*Where Is The Supreme Court, 5 Days After Biden Said Trump Need To Go Into The BullsEye, CIA/FBI/SS, Watch Some Crooks Take Aim And Fire Off 8 Rounds*

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. Its up to them to stop this.

To stop what? The investigation?

2. Its up to them to set the law.

The don't write laws. They rule on them.

3. If they don't do it, they are all in it.

Or you have no idea what the Supreme Court actually does nor the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You'll find that almost all the right-wing outrage about the law is just them not knowing how the law actually works.

So why would the SCOTUS get involved in an FBI investigation? That would be essentially unprecedented, as far as I know. And, based on the appellant rulings slapping down down judge Cannon, a violation of the separation of powers. And thus, the constitution.

 

[chesswarsnow]

To stop what? The investigation?


The don't write laws. They rule on them.



Or you have no idea what the Supreme Court actually does nor the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You'll find that almost all the right-wing outrage about the law is just them not knowing how the law actually works.

So why would the SCOTUS get involved in an FBI investigation? That would be essentially unprecedented, as far as I know. And, based on the appellant rulings slapping down down judge Cannon, a violation of the separation of powers. And thus, the constitution.

Sorry bout that,

1. We both have a different understanding about, who, and why, Trump was shot at, it was to, kill him, and who was behind it.
2. I conclude there is no confusion, who was behind it, and who was building it up, to its result, which failed.
3. Seeing we know, hell everyone knows, who was doing this, those parties all three of them need to be cut off entirely.
4. Its a very unusual occurrence which calls for a unusual action, by none other, than the Supreme Court.
5. If they dont do this then, they are in on it, by default.
6. Its an upheaval of this government, all of the officials should be cut off, and judged.
7. Many have committed treason, and we have laws for those found treasonist.
8. Its complicated, and I am here to explain it to you, something like this has never happened before.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. We both have a different understanding about, who, and why, Trump was shot at, it was to, kill him, and who was behind it.

Yes, but what is your 'understanding' based on? If not evidence, then the Supreme Court will not care what story you make up.

The evidence indicates the shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks, who fired from about 450 or so feet away. He was a registered republican and described by classmates as a conservative who argued conservative talking points in class. The FBI has connected him to violent anti-immigrant rhetoric online.

He researched mass shooters, especially school shooters and their trials. He researched the Republican National Convention, the Democratic National Convention, Trump and Biden.

Trump's event appears to be the closest to his house.

What is your 'understanding'?

2. I conclude there is no confusion, who was behind it, and who was building it up, to its result, which failed.
3. Seeing we know, hell everyone knows, who was doing this, those parties all three of them need to be cut off entirely.

Thomas Matthew Crooks? Or is what 'everyone knows' something else entirely?

4. Its a very unusual occurrence which calls for a unusual action, by none other, than the Supreme Court.

What do you want the Supreme Court to actually do? Take over the FBI investigation?

They don't have that authority. They interpret laws. Its the executive branch that investigates crimes.

5. If they dont do this then, they are in on it, by default.

Or, what you're demanding is not the constitutional function of the Supreme Court. Nor have you presented any actual evidence that would justify them taking any action of any kind.

 

[candycorn]

Gd is on our side.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Yes, but what is your 'understanding' based on? If not evidence, then the Supreme Court will not care what story you make up.

The evidence indicates the shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks, who fired from about 450 or so feet away. He was a registered republican and described by classmates as a conservative who argued conservative talking points in class. The FBI has connected him to violent anti-immigrant rhetoric online.

He researched mass shooters, especially school shooters and their trials. He researched the Republican National Convention, the Democratic National Convention, Trump and Biden.

Trump's event appears to be the closest to his house.

What is your 'understanding'?




Thomas Matthew Crooks? Or is what 'everyone knows' something else entirely?


What do you want the Supreme Court to actually do? Take over the FBI investigation?

They don't have that authority. They interpret laws. Its the executive branch that investigates crimes.




Or, what you're demanding is not the constitutional function of the Supreme Court. Nor have you presented any actual evidence that would justify them taking any action of any kind.

Sorry bout that,

1. We are coming, and we are not happy.
2. And are ready to share this unhappiness with you.
3. Supreme Court, has to stand up, or fall back in it.
4. Obscurity is where they are headed.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Lisa558]

Sorry bout that,

1. We are coming, and we are not happy.
2. And are ready to share this unhappiness with you.
3. Supreme Court, has to stand up, or fall back in it.
4. Obscurity is where they are headed.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Here’s what I think will happen:

Right now, this is a close race because around 75% to 85% of voters are unaware of how extremely radical Harris is. They don’t know how she has vilified ICE (comparing them to the KKK), how she wants all benefits bestowed upon illegals, how she wants to decriminalize the very notion of illegal immigration, how she wants to dismantle detention centers, how she encouraged the BLM riots by supporting a bail fund, how she wants to defund the police, etc., etc.

Yes….the media has been that effective in hiding who she is, and she of course is hiding from the press - running away from reporters and refusing to answer questions.

If the worst happens and this dangerous person is elected by ignorant voters, and when she and her even more dangerous VP start enacting these anti-American policies, there will be a major revolt. (This is also why she talked about confiscating guns.)

The election of an extreme radical, who will be run from behind the curtains by the man who hates America and wants to transform it, is likely to lead to Civil War.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry bout that,

1. We are coming, and we are not happy.
2. And are ready to share this unhappiness with you.
3. Supreme Court, has to stand up, or fall back in it.
4. Obscurity is where they are headed.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

So no evidence. And a profound misunderstanding of the constitutional role the Supreme court plays.

You'll find that almost all of the right-wing outrage about the law.....is them just not knowing how the law works.

Read the appealant courts slamming down and overturning of Judge Cannon's interference in the Special Counsel's investigation as to why the judiciary plays no role in criminal investigations. Pay special attention to their citation of the 'separation of powers'.

 

[Lisa558]

So no evidence. And a profound misunderstanding of the constitutional role the Supreme court plays.

You'll find that almost all of the right-wing outrage about the law.....is them just not knowing how the law works.

Read the appealant courts slamming down and overturning of Judge Cannon's interference in the Special Counsel's investigation as to why the judiciary plays no role in criminal investigations. Pay special attention to their citation of the 'separation of powers'.

Election interference is a flagrant violation of Americans’ civil rights to a fair election. Trying to have your opponent assassinated is the most blatant way to interfere with the election, and the SCOTUS could decide to hear argument that Biden’s WH was involved in setting up a clear path for it.

 

[Skylar]

Election interference is a flagrant violation of Americans’ civil rights to a fair election. Trying to have your opponent assassinated is the most blatant way to interfere with the election, and the SCOTUS could decide to hear argument that Biden’s WH was involved in setting up a clear path for it.

Election Interference by whom? Thomas Matthew Crooks? He's dead. I'm not sure what more punishment you feel is appropriate for him.

And if you're accusing Biden of 'trying to have his opponent assassinated', you'll need rock-solid evidence of it. Not insinuation. Not mere accusation. Not speculation. Not subjective opinion.

But rock solid evidence. Which you don't have.

So why would the Supreme Court get involved in an FBI investigation? Because someone on the internet made up a story? I thought the Big Lie and its perfect record of failure in court would have taught you that doesn't go well.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry bout that,

1. Not jumping to conclusions, but this is what happened.
2. Its high time that the Supreme Court, step in and do its job.
3. They are the ones who have to take action, shut down the CIA/FBI/SS, close the doors, assign vacate primnesses.
4. They are the only ones who can do this, they they must in order to protect this union.
5. Sure we dont get along well, but we weren't calling the hit squad on each other, until recent.

Sanders: Supreme Court Is “Out of Control” and Must Be Reformed » Senator Bernie Sanders

By Sharon Zhang; Truthout The senator criticized the “right-wing, corporate-sponsored Supreme Court” for its clear “extremist agenda.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has called for the Supreme Court to be subject to “real” reform after over a decade of right-wing rulings from a bench that has...

www.sanders.senate.gov

6. Interesting link showed up so im posting it, read carefully, has much to say about what the Supreme Courts can do..

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Holy shit on a shingle!! What exactly do you want SCOTUS to do?? And what the hell is " primnesses."

 

[Skylar]

Holy shit on a shingle!! What exactly do you want SCOTUS to do?? And what the hell is " primnesses."

The argument seems to be devolving into vague threats that 'we are coming' and 'we are not happy'.

Which aren't a basis for Supreme Court involvement in an FBI case.

 

[Marener]

Election interference is a flagrant violation of Americans’ civil rights to a fair election. Trying to have your opponent assassinated is the most blatant way to interfere with the election, and the SCOTUS could decide to hear argument that Biden’s WH was involved in setting up a clear path for it.

This is an incredibly stupid and baseless idea.

 

[Skylar]

This is an incredibly stupid and baseless idea.

Its an echo-chamber idea. Something that only makes sense when no one is asking for evidence, no one asks questions, and no one thinks to hard about it.

Outside the echo chamber, you'll need way more than just accusations. You'll need rock solid evidence. And there simply isn't any that Biden had a thing to do with Thomas Matthew Crooks' attempt on Trump's life.

The evidence is that Crooks was a conservative republican who was fixated in his research on famous mass shooters. Especially those that survived their attacks and went to trial. He'd researched the Democratic National Convention, the Republican National Convention, Biden and Trump.

With the Trump rally where he tried to kill Trump being the one closest to his house.

 

[d0gbreath]

Sorry bout that,

1. Its up to them to stop this.
2. Its up to them to set the law.
3. If they don't do it, they are all in it.
4. Unless they start reeling off judgements, and those guilty end up with a trail, and then cast into jail, this will be pinned on their collective chests.

Regards,
SirJamesofTeas

James, er Sir, The SCOTUS is composed of jurists only. They are not prosecutors, so they cannot bring cases before themselves. They aren't lawmakers, so they cannot "set the law". They can't reel off judgements so that people end up with a trial. That's backwards.

You seem to have slept through government class, but I'm willing to help you with any Supreme Court misconceptions that you may have in the future.

 

[d0gbreath]

Election interference is a flagrant violation of Americans’ civil rights to a fair election. Trying to have your opponent assassinated is the most blatant way to interfere with the election, and the SCOTUS could decide to hear argument that Biden’s WH was involved in setting up a clear path for it.

Someone would have to bring a case to them. Someone with standing, ie: not you.

 

[Skylar]

James, er Sir, The SCOTUS is composed of jurists only. They are not prosecutors, so they cannot bring cases before themselves. They aren't lawmakers, so they cannot "set the law". They can't reel off judgements so that people end up with a trial. That's backwards.

I've been trying to explain the constitutional role of the SCOTUS to him for 2 days. All I get in reply is vague threats about how 'we are coming'.

So often, right wing outrage about the law is just right wingers not understanding the law, the constitution, or precedent.

You seem to have slept through government class, but I'm willing to help you with any Supreme Court misconceptions that you may have in the future.

I even directed the poor soul to the 11th Circuit Court's obliteration of Cannon trying to do exactly what he's asking the Supreme Court to do: have the judiciary interfere with a criminal investigation.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23323385/trump-ca11-2022-12-01.pdf

It violates the separation of powers. Among many other things.

 

[d0gbreath]

I've been trying to explain the constitutional role of the SCOTUS to him for 2 days. All I get in reply is vague threats about how 'we are coming'.

So often, right wing outrage about the law is just right wingers not understanding the law, the constitution, or precedent.



I even directed the poor soul to the 11th Circuit Court's obliteration of Cannon trying to do exactly what he's asking the Supreme Court to do: have the judiciary interfere with a criminal investigation.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23323385/trump-ca11-2022-12-01.pdf

It violates the separation of powers. Among many other things.

At least he always apologizes in advance.

 

[Lisa558]

Someone would have to bring a case to them. Someone with standing, ie: not you.

Any citizen who has their rights violated to a free and fair election has standing.

 

[Mac1958]

Now they're convinced the Dems did this.

 

[Skylar]

Any citizen who has their rights violated to a free and fair election has standing.

Their rights violated to a free and fair election....says who?

Again, online echo-chamber accusation does not establish standing. Y'all just saying that Biden was behind the attack on Trump isn't actually evidence. Nor is 'intuitively knowing', or 'emotional truth', or what 'everyone knows'. Nor does the Supreme Court play the roll y'all pretend they play. They adjudicate laws. They don't investigate crimes.

The Supreme Court is not Magnum PI.