Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)BR
Posts
0
Comments
317
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • That's a very sensationalist way to phrase your point and makes you sound fairly biased in the matter.

    In the law, religious belief is a protected class, but dietary choice is not. A reasonable debate could be had about if it should be protected. The prison system nor the court room is the right forum, because it needs to be decided by the legislature.

  • I think a lot of people feel that youtube is getting to eat all of the cake and is only offering crackers in return.

    I think people accept that services need to advertise to survive, but become upset when that level of advertisemeant becomes excessive.

  • The presumption of innocence is really important because it reduces the chance for abusing the prosecutorial process (of course that does still happen). Prosecutors must show beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. That's a high bar to clear, but it gets easier when the defendant builds you a staircase.

    Every defendant deserves the right to plead guilty, even this criminal.

  • First off, I absolutely will not defend the current Supreme Court. I disagree with them significantly.

    However, their opinion in this matter has only slightly more importance then yours or mine, and only because they are recognized legal scholars (or at least they are supposed to be) and we are not. The US Constitution does not grant them any power to judge a State's constitution, so long as it does not infringe on a right of the US constitution. It wouldn't even be possible to petition the Supreme Court on this issue because no lower court would hear it.

  • Determining how care of the children within a state is handled may be the responsibility of the state only (I'm not certain of this). If it is, then this case would be handled by the state supreme court, and would never be seen by the US supreme court.

    The only way I can see this getting out of the state courts is if the prospective foster parents can show that their constitutional rights were infringed. Being a foster parent isn't a right (you don't apply for rights), so I don't see what they could claim.