The Height of Hypocrisy

[ThisIsMe]

There is no such a thing as a "conviction came from Zero evidence". Our laws and our Constitution do not allow anyone to be convicted without evidence.

As such, prove your statement. Words are free to say.


So you personally pick and choose what decisions by the SCOTUS to believe. If that is the case, then do not use it to make a point. It is your opinion and not a fact.


If that is the case, then this SCOTUS took away a woman's rights. That is wrong. No one has the right to take rights away from anyone.


Speculation given that Biden did not pack the courts with judges that lean to the left. Trump did pack the courts with judges that lean to the right. Bottom like, SCOTUS should NOT be political. It should be about the law and about human rights, not about personal opinions on what is right or wrong.

There is no such a thing as a "conviction came from Zero evidence". Our laws and our Constitution do not allow anyone to be convicted without evidence.

As such, prove your statement. Words are free to say.

Well, if you look at this case, they did just that. You asked me to prove my statement, all I have to do is point to the case and say, show me the evidence she presented. That’s all the proof indeed. There was zero evidence. Trump was convicted on preponderance of evidence which is one of the lowest bars for conviction, and it literally states that the jury just has to decide which sides story is more likely to be true or not. In other words, it’s left to the feelings of the jurors. Not based off evidence, just on “did they think it was possible”. That’s what that case boils down to.

So you personally pick and choose what decisions by the SCOTUS to believe. If that is the case, then do not use it to make a point. It is your opinion and not a fact.

no, that’s not it at all. The scotus job is to interpret law based on the constitution. If they make a decision that is in line with cotus, then they are doing their job, if they don’t, then they are not.

If that is the case, then this SCOTUS took away a woman's rights. That is wrong. No one has the right to take rights away from anyone.

Roe should have never made abortion legal because the courts don’t make law, and the federal government does not have the power to make abortion legal. It’s not a power delegated to them in the cotus. Again, 10th ammendment.

Speculation given that Biden did not pack the courts with judges that lean to the left.

I’ll give you that…he didn’t, and I’m surprised, but then he really couldn’t because he doesn’t have a filibuster proof majority. However, his term isn’t over yet, he could pull a last minute surprise. He did campaign on restoring roe, and since he’s not running again, he could pull a last minute move.

Trump did pack the courts with judges that lean to the right.

He filled vacancies with right leaning judges, the same as democrats would have done. How can you fault him for that.

Bottom like, SCOTUS should NOT be political. It should be about the law and about human rights, not about personal opinions on what is right or wrong.

I agree 1000%. The courts (any court) should not be political. I think if you have aspirations of being on the Supreme Court, your political leanings should be kept private. BOTH sides pick their scotus nominees based on their political leanings and what they think those nominees will do for the presidents agenda. I think this is wrong. The law should be interpreted based on the text and intent of the law, not based on personal political leanings. I’m not even really a fan of “precedent” because if they get it wrong once, they get it wrong all the way down the line. Roe is a perfect example of this. They got it wrong back then, and people interpreted it as abortion is a constitutional right. That was incorrect, it should have always been a state issue.

The scotus was not being political in that decision, they were correcting a 50 year old mistake. Also, if the goal was to make abortion illegal, they could have very well did that, but they didn’t, they said the states should decide.

 

[Luckyone]

Well, if you look at this case, they did just that. You asked me to prove my statement, all I have to do is point to the case and say, show me the evidence she presented. That’s all the proof indeed. There was zero evidence. Trump was convicted on preponderance of evidence which is one of the lowest bars for conviction, and it literally states that the jury just has to decide which sides story is more likely to be true or not. In other words, it’s left to the feelings of the jurors. Not based off evidence, just on “did they think it was possible”. That’s what that case boils down to.



no, that’s not it at all. The scotus job is to interpret law based on the constitution. If they make a decision that is in line with cotus, then they are doing their job, if they don’t, then they are not.



Roe should have never made abortion legal because the courts don’t make law, and the federal government does not have the power to make abortion legal. It’s not a power delegated to them in the cotus. Again, 10th ammendment.



I’ll give you that…he didn’t, and I’m surprised, but then he really couldn’t because he doesn’t have a filibuster proof majority. However, his term isn’t over yet, he could pull a last minute surprise. He did campaign on restoring roe, and since he’s not running again, he could pull a last minute move.



He filled vacancies with right leaning judges, the same as democrats would have done. How can you fault him for that.


I agree 1000%. The courts (any court) should not be political. I think if you have aspirations of being on the Supreme Court, your political leanings should be kept private. BOTH sides pick their scotus nominees based on their political leanings and what they think those nominees will do for the presidents agenda. I think this is wrong. The law should be interpreted based on the text and intent of the law, not based on personal political leanings. I’m not even really a fan of “precedent” because if they get it wrong once, they get it wrong all the way down the line. Roe is a perfect example of this. They got it wrong back then, and people interpreted it as abortion is a constitutional right. That was incorrect, it should have always been a state issue.

The scotus was not being political in that decision, they were correcting a 50 year old mistake. Also, if the goal was to make abortion illegal, they could have very well did that, but they didn’t, they said the states should decide.

Well, the reality is that neither of us have enough knowledge of the law to say what is and what is not legal. Bottom line though, is that without right leaning judges, the SCOTUS decision from 52 years ago had never been overturned. It took Right Leaning judges to do that. In addition, none of the other judges (other than the right leaning ones) voted to repeal that previous decision.

As far as your statement about zero evidence, you need to provide links to legal scholars that have stated that as a fact. Your opinion on this is worthless.

The Fact is that everything in the cases against Trump followed legal standards and it was also judged by 12 peers, any of which had they agreed with you, Trump would not have been found guilty.

You and everyone that has so far felt as you do are known to be biased. Show me legal proof to your contentions and I will review it. Your words mean nothing.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, the reality is that neither of us have enough knowledge of the law to say what is and what is not legal. Bottom line though, is that without right leaning judges, the SCOTUS decision from 52 years ago had never been overturned. It took Right Leaning judges to do that. In addition, none of the other judges (other than the right leaning ones) voted to repeal that previous decision.

As far as your statement about zero evidence, you need to provide links to legal scholars that have stated that as a fact. Your opinion on this is worthless.

The Fact is that everything in the cases against Trump followed legal standards and it was also judged by 12 peers, any of which had they agreed with you, Trump would not have been found guilty.

You and everyone that has so far felt as you do are known to be biased. Show me legal proof to your contentions and I will review it. Your words mean nothing.

It took Right Leaning judges to do that. In addition, none of the other judges (other than the right leaning ones) voted to repeal that previous decision.

This should really tell you something. All of the democrat justices dissented in Dobbs. This makes me question if they were really thinking about the case through the lens of the constitution, or political views. The 10th amendment is very clear and should have been one of the main focuses of the Dobbs decision.

As far as your statement about zero evidence, you need to provide links to legal scholars that have stated that as a fact. Your opinion on this is worthless.

Why do I need to post links to legal scholars? Just look at the case. Did she provide any evidence? We don’t need legal scholars to show us what isn’t there.

She had no video evidence, no dna, no eye witness. Couldn’t remember details of the event, claimed she still had a dress from when the event happened only to find out that dress hadn’t even been made til a couple years later. No police report, no hospital records, changed her story a couple of times, the story she told was the plot of an episode of her favorite tv show, made a Twitter post after it had happened asking people if they would have sex with trump for money, and the only evidence she had is that she said she told a friend after it happened.

Then she goes on the Rachael Maddow show and does this bizarre interview where she basically brags about what she’s going to do with the money and asks Maddow what she could buy her.

I mean, none of that sounds strange?

He was basically convicted off of the access Hollywood tape, that’s what it was. The jury listened to that tape and determined that, if trump says he grabbed women by the pussy, then it’s likely that he abused e Jean Carrol. That’s the case in a nutshell. They took a statement, used one of the lowest bars for conviction and made a conviction out of that. There was never any evidence that he ever had any such encounter with Carroll.

The Fact is that everything in the cases against Trump followed legal standards and it was also judged by 12 peers, any of which had they agreed with you, Trump would not have been found guilty.

You’re right, it did follow legal standard, but read the above. The case was never decided on evidence because there wasn’t any. The case was decided on “do you think it’s possible”

You and everyone that has so far felt as you do are known to be biased. Show me legal proof to your contentions and I will review it. Your words mean nothing.

How can I be biased? I have no dog in this fight. I couldn’t care less about trump, all I care about is, from the moment Trump came down that escalator, dems vowed to get trump, and everything that has happened since then has been just an extension of that long chain of partisanship going back over 9 years.

I’m not one to support a person, I support the party and the ideology, you could replace Trump with any other candidate and I’d still feel the same.

 

[Luckyone]

This should really tell you something. All of the democrat justices dissented in Dobbs. This makes me question if they were really thinking about the case through the lens of the constitution, or political views. The 10th amendment is very clear and should have been one of the main focuses of the Dobbs decision.

What a load of BS. You yourself stated that SCOTUS should be non-partisan and now YOU are accusing the people that did vote to overturn Roe vs Wade leftists. Could it be the did not agree with the decision because they considered it legally wrong?

Why do I need to post links to legal scholars? Just look at the case. Did she provide any evidence? We don’t need legal scholars to show us what isn’t there.

More BS from you. It is deflecting because you CAN'T provide those facts

She had no video evidence, no dna, no eye witness. Couldn’t remember details of the event, claimed she still had a dress from when the event happened only to find out that dress hadn’t even been made til a couple years later. No police report, no hospital records, changed her story a couple of times, the story she told was the plot of an episode of her favorite tv show, made a Twitter post after it had happened asking people if they would have sex with trump for money, and the only evidence she had is that she said she told a friend after it happened.

Then she goes on the Rachael Maddow show and does this bizarre interview where she basically brags about what she’s going to do with the money and asks Maddow what she could buy her.

I am not going to continue to argue with you on this. You need to PROVE your point, not just opine on it.

I mean, none of that sounds strange?

Strange is not a legal defense.

He was basically convicted off of the access Hollywood tape, that’s what it was. The jury listened to that tape and determined that, if trump says he grabbed women by the pussy, then it’s likely that he abused e Jean Carrol. That’s the case in a nutshell. They took a statement, used one of the lowest bars for conviction and made a conviction out of that. There was never any evidence that he ever had any such encounter with Carroll.

Again, show proof of what you say. All you ever provide is words (meaning opinion).

You’re right, it did follow legal standard, but read the above. The case was never decided on evidence because there wasn’t any. The case was decided on “do you think it’s possible”

You were not one of the judges. You don't know what was proven legally in the court.

How can I be biased? I have no dog in this fight. I couldn’t care less about trump, all I care about is, from the moment Trump came down that escalator, dems vowed to get trump, and everything that has happened since then has been just an extension of that long chain of partisanship going back over 9 years.

You are biased because you are defending Trump WITHOUT providing legal proof of your statements.

I’m not one to support a person, I support the party and the ideology, you could replace Trump with any other candidate and I’d still feel the same.

then it should be EASY to come up with legal facts that support your view.