Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

why does NPR even exist?

 

Why do MY tax dollars go to support an entity that completely disagrees with any fundamental worldview I possess?
 

Cut off its budget.

 

All great money laundering schemes require separate yet interconnected multiple laundromats.  They follow the Amway model..

Posted

 

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.
Posted
1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

why does NPR even exist?

 

Why do MY tax dollars go to support an entity that completely disagrees with any fundamental worldview I possess?
 

Cut off its budget.

 

 

Want some cheese with that wine?

 

You sound like a liberal.

Posted
6 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.


Still too much.

 

needs to be 0%

 

Posted
21 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.

doesn't sound like they would miss a measly 2% then.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Why not both?

Vegas odds are 50/50 that Barack actually has a dick but favor him having a pussey at 10/1. There's no betting line on whether or not Michelle has either or both. Their pet names for each other are "Herm" and "Aphrodite".

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justices-okay-immediate-trump-crackdown-on-immigrants-use-of-public-benefits-011250331.html

 

This is an interesting exercise in media bias and liberal stupidity.

 

First, the headline: "Justices OK immediate Trump crackdown on immigrants' use of public benefits". 'Crackdowns' are scary.

 

First line: "The Supreme Court said Monday it will allow the Trump administration to begin enforcing a controversial new policy making it harder for low-income legal immigrants to obtain green cards or visas." Well, this is not as bad as the violent 'crackdown' the headline promises, but still... It's apparently a "controversial new policy" to actually enforce existing law!!!1

 

The bulk of the rest of the article is liberal whining about the left's 'Lawfare' tactics not working, and how unfair it is for the Courts to be deciding immigration policy. Of course, they forget to mention that the Democrats in Congress refused to agree on anything to do with immigration after the idiotic DACA injunction. You'd think they would actually want the legislature to legislate, rather than be an activist #resistance, but I digress...

 

 

Tangential rant warning:

 

I'm shocked that the author - and I will give full credit to them for doing this - actually addressed the most significant legal issue of the whole 'lawfare' strategy, nation-wide injunctions.

 

Quote

Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the five justices in the majority, wrote in a separate concurrence explaining his vote to allow implementation of the public charge rule that “the real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.”  

 

“By their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” Gorsuch argued, writing that the “increasingly widespread” use of such orders in recent years “is not normal.”

 

Injunctions are supposed to be rare to begin with, especially in issuing nation-wide injunctions. Judges are supposed to look at a number of factors, including the liklehood of success on the merits, if the plaintiff's allegations were true. They have, time and again, been issued by judges as policy preferences, not as grounded on the law.

 

Hopefully the Supreme Court squashes these partisan hack judges and tightens the rules they must follow to issue injunctions. They're clearly being given too much discretion, and abusing it.

Edited by Koko78
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justices-okay-immediate-trump-crackdown-on-immigrants-use-of-public-benefits-011250331.html

 

This is an interesting exercise in media bias and liberal stupidity.

 

First, the headline: "Justices OK immediate Trump crackdown on immigrants' use of public benefits". 'Crackdowns' are scary.

 

First line: "The Supreme Court said Monday it will allow the Trump administration to begin enforcing a controversial new policy making it harder for low-income legal immigrants to obtain green cards or visas." Well, this is not as bad as the violent 'crackdown' the headline promises, but still... It's apparently a "controversial new policy" to actually enforce existing law!!!1

 

The bulk of the rest of the article is liberal whining about the left's 'Lawfare' tactics not working, and how unfair it is for the Courts to be deciding immigration policy. Of course, they forget to mention that the Democrats in Congress refused to agree on anything to do with immigration after the idiotic DACA injunction. You'd think they would actually want the legislature to legislate, rather than be an activist #resistance, but I digress...

 

 

Tangential rant warning:

 

I'm shocked that the author - and I will give full credit to them for doing this - actually addressed the most significant legal issue of the whole 'lawfare' strategy, nation-wide injunctions.

 

 

Injunctions are supposed to be rare to begin with, especially in issuing nation-wide injunctions. Judges are supposed to look at a number of factors, including the liklehood of success on the merits, if the plaintiff's allegations were true. They have, time and again, been issued by judges as policy preferences, not as grounded on the law.

 

Hopefully the Supreme Court squashes these partisan hack judges and tightens the rules they must follow to issue injunctions. They're clearly being given too much discretion, and abusing it.

 

 

...could you seriously see SCOTUS addressing such a case?.......

Posted
47 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...could you seriously see SCOTUS addressing such a case?.......

 

Yes. Thomas has previously indicated his hostility to blanket injunctions by district courts, and now Gorsuch is criticizing them. They only need 4 votes to decide to hear a case.

 

Of course, coming up with an alternative is something different. Sometimes a judge does need to put a stop to something immediately. The issue lies in how to curb this current trend of wanton abuse by district courts, without removing the ability to utilize injunctions in proper circumstances to prevent actual harm to a party.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
On 1/27/2020 at 7:42 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They still don't get why he won. 

 

And their masks are all the way off.


***** them. But you have to admit spotting him a U and a picture of a crane is pretty funny 

×
×
  • Create New...