Anonymous ID: e19ca9 April 22, 2024, 12:29 p.m. No.20761921   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>1931

SHILLS OATH

 

I am satan's shill. I believe nothing, I will say anything.Over and over. I have no values, friends or family I will not sell into bondage forever for food and for feathers. Dollars will buy me. What can not spend I will burn in an ashtray or shove up my ass but I must have dollars. Give me fiat. I am satan's shill. I demoralize myself. When I finish the blow I take five xanax footballs and pass out on rental furniture. Asleep, I dream I'm awake. I am satan's shill. My stridulations are filtered. My mockery, my despair, my anguish, like my coming and my going, pass ever unnoticed. I am satan's shill. One day I will vanish like a knot in a shoelace. I am satan's shill. A petty criminal, a peeping Tom, a canvas for others tattoos, a repeater, an NPC.

Anonymous ID: e19ca9 April 22, 2024, 1:01 p.m. No.20762060   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>2110

Why is SCOTUS case Marbury v Madison so important now?

 

Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

 

In Marbury's case, however, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Examining the law Congress had passed to define Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's—Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789—the Court found that the Act had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The Court then struck down Section 13 of the Act, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution—a power now known as judicial review.

Anonymous ID: e19ca9 April 22, 2024, 1:10 p.m. No.20762108   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>2124 >>2136

RRRRIPPED FROM NY TIMES ARCHIVE

 

Why Selling Kidneys Should Be Legal

 

By Alexander Berger

Dec. 5, 2011

 

-San Francisco

 

[massive virtue signal omitted]

 

…

 

I thought about going to a Web site where people who need a kidney post profiles, but I didn’t trust myself to pick fairly. [Super virtue - doesnt trust self not to be rayciss)

 

…Instead, the summer before my senior year of college, I filled out some forms on the National Kidney Registry Web site. The registry will use my kidney to start a donor chain: it will go to someone who has a willing but incompatible donor, who in turn will donate to the recipient in another incompatible pair, and so on indefinitely. This can be anonymous, but if my recipient would like to meet me someday in the future, I think I’d like to meet him or her too.

 

Soon after filling out the forms, I visited my doctor and told my parents about my plans. They were nervous, of course, and so am I. I’m not really looking forward to having surgery, or to taking time off from a job I love. But in the scheme of things, I know this is a relatively easy way to really help someone.

 

People should not have to beg their friends and family for a kidney, nor die while waiting for one. Donating a kidney is one way to help. But it isn’t enough. The only way to really change the terms of the debate and end the waiting lists is to end the ban on compensation and create a legal market for kidneys.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/why-selling-kidneys-should-be-legal.html