I came in here to say just this.
Nye is if nothing else an excellent, respected advocate for science. Palin is nothing of the sort.
This is true. My uncle was a research scientist for a large company, with several patents. He did not have an advanced degree. In fact, after he died I was surprised to learn that he had no college degree at all. But if he wasn’t a Scientist, he was misemployed for many years by that company.
If he’s not a scientist, doesn’t that male him more qualified to speak about climate change? 'Cause all them real scientists are in on the take, promoting a conspiracy and everything?
Sure it is. AGs owe allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law first. It is supreme to any state constitution or law.
Cruz may have chosen to ignore that and defend the law anyway, or he may really believe what he wrote. Either way, he made a choice.
Saying that somebody has to defend the anti-dildo legislation does not mean that the attorney defending the law has to declare that there is no constitutional right to masturbate. That’s not part of an anti-dildo defense.
The Republican-dominated state legislature of Kentucky has given $18 million dollars of state tax money in order to build the Answers in Genesis “Ark Encounter” amusement park. The park requires that all of its employees believe in a 6000 year old creation and in “One natural man, one natural woman” marriage. I hope somebody takes them to court over that.
I would suggest it would be better as a pro-dildo argument.
“The Bible says I gotta love my neighbor like myself! What, I gotta go next door and jerk him off too!”
- Rodney Dangerfield, the late and lamented
I think given what we know of Cruz, its safe to say that he was unwilling to pretend dildos are perfectly legal
You would think a jerk-off dildo like Cruz would stand up for himself.
I hope that the damn thing gets hit by lightning right before it’s done and burns to cinders. Like with Touchdown Jesus.
Nah, the appropriate ‘Act of God’ would be for a flash flood to wash through the site.
Oh, I agree; I was just (apparently badly) making the point that the proof of this particular pudding is in the primary research that went into it, regardless of what third parties may say about it.
Yeah, I was agreeing with you, so I’m glad to see that you’re agreeing with my agreeing and that we’re in agreement. Or something.
Jim Mattox, who served as attorney general from 1983 to 1991, withdrew an appeal in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that his predecessor had filed after Texas’ anti-sodomy law was deemed unconstitutional. Mattox refused to continue with his office’s defense of the anti-sodomy law because Mattox also believed it was unconstitutional.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
Dude, it’s the Pit. Ixnay on the gree-aay. Reputations are at stake.
nm
I disagree.
No you don’t.