Former President Violated Multiple Laws - Says Jan 6 Committee

[HisArpy]

It's like he's stupid or something. Well, without the "like" and "or something" parts.

Wow, you're so smart you probably took and passed the bar without going to any school at all. Right?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Wow, you're so smart you probably took and passed the bar without going to any school at all. Right?

I bet you can pull a 720 varial over a 20ft. gap without any schooling at all. Right? You're so fucking dumb.

 

[phrodeau]

GO FUCK YOURSELF

Are you referring to Sen. Rob Portman?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Are you referring to Sen. Rob Portman?

Nah, that's just his go-to bullshit when he's made to look stupid. Notice how often he's reduced to using it?

 

[HisArpy]

Are you referring to Sen. Rob Portman?

GO FUCK YOURSELF

 

[phrodeau]

Nah, that's just his go-to bullshit when he's made to look stupid. Notice how often he's reduced to using it?

The word “triggered” comes to mind.

 

[pecksniff]

Deflection from the question by raising irrelevancies doesn't answer the question.

It is not irrelevant. It establishes a precedent that Congress has the authority to investigate crime in general, with or without any "legislative purpose."

 

[Tigersman]

Since all you Trumpers seem to think the Dems are making up all the evidence against Trump, I'll give you something that is real easy to check out if you're not too lazy. In April 2020 Trump brokered a deal with OPEC, Mexico, Russia, and Saudia Arabia to cut oil production to help keep the price of oil up. This was done supposedly to also help Trump get re-elected as it would save oil jobs. This deal is set to expire in April 2022. What Trump didn't count on was the effects of Covid on our economy. He had no idea how Covid was to going to affect our supply and demand for goods and services. When our delivery system broke down, the price of goods and services went up causing inflation to go up. Thank you Donald Trump for screwing up our Nation's economy.

 

[pecksniff]

Since all you Trumpers seem to think the Dems are making up all the evidence against Trump, I'll give you something that is real easy to check out if you're not too lazy. In April 2020 Trump brokered a deal with OPEC, Mexico, Russia, and Saudia Arabia to cut oil production to help keep the price of oil up. This was done supposedly to also help Trump get re-elected as it would save oil jobs. This deal is set to expire in April 2022. What Trump didn't count on was the effects of Covid on our economy. He had no idea how Covid was to going to affect our supply and demand for goods and services. When our delivery system broke down, the price of goods and services went up causing inflation to go up. Thank you Donald Trump for screwing up our Nation's economy.

Well, that's just poor political judgment, not a crime.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

But you go ahead and laud her for being the nomi-nigger.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FarBlankAmericancrow-size_restricted.gif

I bet Matlock's pale crotch pickle twitched in self-congratulating cleverness when he wrote this.

 

[ll74]

Dudly, you're still so fucked in the head I just can't imagine how you function IRL.

KBJ wrote an opinion against the very judicial system she was trying to enter. She worked her ass off and attained a lofty position in that system where she immediately began making decisions and writing opinions tearing down the very thing she's part of.

Which makes thinking people wonder about her mental stability and supposed judicial temperament, but I digress...

Her judicial decisions which attempted to adhere to her fucked up whacko ideology were OVERTURNED by higher courts because they didn't follow the law. And she was publicly chastised for those decisions by her fellow jurists who know her and her judicial abilities.

Now, ask yourself this: IF the people you work with, and your superiors, all know you're fucking up in your job and write "performance evaluations" which show the world you're incapable of doing your job; why should anyone want to elevate you further up the ladder to a point where there isn't any oversight or check on your craziness?

But you go ahead and laud her for being the nomi-nigger.

It seems you jumped the rails of this thread and are not randomly arguing about other threads.

Now please show me how other justices on the court somehow haven't had their decisions overturned by the higher courts when their decisions have been appealed.

That argument towards Jackson is dumb

 

[HisArpy]

It is not irrelevant. It establishes a precedent that Congress has the authority to investigate crime in general, with or without any "legislative purpose."

Which is ILLEGAL because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Or didn't you catch that part?

 

[Rotadom]

Lol, you're moving in circles faster than someone on Disney's tea cup ride.

Why are you fantasizing about children's rides?

 

[HisArpy]

It seems you jumped the rails of this thread and are not randomly arguing about other threads.

Now please show me how other justices on the court somehow haven't had their decisions overturned by the higher courts when their decisions have been appealed.

That argument towards Jackson is dumb

Many judges get their decisions overturned. FEW get them overturned while being scolded in the decision at the same time.

KBJ has managed to do both. Which means she's got something wrong with her decision making processes.

The part you don't want to argue, so you do the usual thing of deflecting by deriding sources rather than discussing the content, is that a SCOTUS justice needs to be someone with the highest order of logical and legal thinking. They swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. You don't want someone on the SCOTUS bench who refuses to follow the law and instead imposes her own ideology in its place.

That is why there's a confirmation process. To suss out those who look good on paper but have unsuitable dispositional flaws in their character.

 

[HisArpy]

Why are you fantasizing about children's rides?

Why do you keep bringing children into the discussion? Are you trying to say something without saying it so you can avoid the ban hammer?

 

[Rotadom]

Why do you keep bringing children into the discussion? Are you trying to say something without saying it so you can avoid the ban hammer?

I'm just responding to your creepy fantasies about children.

 

[ll74]

Many judges get their decisions overturned. FEW get them overturned while being scolded in the decision at the same time.

KBJ has managed to do both. Which means she's got something wrong with her decision making processes.

Or it means she has a different interpretation of the law than the person who overturned it and the judge felt the need to extrapolate on their ruling. That doesn't make anything wrong....that just makes a ruling overturned.

The part you don't want to argue, so you do the usual thing of deflecting by deriding sources rather than discussing the content, is that a SCOTUS justice needs to be someone with the highest order of logical and legal thinking. They swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. You don't want someone on the SCOTUS bench who refuses to follow the law and instead imposes her own ideology in its place.

That sounds like you're arguing for originalism. I'm not a fan, I'll say....laws are meant to evolve and change over time. KBJ has experience as a lawyer and a judge that give her a unique perspective on legal matters than anyone on the bench currently. I don't see where her logical or legal thinking lacks in any way.

That is why there's a confirmation process. To suss out those who look good on paper but have unsuitable dispositional flaws in their character.

Confirmation is so people can assertain the ability of the candidate for the office. Certainly you can lobby your representatives if you feel she's not qualified.

I seem to be in a unique position where I don't object to KBJ and I didn't object to the previous two nominations either. I am more concerned about lifetime appointments and external political bodies having too much influence on shaping of justices.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm just responding to your creepy fantasies about children.

Wait, I mention that this thread reads like a children's prayer and you suddenly start having fantasies about kids and projecting that into everything posted?


You need help. And banned.

 

[Rotadom]

Wait, I mention that this thread reads like a children's prayer and you suddenly start having fantasies about kids and projecting that into everything posted?


You need help. And banned.

It's not my fault you can't stop talking about children on a porn site.

 

[HisArpy]

Or it means she has a different interpretation of the law than the person who overturned it and the judge felt the need to extrapolate on their ruling. That doesn't make anything wrong....that just makes a ruling overturned.

That sounds like you're arguing for originalism. I'm not a fan, I'll say....laws are meant to evolve and change over time. KBJ has experience as a lawyer and a judge that give her a unique perspective on legal matters than anyone on the bench currently. I don't see where her logical or legal thinking lacks in any way.


Confirmation is so people can assertain the ability of the candidate for the office. Certainly you can lobby your representatives if you feel she's not qualified.

I seem to be in a unique position where I don't object to KBJ and I didn't object to the previous two nominations either. I am more concerned about lifetime appointments and external political bodies having too much influence on shaping of justices.

Dude, give it up already.

Judges swear to uphold and apply the law, not apply their own interpretations based on their ideologies. As a judge you can get it wrong and be overturned and that's the way it goes sometimes. BUT, when you get it wrong for not only making a mistake on what the law says, but also get called out for inserting your own PERSONAL IDEOLOGY in place of the law, you did something which, when done by a judge, isn't permitted.

 

[HisArpy]

It's not my fault you can't stop talking about children on a porn site.

I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up.

 

[ll74]

Dude, give it up already.

Judges swear to uphold and apply the law, not apply their own interpretations based on their ideologies. As a judge you can get it wrong and be overturned and that's the way it goes sometimes. BUT, when you get it wrong for not only making a mistake on what the law says, but also get called out for inserting your own PERSONAL IDEOLOGY in place of the law, you did something which, when done by a judge, isn't permitted.

Their interpretation of the law....yes. There is not a single law that cannot have multiple interpretations, just based on a couple of words.

Nothing to give up here. We disagree. It happens.

If ideology was not a part of the job, nobody would classify the justices on the court as conservative or liberal.

I mean, it's not like we bring up the President who appointed them every time a case is in the news....

 

[pecksniff]

Which is ILLEGAL because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Or didn't you catch that part?

Has any court ever ruled the Valachi Hearings or any resulting prosecutions unconstitutional? Those Mob guys do have lawyers. Probably better lawyers than Trump's.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Poor Timmeh is running out of ways to squeal "Unqualified Negress!"

 

[HisArpy]

Their interpretation of the law....yes. There is not a single law that cannot have multiple interpretations, just based on a couple of words.

Nothing to give up here. We disagree. It happens.

If ideology was not a part of the job, nobody would classify the justices on the court as conservative or liberal.

I mean, it's not like we bring up the President who appointed them every time a case is in the news....

You still insist on being ignorant.

KBJ didn't just get her decisions overturned, the appeals court also told her specifically, by name, that she not only was ignoring the law, and the existing precedent regarding that law, that she was "legislating from the bench." Those were the words used by the appeals court in their decision when they overturned her.

That isn't an "interpretation" of the law. It's anathema, anarchy, and counter to the purpose of a judge.