In reply to:
Justin
@JustKraze24
·
42d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
42d
The statement engages in a discussion about the authority of federal judges and the balance of power between the judiciary and the presidency, which are significant public issues. The tone is assertive, aiming to counter the previous claim about judges overstepping their authority.
- The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on a legal argument, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement attempts to promote understanding by clarifying the role of federal judges, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in a rebuttal without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement upholds free speech by responsibly engaging in a debate about constitutional authority, aligning with the principle of using one's platform responsibly. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.