You don't see you're being played here? The justices gave this to liberals because it's politically unpopular for liberals. Dumb fuck.Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns
What about refusing to review the judicial lynching of Officer Chauvin?
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.
You don't see you're being played here? The justices gave this to liberals because it's politically unpopular for liberals. Dumb fuck.Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns
What about refusing to review the judicial lynching of Officer Chauvin?
Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns
What about refusing to review the judicial lynching of Officer Chauvin?
Freedom Can't Breathe When Gagged by BlackrobesThe nine-member Supreme Court receives somewhere around 7,000 case requests on average every year and typically only accepts between 90 and 150 of them.
Supreme Court won’t hear Derek Chauvin’s appeal of George Floyd murder conviction
The Supreme Court on Monday spurned an appeal request on former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s conviction.nypost.com
Since the SCOTUS offered no explanation for their refusal, it may be that they saw no proof that indicates Chauvin's right to a fair trial was denied. The circumstances surrounding that trial does not mean justice was not done, at least egregiously enough to warrant a review. The Minnesota SC did not review the case and the Supremes had no reason to reverse that decision. Many people, including myself, believe that politics intervened to the point where justice was not impartial and was not evenly applied but that's not good enough to review the case at the highest level when no lower court agrees. But no real proof of that exists.
Freedom Can't Breathe When Gagged by Blackrobes
Texas gives a damn about it's citizens and Biden started telling them to pound salt when he was in office the first day.Bullshit. The SCOTUS is not gagging freedom in any way, the ruling basically says that the states cannot deny access or interfere with the federal gov't in performing their constitutional duties and that is all it says. And whether the federal gov't is performing those duties to a state's satisfaction is irrelevant. There has to be lines of authority that occasionally must be delineated. I do not deny that the federal gov't is not getting the job done on the southern border but that does not mean Texas can do whatever they want in their place.