The Stalwarts of "Democracy" (The Democrats) Are now Trashing the Supreme Court for not ruling in their favor

[struth]

That’s the whole problem.

#WAKEUP

Yea, I don’t speak dembot.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The decision she was dissenting to was pretty damn extreme, giving an extraordinary amount of power to the president… talk about radical! I thought y’all were anti commie? How do you cheer this on?

This wasn’t a radical decision based on precedent at all… you and the left just need to label it as such to demonize the court, because it’s not a leftist one as it was for years.

It’s largely a 50/50 court now, but moderate is radical to you because you’re so far left

And when you accuse the court of “treason” you’ll likely have more assassination attempts on justices, like there was on Kavanaugh when angry mobs swarmed his house.

 

[Slade3200]

This wasn’t a radical decision based on precedent at all… you and the left just need to label it as such to demonize the court, because it’s not a leftist one as it was for years.

Well expanding the powers of the president to make him virtually immune from crimes is a pretty leftist thing. Don’t you think?

 

[Slade3200]

And when you accuse the court of “treason” you’ll likely have more assassination attempts on justices, like there was on Kavanaugh when angry mobs swarmed his house.

Who accused the court of treason?? Wasn’t me? Can you provide a quote?

 

[konradv]

This wasn’t a radical decision based on precedent at all… you and the left just need to label it as such to demonize the court, because it’s not a leftist one as it was for years.

It’s largely a 50/50 court now, but moderate is radical to you because you’re so far left

And when you accuse the court of “treason” you’ll likely have more assassination attempts on justices, like there was on Kavanaugh when angry mobs swarmed his house.

Anyone that thinks this was a good decision doesn’t have the right to invoke “The Founders”, IMO.

#IFYOUCANKEEPIT

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Well expanding the powers of the president to make him virtually immune from crimes is a pretty leftist thing. Don’t you think?

You didn’t read the decision and what was proposed/said, obviously.

The leftist MSM lives low-information voters such as you

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Who accused the court of treason?? Wasn’t me? Can you provide a quote?

Sotomayor used “treasonous” in her descent.

The left is going to trash the SCOTUS and fear monger the most ridiculous things..

 

[Slade3200]

You didn’t read the decision and what was proposed/said, obviously.

The leftist MSM lives low-information voters such as you

I didn’t? How would you know that?
I’m calling BS

 

[Slade3200]

Sotomayor used “treasonous” in her descent.

The left is going to trash the SCOTUS and fear monger the most ridiculous things..

Did she accuse the court of treason?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Did she accuse the court of treason?

LOL

You’re going to say someone declaring
a “treasonous” act isn’t suggesting the decision isn’t “treason”?

LMAO

You have no spine or credibility. This must be Gavin Newsomes burner account

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I didn’t? How would you know that?
I’m calling BS

Because if you did you’d know it didn’t give the president immunity to break any law

 

[Slade3200]

LOL

You’re going to say someone declaring
a “treasonous” act isn’t suggesting the decision isn’t “treason”?

LMAO

You have no spine or credibility. This must be Gavin Newsomes burner account

I’m gonna push for accuracy and honesty when making claims about others.
You claimed that she accused the court of treason. You gonna stand behind that or would you like to amend your accusation?

 

[berg80]

Here's the deal, it's either:
1. Elections are okay to question or they're not.
2. The SCOTUS is legitimate or its not.

It's fine to question them if there is a credible reason. There wasn't. BTW, you don't question them by blocking the certification of the newly elected prez and plotting to have fake electors take the place of legit ones.

As for SCOTUS, the majority has no one else but themselves to blame for the loss of faith in the institution by the public. You can't repeatedly violate precedent in order to enact a radical political agenda and expect there will be no consequences.

I understand your need to phrase the thread title as you have. Many of you folks do something similar. Pretending Dems are the ones who are responsible for prosecuting Crocked Donald when he is solely responsible. He and the grand juries who voted to indict him.

 

[Billiejeens]

Rump Rump Rump you friggin losers. 6-3 isn't favorable to all.

It's supposed to be favorable to The Constitution .
The end.

 

[berg80]

Because if you did you’d know it didn’t give the president immunity to break any law

But it did tie the hands of prosecutors in cases of dubious immunity by making essential evidence to prove the case inadmissible.

 

[berg80]

This wasn’t a radical decision based on precedent at all

We agree there was no precedent for it. Neither was there any constitutional justification.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I’m gonna push for accuracy and honesty when making claims about others.
You claimed that she accused the court of treason. You gonna stand behind that or would you like to amend your accusation?

I never said the exact phrasing you said I said.

I said she called the decision “treasonous”..

I see you’re going to sprint to being a gutless weasel here.

Let me guess, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is?

 

[Slade3200]

I never said the exact phrasing you said I said.

I said she called the decision “treasonous”..

I see you’re going to sprint to being a gutless weasel here.

Let me guess, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is?

Ok fair enough, you are claiming she called the decision treasonous. Can you provide her exact quote that you think claimed that?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Ok fair enough, you are claiming she called the decision treasonous. Can you provide her exact quote that you think claimed that?

Thus far you’ve had a significant lack of good faith. It’s not very compelling to continue if you’re going to be so evasive and misrepresent what I say.

Sotomayor told factual lies in her descent and used insane language…

She’ll have a little blood on her hands if/when the leftist mob comes for the SCOTUS.

 

[Dragonlady]

Hahah no he didn’t, literally Biden stated it, there is videos of it

The biden rule only applied if the senate was run by the opposite party of the president. That wasn’t the case in 2020

It still isn't a "rule" or anything of the kind, and it never was. It was simply a suggestion in a speech he made. 40 years ago. People frequently change their minds over half a lifetime.

And after Republicans barred the Garland nomination, they swore they'd never ever nominate a Republican in an election year. That lasted 4 whole years, untill RGB died, weeks before the 2020 election