SoCal Deek

?????

Maybe because they wanted the Select Committee to expose just how biased they are. And if so their plan is working brilliantly because the bias is on full display

No….but neither does the court. Geez you’re insufferable. Thank you!!!

Why is this so FREAKING hard? You do NOT have the right to kill to someone!!

Excellent points I’m guessing they weren’t very good Governors.

I’ve always found this to be an interesting topic. We don’t want or need. our President to be the smartest guy/gal in the country. What they do need is management experience. This is why Governors generally make functional Presidents whereas Senators do not.

You tell me….why isn’t there?

That is NOT the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is there to make distinctions about whether things are spelled out in the Constitution….not to create ‘rights’ that are not spelled out. So relax and let the process work itself out. If then the Legislative Branch appears to have stepped on people’s constitutional rights THEN the Court will be asked for an opinion. Our legislative process is not a democracy, but instead representative government…which is why they’re called Representatives.

Answer: Both sides of the argument are partially correct.

That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.

Thanks! What you’re doing with your reply is EXACTLY what our elected officials should be doing right now. It’s what we pay them to do. While this is an emotional issue for sure, and will almost certainly never please everyone, I’m confident that the legislature can craft a bill that will please well in excess of 90% of the voters. Everyone needs to give them some time and space to do their jobs!

So in your version of the world…just kill the child? This is yet another example of why this is a complex issue that needs to be fully debated in the legislative branch. Trust the Process.

You mean it’s nothing more than a publicly funded smear campaign intended to bloody up the DNCs opponent prior to the next election? No! Say it’s isn’t so. 😉

I say he’s guilty of rape, and has no rights over the child’s life, either before or after the birth.

Prosecutor: Will you swear that you saw the defendant with a gun? Witness (under oath): Yes, I definitely did! Defense: Did you see the defendant with a gun on the day of the murder? Witness (still under oath): No, on the day of the murder I wasn’t even in the country. 😳

The key to our legal system is not that you testify under oath, but that you submit to a pointed cross examination.

Not so fast….AOC was just fake arrested! 😂

In five months you’re not going to be able find anyone who’s ever heard of Adam Kinzinger. So there’s that.

Well that answered my question. You obviously do not see how wrong this is. Thanks for having a calm and civil discussion. It’s appreciated.

If this is only a ‘hearing’ and not a court proceeding then what the whole ‘under oath’ thing about? I gave a public presentation in a public hearing just last night, and it wasn’t ‘under oath’. (I was truthful none the less. 😉)

I live just outside of Los Angeles County. Yesterday it was exposed that her DAUGHTER (who goes by her maiden name) was one of the authors of the report she cites as reasons for masking requirements. She needs to step down immediately! By any reasonable stretch this a huge conflict of interest. Unbelievable.

I didn’t say it was a Grand Jury! Ugh! The problem is that there isn’t a defense, legitimate questioning, or even balanced inquiry. This is NOT a hearing of anything! It’s become a presentation. There’s a HUGE difference. This is essentially a smear campaign being played out on national television at taxpayers expense. You really don’t see how wrong this is? Really?

Well that’s what the trial would determine. Unfortunately there won’t be one. And that’s my problem with the entirety of the Select Committee. They’re akin to a Grand Jury (as Tbs correctly cited a few weeks ago) but they’re doing it in public, which is a terrible miscarriage of our legal system, regardless of party or affiliation.

I doubt it. This would come to a ‘standard of care’ case. The question would be what would another officer have done if/when faced with the same set of circumstances. And we know exactly what they would have done because there were dozens of other officers there who didn’t discharge their weapon even as a warning shot. I’m guessing the jury would find for the victim…and pretty darn quickly. Again none of this makes the victim right, but the officer is clearly guilty of negligence.

Come on Goose There's tons of video showing evidence to the contrary. If this officer was actually on trial the victim’s family would have a great case for wrongful use of force, and I believe you know it. (That doesn’t make the victim innocent of any wrong doing.)