Jump to content

Donald Trump 2020

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1391

  • Biff Tannen

    1374

  • 4th&Five

    1222

  • WhatTheBuck

    910

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thatguy
Thatguy

Let me be candid and honest here my man. I cannot be sympathetic to your comments because this is how adult life has always been. From the moment I stepped out of my home and headed off to college I h

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

it won't matter if his taxes ever come out.  it won't matter if his taxes don't ever come out.  you wanna know why?  because we already know what's in them. since early 2017 when people starting

Posted Images

Nivek

Nivek 16843

Posted
Posted
When I was a kid visiting family in Mexico, our benchmark story on corruption was the president of Mexico directing multi-million dollar highway projects to run right by his ranch.  So, let that sink in....not on ly is Mexico not paying for any damned wall, WE ARE MEXICO NOW.

Are you saying we all have our el guapo to deal with?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17548

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

just the other day, i made "mashed potatoes" entirely out of cauliflower. it's much better tasting than one might think.

Yeah, it's great.  But this isn't the health thread.

It's the thread where we make fun of Trump for eating shitty and being a fat tub of goo.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Like the amount of cauliflower you could hide in mashed potatoes would make a fuck of a difference in that tub of fat.

 

 

When I was a kid I told my mom I was refusing to eat cauliflower because I believed it turned you into a narcissistic fat piece of shit. Looks like I was right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, we do this all the time because it tastes great and carbs are the devil. 

yep. i haven't eliminated carbs, because they are delicious and because beer, but we have massively cut them back and feel a lot better for it.

anyways, back to trump shit:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/donald-trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-sonia-sotomayor-recusal/index.html

 

Quote

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for two liberal Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from cases involving him following a scathing dissent issued by one of them, blasting the justices as the court considers a number of cases critical to his presidency.

"I just don't know how they can't recuse themselves for anything having to do with Trump or Trump-related," Trump said of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg during a trip to India.
"Her statement was so inappropriate when you're a justice of the Supreme Court," he said of Sotomayor, who was appointed to the court by President Barack Obama.
Friday night, Sotomayor castigated the government for repeatedly asking justices on an emergency basis to allow controversial policies to go into effect and charged her conservative colleagues on the court with being too eager to side with the Trump administration on such requests.

 

i know it was posted above, but this is normalizing the idea in his base that the supreme court is too biased to operate correctly, which will pave the way for him to completely disregard their decisions regarding him, up to and including forcing him to release his taxes in the near term, or vacating the white house in the longer term. this is fucking dangerous shit, and i feel that roberts needs to take a firm stand. another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Isn't that pretty much exactly what sotomayer did?

Quote

Friday night, Sotomayor castigated the government for repeatedly asking justices on an emergency basis to allow controversial policies to go into effect and charged her conservative colleagues on the court with being too eager to side with the Trump administration on such requests.

While Sotomayor's dissent targeted the federal government -- not The Trump administration per se -- she was speaking about the recent uptick in emergency petitions concerning many of the President's policies. And her criticism of her conservative colleagues was pointed.

Sotomayor wrote [in her dissent] that granting emergency applications often upends "the normal appellate process" while "putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won." Targeting her conservative colleagues, she said "most troublingly, the court's recent behavior" has benefited "one litigant over all others."

emphasis and brackets mine.

replace sonia sotomayor with antonin scalia and the trump administration with the obama administration, would you be making the same argument?

it's a fucking dissent. it's supposed to be critical and make a message. this is more disingenuous republican bullshit. they are fundamentally dishonest. 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104537

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Of course it is.  And in that dissent she suggested that the court is too biased to operate correctly.

And see, suggestion of bias by her fellow judges....means that she's biased, and thus should recuse herself from all further cases that Trump cares about, and....

THE ARISTOCRATS!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45538

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Of course it is.  And in that dissent she suggested that the court is too biased to operate correctly.

I think there is some validity to your point, but she is speaking to unusual use of the courts, not business as usual, and more to the point, she never suggested the conservative justices should be recused.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

replace sonia sotomayor with antonin scalia and the trump administration with the obama administration, would you be making the same argument?

What argument am I making exactly, in your mind?  You said that normalizing the idea that the court was too biased to operated correctly was dangerous. There are lots of examples of that normalization in our current political environment.  We have a presidential candidate who has proposed a major court restructuring based on this very notion that the court has slid into political bias. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What argument am I making exactly, in your mind?  You said that normalizing the idea that the court was too biased to operated correctly was dangerous. There are lots of examples of that normalization in our current political environment.  We have a presidential candidate who has proposed a major court restructuring based on this very notion that the court has slid into political bias. 

sotomayor doing it is a very different thing than the chief executive, whose fucking job it is to enforce supreme court opinions and congressional laws. the president is attempting to erode our institutions and our justice system, so that he can operate like a despot.

hell, look at this tweet, just issued:

trying to completely undermine the judge in the courtroom, after the judge made a statement about the president's antics.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/roger-stone-hearing-juror-amy-berman-jackson/index.html

Quote

Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Tuesday said attacks from President Donald Trump and commentary from conservative media are part of a campaign of intimidation and harassment of jurors in Roger Stone's criminal case.

Jackson read the President's tweet attacking the Stone jury forewoman, as well as commentary from InfoWars' Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson from Fox News, to a federal courtroom, in deciding to hear testimony from jurors while protecting their identities after Stone asked for a retrial.


Making jurors' identities public "would put them at substantial risk of harm," Jackson said. "In a highly publicized political climate ... the risk of harassment and intimidation of any juror" who may testify to the court today "is extremely high."


"While judges may have volunteered for their positions ... jurors are not volunteers," Jackson said. "They are deserving of the public's respect."

it is sotomayor's job in her dissents to accuse the court of being biased and or incorrect. that's what a dissent essentially IS.

i mean, look at some of the text in scalia's dissents:

lawrence:

Quote

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is no legitimate state interest for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), when sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring, what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution.' Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."

obergefell:

Quote

"Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court's claimed power to create 'liberties' that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45538

Posted
Posted

I think it would be interesting to see a study of rulings by Ginsberg, et al VS those of the conservative justices and determine if evidence of actual bias exists.

It's quite possible the left-leaning justices are actually doing their job, and the right-leaning justices aren't, despite what Donald says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23390

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it is sotomayor's job in her dissents to accuse the court of being biased and or incorrect. that's what a dissent essentially IS.

Maybe one of the law dogs will chime in, but I think that there is a fairly substantive difference between issuing a dissenting opinion that the majority is wrong as a matter of interpretation of the law versus an objection that the majority is politically biased. But either way, you claimed that normalizing the view that the court was unable to operate correctly because of political bias was dangerous. That's pretty much exactly what Sotomayer did, and is the basis for certain views on SCOTUS reforms. If it's dangerous, it's dangerous.  Whether it is Trump or Butti or Sotomayer. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe one of the law dogs will chime in, but I think that there is a fairly substantive difference between issuing a dissenting opinion that the majority is wrong as a matter of interpretation of the law versus an objection that the majority is politically biased. But either way, you claimed that normalizing the view that the court was unable to operate correctly because of political bias was dangerous. That's pretty much exactly what Sotomayer did, and is the basis for certain views on SCOTUS reforms. If it's dangerous, it's dangerous.  Whether it is Trump or Butti or Sotomayer. 

i'd suggest you read the dissent.  it is explicitly in terms of the law.  she compares the threshold for showing imminent harm varies based on the appellant, and suggests that the standards are not applied consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45491

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And see, suggestion of bias by her fellow judges....means that she's biased, and thus should recuse herself from all further cases that Trump cares about, and....

THE ARISTOCRATS!

I'm not biased, I'm not biased, YOU'RE BIASED!

It's the exact same fucking play every time.  Every.  Time.  It's juvenile and stupid and it works.  It's unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Isn't that pretty much exactly what sotomayer did?

Sotomayor has a base? Does she have an army too? Is she our only Hope, Obi Wan? 
 

Once again you come to dear leaders defense never acknowledging the special role that the fucking president serves and the power he has and that trump constantly abuses. 

But I’m sure you’re not gonna vote for him, again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...