StarfishSaver
StarfishSaver's JournalDo all lives matter?
The same people who bat away "Black Lives Matter" with cries of "ALL Lives matter!" reveal themselves to not really care about all lives at all.
?
The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with the recount.
The recount was completed and certified a full eight months before 9/11
BREAKING: Supreme Court overturns Mississippi murder conviction on racial bias grounds
ON EDIT: I stepped all over the lede! Kavanaugh wrote the opinion! Thomas, not surprisingly, dissented.
The high court sided with Curtis’ lawyers, who argued that District Attorney Doug Evans, who is white, excluded potential black jurors on the basis of race in the 2010 trial. The defense attorneys said the Mississippi Supreme Court failed to properly apply U.S. Supreme Court precedent in determining whether people were unconstitutionally kept off a jury on the basis of race.
Evans has attempted to convict Flowers six times over the years: in 1997, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2010. Two trials — the only ones with more than one black juror — resulted in hung juries. The Mississippi Supreme Court overturned the three earlier convictions on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, including that Evans improperly excluded potential black jurors.
But the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the 2010 conviction, and Flowers was sentenced to death. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, with both conservative and liberal justices pointing to the “troubling” nature of the case
...
Flowers, who had no criminal record, was charged with the killings in part because he had briefly worked at the store and was fired several days before. He has been behind bars for more than 20 years now. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-curtis-flowers-murder-conviction-overturned_n_5cf84665e4b0e63eda953bb1
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9572_k536.pdf
MSNBC commentators keep saying if Judiciary Committee had refused to let Hicks testify in private
they would have gotten a lot of mileage out of the public watching her refusing to answer questions in a public hearing.
They seem not to realize that, had the Committee refused to let her testify in private, she wouldn't have shown up at all. And, if the Committee tried to force her to testify in public, they would have had a difficult time getting a court to uphold any contempt charge since she would claim she was willing to testify in private, but the Committee wouldn't let her.
I'm getting a wee bit tired of them skipping over basic facts and logic when they're talking on teevee.
Please look at this video and answer honestly: if this family were white
what would be the public reaction to the police responding this way to an alleged shoplifting incident?
Would people believe this was a justified reaction to a child allegedly shoplifting a doll?
Would there be any argument that the officer behaved this way because he was in fear of his life?
I think you're generally right
I talk to a lot of people, including lukewarm Republicans (as compared with diehard Trump supporters) and non-obsessed Democrats, and they look at all of this as confusing background noise.
And most Democrats I know who aren't activists or as obsessed as I am aren't demanding impeachment. They want him gone, but know impeachment won't do it so they're focusing on voting him out.
I do think there's room to move them, but it's going to take a lot more evidence than has been pulled out yet. The Mueller Report hasn't convinced them and they're tired of hearing about it. And they're not interested in watching Democrats gather the evidence in real time - they're not going to sit down and watch hearings, whether it's called an impeachment inquiry or something else (and calling it "impeachment" isn't going to make them suddenly interested). But once much more evidence is revealed and put together in a clear narrative, I think some of them will listen and be convinced.
Supreme Court VA redistricting decision a big win for Democrats, but a strange bedfellows ruling
The justices ruled that the Republican-controlled House of Delegates lacked the authority to challenge a federal district court decision striking down the maps after the state's Democratic attorney general refused to do so.
The decision was written by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was joined by two conservative and two liberal colleagues. Associate Justice Samuel Alito dissented and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh.
...
The decision leaves intact this month's primary elections in Virginia, where voters go to the polls in odd-numbered years to elect state officials. Some races were held in districts redrawn after the district court said Republicans' maps were designed to dilute African Americans' voting strength.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/17/race-and-politics-supreme-court-rules-virginia-election-districts/1419708001/
This is a very interesting vote breakdown - Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Thomas and Gorsuch were in the majority, while Roberts, Alito, Breyer and Kavanaugh dissented.
Sounds like someone showed Trump a section of the Constitution
But, of course, he only read part of it and he got it wrong.
“He wasn’t fired. Okay? Number one, very importantly. But more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would have allowed me to fire him."
Just until they show him this part: "The President ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
How do you define "impeachment inquiry"?
And how, in your view, is an "impeachment inquiry" distinguishable from the investigations currently taking place in the House?
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:26 PMNumber of posts: 18,486
