Archangel1313
@Archangel1313@lemm.ee
- Comment on RFK Jr. Orders Search for New Measles Treatments Instead of Urging Vaccination 1 day ago:
Just put Vicks VapoRub on it.
- Comment on I Can’t Believe Anyone Thinks Trump Actually Cares About Antisemitism 5 days ago:
What did you mean…Trump loves Jews. They’re the only ones he wants counting his money.
- Comment on Instead of Orange Man doing Tariffs would it not have been better for him to talk about shopping locally and so forth. And giving more tax breaks to companies that stay and sell in the US? 5 days ago:
That would be “the carrot”. Trump prefers “the stick”.
- Comment on ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Was Denied 2-Hour Finale Movie, Says Sonequa Martin-Green 6 days ago:
Yeah, never watched it. I’m not that much of a masochist.
- Comment on Is it normal to be constantly scared about how your friend will react to anything about you? 6 days ago:
You are not describing a “friend”.
- Comment on Perplexity CEO says its browser will track everything users do online to sell 'hyper personalized' ads 1 week ago:
This is the biggest anti-endorsement I’ve ever heard. Thank you for telling us all that. I will absolutely never be using this browser.
- Comment on Why hasn't congress passed a law saying that you can only deport people *back to their own country*? 1 week ago:
They protect their own.
- Comment on We call people who want to regress conservative and not reactionary 1 week ago:
I watched a video a while ago (unfortunately can’t find it now) about how modern politics has shifted over the last few decades, along with the Overton window.
The woman in the video was a political scientist / sociologist.
It was really eye opening the way she described their tendencies. Typically, “conservatives” strive to maintain the status quo, and are characterized as being more resistant to progressive policies that are intended to change the current system. That actually describes today’s Liberals more accurately than today’s conservatives…while today’s conservatives have just gone so far to the right, that they can only be described as right-wing extremists.
- Comment on Why hasn't congress passed a law saying that you can only deport people *back to their own country*? 1 week ago:
It’s called the “Laken Riley Act”, and it allows for the deportation of people who have simply been “charged” with a criminal offense. They don’t have to be tried or convicted…just officially accused.
- Comment on Why hasn't congress passed a law saying that you can only deport people *back to their own country*? 1 week ago:
Congress recently passed a law that allows people to be deported without due process. They’re not trying to stop him…they’re actively helping him.
- Comment on ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Was Denied 2-Hour Finale Movie, Says Sonequa Martin-Green 1 week ago:
That is sage advice. I think I’ve been doing it wrong, this whole time.
- Comment on ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Was Denied 2-Hour Finale Movie, Says Sonequa Martin-Green 1 week ago:
The dislike of Discovery is a totally valid opinion, but this is a poor & disrespectful take.
Except this is what I disliked about Discovery. You’d have ten minutes of activity that actually moved the plot forward, followed by twenty minutes of crew “checking in” with each other in order to discuss everyone’s feelings about what just happened while also rehashing events from past episodes. It was like watching a Spanish telenovela, where every second piece of dialogue was intended to remind you of what happened in the last episode…just in case you forgot.
Every episode was 3/4 dialogue, discussing what we all watched happen in the first 1/4. It felt like every season should have taken 3 episodes…not 14. In the last couple of seasons, I literally skipped entire episodes, and it did nothing to impact the plot.
- Comment on ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Was Denied 2-Hour Finale Movie, Says Sonequa Martin-Green 1 week ago:
Thank God. This would have been 2 straight hours of mind-numbing dialogue between characters about how much they’ve been through together and how much they’re going to miss each other.
- Comment on Is 4chan dead forever? Where are the refugees going? 2 weeks ago:
Twitter, of course. Elon’s already made it quite comfortable for them over there.
- Comment on The Chilling Displays of Devotion That Trump Demands of His Enablers 2 weeks ago:
“Let’s start today’s meeting by going around the table, so everyone can say something nice about me. We’ll start with Little Marco. Go ahead, Little Marco…tell everyone what your wife said about me last night.”
- Comment on Man deported to El Salvador will never live back in US, says White House 2 weeks ago:
This is insane. They just keep lying about this guy, even after admitting they were wrong, in court. You can’t tell the truth to a judge and then walk out of the courtroom and say the opposite to the media outside. What the fuck?
- Comment on Top Donald Trump official tells Europe to choose between US or Chinese communications tech 2 weeks ago:
Oops. There goes the US communications tech industry, I guess.
- Comment on US citizen says he was detained returning from Canada 2 weeks ago:
“I really thought things would change after this administration, when we have Mr. Trump in office, things would change to the better,” Atallah said. “Things actually changed to the worse.”
And, all of a sudden…I stopped feeling bad for this guy.
- Comment on Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House 2 weeks ago:
“It has already been established before that rights reserved for US citizens do not exist in the same way for aliens.”
Nope. That is not true at all. It is established law that the rights afforded by the Constitution apply to all individuals within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. They are inalienable. That word has meaning. They don’t necessarily apply to other countries, because those countries have their own laws…but inside the United States, the Constitution is the “law of the land”.
“They should identify the potential conflict and, based on that, potentially hold what’s going on.”
That’s literally what challenging these orders in court, does. If someone believes that a law or executive order is in violation of the Constitution, then they need to bring a challenge to court, and let a judge decide. The Judiciary’s entire job is to rule on whether or not these things are “Constitutional” or not. And since you can’t just bring a case before the Supreme Court without going through the lower courts first…that’s where you start.
The lower court judge makes a ruling. If the administration wants to appeal that, then it goes up to the next higher court for their ruling. If you don’t like their decision, you can appeal it again…all the way up to the Supreme Court. That’s how it works.
“Just as such, if there was some fatal flaw or conflict of interest discovered with how a judge or detective conducted himself, it would not justify releasing all the connected criminals immediately. Rather, it would justify reviewing all these cases and then releasing people whom it was determined to have impacted.”
And see, you’ve got this all wrong. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. The entire point of the justice system is to “review all these cases” individually, and a judge needs to sign off on whatever outcomes are decided, whether that’s by jury or otherwise. But each case needs to be tried in court, and the sentence is decided there as well. The president doesn’t have the legal authority to simply dictate a new punishment for them. All he has is the power to pardon someone…not to redefine their punishment. That is not his job.
- Comment on Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House 2 weeks ago:
That process still needs to happen. You can’t just assume what the final outcome is going to be, and just proceed as if it can’t be challenged. That defeats the entire purpose of judicial review.
If there is even the slightest possibility that the order given, is in conflict with the Constitution…then allowing it to proceed at all, is also a violation of the Constitution. Putting that order on pause, until the review process can be completed…all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary…is the only logical option.
Or do you think it’s fine to keep breaking the law for potentially months, until the Supreme Court can confirm what even the lowest courts were able to determine was illegal?
- Comment on Live Updates: Trump Hosts El Salvador's President Amid Deportation Battle | El Salvador’s President Refuses to Return Man Who Was Mistakenly Deported 2 weeks ago:
Why would they give him back? The US is paying them to keep these people. That was the deal. Giving him back means they don’t get paid.
- Comment on My ravioli bowl won't unstick. Took about an hour of prying, and still I couldn't unstick the plate. 3 weeks ago:
Just smash. It will be satisfying.
- Comment on Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House 3 weeks ago:
There are no “kinks in the system”.
The idea is that the law is the law, no matter which court is making the ruling. If the president is in violation of the Constitution, then any judge has the authority to stop it.
They can appeal that decision if they choose to, but it’s not like there are some judges that are allowed to determine what’s legal, and others that aren’t. If the order is illegal, it should be stopped as soon as possible…not weeks or months later, when the Supreme Court finally gets involved.
- Comment on Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House 3 weeks ago:
Except that’s how the entire judicial system works. Saying that a lower court has no jurisdiction to make a ruling, undermines that entire system, since every new case begins in the lower courts. A ruling like this, would effectively make it impossible to bring any case against the federal government, since the starting point for litigation would now be considered invalid.
- Comment on What do you think are some strategies trumps Russian handlers use to get that bafoon to do what they want? 3 weeks ago:
Lend him a ton of money and then threaten to collect.
- Comment on Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House 3 weeks ago:
Congress has no authority to pass legislation that contradicts the Constitution. The Judiciary is a check on presidential authority. Period.
- Comment on Canada spectacularly bends the knee to the U.S. as Trump scores major victory over the '51st state' 3 weeks ago:
That’s a weird way of saying that Trump backed down again.
- Comment on Trump admin pulls funding from Maine for allowing men identifying as women to be jailed with females 3 weeks ago:
Whatever happened to “State’s Rights”? I thought this was the kind of thing they always blasted Obama for, calling him a “dictator” for making them give people healthcare insurance.
- Comment on Justice Dept. Bars Its Lawyers From American Bar Association Functions 3 weeks ago:
When is this shit going to be “obvious enough”?
- Comment on Truth Bomb: China Will Realize Its Days of Ripping Off USA & the World Are Over! 3 weeks ago:
It’s a tax that other countries pay, of course.