Um yeah Lin Wood is full of **** and if John Roberts said that then I am Queen Elizabeth

larry culpepper said:

---

Um yeah Lin Wood is full of **** and if John Roberts said that then I am Queen Elizabeth

---

Liz how bout a Dr pepper

I would enjoy watching some DC news bureaus burn so they understand what the BLM riots looked like to the rest of America.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

John Roberts refuses to do his job. Don't need a whistleblower to tell us that.

---

did ACB refuse to do her job?

---

YES

Quote:

---

Or does she possibly know about this than you do?

---

NO

---

How did she refuse to do her job and why are you not a federal judge yet?

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

They wanted to hear the case on the basic idea that since the court has original jurisdiction, they should hear it. Note that they didn't think think that the court should grant them any relief in advance of an opinion.

Logically, if the situation were reversed and it the Democrats trying to steal the election and New Jersey filed suit against Texas, the vote should have been the same.

lb3 said:

---

I said in the beginning that nothing would happen if conservatives didn't take to the street. The rules of the game now require civil disobedience and violence if you wish to achieve justice.

---

Conservatives? Very, very doubtful.

Radical right wing? Yeah. Not much different from BLM and other radical left wing groups.

Politics board rule of thumb: if you have a thread where there is multiple pages of libs saying the same thing over and over the OP must be true.

rgag12 said:

---

Politics board rule of thumb: if you have a thread where there is multiple pages of libs saying the same thing over and over the OP must be true.

---

nah, it's just that sometimes you need to repeat things for some folks to get it.

eric76 said:

---

lb3 said:

---

I said in the beginning that nothing would happen if conservatives didn't take to the street. The rules of the game now require civil disobedience and violence if you wish to achieve justice.

---

Conservatives? Very, very doubtful.

Radical right wing? Yeah. Not much different from BLM and other radical left wing groups.

---

Ha!

You serious Clark?

Come on man!

LOL

schmendeler said:

---

a guy claiming to be a SCOTUS clerk calls into a radio show and tells a bull **** story about over hearing the justices screaming at each other in a closed room and then reports their facial expressions as they exit.

except they have only been meeting via teleconference, not in person.

and there are still posters saying "well even if it didn't happen exactly like that, i could still see it being true in part."

---

A good basis for a Conspiracy Theory, don't you think?

rgag12 said:

---

Politics board rule of thumb: if you have a thread where there is multiple pages of libs saying the same thing over and over the OP must be true.

---

And when something spills out to the Q thread, it's always fake news

Viper16 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

lb3 said:

---

I said in the beginning that nothing would happen if conservatives didn't take to the street. The rules of the game now require civil disobedience and violence if you wish to achieve justice.

---

Conservatives? Very, very doubtful.

Radical right wing? Yeah. Not much different from BLM and other radical left wing groups.

---

Ha!

You serious Clark?

Come on man!

LOL

---

It might surprise you to learn that real Conservatives don't riot. They don't want to burn down the world. That is what radicals do, not Conservatives.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

So if this is true, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB all went along with it, doesn't that mean all 3 of the justices Trump nominated are enemies of this country? If this is true, Trump managed to overthrow the United States justice system in a single term.

Why on earth would any of you continue to support Trump? He's apparently batting 0.000% on Supreme Court justices.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

No state has any business interfering in the way any other state runs its election.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

Even if the story isn't true if talking about the riots.

These riots he speaks up? Yeah look at the Democrats and Joe and Kamala and BLM and antifa for that *****

That wasn't the Republicans and that wasn't Trump. In fact Trump is one of the few of them really speaking out against it when nobody else on the other side seem to give a *****

Tom Cruise and Christian Bale are worried that Roberts might be a little out of control.

Funny stuff.
I mean it's bleakly funny given that some will give credence, but funny nonetheless.

The Wood lawsuit (which well predated his election fame) is fairly disturbing, but it's in character for how he's firing shots about as God's messenger now - sans the threats of physical violence.

As much as I think he (Roberts) has been compromised, I don't think that I'll take Lin Wood's word on anything. He has no integrity in my opinion.

annie88 said:

---

Even if the story isn't true if talking about the riots.

These riots he speaks up? Yeah look at the Democrats and Joe and Kamala and BLM and antifa for that *****

That wasn't the Republicans and that wasn't Trump. In fact Trump is one of the few of them really speaking out against it when nobody else on the other side seem to give a *****

---

I'm all on board with you annie88. I just don't like Lin Wood and think he is just looking to make $.

C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

As much as I think he (Roberts) has been compromised, I don't think that I'll take Lin Wood's word on anything. He has no integrity in my opinion.

---

I do not think he has been comprised.

I think he is an idiot, and i think his POV that the court should not be "activist" when every other court is these days is naive and stupid. and it also happens to be occurring at the one point in history when we need the SC to actually be activist.

---

You could very well be right C@LAg. I'm no authority on anything. I do agree and think he is an idiot as well.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

John Roberts refuses to do his job. Don't need a whistleblower to tell us that.

---

did ACB refuse to do her job?

---

YES

Quote:

---

Or does she possibly know about this than you do?

---

NO

---

How did she refuse to do her job and why are you not a federal judge yet?

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Just to clarify, the "other relief" to which Alito referred was the request for preliminary relief, not any final judgment at the end of a trial.

And I don't think it's fair for Ellis to say Thomas and Alito wanted to hear the case. Their wants didn't enter into it. It was no great act of bravery, since at least Thomas had previously said these types of cases are not discretionary.

Regardless, even if the Court had a constitutional obligation to take the case (as suggested by Thomas and Alito) there would have been a quick motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on standing, which we know (barring some fantastic briefing and oral argument by Texas) would have been granted by at least a 7-2 margin. So same result and making this an academic exercise in the truest sense of the phrase.

Essentially, all that happened here was the Court probably saved us all of a lot of time and headache in getting our hopes up that something significant was going to happen. Can you imagine the foaming at the mouth had the Court granted the motion for leave and then dismissed it days later on a procedural basis?

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

---

I believe the political landscape today dictates so very much of our lives. If the SC saw no standing, it's probably because they saw nothing that would benefit them from ruling on such a controversial topic. They go home and have lives outside of the SC like everyone else.

ETA: What I meant to say bottom line is that I think you can rule on practically anything if you are a judge in ANY court, especially if you don't follow the rule of the law to the letter. Which is WRONG.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

---

This is wrong think. This is a forum, and people are able to discuss their ideas as much as you without being told they are know it alls. You should take that statement back.

C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

This is wrong think. This is a forum, and people are able to discuss their ideas as much as you without being told they are know it alls. You should take that statement back.

---

you should learn to not engage with her.
that is her schtick.

---

I appreciate that advice. I'll probably follow that advice from here forward C@LAg.

paperback said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

---

I believe the political landscape today dictates so very much of our lives. If the SC saw no standing, it's probably because they saw nothing that would benefit them from ruling on such a controversial topic. They go home and have lives outside of the SC like everyone else.

ETA: What I meant to say bottom line is that I think you can rule on practically anything if you are a judge in ANY court, especially if you don't follow the rule of the law to the letter. Which is WRONG.

---

From what I've read, judges really dislike seeing their decisions overturned on appeal. That seems to do a decent job of getting them to stick to the law.

I doubt that the Supreme Court would dodge the case just because it was controversial. I can readily see that they wouldn't want to waste time on a case in which it is very clear that the plaintiff doesn't have standing.

paperback said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

---

This is wrong think. This is a forum, and people are able to discuss their ideas as much as you without being told they are know it alls. You should take that statement back.

---

Good one...but you forgot the sarcasm emoji.
(In best King Leonidas voice from '300')..."THIS..IS...F16!!!"
Get out of here with that 'considerate discussion forum' nonsense. There's what it should be and what it ain't...and never the twain shall meet.

BluHorseShu said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

even if you are a pro-Trumper, if you still believe any of the **** that Lin Wood is pedaling, you are a ****ing idiot.

---

Was Lin Wood considered a loon before November 2020?

---

irrelevant. actions since November reflect current status quo.

shyster. pure and simple.

---

Really? Not going to get specific here but If someone had a several decade long record that was outstanding and for 2 months fight for a crazy cause, the decades before are irrelevant to evaluating the person?

---

If say someone, like a President, had a decades long record of misogyny, infidelity and just basic moral ambiguity, we should just forget all of that because he sidled up to the Christian Right? So should ones history be used to judge ones current character? Sounds like you're saying yes.

---

I'm assuming you're not referencing Trump.

He hired a woman to build one of his first large buildings (may have been Trump Tower, don't care to look up the specifics) at a time when women weren't much more than a "go get me a cup of coffee, honey" or "please take this dictation".

I started my professional life in that era.

---

So you used to take dictation?

---

I flagged my first post. Thank you Texags for giving me that opportunity.

BluHorseShu said:

---

paperback said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

---

This is wrong think. This is a forum, and people are able to discuss their ideas as much as you without being told they are know it alls. You should take that statement back.

---

Good one...but you forgot the sarcasm emoji.
(In best King Leonidas voice from '300')..."THIS..IS...F16!!!"
Get out of here with that 'considerate discussion forum' nonsense. There's what it should be and what it ain't...and never the twain shall meet.

---

OK.

eric76 said:

---

paperback said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

---

I believe the political landscape today dictates so very much of our lives. If the SC saw no standing, it's probably because they saw nothing that would benefit them from ruling on such a controversial topic. They go home and have lives outside of the SC like everyone else.

ETA: What I meant to say bottom line is that I think you can rule on practically anything if you are a judge in ANY court, especially if you don't follow the rule of the law to the letter. Which is WRONG.

---

From what I've read, judges really dislike seeing their decisions overturned on appeal. That seems to do a decent job of getting them to stick to the law.

I doubt that the Supreme Court would dodge the case just because it was controversial. I can readily see that they wouldn't want to waste time on a case in which it is very clear that the plaintiff doesn't have standing.

---

You bring up a good point and you stated it well eric.