As the Lauren Boebert "SugarDaddyMeet.com-Gate" begins to expand...and it is going to expand a lot

Says the person who thinks they can make a text say whatever they want, that up is down.

 

No, the rules of the English language and what's written on the page do.
We've been over this dear.

 

You have missed the point.

 

I'm with CJ Hughes on that.

 

And you still don't understand.

 

Says the person that uses the word prohibit in a sentence to describe a condition he later defines as no prohibition.

 

Indeed you are with the activist partisan on that, an immoral and disgusting practice.

 

I suspect you don't know who Charles Evans Hughes was.

 

The man who murdered substantive due process because FDR threatened things he couldn't deliver on?

Yes I'm rather well aware of who he is dear.

 

Your view seems to be an outlier.
Charles Evans Hughes - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Charles_Evans_Hughes

Charles Evans Hughes Sr. (April 11, 1862 – August 27, 194 was an American statesman, politician and jurist who served as the 11th Chief Justice of the ...

". . . In the evaluation of historian Dexter Perkins, in domestic politics:

Hughes was a happy mixture of the liberal and the conservative. He was wise enough to know that you cannot preserve a social order unless you eradicate its abuses, and so he was never a stand-patter. On the other side he could see that change carried perils as well as promises. Sometimes he stood out against these perils. He was not always wise, it is true. We do not have to agree with him in everything. But he stands a noble and constructive figure in American life.[128]
In the consensus view of scholars, Hughes as a diplomat was:

an outstanding Secretary of State. He possessed a clear vision of America's position in the new international system. The United States would be a world leader, not only in terms of its ability to provide material progress, but also by its advocacy of diplomacy and arbitration over military force. Hughes was fully committed to the supremacy of negotiation and the maintenance of American foreign policy. This quality was combined with an ability to maintain a clear sense of the larger goals of American diplomacy.... He was able to maintain control over US foreign policy and take the country into a new role as a world power.[129]
Hughes has been honored in a variety of ways, including in the names of several schools, rooms, and events. Other things named for Hughes include the Hughes Range in Antarctica. On April 11, 1962, the 100th anniversary of Hughes's birth, the U.S. Post Office issued a commemorative stamp in his honor.[130] The Charles Evans Hughes House, now the Burmese ambassador's residence, in Washington, D.C., was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1972.

Judge Learned Hand once observed that Hughes was the greatest lawyer he had ever known, "except that his son (Charles Evans Hughes Jr.) was even greater."[131]"

 

Wow some ******bag on wikipedia that he was a happy mix of **** up and **** down. Guess him overturning liberty of contract by saying it wasn't ever a thing a year after he said it was a thing and a basic constitutional protection never happened then!?!?
Joy.

 

As you wish.
The Supreme Court . Printable Page | PBS - Thirteen.org
https://www.thirteen.org › print › landmark_westcoast

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, ... it restrained "liberty" of contract without due process of the law.

". . . . West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, sensibly as it reads today, was a radical and controversial departure in 1937. The decision directly overturned the landmark decision Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), which ruled that laws fixing terms of employment contracts violated the Due Process Clause because the clause protects a substantive right to freely contract labor ("substantive" due process). Although the Court's sudden rejection of "substantive" due process has sometimes been attributed to political pressures, because the decision was issued right after President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a "court-packing scheme" that would have added "anti-Lochner" justices to the Court to protect New Deal legislation, the Court actually voted on the case prior to Roosevelt's announcement of his proposal. The exact chronology of events aside, historians debate whether and to what degree the day's political climate affected Justice Josephus Roberts' unexpected switch -- sometimes referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine" -- to the pro-New Deal wing of the Court. West Coast Hotel's position on economic regulations remains settled law today."

 

Yes I'm very much aware of West Coast Hotel v Parrish. That would be exactly the case I'm talking about where he did an about face on liberty of contract, after not only having dozens of decisions over the years both during and prior to his tenure ratify it, but literally ruling on one the year before.

It may shock you but I've read it and Lochner as well as literally hundreds of other cases. That would be the book learning part of law school.

 

Yes, and . . . ?
That would be for those who went to law school.

 

She could screw 20 guys in the middle of 5th Ave and Republicans wouldn't care. As long as she doesn't bring any gay sex into it ( That's what got Cawthorn in trouble after all ) , and she continues to own the Libs, they will support her no matter what.

 

It's not code at all. I would be happy to discuss that with you in another thread, just not this one because...you are derailing the thread.

 

Soooo, today is Friday 2022-06-024 and although the weekend has long come and gone, nowhere on a legal docket anywhere in the USA is a lawsuit against muckrakers on the part of Lauren Boebert to be found. NOWHERE.

LOL.

Apparently, L'il Miss Escort Boebert's team is just plain old too busy to carry out their threat to sue....

As I wrote on Wednesday: he probability is far higher that team #sugardaddyslutforjesus knows that the muckrakers have absolutely devastating evidence and are now trying to figure out how to keep it from coming out, but that is all for naught. If that is the case, then team #y'allneedjesusnowletmeridethisolddudesponyforawhile is royally ****ed because in the absence of a lawsuit, then the muckrakers can let this evidence drip-drip-drip out there at times and places of their choosing, inflicting maximum damage on an unworthy american traitor who was literally live-tweeting Nancy Pelosi's whereabouts while the murderous insurrection / attempted Trump-coup was taking place.

Yepp, it's root-beer and popcorn time, I would say.

I will repeat: both Boebert and her two-bit lawyer have threatened to file a lawsuit, but interestingly enough, they have to this date not done this, in spite of the fact that the scandal has been out there for about 11 days now.

 

I was taught to "measure twice and cut once." Boebert's accusers should probably be worried that her team is proceeding deliberately.

 

If you aren't progressive or left libertarian but still support Biden, you're a neocon...If you're neocon, you're in the blue square of the political graph...If you're progressive, you're in the red square. If you're the circle on the political graph, that makes me infer you're libertarian to a degree. If you're libertarian to a degree, what's so offensive about Trump (especially since you advocate more for capitalism according to the positioning of the circle) ?

 

For you not being authoritarian, you sure seem to enjoy telling me what to do (or think).

 

1) As stated I don't support Biden.
2) Neo cons are more auth center.
3) Not libertarian to a degree, right-libertarian. If you're in that quadrant that's the generalized descriptor, there are of course silly sub groups.
4) Trump is not libertarian, and he's not capitalist in the libertarian sense either. Trump for example rewrote a statutory definition to ban bump stocks, which is far outside the power of the presidency. Profligate expansions of federal or state power at the expense of civil liberties, especially enumerated rights, are not libertarian actions. Trump is essentially a democrat with some window dressing so republicans will vote for him ffs.

 

It only becomes authoritarian when its backed up by nice men with firearms and a piece of paper some congresscritters signed off on.

 

(1) Neocons are in the blue sector of the graph (I would think the sector where neocons reside should be red since they're GOP)...Are capitalism-loving authoritarians.
(2) Trump isn't a libertarian. Trump believes too much in sustaining the federal gov't to be libertarian but Trump is conservative.
I infer you don't think Trump is a capitalist 'cause Trump imposed tariffs on the Chinese. Well since there were no taxes in the first few administrations of the nascent US federal government, federal money was raised solely by tariffs.

 

You've confused the term totalitarian and authoritarian, IMO. Totalitarian refers to the 'black shirted style' of life under Mussolini in Italy, for example.
Authoritarian refers to anything which isn't libertarian in some form.