sqwakvfr

Next time at least let it be a Tag Heuer or even a Rolex.

As long it is not a Saudi based airline then the Beer and Wine can flow and I mean flow. I was on flights where as soon as the plane is in international airspace the men change into t-shirts, jeans and start drinking. On a five hour flight to BKK at best I would have two beers for some of my fellow Arab Passengers two beers was just a warm up. Before the pandemic some Middle East carriers had 3 flight a day to BKK. The ‘good old days” of flights from the Middle East might be back?

The state of California has a population of 45 Million and the state Supreme Court has 7 justices. So your argument pegging the size of a Supreme Court based upon population does not seem logical. Just my opinion. Heck India has over 1 billion people. So their Supreme Court should have how many? 33, 45 or 99 justices? A US Supreme Court with 17 justices would “slow the process down to a crawl”. I can just imagine the process where each of the 17 justices question the lawyers during oral argument phase and subsequently 17 justices then have to discuss the merits or lack of merits of a case in order to reach a decision. I can see a scenario where it could take a long time to even achieve even a 9-8 majority decision. Hence mission accomplished: Judicial Gridlock.

Doubling is not stacking? What kind of country has 18 Supreme Court Justices? Also, it cannot be an even number due to the fact this would cause Judicial Gridlock? Even with 17 Supreme Court Justices(they would need a much larger chamber, more chairs and mare clerks) Judicial Gridlock is probable. Maybe that is what some really want. With Gridlock not much is done. This sounds the like the proverbial “endgame”.

ABC News and Terry Moran. That settles it. Clarence Thomas needs to go? The right to interstate travel is now in jeopardy? It is now what he says that is relevant but how he decides on the bench that matters. As far as I know I can buy condoms and can travel from CA to AZ.

Ah, so Stare Decis is not legally relevant now and instead it was the “radical activist religious court” argument now. I get what you are saying now. ‘ The US Supreme Court hears approximately 100 case per year. The court narrows down the number of case it wants to hear from the 1000’s that are submitted. Previously you argued that Stare Decis should prevent the US Supreme Court from overturning Roe V. Wade and now it was the “radical activist religious court:” argument. I was wrong to call Ted Lieu a clown but I would never call any US Justice a “radical religious activist”.

Legally speaking, based upon your reasoning, then Stare Decis would limit the authority of any appeals court and the US Supreme Court. Then why don’t you present a case where an appeals court or even the US Supreme Court affirmed a past decision based solely on Stare Decis and did not allow oral arguments. I have never heard of any appeals court or even the US Supreme Court refuse to hear a case strictly based upon Stare Decis. Appeals courts and the the US Supreme often decline to hear cases but not strictly based upon the principle of Stare Decis alone. There are always other factors that lead to such decisions. Also, the US Supreme Court has binding authority on any past case adjudicated in any US Court. Even past Supreme Court cases.

In the US Justice System No Law, No past ruling and No conviction is immune from being overturned. If argued in front of any appeals court it con be overturned. Love it or Hate that is the way it is.

It could have been reaffirmed 100 times but it can still be overturned.

Stare Decis, so one precedent is all that is needed? Also, it is a legal principle and not law. Have you ever heard of a precedent that is overturned? This is what happens in appeals court? Just as convictions can be overturned on appeal so can past cases. If I testify on one day that i would stay the course(legally speaking) but the next day more more or new evidence is presented then as a Judge I am prohibited from overturning any past case? This is why cases are presented to the appeals courts and ultimately the US Supreme Court. To overturn past rulings. For the Pro Lifers, mission accomplished(I do not support this ruling but this is called Due Process). Unfortunately the US Supreme Court is the “end of the road” and the only other option is to codify with legislation. About Congressman Ted Lieu, this is the opinion of many in his district. He is not as extreme as his partner, AOC, but he is getting there. At one time I had a great deal of respect when he served on the Torrance City Council and served as a JAG Officer in the United States Air Force Reserve but he has changed and often aligns himself with allCongressman Adam Schiff. You know about Schiff right?

Ocasio-Cortez and LIeu. I used to live in LIeu's congressional district. He is more focused gaining national attention than doing anything for his district. Many in his district think he is a clown. He wins re-election because many in just don't vote. Again, no evidence presented of Perjury.

Yeah. That is what I said. But a conversation between a Senator and a Judicial Nominee is not under oath. Senator Collins implied she was lied to by a Barrett during a conversation in her office. This is not perjury. Exactly what was the lie during the confirmation hearings? Also, it is a Confirmation Hearing and not Hearing for Confirmation. I have testified under oath 100's of times. So I know a little something about the consequences of perjury. Do you?

Example of Evidence: Lying while under oath at a Senate Confirmation Hearing. AKA-Perjury, an arrestable offense. It such evidence exists than it's up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute. Example of Not Evidence: A conversation between a Senator and a Judicial Nominee in her office. So far I cannot find a law that states lying to a Senator while not under oath is a crime. Therefore, the evidence of lying under oath that can be proven is at this point non-existent.

Echo Chamber-an environment where a person only hears information that reflect and reinforce their beliefs.

Is your evidence admissible in a court of law? I am not in an echo chamber. I do not read links from others.

Evidence? Ok. So both Kavaaugh and Barrett both testified under oath they will never overturn Roe V. Wade? Great then both should be removed from the Supreme Court and indicted for Perjury?

It was a simple question. What if the question had been “can you define what a male/man is?” Also, I went to a public university and barely graduated with a 2.9 GPA so pardon my ignorance but what exactly does “educated aplomb” mean? Also, I am not a religious person(too many years working the streets of Los Angeles) so I don’t have religious or political agenda(did not vote for Trump, Clinton or Biden). I guess I am agnostic in terms of religion and politics. Also, who lied to the Senate?

No.

Yes. Jackson said “I am not a biologist”. The politician in question, Senator Blackburn, asked a simple question to someone who was under going confirmation to the highest court in the nation and could not answer this simple question? Whether Senator Blackburn is the “stupidest politician” is up to debate because the list for that title is long and varied but “Can you define a woman?”. She could have just said “I am a woman”. This could have shut down Blackburn.

My first experience with this issue that should not be a issue was in 1998. As a police officer in Los Angeles I dealt with all kinds of people. I arrested a suspect for shoplifting from a Victoria's Secret. The suspect was about 6 feet, about 200 lbs, unshaven, wearing a wig, a tight blouse and a tight skirt. He claimed to be a woman. I asked him a question that I could not ask now: Do you have penis?. He replied yes but "I am a woman". He demanded a female police officer. A female officer was not available. I took custody of this suspect and transported him to the Male side of the Jail. A male custody officer conducted a thorough search of the suspect and he was placed in a cell with other male suspects. This was 24 years ago. Cross dressers in Los Angeles was not uncommon and they were treated based upon on their gender and the gender they claimed bot be.. If I had done the same thing now I would have been fired. i am so glad that I am retired. As Louis Armstrong said "Oh what a wonderful world".

Which cultures and how many genders? Also, which genders can get pregnant and give birth? I do not recall hearing about this "gender" fluidity concept until about a year ago. The first time I heard about this nonsense was a confirmation hearing for a Biden administration nominee(I think it was for the Department of Health?)

As my Jewish friends would say "Yada, Yada and Yada". All style and little substance. The classic definition of Diplomacy. In a time of battle the last person I would want in my foxhole is Anthony Blinken.

Well the newest associate justice to the United States Supreme court not define a woman as well. So the Church of England is in good company. What has the world come to? Yes, as an American "we started this nonsense".

I hope I never have to test your theory?

That could be a problem if normal consular services are suspended in Chiang Mai. Good luck taking a flight from CNX to BKK as a foreigner without a passport unless you have a Thai Drivers License.