The same white wife the black man has a prenup with? Prenups in 2023 don't account for your marriage becoming void because the husband overturned the ruling that made interracial marriages legal.
That man has to go. He's either being blackmailed, others or he's putting himself first, and damn anyone else. His ruling history is also bad. As in unsound judgments bad. CT will have his decisions revisited when he's impeached and 90% have already been torn apart in YouTube with legal lessons as to why.
I do not like Sotomayor outside of her rulings. But, I've taken the time to read a few of her rulings. I was very upset to realize the person I was reading about was the same person I was seeing with Pelosi doing dumb shit.
Also, my son has a habit of watching people that read entire bills, and explaining them. I'm not interested in all of them, but some of them he still has questions. Which means I have to view the material to understand his question.
You can get a brief opinion on every judge we currently have with this case
Critically, however, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh were sympathetic to arguments made by the Postal Service that granting Groff's request might cause morale to plummet among the other employees. Kavanaugh noted that "morale" among employers is critical to the success of any business. And several justices nodded to the financial difficulties the USPS has faced over the years.
Don't forget the USPS just had walkouts due to LOWERING wages. Packages are slow like it was Christmas season, and now they took it to court that they can change a schedule whenever. They were already a shit place to work. Now they are on the, 'don't bother" lists, and this ruling was the icing on the cake.
You may not like reuters. But, they gave every single judge air time. See for yourself. CNN expanded on, " the judges asked questions" by stating which questions. I did not like rhe way that played out. It's too pro corporate for my taste.
And, the dailydot is an article written about a tiktok my son showed me. I don't have tiktok. But, you can view it in the article. It's personal testimony on the tok with researched details elaborating in the article.
What precisely is there to take issue with?
I gave you an example, and on review I realized I had read more details. I found you those details. I gave you another example, and I found you those details. I'm gonna be honest... your reply was very disheartening Vlad. Disagree with my opinion. And tell me why, just like before. I'll learn something. Just like before. Don't complain about how I'm trying to show you examples of how I learned. I didn't shit talk your source. ( although if it's a smaller channel I would delete it).
I have a very antiwork pro union bias. And that case horrified me. But, that's the most recent case I read about. It's the easiest example. Specifically because you have already made opinions on judges. Why wouldn't you want an example from each and every one. ( On a case I disagree with no less!)
CT wants to revisit everything specifically to overturn it. Did you forget about his wife? The one he made public disparaging statements about?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/24/wife-of-supreme-court-justice-thomas-texted-trump-chief-about-overturning-2020-election-report.html
The same white wife the black man has a prenup with? Prenups in 2023 don't account for your marriage becoming void because the husband overturned the ruling that made interracial marriages legal.
That man has to go. He's either being blackmailed, others or he's putting himself first, and damn anyone else. His ruling history is also bad. As in unsound judgments bad. CT will have his decisions revisited when he's impeached and 90% have already been torn apart in YouTube with legal lessons as to why.
Seems like you are falling for the corporate jew propaganda.
He's the least threatening justice on the supreme court.
Most of them deserve immediate impalement, such as Kagan and Sotomayor and Breyer and Roberts.
I do not like Sotomayor outside of her rulings. But, I've taken the time to read a few of her rulings. I was very upset to realize the person I was reading about was the same person I was seeing with Pelosi doing dumb shit.
Also, my son has a habit of watching people that read entire bills, and explaining them. I'm not interested in all of them, but some of them he still has questions. Which means I have to view the material to understand his question.
You can get a brief opinion on every judge we currently have with this case
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-tackles-religious-bias-claim-against-postal-service-2023-04-18/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/politics/groff-dejoy-supreme-court-religious-liberty/index.html
Don't forget the USPS just had walkouts due to LOWERING wages. Packages are slow like it was Christmas season, and now they took it to court that they can change a schedule whenever. They were already a shit place to work. Now they are on the, 'don't bother" lists, and this ruling was the icing on the cake.
https://www.dailydot.com/news/usps-rural-post-office-pay-cut/
It's interesting you like the ones that side more often with companies over people.
you are linking to the curated facts and twisted lies of reuters, cnn, and dailydot
Are you coming up with these ideas on your own, or just gradually allowing these propaganda outlets mold your perception?
You may not like reuters. But, they gave every single judge air time. See for yourself. CNN expanded on, " the judges asked questions" by stating which questions. I did not like rhe way that played out. It's too pro corporate for my taste.
And, the dailydot is an article written about a tiktok my son showed me. I don't have tiktok. But, you can view it in the article. It's personal testimony on the tok with researched details elaborating in the article.
What precisely is there to take issue with?
I gave you an example, and on review I realized I had read more details. I found you those details. I gave you another example, and I found you those details. I'm gonna be honest... your reply was very disheartening Vlad. Disagree with my opinion. And tell me why, just like before. I'll learn something. Just like before. Don't complain about how I'm trying to show you examples of how I learned. I didn't shit talk your source. ( although if it's a smaller channel I would delete it).
I have a very antiwork pro union bias. And that case horrified me. But, that's the most recent case I read about. It's the easiest example. Specifically because you have already made opinions on judges. Why wouldn't you want an example from each and every one. ( On a case I disagree with no less!)
Seems like OP is purposely spreading the jew propaganda.
Prove anything I sourced wrong. Show me where and why.
Source? SOURCE? SAUCE?
Go fuck yourself.