Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Dems are threatening SCOTUS!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
    Chief Justice John Roberts is apparently listed in the Lolita Express flight logs.

    Suddenly a few things are starting to look a lot clearer.

    still wondering where they find Sessions name >>> don't know what they found or threatened the guy with - but he most certainly was compromised ...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    901

    Default

    The Dems are afraid of having a predominatly conservative court when RBG finally steps/falls down, so doing what they can to prevent that.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
    Chief Justice John Roberts is apparently listed in the Lolita Express flight logs.

    Suddenly a few things are starting to look a lot clearer.
    Bruss, do you have the source for that?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    5,559

    Default

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...manifests.html

    Notice about half of Page 2 is blocked out. No other page is blocked out. who de hidin'?
    Μολὼν λαβέ (Molon labe), “Come and get them!”

    Nobody owes you anything. You're only entitled to what you worked for.

    "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." - Optimus Prime

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sweet Tennessee
    Posts
    3,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bambam View Post
    You know I love you flock but gotta call bull**** on that. The SC has one obligation and that is to interpret the constitution as written ….. not to be " diverse" ….. but to interpret the constitution as written.
    If it were that simple then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court......

    I didn't articulate enough of my thought. Of course they are to be held to a higher standard and to be "blind" to personal opinion. Let's say that somehow all the SC Justices were replaced with liberals from NYC would you still feel the same way? Our life experience guides us whether we like it or not whether we try and suppress it or not. So yes it is very important that our SC be a diverse group, that's why there's more than one.............
    Last edited by flock6; 08-14-2019 at 09:52 PM.
    Don't bring skittles to a gun fight.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mountains & Lakes of the extreme NorthEast
    Posts
    1,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flock6 View Post
    If it were that simple then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court......

    I didn't articulate enough of my thought. Of course they are to be held to a higher standard and to be "blind" to personal opinion. Let's say that somehow all the SC Justices were replaced with liberals from NYC would you still feel the same way? Our life experience guides us whether we like it or not whether we try and suppress it or not. So yes it is very important that our SC be a diverse group, that's why there's more than one.............
    If it was filled with liberals from anywhere, it would be guided by personal opinion, hate, bitterness, retaliation, craziness, illogic, basically what you see in the dem party today. That is why we need a SC, to reeducate the diseased people with diseased lawyers that can't read or don't know the correct meaning of a word.
    Last edited by Winni; 08-15-2019 at 03:32 AM.
    =
    Make America under God Again
    =

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Where no man has gone before.
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    The Supreme Court has been political since 1803 and Marbury vs. Madison.
    Do not pray for easy lives, pray to be stronger men.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Posts
    3,312

    Default

    ^^^^^^^
    Yeeeup, pretty much exactly that.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mountains & Lakes of the extreme NorthEast
    Posts
    1,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorEdge95 View Post
    The Supreme Court has been political since 1803 and Marbury vs. Madison.
    Marbury vs. Madison:
    If the SC didn't assert their right, as the third branch of the government, to affirm that a law or EO follows Constitutional rules, they would have become irrelevant. The problem is when a court feels they can rewrite a law as opposed to a yes or no. There needs to be peer review for judges that think they are Congress.
    =
    Make America under God Again
    =

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Where no man has gone before.
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winni View Post
    Marbury vs. Madison:
    If the SC didn't assert their right, as the third branch of the government, to affirm that a law or EO follows Constitutional rules, they would have become irrelevant. The problem is when a court feels they can rewrite a law as opposed to a yes or no. There needs to be peer review for judges that think they are Congress.
    Do you know what Marbury v. Madison is about? It is quite literally about a political dispute where the SCOTUS gave itself power not outlined in the Constitution.
    Do not pray for easy lives, pray to be stronger men.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •