I feel like Trump's SC picks have been pretty fair compared to the hype around their senate appointments.Mothra said:
Good for her. I'd prefer our supreme court justices not be partisan shills.
Like in most of the government, the so-called "conservative" justices generally approach the law from a legal perspective vs. being purely partisan shills. In fairness, so-called "conservative" justices are generally selected based on their record and talent vs. the left-wing justice are obvious tokens. The token black woman and Latina are barely literate and clearly have the legal acumen of chihuahua.Bestweekeverr said:I feel like Trump's SC picks have been pretty fair compared to the hype around their senate appointments.Mothra said:
Good for her. I'd prefer our supreme court justices not be partisan shills.
Didn't have to make it racist, but alright.Harrison Bergeron said:Like in most of the government, the so-called "conservative" justices generally approach the law from a legal perspective vs. being purely partisan shills. In fairness, so-called "conservative" justices are generally selected based on their record and talent vs. the left-wing justice are obvious tokens. The token black woman and Latina are barely literate and clearly have the legal acumen of chihuahua.Bestweekeverr said:I feel like Trump's SC picks have been pretty fair compared to the hype around their senate appointments.Mothra said:
Good for her. I'd prefer our supreme court justices not be partisan shills.
Didn't Biden make it racist when said he was only looking for a black woman?Bestweekeverr said:Didn't have to make it racist, but alright.Harrison Bergeron said:Like in most of the government, the so-called "conservative" justices generally approach the law from a legal perspective vs. being purely partisan shills. In fairness, so-called "conservative" justices are generally selected based on their record and talent vs. the left-wing justice are obvious tokens. The token black woman and Latina are barely literate and clearly have the legal acumen of chihuahua.Bestweekeverr said:I feel like Trump's SC picks have been pretty fair compared to the hype around their senate appointments.Mothra said:
Good for her. I'd prefer our supreme court justices not be partisan shills.
Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
I expect more from a man with a law degree.
Is quash at least a Baylor lawyer?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
I expect more from a man with a law degree.
Yes. The least one.Malbec said:Is quash at least a Baylor lawyer?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
I expect more from a man with a law degree.
We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
Agreed. Using lawfare to undermine democracy is truly a dark place. The radical left want to turn American into an authoritarian banana republic. It is bad enough we have a demented, corrupt buffoon as a president that regular ignores laws with authoritarian executive action but weaponizing the justice system against the will of th people is the only actual THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
Harrison Bergeron said:Like in most of the government, the so-called "conservative" justices generally approach the law from a legal perspective vs. being purely partisan shills. In fairness, so-called "conservative" justices are generally selected based on their record and talent vs. the left-wing justice are obvious tokens. The token black woman and Latina are barely literate and clearly have the legal acumen of chihuahua.Bestweekeverr said:I feel like Trump's SC picks have been pretty fair compared to the hype around their senate appointments.Mothra said:
Good for her. I'd prefer our supreme court justices not be partisan shills.
LIB,MR BEARS said:Yes. The least one.Malbec said:Is quash at least a Baylor lawyer?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
I expect more from a man with a law degree.
C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
You're so full of baloney. These guys are "in the tank for Trump" like the earth is above the sky. The Supreme Court is in the "what might happen" business, for all love. They're an apellate court. Trial courts are in the "what happened" business.C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
I bet you think Greg Abbot banned Tik Tok.quash said:Harrison Bergeron said:Like in most of the government, the so-called "conservative" justices generally approach the law from a legal perspective vs. being purely partisan shills. In fairness, so-called "conservative" justices are generally selected based on their record and talent vs. the left-wing justice are obvious tokens. The token black woman and Latina are barely literate and clearly have the legal acumen of chihuahua.Bestweekeverr said:I feel like Trump's SC picks have been pretty fair compared to the hype around their senate appointments.Mothra said:
Good for her. I'd prefer our supreme court justices not be partisan shills.
I bet when you say DEI it ends in a hard R.
C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Yes. The least one.Malbec said:Is quash at least a Baylor lawyer?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
I expect more from a man with a law degree.
Aren't you sweet. Still butthurt about ID being a crock?
LIB,MR BEARS said:quash said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Yes. The least one.Malbec said:Is quash at least a Baylor lawyer?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
I expect more from a man with a law degree.
Aren't you sweet. Still butthurt about ID being a crock?
Counselor, does the evidence point towards design or happy little accidents?
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/H4vn1qFQoRo8uZoZ/?mibextid=NqTh7c
Jumanji Jackson is much easier to remember than whatever pseudo-African name she goes by.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Amy Coney Barrett. ACB. You should show her a little respect. She has earned it.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
I expect more from a man with a law degree.
OsoCoreyell said:You're so full of baloney. These guys are "in the tank for Trump" like the earth is above the sky. The Supreme Court is in the "what might happen" business, for all love. They're an apellate court. Trial courts are in the "what happened" business.C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
It is hilarious to see you criticize the current SCOTUS for its biases based upon your own biases.
chicken littleC. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place…quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
gleaned all that from a few questions to those making the arguments?Frank Galvin said:OsoCoreyell said:You're so full of baloney. These guys are "in the tank for Trump" like the earth is above the sky. The Supreme Court is in the "what might happen" business, for all love. They're an apellate court. Trial courts are in the "what happened" business.C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
It is hilarious to see you criticize the current SCOTUS for its biases based upon your own biases.
You have no idea what you even stand for. For decades, the GOP cried foul about "activist judges" who tried to set policy by imposing "judge made" law rather than just applying the law as written. Toe v. Wade was exhibit 1-nowhere in the Constitution are the words "right to privacy" or "abortion" mentioned. It was an abomination and lacked any coherent reasoning at all based on that line of thinking.
Anton Scalia became a medium-sized deity by championing strict adherence to the idea that courts have a sacred duty to apply only the law as written. John Roberts gave us the catchphrase when he told the Senate that as chief justice it would be his job to do one thing only: call balls and strikes.
MAGA adherents often will list Trump's judicial selections as the most important accomplishment of his term. To be appointed and confirmed from 2017-2021, a Jude has to voice unwavering loyalty to those principles.
Saying it wasn't enough. To get a nomination. The nominee absolutely must have had his Federalist Society card showing years of oath to these ideas.
This week's arguments again revealed what an absolute con job it all is. There is no statute that confers immunity on a president. There is not a word in the Constitution about presidents being immune.
Calling '"balls and strikes" in this situation means applying the law to what actually happened without regard for the policy consequences of the decision.
Brett Kavanaugh's comment was MAGA lifting its skirt. The "conservative" justices want nothing to do with Scalia. They want to shape the future and are willing to do it regardless of the facts of the case.
We have had more judicial activism in the last three years than in the three decades before then. At best the whole thing is intellectually dishonest. It's really closer to a con job.
4th and Inches said:gleaned all that from a few questions to those making the arguments?Frank Galvin said:OsoCoreyell said:You're so full of baloney. These guys are "in the tank for Trump" like the earth is above the sky. The Supreme Court is in the "what might happen" business, for all love. They're an apellate court. Trial courts are in the "what happened" business.C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
It is hilarious to see you criticize the current SCOTUS for its biases based upon your own biases.
You have no idea what you even stand for. For decades, the GOP cried foul about "activist judges" who tried to set policy by imposing "judge made" law rather than just applying the law as written. Toe v. Wade was exhibit 1-nowhere in the Constitution are the words "right to privacy" or "abortion" mentioned. It was an abomination and lacked any coherent reasoning at all based on that line of thinking.
Anton Scalia became a medium-sized deity by championing strict adherence to the idea that courts have a sacred duty to apply only the law as written. John Roberts gave us the catchphrase when he told the Senate that as chief justice it would be his job to do one thing only: call balls and strikes.
MAGA adherents often will list Trump's judicial selections as the most important accomplishment of his term. To be appointed and confirmed from 2017-2021, a Jude has to voice unwavering loyalty to those principles.
Saying it wasn't enough. To get a nomination. The nominee absolutely must have had his Federalist Society card showing years of oath to these ideas.
This week's arguments again revealed what an absolute con job it all is. There is no statute that confers immunity on a president. There is not a word in the Constitution about presidents being immune.
Calling '"balls and strikes" in this situation means applying the law to what actually happened without regard for the policy consequences of the decision.
Brett Kavanaugh's comment was MAGA lifting its skirt. The "conservative" justices want nothing to do with Scalia. They want to shape the future and are willing to do it regardless of the facts of the case.
We have had more judicial activism in the last three years than in the three decades before then. At best the whole thing is intellectually dishonest. It's really closer to a con job.
Why dont you wait for the opinion before blasting the judges as biased hypocrites..
That is Waco47-level delusion.Frank Galvin said:OsoCoreyell said:You're so full of baloney. These guys are "in the tank for Trump" like the earth is above the sky. The Supreme Court is in the "what might happen" business, for all love. They're an apellate court. Trial courts are in the "what happened" business.C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place. While this is a positive, it's shocking that all the men were more worried about what might happen than what did happen. In fact, they didn't even want to talk about the facts of the case. They wanted to live in hypotheticals. Alito in particular.quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
And all this stuff about originalism and textualism gets tossed when it's in the way of conservative activism. The Constitution plainly, plainly sees the President as liable for prosecution.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
It is hilarious to see you criticize the current SCOTUS for its biases based upon your own biases.
You have no idea what you even stand for. For decades, the GOP cried foul about "activist judges" who tried to set policy by imposing "judge made" law rather than just applying the law as written. Toe v. Wade was exhibit 1-nowhere in the Constitution are the words "right to privacy" or "abortion" mentioned. It was an abomination and lacked any coherent reasoning at all based on that line of thinking.
Anton Scalia became a medium-sized deity by championing strict adherence to the idea that courts have a sacred duty to apply only the law as written. John Roberts gave us the catchphrase when he told the Senate that as chief justice it would be his job to do one thing only: call balls and strikes.
MAGA adherents often will list Trump's judicial selections as the most important accomplishment of his term. To be appointed and confirmed from 2017-2021, a Jude has to voice unwavering loyalty to those principles.
Saying it wasn't enough. To get a nomination. The nominee absolutely must have had his Federalist Society card showing years of oath to these ideas.
This week's arguments again revealed what an absolute con job it all is. There is no statute that confers immunity on a president. There is not a word in the Constitution about presidents being immune.
Calling '"balls and strikes" in this situation means applying the law to what actually happened without regard for the policy consequences of the decision.
Brett Kavanaugh's comment was MAGA lifting its skirt. The "conservative" justices want nothing to do with Scalia. They want to shape the future and are willing to do it regardless of the facts of the case.
We have had more judicial activism in the last three years than in the three decades before then. At best the whole thing is intellectually dishonest. It's really closer to a con job.
I would too...until a dictator took power with the help of presidential immunity.Redbrickbear said:C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place…quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
I would say that a liberal DC political establishment that spies on Presidential candidates it does not like…while also spying on American citizens…while also importing in millions of 3rd world voters to change the electorate is more of a danger to "our democracy" than one particular case at SCOTUS about the limits of Presidential immunity
Poor Sam, still supporting Putin yet imagining Trump is a threat to anything but the thin-skinned Left.Sam Lowry said:I would too...until a dictator took power with the help of presidential immunity.Redbrickbear said:C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place…quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
I would say that a liberal DC political establishment that spies on Presidential candidates it does not like…while also spying on American citizens…while also importing in millions of 3rd world voters to change the electorate is more of a danger to "our democracy" than one particular case at SCOTUS about the limits of Presidential immunity
The post wasn't about Trump, it was about the Supreme Court case and the limits of presidential immunity. You'd understand a lot more if you saw the difference.Oldbear83 said:Poor Sam, still supporting Putin yet imagining Trump is a threat to anything but the thin-skinned Left.Sam Lowry said:I would too...until a dictator took power with the help of presidential immunity.Redbrickbear said:C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place…quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
I would say that a liberal DC political establishment that spies on Presidential candidates it does not like…while also spying on American citizens…while also importing in millions of 3rd world voters to change the electorate is more of a danger to "our democracy" than one particular case at SCOTUS about the limits of Presidential immunity
Sure, Vlad.Sam Lowry said:The post wasn't about Trump, it was about the Supreme Court case and the limits of presidential immunity. You'd understand a lot more if you saw the difference.Oldbear83 said:Poor Sam, still supporting Putin yet imagining Trump is a threat to anything but the thin-skinned Left.Sam Lowry said:I would too...until a dictator took power with the help of presidential immunity.Redbrickbear said:C. Jordan said:We're in a really dark place…quash said:
Unlike Alito, who would rather not focus on the facts of the case, Barrett got Trump's attorney to admit that three of the acts in this case were not official acts.
The men are in the tank for Trump, so we're at real risk of losing democracy.
I would say that a liberal DC political establishment that spies on Presidential candidates it does not like…while also spying on American citizens…while also importing in millions of 3rd world voters to change the electorate is more of a danger to "our democracy" than one particular case at SCOTUS about the limits of Presidential immunity
