Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Adam Mockler"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WolfRaven-jm1cm The Supreme Court does not have the authority to ignore parts of the Constitution, or to write in parts that are not there. that is what this Court is doing with the "immunity" decision. Ordering the assassination of a political opponent in a DEMOCRACY is not an "official act"; it is MURDER, which is a crime regardless who commits it.
Nor is it proper to rule beyond the scope of the instance case -- to invent "answers" to questions not posed by the instant case.
And, no: the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution; it gives the Court the authority to interpret the facts of cases in relation to Congressional statutes. See _Grove Hall_, in which the Rehnquist Court ignored the actual text of the relevant statute -- "Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, As Amended," in order to hold against the scope of that statute as expressly stated in the statute.
And, as Congress is a co-EQUAL branch to the Court, that decision and its progeny were OVERTURNED with the "Americans with Disabilities Act".
The difference between you and I is this fundamental principle -- I adhere to it, and you are ignorant of it and of its meaning:
"Justice and the Rule of Laws are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
Another difference is that I have an education in law, and you are law-illiterate: Trump is a law-illiterate criminal who DOES NOT get to determine the law -- but you believe him anyway because too stupid to know the difference between law and politics, between rule of law and CONVICTED CRIMINAL.
___
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trump campaign members lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nycatlady2314 "but they have said if a grown man is with a teenager it’s not rape if he makes a commitment to marry".
In Massachusetts there was a relatively recent case of a man seeking to end child support payments. These were the underlying facts of the case:
His girlfriend told him she was pregnant and that it was his.
He married her and supported the family.
Seven years in she told him the kid wasn't his.
He had DNA testing done and found it wasn't his -- in other words, she had lied in order to induce him to marry her.
He divorced, and filed suit to cease paying child support.
He lost in all the lower courts, and then lost in the state's highest court. The WOMAN chief justice authored the opinion holding that he had to continue paying child support because he "committed" to doing so.
Ignored was that fact that he was fraudulently induced into the marriage. Marriage is a contract. If a party to a contract is found to have induced the other party to join the contract by means of fraud, the contract is void.
I'm 76 and have been watching the politics all along.
In the early 1970s with the beginning of the women's movement, one of its inherited-wealth leaders said:
"Sisters, if you want to be independent, then get off his wallet."
That was quickly REJECTED by most of the movement.
This is the basic unchanged paradigm (except for the recent Dobbs decision):
If a couple gets pregnant and both want it, she has it.
If a couple gets pregnant and neither want it, she doesn't have it.
If a couple gets pregnant and he wants it but she doesn't, she doesn't have it.
If a couple gets pregnant and he doesn't want it but she does, she has it -- and his wallet.
And that last is still enforceable by law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1