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.
That has nothing to do with the conversation, we were talking about those being accused, not convicted and your fellow lefty won’t answer the question and you are trying to divert the thread as always, because you are dishonest or are an idiot that can’t comprehend what you read.Trump was found to have committed sexual assault in a court of law
That’s far more than an accusation
Word is he is going to propose the passage of a constitutional amendment ending criminal immunity for the prez. I think that's the point Lesh was making seeing as a poster accused Joe of being a fascist.What law has been passed that provides immunity for anyone? The last I checked, such laws have to be signed by the president, and I don't think Quid Pro Joe has signed any such laws.
A friend…so what? He didn’t have a case before the court like you claimed. Had he, that might be an issueNot just people who know him. Someone who was giving him lavish gifts and vacations. If you can't see the problem here I can't help you.
Somehow accusations are a “thing” but convictions are not?That has nothing to do with the conversation, we were talking about those being accused, not convicted and your fellow lefty won’t answer the question and you are trying to divert the thread as always, because you are dishonest or are an idiot that can’t comprehend what you read.
Did the Court get to this point because Republicans played by the rules?Don't worry too much about it he still needs to make it pass. There are a lot of Democrats even now who do not believe in changing the rules for SCOTUS.
It's always better to play the game by the rules and if you're not doing so well bide your time because your time will come.
Was blocking 80 judicial nominations "working within the framework?" The Senate has the responsibility of "advice and consent." Not obstruct nominees out of vindictive partisanship.I didn't say that any of these guys were ethical. All I'm saying is that in the face of politics such as we have in the United States it's always wise to work within the framework because if you leave it up to people they'll screw each other until they're all dead.
The COURT has made that ruling and Biden has committed to enacting a law that would remove immunity for a President.What law has been passed that provides immunity for anyone? The last I checked, such laws have to be signed by the president, and I don't think Quid Pro Joe has signed any such laws.
" Common sense " and Democrats is at best a forgoneI would be far more suspicious of what other changes would be sneaked in with the two common Sense changes.
So a friend can’t bribe someone?A friend…so what? He didn’t have a case before the court like you claimed. Had he, that might be an issue
The problems with it:I'm not sure why anyone would be against an ethics code. It's pretty sad that there isn't one already.
IOW, not a law, a court ruling that defines what laws are unconstitutional.The COURT has made that ruling and Biden has committed to enacting a law that would remove immunity for a President.
Clearly not the action of a dictator
The problems with it:
1. Who creates such a code?
2. Who enforces said code?
If the answer to those questions is only "democrats" (and I see no efforts to ensure it's anyone else), there's your issue.
If you can't see the problem here I can't help you. Actually, I think you can. You just won't admit to it. Making you disingenuous at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.A friend…so what? He didn’t have a case before the court like you claimed. Had he, that might be an issue
Of course they could. But going on vacation with a friend isn't a bribe....it's just going on vacation.So a friend can’t bribe someone?
Regardless clearly not the actions of a dictatorIOW, not a law, a court ruling that defines what laws are unconstitutional.
Well... bless your heartWe won't know those answers until someone tries. "Only" isn't capable of working.
As I already noted, Roberts broached the subject but the rest of the court brushed him off. Or at least enough of them to make it a non starter.
That is something the people should not accept.
This does approach separation of powers, attempting to enforce external standards on the judicial branch from the executive and legislative branches.We won't know those answers until someone tries. "Only" isn't capable of working.
As I already noted, Roberts broached the subject but the rest of the court brushed him off. Or at least enough of them to make it a non starter.
That is something the people should not accept.
Yeah, I don't live in dembot bigotied fantasy world, there is no problem with Thomas having a friend. Had the friend had a case before the court and he didn't recuse himself that might be a problem....just like it was a problem when Justice Sotomayor set on actual cases involving her book publisher that gave her millions....and you said nothingIf you can't see the problem here I can't help you. Actually, I think you can. You just won't admit to it. Making you disingenuous at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
nypost.com
Thomas did a LOT more than “go on vacation with a friend”Of course they could. But going on vacation with a friend isn't a bribe....it's just going on vacation.
I don't live in the worlds of could haves, we live in a world of reality.,
Thus far, to my knowledge only one current justice set on a case involving a company that paid her millions....Justice Sotomayor....https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/
Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report
Which does nothing but point out the need for ethics reformYeah, I don't live in dembot bigotied fantasy world, there is no problem with Thomas having a friend. Had the friend had a case before the court and he didn't recuse himself that might be a problem....just like it was a problem when Justice Sotomayor set on actual cases involving her book publisher that gave her millions....and you said nothing
Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according t…Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report
