Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Meaningless twaddle.
www.newsweek.com
What did these gift givers get in return? It isn't selling influence unless there's influence sold.View attachment 963036
Loading…
www.cnbc.comSupreme Court: Gifts for justices explained in 3 charts
Over the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted 445 gifts valued at over $4 million, a new report suggests.
Beats me. Overturn of Roe vs Wade, Approval of Trump's redirection of 2.4 Billion Dollars of funds from the Pentagon, to build part of his wall, Congress would not pay for in the budget he signed and celebrated, then redirected by him as if he had line item control (reserved for Congress by the constitution, block by one Federal Judge and the Federal Appeals court for maybe?What did these gift givers get in return? It isn't selling influence unless there's influence sold.
Zzz.View attachment 963036
Loading…
www.cnbc.comSupreme Court: Gifts for justices explained in 3 charts
Over the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted 445 gifts valued at over $4 million, a new report suggests.
Try it, in any other branch of government, any branch, any department. Except for the Supreme court, it is against the law and applicable ethics regulations. Don't fool yourself. You are not fooling anybody else, that has ever held a government position.Zzz.
Receiving gifts is legal. It isn’t unethical. It isn’t bribery.
Accepting bribes is illegal and unethical. But you don’t have any thing at all to support any such contention.
So your post remains twaddle.
Can you prove any of those rulings is unconstitutional? Roe was always bad law. It should never have been.Beats me. Overturn of Roe vs Wade, Approval of Trump's redirection of 2.4 Billion Dollars of funds from the Pentagon, to build part of his wall, Congress would not pay for in the budget he signed and celebrated, then redirected by him as if he had line item control (reserved for Congress by the constitution, block by one Federal Judge and the Federal Appeals court for maybe?
The Supremes can do anything, and rule it constitutional.
I have no problem with the change from Roe, actually, but of course, I am a 69 year old male.Can you prove any of those rulings is unconstitutional? Roe was always bad law. It should never have been.
Perhaps it's a case of once funds have been approved for national defense, it can be spent on any national defense project. Including a wall.I have no problem with the change from Roe, actually, but of course, I am a 69 year old male.
By the constitution the power off the purse rests with Congress and presidents do not have line item veto or redirection powers and never have, under our constitution. That is why a Federal Judge blocked it on constitutional ground and why the appeals court denied trumps appeal. Presidents just do not have that power to redirect non-discretionary spending, certainly not in the amount of $2.5 Billion line item assigned and approved by congress. Biden was blocked, attempted to move $1.4 billion. Federal court, said no-way, for the same reason. Biden administration did not appeal, as they knew by our constitution, the Executive branch does not have the power of the purse, but after Trump, it was worth a shot, if for no other reason, than to reestablish control of funding on non-discretionary line item funding does rest with Congress.
Check your freshman high school civic book.
It wasn't until his Supremes got a hold of it. It had never been done before, as it was known illegal and unconstitutional. Of course, The Supremes can rule anything constitutional, and there is no appeal, so if you can appoint 3 or so, you can get what you really want, constitutional or not. Obviously, if they accept million dollar gratuities, and you know billionaires, that makes it all the better, as you will always have the ear, there not being any other job where the employers will allow people on the ruling board to have such conflicts of interests.Perhaps it's a case of once funds have been approved for national defense, it can be spent on any national defense project. Including a wall.
Was it ever proved that the Court gave any favorable rulings to the generous wealthy?It wasn't until his Supremes got a hold of it. It had never been done before, as it was known illegal and unconstitutional. Of course, The Supremes can rule anything constitutional, and there is no appeal, so if you can appoint 3 or so, you can get what you really want, constitutional or not. Obviously, if they accept million dollar gratuities, and you know billionaires, that makes it all the better, as you will always have the ear, there not being any other job where the employers will allow people on the ruling board to have such conflicts of interests.
Having the ear, to maintain the gratuities not available to anyone else is enough. What? You thought these were men that eschewed high end lifestyles on a government salary? What a joke!Was it ever proved that the Court gave any favorable rulings to the generous wealthy?
And it may not, as well.Alito's letter to congress may contain false statements
I’m not fooling anyone nor trying.Try it, in any other branch of government, any branch, any department. Except for the Supreme court, it is against the law and applicable ethics regulations. Don't fool yourself. You are not fooling anybody else, that has ever held a government position.
Whatever can be proved.Having the ear, to maintain the gratuities not available to anyone else is enough. What? You thought these were men that eschewed high end lifestyles on a government salary? What a joke!
