Supreme Court thumbing the scale for Trump.

[AntonToo]

Yep, you haven't read a history book.

If Trump had not run for president none of these investigations would have occurred. Not one.

I don't need to read a history book to understand that charges against Trump happened because of what he did either during campaign or during presidency.

You saying it wouldn't happen if he wasn't president does nothing to dispute them to be possible criminal acts.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I've said that when Mueller couldn't establish Trump's criminal conspiracy with Russians.

You are just shooting from the hip.

You took Mueller‘s word for it. Would you take the word of a jury? By the way, the comments you answered were addressed to another poster. If it’s really “another poster“

The hurry is in extrodinary situation where we have DOJ guidelines that a sitting president can't be prosecuted and a defendant that may become a president before his ongoing criminal cases are resolved.

There is OBVIOSLY a limited time frame in play which justifies high priority. How can you possibly say there isn't?

At least you admit that it is all about the election. Most of your fellow Democrat partisan will not do that.

Yes, you’re right about one thing. Once Trump is elected and takes office. They cannot be indicted by the DOJ according to their policies. Of course, they could always change her policies.

Unfortunately for the Democrats Trump is not going to be stupid enough to leave a bunch of them in place in the DOJ like he did for his first term. he tried to do the right thing and leave and comments in place and avoid hiring partisan hacks.

Doing the right thing when dealing with Democrats often gets a person screwed. Work hard all your life and pay your taxes? Watch the Democrats give your tax to illegal aliens and long term welfare layabouts. or regarding school, get the best grades, play sports, community service, everything that colleges are supposed to look for, and watch the woke admissions folk give your law school slot to a pansexual biracial pregnant man.

 

[AntonToo]

At least you admit that it is all about the election. Most of your fellow Democrat partisan will not do that.

Yes, you’re right about one thing. Once Trump is elected and takes office. They cannot be indicted by the DOJ according to their policies. Of course, they could always change her policies.

Unfortunately for the Democrats Trump is not going to be stupid enough to leave a bunch of them in place in the DOJ like he did for his first term. he tried to do the right thing and leave and comments in place and avoid hiring partisan hacks.

Doing the right thing when dealing with Democrats often gets a person screwed. Work hard all your life and pay your taxes? Watch the Democrats give your tax to illegal aliens and long term welfare layabouts. or regarding school, get the best grades, play sports, community service, everything that colleges are supposed to look for, and watch the woke admissions folk give your law school slot to a pansexual biracial pregnant man.

Thats a lot about nothing, bottom line is

YES, there is a reasonable urgency given unique circumstances for the defendant and country.

and YES it does look like SC is putting it's thumb on the scale by unreasonably delaying settling of Trump's spurious immunity claims.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thats a lot about nothing, bottom line is

YES, there is a reasonable urgency given unique circumstances for the defendant and country.

and YES it does look like SC is putting it's thumb on the scale by unreasonably delaying settling of Trump's spurious immunity claims.

Is the delay out of line with other USSC cases?

 

[AntonToo]

Is the delay out of line with other USSC cases?

Are you playing stupid? There are no other cases of a president being prosecuted.

Certainly the SC has taken urgent cases before, certainly the court could allow the cases to proceed before they settle this question.

 

[progressive hunter]

Polly wants a cracker?

your mistake is believing we care about your feelings,,

youve even admitted you dont care what the law says and are being partisan,,

 

[AntonToo]

youve even admitted you dont care what the law says and are being partisan,,

Lay off the drugs man. I've never said anything like that.

 

[progressive hunter]

Lay off the drugs man. I've never said anything like that.

you said the law is moot,,
thats your opinion,, same as saying you dont care

 

[AntonToo]

you said the law is moot,,
thats your opinion,, same as saying you dont care

I've said that SC could be a partisan rag and it would be legal.

I don't want a partisan rag court for what is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government that the founders designed to be at least somewhat isolated from the partisanship.

Just like I don't want Presidents packing that court to their partisan goals, even if it's legal.


Crazy concept right?

 

[progressive hunter]

I said that SC could be a partisan rag and it would be perfectly legal.

I just don't want a partisan rag court as a third branch of our government.

Crazy concept right dummy?

until we get leftist off the court it will always be partisan,,

all judges should be constitutional conservatives not ideologues pushing a political narrative,,

 

[Billiejeens]

You regurgitate a meme because you have no points.

You respond to a meme.
What does that indicate regarding you?

 

[blackhawk]

Translation if I don’t get the outcome I want the court is illegitimate.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you playing stupid? There are no other cases of a president being prosecuted.

Certainly the SC has taken urgent cases before, certainly the court could allow the cases to proceed before they settle this question.

I get that you think it’s urgent because the election. I don’t see the law or the case law, that says that if one side really wants to win an election, that constitutes urgency in a criminal case.

But I haven’t really researched that point. What have you found about it?

 

[AntonToo]

until we get leftist off the court it will always be partisan,,

all judges should be constitutional conservatives not ideologues pushing a political narrative,,

Thats a very cool story...but there is this thread about a conservative court blatantly putting it's thumb on a scale for an indicted Republican.

Let me know when you can sanely address the topic of that thread instead of rehashing your fantasies about liberals.

 

[progressive hunter]

Thats a very cool story...but there is this thread about a conservative court blatantly putting it's thumb on scale for an indicted Republican.

Let me know when you can sanely address the topic of that thread.

OMG!!!!!!
theres a thread on it??

do tell??

 

[AntonToo]

OMG!!!!!!
theres a thread on it??

do tell??

Yes dummy there is. Stop littering already.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes dummy there is. Stop littering already.

are you sure the only problem is you dont like it when the SCOTUS does something you dont like and nothing is really wrong??

 

[Nostra]

Thats a lot about nothing, bottom line is

YES, there is a reasonable urgency given unique circumstances for the defendant and country.

and YES it does look like SC is putting it's thumb on the scale by unreasonably delaying settling of Trump's spurious immunity claims.

What is unreasonable about it? You getting butthurt doesn’t count, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

I've said that SC could be a partisan rag and it would be legal.

I don't want a partisan rag court for what is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government that the founders designed to be at least somewhat isolated from the partisanship.

Just like I don't want Presidents packing that court to their partisan goals, even if it's legal.


Crazy concept right?

Who packed the court?

 

[Nostra]

Thats a very cool story...but there is this thread about a conservative court blatantly putting it's thumb on a scale for an indicted Republican.

Let me know when you can sanely address the topic of that thread instead of rehashing your fantasies about liberals.

The topic is insane, and you expect sane responses?