This is a justice issue, and not politics, as Dems claim the current make up of SCOTUS is. They've been making the claim for many years, but particularly since Trump took office in 2016, with the likelihood of having at least two SCOTUS picks. As it happened, he had three. "The Supreme Court is not well," said a group of Democrats in Congress in 2019, again charging Trump with biased picks. Curious, then, isn't it, that with two cases left before the Court to decide before their 2021 season ends, that the last 32 cases SCOTUS has decided have 12 unanimous cases decided, 37.5% of the 32 cases. Only 3 of the 32 have been along the 6-3 alleged ideological divide. The history of the Court, since 1789 indicates that 59% of their cases are unanimous. Tell me what's sick about that? For all the claims of political bias by the Court, and both sides have claimed it, not just Dems, but it happens to be Dems now, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Court measuring stick happens to be something the Dems do not give much credence: the Constitution. Give it a read once in a while. A full, investigative read for fuller comprehension. I do once a month, and have for the past fifteen years. I started after thinking that Oba'a was going to be a presidential candidate, and his keynote speech in the 2004 DNC scared me to death. That's a Marxist, I said to myself, having never heard of the man before that speech. Of course, he was a Chicago Dem. Not a constitutional scholar, in spite of the claim. Nor am I, but my familiarity has never beensuccessfully assailed.
"The Supreme Court is not well" said Dems
Posts
Total:
10
-->
@fauxlaw
It’s been obvious for 4 years that Democrats don’t care about the Constitution not history
-->
@fauxlaw
Tell me what's sick about that?
Making it home safely after deciding to drink and drive, does not mean those who expressed concern over your decision to drink and drive were not justified.
Yes, it appears America has dodged the bullet of a man who thinks the justice department is his own personal law firm and wants to know why more of them are not like Roy Cohn from selecting SC picks that would function as political hacks. That doesn’t mean this is the guy who should be making those picks.
It is also important to point out that the bullet hasn’t yet been fully dodged. Trump wasn’t able to find the hacks he was looking for because right now they are very hard to find, but his contempt for the rule of law has infected an entire political party and this is breeding more of his ilk. This is dangerous no matter what the final outcome turns out to be
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s obvious if all you consume is Hannity and Tucker Carlson.
-->
@Double_R
Which is why, after a years-long with hunt, the SDNY has decided not to prosecute Trump. That's the law, in action, my friend, but you have Trump embedded so deep into your head, rent-free, you can't see it.
-->
@fauxlaw
I think you replied to the wrong person, because that has absolutely nothing to do with anything said here in this thread.
Also, not sure if you’re aware of this but investigating potential crimes is kind of what the people at SDNY do for a living, so I’m not sure what it is you think them investigating something shows, or how this has anything to do with Trump living inside my head.
And BTW, it’s not Trump that I have a bit of an obsession with, it’s the fact that so many idiots really think he is someone who should have ever been taken seriously as a presidential candidate, let alone was actually a good president. He’s literally the embodiment of everything a president should not be.
-->
@Double_R
I think you replied to the wrong person,
Nope. That was correctly delivered to you, something new, which occurs all the time relative to threads. It's their nature to unravel and offer new perspectives. It's my thread, after all. Sorry your preference is the same old, same old, but I am hardly surprised
-->
@Double_R
It’s obvious if all you consume is Hannity and Tucker Carlson.
And you, Karl Marx?
Sorry your preference is the same old, same old, but I am hardly surprised
No, my preference is that of you’re going to start a thread, when someone directly addresses your nonsense you acknowledge what they say and respond rather than changing the subject and then say “hey, it’s my thread”. So yes it is your thread, congratulations on your accomplishment. Let me know when you would like to join the conversation you started.