And we support dictatorship...

[seer]

The recent history problem with the US Courts is an antagonistic anti-justice is overwhelmingly a Republican problem.

You mean a Biden problem? You know when the left almost got a Supreme Court Justice murdered.

Biden blasts Supreme Court as not ‘normal’ after affirmative action ruling[/URL]
https://rollcall.com/2023/06/29/bide...action-ruling/

Biden admonishes the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v. Wade
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe...ade-rcna142390

Biden blasts Alabama Supreme Court's 'outrageous and unacceptable' frozen embryo ruling
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bide...y?id=107454671

Joe Biden Blasts Two Supreme Court Justices
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-b...dium=Social&am

Biden Blasts Florida Supreme Court Over Abortion Ruling
https://www.thewellnews.com/abortion...ortion-ruling/

Biden blasts Supreme Court decision allowing Idaho to enforce ‘dangerous’ abortion ban
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-ban-decision/

Biden blasts high court failure to block Texas abortion curb
https://apnews.com/article/texas-cou...471a848c163321

[Sparko]

You asked me for evidence. Where is yours?

Source: https://www.the74million.org/article/despite-what-the-unions-say-membership-rates-hit-record-low-in-2022/

Despite What the Unions Say, Membership Rates Hit Record Low in 2022

New federal data shows 10.1% of wage and salary workers belonged to unions in 2022, including 6% of private-sector and 33% of public-sector workers

union-membership.png

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

Jim, if there is something specific you want me to answer, try posting like an adult.

Thank you once again for proving exactly my point.

[Cow Poke]

Thank you once again for proving exactly my point.

You are certainly entitled to your delusion.

[shunyadragon]

You mean a Biden problem? You know when the left almost got a Supreme Court Justice murdered.

Biden blasts Supreme Court as not ‘normal’ after affirmative action ruling[/URL]
https://rollcall.com/2023/06/29/bide...action-ruling/

Biden admonishes the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v. Wade
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe...ade-rcna142390

Biden blasts Alabama Supreme Court's 'outrageous and unacceptable' frozen embryo ruling
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bide...y?id=107454671

Joe Biden Blasts Two Supreme Court Justices
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-b...dium=Social&am

Biden Blasts Florida Supreme Court Over Abortion Ruling
https://www.thewellnews.com/abortion...ortion-ruling/

Biden blasts Supreme Court decision allowing Idaho to enforce ‘dangerous’ abortion ban
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-ban-decision/

Biden blasts high court failure to block Texas abortion curb
https://apnews.com/article/texas-cou...471a848c163321

All of the above are meaningless out of context disputes. The manure shotgun approach gets you nowhere, Even the Alabama House and Senate were shocked at the Court decisions and passed legislation to prevent it, Yes Biden and many others will object to extreme radical right wing court decisions.

Voicing objections to Court decisions is nothing significant.

[shunyadragon]

Do what exactly?


Did the SCOTUS state what exactly?

[*The rest is just your typical off-topic ranting and raving at near little jimmy levels of spittle production*]

Failure to respond . . .


Trump proposes the dictator solution in makes royal decisions without regard to any court decisions.

You need to remember the Trumps rejection of the election results and other court decision in reject of the decisions of the US Judicial decisions. ALL the courts of the country have rejected claims of election fraud and still Trump and most other Republicans reject the unanimous decisions of the court decisions. The recent history problem with the US Courts is an antagonistic anti-justice is overwhelmingly a Republican problem.

[JimL]

Jim, if there is something specific you want me to answer, try posting like an adult.

I already did, CP, that's the point, and you know that.You're just playing dumb. You're against unions, but apparently you couldn't refute my post that supported unions. So after, cherry picking one point that we agreed upon I.e. "that corruption exists" you said "thank You" as if you won a point or something, and then ran off, even though you didn't refute one thing i said in favor of Unions.
That's what I called you out on. But I would think that if you are arguing that Unions are bad news, then you don't run from the opposing argument without addressing it.I mean if that's how you defend your position, by only answering what you want to answer to, that's fine But, on my side, I'm going to call you out on it when you do.

[seer]

All of the above are meaningless out of context disputes. The manure shotgun approach gets you nowhere, Even the Alabama House and Senate were shocked at the Court decisions and passed legislation to prevent it, Yes Biden and many others will object to extreme radical right wing court decisions.

Voicing objections to Court decisions is nothing significant.

More hypocrisy on your part. It is OK to attack the justice system when it disagrees with you. As far as nothing significant - a Supreme Court Justice was almost murdered you dope.

[Cow Poke]

I already did, CP, that's the point, and you know that.You're just playing dumb. You're against unions, but apparently you couldn't refute my post that supported unions.

Jim, you'll please excuse me if, from time to time, I decline to descend into your slimy little cesspool.

I am against unions that have evolved into organizations that effectively protect bad employees and negatively impact the operation of companies or oranizations.
The two unions I most frequently attack are those representing bad cops and bad teachers.

So after, cherry picking one point that we agreed upon I.e. "that corruption exists" you said "thank You" as if you won a point or something, and then ran off, even though you didn't refute one thing i said in favor of Unions.

Try posting in good faith.

That's what I called you out on.

You're an incredibly juvenile who will "call out" anybody who disagrees with you on anything, and often for no good reason.

But I would think that if you are arguing that Unions are bad news, then you don't run from the opposing argument without addressing it.I mean if that's how you defend your position, by only answering what you want to answer to, that's fine But, on my side, I'm going to call you out on it when you do.

I have been very clear on my position on unions.

Anything else?

[JimL]

Jim, you'll please excuse me if, from time to time, I decline to descend into your slimy little cesspool

Well then, I would kindly ask you, if you are not going to reply, or can not refute the substance of the post, then don't bother to respond at all. I mean if that's how you debate an issue, you know, cherry picking and evasion, that's fine for you. But I'm going to call you out on your tactic of cherry picking, evasion and running away.

I am against unions that have evolved into organizations that effectively protect bad employees and negatively impact the operation of companies or oranizations.
The two unions I most frequently attack are those representing bad cops and bad teachers.

Okay then, so you're not against Unions in general, or against Unions at all, but you're, just against corruption, the same as I assume you would be against corruption in any other organization.

Try posting in good faith.

Now how does that answer to anything it's in reply to. You're the one that needs to post in good faith, because the above is certainly not that.

You're an incredibly juvenile who will "call out" anybody who disagrees with you on anything, and often for no good reason. :shrug

You really do lack self awareness don't you CP. You're being the incredibly juvenile here, not me. What bugs you, what really gets under your craw, is when someone gives it right back to you. Were you a bully back in your school days, CP?

I have been very clear on my position on unions.

I'm not so sure about that. Although I've haven't read through the entire thread, but from what i gather you don't have any problem with Unions and the good they've done and continue to do for workers pay and benefits etc etc. you just don't like corruption wherever it may be. That's cool, I would've figure you to be anti-labor.

Anything else?

Nope, I'm glad to hear you're pro labor and support the workers right to collective bargaining!!

[Cow Poke]

Well then, I would kindly ask you, if you are not going to reply, or can not refute the substance of the post, then don't bother to respond at all. I mean if that's how you debate an issue, you know, cherry picking and evasion, that's fine for you. But I'm going to call you out on your tactic of cherry picking, evasion and running away.

Jim, if you're being a horse's butt, I'll respond - or not - at my own choosing. And you're free to continue being a horse's butt by falsely accusing me of running away or hiding or being chicken --- that's what s do.

Okay then, so you're not against Unions in general, or against Unions at all, but you're, just against corruption, the same as I assume you would be against corruption in any other organization.

I am mainly against public sector unions, Jim.

Now how does that answer to anything it's in reply to. You're the one that needs to post in good faith, because the above is certainly not that.

Is so.

You really do lack self awareness don't you CP. You're being the incredibly juvenile here, not me.

What bugs you, what really gets under your craw, is when someone gives it right back to you.

Not in the least. I have have a very low tolerance for loony left liberals who call others dumb or stupid when they continually show they can't even spell or use proper grammar half the time.

Were you a bully back in your school days, CP?

I was not - I was a profound stutterer, so I tended to stay by myself and not talk to others unless I had to.

I'm not so sure about that. Although I've haven't read through the entire thread, but from what i gather you don't have any problem with Unions and the good they've done and continue to do for workers pay and benefits etc etc. you just don't like corruption wherever it may be. That's cool, I would've figure you to be anti-labor.

I believe there was definitely a time and place for unions in the US. (and it's interesting that you always seem to capitalize "Unions", but often fail to capitalize "American")
I think most unions today have too many bad unintended consequences, and the "labor leaders" usually seem to benefit financially far more than the people they supposedly represent.

Now, here is yet another good example of you not posting in good faith....

Nope, I'm glad to hear you're pro labor and support the workers right to collective bargaining!!

Yup - you're a . But, nonetheless, I have answered your (cough) "points" in good faith.

[rogue06]

Decide Biden's latest efforts are unconstitutional. No on e has apeaaled to the Courts to determine Biden's efforts were unconstitutional.

Apparently you think that these things automatically go straight to the SCOTUS rather than working their way through the court system.

They have made no statements as to the Constitutionality of Biden's latest efforts.

Because it hasn't made its way before them yet. That won't be until after the election. Exactly as planned since by then it'll be a moot point.

Duck, Bob and Weasel and failure to respond, based on a one sided extreme political conservative 'belief.'

But Crazy, Loony and Silly keep posting gibberish.

[shunyadragon]

Apparently you think that these things automatically go straight to the SCOTUS rather than working their way through the court system.

There is no evidence that they were appealed at any level of the Federal Court system, which has been the process in the past as in the appeals of of Biden's actions for support of the LGBYQ community

Because it hasn't made its way before them yet. That won't be until after the election. Exactly as planned since by then it'll be a moot point. [//quote]

No evidence of this either.



[quote[ But Crazy, Loony and Silly keep posting gibberish.

No coherent response. These are factual issues involving the election and other abuse of the court system by Trump and the Conservative radical Republican Party refusing to accept the decisions of the courts and appealing to conspiracies theories as in QAnon. Of course, Trump's mantra on some court decisions is all women are liars.

[seer]

There is no evidence that they were appealed at any level of the Federal Court system, which has been the process in the past as in the appeals of of Biden's actions for support of the LGBYQ community

Biden had no Constitutional right to change the wording of the Title 9 law, that right belongs to congress alone. The same with the EPA. These are dictatorial power grabs..

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – A federal judge granted an injunction against a new Biden administration rule that would add gender identity protection to Title IX.

This comes after Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti asked a judge to block new guidelines for sex-based harassment in the workplace.

BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) - The Biden Administration’s new Title IX rule covering LGBTQ students is being met with legal challenges all over the country.

On Monday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the new rule in six states, including Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia. That happened just days after another federal judge did the same in Louisiana. In a show of support for State Attorney General Liz Murrill, Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. Western District sided with her and temporarily blocked the new Title IX rules, not just in Louisiana, but also in Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act

The U.S. Supreme Court Court on Thursday significantly curtailed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation's wetlands and waterways. It was the court's second decision in a year limiting the ability of the agency to enact anti-pollution regulations and combat climate change.

Supreme Court Says EPA Went Too Far on Regulating Climate Change

On June 29, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an arcane portion of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), infrequently used by the EPA, could not serve as appropriate delegation of legislative authority to regulate greenhouse gas. West Virginia v. EPA (No. 20-1530, June 2022). In the 6-3 decision

[rogue06]

There is no evidence that they were appealed at any level of the Federal Court system, which has been the process in the past as in the appeals of of Biden's actions for support of the LGBYQ community

They haven't already been appealed because the motions for appeals have only just been filed.

No coherent response. These are factual issues involving the election and other abuse of the court system by Trump and the Conservative radical Republican Party refusing to accept the decisions of the courts and appealing to conspiracies theories as in QAnon. Of course, Trump's mantra on some court decisions is all women are liars.

More unrelated spittle flecked ranting.