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

  1.  @aratosm  Then don't read them. You're an American. Reading is for sissies.
    1
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  4.  @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 At the time the opinion in this case was issued, one of the three who heard oral argument had withdrawn.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
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @aratosm  I do?
    1
  8. They just say it's a deep fake or a conspiracy theory or AI simulation or . . . The list is long.
    1
  9. 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
  10.  @richcook2007  Seth Waxman was Solicitor General. He's in front of the Court all the time. See my other post.
    1
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13. That's not illegal in America.
    1
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. "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
  17. You don't remember all the pro-life protests near the Supreme Court over the last 50 years? They were legal.
    1
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @randycooper3940  I'm going to block you. You're wasting my time.
    1
  24.  @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
  25. 😅 perfect
    1
  26. ​ @shakostarsun We don't know who approached Taibbi, when, how . . .
    1
  27. 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
  28.  @justtryme2020  I don't advocate for her confirmation at all. That's not my point.
    1
  29.  @justtryme2020  Reading Is Fun
    1
  30.  @justtryme2020  So let them vote her down. No problem.
    1
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33. HSBC. Find out what the US did when it uncovered the laundering of drug cartel money. The British press wrote about it.
    1
  34. @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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. HA.
    1
  39. You all fall for her performance art? She got her five minutes of fundraising time. The other Congress members want their turn.
    1
  40.  @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
  41. That's how what's done? Brutalize Americans for Netanyahu? Most Israelis don't want this.
    1
  42. 2:53 Bravo, Senator.
    1
  43.  @FUDBuddy  Vietnam is doing well.
    1
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48.  @d-law868  Cancel culture has three extra letters . . . it's a cancel cult.
    1
  49. ​ @pwrserge83 "Enemies?" Check the National Debt. China is our creditor now.
    1
  50. ​​ @pwrserge83 "Enemy?" China is our creditor. They own a chunk of our national debt.
    1