Favourite Quotes
- Thread starter J.R.R.Tokin'
- Start date
The Stray Fox
Separated from the group
Lol, and "We are educated, schooled to the highest degree of excellence- in Ignorance."
Me...again, just now not sure what date it is today lol.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?"
https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed
From the motion by Texas to delay appointment of electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In what I'm sure is a total coincidence, the states being sued all have a Republican legislatures. The Supremes, because this is State v. State, are THE court of original jurisdiction and will either have to accept or reject the filing. If rejected, it is over--period. (Except for the shooting.) If accepted, the court will have to fashion a remedy if they decide the Constitutional meaning of:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
allows for the changes courts and executives in the defendant states made. If so, again, over. If not...see https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/rl/rl32611 starting around page 13.
https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed
From the motion by Texas to delay appointment of electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In what I'm sure is a total coincidence, the states being sued all have a Republican legislatures. The Supremes, because this is State v. State, are THE court of original jurisdiction and will either have to accept or reject the filing. If rejected, it is over--period. (Except for the shooting.) If accepted, the court will have to fashion a remedy if they decide the Constitutional meaning of:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
allows for the changes courts and executives in the defendant states made. If so, again, over. If not...see https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/rl/rl32611 starting around page 13.
ChooChooCharlie
Well-Known Member
Texas reference above reminded me of this Haring piece ... don't even think of treading on me:
Marvelous metaphor mixing by Tom Forcade, founder of High Times:
"Fuck off and fuck censorship! You uptight Smokey the Bears of the totalitarian
forest, rushing around with shotguns for shovels trying to quench the fires of freedom. You make me puke green monkey shit!"
This was part of his testimony to a congressional hearing on "obscenity and pornography," followed by him throwing a pie in a congressman's face. Tom at left, he edited Abby's "Steal this Book." Forcade had quite a resume
Marvelous metaphor mixing by Tom Forcade, founder of High Times:
"Fuck off and fuck censorship! You uptight Smokey the Bears of the totalitarian
forest, rushing around with shotguns for shovels trying to quench the fires of freedom. You make me puke green monkey shit!"
This was part of his testimony to a congressional hearing on "obscenity and pornography," followed by him throwing a pie in a congressman's face. Tom at left, he edited Abby's "Steal this Book." Forcade had quite a resume
Last edited:
The Stray Fox
Separated from the group
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
[Lincoln] “did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered” [to him.]
--Jeremiah Jeffries, a first grade teacher and head of the San Francisco Unified School district’s School Names Advisory Committee when asked why Abraham Lincoln High School needed to be renamed.
--Jeremiah Jeffries, a first grade teacher and head of the San Francisco Unified School district’s School Names Advisory Committee when asked why Abraham Lincoln High School needed to be renamed.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity, and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that, apart from the matter involved here, he is not law-abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.
--From Justice Jackson's Korematsu dissent 76 years ago today.
The case was demonstrably overturned (Although, it could have been considered bad law previously.) in Trump v. Hawaii:
The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
--From Chief Justice Robert's decision Trump v. Hawaii
Korematsu's holding:
We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Cf. Chastleton Corporation v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 547, 44 S.Ct. 405, 406, 68 L.Ed. 841; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154, 155, 41 S.Ct. 458, 459, 65 L.Ed. 865, 16 A.L.R. 165. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. Cf. Ex parte Kumezo Kawato, 317 U.S. 69, 73, 63 S.Ct. 115, 117, 87 L.Ed. 58. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.
--From Justice Black's opinion in Korematsu
I wonder what the long view of history will decide about today's "hardships"?
--From Justice Jackson's Korematsu dissent 76 years ago today.
The case was demonstrably overturned (Although, it could have been considered bad law previously.) in Trump v. Hawaii:
The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
--From Chief Justice Robert's decision Trump v. Hawaii
Korematsu's holding:
We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Cf. Chastleton Corporation v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 547, 44 S.Ct. 405, 406, 68 L.Ed. 841; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154, 155, 41 S.Ct. 458, 459, 65 L.Ed. 865, 16 A.L.R. 165. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. Cf. Ex parte Kumezo Kawato, 317 U.S. 69, 73, 63 S.Ct. 115, 117, 87 L.Ed. 58. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.
--From Justice Black's opinion in Korematsu
I wonder what the long view of history will decide about today's "hardships"?
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Morty
Well-Known Member
Lol! Don't do that to me bro, you realise I do have mild hppd after literally 180 tabs of acid in 13 months!On top of decades of intake already lol! Crazy fox for sure.
"Psychedelic experience is only a glimpse of genuine mystical insight, but a glimpse which can be matured and deepened by the various ways of meditation in which drugs are no longer necessary or useful. If you get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope, he goes away and works on what he has seen..."
- Alan Watts
Morty I never fear seeing an alert from you mate, anywhere! You're like me, a cheeky monkey lol, but always laughing WITH and never AT.
Only the former, IMO can truly qualify for- "good" sense of humour.
Humour should be about bringing people together in joy right, not breaking things down and humiliating. No way in my mind.
Anway, on this exactly, a famous quote from 1966 when the Beatles took their first ever trip- still legal chemist fare then lol in 279 ug pods.
John Lenno made 3 quotes "it was a 24 hour trip"
"I was pretty stoned for about a month afterwards" (as in, dazed in a dream of transformation)
And finally, in reference to your quoted analogies above, he descibed LSD as "just anorher Mirror."
Last edited:
Buzzbomb Almighty
Well-Known Member
Don't sweat the petty stuff,
and don't pet the sweaty stuff.
and don't pet the sweaty stuff.
