Conservative Federal Judge J. Michael Luttig (RET): There Is No Republican Party

[Harry Dresden]

Reflexively, yes.

I was thinking along the lines of fashioning an argument contradicting the OP.

when he speaks for himself i will.....you just got here...lakota has let others speak for him for a decade....you will learn....

 

[The5thHorseman]

when he speaks for himself i will.....you just got here...lakota has let others speak for him for a decade....you will learn....

Then perhaps you should sit on your hands in protest.

But who among you speaks for him/her self?

 

[struth]

View attachment 818696

I totally agree with Judge Luttig! Also, according to Judge Luttig and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, Trump isn't even legally eligible to run for President after the insurrection on January 6, 2021 according to Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. What do you think?

He’s certainly entitled to his opinion but I lost a lot of respect for hiM when he advocated and ultimately obtained, the execution of a 17 year old. His views on the law were wrong then, and might be now as well

 

[Harry Dresden]

Then perhaps you should sit on your hands in protest.

But who among you speaks for him/her self?

who among me?......sorry i dont go for the pronoun bullshit....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 818696

I totally agree with Judge Luttig! Also, according to Judge Luttig and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, Trump isn't even legally eligible to run for President after the insurrection on January 6, 2021 according to Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. What do you think?

I though he meant there was no Republican Party against the Progressive Jihad on America. No Party to uncover the extent of the J6 Reichstag Fire

 

[The5thHorseman]

who among me?......sorry i dont go for the pronoun bullshit....

Thanks for sharing.

 

[The5thHorseman]

He’s certainly entitled to his opinion but I lost a lot of respect for hiM when he advocated and ultimately obtained, the execution of a 17 year old. His views on the law were wrong then, and might be now as well

Are you anti-death penalty?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Thanks for sharing.

anytime.....

 

[struth]

Are you anti-death penalty?

Yes. Regardless though executing minors is unconstitutional. He was wrong on the law when he advocating it

 

[The5thHorseman]

He’s certainly entitled to his opinion but I lost a lot of respect for hiM when he advocated and ultimately obtained, the execution of a 17 year old. His views on the law were wrong then, and might be now as well

when he advocated and ultimately obtained, the execution of a 17 year old.

Did FOX tell you anything else about this?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Yes. Regardless though executing minors is unconstitutional. He was wrong on the law when he advocating it

is unconstitutional. He was wrong on the law when he advocating it

Whoever told you this is lying.

 

[struth]

Did FOX tell you anything else about this?

Yes I recall them reporting the story about the case.

 

[struth]

Whoever told you this is lying.

Haha the SCOTUS…it’s been the last for nearly 20 years when Roper was decided

Have you been living under a rock? Or just under the mountain of propaganda from your dembot cult?

 

[Clipper]

What makes Luttig conservative? Lefties used to hate corporate lawyers but they make an exception when they criticize Trump.

He's telling the truth which is anathema to you Trump worshippers.

Suck it up, snowflake.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Haha the SCOTUS…it’s been the last for nearly 20 years when Roper was decided

Have you been living under a rock? Or just under the mountain of propaganda from your dembot cult?

You're full of shit.

Luttig made a victim impact statement.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Yes I recall them reporting the story about the case.

On May 28, 2002, the Supreme Court voted unanimously 6–0 to reject Beazley's request for a writ of habeas corpus.[5] He was executed by lethal injection that evening.

Beazley's execution sparked a fierce debate between opponents and supporters of the death penalty, particularly with respect to juvenile offenders.[6] Some organizations, such as Amnesty International, argued in favor of clemency due to his age (at the time of the offense Beazley was 3½ months from his 18th birthday) and their opposition to the death penalty in general.[7] Beazley was one of the last juvenile offenders to be executed in the United States.

In 2005, the Supreme Court (in Roper v. Simmons) banned the practice of executing offenders who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes.[8


Napoleon Beazley - Wikipedia

 

[struth]

On May 28, 2002, the Supreme Court voted unanimously 6–0 to reject Beazley's request for a writ of habeas corpus.[5] He was executed by lethal injection that evening.

Beazley's execution sparked a fierce debate between opponents and supporters of the death penalty, particularly with respect to juvenile offenders.[6] Some organizations, such as Amnesty International, argued in favor of clemency due to his age (at the time of the offense Beazley was 3½ months from his 18th birthday) and their opposition to the death penalty in general.[7] Beazley was one of the last juvenile offenders to be executed in the United States.

In 2005, the Supreme Court (in Roper v. Simmons) banned the practice of executing offenders who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes.[8


Napoleon Beazley - Wikipedia

What about your post contradicts what i said?

 

[struth]

You're full of shit.

Luttig made a victim impact statement.

Advocating the execution of a juvenile. I certainly can appreciate his pain but he was wrong on the law

 

[The5thHorseman]

What about your post contradicts what i said?

Can you read a calendar?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Advocating the execution of a juvenile. I certainly can appreciate his pain but he was wrong on the law

He wasn't...as the citation makes perfectly clear, dumbass.