>>11990438 lb
>trump twitter history shows he doesnt trust vaccines
yeah, but ever since he took office he had to regurgitate the official line of "vaccines are safe & effective" in order to not look like a tard to normies
>Gold Standard
weird. i could have sworn there was a drop with this phrase, but there isn't. i just always assumed it. "gold standard will destroy the FED". but the drop says gold - not gold standard
if it solves the plebs thinking shit can halfway go back to normal and businesses start having customers again, then it's a good start
you must take the rubicon to avanchanzel. you must.
only think i like about beanz is that she kinda reminds me of a freaky girl that i used to rail.
>Roger Stone
cryptojew attention whore who leans whichever direction the wind blows
safe to ignore
was he related to the pelican fag?
>It's time to fucking end some lives
just make sure to end the right ones in the right order
you'll have to switch to a regular browser to bake. torpedos can't post images
>The name 'Warp Speed' in itself gives us some clues
ok but if you want to extrapolate "warp speed" into clues, then stay a bit closer to the ground, anon. warp speed (in star trek) refers to faster that light travel. so warp speed could be a clue about something happening before it ever comes to light, before something is public
cockroaches. or fungus spores. either is an apt analogy, imo
why didn't you copy some of that you lazy fuck
Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.
Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.
Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech. For example, in tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), high school officials in Des Moines, Iowa, had suspended students for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. There was no question that the parents of the students had standing to challenge the restrictions on the wearing of armbands. Mere ideological opposition to a pa
tips fedora