- Messages
- 29,351
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s “special envoy” to Russia and for Middle East Matters.Who is this douchebag? I realize I should recognize him; but, I don’t.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s “special envoy” to Russia and for Middle East Matters.Who is this douchebag? I realize I should recognize him; but, I don’t.
I knew I should have recognized him; I tend to suppress Trump flunkies.Steve Witkoff, Trump’s “special envoy” to Russia and for Middle East Matters.
“…Who is this douchebag? I realize I should recognize him; but, I don’t.
That’s already going on. This will just make it worse. It will also deprive the IRS of tax revenue.This will drive illegal immigrants increasingly into the hands of unscrupulous employers willing to hire people without documentation who will work for cash for less money per hour.
Except for your craven idiocy...Everything is subjective.
Witkoff makes sure Putin’s balls are already glistening before Trump goes to work.Who is this douchebag? I realize I should recognize him; but, I don’t.
Easter Grift
That is a subjective, not objective, statement also.The Constitution is less "subjective" than the current Court would have you believe.
All of that is subjective. Your interpretation of Hamilton is based on existing views. Your opinion of Roberts views is also subjective.It's why they have to keep inventing new doctrines to get to the results they want. Objectively speaking, the constitution does not grant to the president immunity from criminal prosecution. That's why Roberts had to go with nonsense from Hamilton (taken out of context) about the value of a "bold president" (which doesn't actually address the question at all).
Subjectivity is ALL there is in interpretation.But anyway, the problem here isn't that there's no subjectivity in interpretation.
I'm sure I have less knowledge, but that doesn't change the fact that nearly everything, if not everything, related to interpretation of the Constitution , Federalist papers etc is ALL subjective. That's why 25 different judges, from the bottom to SCOTUS, can look at a case, Constitution and previous rulings and find so many different outcomes.It's that you lack any knowledge that would be relevant to such interpretation.
I'm not going to belabor the point, but subjectivity is the basis for nearly everything we are talking about.As I said, the standard for asylum is set forth in statute and treaty. There have been cases about that standard. The DOJ has issued many documents offering interpretations of those laws. There have been dozens or hundreds of commentaries and articles about them. There are statements from international courts and the UN.
When and if you ever become knowledgeable about these sources, you'd have an informed opinion and we could discuss.
Have you considered reading some law books? In the amount of time you spend here broadcasting and arguing uninformed opinions, you could become informed ! It wouldn't make you an expert, but if you read a constitutional law casebook, you'd earn so much more respect. You'd be able to back up your ideas without resorting to bullshit, assuming that in learning constitutional law you are able to revise your opinions where necessary to conform to the actual law.