Tariffs

[Sal Ammoniac]

The charter case and storybook case can just as easily be seen as being about free exercise of religion

Nothing wrong with free exercise of religion--that's covered by the 1st amendment, and isn't in dispute. What matters is if the free exercise of religion involves a government institution, or government funded institutions, like schools. That case is also covered in the 1st amendment and is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

The storybook case is somewhat different from the charter case, and I agree that parents should be able to opt out of having their kids exposed to certain viewpoints in school--but where do you draw the line? What if the parents are in a fundamentalist religion that thinks evolution is false? Do you prevent schools from teaching evolution at all (this was actually the case in many states for decades), or do you allow parents to opt their kids out of biology class? You can't effectively teach biology without evolution as it's the bedrock of that science--it would be like trying to teach electronics without Ohm's law or Kirchhoff's laws.

Public education in the U.S. has been under attack for decades with numerous attempts to take money away from the public school system and redirect it to often religious-based private schools which are usually not subject to the same curriculum standards public schools are. The more recent attempt by Oklahoma failed when SCOTUS deadlocked on the issue because Barrett recused herself. All it'll take now is for another place to bring a similar case where Barrett doesn't have a conflict and it'll result in a 5:4 decision.

[TimFox]

The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion, but also forbids "establishment of religion", in the USA.
Other countries (England, Norway, etc.) have "established churches", subsidized and controlled by the government, but allow citizens to practice other religions.

[Marco]

Nothing wrong with free exercise of religion--that's covered by the 1st amendment, and isn't in dispute. What matters is if the free exercise of religion involves a government institution, or government funded institutions, like schools. That case is also covered in the 1st amendment and is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

Why would the benevolent neutrality from Walz not apply to education? Our constitution is similar and every religious school meeting some minum standard can get public funding, using much the same reasoning as in Walz.

It's just tradition and opinion, nothing clear cut.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/benevolent-neutrality/

[Sal Ammoniac]

Nothing wrong with free exercise of religion--that's covered by the 1st amendment, and isn't in dispute. What matters is if the free exercise of religion involves a government institution, or government funded institutions, like schools. That case is also covered in the 1st amendment and is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

Why would the benevolent neutrality from Walz not apply to education? Our constitution is similar and every religious school meeting some minum standard can get public funding, using much the same reasoning as in Walz.

It's just tradition and opinion, nothing clear cut.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/benevolent-neutrality/

Read the Wikipedia article on segregation academies to get some history on the push for public funding of private schools in the U.S.

[Zero999]

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

[Sorama]

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

If one needs a television channel to see the difference between right and wrong, he will never be able to do so.

Which would explain a lot.

[Simon]

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

Obviously he never said go and smash the place up. If that is what you want to convict someone then the world is in trouble. As I said, he was in his car, in the BACK seat arguing with his advisors about going down there to join them to the point that he leaned forward and tried to grab the steering wheel and direct the car there, this is AFTER it turned into an insurrection. His advisers sadly were more interested in protecting his LEGAL position and kept him out of what he started or he too would have been jailed. this is evidence from HIS OWN people!!!! I don't need a court to tell me what it was and his sentiments.

You can interpret things however you like and telling me that you only listen to right wing propaganda channels like GB news who break any broadcasting regulations they like just to hear both sides and that you are aware that they are not perfect is untrue. You are smitten with the right wing extremist rubbish they put out. Like any other nut job conspiracy theorist you just dismiss what you don't like as "main stream media" and lies. For goodness sake get a grip!

[tszaboo]

One really does not need (hiding behind) a constitution: if one does not admit or see this man is a crook , a by a democratically chosen  jury convicted criminal then you’re a criminal yourself.

Again with the name calling. You do realize that the democrats themselves admitted that they were politically driven kangaroo courts, which was overturned or dismissed every single time?
What wasn't overturned was Trump vs ABC or Trump vs CBS news for defamation. But probably he could've gone after every mayor news network if he wanted.

Are we really going to compare what (ever) democrats did vs what’s happening now?
It’s not a digital world out there you know….

Yeah, I mean it's silly tweets and posting memes.
Vs state capture, signing laws without the knowledge of the president by an autopen. Instructing federal agents to not rescue people in a disaster with certain political views. And placing DEI hires into positions where they crash airplanes with hundred+ people on it.
You are right, how can we even compare.

[Analog Kid]

the attempts to keep him off the ballot (Colorado).
Both parties are despicable here.

The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear on this:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... [who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection and was thus ineligible to hold any public office, including that of president. And since Congress didn't vote to remove the disability, he remained ineligible.

This is hardly "lawfare" unless you consider lawfare to be anything that negatively impacts your side despite its basis in fact.

No. It is not clear at all.
Because nowhere, at no time, has the spurious charge of "insurrection" been proven against D. Trump.
The riot on Jan. 6 has not been proven to be a clear insurrection, and Trump's connection to it is unclear (there definitely was a connection, but the nature of it, and whether it crossed the line into "insurrection" territory has not been proven).
BTW, this is not taking "my side". Trump is clearly doing some of the same shit they've accused the Dems of doing (which they, in fact, did, like trying to keep him off the ballot in Colorado, as well as many other politically-motivated legal actions, including the very showy FBI raid on his allegedly misappropriated documents when no such action was taken against Biden who committed essentially the same infraction), so basically pot-kettle-black here.

[Analog Kid]

The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion, but also forbids "establishment of religion", in the USA.
Other countries (England, Norway, etc.) have "established churches", subsidized and controlled by the government, but allow citizens to practice other religions.

Thank you.
I like to say that here in the US we also have freedom from religion as well as freedom of.

[Sorama]

One really does not need (hiding behind) a constitution: if one does not admit or see this man is a crook , a by a democratically chosen  jury convicted criminal then you’re a criminal yourself.

Again with the name calling. You do realize that the democrats themselves admitted that they were politically driven kangaroo courts, which was overturned or dismissed every single time?
What wasn't overturned was Trump vs ABC or Trump vs CBS news for defamation. But probably he could've gone after every mayor news network if he wanted.

Are we really going to compare what (ever) democrats did vs what’s happening now?
It’s not a digital world out there you know….

Yeah, I mean it's silly tweets and posting memes.
Vs state capture, signing laws without the knowledge of the president by an autopen. Instructing federal agents to not rescue people in a disaster with certain political views. And placing DEI hires into positions where they crash airplanes with hundred+ people on it.
You are right, how can we even compare.

Are you American ??

[Monkeh]

The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion, but also forbids "establishment of religion", in the USA.
Other countries (England, Norway, etc.) have "established churches", subsidized and controlled by the government, but allow citizens to practice other religions.

Thank you.
I like to say that here in the US we also have freedom from religion as well as freedom of.

Which is, of course, not the case in practice. It's so ingrained it's on your money. Your dominant religion makes life decisions for everyone.

[Analog Kid]

One really does not need (hiding behind) a constitution: if one does not admit or see this man is a crook , a by a democratically chosen  jury convicted criminal then you’re a criminal yourself.

Crook?
Yes; I'd say more crooked than Richard Nixon, about who it was said that he had to screw his socks on in the morning.
Democratically-elected jury-convicted criminal?
Check.

But back up just a millisecond ... to that "democratically-elected" part. OK, stop there.
The consensus is, finally, that Trump is the duly elected President. (No more "Russia! Russia!" bullshit.)
Yes, he was convicted of some crimes.

But under our Constitutional system, none of these things amount to conditions or offenses that would warrant his removal from office. (That may be yet to come: one never knows.)

So we should finally dispense with the lawfare and weaponized uses of the judicial system here.
But of course that ain't gonna happen ...

[TimFox]

One really does not need (hiding behind) a constitution: if one does not admit or see this man is a crook , a by a democratically chosen  jury convicted criminal then you’re a criminal yourself.

Again with the name calling. You do realize that the democrats themselves admitted that they were politically driven kangaroo courts, which was overturned or dismissed every single time?
What wasn't overturned was Trump vs ABC or Trump vs CBS news for defamation. But probably he could've gone after every mayor news network if he wanted.

Are we really going to compare what (ever) democrats did vs what’s happening now?
It’s not a digital world out there you know….

Yeah, I mean it's silly tweets and posting memes.
Vs state capture, signing laws without the knowledge of the president by an autopen. Instructing federal agents to not rescue people in a disaster with certain political views. And placing DEI hires into positions where they crash airplanes with hundred+ people on it.
You are right, how can we even compare.

Yes, all presidents do bad stuff.
However, the "autopen" incident, the FEMA political incident, and DEI crashing planes are all bullshit.
(Note that the constitution does not explicitly require a signature for a pardon, investigations into FEMA have not found such political bias, and there is no evidence whatsoever about the DEI crash.  Right-wing posters thought that the pilot of the helicopter was trans, since there is a trans helicopter pilot in the military, so it must have been the one in the accident:  QED, despite the trans pilot being alive and well.)

[Analog Kid]

The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion, but also forbids "establishment of religion", in the USA.
Other countries (England, Norway, etc.) have "established churches", subsidized and controlled by the government, but allow citizens to practice other religions.

Thank you.
I like to say that here in the US we also have freedom from religion as well as freedom of.

Which is, of course, not the case in practice. It's so ingrained it's on your money. Your dominant religion makes life decisions for everyone.

OK, I'll amend that: we have nominal freedom from religion. More honored in the breach, unfortunately.

[themadhippy]

End of the day theirs only gonna be one winner,lawyers

[Analog Kid]

End of the day theirs only gonna be one winner,lawyers

Erm, lotsa lawyers seem to be on the losing end of the stick here.
BTW, ITYM "there's".

[Zero999]

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

If one needs a television channel to see the difference between right and wrong, he will never be able to do so.

Which would explain a lot.

Except the BBC article doesn't do that. It just provides information, coving both sides.

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

Obviously he never said go and smash the place up. If that is what you want to convict someone then the world is in trouble. As I said, he was in his car, in the BACK seat arguing with his advisors about going down there to join them to the point that he leaned forward and tried to grab the steering wheel and direct the car there, this is AFTER it turned into an insurrection. His advisers sadly were more interested in protecting his LEGAL position and kept him out of what he started or he too would have been jailed. this is evidence from HIS OWN people!!!! I don't need a court to tell me what it was and his sentiments.

You can interpret things however you like and telling me that you only listen to right wing propaganda channels like GB news who break any broadcasting regulations they like just to hear both sides and that you are aware that they are not perfect is untrue. You are smitten with the right wing extremist rubbish they put out. Like any other nut job conspiracy theorist you just dismiss what you don't like as "main stream media" and lies. For goodness sake get a grip!

If you bothered to click on the link and read the article, you'll find it's the BBC. I'm often critical of them, but on this occasion their article is very good and covers both sides of the argument.

You clearly don't listen to anything I say, just leap to conclusions. I also read the Guardian and Independent, as well as the Telegraph and watch right-wing channels such as GBNews, which you dislike because you disagree with their political leaning. The fact that the regulators sanction them means nothing, because they're biased. It's impossible to have an unbiased organisation.

The mainstream media do lie by omission. You've even said this yourself, when they didn't report TTIP.

[Sorama]

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

If one needs a television channel to see the difference between right and wrong, he will never be able to do so.

Which would explain a lot.

Except the BBC article doesn't do that. It just provides information, coving both sides.

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

Obviously he never said go and smash the place up. If that is what you want to convict someone then the world is in trouble. As I said, he was in his car, in the BACK seat arguing with his advisors about going down there to join them to the point that he leaned forward and tried to grab the steering wheel and direct the car there, this is AFTER it turned into an insurrection. His advisers sadly were more interested in protecting his LEGAL position and kept him out of what he started or he too would have been jailed. this is evidence from HIS OWN people!!!! I don't need a court to tell me what it was and his sentiments.

You can interpret things however you like and telling me that you only listen to right wing propaganda channels like GB news who break any broadcasting regulations they like just to hear both sides and that you are aware that they are not perfect is untrue. You are smitten with the right wing extremist rubbish they put out. Like any other nut job conspiracy theorist you just dismiss what you don't like as "main stream media" and lies. For goodness sake get a grip!

If you bothered to click on the link and read the article, you'll find it's the BBC. I'm often critical of them, but on this occasion their article is very good and covers both sides of the argument.

You clearly don't listen to anything I say, just leap to conclusions. I also read the Guardian and Independent, as well as the Telegraph and watch right-wing channels such as GBNews, which you dislike because you disagree with their political leaning. The fact that the regulators sanction them means nothing, because they're biased. It's impossible to have an unbiased organisation.

The mainstream media do lie by omission. You've even said this yourself, when they didn't report TTIP.

Maybe you should start reading less and thinking more.

[Zero999]

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

If one needs a television channel to see the difference between right and wrong, he will never be able to do so.

Which would explain a lot.

Except the BBC article doesn't do that. It just provides information, coving both sides.

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

You appear to have been watching too much CNN. It's not clear cut as the other things you mention. Whether Trump incited an insurrection is very much open to interpretation. Here's a BCC analysis on Trump's 6^th January speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55640437

Going purely on listening to what he said in its entirety, not just out of context clips, I don't see how any unbiased jury would convict him, because it's not beyond reasonable doubt he incited violence.

Obviously he never said go and smash the place up. If that is what you want to convict someone then the world is in trouble. As I said, he was in his car, in the BACK seat arguing with his advisors about going down there to join them to the point that he leaned forward and tried to grab the steering wheel and direct the car there, this is AFTER it turned into an insurrection. His advisers sadly were more interested in protecting his LEGAL position and kept him out of what he started or he too would have been jailed. this is evidence from HIS OWN people!!!! I don't need a court to tell me what it was and his sentiments.

You can interpret things however you like and telling me that you only listen to right wing propaganda channels like GB news who break any broadcasting regulations they like just to hear both sides and that you are aware that they are not perfect is untrue. You are smitten with the right wing extremist rubbish they put out. Like any other nut job conspiracy theorist you just dismiss what you don't like as "main stream media" and lies. For goodness sake get a grip!

If you bothered to click on the link and read the article, you'll find it's the BBC. I'm often critical of them, but on this occasion their article is very good and covers both sides of the argument.

You clearly don't listen to anything I say, just leap to conclusions. I also read the Guardian and Independent, as well as the Telegraph and watch right-wing channels such as GBNews, which you dislike because you disagree with their political leaning. The fact that the regulators sanction them means nothing, because they're biased. It's impossible to have an unbiased organisation.

The mainstream media do lie by omission. You've even said this yourself, when they didn't report TTIP.

Maybe you should start reading less and thinking more.

Thinking is good, but it's impossible to have an informed opinion, without a wide source of information. Perhaps you should start reading more articles you disagree with. It's difficult, but it does make one more open minded.

[TimFox]

Political opinion echo chambers are analogous to RF resonant cavities, which can be efficient filters.

[tggzzz]

...

Maybe you should start reading less and thinking more.

Good idea; we can live in hope.

[tggzzz]

Perhaps you should start reading more articles you disagree with. It's difficult, but it does make one more open minded.

Perhaps you should start understanding more articles you disagree with.

Sometimes quantity overwhelms quality.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Because nowhere, at no time, has the spurious charge of "insurrection" been proven against D. Trump.
The riot on Jan. 6 has not been proven to be a clear insurrection, and Trump's connection to it is unclear (there definitely was a connection, but the nature of it, and whether it crossed the line into "insurrection" territory has not been proven).

Depends on how you define "proven". The Colorado Supreme Court, in their ruling, says he engaged in insurrection:

For these reasons, we conclude that the record fully supports the district court’s finding that President Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three.

[TimFox]

The defendant:
Urged his followers to "fight like hell" and exhorted them to march to the Capitol.
A significant set of his followers proceeded to breach the security fences, attack security personnel, enter the Chamber, and put a halt to the proceedings.
Some of the followers were armed with firearms, chemical weapons, or other weapons.
One follower was killed while illegally entering the Chamber, and other persons (security and followers) were injured.
Some of the crowd vandalized offices and the Chamber.
During the mêlée, the defendant watched it on television and waited for hours to ask for a stop.
Some of the followers erected a gallows and displayed signs to "Hang Mike Pence", the Vice-President in charge of the proceedings.
During the next four years, many of these followers were convicted of various felonies in normal criminal courts.
Four years later, the defendant pardoned almost all of those convicted of these crimes.
A few of those pardoned quickly got back into trouble for unrelated crimes.

Nope, nothing to see here.
"Incitement to riot" is a federal crime.  See  18 U.S. Code chapter 102 .