Half Of All Ukrainian Children Displaced | The Mehdi Hasan Show

Wladimir Klitschko: The Third World War Has Already Started In Ukraine

The US waited to enter world war 2 until it affected us personally. Same with the world war 1. World war 3 is here now. How will history see the US, as a defender of the attacked people, or weak and fearful of the attackers. Look we are involved. We are sending arms, we are sending intel, we are giving advice, we are giving money, the only damn thing we are not giving is our own ability to save lives. I was a US military man, I served in two branches of the US military. There are things we believe in and the stopping the slaughter of the defenseless is one of those things. Look back at history and see when the US intervened in a conflict. Will we wait until all the women and children are killed and driven out? What is our goal? If we want to save lives how do you say we need to wait because the future life saved is more worthy than the lives of the dead children happening now. It is easy to give support from a world away when our kids are not dying, when our elderly are not going hungry starving to death. The US is a world leader willing to stand up, or we are not and need to stand down. Now we find out where the real spine of the US is.

‘My mother was still alive while she was on fire’: Teen describes horrific attack

Enough Damn it, enough! The US and NATO has the ability to stop much of this, stop more of these kids suffering from watching their mothers burn to death. Think about what the rest of this kid’s life is going to be like. The US doesn’t have to declare war on Russia, the US doesn’t have to threaten to invade Russia. We simply need to say no more and close the airspace above Ukraine. Yes Russia will threaten to use nukes or biological weapons. But remember the idea of mutual destruction is the counter threat. We don’t need to storm and yell; we don’t need to threaten to go first. We do what we have always done and say if you start it with that, we will end you! All bets are off then. Why is it only Russia and Putin get to threaten and the US backs off. Nato wants to do more, but without the US they cannot. We are watching atrocities happen and saying we could stop it but maybe the guy behind it will get even more angry. Either we stand for something or we do not. There are things worth dying for. The US as attacked enough countries to get what we wanted; it is now time for the US to use its military might to stop the tragedy now happening. We once said never again. Did we mean it? A genocide is happening, but we say we won’t stop it because we are afraid the person behind it might do worse. We are going to look back at what is happening in Ukraine with the full knowledge we could have stopped it and were too afraid. Damn it, we as a country do not have so many things other countries do so we can maintain the world’s most might military, yet we cower when others threaten that if we use it they will react. If we wont act because the enemy might do something then reduce the damn military and give me universal healthcare, give us free college, give us a higher standard of living because being afraid to use the military we give up those things to pay for is useless. Look anyone who says we may be saving other lives needs to ask these kids if they think it is worth it our staying out of it as they watch their friends and families die. Ask the families that have seen their kids die if it is worth the worry about the maybe others dying. These people are dying right now damn it. Right now. We do not need to invade Russia, we just need to be willing to threaten, to use our might. From the start we said we wouldn’t fight, now we watch kids die, pregnant mothers die, where is the pro-life militia? Am I angry yes I am. Either we use our might or admit we only take on those unable to stand up to us. That is the stance of bullies and cowards.

Sen. John Cornyn Grills Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on Marriage Equality in SCOTUS Hearing

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2022/3/22/john-cornyn-ketanji-brown-jackson-marriage-equality-video

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, questioning nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, asserted that with marriage equality, the Supreme Court created a right not in the Constitution.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas called the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling an “edict” and an example of policy-making by the court when questioning nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearing Tuesday.

Cornyn, a Republican, posited that the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision created a new right that is not in the U.S. Constitution, and he questioned the court’s authority to make the decision, as 32 states had passed laws or constitutional amendments against marriage equality. He brought up a conflict with religion as well.

“When the Supreme Court decides that something that is not even in the Constitution is a fundamental right and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the Supreme Court’s edict, particularly in an area where people have sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn’t that necessarily create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith and what the federal government says is the law of the land?” Cornyn asked.

“That is the nature of a right,” Jackson responded. “That when there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The Obergefell ruling — which Cornyn appeared to call “Oberfelt” — does not require any religious institution or clergy member to perform a marriage that goes against their beliefs. There have been questions before the Supreme Court and lower courts about whether businesses and nonprofit groups have a right to refuse service to same-sex couples on the basis of beliefs about marriage.

In the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s finding that cakeshop owner Jack Phillips had committed illegal discrimination in refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The court found that the commission had shown insufficient respect for Phillips’s religious beliefs, but it limited the ruling to that case rather than establishing a broad right to discriminate. The court took a similarly narrow view in ruling last year that an adoption and foster care agency could still work for the city of Philadelphia despite refusing to serve same-sex couples, in conflict with the city’s antidiscrimination law. The high court has now agreed to take up the case of a website designer who objects to creating wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Because of pending cases, Jackson said she was limited in what she could say about potential conflicts between marriage rights and religious beliefs. But Cornyn pressed on, saying that Obergefell was decided under a judicial philosophy known as “substantive due process,” and he contended that rulings such as Dred Scott, the pre-Civil War decision that upheld the legality of slavery, were decided on the same basis. “I don’t quite remember the basis of Dred Scott,” Jackson replied.

She also said judges have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which includes the right to due process of law, to include not just procedural rights but personal rights involving intimate relationships.

On other topics, Cornyn accused Jackson of calling former President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “war criminals” in a case related to terrorism defendants; she said she did not recall such language. In an earlier exchange about her defense of people accused of terrorism, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stormed out of the hearing, obviously unsatisfied with Jackson’s answers.

She also said she believes the Supreme Court rulings that established and affirmed abortion rights, Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, are settled law.

Jackson has been a public defender and a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and since last year she has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which hears many cases related to federal law. If confirmed, she would be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.