Judge Amir Ali, a Biden GIft That Keeps on Giving, Has Done It Again

[otto105]

No it’s true. Do you?

It’s not true.

And what are your qualifications to challenge the judges ruling.

 

[struth]

A president can’t bypass normal procedures for vindictive retribution against selective people under whistleblower protection.

The president used a memorandum outside of the law.

This plantiff wasn’t under whistleblower protection. Try again.

You are literally not even talking about this case at this point and I’ve linked the opinion twice and it’s also linked in the OP

Why are you commenting on a topic you haven’t even tried to get informed on?

 

[otto105]

This plantiff wasn’t under whistleblower protection. Try again.

You are literally not even talking about this case at this point and I’ve linked the opinion twice and it’s also linked in the OP

Why are you commenting on a topic you haven’t even tried to get informed on?

Hilarious

You linked what? An opinion from the wingnut media silo?

 

[struth]

Hilarious

You linked what? An opinion from the wingnut media silo?

Um no the judge in this case. The opinion we are discussing

Maybe click the links so time

This is almost as bad as you not realizing Hong Kong is in China

 

[excalibur]

Hilarious


So, you lika the king idea.

No, that is why I oppose this judge and others like him with their king-like rulings.

 

[otto105]

Um no the judge in this case. The opinion we are discussing

Maybe click the links so time

This is almost as bad as you not realizing Hong Kong is in China

Yes, with the subject matter expert making the ruling that you disagree with.

And now maga fuckups are whining.

 

[otto105]

No, that is why I oppose this judge and others like him with their king-like rulings.

He ruled against your king and YOU are whining about.

Fuckup

 

[struth]

Yes, with the subject matter expert making the ruling that you disagree with.

And now maga fuckups are whining.

What’s a bill of attainder? I’m an expert in the subject

 

[excalibur]

He ruled against your king and YOU are whining about.

Fuckup

Simply pointing out that this Mohammedan Canadian made up new law. He big mad. Bill of attainder, indeed.

But thanks for making so many posts in my thread, even with your ad hominems.

 

[otto105]

Simply pointing out that this Mohammedan Canadian made up new law. He big mad. Bill of attainder, indeed.

But thanks for making so many posts in my thread, even with your ad hominems.

Are you a subject matter expert on it?

No, you’re a sycophant whining about it.

 

[struth]

Are you a subject matter expert on it?

No, you’re a sycophant whining about it.

I’ve noticed you haven’t told us what a bill of attainder is yet…did you even bother to read the opinion yet?

 

[otto105]

If we had a king we would also have Bills of Attainer.

 

[struth]

If we had a king we would also have Bills of Attainer.

You still don’t get it. Why haven’t you taken the time to educate yourself?

 

[struth]

Hilarious

So you lika the king.

You are making no sense

We didn’t have a king in 1946, yet the court found that there was a bill of attainder in United States v Lovett

Why don’t you take time to find out what one is before you continue to show how clueless you are today

 

[otto105]

You are making no sense

We didn’t have a king in 1946, yet the court found that there was a bill of attainder in United States v Lovett

Why don’t you take time to find out what one is before you continue to show how clueless you are today

United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress may not forbid the payment of a salary to a specific individual, as it would constitute an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

 

[struth]

United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress may not forbid the payment of a salary to a specific individual, as it would constitute an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Correct…we didnt have a king then did we? And did you not notice were bills of attainders come from? Hint, Congress…they are legislative acts

 

[otto105]

Correct…we didnt have a king then did we? And did you not notice were bills of attainders come from? Hint, Congress…they are legislative acts

Your king used a memorandum to selectively punish people.

The judge ruled that was vindictive prosecution and ruled against your wannabe king.

 

[excalibur]

Are you a subject matter expert on it?

No, you’re a sycophant whining about it.

A bill of attainder is an act of a legislative body, period. Pointing out facts is not whining.

A bill of attainder is a legislative act that declares a person or group guilty of a crime and imposes punishment ...​

Google Search

tinyurl.com

 

[struth]

Your king used a memorandum to selectively punish people.

The judge ruled that was vindictive prosecution and ruled against your wannabe king.

Dude you’ve demonstrated you have no clue what this opinion stated or what this case is about

 

[struth]

Hilarious

You can stop whining.

If you think I’m whining about you being clueless, then you are more clueless then thought

I just think you are sad