Pokebball

who elects the people in office?

You don't put weed in your baked goods. I would have swore you did and had a few before posting

Or we can ask the few people we get together their opinion of this issue

You and Kav have something in common

Have a couple of beers my friend. Beer is good!

Please link me to this plan

Im glad youre willing to shift budget to get there. Perhaps weve arrived at a compromise. I think the capacity to take an innocent life is mental illness.

Per the standard established by law, yes.

I said shift. What's your priority. This isn't a game.

No

I'd like to shift govt expenditures at both the federal and state level to address mental health. From what? Oh, let me count the ways. Federal Dept of Education for starters. You with me?

What are you willing to cut to shift funds to UH?

This is not how the law works nor how it should work. We don't get to make our standards after the fact and apply 'em retroactively. The laws against stealing a candy bar have been on the books for a long time. Wasn't it Abe Lincoln?

What's your proposal for a mental red flag law Since my attempt at humor seemed to fly right over your head, let me try again. I don't think you or I should be able to get a gun. Our political anger appears to be too high!

Neither has a gun. Can you get a gun? I can!

Another self imposed stalemate due to my definition of similar. LOL

I'm not sure what side of the door the laptop is on

Please tell me you don't honestly believe this Health is the biggest killer of people, far far more than are guns. Old age is also significantly higher at killing people. And I think everyone believes mental health is a huge issue. I would be for shifting significant about of public funds to mental health. Dems are against doing that.

If the majority of the country supports anything, why do we not have it?

Moral ethics? Legal ethics? Or perhaps a perception of one or the other? What's the metric? The SCOTUS' code of conduct? Your personal opinion? My personal opinion? Those that were polled personal opinion? Frankly, if I were polled, my answer would probably be void of any empathy for the justices personally and I'd vote to have the perception of ethics pegged to the highest point possible. My response would honestly be without thoughtful consideration of what is reasonable. Did the SCOTUS have any cases involving the donor. Directly? Indirectly? One of conflicts that has apparently surfaced during these hearings is that the ACLU, who has and always seems to have cases before the SCOTUS, flew Sotomayor on their dime to Puerto Rico (I think I've got the location correct). Without a doubt, a perception of ethical compromise. To seriously answer your questions, I'd need to know much more information about the details involved as well as where your questions are based. The SCOTUS, having members from both of the major parties, I think can monitor their own ethics themselves to a large degree, assuming they share such information with each other. We don't know how, if it all, this may be done? Should we know and consider this? Of course we should. And to counter your opinion about who is responsible for cheapening the integrity of the court, I would say unequivocally, it's the Democrats. Schumer told us he was going to do it from the steps of the capitol three years ago. He's keeping his promise.

Never?

Blinken might very well be the door.

Define ethics issues. That's the problem before us. It appears to me the SCOTUS ethics system/process is what is in question. Is the current issue whether or not a SCOTUS may do what Thomas did? Is the issue the maximum number of times a SCOTUS can do what he did? Is the issue the maximum of the value of what one receives can be? Are these maximums annual, lifetime, or some other period? Or is the receipt of these not being disclosed the only issue? The system/process is what needs some definition. Your feelings to what those definitions should be are like belly buttons. We all have 'em. And worse yet, you want to apply your feelings or opinions to what the system should be retroactively. You think that's fair? You think that is what is best for America right now? If so, I think your nuts. As I said, that would be the antithesis of MAGA, which you claim to abhor. To your question regarding "similar", if the current system/process allows something, it allows that something. You seem to be focused on the number or quantity, without number or quantity defined . If a friend can put you up for a night, they can put you up for a dozen nights. Rather, I think the question is the process and the lack of definition around that process. I agree with you that the policy needs some work, definition and clarity. And then we apply it prospectively. We can't apply it retroactively like you seem to be suggesting. How's that fair to anyone? Yeah, fairness is really, really important right now with all of the charges of unequal application depending on one's party affiliation. And one final thought. The suggestion that Congress should even be involved in this discussion and solution is most laughable. They are the most corrupt branch of our government, and certainly the least ethical. Cruz has been one of many that have reported the other. Nonetheless, you should be considering the truth, not the source.

You're the antithesis of MAGA, and hardly objective here. When confronted with facts that other SCOTUS have done similar things, you say yeah, but how much or how many times? You don't want to hold Thomas to the same standard others have followed. You want to hold him to your standard. And for context, I didn't vote for Trump either time.

Billsy appears to be complicit in the lie. Patience grasshopper