Neil Hansen

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@19Ringer @DarkoStateNews Who cares? Just don't follow his reporting then. What am I missing?

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@Mazz258 @YouallNeedhim @baldfraudtakes That wasn't the point. The point was Cena's main fuel in that feud was Rock was "part time". The point Rock made is Cena was TRYING to do the same thing as Rock even way back then, while actively shading Rock for it. And eventually Cena make it in Hollywood, just took him longer.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@YouallNeedhim @Mazz258 @baldfraudtakes Rock's YouTube promo in that feud was as good as Cena's wrist jabs. Rock calling out Cena for trying to "go Hollywood" at the same time Cena was giving Rock a hard time for that was very prophetic. A fact even Cena eventually admitted when he acknowledged being hypocritical.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@BKWolverine @Metaleka_ Michigan is a public institution. It is subject to the first amendment. There is literally 250 years of constitutional case law that would not allow these restrictions. Doesn't matter who agrees with them.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@vy9gnckj6j @Metaleka_ Go read 250 years of case law interpreting the first amendment for government entities. Common sense is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@ZombiRubberDuck @Bubblebathgirl Not really. I paid off my mortgage and student loans before kids. Run and lift weights all the time. Have zero issues being physical with my kids in my mid-40s. And my mental health is 100x better knowing I can work 35 hours per week and not be stressed financially.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@RussOnPolitics She was worthless cliches and platitudes. And sounded horrible when pressed on if her campaign finances will influence her policy. No thanks.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@ian_keeter @owlczar @RichardHanania She's the least likeable candidate of my lifetime. This whole schtick is fake. And even if it wasn't, she's so compromised by who's funding her she would be an awful choice. Just another bought politician like Whitmer who won't actually work for her constituents.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@ChrisDJackson Uh, no one likes her here anymore. Even people who voted for her. He's speaking the truth. The lady campaigned on "fix the damn roads". Now she just cares about angling for her next national job. Caught on camera admitting she does what her constituents don't want. Great governor

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@Luke_Elvy I mean, Koivun will be better than almost anyone on LIV or the PGA in a few years. So I'd rather watch him, even if most of the field in the 3M stinks.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@TomMarsLaw What about when the client is a public school with leadership established by elected regents? Maybe the public should know when that leadership completely fails so they can vote accordingly to fix a university they fund?

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@Dysfunctiontime @jessmargera He orchestrated the hit on 2pac, greatest MC ever. That warrants life without parole.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@marcg1640 @TheAuMan1 @adamscochran I am not saying they did or didn't. My point was in response to someone arguing the framers' intent with birthright citizenship. I was just saying whatever approach taken should be uniform - strict word for word, inferring founders' intent. Don't use different approaches.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@ChaseForLiberty Yes! You are right. This is the way. Democrats recognize the 2nd amendment. Republicans recognize the 14th amendment. We all agree the SC either uses a strict text approach or infers intent. But it is UNIFORM across the board, even if it doesn't allign with your ideology.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@TheAuMan1 @adamscochran I say this because my personal views on guns or birthright citizenship don't matter. Shouldn't we just want uniformity in how the courts interpret the Constituion? Either strictly word for word, or infer intent of the founders and extrapolate. But we can't be selective.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@TheAuMan1 @adamscochran I get this line of thinking, but doesn't it have to apply to the 2nd amendment? That mentions a well regulated militia as the basis for the right to bear arms. The same argument can be made - the framers didn't intend access to semiautomatics for every person 200+ years later.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@slcmof @TheMan0fTheMole See, this could be a logical argument so long as it is applied uniformly. Liberals would say the same thing about the 2nd amendment. Personally, as long as the Supreme Court is consistent in its interpretation, I am fine with decisions like this and Heller.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@zorgtrading @TheJespective @america A fair belief, but if so, the only remedy is amending the constitution. No different than when liberals argue the 2nd amendment is obsolete given the time it was written. Decisions like this and Heller reaffirm my belief in the court interpreting the bill of rights uniformly.

[Neil Hansen @NeilHansenEsq]

@SenTedCruz The absolutism with which politicians speak is absurd. None of you were alive in the 1860s. You have no firsthand knowledge of the purpose. The Supreme Court is here to resolve those issues. Sometimes their interpretation appeases liberals. Sometimes conservatives. Grow up.