Oldsouljer said:
Civilized said:
Oldsouljer said:
cornelius the great said:
Oldsouljer said:
Civilized said:
Oldsouljer said:
Civilized said:
Werewolf said:
Civilized said:
Gulfstream4 said:
Werewolf said:
#Sieve, are you voting for Muslim Brotherhood candidates?
#Sieve, would you vote for a Hasan Piker supported candidate, or a MAGA Republican?
These radicals are slowly taking over the Democratic Party
Hate to break it to you but Republicans can't run on anything but grievance and hate and xenophobia at this point, and that ain't gonna cut it when the the brown Muslim communist is a helluva lot smarter, more relatable, more empathetic, and more serious than the establishment.
#Sieve has answered. He's voting straight ticket Muslim Brotherhood & Communism.
Yeah that old commie terrorist Roy Cooper is pretty scary.
That he masquerades his true character and intentions more effectively than his fellow ideological radicals? Yes, that does make him especially dangerous to the Constitution.
There is no halfway objective lens in which Cooper isn't viewed as a pragmatic, middle of the road Democrat that has been atypically bipartisan in this extraordinarily partisan environment.
And calling Cooper "dangerous to the Constitution," is laughable given the Constitutional hijinks we've seen the last two years.
The time y'all waste trying to twist moderates into progressives, and progressives into Islamist communist jihadist Trojan Horses, all while turning a blind eye to the totally unethical ineptitude and historic electoral unpopularity of the current Administration is a choice, I guess, but one that's going to get a Pubs run out of office on a rail in November.
It doesn't seem to bother you in the least that he deprived North Carolinians of their First Amendment rights of religion, assembly, and expression a few short years ago, but Constitutionalists aren't interested in whataboutism, and the subject is Cooper, not your deflection topic.
Explain please. Those are some lofty allegations.
Did neither of you live here in 2021? Bans on church services but casinos and ABC stores remained open. The courts jumped on this one early with federal judge James C. Dever III noting that there's "no pandemic exception" to the Constitution.
That's your example of his Constitutional assault?
A temporary population-level measure intended to keep people from dying during a novel public health crisis?
LOLOL
Roy didn't wake up on a normal Tuesday and randomly decide people shouldn't go to church.
Motive and means and abiding by the court ruling matter significantly here.
Use your imagination. Is there any possible nefarious motive you could ascribe to that situation? Was he trying to permanently revoke a constitutional right? Is there any way Roy could personally benefit from it? Enrich himself from it? Stay in office because of it? Did anyone die due to his actions? Did he try to defy the court ruling by executive order, or otherwise?
There are light years between Roy's administration's singular temporary measure in response to a global pandemic, and this Presidential administration's repeated attempts to circumvent, defy, or ignore the Constitution and subsequent Circuit and Supreme Court rulings.
To a constitutionalist, that was a serious breach of constitutional rights, and as a lawyer, Cooper should have known better. Saving lives? That's unproven and as already said, not relevant to the law. If you don't see it that way, the Constitution doesn't mean much to you, and you wouldn't really understand.
OK.
So the least gracious possible interpretation of Roy's actions was that it was a breach, (I have a hard time with calling it grave, given the underlying motive and also the clearly temporary nature, but whatever) which was appropriately corrected by the courts, and Roy's administration had no apparent quibbles with abiding by the court ruling.
Still quite the contrast with the Trump Administration's half-dozen or more clear attempts to circumvent or ignore either the Constitution or the judicial reviews of their actions, all in situations lacking the novel nature; time sensitivity; and clearly temporary intent of Roy's administration's actions.
My broader point is that, as a strict constitutionalist, it would be wildly selective to offended by Roy's administration's singular, temporary action but not be downright despondent over both Trump's assaults and his attempts to circumvent the courts.
