Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Better pack your bags for Cuba, Snowflake.Between trump and Bannon, I am not sure this country will survive as a democratic republic. They both want to bring down the state.
Steve Bannon's second act: He's back, and he wants to bring down the curtain on democracy
Maybe you thought "Trump's brain" was off the political stage forever. But he's back — and now he smells revengewww.salon.com
Who’d have imagined that a liberal / progressive mouthpiece like the WaPo would ever even admit error?The Washington Post admits it was wrong and you call it irrelevant horseshit and accuse me of repeating embarrassing lies.
You definitely are a stereotypical liberal.
So. You admit that you have only ad hominem?
Elevate your game and try again when you have any.
Also, I’m wondering if you are actually citing a long held “opinion” of the courts in the terms of precedent? Or are you making reference to side thoughts expressed in some legal opinions that are not actually part of the legal opinion? There is a concept known as obiter dicta. Normally, it’s just called “dicta.” It essentially refers to the non-precedential portion of legal decisions and rulings and opinions that aren’t expressed as a basis for the rulings.
Example: the court opinion says “the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of A and B to support a finding of C. Here, the proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports A. The proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports B. Also, the defendant is ugly, smells bad, dresses like a clown and has terrible taste in music. The court finds, based on the trial evidence that the jury verdict of guilty was legally proper. Conviction affirmed.”
The A and B part and the C conclusion were all necessary to the ruling. The musings about the defendant being ugly, smelling bad, etc., are all orbiter dicta. They have no value as precedent.
Furthermore, precedent can always be questioned. Plessy v. Ferguson was absolutely precedent at one point. But, overtime, it got questioned. And it ain’t precedent no more.
Fairly small group of chuckleheads.
The “opinion” makes some claims in obiter dicta which means it is not useful as precedent. I wouldn’t expect you to know this or admit it even if you knew and understood it.if that there opinion was overturned in practice - find it & bring it to me.... otherwise it stands.
why accept a pardon blah blah blah ... ol' sausage casing has done NOTHING to 'clear & clean' his rep since that there pardon.
did you see him yesterday? stoking the flames even more... go ahead & defend him as if he is a victim. oh lordy .....
do you think the election was stolen?
You do quite a lot of ad hominem. This being the case (and it is), your honesty is also revealed as lacking.uh nooooo i was pointing out yer hypocrisy. i don't do ad hominem.
LOL...............................................................
The “opinion” makes some claims in obiter dicta which means it is not useful as precedent. I wouldn’t expect you to know this or admit it even if you knew and understood it.
You do quite a lot of ad hominem.
This being the case (and it is), your honesty is also revealed as lacking.
When asking what appears to be an effort to pose a question, clarity counts. Your effort fails.uh-huh ...
like ^ THAT ^^^
that opinion pretty much held up the rest of the sham claims of voter fraud ...
do you think the election was stolen due to voter fraud?
True. That caught me by surprise too.Who’d have imagined that a liberal / progressive mouthpiece like the WaPo would ever even admit error?
When asking what appears to be an effort to pose a question, clarity counts. Your effort fails.
1. My thoughts about the election fraud are separate and distinct from whether it amounted to the theft of the election. That’s a dull topic for some other thread. (Regardless of my opinion or yours, Pres. Brandon is still President at this juncture).
2. The answer to the above is also (and independently) irrelevant to the question about whether orbiter dicta in a 1915 SCOTUS decision can validly be “cited” as “precedent” for the claim that accepting a pardon legally amounts to an admission of guilt.
It doesn’t. Orbiter dicta has no legal value as “precedent.”
until it changes - it seems to be still standing. unless you can show otherwise.
anyhoo .... bannon will milk & grift donny's humpers until they are dry.
what an upstanding dude !
LOL..
tick tock....
It IS “still standing.” But, as mere dicta. It is therefore still lacking any value as precedent.
You remain a plodding ass clown. I am not here defending Bannon, first of all. I still say he would have been better served by just complying with the subpoena (especially to testify) and then giving shit to the partisan assholes of the left in Congress.well - until it changes....
so far so good. bannon is guilty AF - at least in the court of public opinion.
but you keep chugging along, & defend a grifting performance artist; bent on 'deCONstructing the administrative state '- a perfect pick for a presidential advisor.
& you are a perfect foot soldier for donny.
View attachment 564893
Banning books about gay people
You remain a plodding ass clown. I am not here defending Bannon, first of all. I still say he would have been better served by just complying with the subpoena (especially to testify) and then giving shit to the partisan assholes of the left in Congress.
I will continue to dispute the sub-moron things you spew even about Bannon because it’s a pastime to expose you laughably liberal assclowns and the imbecility of what you say.
Once again, none of this has a thing to do with Trump. Your obsession is showing. If TDS is indicated by a high fever, you must be a torch by now.
