Jay Cherrie

@WarriorZoltar And a bit frightening.

Is Gym Jordan really the best they have? That’s embarrassing.

@rocam54 @WarriorZoltar OK - best dad joke!

@WarriorZoltar Also follow you on threads. Pretty much done with the bird app.

Before this app fully implodes, you should take a look at my pinned tweet so we don’t all lose touch.

@RyanAFournier Hahahahahahahaha!

BREAKING: Trump will skip first debate to do a sit down with Tucker! HUGE DEVELOPMENT!

@kathylslade There’s still time.

@WarriorZoltar What stops me is the fear my head would be strangely shaped or spotted underneath. But it still crosses my mind.

You ever get so overwhelmed you have a strong impulse to shave your head? Just me?

@AirCanada is as reliable as a broken toilet.

@WarriorZoltar Whoa! Glad nobody was hurt.

Neighbors tree just fell through our fence into our yard. Thankfully we rent and none of this is our problem. I sent the pictures to the property manager and now I’m going to bed.

@johnny13224 @mischam0use What a crock.

@mischam0use ANTIFA was the group that rioted violently 574 times in the summer of 2020

@deangloster That’s not really rice and chickpea pays isn’t really pasta. I have spoken.

@WalshFreedom What do you think now that the case was made up? Nobody asked her to create a website.

Initial thoughts on the CO wedding website designer ruling just now: 1) Respectfully, I believe it’s the correct ruling. The state should never ever be able to compel someone to create artwork, to express ideas, that go against their beliefs. 2) But this is a tricky balance here. This is an emotional clashing of rights. My right to free speech vs your right to not be discriminated against in public accommodations. This case is about public accommodation laws bumping head on into the First Amendment. 3) The ruling makes clear that designing and creating a website for a wedding is speech, it is creative expression. It is not just “selling a product” like selling beer & wine for a wedding. This is correct. 4) The ruling makes clear there is a difference between selling a product and expressing speech. Refusing to sell a dress to a lesbian for her wedding is not allowed. Refusing to create a website for her wedding is allowed. 5) In fact, the web designer said she’d sell products to gays & lesbians, she just can’t create and design works of artistic expression that go against her beliefs. 6) Just as I don’t believe the government should be able to force a pro choice photographer to take pictures at and create a photo album for a pro life rally, I don’t think the government should be able to force a web designer to create a website for a same sex wedding. 7) This is complicated. The clear lines here are drawn on both sides. This ruling will lead to a boatload of future litigation.

I am informed by the blessedly self-correcting internet that 303 Creative didn't even create websites. So we have a woman claiming that she has a First Amendment right to refuse services she doesn't provide to a couple that doesn't exist. This case is the Dred Scott of absurdity.

Alito and Thomas just invent cases to drive their bigoted decisions, no doubt funded by dark money. The man named in the 303 case never asked for a website, and he’s straight and married to a woman. This court has a legitimacy crisis. cnn.com/2023/06/30/pol…

@RepNancyMace @PeteButtigieg You’re busy taking credit for investments you voted against so maybe worry about hypocrisy instead of being snarky about Pete to misdirect.

.@PeteButtigieg came at us for supporting and helping secure a $26 million grant for the Lowcountry. Trains are crashing, airlines are a disaster, but Pete still has time to keep tabs on us. A guy failing miserably at his own job should really sit this one out.

@SenRickScott Have they checked your Medicare fraud accounts?

Americans should be furious that $200 BILLION of YOUR MONEY – intended to help Americans - was stolen. The Biden admin should be working day in & day out to recoup these stolen funds before even THINKING about asking you for another cent for more liberal pet projects. No reckless spending. More accountability.

@RonFilipkowski In the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Lovett (1946), the Court held that, under these circumstances, the Act was no "mere appropriation measure", but was effectively a bill of attainder prohibited by Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. (WP)

Matt Gaetz & Marge Greene sent a letter to the Chair of House Appropriations seeking to defund the salary of the ATF Director.

@MarcCommoy @NoLieWithBTC Yeah, I though more guns made everywhere safer.

@NoLieWithBTC Come on Republicans. Make it make sense. We're waiting for your explanation.

Ever notice how Republicans want everyone to have guns everywhere EXCEPT for their own events?

@witty_shitty Although the style is definitely there.

Fascism tactics 101 - 1.Erode the citizens trust in the media that tells the stories. 2.Create distrust in law enforcement that investigates their crimes. 3.Create distrust in elections that vote against them. Republicans have that trifecta going on.