You’re correct, Tap. Using your logic that voters are directly responsible for any atrocities that are done indirectly as a result of their vote, I am also directly responsible for the rape and murder of hostages in Gaza. You’re very smart and make very good points.
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
I honestly agree with Clarence Thomas here. While lower courts should be bound by legal precedent and there should be genuine reasons for overturning precedent, SCOTUS shouldn’t be bound by it. The world and our understanding of it change, and we shouldn’t be bound by old interpretations.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Literally has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Glad its over so they can select a new prosecutor and Trump can have his day in court because no one is above the law....right? What is not acceptable would be selecting a new prosecutor who has a conflict of interest. I imagine they will select a Republican who would be committing career suicide if he continued the case. I dont know why you people are so scared of this case being judged based on the facts in a court of law. Comey aint running from his indictment. The guys from the Durham hoax didnt run either. Well I know but you will never admit it. But no ones above the law......
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I agree as well. But I do take issue with SCOTUS nominees lying by omission about controversial legal opinions during confirmation hearings. Lower court Judges imo should be bound by precedent and I think they should be fined for causing unnecessary delays like that but there should be some wiggle room because they take oaths to the constitution not precedent. Any fines should be refunded with interest if they are later proven correct.
Yes, it affects the case because it shows the lack of integrity of the DA involved. If she will lie to the courts she can't be trusted to present any case fairly.
We know the case is nothing more than lawfare and that it shouldn't continue.
You mean the hoax where Sussman said he went to the FBI on his own but yet billed Hillary for it?
I know common sense is hard for you but most lawyers who do things on their own don't bill others for it. Geez.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Yes, it affects the case because it shows the lack of integrity of the DA involved. If she will lie to the courts she can't be trusted to present any case fairly.
We know the case is nothing more than lawfare and that it shouldn't continue.
You mean the hoax where Sussman said he went to the FBI on his own but yet billed Hillary for it?
I know common sense is hard for you but most lawyers who do things on their own don't bill others for it. Geez.
But theres not really any facts in dispute. So whats there to lie about. You cant tell me theres an integrity issue for Fanni but not if its assigned to someone Trump has leverage over isnt, It should be assigned a special prosecutor who is not beholden to either side. I dont understand how you can be so mad about Comey and the 51 experts but think this Georgia stuff was just fine. Its everything you accuse the left of but with actual real evidence instead of assumptions. For example one charge for Googliani for lying just like Comey. But you are fine with 1 and not the other? Why?
And Fanni is not beholden to anyone? Good luck finding a prosecutor who's straight down the middle.
Giulianni's lies? Who determines that he's lying? When you can't do any election discovery how are sure someone is lying? Did Giuliani get access to any machines? No, he didn't. His "lies" about the election and about the Georgia workers were not based on any evidence but what a liberal judge said it was. He wasn't allowed to look at anything so he had to declare he was wrong in what he said. That Georgia election night that involved running everyone off (due to a leak) who did oversight with the election workers coming back and started counting was shady as hell.
If Georgia and Dominion open their machines and nothing is found then we'll talk.
Sidestepping your own rationale on the regulation of mental healthcare by declaring some mental healthcare a First Amendment issue seems like a sideways argument to me. But even if they do, it just seems like a long, frustrating game of semantics that would just lead to Colorado instead signing a new law that restricts parents from choosing this option, no? There’s plenty of free speech out there that is blocked from children. Wouldn’t they just make this one of them and find themselves in the same position as Tennessee?
This is what happens when stupid people vote.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The issue is, the second comment is divorced from reality. If states did decide to instantly redistrict to remove some minority majority gerrymanders, then they would spread a lot of mostly Dem voters over some other districts. Those can’t all go to current Dem districts that you’re also trying to gerrymander away. Minority majority districts are actually pretty helpful for red states looking to gerrymander. “Oh sorry about making you guys uncompetitive in 3 more districts, but we needed to bunch those Dem voters to create another minority majority district. Don’t blame us, blame the VRA.”