool.
    1
  298. @arctain1  Correct. Today, the Supreme Court pointed out that a number of states have banned race-based admissions, including California.
    1
  299.  @ezesagus6177  A lawsuit was just filed against the legacy system. Super great news!
    1
  300. Leslie Wexner did, and he gave hundreds of millions. Wexner was Jeffrey Epstein's close friend and patron. They were taking his money until this happened and he withdrew his support.
    1
  301. Oh come on.
    1
  302. Harvard isn't the government or an agent of the government. This case is based on the fact that it accepts federal funds. Up until now, its admissions were legal based on Supreme Court precedent. The other side wants that precedent overturned. Interesting case, and harder than it sounds.
    1
  303.  @samuraimath1864  Let's just cut to the chase: read the briefs. It's actually faster. Also, no court exists to enforce morals. It must rule based on law.
    1
  304.  @samuraimath1864  Also, no American university is open to the public, which makes it qualitatively different from a restaurant. In Europe, universities are open to everyone, actually, and anyone can simply audit a course. Or at least they used to be. I was there during two waves of terrorist bombings in the 1980s, and it did not occur to anyone to stop the practice of opening all lectures by the department chairs to the public. Now we just had a shutdown over a severe flu-like illness. God help us.
    1
  305.  @shirmelduggins9984  What does "a good fit" mean?
    1
  306.  @robertmadison1205  With respect to Harvard, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this case. Harvard is private, but accepts public funds. That's why it's in court.
    1
  307.  @studyboy5829  Ha! If any university excludes any group disproportionately, based on race or ethnicity, we can presume it is discriminating unless proven otherwise. They can't cover it up with tokenism. If 7% of the applicant pool with those achievements is admitted, provided they are white, but only 0.2% with those achievements are admitted when they are South Asian, that needs explaining all right.
    1
  308.  @Nordic_Sky  Do people really not know who the blacks are who get into Harvard, etc.? Many are Africans, or recent African immigrants. This has been true for a long time.
    1
  309.  @ssuigeneris  Great posts. I can see you know what you're talking about. Have you read the briefs in this case? I assure you, they are worth your time. I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit to Harvard and other Ivies. How about the decorated ones? That is certainly a mark of merit, and would increase the diversity of the class in a substantial way.
    1
  310.  @MrTodayistheday  The Harvard Law grads I've known are great. Were some difficult? Yeah, but these are lawyers we are talking about. I found most of them really fun to work with and obviously tremendous lawyers. I did not, however, work in shark settings, so my experience cannot be considered representative.
    1
  311.  @studyboy5829  I'm not saying he was passed over for something he was entitled to. I was just making the point that the existence of people of his ethnic group at a school does not by itself prove anything. I wasn't endorsing the position, I was criticizing obviously poor arguments against it.
    1
  312.  @robertmadison1205  Please read the briefs. There isn't a quicker way. The civil rights struggle, or most of it anyway, required the passage of new federal laws pursuant to the 14th Amendment "enabling clause." Before certain laws were passed, the 14th Amendment standing alone did not protect anyone from discrimination in the workplace, on common carriers, etc., and "separate but equal" was legal. We don't have a body of federal law governing private college admissions, but we do have federal funding that cannot be used in ways that are contrary to the Constitution or any federal statute. That would mean we are all forced to support what is not in line with our laws. Abortion is a perfect analogy: even during Roe v. Wade, there were federal laws prohibited use of federal funds to facilitate abortion except in certain very limited circumstances, such as saving the life of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy at a VA hospital.
    1
  313.  @robertmadison1205  Yes and no, because under the Constitution, all federal statutes are the law of the land, but all federal statutes have to have some provision in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to legislate on behalf of everyone, and preempt laws to the contrary that might exist in the states. And then of course federal laws have to be consistent with the Bill of Rights, etc. The U of North Carolina part of the case does implicate the Constitution in a way that Harvard doesn't, because it's a state school. No state can discriminate against people in any way that the Court has held to be unconstitutional. Right now, Harvard can do pretty much what it wants in deciding which of its applicants to admit, but not on our dime. Congress could probably change that, too, by invoking the 14th Amendment, but don't hold your breath! :/
    1
  314.  @robertmadison1205  Roe v. Wade was a direct constitutional challenge to all state laws banning all or most abortions, and that case struck them down. Now with Roe overturned, the states have a lot of freedom to pass whatever laws they want, up to the point where children under the age of consent are prohibited from having an abortion, and someone sues based on the 14th Amendment to ensure that they can. Same with serious threats to the pregnant woman's health or life. Etc.
    1
  315.  @robertmadison1205  The thing about news reports on major cases, is that this isn't hard to explain. It really isn't. But they almost never do.
    1
  316. ​ @rubyruby6358 Her eyes were open. She is 💯 right across the board.
    1
  317. "Near" the court or residence is the key to this law. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. People came from all over the country to join pro-life rallies near the Court. These were all legal and First Amendment protected. Are memories that short?
    1
  318. ​ @liseklerekoper2441 Yeah, Leslie Wexner, a huge donor, withdrew all support. You remember Wexner? He was Jeffrey Epstein's closest friend and patron. That wasn't a problem, apparently.
    1
  319.  @commonsenseconservative  No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
    1
  320.  @commonsenseconservative  Calm down and spell. I watched all of it. It was a show, to impress you.
    1
  321.  @commonsenseconservative  Watch for the indictment. LOL
    1
  322.  @commonsenseconservative  BTW, I would be just as cautious in entertaining the shrieks to prosecute Trump. First, no one is above the law -- true, and most important. BUT you have to be very, VERY sure that you have the grounds to go after a former president. If you are that sure, fine. But otherwise, no. Same for Biden, once we get a grip on the Hunter mess.
    1
  323. We can start by outlawing China from buying our Treasury Bonds. Oh wait.
    1
  324. I didn't laugh, not exactly. The statute has no definition of "near." There have been decades of pro-life rallies held near the Supreme Court, all of which were protected speech and assembly. First Amendment. A lot of people are going after the First Amendment lately. Watch for that move. This looks like a good-cop, bad-cop routine with one goal in mind, and it's not to help you.
    1
  325. ​ @neplusultra4196  Where did you see and hear that happen? You heard politicians tell you it happened. Those politicians are fundraising for November. You still don't get it? Wow.
    1
  326. ​ @wubuck79 Where did you hear actual threats? Where did you see anyone prevented from going about their business?
    1
  327. ​ @ix-bi5fh What have you seen on videos that warrants heavily armed SWAT teams to come out and wrestle people to the ground? I have seen nothing of the sort.
    1
  328.  @ix-bi5fh  Were you for vaccine mandates, too? 😂😂😂
    1
  329.  @jeremiahdavis360  It's impossible to give a single figure on scores needed for admission, since admission isn't based on scores. First of all, all applications, regardless of race, are divided into legacies and "special development," before any other factors come into play. "Special development" is supposed to be for people like Olympic athletes or gifted musicians, or winners of major science or mathematics competitions, and thus based on merit, but these can also be people whose parents gave a million dollars to Harvard. You can buy your way into a private school, hon. Not directly, of course, because they could still reject you, but if you want a real leg up, the right color is green. We fight over crumbs. Passionately, over crumbs.
    1
  330.  @jeremiahdavis360  You know that, how? Do you have any idea what the black students at Ivies are like? For one thing, many are children of African immigrants, including refugee families, and many more are children of very prominent, and quite affluent, African people. You're not aware that Nigeria now has a local intelligentsia that looks to rival India's? The world is changing. You have never met these people.
    1
  331.  @jeremiahdavis360  What "college charter?" What does that refer to?
    1
  332.  @jeremiahdavis360  Not necessarily. The people whose parents are African immigrants or from prominent, wealthy African families are legacies, or "special development." The rules for admission for them are different from all other applicant pools. Barack Obama is a perfect example -- father went to Harvard, mother related to a half-dozen former presidents. Is the "special development" pool tainted? Is Jared Kushner's degree tainted? You have a strange way of looking at things. Not every black person has a father who can donate seven figures to Harvard. I don't know why you directed the comment to me, by the way. I wasn't justifying any of this. (By the way, see the letter Harvard's president wrote in the wake of the Epstein revelations. I mean, just for some larger perspective.)
    1
  333. Because they are all about filling their pockets. Kamala ran to grab a billion and spread it around, not to do this job, for which she was not qualified.
    1
  334. Because they're in it for the money.
    1
  335. Testimony is immunized. No one can sue her for defamation. But she could be fired for incompetence.
    1
  336. What makes you think these are all of non-French ethnicity? That was already not the case in the 1980s.
    1
  337. ​@tbishop4961 Of course you're right. American ignorance is more startling every day. They are all saying the same thing, even in response to other videos where it is obvious people of French descent are rioting. Is it ignorance, or a need to believe a little story they are wedded to? Or is it drugs?
    1
  338.  @davemartino5997  Because you lived in France and went to school there, and I don't mean through American junior year jazz.
    1
  339.  @LetsAllDrinkToTheDeathOfAClown  Nazi screen name? Superior eyes, maybe? The vision thing? LOL
    1
  340.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Nothing in the articles you linked states that one or the other hypothesis concerning COVID's origins has compelling evidence to support it. Both hypotheses remain viable, with some scientists strongly favoring one, and others considering the evidence to be balanced. Let's keep in mind that viruses are presumed to be naturally occurring, absent evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof on the lab leak side is greater (and indeed, a lab leak of a naturally occurring virus, not an engineered one, is hardly impossible -- leaks are not rare), which accounts for the language you rely on. You thought no one would read the articles or grasp what they're saying. Or that they aren't aware of the open letter of scientists to the NYTimes, etc., asking for more research.
    1
  341.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Wouldn't studying the effects of a class of coronaviruses in humanized mice have the potential to accelerate their natural evolutionary pathways, just as we now see new variants of COVID 19 emerging, since the time it has passed to people? Lab leak does NOT imply "man-made." Nor does it imply the virus would have tell-tail markers of engineering. The mice they use are genetically engineered. The viruses aren't, or not necessarily. It's not obvious how the viruses could mutate when introduced into the mice? They do in nature. At any rate, the moratorium on gain-of-function research was indeed lifted, in 2017. That's also a fact.
    1
  342.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Nice try. Now we can confirm you are making assertions BEYOND the evidence. Both articles consider both hypotheses, and do not disconfirm lab origin. For example, the latter: "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARS-CoV-2, including animal studies. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance." Thanks, sweets. Expert witness testimony under Daubert was a specialty of mine. 😉
    1
  343. On what basis? This is immunized, as long as she wasn't, say, bribed to do it. Although . . . Hmm.
    1
  344. The honorable thing would be a spirited defense of First Amendment freedoms, and an explanation of the scope and limits of conduct codes in light of those freedoms. But maybe they don't really care about that, huh? Maybe that's it.
    1
  345. ​ @rickbeniers667 Wrong 😂
    1
  346. Blinkin claims . . .
    1
  347.  @mary5305j  THIS
    1
  348. It is amazing how much trust there still is. I would expect a demand for better vaccines. But everyone has low expectations now.
    1
  349. They are interested in fundraising.
    1
  350. This is immunized. This is why congressmembers can do this without worry.
    1
  351. I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones? That is a merit-based criterion and would really increase diversity.
    1
  352. ​ @plzsavethebeez743  Because her stocks quadrupled during the plan demic.
    1
  353. Maybe you should take the time to read about the First Amendment. Start with Brandenburg v. Ohio, then RAV v City of St. Paul.
    1
  354. HE JUST SAID : "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers or nonanswers. I'm glad she stood up for free speech. Showed some backbone.
    1
  355. HSBC. Find out what the US did when it uncovered the laundering of drug cartel money. The British press wrote about it.
    1
  356. Her testimony is immunized, but she could be fired. He's wrong about "defamation" in the technical sense.
    1
  357. For what?
    1
  358. The first sentence of the description of this video says "opening remarks." So . . . this lady risked her life for her country, and you can't read a sentence before you criticize her. Here's a question: why should anyone lift a finger for you, much less be willing to give their life to protect you? Help me with this. Seriously, . . . no one wants to be law enforcement, no one wants to be a nurse (few want to be doctors, and all the exams for lawyers were made easier), no one wants to be a teacher, no one wants to come into the office on a daily basis . . . you're sanguine, huh? No worries? LOL Keep it up.
    1
  359. ​ @JC-vf7zs 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  360.  @RS-oq4wu  I can make predictions, too. I can tell you are a white American. Europeans don't think like you. 🤣
    1
  361. Performative Campaign fund raising
    1
  362. So . . . Johnny Depp isn't your darling anymore.
    1
  363. They can't be an officially recognized student organization, but if they want to open an independent chapter in town, right down the street, and they can afford it, they can.
    1
  364. Interesting what you see that no one else does. Why is that?
    1
  365. Where did you see evidence that any student group made terrorist threats? Is a bare claim in a letter enough? I thought we were against cancel culture.
    1
  366.  @peterardison5930  Oh good. So someone can write a letter about me, or about some group I belong to, and because they don't like my opinions, I can be fired from my job or removed from a class. Or, it's enough to trigger an investigation. Wonderful. I better not cross anyone with beaucoup bucks.
    1
  367.  @peterardison5930  What law was broken? Before you answer, read Brandenburg v. Ohio. Then try R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
    1
  368.  @peterardison5930  Jesus loves readers.
    1
  369.  @odeleya1768  YES IT IS protected speech, because it isn't a true threat unless imminent violence is actually threatened or incited. I suggest you do some reading, since you care so much (paraphrasing Socrates right there). Start with Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's the most important case. Next, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (about cross burning and swastikas, etc.; a Scalia opinion) Find out what our rights are . . . before we lose them. Before they become quaint.
    1
  370.  @odeleya1768  I really am chagrined that people are this quick to give up rights. I'm starting to wonder how we ever got them in the first place. RAV is a case where a St. Paul ordinance banning cross burning, swastikas and similar symbols was struck down as unconstitutional. A liberal decision? No, a Scalia opinion, with concurrences from Justices who came to the same conclusion using different reasoning. IOW, solid First Amendment law. Don't be so easily led. Did you support mandates, too? Were you scared and everything?
    1
  371.  @odeleya1768  White people can say the police in the George Floyd case did the world a favor. I hear that one all the time. Do you correct them, or no?
    1
  372.  @AEMoreira81  Thanks for this!! Will read it immediately. With all the anti-free speech warriors around, there is no time to waste. :(
    1
  373. @hammer44head  Yes, I know why the university professors agreed to appear. And what does Congress propose? To stop funding? The agency through which they distribute the funding can be sued if the funding is denied on a discriminatory basis, in violation of free speech, and so forth. This is for fundraising. It worked super well last time.
    1
  374. @walterhahn4130  Do you think a complex criminal case concludes with a verdict in a matter of weeks? Or does it take more than that? Congress can order an independent investigation and can bring articles of impeachment. Let's see what they do, besides perform for campaign fundraising purposes. Say, why no release of the JFK assassination archives, from nearly three generations ago?
    1
  375. I don't place great importance on anyone's personal life. I have no idea why anyone would.
    1
  376. No, he's standing up to rotten little fundraiser Stefanik. FINALLY. Not one president of an Ivy showed any backbone.
    1
  377. ​@robertaccorsini4663 Personnel matters are confidential. He has every right to testify to that fact.
    1
  378. ​@MissMU-xi3kh Finally, someone stood up to Stefanik and showed some backbone.
    1
  379. I am soooooooo sick of this. Did they catch all of them?
    1
  380. ​ @J.J.8790 Catholics always got ashes on Ash Wednesday. You never lived in a big city?
    1
  381.  @TPR-wx1yj  But if it gets Likes on YouTube, then he's an Influencer. Just kidding.
    1
  382.  @mitchyoung93  Exactly. See, for example, Slavery By Another Name, by a Wall Street Journal reporter named Douglas Blackmon. His book started as a WSJ article. We had "separate but equal" for generations. It was only when nearly everyone who had had enslaved grandparents had already died that the US started making progress on equality. The brief on the other side of this case talks about 20th century prejudice against Asians, which has no bearing on the Civil War in any respect. They also claim that whites are by and large the group favored over Asians, not that blacks are. Blacks are barely a double-digit percentage at Harvard, and that includes the children of prominent Africans who are studying in the US, or whose families are recent immigrants to the US. It has zero to do with the civil war.
    1
  383. ​@BishopVampire69 Oh that made sense.
    1
  384. ​@cplmpcocptcl6306 There most certainly is a measure of free speech in public schools. See Tinker v. Des Moines. You don't shed your constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.
    1
  385. ​ @cantthinkofaname750  "Hate speech," so-called, is legal.
    1
  386. "Donna" 😂😂😂😂😂 except it's sad
    1
  387.  @letsbeclear2013  The Lancet and Nature from 2017 and 2018 reported on the fact that the moratorium on gain-of-function research was lifted in 2017. These are scientific/medical journals. Precisely how much money from our taxes went to such research, de facto, before the moratorium was lifted and after, is one more thing we are entitled to know, but don't.
    1
  388. Also, note that these articles date from well before the pandemic. That's also important. :/
    1
  389.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Who is doing that?
    1
  390. Not a good analogy. They all had to know literature, languages, and very advanced mathematics. Their education was not a joke.
    1
  391. ​@yl9154 That's because you had an American education. You know nothing about other peoples.
    1
  392. @yl9154  Not really meant as a criticism of you, but just an observation. Anyone who has lived any length of time in any other country is struck by the differences and their perspective shifts dramatically.
    1
  393. Oprah interviewed her and allowed her to promote her book.
    1
  394.  @FamilyManMoving  Nothing to do with the constitution with respect to Harvard. Harvard is a private university and can run its admissions pretty much however it wants. (Not so for University of North Carolina, obviously.) What Harvard cannot do is accept public money while doing it. At least, that is the posture of this case. Harvard is arguing that their admissions process fully conforms with existing Supreme Court precedent, which allows limited use of race to meet certain goals, and that that precedent should not be overruled. The other side is expressly asking the Supreme Court to overrule that line of cases. Fascinating argument, actually. The briefs are worth your while if you're interested in this stuff. I'm going to reread them tonight.
    1
  395.  @FuddOnFirearms  You don't have a constitutional right to go to Harvard. Harvard is private, so it has First Amendment-protected freedom of association.
    1
  396.  @deponensvogel7261  This is a case about federal funding, at least with respect to Harvard. It is not about the 14th Amendment.
    1
  397.  @deponensvogel7261  I did, too, and I agree.
    1
  398.  @FamilyManMoving  I was struck by the fact that the other side's petition only presented one request -- that the governing precedent allowing for limited use of race in admissions be overturned. Wow! By the way, the lead counsel is from U of Chicago, and he once studied to become an astrophysicist. He does patent law, I believe, in addition to this.
    1
  399. @a.wadderphiltyr1559  If your business is small enough, yes, actually. Each of these issues has a federal statute that governs the practice for private actors. It's the government that cannot create any job, benefit, etc., and decide to exclude based on race.
    1
  400. Read the opinions and you'll know.
    1
  401.  @aratosm  Then don't read them. You're an American. Reading is for sissies.
    1
  402.  @aratosm  Chief Judge Howard, First Circuit, which affirmed the ruling, was first appointed as a federal prosecutor by the elder Bush, and then as judge by George W. Bush. But never mind. If it feels like he was a "leftist fascist," then that's all that matters. It's true for you.
    1
  403.  @aratosm  Which court? The judge who presided over the case in the U. S. Court of Appeals was a Bush appointee and a life-long Republican. You don't even know what you're talking about.
    1
  404.  @aratosm  Of course not. They are typically a three-judge panel, and Judge Howard was presiding. Three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard this case (it was not heard en banc, which makes sense, since petitioners is asking for an overturn of Supreme Court precedent). At the time the opinion in this case was issued, one of the three who heard oral argument had withdrawn.
    1
  405.  @aratosm  If you think you know everything, you'll never learn anything. But that's your right. You have guns and money, which is everything you need to own truth as well. I mean, let's be serious for a minute. Don't think I don't know that, too.
    1
  406.  @aratosm  You got your own truth. You won't hear any argument from me. When you got guns and money, you don't need lawyers.
    1
  407.  @aratosm  I do?
    1
  408. They just say it's a deep fake or a conspiracy theory or AI simulation or . . . The list is long.
    1
  409. Seth Waxman was the Solicitor General. He argued in front of the Supreme Court countless times and they all know each other well. I'd be shocked if they don't go to the same parties. If you look up the briefs, which the Court always publishes, you'll see no one thinks it's a "slam dunk." The other side is represented by a lawyer who considered becoming an astrophysicist, and almost did. No, I'm not kidding.
    1
  410.  @richcook2007  Seth Waxman was Solicitor General. He's in front of the Court all the time. See my other post.
    1
  411.  @RS-oq4wu  No you can't, because you forget that at the extremes, everyone suffers prejudice that is unpredictable, especially in circles where the person has clearly the lowest, or the highest, intellectual talents.
    1
  412.  @RS-oq4wu  Neither race nor intelligence are genetic or inextricably linked. As for predictive value, what do you think happens to someone with clearly superior intelligence in an unexpected package? Say, a young black man, assuming he lives to grow up? You think everyone welcomes him with open arms? Don't make me laugh. His talents will be his problems, in every group. For example, a black youth with a Master's in mathematics ends up with you as a boss . . . I can predict what will happen.
    1
  413. That's not illegal in America.
    1
  414. Too rich to have none other than Stefanik announce this. No pun intended. I would prefer to hear this news from the Speaker. (Is he all right?) Also, are they calling for the invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment or not?
    1
  415. Trump is SOOOO dangerous that the Democrats are taking out their big guns and running Joe Biden against him. Wow they are serious this time.
    1
  416. "Near" the court or residence is the key. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. Are memories that short?
    1
  417. You don't remember all the pro-life protests near the Supreme Court over the last 50 years? They were legal.
    1
  418.  @randycooper3940  I agree that it should be up for discussion. I am concerned that the First Amendment has been severely undermined, and after what has happened to the Fourth Amendment, I am very leery of enforcing such a law to criminalize all such demonstrations. But that's just my opinion. It needs to be thrashed out. I see your point as well, of course.
    1
  419.  @randycooper3940  Wrong. The Constitution preempts any law held to be to the contrary, as written OR as applied in a particular case. Hence, the pro-life protesters were never arrested, though they may have been directed away from the immediate vicinity of the Court steps. They relied on the First Amendment to protect them.
    1
  420.  @randycooper3940  Never mind. Why do you think any law, state or federal is ever struck down as unconstitutional? What does yelling fire in a crowded theatre have in common with political protest? Nothing that can be analogized in actual legal practice. I'm an attorney and you obviously aren't. End of story.
    1
  421.  @randycooper3940  Intimidation and protest are not the same thing. Intimidation of various sorts is comparable to true threats, or to conspiracy to commit a crime -- it is not protected speech at all. It didn't need a federal statute for that. There is no issue, nothing to legislate about. Read some Nadine Strossen. She wrote a book on hate speech recently, and why the category has no place in First Amendment jurisprudence. It is brilliant.
    1
  422.  @randycooper3940  Statutes are overturned all the time. I already explained it to you. YOU try to define "near." In front? Blocking access? Or down the block, where you know the demonstration will be seen but is not in any way disrupting the life of the judge -- so that he can choose to ignore it without changing his route or routine? I actually don't agree, ethically speaking, with demonstrating near someone's home, or at a court. But to pretend it is always illegal or can be made illegal or should be made illegal -- nonsense. You don't like reading? What a shame. Well, most people agree with you! In fact, they don't like math, either.
    1
  423.  @randycooper3940  I'm going to block you. You're wasting my time.
    1
  424.  @randycooper3940  Nowhere did I say true threats and intimidation were "the same thing." You can't or won't read a post properly, and you think you have a right to tell everyone else what to do, and to tell them they will be or should be arrested on federal offenses. Be careful what you wish for.
    1
  425. 😅 perfect
    1
  426. ​ @shakostarsun We don't know who approached Taibbi, when, how . . .
    1
  427. No, because Supreme Court precedent allows a certain, limited use of race in admissions, and has allowed it for generations. The other side is arguing that the precedent that allows this use of race should be overturned. The Court published the briefs, so you can see what their positions are. These are interesting, this time. If Harvard stops accepting all federal funding, it can do whatever it wants about its admissions. But then it has to start spending down its gigantic endowment. Yikes.
    1
  428.  @justtryme2020  I don't advocate for her confirmation at all. That's not my point.
    1
  429.  @justtryme2020  Reading Is Fun
    1
  430.  @justtryme2020  So let them vote her down. No problem.
    1
  431.  @picnic66  This is the new sensibility. I remember when people were outraged to find that what you posted on your own time could get you fired. She didn't get flustered, she said what she believes, whether it be wrong or right. And they are welcome to vote her down for it. That's the extent of their power. (Speaking of the Fifth, didn't you hear Hawley say at the end that they needed to make her talk? That is not his role.) I would love to see you in the hot seat in front of Kamala Harris, and whether you would answer her like that -- and you would (rightly) get applause instead of this slew of comments. Could you do it? I'll bet.
    1
  432.  @picnic66  I didn't call her a paragon of anything. Could she have been even more principled? I think you're right. She could have. I also think most people would have been much weaker in this context, AND I think the only role of the Senate is to vote her up or down, which her choice to answer the way she did put in stark relief. Why are you attacking me, now? Calm down. She's not "my own." I think Biden nominees in general have been abysmal. I didn't vote for him, ever. When Obama added him to the ticket, I sat it out. Gawd this partisanship is weird.
    1
  433. HSBC. Find out what the US did when it uncovered the laundering of drug cartel money. The British press wrote about it.
    1
  434. @AEMoreira81  They did not make a case for the First Amendment. Instead, they used contemporary buzzwords like "context." You have to wonder whether they understand freedom of speech or support it. I'm truly chagrined by their incompetence. The First Amendment isn't supposed to be bent to satisfy this constituency or that constituency, this fat donor or that fat donor. Why didn't they stand up for free speech?
    1
  435. HE JUST SAID: "force her to admit" You love that?? We have a Fifth Amendment. His role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers/nonanswers/lack of qualifications.
    1
  436. Those of us who read some of the court documents and know the law understood what he meant. But in our Vast Meritocracy, we will never get to ^1000+. 🤣
    1
  437. Oh now I get it. The letter was from a group with MORE MONEY than the groups that then got investigated and banned. Silly me. That took way too long.
    1
  438. HA.
    1
  439. You all fall for her performance art? She got her five minutes of fundraising time. The other Congress members want their turn.
    1
  440.  @mikeottersole  He answered correctly: as he indicated, he should not discuss pending litigation or pending administrative personnel matters. Stefanik must know that much. Looks like the joke is on her fans.
    1
  441. That's how what's done? Brutalize Americans for Netanyahu? Most Israelis don't want this.
    1
  442. 2:53 Bravo, Senator.
    1
  443.  @FUDBuddy  Vietnam is doing well.
    1
  444.  @perry9812  Really? Then what happens when kids grow up and, assuming libraries still exist, they stumble upon a book that tells them about the role of the U.S. in supporting the rat line?
    1
  445.  @NomdePloom23  I want to see pushback on mining anti-social media for "gotcha" moments, like the DNC crowd typically does. You wouldn't have had the nerve to do what she did. So, let them vote her down. No big deal.
    1
  446.  @d-law868  Nonsense. Hawley said: "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. His role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers/nonanswers/qualifications or lack thereof. Would you cower to a Senator? How about to Biden or Harris? I hope I wouldn't. No one here has principles. You're all nuts at this point . . .
    1
  447.  @d-law868  Well, I hate to go that far, but . . . I don't like cancel culture, I don't like woke-ism, I don't like kowtowing to anybody, especially a politician, and I don't like how any of that junk is tolerated as long as a person appears to be "on our side." I remember when what appeared on social media was at least in theory your own business, unless you deliberately made it public and sought a spotlight.
    1
  448.  @d-law868  Cancel culture has three extra letters . . . it's a cancel cult.
    1
  449. ​ @pwrserge83 "Enemies?" Check the National Debt. China is our creditor now.
    1
  450. ​​ @pwrserge83 "Enemy?" China is our creditor. They own a chunk of our national debt.
    1
  451. They support bioweapons, too.
    1
  452. Like the freedom to own whatever you want. Including people.
    1
  453. She was explaining why she decided to testify, rather than decline the invitation. Apparently she was not under subpoena. She was also explaining why she joined, after being evacuated near the Twin Towers on 9/11. That turned a lot of people toward religion.
    1
  454.  @_andre99  False. You believe the FBI is, etc. You don't know that.
    1
  455.  @paulstevens9087  You know what? By American standards, I am very far left, and I am not religious, and I generally mistrust religious institutions as being a cover story for something sinister and nefarious. That doesn't matter in this instance. I actually think she is attempting to tell the truth, and that she means what she's saying. I feel for people like her. She broke down when she talked about Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, known for its activists following the shooting there, who were generally perceived as left-wing. I noticed that. Maybe just listen some time?
    1
  456.  @paulstevens9087  It was her "opening statement," not her testimony. See the first sentence of the video description. I don't know what her testimony was.
    1
  457.  @paulstevens9087  It was her opening statement. It says so in the description box. Did you think this was her testimony??
    1
  458. ​ @LickyTee  Because some talking head on Fox said so.
    1
  459. Indeed, how could it? They apparently thought Jeffrey Epstein's was fine while it lasted.
    1
  460. @Detwhat  That doesn't surprise me, sadly. A top employment lawyer will advise you to get a new job first, because then the new employer cannot fire them. It would be retaliatory.
    1
  461. Strict attorney-client privilege but open courts are all of the information anyone needs.
    1
  462. What age were those who died? Did they have known comorbidities? What makes you think this vaccine is safe for children when the FDA withheld full approval of Pfizer for persons under 16? Have you followed the news on myocarditis? Consult The Guardian.
    1
  463. You are confusing EUA and full approval.
    1
  464. Pfizer APPLIED FOR EUA in children 5 to 11. It has NOT been granted. How dare you scare parents about seeing their child suffer or be crippled? A little research exposes your falsehoods.
    1
  465.  @lucibeach2697  Not FDA approval under age 16. Emergency Use Authorization, which requires signing pages of consent forms and acknowledging that you have read and understood the current fact sheet. Then the forms state that after you have read everything, you still have the option to decline the vaccine and your health care will be unaffected. Also, EUA means no access to meaningful compensation for most people in case of injury; in particular, no access to the 1986 fund set up for that purpose. My mother was studying medicine, with an interest in vaccines, when the Nazis bombed the city she was in and everything had to close. I have a doctoral level degree. You can imagine that I abhor fearmongering, and politicizing health care decisions. Yes, without all that, things would have gone more smoothly, I agree.
    1
  466. The Senate is NOT responsible for the threats. The Justices have Secret Service protection, and today, they very likely need more and better protection. Bringing this up as though it were the Senate's fault is demagoguery. On the other hand, I agree about the Epstein flight logs and the location of immigrant children. Missouri v. Biden is pending before the Court. The US Supreme Court Justices have lifetime appointment and massive power over our rights. They need to be beyond reproached.
    1
  467. @timogul  And Biden would never pardon his cronies the way Trump does . . . In other words, you accuse others of what you yourself are doing -- politicizing health care rather than looking to the evidence.
    1