| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4164
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Why does this show up when I make a post, but the post goes through?:
| Quote: | This page isn’t working right nowwww.iwindsurf.com can't currently handle this request.
HTTP ERROR 500 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Still-Waters
Joined: 21 Nov 2023
Posts: 134
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2024 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | Why does this show up when I make a post, but the post goes through?:
| Quote: | This page isn’t working right nowwww.iwindsurf.com can't currently handle this request.
HTTP ERROR 500 |
|
Try clearing your cache and cookies, but usually a server error on their end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2024 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Still-Waters wrote: | | real-human wrote: | | MikeLaRonde wrote: | | MalibuGuru wrote: | | Here's reality |
(pic of GDP vs. USD expenditure)
Bingo. This sure seems to correlate with the difference between the absolute (dismal) and relative (ok for now) recent change in the true value of USD.
For example! Despite the awesome average rainfall that the NE gets, many communities have poor quality tap water. So, bottled water is an essential commodity.
My favorite reasonably priced water comes from upstate NY. One gallon of "Crystal Geyser", in 2019, was between 89 and 99 cents. Now almost $2, or about a 90% increase. Of course, part, if not most, of the cost may be the plastic containers, and that could be (in theory) where a supply squeeze is occurring.
I'm not buying it just yet (the theory). I say the cost of EVERYTHING is up, including materials, labor, production, and logistics. |
Under trump the race to inflation was started, the cost of wood went up by 3-4 times in some areas. Thanks trump for hyper inflation start that trickles out all over...
https://www.vantrumpreport.com/2020/08/20/whats-the-real-story-on-soaring-lumber-prices/ |
The soft wood lumber dispute, ya that's been going on since 1982. Hey, but you run with that narrative. I'm sure MSNBC or CNN told you that was all Trumps fault and you run with it. Next. |
nope, i remember it clearly when I was buying wood... Here in Mexico they shifted from canadian and american wood to Brazil wood. I wish cnn or msnbc and the media would pick up my posts and show this example to the clueless Pediphile loving Trumpers. That was the first and start of hyper inflation as it then trickeled into major sectors.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey! Idiots! Unanimous Decision! 😆 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2024 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | Hey! Idiots! Unanimous Decision! 😆 |
I agree with this decision—not because it is correct, the provision is clear—but because the ignorant right would go berserk and violent if Trump was actually held accountable for his crimes. What is amusing—today’s hypocrisy—is the conservative justices suddenly abandoning strict construction. Like they did when they write militia out of the second amendment—and green lit the American daily bloodbath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coachg
Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3551
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | Hey! Idiots! Unanimous Decision! 😆 |
It sure was. On May 9, 2023 unanimous for $5 million & on January 26, 2024 unanimous for $83.3 million. 
Coachg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The 9-0 ruling really underscores how all the left’s celebrated legal “experts” are legal imbeciles whose real talent is ruthlessly weaponizing the justice system against their enemies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14892
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | Hey! Idiots! Unanimous Decision! 😆 |
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | Unanimous |
for the general, but not the decent is the second imaginary part.. got to like the part where the liberal noted there was to the affect of an "inserection and attempted overthrow of the government".
The 5 supreme idiots of the right decided the 14th amendment is not real.... ie congress has to make a law. again making it up...
also they did a unprecedented release not even in session ... IE they said they are not political but did it this way vs the norm in a few weeks. Again Bush V Gore they did in one week... but they did it before super tuesday not in session. political hacks that they are.
and yet bush v gore stopping the count when it was running down, and making a decision to limit states rights for elections. gee three of the present supreme court justices were in the legal team to stop the count for Bush. But now the other ruling is a president above the law on slow track. Kavanaugh was involved in Clinton-Starr and Rappy boy lying Kav wanted Clinton to go to jail and be convicted while president at that point. he never told Clinton he was above the law for acts while president.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-disaster.html
The Supreme Court’s “Unanimous” Trump Ballot Ruling Is Actually a 5–4 Disaster
| Quote: |
On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Colorado Supreme Court decision removing Donald Trump from the ballot because of his engagement in an insurrection on Jan. 6. But that top-line holding is where the unanimity ended because five conservative justices just couldn’t help themselves: They went much further than the case required, announcing an entirely new rule that Congress alone, through “a particular kind of legislation,” may enforce the constitutional bar on insurrectionists holding office. As the three liberal justices pointed out, in a separate opinion that glows white-hot with indignation, the majority’s overreach “attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” They are, of course, correct. After this decision, it is impossible to imagine a federal candidate, up to and including the president, ever being disqualified from assuming office because of their participation in an insurrection.
Monday’s case, Trump v. Anderson, is proof positive that the Supreme Court can act at rapid speed to resolve a dispute of national importance—at least when Trump’s own interests are under threat. The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump on Dec. 19. SCOTUS took up the case on Jan. 5 and heard arguments on Feb. 8. Now, less than a month later, the justices have resolved the case in Trump’s favor. The court’s ultra-accelerated consideration of Anderson sits in sharp contrast with its treatment of Trump’s claim of absolute immunity in his criminal trial over Jan. 6, which the justices have, by comparison, slow-walked to the point that it appears unlikely the former president could face trial before November. This disparity alone may provide a clue that there is something other than law afoot in these cases.
ADVERTISEMENT
Anyone in need of another clue can look to the majority’s unsigned opinion in Anderson shielding Trump from removal by the states. This case involved a genuinely difficult dispute: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, bars former insurrectionists from reclaiming office but does not explain how this bar should operate. A group of voters urged the Colorado courts to enforce the amendment on their own, under a state law that lets voters challenge any candidate’s legal qualifications for office. The Colorado Supreme Court heeded the call and dumped Trump from the ballot. All nine justices have now agreed that states may not unilaterally disqualify a presidential candidate. Doing so, they reasoned, would allow a handful of states to effectively determine the outcome of a presidential election, undermining the inherently national nature of both the election and the presidency itself. The Constitution’s division of authority between the federal and state governments cannot permit a state’s go-it-alone effort to disqualify a federal candidate who’s running to represent the entire country.
That, however, is where the agreement ends. Five justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—went further: They declared that only Congress may enforce the insurrection clause against federal candidates. How, exactly? The majority says that Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. Such procedures, of course, do not exist today. And without them, the majority insists—in just a few paragraphs of sparse reasoning—the insurrection clause cannot be enforced against office seekers. It derives this conclusion from two primary sources: “Griffin’s Case,” an 1869 opinion written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, acting as a circuit judge, and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which says, “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The three liberal justices wrote a separate opinion, authored jointly, to explain why this reasoning fails. First, Griffin’s Case was, until Monday, widely discredited as the political handiwork of a chief justice plotting to run for the presidency as a great conciliator between North and South. It is “a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge,” as the liberal justices wrote. Moreover, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, an author of the 14th Amendment, resisted the logic of Griffin’s Case, declaring that while congressional legislation might provide a “more efficient and speedy remedy” for disqualifying a candidate, it is the 14th Amendment itself that “prevents a person from holding office.”
Second, it is bizarre to claim that the insurrection clause requires enabling legislation by Congress when the remainder of the 14th Amendment—indeed, all three amendments ratified after the Civil War—is “self-executing” (meaning it does not require congressional action for enforcement). Everyone agrees that Congress need not pass a law to ensure that all persons have due process, equal protection, and freedom from enslavement. Why, the liberals wondered, did the majority create “a special rule” for the insurrection clause alone? They added that the clause does mention congressional action, but only to say that Congress may lift a disqualification by two-thirds vote: “It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation.”
These disagreements matter a great deal. As the liberals point out, the majority’s sweeping Congress-only approach “forecloses judicial enforcement” of the insurrection clause—in, for instance, the context of a criminal trial involving an insurrectionist. It also bars future enforcement on the basis of “general federal statutes” that compel “the government to comply with the law,” since the majority says any congressional enforcement must be “tailored” to the insurrection clause. And it even empowers the Supreme Court to prevent Congress from disqualifying an insurrectionist in the future, because the court can claim that any enabling legislation did not adhere to the made-up rules in Monday’s opinion. By blocking off these pathways, the liberals wrote, the majority “foreclose future efforts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.” They continued:
Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.
Notably, the liberals actually had Justice Amy Coney Barrett on their side too. She authored a separate opinion expressing her disapproval of the majority’s overreach but declining to say more because “the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” So, in effect, Anderson is a 5–4 decision, with a bare majority effectively repealing the insurrection clause for federal officeholders. The liberals’ disapproving citations to Bush v. Gore and Dobbs give a sense of how disastrously they believe the majority went astray.
It should go without saying that Congress will not enact legislation enforcing Section 3. The Republican Party is about to renominate the alleged insurrectionist in this case as its candidate for the presidency in 2024. The party is complicit in the violent events of Jan. 6. It will not allow any insurrection-related laws to clear the Senate filibuster. The whole point of a written constitution is that it can protect individual rights and democracy even when the democratic process itself is corrupted or compromised. SCOTUS has backtracked from that guarantee just when American democracy needs it most.
In their incandescent opinion, the liberal justices walk right up to the line of accusing the majority of doing a special favor for Trump. They are right to do so, and they would have been justified to cross it. The majority had no reason to nullify the insurrection clause other than an obvious desire to ensure that no other federal candidates are nixed from the ballot because of their participation in Jan. 6. An optimist might say that by doing so, the majority was just trying to inject stability into the upcoming election. But close court-watchers know that every time this Supreme Court waves the flag of stability, it does so on behalf of Trump and his allies. Anderson’s bottom-line outcome is certainly defensible. But the rest of it serves as an unwarranted gift to Donald Trump and the oathbreakers who violently assisted his efforts to overturn a free and fair election. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4164
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9122
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
In 30 years, Republicans have morphed from free market capitalists, urging citizens to go live the American Dream, to angry pissed off populist protectionists. That's what has changed. Every night on Faux News they quote the number of Americans living pay check to paycheck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
