Things seem to be unfolding rather quickly. Former White House aides and advisors are scrambling to cover themselves as they receive subpoenas to appear and produce documents.
It’s rare when lawyers — as opposed to their clients — take the Fifth Amendment. But Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election, is now claiming the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He has just been joined in that posture by one of Trump’s main outside legal advisers, John Eastman.
The lawsuit comes after the committee signaled it would pursue a criminal contempt referral against Meadows because of his refusal to sit for a deposition in the investigation into the Capitol riot. Meadows alleges that the subpoenas are "overly broad and unduly burdensome," while claiming that the committee "lacks lawful authority to seek and to obtain" the information requested.
And apparently Mark Meadows had a power point outlining how to overturn election results.
The 38-page presentation, entitled "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan," is dated one day before the Capitol riot. It's believed to have been submitted by Meadows after he was subpoenaed by the panel in connection with the insurrection.
The argument of pro life side is that abortions infringe on the rights of another human life.
People marrying each other or getting birth control doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights
And, others here might say that you need to provide evidence that anyone is considering taking aim at those things. Otherwise, those folks would say, nothing to discuss.
Trying to introduce logic to a liberal is like kryptonite to Superman. It's liberals that call Clarence Thomas whose wife is white an Uncle Tom.
The argument of pro life side is that abortions infringe on the rights of another human life.
People marrying each other or getting birth control doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights
And, others here might say that you need to provide evidence that anyone is considering taking aim at those things. Otherwise, those folks would say, nothing to discuss.
Justice Alito's draft majority opinion finds that abortion is not actually protected by the 14th amendment, not "because it infringes on the rights of another human life" but because as an originalist, he argues that the Constitution only protects those things that were established precedents at the time, and this would include that Loving v Virginia which protects the right of interracial marriage is also not actually protected by the 14th amendment.
He does try to differentiate the two, but does not actually go so far as to say abortion infringes on the rights of another human life, instead deferring to Roe's description of a "potential life".
So while he provides some commentary on the moral dilemma of abortion, the actual precedent that would be set is that a number of rights found to be protected by the 14th amendment over the years are not actually protected.
Even though Alito skirted the issue and instead relied on a sort of absurd argument, I do think that is what abortion comes down to, when is a fetus a sacred 'life'. I personally don't agree with the idea that when an egg and sperm combine to form a zygote that spiritually speaking this life.
The argument seems to be that at this point, this is where the cells that will eventually make a human start to form, but an adult who's been declared brain did is biologically far more of a developed human, yet there doesn't seem to be much dispute that a brain dead person is not alive.
Even though the logic SCOTUS is using would allow for an inter-racial marriage ban, even I don't believe that would ever happen. Then they would have to be put in the position of disapproval of the Clarence-Ginny Thomas marriage. But I don't doubt a few legislators in the usual suspect states would bring the subject up and that those loonies would be re-elected.
Specializes in ED, ICU, MS/MT, PCU, CM, House Sup, Frontline mgr.
On 6/20/2022 at 8:42 AM, MaybeeRN said:
Look no further than California or that district in Texas that just went red. Do I think they will shift away from dems? Yes, but not sure by what margins. I can guarantee you Dems putting boys in dresses in the women’s locker rooms will certainly do it.
California is not turning red no matter what Tucker Carlson and other brown-shirt white nationalist so-called news organizations are telling you about districts turning this year red or in two years blue. The majority of the populated areas in California are not full of White Nationalists and therefore won't be voting for the current Republican party. The margins don't matter, the Democratic Party is for democracy. The current GOP is not.
... The majority of the populated areas in California are not full of White Nationalists and therefore won't be voting for the current Republican party.
Holy Cow, that is some powerful testimony from Speaker Bowers of Arizona. He refused/resisted multiple attempts from the former guy’s campaign to break the law and replace electors.
California is not turning red no matter what Tucker Carlson and other brown-shirt white nationalist so-called news organizations are telling you about districts turning this year red or in two years blue. The majority of the populated areas in California are not full of White Nationalists and therefore won't be voting for the current Republican party. The margins don't matter, the Democratic Party is for democracy. The current GOP is not.
California is not turning red no matter what Tucker Carlson and other brown-shirt white nationalist so-called news organizations are telling you about districts turning this year red or in two years blue. The majority of the populated areas in California are not full of White Nationalists and therefore won't be voting for the current Republican party. The margins don't matter, the Democratic Party is for democracy. The current GOP is not.
Just like all those white nationalists in Chicago and Baltimore doing all those shootings right? Or all those white nationalists in those blue cities attacking Asians.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, MaybeeRN said:
Just like all those white nationalists in Chicago and Baltimore doing all those shootings right? Or all those white nationalists in those blue cities attacking Asians.
Let's talk about the testimony in the Select Committee Hearing today.
Trump and his sycophants were certainly pressuring state level Republicans to break the law in order to benefit him. Trump loyalists terrorized the poll workers that the Trump lie singled out for trouble. It's so unfortunate and unsurprising that the poll worker that Trump chose for persecution is a black woman.
Justice Alito's draft majority opinion finds that abortion is not actually protected by the 14th amendment, not "because it infringes on the rights of another human life" but because as an originalist, he argues that the Constitution only protects those things that were established precedents at the time, and this would include that Loving v Virginia which protects the right of interracial marriage is also not actually protected by the 14th amendment.
He does try to differentiate the two, but does not actually go so far as to say abortion infringes on the rights of another human life, instead deferring to Roe's description of a "potential life".
So while he provides some commentary on the moral dilemma of abortion, the actual precedent that would be set is that a number of rights found to be protected by the 14th amendment over the years are not actually protected.
Even though Alito skirted the issue and instead relied on a sort of absurd argument, I do think that is what abortion comes down to, when is a fetus a sacred 'life'. I personally don't agree with the idea that when an egg and sperm combine to form a zygote that spiritually speaking this life.
The argument seems to be that at this point, this is where the cells that will eventually make a human start to form, but an adult who's been declared brain did is biologically far more of a developed human, yet there doesn't seem to be much dispute that a brain dead person is not alive.
Wyoming attempted to pass a bill that protected the rights of zygotes:
A bill that would give zygotes the rights of humans passes Senate committee - Better Wyoming. This was published in February of 2019. There are many religious people who believe that zygotes are persons. Why do they believe that? One interesting explanation:
Wyoming attempted to pass a bill that protected the rights of zygotes:
A bill that would give zygotes the rights of humans passes Senate committee - Better Wyoming. This was published in February of 2019. There are many religious people who believe that zygotes are persons. Why do they believe that? One interesting explanation:
Why Are Religious People (Generally) Less Intelligent? | Psychology Today. I have no idea why my computer is not linking these articles but they can be Googled.
What does this have to do with the Jan 6 hearings?
Hmm, your "computer is not linking" to an article about a group of people who is supposedly less intelligent...LOL
3 hours ago, nursej22 said:
Holy Cow, that is some powerful testimony from Speaker Bowers of Arizona. He refused/resisted multiple attempts from the former guy’s campaign to break the law and replace electors.
I didn't realize that still was going on.
Evidently, I'm not alone.
"When taken out of primetime, the 1/6 numbers almost completely cratered. Monday, June 13 saw an average of about 10 million viewers. By Day three on Thursday, the number of viewers dropped even further.
Consider also the perception of these hearings, which some in the media keep referring to as bipartisan when they are not, at least in spirit. Just 51 percent of voters approve of the House select committee, according to Morning Consult. Among independent voters, the number drops to 45 percent. "
3 self-identified conservative Republicans, all whom stated they voted for Trump described being pressured to break laws around the election.
Many people don’t watch television , especially during the day. I was lucky to have today off.
Republicans had a chance to have more representation on the committee but McCarthy pulled 3 off after the speaker rejected 2 who were likely involved in the events around Jan 6. I for one am content not to watch jacketless Jordan scream and rant and rave at witnesses.
MaybeeRN
797 Posts
Trying to introduce logic to a liberal is like kryptonite to Superman. It's liberals that call Clarence Thomas whose wife is white an Uncle Tom.