| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:34:39 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,616 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to
democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than
the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire
laws by our judges.
On Aug 25, 2025 at 2:03:53 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian
judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to
democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than
the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire
laws by our judges.
This is like the constant mantra of the leftists who claim Trump ignoring the courts is a threat to democracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with the judiciary. Whether Trump's actions are good or bad or something in between, they have no effect on 'democracy'.
Democracy is one person, one vote, majority rules. Where is there a court of any kind in there anywhere?
Same thing with Canadia. Whether people are criticizing the judiciary or not, it has fuck-all to do with democracy. You'd think a bunch of jurists, of all people, would know that.
On Aug 25, 2025 at 2:03:53 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian
judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to
democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than
the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire
laws by our judges.
This is like the constant mantra of the leftists who claim Trump ignoring the courts is a threat to democracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with the judiciary. Whether Trump's actions are good or bad or something in between, they have no effect on 'democracy'.
Democracy is one person, one vote, majority rules. Where is there a court of any kind in there anywhere?
Same thing with Canadia. Whether people are criticizing the judiciary or not, it has fuck-all to do with democracy. You'd think a bunch of jurists, of all people, would know that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian >judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to
democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than
the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire
laws by our judges.
On 8/25/2025 5:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 25, 2025 at 2:03:53 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian
judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to
democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than
the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire
laws by our judges.
This is like the constant mantra of the leftists who claim Trump ignoring >> the
courts is a threat to democracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with the judiciary. Whether Trump's actions are >> good or bad or something in between, they have no effect on 'democracy'.
Democracy is one person, one vote, majority rules. Where is there a court of
any kind in there anywhere?
Same thing with Canadia. Whether people are criticizing the judiciary or
not,
it has fuck-all to do with democracy. You'd think a bunch of jurists, of all
people, would know that.
If Trump's ignoring the courts, imprecise vocabulary is the least
important threat warranting concern.
On Aug 25, 2025 at 3:01:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/25/2025 5:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 25, 2025 at 2:03:53 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian >>>> judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to
democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than >>>> the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire >>>> laws by our judges.
This is like the constant mantra of the leftists who claim Trump ignoring >>> the
courts is a threat to democracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with the judiciary. Whether Trump's actions are
good or bad or something in between, they have no effect on 'democracy'. >>>
Democracy is one person, one vote, majority rules. Where is there a court of
any kind in there anywhere?
Same thing with Canadia. Whether people are criticizing the judiciary or >>> not,
it has fuck-all to do with democracy. You'd think a bunch of jurists, of all
people, would know that.
If Trump's ignoring the courts, imprecise vocabulary is the least
important threat warranting concern.
What's amazing to me is how worked up the Left has suddenly gotten about someone saying "So what?" to a law or procedure. We've been living in a state of official "so what?" with regard to law and order for the better part of a decade now.
Millions of illegals flood the country in contravention of dozens of laws and regulations and court rulings and the government says, "So what?"
Vagrant encampments infest our streets, sidewalks, parks, and beaches, against
dozens of state and local laws and the government says, "So what?"
If you get assaulted or your house broken into, the government says, "So what?" and just tells you to fill out a report on the internet. Doesn't even send a cop around to take the report, let alone investigate anything.
Cartels set up networks of open drug sales and human trafficking on our city streets and the government says, "So what?"
When leftist 'protesters' stream onto freeways and block them for hours to rant about their cause du jour, the government just stands there and watches and says, "So what?"
Hundreds of homeowners report that dry brush hasn't been cleared as required by state law and the government says, "So what?" Even after ten thousand homes
go up in flames and 19 people die, the government says, "So what?"
A federal court finds $31 billion in COVID relief money wasn't just misspent, it disappeared completely. No one knows where it went, and the government says, "So what?" Same thing with $24 billion in vagrant money. Another "So what?"
Whether we're the victims of criminal law-breaking or the government's own law-breaking, at every turn we're met with a collective shrug from the government. Well, fine. If "so what?" is the response to everything else of consequence, then okay, we'll play your game and just say "so what?" when Trump's ICE ignores a bunch of leftist jurists on the 9th Circuit when rounding up illegals at the Home Depot. It's not like they turn out to be wrong. They *are* illegals, after all.
'Progressive' Democrats ushered in the era of "so what?" government. These are
their rules. We're just playing by them.
On 8/26/2025 12:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 25, 2025 at 3:01:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 8/25/2025 5:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 25, 2025 at 2:03:53 PM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian >>>>> judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to >>>>> democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than >>>>> the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire >>>>> laws by our judges.
This is like the constant mantra of the leftists who claim Trump ignoring
the
courts is a threat to democracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with the judiciary. Whether Trump's actions >>>> are
good or bad or something in between, they have no effect on 'democracy'.
Democracy is one person, one vote, majority rules. Where is there a >>>> court of
any kind in there anywhere?
Same thing with Canadia. Whether people are criticizing the judiciary or
not,
it has fuck-all to do with democracy. You'd think a bunch of jurists, >>>> of all
people, would know that.
If Trump's ignoring the courts, imprecise vocabulary is the least
important threat warranting concern.
What's amazing to me is how worked up the Left has suddenly gotten about
someone saying "So what?" to a law or procedure. We've been living in a
state
of official "so what?" with regard to law and order for the better part of a
decade now.
Millions of illegals flood the country in contravention of dozens of laws >> and
regulations and court rulings and the government says, "So what?"
Vagrant encampments infest our streets, sidewalks, parks, and beaches,
against
dozens of state and local laws and the government says, "So what?"
If you get assaulted or your house broken into, the government says, "So
what?" and just tells you to fill out a report on the internet. Doesn't even
send a cop around to take the report, let alone investigate anything.
Cartels set up networks of open drug sales and human trafficking on our city
streets and the government says, "So what?"
When leftist 'protesters' stream onto freeways and block them for hours to >> rant about their cause du jour, the government just stands there and watches
and says, "So what?"
Hundreds of homeowners report that dry brush hasn't been cleared as required
by state law and the government says, "So what?" Even after ten thousand
homes
go up in flames and 19 people die, the government says, "So what?"
A federal court finds $31 billion in COVID relief money wasn't just
misspent,
it disappeared completely. No one knows where it went, and the government >> says, "So what?" Same thing with $24 billion in vagrant money. Another "So >> what?"
Whether we're the victims of criminal law-breaking or the government's own >> law-breaking, at every turn we're met with a collective shrug from the
government. Well, fine. If "so what?" is the response to everything else of >> consequence, then okay, we'll play your game and just say "so what?" when >> Trump's ICE ignores a bunch of leftist jurists on the 9th Circuit when
rounding up illegals at the Home Depot. It's not like they turn out to be >> wrong. They *are* illegals, after all.
'Progressive' Democrats ushered in the era of "so what?" government. These >> are
their rules. We're just playing by them.
The biggest danger of such 'whataboutism' is its junk-food substitution
for a meaningful look at what's going on.
Fact: legislatures blithely pass far more laws than the known universe
has the resources to prosecute.
For that reason (and probably a dozen
others) there'll always be selective enforcement of them. Consequently,
we have to save our outrage for when that "selectivity" is actually a flagrant attempt to overwrite policy, and not for when it's, say, a
matter of expedience (like not arresting a thousand jaywalkers).
I submit that the Jan 6 protests were such an attempt at the highest,
most alarming and precedent-setting level, and that the hypothetical
you've offered here of "Trump ignoring the courts" evinces the same
usurping of power -- less a "So what?" than a "So there!".
On Aug 26, 2025 at 1:45:55 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/26/2025 12:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 25, 2025 at 3:01:32 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 8/25/2025 5:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 25, 2025 at 2:03:53 PM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4IloOloas [13 minutes]
Journalists Brian Lilley and Lorrie Goldstein explore how the Canadian
judiciary is denouncing criticisms of its decisions as threats to >>>>>> democracy. They also look at how hypothetical situations, rather than
the situations in the case at hand, are being used to toss out entire
laws by our judges.
This is like the constant mantra of the leftists who claim Trump ignoring
the
courts is a threat to democracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with the judiciary. Whether Trump's actions
are
good or bad or something in between, they have no effect on 'democracy'.
Democracy is one person, one vote, majority rules. Where is there a >>>>> court of
any kind in there anywhere?
Same thing with Canadia. Whether people are criticizing the judiciary or
not,
it has fuck-all to do with democracy. You'd think a bunch of jurists, >>>>> of all
people, would know that.
If Trump's ignoring the courts, imprecise vocabulary is the least
important threat warranting concern.
What's amazing to me is how worked up the Left has suddenly gotten about >>> someone saying "So what?" to a law or procedure. We've been living in a >>> state
of official "so what?" with regard to law and order for the better part of a
decade now.
Millions of illegals flood the country in contravention of dozens of laws >>> and
regulations and court rulings and the government says, "So what?"
Vagrant encampments infest our streets, sidewalks, parks, and beaches, >>> against
dozens of state and local laws and the government says, "So what?"
If you get assaulted or your house broken into, the government says, "So >>> what?" and just tells you to fill out a report on the internet. Doesn't even
send a cop around to take the report, let alone investigate anything.
Cartels set up networks of open drug sales and human trafficking on our city
streets and the government says, "So what?"
When leftist 'protesters' stream onto freeways and block them for hours to
rant about their cause du jour, the government just stands there and watches
and says, "So what?"
Hundreds of homeowners report that dry brush hasn't been cleared as required
by state law and the government says, "So what?" Even after ten thousand >>> homes
go up in flames and 19 people die, the government says, "So what?"
A federal court finds $31 billion in COVID relief money wasn't just
misspent,
it disappeared completely. No one knows where it went, and the government >>> says, "So what?" Same thing with $24 billion in vagrant money. Another "So
what?"
Whether we're the victims of criminal law-breaking or the government's own
law-breaking, at every turn we're met with a collective shrug from the >>> government. Well, fine. If "so what?" is the response to everything else of
consequence, then okay, we'll play your game and just say "so what?" when >>> Trump's ICE ignores a bunch of leftist jurists on the 9th Circuit when >>> rounding up illegals at the Home Depot. It's not like they turn out to be >>> wrong. They *are* illegals, after all.
'Progressive' Democrats ushered in the era of "so what?" government. These
are
their rules. We're just playing by them.
The biggest danger of such 'whataboutism' is its junk-food substitution
for a meaningful look at what's going on.
Fact: legislatures blithely pass far more laws than the known universe
has the resources to prosecute.
One need only go back 15 years or so to find that most, if not all, of the stuff I listed above *was* prosecuted, enforced, or addressed. Your excuse that "there's just too many laws so we have to ignore a lot of them" is nonsense.
For that reason (and probably a dozen
others) there'll always be selective enforcement of them. Consequently,
we have to save our outrage for when that "selectivity" is actually a
flagrant attempt to overwrite policy, and not for when it's, say, a
matter of expedience (like not arresting a thousand jaywalkers).
I submit that the Jan 6 protests were such an attempt at the highest,
most alarming and precedent-setting level, and that the hypothetical
you've offered here of "Trump ignoring the courts" evinces the same
usurping of power -- less a "So what?" than a "So there!".
If you get assaulted or your house broken into, the government says, "So >what?" and just tells you to fill out a report on the internet. Doesn't even >send a cop around to take the report, let alone investigate anything.