Here is a matter I'm sure we can all agree on.

[j-mac]

And I asked you to clear things up for me but all I get is more nonsense.

What would you like cleared up?

 

[pknopp]

What would you like cleared up?

where you told me that things will only get worse if you ignore your guy doing something and me dismissing it like you claimed.

 

[Seth]

They only favor the court orders that become an extension of the Democrat party. The problem is once the court becomes an extension of the party it is no longer the court

And that is how it works with the left. They simply cannot fathom that someone can hear what they have to say fully understand it and then disagree with it. It has to be that you simply didn't read it or hear it correctly. This is called arrogance.

Or — and hear me out — it’s possible to understand someone’s point and still think it’s wrong. That’s not arrogance; that’s called having a different perspective. If disagreement automatically meant misunderstanding, there’d be no such thing as debate — just echo chambers with good lighting.

 

[Independent thinker]

They only favor the court orders that become an extension of the Democrat party. The problem is once the court becomes an extension of the party it is no longer the court

And that is how it works with the left. They simply cannot fathom that someone can hear what they have to say fully understand it and then disagree with it. It has to be that you simply didn't read it or hear it correctly. This is called arrogance.

Absolutely. That is completely in their genetic mackup. And, when they institute a new policy or law and it doesn't work or makes things worse, they can't comprehend that it doesn't work or makes things worse. There can't possibly be anything wrong with what they did so they just do more of what doesn't work and they keep on doing that because they can't possibly be wrong about something.

 

[Independent thinker]

Cite me an example of a Dem prez who nominated someone to serve on an appellate court who directed DoJ employees to violate a court order.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[j-mac]

where you told me that things will only get worse if you ignore your guy doing something and me dismissing it like you claimed.

Oh, you think I’m going to go back through your 84,000 some odd postings? Not going to happen, I’ve got things to do today.

 

[pknopp]

Oh, you think I’m going to go back through your 84,000 some odd postings? Not going to happen, I’ve got things to do today.

You made the accusation. So as I said, you were just mindlessly ranting.

 

[j-mac]

You made the accusation. So as I said, you were just mindlessly ranting.

Must be hitting close to the truth, or you wouldn’t be squealing like a little piggy…

 

[pknopp]

Must be hitting close to the truth, or you wouldn’t be squealing like a little piggy…

Your ignorance is simply just annoying.

 

[Doc7505]

And that takes time, and the time taken is exactly why these hacks in black pretend they have authority that exceeds their bounds.

Also they know punishing them for bad behavior is virtually impossible.

~~~~~~
Best example is the rulings of K.B Jackson. As far as I'm concerned she's a DEI with a low IQ and a DSA Marxist Democrat tool.

 

[berg80]

The presidents position is that they’ll follow court orders, but appeal them where necessary…where is that wrong.

Putting aside that you changed the subject, Dotard nominated someone who directed DoJ staff to ignore a court order. In contradiction to what you claim his position to be. Why the inconsistency?

 

[berg80]

The President can nominate whomever he wishes. Unless you think he needs your approval?

That's a common reply, citing a prez's power, when you folks find it difficult to deal with the matter at hand. The matter being the nominee's qualifications given his directive to disobey a court order.

 

[j-mac]

Your ignorance is simply just annoying.

Nothing valid from you….as usual

 

[j-mac]

That's a common reply, citing a prez's power, when you folks find it difficult to deal with the matter at hand. The matter being the nominee's qualifications given his directive to disobey a court order.

That’s only if one believes the bullshit you, and your biased, narrative driven media says…But, not to worry, he has to be confirmed, so you can loosen the grip on those pearls a bit…lol

 

[j-mac]

Putting aside that you changed the subject, Dotard nominated someone who directed DoJ staff to ignore a court order. In contradiction to what you claim his position to be. Why the inconsistency?

Because, you are an untrustworthy individual, as is your source.

 

[Eman623]

Bove, while under oath, in response to questions about the directive he gave to DoJ lawyers claims he does not recall saying what he said. Yet there is documentary evidence proving he said it.

Uh, he said specifically that he never told DOJ lawyers to defy court orders. From your own link:

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” he told senators. “I did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point at that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.”

However, Bove stopped short of denying he used the profane phrase during discussions related to the courts.

“I don’t recall,” Bove said.

So he's got a pottymouth. No soup - or judgeship - for you!

 

[blackhawk]

Anybody else seeing the irony here?

 

[j-mac]

Uh, he said specifically that he never told DOJ lawyers to defy court orders. From your own link:

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” he told senators. “I did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point at that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.”

However, Bove stopped short of denying he used the profane phrase during discussions related to the courts.

“I don’t recall,” Bove said.

So he's got a pottymouth. No soup - or judgeship - for you!

Just as everyone knew, Berg is lying.

 

[jc456]

Do you have any comments to make other than a specious false equivalence?

xiden didn't give out free student loans? You sure? And, SCOTUS said no, no.

 

[berg80]

Because, you are an untrustworthy individual, as is your source.

Ah yes, it almost always comes down to the denial of facts with you. After all, what else can you do?