The Democrat Party's propaganda arm's vile attacks on the Supreme Court

[Nationalist]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

One man, one vote NO LONGER.

It was more BALANCED, like I said. 

Kennedy was a liberal. Congarats. You're complaining about a decision your own side made.

[User]

40 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

I thought Alito was just flying flags you didn't like. I don't know of any bribes.

He keeps pushing this lie. He has ran away from several other threads now where he was repeatedly called out for this. 

37 minutes ago, robosmith said:

He was also given an extravagant vacation AND travel on a private jet which he FAILED TO REPORT.

So?

Those are not bribes. 

[WestCanMan]

Leftards' only defence: "It was on Fox so it isn't true."

Meanwhile they all still watch CNN after the covid BS, the gentle giants, mostly peaceful protests, vax safety and efficacy, etc. All CNN ever does is lie. 

 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

He was also given an extravagant vacation AND travel on a private jet which he FAILED TO REPORT.

Trudeau did the exact same thing. Nothing happened. "Ethics violation"... then *crickets*

[herbie]

You can't have a Court that's not corrupt if you start by appointing the Judges by their politics.
And to think almost half the current court by a now convicted criminal.

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Then it would be far wiser to cite one which has NOT destroyed their credibility. Duh

Who is tmshe and what did they say?

Are you completely ignorant of the FACT that FOS LIES is PROVEN IN COURT LIARS?

That is EXTERNAL EVIDENCE to the tune of $800M LIBEL penalty.

On top of that, FOS LIES LAWYERS have testified in court that no one should believe them because they are clearly NOT NEWS in defense of other LIBEL charges.

Maybe you don't know about that because you ONLY watch/read FOS LIES. LMAO

They HAVE effectively given Trump immunity by delaying his trial for MONTHS until after the election on a decision that most predicted was a slam dunk as decided by the appeals court. But SCOTUS decided to CHANGE the QUESTION to one which is much broader than necessary to the FACTS of the CURRENT CASE/CHARGES.

It's ironic that you say someone isn't credible while they provide probable facts and you provide nothing but your opinion.

Why don't you say the same thing about CNN and NBC who each paid out over $200 million for their false reporting about Nicholas Sandman? Is it your own internal biases that drove you to ignore those facts?

 

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

As STATED, corporations are independent entities from the people who own them. The decision effectively gives the owners double rights and the corporate ones are FAR MORE POWERFUL. Duh

No it doesn't. A decision to remove rights because they are involved Ona corporation is a serious civil rights violation.

[User]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

You can't have a Court that's not corrupt if you start by appointing the Judges by their politics.
And to think almost half the current court by a now convicted criminal.

To think you are trying to impugn people who have dedicated much of their lives to the law and who were fully vetted by the Senate and public confirmation hearings like this... 

 

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-host-surprises-the-view-co-host-claiming-supreme-court-flagrantly-corrupt

This dude is very disgusting. They want to remove the justices so that their Marxist takeover goes unchecked

They couldn't weasel 4 extra Democrat supporters onto the SC so now they're trying to undermine the court's authority. 

It's literally the last major hurdle to clear to achieve the Dems' goal of one-party rule. 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, User said:

To think you are trying to impugn people who have dedicated much of their lives to the law and who were fully vetted by the Senate and public confirmation hearings like this... 

 

And doing so while ignoring the fact that the other half were also poltiical appointments.  That's the model in the states. 

But yes it is crazy to suggest that they are all appointed by trump. There is a significant process, a vetting, lots of scrutiny, and the same model is used for trump as was used for any other president in history.

But when a republican appoints a judge it's apparently wrong

 

Edited June 19, 2024 by CdnFox

[herbie]

13 minutes ago, User said:

To think you are trying to impugn people who have dedicated much of their lives to the law and who were fully vetted by the Senate and public confirmation hearings like this... 

 

Oh the HORROR, the HORROR...!!! Questioning the underhanded method of installing three Judges solely on the basis of their politics... how dare I?

[User]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Oh the HORROR, the HORROR...!!! Questioning the underhanded method of installing three Judges solely on the basis of their politics... how dare I?

How was it underhanded? How was it solely based on their politics? Where is the corruption?

You just ask the questions to imply something you can't actually articulate. It is dishonest at best. 

[herbie]

Oh FFS I'm not going to lay out facts you can gather from any reputable source because you can't even remember what happened over the last five years.
F*ck really I hope the majority of you Yanks aren't as dimwitted.

[West]

31 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

They couldn't weasel 4 extra Democrat supporters onto the SC so now they're trying to undermine the court's authority. 

It's literally the last major hurdle to clear to achieve the Dems' goal of one-party rule. 

Harry Reid ended the filibuster on judges which basically eroded the major safeguard to stacking the courts with partisan activist judges. Honestly it's scary what's become of the US since Obama basically went nazi 

[User]

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS I'm not going to lay out facts you can gather from any reputable source because you can't even remember what happened over the last five years.
F*ck really I hope the majority of you Yanks aren't as dimwitted.

The issue is not my memory. You cannot articulate anything here. 

 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS I'm not going to lay out facts you can gather from any reputable source because you can't even remember what happened over the last five years.
F*ck really I hope the majority of you Yanks aren't as dimwitted.

You have no facts.  And everyone can see it. 

Your argument is based on hatred and tribalism, not facts. 

[User]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You have no facts.  And everyone can see it. 

Your argument is based on hatred and tribalism, not facts. 

He has more disdain here than he does for a criminal thug in Canada running the streets armed for violence, stabbing people, robbing them, and maybe killing them... 

[West]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

You can't have a Court that's not corrupt if you start by appointing the Judges by their politics.
And to think almost half the current court by a now convicted criminal.

Well back before Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster making judicial appointments strictly along party lines you used to need 60% of the vote to appoint a judge. This meant you needed to appease the moderates. 

Now the moderates need to appease the fringe of their base to appoint a judge 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

He has more disdain here than he does for a criminal thug in Canada running the streets armed for violence, stabbing people, robbing them, and maybe killing them... 

He's also glossing over the fact he's supporting the current canadian gov't which incidentally whose  leader has been found guilty of a crime (taking bribes) and appoints all the judges     And that's after dismantling the previous gov'ts very fair and balanced program for appointing judges that involved all parties, some lawyers and police to avoid bias. 

As is often the case, this type is FINE with what they perceive as corruption or partisan behavior as long as it's in their favour. 

[West]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

He's also glossing over the fact he's supporting the current canadian gov't which incidentally whose  leader has been found guilty of a crime (taking bribes) and appoints all the judges     And that's after dismantling the previous gov'ts very fair and balanced program for appointing judges that involved all parties, some lawyers and police to avoid bias. 

As is often the case, this type is FINE with what they perceive as corruption or partisan behavior as long as it's in their favour. 

Add to that wokeism ie ESG has basically monopolized all professional associations like the bar associations and when historians look at how this new wave of authoritarianism has crept in they'll be able to identify how this all went down. 

[Fluffypants]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

You can't have a Court that's not corrupt if you start by appointing the Judges by their politics.
And to think almost half the current court by a now convicted criminal.

Your claiming that Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson weren't appointed by their politics?

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, User said:

He keeps pushing this lie. He has ran away from several other threads now where he was repeatedly called out for this. 

So?

Those are not bribes. 

Accepting $4 million in gifts is a violation of every the ethical rules that all government officials must obey. FBI agents cannot accept $4 million in gifts.  Cabinet secretaries cannot accept $4 million in gifts. Presidents cannot accept $4 million in gifts.  
 

In fact, the gift thresholds are far lower, in most cases far lower than $1,000. In private industry, I could not accept more than $200 in gifts. 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Accepting $4 million in gifts is a violation of every the ethical rules that all government officials must obey. FBI agents cannot accept $4 million in gifts.  Cabinet secretaries cannot accept $4 million in gifts. Presidents cannot accept $4 million in gifts.  

So arrest him. Unless it's not illegal for judges in which case there must be a reason.

Quote

In fact, the gift thresholds are far lower, in most cases far lower than $1,000. In private industry, I could not accept more than $200 in gifts. 

So what's the limit for judges? Did he exceed it? Has he broken a law? Have any of the other judges accepted gifts that were more than $200 in value?

[Rebound]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So arrest him. Unless it's not illegal for judges in which case there must be a reason.

So what's the limit for judges? Did he exceed it? Has he broken a law? Have any of the other judges accepted gifts that were more than $200 in value?

The reason is because the only remedy is impeachment.  The SCOTUS is supposed to be self-regulating, because of the Constitutional separation of powers.  Thomas has clearly abused it and needs to be impeached.  

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The reason is because the only remedy is impeachment.  

But that doesn't preclude putting in regulation and structure. There are a lot of things that are still unlawful for a judge to do I would think.

But if the remedy is impeachment and he has violated accepted principles in a fashion that you feel is almost criminal why hasn't he been impeached?

Quote

Thomas has clearly abused it and needs to be impeached.  

And why hasn't he been?

It occurs to me that one possibility is that in order for there to be anything to impeach him on it would have to be demonstrated that he received some benefit from someone whom he presided in a court case over. If some guy gives him $10,000, but that guy has never dealt with him in court or had a company that dealt with him in court then it's pretty hard to argue that there's no violation. Are you aware of any cases where he received a substantial amount of money for someone where he presided over a court case they were directly involved in?

 

[User]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Accepting $4 million in gifts is a violation of every the ethical rules that all government officials must obey. FBI agents cannot accept $4 million in gifts.  Cabinet secretaries cannot accept $4 million in gifts. Presidents cannot accept $4 million in gifts.  
 

In fact, the gift thresholds are far lower, in most cases far lower than $1,000. In private industry, I could not accept more than $200 in gifts. 

The Supreme Court is not all government officials, and you are not right about gifts for federal judges in general. The President can accept gifts from Americans, the restrictions mainly apply to foreign governments. 

It is a separation of powers issue between the branches of government. The laws and rules that apply to Congress are made by Congress. 

That all said... the issue here was a claim of bribery. Gifts are not bribes. 

Employee gift giving and receiving is bound by company policy, not any particular law. If you can't accept more than 200, that is not a law.