"Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning."
Isn't that the essence of jurisprudence? As regards Garland, I simply stated that I don't trust him, and the reasons for my distrust are stated., and valid.
"Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning."
Isn't that the essence of jurisprudence? As regards Garland, I simply stated that I don't trust him, and the reasons for my distrust are stated., and valid.
And if one is going to sue people for liable, then every court in the country will be back logged.
And as regards attacking people on line for so called free speech, is not the same as suggesting an ideological preference because of their stated positions. In other words if you infer or state something that indicts your position or ideology, don't get non plussed because others define you. You don't get a free ride.
Also all the 1st Amendment has to say about speech is "Congress shall not make a law", Nothing in it about corporations, organizations, or persons.
By the way, when one starts posting on sites, like this, they become a public figure, and when they use a screen name, they have no reason, no cause, to complain or sue for libel.
It's enough, I am not responding any further. I've taken a bunch of time to show that much of what you've posted about Garland has been not only dead wrong but also obviously based on sources unfamiliar with the doj and the kinds of cases involved. Also, for your benefit and others I've noted some really good media sources for understanding more about current cases.
On the last item you mentioned, the first amendment encyclopedia is a good basic source about public figures and defamation law. Have a good day and be well.
Good try,trying to defend Garland by hiding behind obscure and non sequitur's. I read your link, and it is irrelevant. There is nothing that said one can't express an opinion about anyone or anything, especially when one can back up their claim.
Biden could sue Fox, Boebert,Jordan, MTG, Hawley, for defamation, so could the citizens of this country, for lying about the election, and doing harm to them and the country.
Eric Prince has tried three times to sew the Intercept for libel, all three cases were dismissed and now he is trying to appeal the third denial.
If Garland doesn't like his reputation, then he should do better, do what is right, not what is politic.
But you make me curious. Why are you so invested in defending Garland? Are you related, are you one of those in his Trump humping DOJ.
Or is that another slander. Trump signed an EO 13957 on Oct 21,2020 that created Schedule F employees, that enabled him to embed his political puppets in DOJ, and simultaneously reduced the civil servants that his cronies would replace to unprotected at will employees, and the media never covered it. Not only DOJ, but all vital cabinets from DOD, DHS, to NSA and no bother with the FBI and Secret Service, because they are already chock full of Trump Humpesrs.
Want to contest that accusation, bear in mind that the Secret Service was a personal handmaiden in J6, and the FBI was and is too investigated in investigating the left, like BLM, and antifascists, and still are not really tracking white nationalist terrorists.
"Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning."
Isn't that the essence of jurisprudence? As regards Garland, I simply stated that I don't trust him, and the reasons for my distrust are stated., and valid.
And if one is going to sue people for liable, then every court in the country will be back logged.
And as regards attacking people on line for so called free speech, is not the same as suggesting an ideological preference because of their stated positions. In other words if you infer or state something that indicts your position or ideology, don't get non plussed because others define you. You don't get a free ride.
Also all the 1st Amendment has to say about speech is "Congress shall not make a law", Nothing in it about corporations, organizations, or persons.
By the way, when one starts posting on sites, like this, they become a public figure, and when they use a screen name, they have no reason, no cause, to complain or sue for libel.
It's enough, I am not responding any further. I've taken a bunch of time to show that much of what you've posted about Garland has been not only dead wrong but also obviously based on sources unfamiliar with the doj and the kinds of cases involved. Also, for your benefit and others I've noted some really good media sources for understanding more about current cases.
On the last item you mentioned, the first amendment encyclopedia is a good basic source about public figures and defamation law. Have a good day and be well.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1010/public-figures-and-officials
Good try,trying to defend Garland by hiding behind obscure and non sequitur's. I read your link, and it is irrelevant. There is nothing that said one can't express an opinion about anyone or anything, especially when one can back up their claim.
Biden could sue Fox, Boebert,Jordan, MTG, Hawley, for defamation, so could the citizens of this country, for lying about the election, and doing harm to them and the country.
Eric Prince has tried three times to sew the Intercept for libel, all three cases were dismissed and now he is trying to appeal the third denial.
If Garland doesn't like his reputation, then he should do better, do what is right, not what is politic.
But you make me curious. Why are you so invested in defending Garland? Are you related, are you one of those in his Trump humping DOJ.
Or is that another slander. Trump signed an EO 13957 on Oct 21,2020 that created Schedule F employees, that enabled him to embed his political puppets in DOJ, and simultaneously reduced the civil servants that his cronies would replace to unprotected at will employees, and the media never covered it. Not only DOJ, but all vital cabinets from DOD, DHS, to NSA and no bother with the FBI and Secret Service, because they are already chock full of Trump Humpesrs.
Want to contest that accusation, bear in mind that the Secret Service was a personal handmaiden in J6, and the FBI was and is too investigated in investigating the left, like BLM, and antifascists, and still are not really tracking white nationalist terrorists.