We are assuming he can spell potato.He was probably just confused that they weren't potatoes.
He's from Idaho, I think it's a requirement you know how to spell it or they throw you in the Snake River. Plus it's on their license plates even.We are assuming he can spell potato.
The Idaho Spud is however quite tasty in my opinion.He's from Idaho, I think it's a requirement you know how to spell it or they throw you in the Snake River. Plus it's on their license plates even.
Just depends on the point of your post. If you're trying to convey legal technicality, maybe. But if you're just trying to speak generally about what has happened, admit seems fine.Edit. Maybe I should have said "disclose", not "admit".
To be fair, earning $300k for being at what is pretty much the absolute peak of your profession is a bit of a joke. That's basically asking for them to be bribed. I think it wouldn't be unfair for a Supreme Court Justice to be paid a million dollars a year. With the sort of power that they have, anyone in that job should be worth paying that much.The Supreme Court continues to admit corruption, but only under pressure, and only after a lot of delaying tactics.
Gift link - https://wapo.st/4aYn7lT
Edit. Maybe I should have said "disclose", not "admit".
To be fair, earning $300k for being at what is pretty much the absolute peak of your profession is a bit of a joke. That's basically asking for them to be bribed. I think it wouldn't be unfair for a Supreme Court Justice to be paid a million dollars a year. With the sort of power that they have, anyone in that job should be worth paying that much.
That said, they also shouldn't be taking gifts or compensation worth more than a trivial amount from people, maybe a few thousand dollars with some sort of total yearly cap. They're supposed to be working for the country. If they want to contribute back to the community in other ways like teaching and stuff then that's great, but they should be paid enough already for that to be charity.
It should be very important for them not to be seen as biased in any way, although obviously the court as it stands now is constructed for the maximum amount of bias from whoever gets to decide the nominees.
You'd have thought that being an actual Supreme Court Justice would be reward enough. It is pretty much the highest point a young lawyer can aim for if they decide to go down the Department of Justice route instead of work for a private law firm. $300k is hardly a pittance. If they wanted to earn the big bucks they should have gone into law and not justice. There's obviously going to be a relatively modest ceiling for govenment work.To be fair, earning $300k for being at what is pretty much the absolute peak of your profession is a bit of a joke. That's basically asking for them to be bribed. I think it wouldn't be unfair for a Supreme Court Justice to be paid a million dollars a year. With the sort of power that they have, anyone in that job should be worth paying that much.
Do you stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do you jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?
Edit: I'm picking shark because electricity doesn't have a nose to punch.
And somehow that's not the worst thing the bitch has said.Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised'
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a new recording says the battle for America "can't be compromised," and that one political party will "win."www.rollingstone.com
I'm shocked that Alito is a corrupt religious nutjob (who was certainly the one who leaked the Dobbs decision) and that Roberts in comparison has some sort of scruples about using the bench to legislate but is extremely weak as a Chief Justice.
The sequel to "person man woman camera tv" nobody asked for.Remember when we accused Sarah Palin of word salad? He's a buffet of glass shards and twisted metal.
And somehow that's not the worst thing the bitch has said.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't a category of speech that's not protected. It's not a category of speech at all. It's an example of speech and it's not an example of speech that's not protected. It's an example of speech provided in a terrible SCOTUS decision (made even more terrible by its unanimity) to affirm a conviction for advocating against conscription. That decision would be overturned 50 years later, but the new precedent didn't affect whether shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected because that example of speech was offered as dicta, basically a passing phrase, rather than as legal precedent.
Understanding this is literally the job of a Supreme Court Justice. If you've ever authored a majority, concurring or dissenting opinion on a case before the Court (Alito has done all three), you were to understand and address legal precedent. Of course Alito isn't actually there to do the job. The bitch is there to make or break policy on the basis of ideology. Connie vermin decry "activist judges" and they skip over Alito every single time because the bitch is doing exactly what they want.
Our society doesn't value honour and achievement over pure wealth though. Which means that a Supreme Court Justice that is poorly rewarded monetarily is still vulnerable to being bought out.You'd have thought that being an actual Supreme Court Justice would be reward enough.
If your work is valuable, then you should be paid appropriately. I think it's fair to assume that the work a (good) Supreme Court Justice is doing is valuable, incredibly so. They play a major role in shaping and protecting the laws of the country. That requires skill, intelligence and experience, and is not something where you want only the C+ students who couldn't get into a prestigious law firm.If they wanted to earn the big bucks they should have gone into law and not justice. There's obviously going to be a relatively modest ceiling for govenment work.
So about that...President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial
Hunter Biden has been convicted of all three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.apnews.com
I remember a time when this would have been the scandal of the century. Now it hardly even feels relevant other than as evidence that there is not some vast conspiracy.
They're likely to support drug prohibitions, including federally (but "states' rights"?). Plus that's not an individual right explicitly enshrined in the Constitution [grumbles in Ninth Amendment] so they're emboldened.They should be outraged that there were restrictions impeding this man's right to bear arms.
Möbius gymnastics.Cognitive dissonance.
they've already got their ducks in a row.
Conservatives are reacting to Hunter Biden’s felony conviction on Tuesday in seemingly the only way they know how: claiming it’s part of an elaborate conspiracy by the Department of Justice to weaken their outrage over Trump’s own felony convictions.
Many braincells died while reading those words.Lol...
Hunter Biden Verdict Sparks Unbelievable MAGA Conspiracy Theories
The far-right’s reaction to Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict is truly unbelievable.newrepublic.com
I'll take your word for it.Such a funny subreddit to read if you ever need convincing there really are that many dumb Trump supporters.
Have Trump and Hunter share a cell.