SCOTUS decides the limit (if it exists) of that power.
SCOTUS decides the limit (if it exists) of that power.
What if SCOTUS decide he can do all those things?
The maid was cleaning the presidents office. This was clearly presidential. Business. SCOTUS rules not guilty.
Do you believe that scenario is totally impossible?
Op is not saying don’t vote. They are saying sway voters have been swayed.
Definition of Private Acts can be fluid.
Isn’t the point that SCOTUS could decide that killing a maid was within the responsibilities of office.
I tried playing online once, but even standing still my wanted level crept up and up until I was killed.
Maybe my original ps3 code was outdated.
I thought everyone was a dog until proven otherwise.
There’s always money in the banana Republic
Couldn’t the next president rip that order up and replace it with their own definition?
Is non violent insurrection on the table?
Most people’s response to a naked child on a beach is indifference. I know this because young kids play naked on nearly every European beach, nude or not. And no-one cares.
Your reaction is not indifference, so it stands out.
I don’t mind which position you take, game or comic, but switching mid argument is just bad form.
You are correct. It’s been a long time since my last game.
That wasn’t your position earlier.
“but the point is that those three are about to be completed”
Actions speak louder than words. Let’s review what happened.
Guilty
Guilty
Guilty. Note that it’s very easy to claim others didn’t follow the rules when you are the ones writing them (possibly retroactively).
Strange how Ra is allowed in scrabble but not Sa
You can’t progress 2 words at the same time.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous.
Source. Disingenuous is trying to claim the DNC chair was not biased
The emails that were stolen show people being mean,
Showing bias in positions of responsibility is not “being mean”
but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything.
Debate questions in advance.
6 heads in a row.
Obtuse financing rules.
Etc.
Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
She did. Eight years ago.
Yes. Because there was clear evidence of bias. Straight after, Debbie was rewarded with an honorary chair of the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
How are you sure there was no misconduct?
How are you sure there was no impact?
When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Or, because Hillary controled the party’s finances, procedures were made deliberately obtuse to her advantage.
Lower court ruling gets appealed and the decision ends up back with SCOTUS.
You obviously didn’t understand the implications of the ruling.