America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Favorite current judge….

Today, I like six of them equally.

Laughed my ass off watching the pearl clutching and swooning cries of despair. Then going to two “legal expert” white broads that were leftist kooks followed up by that shiny beacon of thought and purity Donna Brassiere.

My daughter couldn’t understand my laughter and name calling at the TV so I had to walk her through racists crying over their perceived racism. And how Asians have been getting ****ed by these people because not all POC are equal POC.

I think the 14th amendment has been abused for a long time. I wholeheartedly agree with this decision.

NINE!

Right with you, Buck.

AMEN!

This is what we were taught in school and this is how I've lived my life.

You can see where the mindset was going to go right off the bat with this one if it "flew".

Car loans, home loans, medical bills...you signed up for something...received the benefits of said item...and now you want someone that had either gone a different route or never fell into the traps to pay for it????

Life doesn't have any "safety nets" and people better figure out Freedom fast because it's like a skid plate on a baja racer. Once it's gone, you're done. Race finished before you ever cross the real finish line.

It's true, Joey B. is unhinged from real history and current reality. He should have a nice little room at Shady Acres Rest Home where he can wallow in his fantasies.

Biden’s “Normal”: The President’s Constitutional Takes are Becoming More Unhinged from History

The decision of the Supreme Court to end the use of race in college admissions was not unexpected. Indeed, the rulings in cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina ended decades of muddled 5-4 decisions. Yet, President Joe Biden seemed to go into full attack mode and actually claimed that the Court gutted the constitutional guarantee that “all men and women are created equal.” In declaring that this Court was not “normal,” Biden further insisted that these admissions decisions and the Dobbs abortion decision reversed the gains that “we fought a war over in 1860” to secure.


In an interview on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House,” President Biden accused the Court of ignoring what “the Constitution says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women are created equal, endowed by their creator.” That is actually the Declaration of Independence, but it was the substance of the point that was so baffling.

In barring the use of race in admissions, the Court believed that it was protecting that very guarantee. It erased what the Court viewed as a glaring anomaly in its cases in the treatment of racial discrimination in education as opposed to employment. It was the capstone opinion for Chief Justice John Roberts who in 2017 declared: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” In 2006, Roberts added: “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

The Court was enforcing what it saw as the “self-evident” guarantee referenced in the Declaration and later protected in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reaffirmed that all men and women are created equal and will be treated equally in both education and employment.

More...

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/30/bidens-civil-war-the-presidents-constitutional-takes-are-becoming-more-unhinged-from-history/#more-206887

I do wish there was a healthcare safety net. Richest country in the world should be able to provide a level of healthcare that at least doesn’t drive people into poverty. Of course the devil is always in the details.

^ Bunch of LEFTIES. Progressivism drives people into poverty, so they want more socialism.


COMMIE VAN JONES is devastated He says those 3 BAD Trump judges are remaking America (based on the Constitution?) instead of 50 years of Progressive precedents
What will happen with da DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION? 😢 ⚰️

CNN’s Van Jones Has Meltdown Over SCOTUS Rulings, Claims Trump Appointed Justices Are ‘Remaking America’ (VIDEO)

By Mike LaChance
Jun. 30, 2023 10:22 pm

"healthcare safety net" - LEFTY EUPHEMISM FOR MORE SOCIALISM by fans of COMMIE VAN JONES.

"Richest country in the world" - LEFTY catchphrase used to justify MORE SOCIALST PLUNDER as a way of life

When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. — Frederic Bastiat

Unfortunately, I worked in healthcare on both the insurance company and provider side as well.
It is so woefully inept and at the same time corrupt, it would blow your mind.

Truly wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t believe some of the stuff I’d share.

Those industries are my sweet spots. And few if any, smell worse.

Medicare and Medicaid are massive expenses.

I’ve seen first hand insurance companies charging more for a copay than a vendor charged for the service.

Public and private insurance both have massive issues.

I would support an overhaul of chronic care, and I support an overhaul of Medicaid.

Nothing but confirmation you have ever been the victim of one

State of Mind (motivation for a crime) has always been a an element of proof of every crime.
It has always been a factor considered when a penalty is decided.
Just look at the state of mind differences between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder. ..

Actually, charging/prosecuting differently based on singling out some especially vile reasons for otherwise everyday common violence is not new to the world...

"The indictment of 24 Nazi government officials and organizations was filed on October 18, 1945 by the four chief prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal: Robert H Jackson of the United States, Sir Hartley Shawcross of Great Britain, Francois de Menthon of France, and Roman A Rudenko of the Soviet Union. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal included crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The IMT defined crimes against humanity as "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation...or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds." "

Also, without research at hand, I'm pretty sure you are incorrect about your examples of the limitations and unfairness of how hate crime charges are applied.

Clearly not all violent or (even nonviolent) crimes committed by White people against Black people/Asian people/Jewish or other religions are charged as Hate Crimes. As Robert tried to point out, state of mind is a major factor.

And clearly there are crimes committed by nonwhite people against white people that are Hate Crimes as well for the same reasons.


edit: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/crimes-against-humanity-international-law
this might lend insight into at least some historical precedence that shows these "new fangled crimes" aren't really an invention of modern day sissies...

Agree Whistlebritches. Hate Crines are BS.

The theory is that to be a hate crime, it has to be racially motivated.
Even when it's obvious that a crime was racially motivated, it seems prosecutors sometimes say they can't find the evidence of racial hatred or maybe don't want to.

Frank wanted examples. I refer to Robert's favorite Newspaper

Asian-Americans Are Being Attacked. Why Are Hate Crime Charges So Rare?

Several recent attacks have not been charged as hate crimes, fueling protests and outrage among many Asian-Americans.

By Nicole Hong and Jonah E. Bromwich
Published March 18, 2021
Updated Oct. 26, 2021




The Case Against Hate-Crime Laws
By Michael S. Rozeff

August 18, 2006

Basics of hate crime law

True..........with that Johan touch.LOL

as for me, of course no offense taken. you know me well enough.

Anyway, I didn't take a personal position in my post that referenced the Nuremberg Trials. I was merely providing one example for rayr of how the concept of Hate Crimes is not a new liberal feel good thing.

Don't know if the data has changed over the years since I first learned it but I have long been led to believe that the vast majority of murders (and probably violent crimes) takes place between people familiar with each other...eg married couples, friends, family members...so yes, absolutely, virtually all of these crimes occur as sudden violent reactions to situations or depression/rage caused by life events or heat of the moment passion. Maybe rage?

A robbery of a random stranger gone wrong is obviously not an emotional state of mind toward the victim. Maybe panic?

Hearing voices commanding one to maim or kill...maybe mental illness?

I think you may be pretty close by saying at Nuremberg they were calling "attention to the atrocities". But those atrocities came from hatred of a defined group of humans, where the other categories do not seem to fit that definition...not of "hate", at least in my mind.

I guess I don't agree with the common belief that all murderers and violent perpetrators "hate" the specific victim.
Deep down I feel it's an especially repulsive emotion that motivates one to act out on their beliefs of other's races, religious beliefs, etc. This separates those despicable characters from the guy who "lost it" when he caught his wife cheating, or finally had it up to here with the idiot next door, or thought God told him to do it, or even needed money fast for drugs...

Despite all that, I'm really not even 98.2% convinced that we need an additional legal process for "Hate Crimes".
I'm really not sure. I'm totally open to all the opinions leaning that way above.

But, I just want to say, maybe due to personal religious history, I'm also not 98.2% sure that the guy dragging a human by a rope from the back of a pick up truck simply because of the victim's skin color doesn't deserve some kind of special acknowledgement for his actions, if only to "call attention to the atrocities" of such crimes and to keep that in front of the eyes of Society...?

without most realizing it, there has been a slight trend toward opening "that" door in this country in recent years.
Ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't alive...and deadly.

Punishment is an outdated concept. We should be looking at rehabilitation, education and training.

We’ve had this conversation before. I live by the mantra of “my rights begin where yours end.” So I will always believe that no one has the right to dictate how someone else should feel. If someone wants to hate someone else because of the color, creed, sexual preference or whatever so be it. That’s their right.

Would the a$$ beating have hurt any less if they called you Robert instead of a kike while pounding you? Probably not. Would the paint inside the synagogue been easier to remove if it said “dine at the y” instead of being swastikas? Doubtful.

At the end of the day the punishment should fit the crime. We shouldn’t allow emotions to arbitrarily enhance or decrease the severity of punishment because we get in the game of chasing a dog by the tail trying to meet different expectations based on some unmeasurable degree of severity.

Anthony, the beating and the graffiti were more than offenses to person and property. They were intended to stoke and instill life-long fear and disrupt peace and security in civil society. A chilling effect, if you will. That is a hell of a lot different than the right to hate.

Likewise, they were more for me to deal with than just physical pain that just needed a short time to heal and some graffiti on a wall that just needed to be painted over. They created concerns and fears that last forever- much, much greater than just a childhood beating on the playground or the need to paint over a concrete wall.

Are you implying we should just go back several hundred years to a limited number of common law crimes created solely by the courts and not the people via legislature? If so, that just bring us back full circle to the issue of law and societal rules and norms as they currently exist and tailored to modern reality vs. that's the way things were then and therefore must the same now. We argue about this dichotomy with respect to the Constitution all the time...