Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Ty Cobb: Judge Cannon’s moves go ‘way beyond’ inexperience" video.

Alito and Thomas are also Karens.
11
Or to Roger Stone. Or to Trump's lawyers to coordinate strategies.
4
The court doesn't conduct impeachments; that is done by the legislative branch. Read the Constitution. And while you're at it, read your state constitution.
2
@FestusParker-sm9gg AGAIN: what is your alternative means to characterize those now properly characterized as "Kerans" -- those who reject and violate social norms and laws. This isn't a "grade school" question. Rather, it is obvious you either don't have a response to my question -- you have not answered the question -- or that you approve of the attacks on norms and decency, and disapprove of them being called out.
2
@badluck5647 It was Alito and his wife confronting a neighbor about a sign that was -- according to Supreme Court decisions -- PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH. The Alitos are not the victims. Moreover, the flying of two flags identified with the TREASON of insurrection, and far-right "religious" fanaticism that is intent on imposing its "religion" on the rest of us, blatantly exposes Alito as ethically unfit to sit on the Court. But -- yeah: those who reject the rule of law based on anti-American propaganda, in favor of their narrow, petty interests, blind to the consequences, side with the not-too-bright religiobigoted Alitos.
1
@badluck5647 The neighbor felt threatened -- you should watch the interview with her to get the FACTS, instead of siding with those who violated Supreme Court decisions on protected political speech. Also key is that the DATE of the POLICE REPORT of the confrontation REFUTES the claims made about it and the flying of the upside down INSURRECTIONIST flag by Justice Alito, which means he LIED; that LYING was also in a letter to CONGRESS. It is ILLEGAL to lie to Congress. IN ADDITION, we have AUDIO RECORDING of his wife CONTRADICTING his story. The Alitos are not the victims -- but the women of the United States are the victims of his anti-truth Dobbs decision.
1
@redpilled007 WRONG: they are "entitled" to violate social and legal norms: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Frank Wilhoit. Conservatism: accumulation of wealth and power into as few hands as possible.
1
@badluck5647 She is biased against EQUALITY before the law -- see 14th Amendment.
1
@FestusParker-sm9gg The term was originally applied to a woman named "Karen" -- and it became the term used to characterize the same entitled, social norm- and law-violating attitude and behaviors. I have no problem with it being applied to both women and men -- especially as a take-down of men. And you don't suggest any alternatives. My objection is to the application of the term "strong woman" -- which is so particular that it creates a distinction between "strong" women, and those who are impliedly _weak_. It is a stupid distinction made by the thoughtless, and it should be stopped.
1
@FestusParker-sm9gg Are you qualified to "diagnose" others' metal status? No, you are not: you are throwing out red herrings in effort to continue to avoid, and continue to not answer, the question: What alternative "critique" do you have for those who feel entitled to deliberately violate social norms and laws? Start with individuals such as Marjorie "Jewish Space Lasers" Taylor Greene and Lauren "Hand Job" Boebert. Or focus on Trump, who repeatedly violated the gag order -- which are Constitutional: it is ILLEGAL to intimidate, threaten, and tamper with witnesses and jurors -- when in reality there was a simple and legal way around it: testify in his own defense under oath. I challenge your specious generalization away from the issue in order to avoid such as those specific instances of individuals who flout social norms and laws, while hiding behind bogus claims of being "religious," and specious assertions of "rights" and "law" that are attacks on the rule of law itself, all in defense of indecency against the very "religion" with which they pretend to adhere. The Founders established the legal fundamentals against that kind of subjectivist rejection of objective limitations necessary to civil society: From the 1784 New Hampshire constitution: "Part I.--The Bill of Rights. "III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of others [AND OF THEMSELVES]". And they put that lawless subjectivism in its place for the benefit of all: ___ From the North Carolina constitution adopted on December 18, 1776: "XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function. . . . . "XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonous or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment." ___ From the constitution of Georgia adopted on February 5, 1777: "Art. LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession." "Art. LXII. No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature." ___ From New York constitution adopted on April 20. 1777: XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State. ___ Those provisions, and their equivalents in the other state constitutions, eventuated in the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't.
1
@phil00075 You don't know anything about the issues because blinded by your specious self-limiting racism.
1
Roger Stone talked about judges and phone numbers. Should Stone's/Cannon's phone records be compared?
1
There were TWO impeachments of Trump. And yet there are comments from individuals who learned NOTHING from that highly publicized process that had wall-to-wall media coverage. The IMPEACHMENT is done in the House of Representatives of the SEPARATE branch of gov't CONGRESS. The impeachment, being the equivalent of an indictment, is then TRIED in the Senate of the SEPARATE branch of CONGRESS.
1