bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Yes you must protect your Biden cult"I GOTTA PROTECT OUR DEAR LEADER!" You keep listening to his lies...and you might end up like the cult member in Utah....DEAD.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes you must protect your Biden cult"I GOTTA PROTECT OUR DEAR LEADER!" You keep listening to his lies...and you might end up like the cult member in Utah....DEAD.
Nope.But you ignore Joe Biden
Yep that's why you posted to my quoteNope.
Just you.
Which did not speak of Biden. Only you.Yep that's why you posted to my quote
You don't have any evidence on Joe but you have all this evidence on Clarence Thomas and all you have to say is whataboutism?
In other words, you do believe it.You got proof...not just cause..."I said so."
You you progtards never did a thing. Saying you "shoulda" is meaningless.Thanks.
When the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a $1 million prize from a liberal billionaire’s foundation, she pledged to pass the money to a list of designated charities. Four years later, it is unclear where Ginsburg sent that money—an ambiguity that experts say raises conflict of interest concerns.
If true she should have been drug over the coals until every penny was accounted for and like above, it should not be done, period.
You mean the guy that beat the Hell out of your career criminal?Yes you must protect your Biden cult
You got proof...not just cause..."I said so."
Biden crimes and your dodge and deflection is the very reason why you need to be reminded.Which did not speak of Biden. Only you.
I love it when conservatives snap and go into a ridiculous tirade like you just did.Perhaps, but we have the proof that Biden is a crook. Biden is destroying this country and corrupting our courts. Jack Smith is the biggest scumbag ever to work for the government.
Why? She disclosed. Then donated the money to charity. Clarence has lived a lavish lifestyle. All he has to do is vote the way that is favorable to billionaires.Thanks.
When the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a $1 million prize from a liberal billionaire’s foundation, she pledged to pass the money to a list of designated charities. Four years later, it is unclear where Ginsburg sent that money—an ambiguity that experts say raises conflict of interest concerns.
If true she should have been drug over the coals until every penny was accounted for and like above, it should not be done, period.
Joe Biden hasn't been charged with any crimes. Trump 4 indictments. And not all of them are witch hunts. In fact none of them are.Biden crimes and your dodge and deflection is the very reason why you need to be reminded.
1. Appearance of impropriety
2. It notes it was never documented who or if she actually gave the money to anyone.
I listed the charities she gave the money to. Do any of them dispute it?
That's why she disclosed it. And didn't keep the money. That would have appeared inappropriate.
Please stop trying to compare a liberal foundation awarding her $1 million because of her great work, that she doesn't get to keep, to Clarence and his wife and what they've been doing with/for all these billionaires who want him to vote in ways that are favorable to him.
Without even knowing Clarence was doing this, for YEARS I've pointed out that when it comes to billionaires and corporations, the right wing justices always side with them over we the people. I had no idea they reward him to vote the way he does. I think they are wasting their money because he probably would have voted that way anyways. LOL.
If if if. If that happens then she recuses herself.It gives the appearance of impropriety and of a biased position before the case is ever heard.
If she donates money to any organization and then that organization in any way has any position on any case before the court she has shown a particular bias to that case.
What exactly is the problem with "NO money to Supreme Court justices"?
If if if. If that happens then she recuses herself.
That's another thing Clarence does wrong. He doesn't recuse himself.
I think we agree they need to have a list of rules/ethics and they can not break those rules. If they do they have to go.It's been noted many have not recused themselves in cases they should have.
Recent Times a Justice Failed to Recuse Despite a Conflict of Interest - Fix the Court
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lasr.12090
I don't really expect you to read the second link completely but it does a good job of noting how often Ginsberg refused to recuse herself despite a clear conflict of interest.
What is wrong with NO money to Supreme Court justices?