The Democratic National Committee is considering formally nominating Joe Biden as early as mid-July to stamp out intra-party chatter of replacing him after last week's poor debate performance. read more
More than 4 in 10 Democrats, 41%, said the Democratic Party should replace Biden as its presidential nominee. That included 37% of those who say they plan to vote for him. read more
Four Sri Lankan fishermen have died and another two are critically ill after consuming an unknown liquid from bottles they found while at sea, according to local media reports. read more
Joe Biden 2019 vs 2024. What a difference five years makes. read more
[The man] told deputies he saw the drone fly over his home and believed it was watching him. read more
But if found untampered with - just another sad case of kids doing something so monumentally stupid they will never get older to learn the lesson. Hopefully others will. #6 | Posted by zeropointnrg
So much stupidity. That kid, Tamir Rice walking around a playground with an airsoft gun where he had removed the fake gun orange tip. www.youtube.com Ma'Khia Bryant pulling back her hand with a knife while lunging at a girl. www.youtube.com
And then the parents play victim, because there's more money in that than admitting the kid was dumb, as kids tend to be.
Summary on Axon evidence security here. www.axon.com
Axon is used by 1000's of police departments. So probably been subject to at least as many forensic audits by defendants trying to squirm out of incriminating camera footage.
GFY Censored.
#15 | Posted by LauraMohr
Trump's "proposals would terminate Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to trans youth, attempt to charge teachers with sex discrimination for affirming students' gender identities and order federal agencies to 'cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.' Trump also pledged to ask Congress to halt the use of federal funds to promote or pay for gender-affirming care, without distinguishing between care for adults or minors." www.them.us
But hey, at least we didn't have to tolerate Hillary or Al Gore presidencies. Thank you Green voters!
This is smart politics.
#2 | Posted by BellRinger
Yeah, Joe's got no shot. Comparison from 2019 here in case you didn't see it.
Maybe swing-state voters will give Joe a few pity votes for elder abuse in November after that vid plays nonstop for the next few months.
So now you're retreating from saying it was "the issue before the court" and instead saying someone raised it as an argument? My point from the beginning is that this was tangential to the actual decision [...] #84 | Posted by JOE
The question before the Court was whether enforcing THOSE ordinances violates the 8th Amendment. Gorsuch's mention of certain homeless people refusing shelter was just a way of kicking the plaintiffs and justifying his ruling. #85 | Posted by JOE
No, it was an argument that the homeless raised and very much an issue before the court. It is established precedent that involuntary acts cannot be criminalized under the Eighth Amendment. Robinson v. California.
If SCOTUS did not address the homeless's defense under Robinson, the homeless-lovers would claim that the court was being unfair or something because, per Wikipedia, Robinson "is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct." There was nothing tangential about it, it was directly on point as the homeless claimed they were being criminalized for acts or conduct in violation of the Eighth.
Anyhow, you seem immune from logic or reason on this, more intent on attacking me. So, I'll let you get the last word if you want. No point discussing this further with you.
The question before the Court did not hinge, in any way, upon whether the homeless person in question had been offered and refused shelter. And none of the three challenged ordinances in Grants Pass involved that qualifier. Go educate yourself. #82 | Posted by JOE
"Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense 'involuntary,' because some homeless individuals cannot help but do what the law forbids." Syllabus (c)
Homeless argued that their homelessness was "involuntary" despite the fact that they may have turned down shelter and therefore immune from sanction.
You can search for "voluntar" in the PDF for more on the topic. Or not, since you seem to be satisfied with your understanding of the 74 page document.
Is that the real solution to the cause of the problem, or just yet another band-aid applied to the symptom? [...] #76 | Posted by LampLighter
I guess it depends on what you define as the "problem."
If the problem is that certain people don't have homes, then giving them a home would solve that problem, at least temporarily.
If, on the other hand, the problem is that some people are lazy, drug addicts, mentally ill, etc., then giving them a home would not solve that problem. Although it might lay the groundwork for resolving some of those issues (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
But if you believe that people have a Constitutional right to achieve self-actualization and transcendence, and that it's society's obligation to help them with that by allowing them to live on the street, I think you have a tough row to hoe convincing this SCOTUS of that. Particularly if you think that right comes at the expense of everyone else's right to be safe and secure in their own existence.
It's not literally my job to do that. If it was and it ended this way, i would be ashamed for the rest of my life.#22 | POSTED BY JOE
If you're planned response is to bring jujitsu to a gunfight, you likely would not have that job very long, in any event.