Her first case, it's for perjury before congress, and the statements she presented and attributed to the defendant as material evidence of a crime before a grand jury were not made by him, but by Senator Ted Cruz, and all of this is verifiable.
Doesn't need to be repeatedly. If you fabricate evidence even once, it's a serious crime, and proof that you can not be trusted with a license to practice law, in any jurisdiction.
It's like they want us to pretend he was something he's not, pretend his actual views are fine as long as he's the one saying them, and to not talk about gun violence because it doesn't matter that charlie was murdered, what matters is whether or not his murderer was acquainted with a trans person.
People are lgetting fired for quoting Charlie Kirk's own remarks as criticism, /c those remarks are heinous and insensitive views on violence and death.
THAT'S LITERALLY THE POINT - He was a horrible person (Exhibit A), he deserves neither to be murdered (see news), nor honored (See A).
There is no dignity in a political party that has, for almost the entirety of the last 17 years, had Sarah Pallin, Paul Ryan, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump as its leading mouthpieces and mascots and officials
There's nothing "right" about saying trans people should be eradicated, black people should be slaves, women should be subservient to men, empathy is a weakness, school shootings are a necessary evil for liberty, and doxing people who disagree with him.
The guy who said black people were better off as slaves and that trans people should be eradicated from existence is being treated like he's Fred Rogers.
He didn't deserve to be murdered but we shouldn't be honoring him
He said empathy is damaging to our society, that thousands of gun deaths per year are a necessary sacrifice for the 2nd amendment, that a "patriot" should post babil for the man who tried to murder Paul Pelosi, and that hiring black people made Air traffic control less safe.
And scotus is saying their recent, unworkable rulings are the "correct" ones even though they don't actually bother to exhaustively or comprehensively address previous findings. They didn't actually do the work of, well, overturning.
As the caffinated lemur stated, it's the same document.
The Judiciary is supposed to iteratively dissect, expand upon, and refine arguments. The lower courts can't do this b/cSCOTUS is nullifying its own well-formed arguments without explanation. both are valid precedent, only one one is workable.
John Roberts received his position as a reward for his work in Bush v Gore, helping George Bush and the GOP convince SCOTUS to secure him the presidency. He has always been a hack
It's damming that JD Vance has anything to say at all about this case, and that he uses terms like "We" as though people above the Department of Justice - that is, in the White House itself - are involved.
