I do not entirely disagree with you. I was just this afternoon thinking about the State Department's Naturalization test question, "How many justices serve on the Supreme Court of the United States?' It is arguable that the correct answer is "three." The other six are not serving . . . at least not the United States and its Consti…
I do not entirely disagree with you. I was just this afternoon thinking about the State Department's Naturalization test question, "How many justices serve on the Supreme Court of the United States?' It is arguable that the correct answer is "three." The other six are not serving . . . at least not the United States and its Constitution. They are nothing more than Republican shills in black robes.
Still, one has to at least pretend to have some hope. Are you willing to go along with the charade long enough to find out if we can salvage the idea of a nation under law served by its elected officials?
For what it's worth, I note that Rep Matt Gaetz in February, together with a couple dozen of his confederates, went to the trouble of introducing House Resolution 1001. It reads,
"Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Mr Gaetz's resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman.
No action has been taken on it since it was introduced.
Vincent schumacher ; "Still, one has to at least pretend to have some hope. Are you willing to go along with the charade long enough to find out if we can salvage the idea of a nation under law served by its elected officials?" I always have hope ; but the other side is not pretending or playing charades.
Laurie:
I do not entirely disagree with you. I was just this afternoon thinking about the State Department's Naturalization test question, "How many justices serve on the Supreme Court of the United States?' It is arguable that the correct answer is "three." The other six are not serving . . . at least not the United States and its Constitution. They are nothing more than Republican shills in black robes.
Still, one has to at least pretend to have some hope. Are you willing to go along with the charade long enough to find out if we can salvage the idea of a nation under law served by its elected officials?
For what it's worth, I note that Rep Matt Gaetz in February, together with a couple dozen of his confederates, went to the trouble of introducing House Resolution 1001. It reads,
"Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Mr Gaetz's resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman.
No action has been taken on it since it was introduced.
What does that lack of action suggest?
\Vince S
Vincent schumacher ; "Still, one has to at least pretend to have some hope. Are you willing to go along with the charade long enough to find out if we can salvage the idea of a nation under law served by its elected officials?" I always have hope ; but the other side is not pretending or playing charades.