Quote:
i love that this SCOTUS story has been shown to be complete fiction but people are still like "hmm might be true".
Gig 'Em
Quote:
i love that this SCOTUS story has been shown to be complete fiction but people are still like "hmm might be true".
Liz how bout a Dr pepperlarry culpepper said:
Um yeah Lin Wood is full of **** and if John Roberts said that then I am Queen Elizabeth
Is his job to grovel at the feet of the President, kiss his ass, and decide everything in the President's favor?Ellis Wyatt said:
John Roberts refuses to do his job. Don't need a whistleblower to tell us that.
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.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.Tanya 93 said:How did she refuse to do her job and why are you not a federal judge yet?Ellis Wyatt said:YESTanya 93 said:did ACB refuse to do her job?Ellis Wyatt said:
John Roberts refuses to do his job. Don't need a whistleblower to tell us that.Quote:
Or does she possibly know about this than you do?
NO
Conservatives? Very, very doubtful.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.
nah, it's just that sometimes you need to repeat things for some folks to get it.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.
Ha!eric76 said:Conservatives? Very, very doubtful.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.
Radical right wing? Yeah. Not much different from BLM and other radical left wing groups.
A good basis for a Conspiracy Theory, don't you think?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."
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.
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.Viper16 said:Ha!eric76 said:Conservatives? Very, very doubtful.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.
Radical right wing? Yeah. Not much different from BLM and other radical left wing groups.
You serious Clark?
Come on man!
LOL
Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
No state has any business interfering in the way any other state runs its election.Ellis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
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 standingEllis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
I'm all on board with you annie88. I just don't like Lin Wood and think he is just looking to make $.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 *****
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.C@LAg said:I do not think he has been comprised.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 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.
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.Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.Tanya 93 said:How did she refuse to do her job and why are you not a federal judge yet?Ellis Wyatt said:YESTanya 93 said:did ACB refuse to do her job?Ellis Wyatt said:
John Roberts refuses to do his job. Don't need a whistleblower to tell us that.Quote:
Or does she possibly know about this than you do?
NO
Since you know more about this than the court and all
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.Tanya 93 said: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 standingEllis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
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.Tanya 93 said: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 standingEllis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?
I appreciate that advice. I'll probably follow that advice from here forward C@LAg.C@LAg said:you should learn to not engage with her.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.
that is her schtick.
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.paperback said: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.Tanya 93 said: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 standingEllis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?
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.
Good one...but you forgot the sarcasm emoji.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.Tanya 93 said: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 standingEllis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?
I flagged my first post. Thank you Texags for giving me that opportunity.BluHorseShu said:So you used to take dictation?VitruvianAg said:I'm assuming you're not referencing Trump.BluHorseShu said: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.Gyles Marrett said: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?C@LAg said:irrelevant. actions since November reflect current status quo.Gyles Marrett said:Was Lin Wood considered a loon before November 2020?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.
shyster. pure and simple.
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.
OK.BluHorseShu said:Good one...but you forgot the sarcasm emoji.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.Tanya 93 said: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 standingEllis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?
(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.
You bring up a good point and you stated it well eric.eric76 said: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.paperback said: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.Tanya 93 said: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 standingEllis Wyatt said:Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?Tanya 93 said:So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?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.
Since you know more about this than the court and all
Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?
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.
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.