Proof SCOTUS is corrupt.

[JustAGuy1]

Easy: see your post #11 - and all your other posts pertaining to this matter.

Nope, prove it.

 

[Delldude]

Rules Colorado can't take trump off the ballot because thats federal'

But let's Texas set its own immigration policy, which is supposed to be federal.

Maybe try two different areas of the COTUS.

 

[OKTexas]

YOU MAGA's are the ones who constantly claim that e.g. Democrats are corrupt, prejudiced and undemocratic towards the USA

But now you "claim" that 6 Republican appointed SCJ out of 9 SCJ - are representing the US majority and are supposedly ruling "right" - they are clearly ruling in favor of "right-wing" - see the Texas ruling, as such in breach of the US Constitution and Federal Law, and you are therefore plain daft or simply brainwashed.

That the Colorado ruling wasn't going to prevail is understood - since Trump has not been convicted of insurrection yet - and Federal law aka the Constitution, overrules State Laws.

They aren't supposed to be representing the US majority, they represent the Constitution and the rule of law. And federal law doesn't always overrule State laws. When the Constitution was written, the States allowed the feds some, but not all powers. The States reserved most powers for themselves. Try actually reading the Constitution for a change instead of just regurgitating commie talking points.

.

 

[MarathonMike]

It's a Cult.
It's what they do.

Like everything else, they accuse us of exactly who they are.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to show me that State law overrules Federal law, and that immigration laws are not a Federal matter aka regulated by Federal Law.

The Constitution says the feds will establish uniform rule on naturalization (article 1, section 8) and who the States CAN'T ADMIT after 1888 (article 1, section 9). No where does it give the feds the power to tell States who they must admit. If the federal law contradicts that, the law is unenforceable. The supreme court should rule accordingly.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because you are a retarded fucking clown.

Cry it all out.

Which law?

 

[Kruska]

They aren't supposed to be representing the US majority, they represent the Constitution and the rule of law. And federal law doesn't always overrule State laws. When the Constitution was written, the States allowed the feds some, but not all powers. The States reserved most powers for themselves. Try actually reading the Constitution for a change instead of just regurgitating commie talking points.

.

The Constitution has already been written - you dolt

The respective US administration is bound by the Constitution, and the USSC is to ensure that the respective US administration and the respective states are acting in accordance with the US Constitution.
Therefore the present USSC is not a guarantee towards upholding the Constitution at all - since it is dominated by partisan agendas - presently in favor by 6-3 for the Republicans.

And the US procedure towards "appointing" USSCJ members is totally undemocratic. Since its composition excludes the representation of the peoples majority, in regards to their "representatives" to adhering towards the Constitution. BTW - the electoral vote system is undemocratic as well - since it guarantees a minority to overrule a majority of the US population.

If the USSC would be in a 6-3 favor for the democrats - you would be whining and shooting of your mouth all the way.

 

[blackhawk]

When I don’t get the outcome I want the court is corrupt. That is not a new take but it is a consistent one and ironically it’s a mindset partisan’s both sides share.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not only just an assertion for which neither you nor they provided any evidence, it's also apparently false, per the evidence mentioned by the judge.

So, there is no border crisis?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, there is no border crisis?

So there is no law the feds are not enforcing, but Texas is? In this case?

Doesn't seem so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What part of immigration law, is he not enforcing? Is there a statute?

Joe's doing a swell job at the border. Just ask the black people here in Chicago.

They love that all their stuff is being given to illegal aliens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those two — George W. Bush and Donald Trump — would eventually appoint the five justices who, with Thomas, make up the current 6-3 conservative supermajority.

That was awesome!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

YOU MAGA's are the ones who constantly claim that e.g. Democrats are corrupt, prejudiced and undemocratic towards the USA

But now you "claim" that 6 Republican appointed SCJ out of 9 SCJ - are representing the US majority and are supposedly ruling "right" - they are clearly ruling in favor of "right-wing" - see the Texas ruling, as such in breach of the US Constitution and Federal Law, and you are therefore plain daft or simply brainwashed.

That the Colorado ruling wasn't going to prevail is understood - since Trump has not been convicted of insurrection yet - and Federal law aka the Constitution, overrules State Laws.

YOU MAGA's are the ones who constantly claim that e.g. Democrats are corrupt, prejudiced and undemocratic towards the USA

Only because they are.

 

[jknowgood]

If Joe refuses to enforce... Texas law?

Pedo joe refuses to enforce any law that keeps the illegals out.

 

[Kruska]

The Constitution says the feds will establish uniform rule on naturalization (article 1, section 8) and who the States CAN'T ADMIT after 1888 (article 1, section 9). No where does it give the feds the power to tell States who they must admit. If the federal law contradicts that, the law is unenforceable. The supreme court should rule accordingly.

.

Naturalization has nothing to do with enforcing Federal Border laws - the latter are enforced by the US Border and Customs Protection, which is FEDERAL and not State controlled.
And "naturalization" is a part of the Constitution - which isn't subjected to a State ruling, but to Congress and Senate, therefore becoming a FEDERAL LAW.
If a State finds a Federal Law to be unconstitutional they are free to reject/object it, and eventually the USSC will decide. And the present USSC composition is not representing a democratic process - thus the circle of this discussion comes to a full circle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Constitution has already been written - you dolt

The respective US administration is bound by the Constitution, and the USSC is to ensure that the respective US administration and the respective states are acting in accordance with the US Constitution.
Therefore the present USSC is not a guarantee towards upholding the Constitution at all - since it is dominated by partisan agendas - presently in favor by 6-3 for the Republicans.

And the US procedure towards "appointing" USSCJ members is totally undemocratic. Since its composition excludes the representation of the peoples majority, in regards to their "representatives" to adhering towards the Constitution. BTW - the electoral vote system is undemocratic as well - since it guarantees a minority to overrule a majority of the US population.

If the USSC would be in a 6-3 favor for the democrats - you would be whining and shooting of your mouth all the way.

And the US procedure towards "appointing" USSCJ members is totally undemocratic.

Should the people vote on Supreme Court justices?

BTW - the electoral vote system is undemocratic as well - since it guarantees a minority to overrule a majority of the US population.

Try that again, in English?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Naturalization has nothing to do with enforcing Federal Border laws - the latter are enforced by the US Border and Customs Protection, which is FEDERAL and not State controlled.
And "naturalization" is a part of the Constitution - which isn't subjected to a State ruling, but to Congress and Senate, therefore becoming a FEDERAL LAW.
If a State finds a Federal Law to be unconstitutional they are free to reject/object it, and eventually the USSC will decide. And the present USSC composition is not representing a democratic process - thus the circle of this discussion comes to a full circle.

Naturalization has nothing to do with enforcing Federal Border laws - the latter are enforced by the US Border and Customs Protection,

Or, under Biden, not enforced by the US Border and Customs Protection.

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution has already been written - you dolt

The respective US administration is bound by the Constitution, and the USSC is to ensure that the respective US administration and the respective states are acting in accordance with the US Constitution.
Therefore the present USSC is not a guarantee towards upholding the Constitution at all - since it is dominated by partisan agendas - presently in favor by 6-3 for the Republicans.

And the US procedure towards "appointing" USSCJ members is totally undemocratic. Since its composition excludes the representation of the peoples majority, in regards to their "representatives" to adhering towards the Constitution. BTW - the electoral vote system is undemocratic as well - since it guarantees a minority to overrule a majority of the US population.

If the USSC would be in a 6-3 favor for the democrats - you would be whining and shooting of your mouth all the way.

I bet you think that word salad sounded really smart, but if that's really the case, why was the CO ruling 9-0 against commierado? Cone on genius, let's see if you can type something that is smart. Still laughing.

.

 

[Kruska]

When I don’t get the outcome I want the court is corrupt. That is not a new take but it is a consistent one and ironically it’s a mindset partisan’s both sides share.

If a court aka a judge is corrupt is one issue - and has nothing to do with the undemocratic composition of the USSC.
One doesn't necessarily need to be a "financially corrupt" USSCJ member, in order to push/favor one's own political party conviction over the majority of a population, and therefore engage in dismantling/manipulating the Constitution.

 

[BluesLegend]

Rules Colorado can't take trump off the ballot because thats federal'

But let's Texas set its own immigration policy, which is supposed to be federal.

^^^ when even the Dem's own radical left wing justices bitch slap lawfare Dems with a 9-0 REBUKE ruling. Poor Dems are fully unhinged at this point.