NolaAuTiger

When you say "they," you are referring to social media apps, right? Are you suggesting that gun manufacturers are not being regulated in ways that forces them to be accountable? In other words, neither social media apps nor gun manufacturers are regulated in ways that ensure accountability--is that your position?

Houston's decline parallels the political shift in Harris County's judiciary.

You would know, wouldn't you, ya'ol fart? Love you, Homer.

Thank you for addressing my questions.

So too did the dude who authored the OP, as well as the "legal experts" the dude relied on.

Ahh, of course. The judge erred? His bias got the best of him? Okay then, let's hear your expert legal analysis on why dismissal was improper. I'll wait . . . Let's hear your expert legal analysis here, too. I'll wait . . .

Before blindly concluding that SB57 would "speed the dissolution of the United States," you should have looked at the actual bill, in particular the part that says: Elsewhere, SB57 defines "federal directive" as follows: SB57 does not construct a process to ignore federal laws and regulations. On the contrary, it provides a procedure to prohibit the use of state personnel and state resources to enforce, or assist in the enforcement of, federal directives infringing state sovereignty. There is nothing radical about this. It would not impede the federal government from enforcing its own directives. The federal government can pass statutes; it can develop programs; and it can create regulations. But it cannot command enforcement by a state nor prohibit a state's refusal.

This did not age well . . . https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018d-6103-d4fe-addf-6b5f29c30000

This is a remarkable mischaracterization of what "the lawyers for Trump argued" and is belied by the very transcript on which it rests. Judge Pan posed the hypothetical with the assumption that it (the hypothetical) is "an official act," as opposed to an unofficial act. Trump's lawyer responded that any president, under this hypothetical, would be subject to criminal prosecution. As he pointed out, however, the Constitution and Marbury instruct that "article three courts lack [ ] jurisdiction to engage in examination of the president's official acts" subject to the "explicit exception to that principle in the impeachment judgment clause." The Framers intentionally divested Article III Courts' jurisdiction in this manner because they were concerned about politically motivated prosecutions based on official acts; they never said, as Trump's attorney further acknowledged, "the president can never be prosecuted." On the contrary, they devised an explicit exception in the impeachment judgment clause. Your thrashing about regarding the "load of shiiiiiiite Trump is dumping on the American people" is a glaring irony. Stop sucking the toes of MSNBC.

Then there you have it. You want a constitutional right to worship satan? Just “imagine” it into the constitution and there you go! What a reliable interpretive method. This is akin to virtually every “new right” the Warren Court declared under the guise of “substantive due process,” ie, sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Okay? You either didn’t understand my comment or you’re giving a tortured spin on it. This is like saying the first amendment doesn’t protect private letters on parchment paper (which isn’t “speech” and isn’t “press”). I’m sure you’re a fan of the Carpenter case. Again, you’re putting your own tortured spin on what I said. My point was not that the first amendment does not protect other manners of belief. Rather, religion - and only religion - is the only manner of belief it expressly mentions. Again, the whole point goes back to my initial contention at the start of this thread. Read it.

What was the understanding of “religion” at the time the Constitution was ratified? Did it include Satanism? But of course, if you think we should just look to the ether when deciding what the Constitution means, my questions won’t amount to a hill of beans for you.

Let’s parlay.

I can scroll up to the question I presented, the part where you interjected, and are now flailing about with irrelevance.

Undermining basic founding principles by contending the Framers didn’t maintain a separationist view and citing facts supporting my position? 😂😂😂😂

I’ll DM you my Venmo 😎

Even you know, there is something called the Fourteenth Amendment. I will bet you $5k this gets overturned on that ground. You down?

Due process be damned!

You mean the words that protect religion (and no other manner of belief)? Also, are you going to address the actual inquiry or not? You don’t get to interject and then cry “irrelevant!” No sir, no sir, old pal.

As the saying goes, “you can’t BS a BS-er.” I’m in good company. *Looking at you

Good points. Thanks. The contracts clause is intriguing but rarely implicated.

Homer, this entire issue derived from a question I asked DKW. If you think it’s a waste of time, why interject yourself into our discussion?

I think you touched on it above re existing contracts. If Chick-fil-A has a x-year lease with a renewal clause, wouldn’t the bill potentially interfere with its exercise of that contractual right and accompanying obligations (ie, notice etc)? This is a very rough hypothetical, but perhaps you understand what I’m getting at?

I’m not sure that changes the analysis.

That’s what I’m asking. Have you considered it?

Indeed! As I noted, "the Framers were instead concerned with preventing the establishment of a national church." See, I'm not a total BS-er.