99% of voters got what they voted for by sCOTUS allowing firearms businesses to be sued for the unlawful use of their products.
This statement is nonsensical in that you do not identify who the mysterious 99 percent are - like any issue in American politics ever reaches 99 percent support.
99% of voters got what they voted for by sCOTUS allowing firearms businesses to be sued for the unlawful use of their products.
No one votes for SCOTUS. Now, perhaps you mean that people who voted for Trump are somehow responsible for this. But I checked several different reports on the situation and could not find any that listed who on SCOTUS voted which way, And was it 9-0, or 7-2, or whatever. If you want to claim it is Trump’s fault somehow maybe you could provide some actual facts? Because the article you posted is behind a paywall.
And, if I read it correctly, the court did not uphold the lower court - it merely declined to hear the case. It could come back later after New York uses the law in question to try to go after a company.
The fact is that SCOTUS declines to hear a lot of cases - there is only so much time available for each session.
I don’t know - it may well be a horrible development that the court refused to hear the case. But some factoids would be nice to help us better understand the situation. Instead we just get vague accusations and implied finger-pointing at people who voted for Trump - I guess. It is very unclear.
Why do you think every sCOTUS justice is a Trump nominee?
Obviously I do not think that, and please do not insult my intelligence by inferring that I do.
Now, what I might be guilty of is assuming that your posting was specifically aimed at Trump. But since your political postings of late have been consistently critical of Trump, it was reasonable to assume that you were launching another salvo his way. But perhaps you were referring to voters in general - both Democrats and Republicans - who have voted for what you probably see as the anti-freedom big government “uniparty.” If this is your opinion then you are entitled to it, and such an opinion is not totally without merit.
Look, you do not like Trump - I get that, everyone on the board gets it, the cat sitting here in front of my monitor gets it. I do not particularly like him and never voted for him in a primary, but reluctantly voted for him in the last general elections.
Which leads us back to the topic at hand. I assumed - perhaps incorrectly - that your original posting was an attack on Trump. But the posting was so vague as to be unclear just what you were getting at. And when I challenged you to be more specific about what you were saying, you responded by deflecting the conversation back to me by suggesting that I am stupid enough to think that the entire SCOTUS consists of Trump appointees. You did not actually address my observations.
This is typical JSB tactics - you post an inflammatory statement filled with hyperbole but very little substance. Then when challenged to offer further explanation, you seldom do so, preferring instead to attack your challenger for being some sort of Trump sycophant.
This gets old very quickly and helped you get an enforced vacation from the board, Look, this is a DISCUSSION board. You might well find that there are people here willing to listen to your ideas if they are presented with calm reasoned arguments. But your tactic is to basically throw a flash-bang grenade into the forum and then presumably sit back and compliment yourself for sticking to your purist libertarian principals against the naive and clueless members here who voted for Trump as a better choice than Clinton/Biden/Harris.
Anyway, it is probably foolish of me to take the time to respond to you in the first place. Many here will say I am wasting my time, and perhaps I am. But somewhere on the other side of the forum is a real human, so I thought it worth the effort to treat you with some respect. I would strongly suggest you do the same.
2 Likes
You only mentioned concern for Trump nominated justices in your first response while there are other nominees from the same D and R system.
You are correct that I do not distinguish between democrat and republican who want essentially the same expanded government/limited freedoms so long as their party is overseeing it.
“Respect” is wholly dependent on someone promoting the various goals of bigger.gov(R).
That “respect” is similar to a discussion i read concerning when radical pro-abortion women decide to drop a kid or two and the kid(s) know that their only reason for existing, and only value, is to carry on the pro-abortion voting.
Speaking of respect, bipolar disorders aren’t exemplified by consistent behavior and i don’t rapidly flip flop around on positions whether that is firearm details or politics.
Graham can be found lobbying for war with Iran, Russia, and on and on.
Since “Bipolar disorder is characterized by dramatic shifts in mood, energy, and activity levels.”, this would seem to be closer to your concerns. Riding high and supporting the group one minute and totally bottomed out and against the same group after the first little thing didn’t turn out as desired.
Breaking winning: SCOTUS stakes HI Vampire Rule. Seen at PJ Media and Bearing Arms, waiting for Mark Smith at Ammoland to weigh in.
Should have just titled this thread… More Whining…
2 Likes
Not so.
When New York’s finest commit a rights violation the company who hooked them up can be named in the lawsuit.
Ha!
Speaking of whiners..
Bolton, 77, is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 28 and, under his plea agreement, faces a $2.25 million fine, up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release, up to 100 hours of community service and he will lose his federal retirement pension. His defense attorneys have said that they hope Bolton will avoid jail time.
And… some Truth Social icing on the cake.
1 Like