Westside Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, Plano said: so are you implying that the democrats will have a blue wave this election year and the red swamp will be drained? womp Not likely. The left won't show up for a biden rally, but show up to riot? Lol You don't actually think they plan on voting do you? Lol
Plano Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 57 minutes ago, westside2 said: Not likely. The left won't show up for a biden rally, but show up to riot? Lol You don't actually think they plan on voting do you? Lol BUH GAWD DONT TRED ON MUH AUTHORITAH is what i just heard from you 2 1
Gary M Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 4 hours ago, RochesterRob said: Her ego would not let her do the right thing for the lefty's of the nation. No no no, she stayed so Hillary could replace her. That's the sweetest of poetic justice. And now you have snowflake C00ns crying about all the other judges Trump has seated being "and too far right". Pretty sure Obummer left those seats open for HRC to fill.
RochesterRob Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Gary M said: No no no, she stayed so Hillary could replace her. That's the sweetest of poetic justice. And now you have snowflake C00ns crying about all the other judges Trump has seated being "and too far right". Pretty sure Obummer left those seats open for HRC to fill. RBG obviously ignored her education in favor of cooked polls showing the Hilldog with a big lead. Another example of a person letting their ego run amok instead of using their brain. I could see the pant suit queen issuing an edict like that.
WEATHER DOT COM Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 11 minutes ago, Gary M said: C00ns What are C00ns?
Gary M Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 4 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: What are C00ns? Sen. Chris ***** (D-DE) https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/10/26/*****-hundreds-of-trumps-lower-court-judges-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-sit-peaceably/ 1
WEATHER DOT COM Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Gary M said: Sen. Chris ***** (D-DE) https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/10/26/*****-hundreds-of-trumps-lower-court-judges-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-sit-peaceably/ 18 minutes ago, Gary M said: Pretty sure Obummer left those seats open for HRC to fill. McConnel blocked most of the nominations.
Gary M Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: McConnel blocked most of the nominations. elections have consequences.
WEATHER DOT COM Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, Gary M said: elections have consequences. something tells me this won’t be your take when Biden packs the courts
Doc Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 1 hour ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: something tells me this won’t be your take when Biden packs the courts Assuming he wins...and does. And if so and when the Senate turns R again in 2022...
SoCal Deek Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 2 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: something tells me this won’t be your take when Biden packs the courts so somehow you know that's what Joe's going to do? Interesting. I thought we had to elect him to know what's in it.
Gary M Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 2 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: something tells me this won’t be your take when Biden packs the courts Only the POTUS can do that.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 33 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: so somehow you know that's what Joe's going to do? Interesting. I thought we had to elect him to know what's in it. ..LMAO...."Bo knows"....."Joe doesn't".....answer isn't on the teleprompter yet..................
keepthefaith Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 3 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: something tells me this won’t be your take when Biden packs the courts Without the Senate he can't do anything. It really comes down to that.
4merper4mer Posted October 27, 2020 Posted October 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Doc said: Assuming he wins...and does. And if so and when the Senate turns R again in 2022... By 2048 if there are enough Senate/WH flips, all 330 million of us will be SC justices. Whoop de do. Packing off the Supreme Court makes it permanently subservient to the other two branches by definition.
Tiberius Posted October 28, 2020 Author Posted October 28, 2020 If this lady refuses to recuse herself in the Pa voter case she will exposes herself as the hack she is. Being sent to the court to help a President win an election is absolute fraud and undermines any credibility this court might have had. Brett Kav's decision on Wisconsin voting was. a farce. He said the election might not get decided election day. Oh no! That's never happened before! Hacks on the court.
4merper4mer Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: If this lady refuses to recuse herself in the Pa voter case she will exposes herself as the hack she is. Being sent to the court to help a President win an election is absolute fraud and undermines any credibility this court might have had. Brett Kav's decision on Wisconsin voting was. a farce. He said the election might not get decided election day. Oh no! That's never happened before! Hacks on the court. On what basis should she recuse herself?
Doc Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: On what basis should she recuse herself? Feelz.
Tiberius Posted October 28, 2020 Author Posted October 28, 2020 Just now, 4merper4mer said: On what basis should she recuse herself? Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County Board of Elections has filed a brief with the Supreme Court demanding Barrett recuse herself if the case involving ballots received after Election Day is heard again. “The nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice this close to a presidential election is unprecedented,” the brief states. “As concerning as that is, what is even more troubling is the language President Trump has used in consideration of this nomination, linking it directly to the electoral season at hand, with implications for his own re-election.” The argument maintains that Trump rushed that confirmation process in an obvious attempt to stack the deck in cases involving his reelection, which “raises a terrible ‘appearance’ problem which can only engulf the Supreme Court in a political stew with poisonous consequences for the independence and perceived integrity of the judiciary.” The brief cites a case regarding a justice on West Virginia’s supreme court to show that failure to recuse when necessary impinges on the due-process rights of the litigants. In that case, the brief argues, what was critical “was not the justice’s own beliefs, nor even the presence of actual bias which mattered, but instead, the ‘objective risk of actual bias that required [the justice’s] recusal.’” The brief continues: The law has long understood “the universally recognized legal maxim, nemo judex in causa sua, [‘no one may be his own judge’].” . . . [The West Virginia case] adds an important annex: improprium eligere vestri iudici — “no one may choose his own judge.” The present case is one of utmost important to the President’s re-election bid. Just as President Trump has placed Justice Barrett on the Supreme Court with whatever hope or expectation he may have, he has also imposed on her the duty to recuse herself in this case. Her integrity and the integrity of this Court cannot tolerate any other choice. The brief also points out that the judicial rules governing lower federal court judges require recusal based on how his or her “participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.” The standard is whether participation in a case might cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances to “harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” That is certainly the case here. Just now, Doc said: Feelz. Trump said he wants her there specifically for his election. Don't cry when we pack that court
Recommended Posts