4th&long Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 Like I’ve been saying the Supreme Court has been bought. Congrats to the right. Money can buy a lot of things in this country including the high court.
Tommy Callahan Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 On 7/1/2024 at 5:39 PM, 4th&long said: Like I’ve been saying the Supreme Court has been bought. Congrats to the right. Money can buy a lot of things in this country including the high court. Expand You ever actually research the amount of money to politicians? Dems kill it with the corporate cash. What are they buying with it. Massive stimulus to those companies and ngo's 1
4th&long Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 On 7/1/2024 at 6:28 PM, Tommy Callahan said: You ever actually research the amount of money to politicians? Dems kill it with the corporate cash. What are they buying with it. Massive stimulus to those companies and ngo's Expand I believe that. All I have been saying since I’ve been on here is ALL politicians are corrupt. I was hoping the court wasn’t. They only took this case on to help trump delay his trial till after the election. They didn’t rule that trump won’t stand trial today. They just muddied the waters to delay it. 1
B-Man Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 On 7/1/2024 at 6:28 PM, Tommy Callahan said: You ever actually research the amount of money to politicians? Dems kill it with the corporate cash. What are they buying with it. Massive stimulus to those companies and ngo's Expand You're wasting your time Tom. Anyone stupid enough to sat "the Supreme Court is bought" after seeing the diverse number of opinions over the past two weeks , is beyond reason. . 1
Pokebball Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 On 7/1/2024 at 6:33 PM, 4th&long said: I believe that. All I have been saying since I’ve been on here is ALL politicians are corrupt. I was hoping the court wasn’t. They only took this case on to help trump delay his trial till after the election. They didn’t rule that trump won’t stand trial today. They just muddied the waters to delay it. Expand You don't think SCOTUS was pretty much obligated to take on this case? I don't understand how anyone could possibly not feel that they had to. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 On 7/1/2024 at 6:33 PM, B-Man said: You're wasting your time Tom. Anyone stupid enough to sat "the Supreme Court is bought" after seeing the diverse number of opinions over the past two weeks , is beyond reason. . Expand Maybe it's being paid for on a layaway plan, B. Did you ever think about that. A layaway plan? 5
4th&long Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 (edited) On 7/1/2024 at 6:36 PM, Pokebball said: You don't think SCOTUS was pretty much obligated to take on this case? I don't understand how anyone could possibly not feel that they had to. Expand I’m not a lawyer but not don’t think they needed to. The lower court ruled on this and their decision was fine. The Supreme Court just ruled basically the same thing. They always had immunity in official roles, that’s why Obama was never charged. All that has really happened is now a lower court has to have hearings on wether Jack smiths case against trump can go forward, was 1/6 and trying to overturn the election and his role in it an official act? That will push the trial back till after the election. I’m sure their might be more to it but at this point, just getting home from the gym, and just starting to read up on it all… On 7/1/2024 at 6:33 PM, B-Man said: You're wasting your time Tom. Anyone stupid enough to sat "the Supreme Court is bought" after seeing the diverse number of opinions over the past two weeks , is beyond reason. . Expand Ha ha ha ha ha. How much money in “gifts” has Clarence Thomas accepted? $2 million. Am I supposed to believe he is the only one? Hell no! Edited July 1, 2024 by 4th&long
Pokebball Posted July 1, 2024 Posted July 1, 2024 (edited) On 7/1/2024 at 6:37 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Maybe it's being paid for on a layaway plan, B. Did you ever think about that. A layaway plan? Expand This congressional hearing, with questions from Tom Massie, was the most interesting exchange. Especially sexual misconduct payments for congress men/women (with taxpayer money nonetheless) Edited July 1, 2024 by Pokebball 2
Warcodered Posted July 15, 2024 Posted July 15, 2024 On 7/15/2024 at 3:40 PM, BillsFanNC said: Expand It's just so ***** stupid, Special Counsel is used to avoid influence/bias from the administration, it's a ***** tool. If you remove the fact that they used a Special Counsel and if they'd just used the normal department of Justice it wouldn't ***** matter.
B-Man Posted July 15, 2024 Posted July 15, 2024 On 7/15/2024 at 4:07 PM, Warcodered said: If you remove the fact that they used a Special Counsel and if they'd just used the normal department of Justice it wouldn't ***** matter. Expand But they didn't. Only Congress can use a special prosecutor. Unconstitutional Mr. Smith. . 1
Warcodered Posted July 15, 2024 Posted July 15, 2024 On 7/15/2024 at 4:09 PM, B-Man said: But they didn't. Only Congress can use a special prosecutor. Unconstitutional Mr. Smith. . Expand That seems unlikely, if it was the case Republicans would have actually done something when he was first appointed because despite all the crazy ***** some of them say, there are still plenty of them that actually do know the constitution and the law. Seems far more likely that an incompetent judge, Cannon, seized on some crazy statements from one of the worst SC judges.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 15, 2024 Posted July 15, 2024 On 7/15/2024 at 4:16 PM, Warcodered said: That seems unlikely, if it was the case Republicans would have actually done something when he was first appointed because despite all the crazy ***** some of them say, there are still plenty of them that actually do know the constitution and the law. Seems far more likely that an incompetent judge, Cannon, seized on some crazy statements from one of the worst SC judges. Expand Welp, there's a process to consider all these allegations--baseless or otherwise. 1
Scraps Posted July 15, 2024 Posted July 15, 2024 On 7/15/2024 at 4:09 PM, B-Man said: But they didn't. Only Congress can use a special prosecutor. Unconstitutional Mr. Smith. . Expand So the conviction of Hunter Biden should be thrown out.
B-Man Posted July 15, 2024 Posted July 15, 2024 On 7/15/2024 at 4:43 PM, Scraps said: So the conviction of Hunter Biden should be thrown out. Expand NO.
BillsFanNC Posted December 5, 2024 Author Posted December 5, 2024 Justice Thomas sprung a killer question on the ACLU lawyer: "What remedy are you seeking?" Strangio, flummoxed by such a seemingly simple question said an injunction. Justice Thomas then asked "practically, you would get different treatment based on sex?" and the trap was laid. Strangio said the plaintiff (a girl who identifies as a boy) would be allowed to get drugs for "a typical male puberty" despite having a "birth sex [of] female." That answer made clear that girls who identify as boys would get a right under the Constitution to testosterone, but boys who identify as boys would not, which is...sex discrimination! Genius. 1
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 5, 2024 Posted December 5, 2024 No one hates ethics rules more than Thomas. Corrupt
Recommended Posts