I think you’ve just described an Alzheimer’s care center. Buwhahah. Honestly appropriate.
I think you’ve just described an Alzheimer’s care center. Buwhahah. Honestly appropriate.
The difference is this would be legal.
There’s no difference with a broken court and we can’t fix that with our current Congress.
I know you’re arguing against fixing stuff,
What the hell are you on about about? Like actually what. You need to call down with that nonsense. Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.
To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment. You would have to take an untested claim to court, prove it, then still to apply that process to remove judges case by case after. Unfortunately, it’s not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it’s up to the “supreme” Court. I just can’t see us convincing 6 of those justices to accept consequences for their and their party’s actions. This would be a hell of a legal long shot.
I’m sorry, but isn’t this the exact definition of what they themselves call “grooming”?
Thank you for elaborating. That sounds better reasoned than the first comment. I suspect the original comment you had replied to was lamenting that there were only 2 per state and not proportionate to population. I learned a new word today: Bicameral. I appreciate your reply!
Out of curiosity, what’s the reason?
Only getting rid of half of them? /s
I don’t feel like he needs to be convicted though. It’s already been determined in court that he participated in the insurrection. The law doesn’t say he needs to be convicted either, only participate; It’s an automatic disqualifier. The criminal conviction would be a separate thing.
Hey, unless you’re just having fun, don’t waste your time. This account is a professional troll. Check their comments.
They probably have businesses across state lines they’ve invested in, and want to keep traffic funnelling out of state.
Don’t smoke weed kids
ASA SAS - South Asian Sea
It’s inclusive of all territories and still pisses off China.
I don’t think the protest is for the Israeli government. I feel like it’s more trying to target the American government, to try to convince them to stop handing over so many weapons.
Something like arranging a protest with thousands of participants and marching through a major city like downtown San Francisco? Feels like that’s a good start.
I really missed this too, until I discovered that with Sync, you can long press comments to close the chain. I don’t really use social media at all on my computer anymore. Which I guess has been better for my mental health
For all the left people I know, including myself, The reason we don’t want a line drawn is because sometimes special circumstances arise. There may be medical complications in the third trimester that would result in the mother’s death and it’s not feasible to exhaustively list every scenario that could land her in this situation so it’s better to just not a put a limit on it so she doesn’t have some bullshit hoop to jump through later while she’s dying.
That said, I don’t think there’s anyone genuinely arguing that people should be allowed to get abortions super late into the pregnancy just for funsies. Third trimester is the logical cut off to me, and most of the people I know agree or want it slightly shorter. We just don’t want the law to specify that since it can cause legal complications. It’s better that it be considered a medical standard.