What's most concerning is her now feeble mind and inability to articulate.
Kennedy Leaving SCOTUS
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
No-----No it doesn't.
Proof that this drunk is not fit to be a judge on the Supreme Court.
Justice Roberts took ‘clear swipe’ at Kavanaugh in opinion siding with liberals in religion case:
By contrast, wrote Stern, “Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion.
On Friday night, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, holding that California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on church gatherings are not a violation of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts crossed over to join with the liberals for a 5-4 split.
But the ruling was dramatic in a key way. As court watcher Mark Joseph Stern wrote for Slate, Justice Brett Kavanaugh “falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case” in his dissent — and was so dishonest that Roberts went out of his way to rebuke him in the Court opinion.
By contrast, wrote Stern, “Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order ‘indisputably discriminates against religion’ in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that ‘comparable secular businesses,’ like grocery stores and pharmacies, ‘are not subject’ to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a ‘compelling justification’ for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.”
“What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question,” wrote Stern. “The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are ‘comparable’ to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now.”
That argument was so ridiculous, wrote Stern, that Roberts took a “clear swipe at Kavanaugh” in his opinion, writing: “The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable.”
Last edited:
Proof that this drunk is not fit to be a judge on the Supreme Court.
Justice Roberts took ‘clear swipe’ at Kavanaugh in opinion siding with liberals in religion case:
By contrast, wrote Stern, “Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion.
On Friday night, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, holding that California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on church gatherings are not a violation of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts crossed over to join with the liberals for a 5-4 split.
But the ruling was dramatic in a key way. As court watcher Mark Joseph Stern wrote for Slate, Justice Brett Kavanaugh “falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case” in his dissent — and was so dishonest that Roberts went out of his way to rebuke him in the Court opinion.
By contrast, wrote Stern, “Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order ‘indisputably discriminates against religion’ in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that ‘comparable secular businesses,’ like grocery stores and pharmacies, ‘are not subject’ to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a ‘compelling justification’ for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.”
“What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question,” wrote Stern. “The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are ‘comparable’ to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now.”
That argument was so ridiculous, wrote Stern, that Roberts took a “clear swipe at Kavanaugh” in his opinion, writing: “The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable.”
Sounds like some Kavanaugh butt hurt there.
Yes, Kavanaugh wrote the dissent, but it was 5-4 decision so Kavanaugh was hardly alone in his position, contrary to the butt-hurt assertions.
His dispute is correct from a medical standpoint. There is no medical evidence, no supporting science that proves people are anymore at risk in church than in a grocery store, assuming of course that the same preventive measures are taken.Proof that this drunk is not fit to be a judge on the Supreme Court.
Justice Roberts took ‘clear swipe’ at Kavanaugh in opinion siding with liberals in religion case:
By contrast, wrote Stern, “Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion.
On Friday night, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, holding that California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on church gatherings are not a violation of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts crossed over to join with the liberals for a 5-4 split.
But the ruling was dramatic in a key way. As court watcher Mark Joseph Stern wrote for Slate, Justice Brett Kavanaugh “falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case” in his dissent — and was so dishonest that Roberts went out of his way to rebuke him in the Court opinion.
By contrast, wrote Stern, “Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order ‘indisputably discriminates against religion’ in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that ‘comparable secular businesses,’ like grocery stores and pharmacies, ‘are not subject’ to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a ‘compelling justification’ for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.”
“What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question,” wrote Stern. “The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are ‘comparable’ to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now.”
That argument was so ridiculous, wrote Stern, that Roberts took a “clear swipe at Kavanaugh” in his opinion, writing: “The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable.”
ot
threw together a set list for some up and comers and needed a few covers.
Anyway.... I threw this one in 4u and a couple others here. for real.
just so ya know. whatever. not sure why. well maybe I do, but whatever. no shortage to pick from really. so here ya go.
they'll do a good job with it. promise ya that.
turn it to 11
i don't want a like on this.... just enjoy the song.
thnx
Left a boy
Came back a man
Still many... don't understand....
...About the reasons we are free.
Some gave all
Last edited: