Manhattan Judge in the "Donnie Bad" case donated big money to the Biden crime cartel.

[West]

Quelled surprise that this lunatic is involved in communist takeover of a once great nation. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/manhattan-judge-refuses-recuse-himself-trump-case-donation-biden

[WestCanMan]

Quote

"Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required on these grounds," Merchan wrote. "The speculative and hypothetical scenarios offered by Defendant fall well short of the legal standard."

Quote

Judge Juan Merchan donated $15 to President Biden’s campaign, $10 to the Progressive Turnout Project and $10 to Stop Republicans during the 2020 election cycle.

Well, aside from the fact that he donated money specifically to "stop Republicans". 

[Rebound]

$35 is "Big Money"???

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Rebound

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

$35 is "Big Money"???

 

It is to mental patients. And since you and robosmith share the same room, I suggest you two split that money 50/50.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

$35 is "Big Money"???

 

It's about the average monthly amount each of this site's wingnut contingent sends to the orange wanker.

But at least then they can pretend he likes them.

It makes them happy!

[Deluge]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's about the average monthly amount each of this site's wingnut contingent sends to the orange wanker.

But at least then they can pretend he likes them.

It makes them happy!

Nothing makes the left happy. It's why you woketards are always crying.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

It is to mental patients. And since you and robosmith share the same room, I suggest you two split that money 50/50.

You’re the one who said the $35 in donations are “Big Money,” so you must be a mental patient. 

[Deluge]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re the one who said the $35 in donations are “Big Money,” so you must be a mental patient. 

Well don't look at me, woketard, this is between you and your fellow crazy, robosmith.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

You’re the one who said the $35 in donations are “Big Money,” so you must be a mental patient. 

Here's a question for you: If a judge donates money to a "Stop Republicans" fund, does that display a bias against Republicans? 

Answer honestly ?

[Aristides]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Here's a question for you: If a judge donates money to a "Stop Republicans" fund, does that display a bias against Republicans? 

Answer honestly ?

I imagine all judges have biases, everyone does. You are fine with them on the SCOTUS.  This issue is whether they let those biases affect the way they do their job. They certainly did when it came to reversing R v W.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I imagine all judges have biases, everyone does.

Not usually to the same extent as the aforementioned clown, but yeah.

A "Stop Republicans" fund? Gawd that's lame. 

Quote

You are fine with them on the SCOTUS.  

The SCOTUS is a gong show, but it's the only thing protecting the US from the Dems right now.

Quote

They certainly did when it came to reversing R v W.

Really? Was RBG biased against RvW as well?

TBH R v W was always a farce: it was a prime example of "ruling from the bench". It just took a long time to get rid of it. 

In a properly functioning democracy elected politicians would draw up the abortion laws and subsequent governments which had enough of a majority could strike them down or tweak them. It's basically a 4-yr cycle.

The idea that 9 people with lifetime appointments could just interpret the entire constitution from their own POV, focusing on or ignoring things at their own discretion, and then foist their own decision on the electorate until enough of them die off that their decision can be changed - forty years down the road - is not 'democracy', it's oligarchic rule.  

In other words, R v W wasn't a proper democratic outcome, it was just around for a long time. The fact that you liked it is irrelevant. If it was a 9-person SCOTUS that said "all abortion is always illegal" would you still think that overturning was just a sad example of "judicial bias"?

[Aristides]

You were fine with the Republicans packing the SCOTUS with activist judges. Spare us the faux outrage over a $15 donation.
 

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You were fine with the Republicans packing the SCOTUS with activist judges. Spare us the faux outrage over a $15 donation.
 

Haaahahahahaha. You couldn't man up and answer my reply so you had to try to slide that crap in here.

Whatever dude. 

Republican judges aren't activists, they're constitutionalists, dumbass. Their decision wasn't "What SCOTUS hath wrought let not elected peons put asunder", like what the Demmie SCOTUS said, it was "We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives".

Do you understand that the SCOTUS's recent ruling was that "duly elected gov'ts should be in charge of that issue"?

Do you understand that it's the exact opposite of being an activist judge to give decision-making power to the electorate?

FFS, you're impossibly stupid. 

[Aristides]

They were rammed through because of their position on R v W. The federal government is duly elected, all they did was allow states to strip women of their rights.

You are fine with Thomas receiving millions in perks from billionaires and you are fine with his wife being a stop the steal magahat, don’t lecture others on ethics.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Aristides

[WestCanMan]

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

They were rammed through because of their position on R v W. The federal government is duly elected, all they did was allow states to strip women of their rights.

You are fine with Thomas receiving millions in perks from billionaires and you are fine with his wife being a stop the steal magahat, don’t lecture others on ethics.

God you're a pathetic liar and dodger.

FYI R v W was unconstitutional because 9 judges don't get to unilaterally overturn democratically-arrived-at legislation and then have their decision stand until they all die. You only like R v W because you agreed with it.

What if the next group of judges said "All abortion is illegal forever"? Would you think that we all just have to abide by that forever? Of course not. 

I never said anywhere that Clarence Thomas should be receiving perks. I just said that he isn't the one responsible all the things in Caswell's stupid thread. 

[West]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

You’re the one who said the $35 in donations are “Big Money,” so you must be a mental patient. 

About a quarter of your welfare benefit, son

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Here's a question for you: If a judge donates money to a "Stop Republicans" fund, does that display a bias against Republicans? 

Answer honestly ?

Honestly, it’s a good question. Judges should not make political contributions at all. However, $35 is a very low amount and all it does is reveal his political leanings. 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

God you're a pathetic liar and dodger.

FYI R v W was unconstitutional because 9 judges don't get to unilaterally overturn democratically-arrived-at legislation and then have their decision stand until they all die. You only like R v W because you agreed with it.

What if the next group of judges said "All abortion is illegal forever"? Would you think that we all just have to abide by that forever? Of course not. 

I never said anywhere that Clarence Thomas should be receiving perks. I just said that he isn't the one responsible all the things in Caswell's stupid thread. 

R v W guaranteed women autonomy over their own bodies, SCOTUS has allowed states to take that right away from them. 

Yes, I agree that women should have control over their own bodies, you want that control.

Clarence Thomas received trips and other perks from 4 billionaires, including a rent free home for his mother. His wife is a known MAGAHAT. How much has been donated to Trump and the Republican party by the Thomas's? Thomas has a habit of not reporting the perks he receives, he probably doesn't report his donations either. You on the other hand are getting all holy about donations totalling $35.

[West]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Honestly, it’s a good question. Judges should not make political contributions at all. However, $35 is a very low amount and all it does is reveal his political leanings. 

That he's a far left lunatic on the "get Trump" bandwagon?

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

R v W guaranteed women autonomy over their own bodies, SCOTUS has allowed states to take that right away from them. 

R v W treats unborn babies as chattel and that's not in the constitution anywhere. 

The SCOTUS was taking things away from some humans in favour of others and that's not constitutional. 

IDGAF how you feel about it personally and I have no respect whatsoever for your warped 'morality', it's not up to you and it's not a decision for 9 people to foist on a country of 300M either. 

Have some faith in democracy. You're trying to create an oligarchy. It's just stupid.

Quote

Yes, I agree that women should have control over their own bodies, you want that control.

I don't want that control. You don't want women to have that control either. You're giving control of it to the SCOTUS, and whichever way they decide should be law in your eyes. 

I personally feel like it is a woman's own body up to a certain point. 3 months, for sure. After about 6 or 7 months I think it's two people. After 8 months it definitely is. 

Quote

Clarence Thomas received trips and other perks from 4 billionaires, including a rent free home for his mother. His wife is a known MAGAHAT. How much has been donated to Trump and the Republican party by the Thomas's? Thomas has a habit of not reporting the perks he receives, he probably doesn't report his donations either. You on the other hand are getting all holy about donations totalling $35.

If Clarence Thomas is doing something illegitimate, that's a big deal and maybe he should be removed from the SCOTUS. It's just a tough call right now because the FBI is such a biased political entity that I'm pretty sure Justice Sotomayor could murder some hookers and there's not even a 1% chance that the FBI would investigate her. 

I've never said that Thomas is above the law, but in the thread we're talking about the OP randomly blames him for high rents and racialized neighbourhoods. It's just stupid. 

[Rebound]

12 hours ago, West said:

That he's a far left lunatic on the "get Trump" bandwagon?

No, he’s just someone who has chosen one of the two major political parties.