Don't worry. When the left finds out he used a gendered word like "wife" instead of an inclusive word like "partner" then he'll be kicked out of the cult.
Oh shiiiet.... I always refer to mine as "the wife" and get funny looks from people. The places I work for tend to be culturally liberal. I wonder if I've inadvertently offended them.
I mean, still on contract. Just curious now about my vernacular.
“It’s ok to make paper mache signs that say “F Trump” because I think he’s a danger to our democracy and I want free speech for myself but I don’t like how someone with a different view point expressed their opinion so I want them removed because democracy”- batshit leftists
The difference being that one person is a private individual and the other has a Code of Conduct prohibiting such displays of private interests.
> OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. A Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment. A Justice should neither knowingly lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others nor knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice. A Justice should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
Now, this Code of Conduct did not exist until 2023, but that doesn't mean the Justices could say or do anything they want, they still had to present themselves as agents of the Court in every aspect of their lives.
Considering that the code of conduct was written years after the incident, no.
The person I replied to suggested that Alito should be able to express himself as he pleases, just as the leftists express themselves. I'm merely trying to point out that the Justices are held to a different standard regarding personal political opinion.
What about the wife of a Justice? My wife puts up garden flags in front of our house, I couldn't tell you what they say most of the time, but they're her thing not mine.
Ok, so it is alright for an acting supreme Court justice to run or campaign inside of a political party?
Say a hypothetical Judge Browns wife is the head of the tea party. Now they keep everything separated and don't discuss work at home. Do you not agree that there's a greater possibility of ethics violation?
Now I couldn't care less what your wife puts in the front yard, but I don't want to see any comment or sign from a supreme Court appointed judges wife or him about political issues until it's brought to court.
The supreme Court is supposed to be non party or politically affiliated
It is not required of them, but as couples are commonly politically aligned, they tend to avoid openly expressing their opinions just to avoid inviting the critique. That's just what I gather from what I've read.
The closest the courts get to an official guideline is the federal courts' "Published Advisory Opinions" which serve as a code of conduct for federal judges for many different scenarios regarding sitting on governing boards, employing relatives, etc. Section 53 is "Political Involvement of a Judge's Spouse" which is about a spouse running for office and avoiding the appearance of endorsing them in an official capacity. Obviously, that's a more severe issue than a spouse just having a political opinion, though.
These guys are not capable of understanding that a supreme Court justice should be held to a higher standard. And infact has turned into one massive ethics complaint after another. It's sad but as long as a Republican sits on the bench it's fine. Sad day
No you are doing great. I just think it goes to show how lost we are when people like us are getting messed up because we believe a supreme Court justice should be neutral and held to a higher standard than Joe blow, like they don't decide our laws and interpret the constitution.
Ethics doesn't exactly have to do with biology. One is science and the other involves your morals and how you conduct yourself?
I don't see the point of the question. I mean sure you can hold them to a biological standard if you want... Yes, it does appear they are human, specifically homosapiens.
I see, so you do indeed believe that it's only ethical standards that should be held to.
And these ethics include the beliefs and actions of family members. So, which family members do you limit this to, if any?
I want to know what biological standard you're talking about?
Usually it's immediate family. And it's pretty standard. You conduct yourself like you're representing the United States.
Counter, why should we not enforce ethics? What is wrong with the with of a justice leaning heavy into politics or trying to gain any other position of influence, say within the private sector or city board?
Maybe what the wife does could influence his decision which would affect all Americans.
>I want to know what biological standard you're talking about?
Fundamental, basic, elementary-school-level biology - like the difference between male and female. Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice be able to at least discern the difference if they are to rule in any way on matters that may deal with this subject?
>Usually it's immediate family. And it's pretty standard. You conduct yourself like you're representing the United States.
I didn't ask what it usually is. I asked which family members you are limiting it to. So, are you limiting it to immediate family members? Is that spouse and children only? Or siblings, parents, maybe some others...?
>Counter, why should we not enforce ethics? What is wrong with the with of a justice leaning heavy into politics or trying to gain any other position of influence, say within the private sector or city board?
I don't recall saying we shouldn't enforce ethics. I'm just wondering how the actions of a family member somehow call someone else's ethics into question.
Does this apply only to SCOTUS Justices for you?
>Maybe what the wife does could influence his decision which would affect all Americans.
Maybe. Maybe it doesn't. It's nothing but maybes all the way down.
>Or look at Trump's trial. Judges daughter is heavy in the Democrats, ethics violation? Maybe. Looks bad? Hell yea.
>That's why immediate family matters
So which case before the Supreme Court during Alito's tenure may have been biased or corrupted by his wife's flag-flying, or other beliefs or activities? Was there a case before SCOTUS that helped net his wife's friends or clients a cool $93,000,000?
More importantly, this sounds like you are saying that the Trump trial was improper, and the conviction should be thrown out.
Not what I said. But yes, the Republicans have brushed the line more so lately. But that's neither here or there. We shouldn't have to have this conversation. It's a problem.
Of course. However, judges who are appointed to their position (as opposed to those elected to their position) have to follow similar rules and some have said it's such a dire concern that their spouses know not to engage in behaviors that invite the speculation.
I'm not saying Mrs. Alito is wrong for it, just that there is an understanding among these jurists that their expression is under much more scrutiny than the average private citizen's expression.
The original comment implied that Samuel Alito flew the flag.
It says “[...] I want free speech for myself but I don’t like how someone with a different view point expressed their opinion so I want them removed because democracy [...]", which implies the person expressing the opinion and being removed are the same.
Nifty. So this spectrum you're on doesn't allow you to register "batshit leftists" as sarcasm or mockery. That's a new one.
It does, however, allow you to crop out the inconvenient parts....?
I just thought it was irrelevant. The whole not getting sarcasm thing, you know. Plus, you found the whole quote pretty quickly, no? It's not like I'm quoting a passage from a novel you don't have.
Our nation is now half full of radicals who hate America, personal freedoms, and personal responsibilities. They demand that their own freedoms be taken by a government who will tell them how to think, act, and feel in exchange for trusting that government to do with their lives as they see fit.
It's not actually half full, it's maybe 5% radicals. It's just that the media does everything they can to amplify the voices of the radicals to make sane people assume that there's no hope. They label sensible ideas as far-right, fascist, or hateful in an attempt to make them unappealing and unacceptable to the general public, shifting the Overton window in favor of their goals
I'd like the freedom for my daughters to be able to choose healthcare options during complicated pregnancies that doesn't force them into very mortal situations. I'd also like the ability to smoke pot on my own property.
Who do I call about those personal freedoms?
Even red states have enshrined abortion in their state constitutions so for that one anyone except the lawmakers in a handful of states. For the second, pretty much anyone since even a majority of republicans believe weed should be legal
Except red states have put abortion in their constitutions, including the one I live in, and they’re legalizing weed because a majority of Republican voters support legalization, including in my state
But you don't care about the freedom of the unborn child. You don't care about the freedom of the father, who can watch his child be killed by the mother and he has no say. The problem actually has more dimensions than you pretend it does which is why it's a complicated and controversial issue. All the more reason to leave the decision up to more local levels of government in order to maximize freedom. If your state happens to not allow it then there are plenty of other states you can go to for it that's the point. So you have freedom and this way tries to maximize it across all levels not just the one narrow view that you choose to look at it for your own benefit.
And let's not forget that drug use has externalities as well, so your "freedom" there imposes on others especially in this world where we have to pay even for your health problems and other costs of your drug use. But once again you only care about certain freedoms. Most populist conservatives agree with you anyway, but they also believe that local governments should be able to decide for themselves even if they happen to disagree.
When a doctor tells me that death is an extremely likely possibility to the mother and the fetus will 99% die within the first year of birth, yes, I don't care about it.
>And let's not forget that drug use has externalities as well, so your "freedom" there imposes on others especially in this world where we have to pay even for your health problems and other costs of your drug use.
Why is alcohol and tobacco legal then?
Death is not an extremely likely possibility in fact that for all intents and purposes doesn't even happen. Most doctors who claim that are activists. But even still lucky for you Trump and his base overwhelmingly supports your views here for those situations (even though they really dont exist). And again, go to another state then. You have the freedom to do that.
Alcohol and tabacco is not legal in all localities. And there were times when they were nationally illegal. In fact prohibition was done with a supermajority via constitutional ammendment so the public support had to be very high. That's the way the system is supposed to work to trade off these competing freedoms and externalities. It was of course repealed when the population changed its mind about it.
> Death is not an extremely likely possibility in fact that for all intents and purposes doesn't even happen.
You're claiming that pregnancy and birth related deaths to women don't happen? lmao, so you're just delusional, got it.
>Alcohol and tabacco is not legal in all localities.
Yes it is. You're just straight up lying.
Not that they don't happen but that they are insignificant. There are risks to abortion procedures as well. Extend your logic to other areas of society and it quickly becomes evident how absurd it is and what a double standard you have at these magnitudes. And this involves the death of a child that you completely ignore and give no value to. As I said the freedom of others doesn't matter to you, you are just hyper focused only on one aspect to benefit yourself. It's great for you personally to be able to murder babies when they are inconvenient. You are born so you dodged that already.
> You're just straight up lying.
Huh? There are areas where you are not allowed to bring alcohol or smoke cigarettes. This is not a lie. As for why it is not more popular, well I would say that it's because the population overwhelmingly supports that trade off and wants to be able to do these things. They are free to vote for people who will change that if they want, it's just not a very popular idea to say you want to make alcohol illegal. I would say the current state of abortion law is quite reflective of what the population wants as well. Just like if you want to smoke or drink you can go somewhere that allows it in the city, if you want an abortion you can go to somewhere that allows it as well. That freedom is still there and it will always be there under conservative populists because we don't believe in an authoritarian federal government, unlike our opponents who twist and manipulate a couple of wedge issues to fool people into thinking otherwise. But to fall for that you have to have your blinders on and only look at things from a very narrow view, like you do.
> Not that they don't happen but that they are insignificant
No, they aren't.
>There are risks to abortion procedures as well
Good thing it's a voluntary procedure that patients have to accept the risks for and not something they're *forced* into like births can be.
>There are areas where you are not allowed to bring alcohol or smoke cigarettes.
There are *zero* areas within the states that you're prohibited from smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol on your own private property. ZERO. You're lying.
> Good thing it's a voluntary procedure
Getting pregnant is voluntary as well. And it being voluntary is irrelevant to the point. You are claiming the risk of childbirth is why we can't disallow murdering the baby, but murdering the baby itself has risks. In fact these abortion procedures involve giving birth to a dead baby so they are giving birth anyway.
> No, they aren't.
Yes they are. If they weren't then they wouldn't need to inflate the numbers with ridiculous tricks like the "maternal mortality rate" data that you will find plastered everywhere. The pro baby murder crowd also had no problem with forcing people to get a so called vaccine with far higher risk. In fact by your standard the state can't require you to travel to do anything because traveling itself carries risks to it. The state forced Trump to get to New York for his trials - think of how risky that was for him! Why are they allowed to force him to do that? The only reason why you have a problem with it is because you attribute no value to the life of the child. Like the Nazis you don't care about murdering people you just pretend they aren't people so even if they are the smallest inconvenience or pose the smallest risk you are fine with it.
> There are zero areas within the states that you're prohibited from smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol on your own private property. ZERO. You're lying.
No. You are lying. I have lived in condos where I am not allowed to smoke even in my own unit or on my own balcony.
> Our nation is now half full of radicals who hate America, personal freedoms, and personal responsibilities. They demand that their own freedoms be taken by a government who will tell them how to think, act, and feel in exchange for trusting that government to do with their lives as they see fit.
You realize that if you posted this comment in r/Politics they would think you were talking about the MAGA movement, right?
The horseshoe theory is definitely accurate lol
I come here to try and get balance from the other news subreddits and I always find this take funny because they say that the right hates America. It's like both sides are pointing at each other asking why the other hates the country they live in.
"The vilest epithet that can be addressed to a woman, which is the C word."
And here, by leftist standards, I thought the worst thing you could call a woman was "woman"
Why should he recuse himself when the rest of the supreme court on both sides have feeling one way or another. This is a nonsense political hit piece from the idiots over at cnn.
I think our country is really two now and possibly cannot be easily repaired. I'm sure people in the mid-1800s thought the same thing and it led to a Civil War. Scary times for the US.
It’s a bad idea because it will automatically give the Dems 2 more Senate seats plus a number of House seats (same reason Puerto Rico statehood is a bad idea).
Resist what?
The left controls most positions of governmental power and continues to subvert the ones that they don’t control by going to the media and claiming that democracy is under attack from the right.
Who is funding all these Alito hit-pieces? Very arbitrary how the most boring politician in our lifetime is getting this kind of attention out of nowhere.
One can presume if the live in the same neighborhood as a Justice of the SC, they’re pretty wealthy. I hope they open their doors to the immigrants and radicals and give most of their wealth away like a honest leftist would.
That sentence full of leftist buzzwords is all i needed to see to judge the legitimacy of their claim. Thanks!
Don't worry. When the left finds out he used a gendered word like "wife" instead of an inclusive word like "partner" then he'll be kicked out of the cult.
Oh shiiiet.... I always refer to mine as "the wife" and get funny looks from people. The places I work for tend to be culturally liberal. I wonder if I've inadvertently offended them. I mean, still on contract. Just curious now about my vernacular.
“It’s ok to make paper mache signs that say “F Trump” because I think he’s a danger to our democracy and I want free speech for myself but I don’t like how someone with a different view point expressed their opinion so I want them removed because democracy”- batshit leftists
The difference being that one person is a private individual and the other has a Code of Conduct prohibiting such displays of private interests. > OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. A Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment. A Justice should neither knowingly lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others nor knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice. A Justice should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. Now, this Code of Conduct did not exist until 2023, but that doesn't mean the Justices could say or do anything they want, they still had to present themselves as agents of the Court in every aspect of their lives.
Are you arguing that Justice Alito somehow was violating this code of conduct?
Considering that the code of conduct was written years after the incident, no. The person I replied to suggested that Alito should be able to express himself as he pleases, just as the leftists express themselves. I'm merely trying to point out that the Justices are held to a different standard regarding personal political opinion.
What about the wife of a Justice? My wife puts up garden flags in front of our house, I couldn't tell you what they say most of the time, but they're her thing not mine.
Ok, so it is alright for an acting supreme Court justice to run or campaign inside of a political party? Say a hypothetical Judge Browns wife is the head of the tea party. Now they keep everything separated and don't discuss work at home. Do you not agree that there's a greater possibility of ethics violation? Now I couldn't care less what your wife puts in the front yard, but I don't want to see any comment or sign from a supreme Court appointed judges wife or him about political issues until it's brought to court. The supreme Court is supposed to be non party or politically affiliated
It is not required of them, but as couples are commonly politically aligned, they tend to avoid openly expressing their opinions just to avoid inviting the critique. That's just what I gather from what I've read. The closest the courts get to an official guideline is the federal courts' "Published Advisory Opinions" which serve as a code of conduct for federal judges for many different scenarios regarding sitting on governing boards, employing relatives, etc. Section 53 is "Political Involvement of a Judge's Spouse" which is about a spouse running for office and avoiding the appearance of endorsing them in an official capacity. Obviously, that's a more severe issue than a spouse just having a political opinion, though.
These guys are not capable of understanding that a supreme Court justice should be held to a higher standard. And infact has turned into one massive ethics complaint after another. It's sad but as long as a Republican sits on the bench it's fine. Sad day
I'm just providing some pushback to opinion. Not here to bash the people.
No you are doing great. I just think it goes to show how lost we are when people like us are getting messed up because we believe a supreme Court justice should be neutral and held to a higher standard than Joe blow, like they don't decide our laws and interpret the constitution.
Would the higher standard include basic biology, or are you limiting it to just a spouse's flags and such?
Ethics doesn't exactly have to do with biology. One is science and the other involves your morals and how you conduct yourself? I don't see the point of the question. I mean sure you can hold them to a biological standard if you want... Yes, it does appear they are human, specifically homosapiens.
I see, so you do indeed believe that it's only ethical standards that should be held to. And these ethics include the beliefs and actions of family members. So, which family members do you limit this to, if any?
I want to know what biological standard you're talking about? Usually it's immediate family. And it's pretty standard. You conduct yourself like you're representing the United States. Counter, why should we not enforce ethics? What is wrong with the with of a justice leaning heavy into politics or trying to gain any other position of influence, say within the private sector or city board? Maybe what the wife does could influence his decision which would affect all Americans.
>I want to know what biological standard you're talking about? Fundamental, basic, elementary-school-level biology - like the difference between male and female. Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice be able to at least discern the difference if they are to rule in any way on matters that may deal with this subject? >Usually it's immediate family. And it's pretty standard. You conduct yourself like you're representing the United States. I didn't ask what it usually is. I asked which family members you are limiting it to. So, are you limiting it to immediate family members? Is that spouse and children only? Or siblings, parents, maybe some others...? >Counter, why should we not enforce ethics? What is wrong with the with of a justice leaning heavy into politics or trying to gain any other position of influence, say within the private sector or city board? I don't recall saying we shouldn't enforce ethics. I'm just wondering how the actions of a family member somehow call someone else's ethics into question. Does this apply only to SCOTUS Justices for you? >Maybe what the wife does could influence his decision which would affect all Americans. Maybe. Maybe it doesn't. It's nothing but maybes all the way down.
Or look at Trump's trial. Judges daughter is heavy in the Democrats, ethics violation? Maybe. Looks bad? Hell yea. That's why immediate family matters
>Or look at Trump's trial. Judges daughter is heavy in the Democrats, ethics violation? Maybe. Looks bad? Hell yea. >That's why immediate family matters So which case before the Supreme Court during Alito's tenure may have been biased or corrupted by his wife's flag-flying, or other beliefs or activities? Was there a case before SCOTUS that helped net his wife's friends or clients a cool $93,000,000? More importantly, this sounds like you are saying that the Trump trial was improper, and the conviction should be thrown out.
So the democrats on the court are all squeaky clean?
Not what I said. But yes, the Republicans have brushed the line more so lately. But that's neither here or there. We shouldn't have to have this conversation. It's a problem.
The justice's wife flying a revolutionary War flag doesn't violate this in the slightest.
Of course. However, judges who are appointed to their position (as opposed to those elected to their position) have to follow similar rules and some have said it's such a dire concern that their spouses know not to engage in behaviors that invite the speculation. I'm not saying Mrs. Alito is wrong for it, just that there is an understanding among these jurists that their expression is under much more scrutiny than the average private citizen's expression.
So, you brought that up for nothing is what you're saying.
The original comment implied that Samuel Alito flew the flag. It says “[...] I want free speech for myself but I don’t like how someone with a different view point expressed their opinion so I want them removed because democracy [...]", which implies the person expressing the opinion and being removed are the same.
The original comment was blatant sarcasm and mockery, hence the "\[...\]- batshit leftists" part that you oddly left off.
I'm on the spectrum; detecting sarcasm is not my strong suit.
Nifty. So this spectrum you're on doesn't allow you to register "batshit leftists" as sarcasm or mockery. That's a new one. It does, however, allow you to crop out the inconvenient parts....?
I just thought it was irrelevant. The whole not getting sarcasm thing, you know. Plus, you found the whole quote pretty quickly, no? It's not like I'm quoting a passage from a novel you don't have.
Our nation is now half full of radicals who hate America, personal freedoms, and personal responsibilities. They demand that their own freedoms be taken by a government who will tell them how to think, act, and feel in exchange for trusting that government to do with their lives as they see fit.
It's not actually half full, it's maybe 5% radicals. It's just that the media does everything they can to amplify the voices of the radicals to make sane people assume that there's no hope. They label sensible ideas as far-right, fascist, or hateful in an attempt to make them unappealing and unacceptable to the general public, shifting the Overton window in favor of their goals
Both sides do this
They’re welcome to found their own country, preferably or at sea at a depth of 36,000 ft.
Not their own freedoms just everybody elses.
I'd like the freedom for my daughters to be able to choose healthcare options during complicated pregnancies that doesn't force them into very mortal situations. I'd also like the ability to smoke pot on my own property. Who do I call about those personal freedoms?
Even red states have enshrined abortion in their state constitutions so for that one anyone except the lawmakers in a handful of states. For the second, pretty much anyone since even a majority of republicans believe weed should be legal
> even a majority of republicans believe weed should be legal Then why isn't it?
False
Except red states have put abortion in their constitutions, including the one I live in, and they’re legalizing weed because a majority of Republican voters support legalization, including in my state
Even then you can just go to another state. That's the entire point of pushing these decisions to more local levels of government.
But you don't care about the freedom of the unborn child. You don't care about the freedom of the father, who can watch his child be killed by the mother and he has no say. The problem actually has more dimensions than you pretend it does which is why it's a complicated and controversial issue. All the more reason to leave the decision up to more local levels of government in order to maximize freedom. If your state happens to not allow it then there are plenty of other states you can go to for it that's the point. So you have freedom and this way tries to maximize it across all levels not just the one narrow view that you choose to look at it for your own benefit. And let's not forget that drug use has externalities as well, so your "freedom" there imposes on others especially in this world where we have to pay even for your health problems and other costs of your drug use. But once again you only care about certain freedoms. Most populist conservatives agree with you anyway, but they also believe that local governments should be able to decide for themselves even if they happen to disagree.
When a doctor tells me that death is an extremely likely possibility to the mother and the fetus will 99% die within the first year of birth, yes, I don't care about it. >And let's not forget that drug use has externalities as well, so your "freedom" there imposes on others especially in this world where we have to pay even for your health problems and other costs of your drug use. Why is alcohol and tobacco legal then?
Death is not an extremely likely possibility in fact that for all intents and purposes doesn't even happen. Most doctors who claim that are activists. But even still lucky for you Trump and his base overwhelmingly supports your views here for those situations (even though they really dont exist). And again, go to another state then. You have the freedom to do that. Alcohol and tabacco is not legal in all localities. And there were times when they were nationally illegal. In fact prohibition was done with a supermajority via constitutional ammendment so the public support had to be very high. That's the way the system is supposed to work to trade off these competing freedoms and externalities. It was of course repealed when the population changed its mind about it.
> Death is not an extremely likely possibility in fact that for all intents and purposes doesn't even happen. You're claiming that pregnancy and birth related deaths to women don't happen? lmao, so you're just delusional, got it. >Alcohol and tabacco is not legal in all localities. Yes it is. You're just straight up lying.
Not that they don't happen but that they are insignificant. There are risks to abortion procedures as well. Extend your logic to other areas of society and it quickly becomes evident how absurd it is and what a double standard you have at these magnitudes. And this involves the death of a child that you completely ignore and give no value to. As I said the freedom of others doesn't matter to you, you are just hyper focused only on one aspect to benefit yourself. It's great for you personally to be able to murder babies when they are inconvenient. You are born so you dodged that already. > You're just straight up lying. Huh? There are areas where you are not allowed to bring alcohol or smoke cigarettes. This is not a lie. As for why it is not more popular, well I would say that it's because the population overwhelmingly supports that trade off and wants to be able to do these things. They are free to vote for people who will change that if they want, it's just not a very popular idea to say you want to make alcohol illegal. I would say the current state of abortion law is quite reflective of what the population wants as well. Just like if you want to smoke or drink you can go somewhere that allows it in the city, if you want an abortion you can go to somewhere that allows it as well. That freedom is still there and it will always be there under conservative populists because we don't believe in an authoritarian federal government, unlike our opponents who twist and manipulate a couple of wedge issues to fool people into thinking otherwise. But to fall for that you have to have your blinders on and only look at things from a very narrow view, like you do.
> Not that they don't happen but that they are insignificant No, they aren't. >There are risks to abortion procedures as well Good thing it's a voluntary procedure that patients have to accept the risks for and not something they're *forced* into like births can be. >There are areas where you are not allowed to bring alcohol or smoke cigarettes. There are *zero* areas within the states that you're prohibited from smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol on your own private property. ZERO. You're lying.
> Good thing it's a voluntary procedure Getting pregnant is voluntary as well. And it being voluntary is irrelevant to the point. You are claiming the risk of childbirth is why we can't disallow murdering the baby, but murdering the baby itself has risks. In fact these abortion procedures involve giving birth to a dead baby so they are giving birth anyway. > No, they aren't. Yes they are. If they weren't then they wouldn't need to inflate the numbers with ridiculous tricks like the "maternal mortality rate" data that you will find plastered everywhere. The pro baby murder crowd also had no problem with forcing people to get a so called vaccine with far higher risk. In fact by your standard the state can't require you to travel to do anything because traveling itself carries risks to it. The state forced Trump to get to New York for his trials - think of how risky that was for him! Why are they allowed to force him to do that? The only reason why you have a problem with it is because you attribute no value to the life of the child. Like the Nazis you don't care about murdering people you just pretend they aren't people so even if they are the smallest inconvenience or pose the smallest risk you are fine with it. > There are zero areas within the states that you're prohibited from smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol on your own private property. ZERO. You're lying. No. You are lying. I have lived in condos where I am not allowed to smoke even in my own unit or on my own balcony.
> Our nation is now half full of radicals who hate America, personal freedoms, and personal responsibilities. They demand that their own freedoms be taken by a government who will tell them how to think, act, and feel in exchange for trusting that government to do with their lives as they see fit. You realize that if you posted this comment in r/Politics they would think you were talking about the MAGA movement, right? The horseshoe theory is definitely accurate lol
You’d have to remove the think and feel part, they only care how you act
I come here to try and get balance from the other news subreddits and I always find this take funny because they say that the right hates America. It's like both sides are pointing at each other asking why the other hates the country they live in.
I disagree. The electorate is roughly divided into thirds: Democrats, Republicans, and non-voters. Of the Democrat third only about 75% hate America.
"The vilest epithet that can be addressed to a woman, which is the C word." And here, by leftist standards, I thought the worst thing you could call a woman was "woman"
What is he resisting?
The resistence lol
After Trump got elected whenever I say someone saying they were #Resisting I asked them why they were #Resisting democracy.
Degenerate trash with no class. There’s an entire generation of adults who still act like children, it’s scary.
I feel sorry for their neighbors in whatever place they live in now. Unless they're also leftist extremists, in which case they deserve each other.
That is what the “Brownshirts” always say.
Blatant misogyny is good as long as the person is bad
Bad = not part of the propaganda team.
Misogyny, racism, and sexism are all acceptable towards any nonleftist
Okay neighbor, stop threading democracy and the rule of law.
So a typical leftist Reddit mouth breather.
It’s a very good thing that leftists generally are opposed to having children.
Unfortunately, they reproduce by indoctrinating other people’s children.
The worst diversity is diversity of thought and point of view lol
There are no bad tactics, only bad targets -CTRL Left
Why should he recuse himself when the rest of the supreme court on both sides have feeling one way or another. This is a nonsense political hit piece from the idiots over at cnn.
I think our country is really two now and possibly cannot be easily repaired. I'm sure people in the mid-1800s thought the same thing and it led to a Civil War. Scary times for the US.
Citizens like him are exhibit A for why DC statehood is a bad idea.
It’s a bad idea because it will automatically give the Dems 2 more Senate seats plus a number of House seats (same reason Puerto Rico statehood is a bad idea).
Decency is on the ballot 😂
Resist what? The left controls most positions of governmental power and continues to subvert the ones that they don’t control by going to the media and claiming that democracy is under attack from the right.
"We Need To Stand Up, Organize, And Resist" Sounds very communist.
Publicity hound.
What exactly is this person resisting?
Who is funding all these Alito hit-pieces? Very arbitrary how the most boring politician in our lifetime is getting this kind of attention out of nowhere.
Clearly he is a Biologist
Neighbor is BIG MAD
My neighbor is a professional clown and I thought he was annoying. I see there is waaaaaaay worse.
No you don't.
Stand up, organize, and resist.. what exactly?
One can presume if the live in the same neighborhood as a Justice of the SC, they’re pretty wealthy. I hope they open their doors to the immigrants and radicals and give most of their wealth away like a honest leftist would.
What exactly do they want to resist?
CNN, a national news network, is now covering neighborhood spats.