Ben Thomson
Diamond Member
- Aug 13, 2020
- 4,758
- 3,100
- 1,938
Poor Lou..the SCOTUS a bunch of cowards..Stephen Miller gutless...classic melt down..Lou Dobbs Blasts Supreme Court After It Rejects Pennsylvania Election Case
Even Lou Dobbs is starting to lose it.
- Thread starter Ben Thomson
- Start date
Rambunctious
Diamond Member
- Jan 19, 2010
- 78,436
- 77,133
- 3,605
Its over Ben...Trump will get his second term....
Mac1958
Diamond Member
These nuts have been pinning their delusional hopes on the Supreme Court, and it's hopeless for them.
I have a morbid curiosity to see what they're like after Biden is sworn in. I know now, though, that people this delusional won't be worth dealing with, anyway. Observation, sure. But this is a fucking psychosis.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
What's over, exactly? What has happened, outside of all your losses, that has you assuming this?
Are you even serious?
L.K.Eder
unbannable non-troll
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,224
- 2,250
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,511
- 2,250
If I were on The SCOTUS, I would be terrified for the remainder of my life.
They and their children will need Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives.
They and their children will need Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives.
- Nov 10, 2019
- 52,664
- 33,457
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #8
I thought supremes were already protected. They're not?
Hellbilly
Platinum Member
self reassurance
A thought or phrase said out loud or silently in order to lower one's anxiety (for example, "I'm not going to get sick," or "I would never hurt a child). This is considered a ritualistic behavior.
Lou Dobbs began losing it back when he was still on CNN.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
Or a fuckin' psychosis
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
You know, at one time (a long time ago), I used to watch Dobbs while he had his show on CNN. Then, slowly, I saw him go further and further to the right and quit watching him. He moved to FOX a few months after that where they could appreciate him.
As far as the SCOTUS rejecting the lawsuit? Good on 'em. Shows that even if they were appointed by Trump, they still know right from wrong and will refuse to listen to something so obviously stupid.
Wonder how Trump now feels about his SCOTUS picks? Remember when he said that he would have SCOTUS decide if he won or not if it was close? Guess he's starting to regret those 3 lifetime appointments that he handed out.
As far as the SCOTUS rejecting the lawsuit? Good on 'em. Shows that even if they were appointed by Trump, they still know right from wrong and will refuse to listen to something so obviously stupid.
Wonder how Trump now feels about his SCOTUS picks? Remember when he said that he would have SCOTUS decide if he won or not if it was close? Guess he's starting to regret those 3 lifetime appointments that he handed out.
"Even?"
He lost it a long time ago.
And I genuinely believe he believes what he is saying.
He lost it a long time ago.
And I genuinely believe he believes what he is saying.
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
Dobbs is losing it? All he did was recount the facts to the public. Seems to me YOU are the one losing it. Or LOST it.
What's wrong, a little honest journalism scare you?
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,511
- 2,250
Perhaps; it still doesn't take away being tense every moment of your life.
- Nov 10, 2019
- 52,664
- 33,457
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #16
Not the tense type. I think I got the impression they were under protection from the movie "The Pelican Brief". Good movie, but probably not a good source of authoritative knowledge. I think the justices should be protected, but doubt they are or will be terrified for the rest of their life, either.
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,511
- 2,250
Until whoever is in charge of their protection does a Mario Cuomo or a DeBlasio.
There is already a very interesting case that set a precedent in 1997 Foster vs Love in the Supreme Court passed 9 zip regarding finishing the vote the same day or the vote is void.. If this is already a Precedent and is interpreted that way then it will be very hard for the Supreme Court not to void this election on those grounds if it makes it to them... Maybe that is why they are not wanting to have this case brought to them but Trump has other avenues as well to void this election if he so chooses or other routes... As I said before I have my popcorn ready this is better then reading a who dunit novel with all the twists and turns...Independent has a very good point about the judges fearing for their lives or their loved ones though....
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
Nope, sorry, SCOTUS does not have SS protection. However, they DO have their own protection service that guards them, and they serve at the pleasure of the SCOTUS.
securitytoday.com
The U.S. Supreme Court’s protection is provided by the Supreme Court Police, one of the smallest federal agencies. The force itself numbers about 125 officers, and is led by the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court, though this person has no association with the U.S. Marshals Service. In the history of the position (created in 1867), there have been ten Marshals. By statute, the Marshal is appointed by the Supreme Court and serves at their discretion.
The Supreme Court Police provide personal protection to the Justices at all times. In many ways, their mission, training, and authority is similar to that of the judicial security role of the United States Marshals Service. I would fully expect that a large number of the members of this force have been cross-deputized by the Marshals Service to increase their authority and jurisdiction.
Supreme Court justices only get security protection during domestic trips outside the Washington metropolitan area when they request it.
Securing the Supreme Court -- Security Today
Who protects the Court and its inhabitants?
securitytoday.com
The U.S. Supreme Court’s protection is provided by the Supreme Court Police, one of the smallest federal agencies. The force itself numbers about 125 officers, and is led by the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court, though this person has no association with the U.S. Marshals Service. In the history of the position (created in 1867), there have been ten Marshals. By statute, the Marshal is appointed by the Supreme Court and serves at their discretion.
The Supreme Court Police provide personal protection to the Justices at all times. In many ways, their mission, training, and authority is similar to that of the judicial security role of the United States Marshals Service. I would fully expect that a large number of the members of this force have been cross-deputized by the Marshals Service to increase their authority and jurisdiction.
Supreme Court justices only get security protection during domestic trips outside the Washington metropolitan area when they request it.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 75,769
- 73,505
- 3,605
Why is that? And should I report this post to the FBI?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
why is the forum silent about this stupid idea of rehabilitating Alcatraz- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Zone1 A Bedtime Story - A fictional narrative based on nothing. ;)- Started by Ace Nova
- Replies: 1
