So even then, the union people might be making more than the union minimum, so the non union person might still be making less than an average union person while not getting any union benefits.
TheKMAP
joined 2 years ago
I think defining terms is ineffective. Kinda like "state's rights". State's rights to do what? Focus on the actual bad shit going on instead baffling people with fancy words that can be twisted or misused later. If someone says "people aren't dumb enough to chase the high they get from seeking righteous justices by doing whatever is easiest such as attacking those closest to them" then you can go into a speech about how it happens so often that there are papers on it and it got its own term.
Focus on the actual harm being done to people. Adding terms creates a layer of distance, and opportunity to distract the conversation and waste time debating the term instead of the actual problem.
You're acting like you found some defensible loophole but your cageyness means you know it won't work if the facts were laid out before jury selection.
The question isn't about "the" law it means "any" law. The judge is asking you if you're going to enforce the law for which they are under trial, not if you're here to enforce the constitution. If that is what you wanted to do you would vote guilty and let them appeal to the Supreme Court because they are the constitution people, not you.
view more: next ›
Stan Lee rolling in his grave over the lack of hyphen in Spider-Man