Yes.
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-22 16:47:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760708012816150975
Reply addressees: @Gene76244311
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760707849615741253
Form: Reply
-
link and I’ll answer
link and I’ll answer
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-22 01:40:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760479548699820038
Reply addressees: @mithradates27 @FedSoc @TyrantsMuse
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760166036949643755
-
RT @curtdoolittle: @Asha2044635 @FedSoc –“What is this about?”– In the abstrac
RT @curtdoolittle: @Asha2044635 @FedSoc –“What is this about?”–
In the abstract it is about (1) whether the people are sovereign or the…
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-22 01:39:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760479314867294536
-
Yes. First principle of cooperation
Yes. First principle of cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 17:38:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760358319934316587
Reply addressees: @DuxHispaniii
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760329601350242532
-
What does this post have to do with Rudyard?
What does this post have to do with Rudyard?
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 14:31:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760311317464744088
Reply addressees: @decofuturism @whatifalthist @FedSoc @AlekseiCorleone
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760280970572259794
-
“Originalism is Inconsistent with Stare Decisis and Other Aspects of Our Constit
–“Originalism is Inconsistent with Stare Decisis and Other Aspects of Our Constitutional Practice?”—@FedSoc
Absolutely not. Originalism forces congress, limited by concurrency, to deliberately changing legislation and regulation, thus prohibiting legislation from the bench, and limiting the court by use of commonality, to decidability and prohibiting discretion.
Precedent is counsel on commonality, not decidability.
Stare Decisis produces evidence supporting commonality – it is not tested by proof of concurrency in the legislature. You are effectively advocating for legislative unaccountability. And throwing bad legislation over the wall into the market for conflict to be resolved by legislation from the bench.
The speaker is advocating violating sovereignty of the people under the contract of the constitution.
If you don’t understand sovereignty, concurrency and commonality why are you practicing law?
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 01:35:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760115902601658369
-
He is amazing. I can intuit what he’s doing but can’t imagine being able to do i
He is amazing. I can intuit what he’s doing but can’t imagine being able to do it myself. That said (a) he is ‘different’ in that sense, (b) he is different in his interface (c) and unfortunately he’s wrong…. But the fact that he’s wrong doesn’t impinge upon his abilities…
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-20 21:01:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760047045073584217
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760043149404094654
-
^”Mouse(Rat) Utopia”
^”Mouse(Rat) Utopia”
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-20 16:48:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759983280219164916
Reply addressees: @JackOfAwlTrades @demontage2000 @NetheriteSpart1 @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759972125790683308
-
OMG…. lol
OMG…. lol
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-20 11:44:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759906813510586376
Reply addressees: @NickmhTw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759864331381129717
-
(That’s not correct. It’s better to say above 160 we can’t really measure anythi
(That’s not correct. It’s better to say above 160 we can’t really measure anything.)
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-20 02:26:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759766502012485655
Reply addressees: @JohnPliskin6 @L0m3z @AlexaRuthless
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759765748719739117