Justice Ginsburg's mistake.........................benefits Trump so thanks babe

anatta said:
get the fuck out of here. You were all over it like a dog on a bone the night of Comeys statement.. clinging to intent on (f)(1)
Click to expand...

Nope.
Goes to show how unaware you are.
Go ahead, find a quote of me saying section f requires intent.
 
Rune said:
I don't think so.
Let's look at the facts;
1000 anti female president threads.
0 anti male president threads (except black presidents)

Female justice talks out of turn; the justice system will never recover.
Racist conservatard POS Alito does same, you defend him.

Case closed, mysogynist.
Click to expand...
.where have I defended Alito? I've said nothing about him
good god almighty look at your inanities dressed up as a sexism charge.

I'd be saying the same thing about Clinton if she was a guy/LGBT..whatever.

She's an incompetent warmongering bold faced liar -an innate interventionist - who relies on Democratic divisive PC crap.
Which is not to excuse Trump's racist remarks either -but to lambast Clinton's utter lack of judgment
 
anatta said:
.where have I defended Alito? I've said nothing about him
good god almighty look at your inanities dressed up as a sexism charge.

I'd be saying the same thing about Clinton if she was a guy/LGBT..whatever.

She's an incompetent warmongering bold faced liar -an innate interventionist - who relies on Democratic divisive PC crap.
Which is not to excuse Trump's racist remarks either -but to lambast Clinton's utter lack of judgment
Click to expand...

But he called you a misogynist! On noes lol!!!
 
anatta said:
.where have I defended Alito? I've said nothing about him
good god almighty look at your inanities dressed up as a sexism charge.

I'd be saying the same thing about Clinton if she was a guy/LGBT..whatever.

She's an incompetent warmongering bold faced liar -an innate interventionist - who relies on Democratic divisive PC crap.
Which is not to excuse Trump's racist remarks either -but to lambast Clinton's utter lack of judgment
Click to expand...

In this very thread you defended Alito against the same charge.

Yes, hypocrit.
Yes sexist.
Yes, completely unaware of self.
Yes too fucking simpleminded to render legal judgement.
 
Rune said:
In this very thread you defended Alito against the same charge.

Yes, hypocrit.
Yes sexist.
Yes, completely unaware of self.
Yes too fucking simpleminded to render legal judgement.
Click to expand...
.. no that was not the "same charge" it was a spurious point about politicking.
I merely pointed out the article referenced was to the Federalist society -which is not a politicking organization.

Tell you what..if you disagree with anything I say feel free to frame a counter-argument; othr than that
these ad homs are clogging up the main board, and your basement dwelling mind is getting us nowhere.
Take it to the War Zone or STFU -but quit trolling the main board.
 
Rune said:
You claimed I argued that section f required intent. Prove your claim or be known as a liar.
Rana is not doing your work for you.
Click to expand...
(f)(1) ..you idiot.. there are 2 subsections - (f)(2) does require intent.

no I will not be digging around dead posts to please you- you're incapable of understanding what you write,
and it would be unleashing yet more self-confusion on your part..

Take this crap to the war zone, unless you want to stay on a current topic -and frame a coherent argument if you do so for a change
 
anatta said:
oh I love this situational ethics in play ( same source by Rana)
++
"my partisanship is pure -your's is rank"
Click to expand...

Leftists like Rancid will always make excuses. That they are trying to use Thomas officiating at Limbaughs wedding is laughable and if they had a shred of self awareness they would be embarrassed.


The liberal playbook is that they ALWAYS expect their opposition to abide by a higher standard while they will always skirt the rules and will always claim to be morally justified.

I take Ginsbergs comments as a sign of how fearful the left is of losing. Call it a pre BREXIT anxiety
 
anatta said:
.. no that was not the "same charge" it was a spurious point about politicking.
I merely pointed out the article referenced was to the Federalist society -which is not a politicking organization.

Tell you what..if you disagree with anything I say feel free to frame a counter-argument; othr than that
these ad homs are clogging up the main board, and your basement dwelling mind is getting us nowhere.
Take it to the War Zone or STFU -but quit trolling the main board.
Click to expand...

Oh so sorry scumbag but you don't get to decide where I post.

Fuck off and die.
You have been found to be a liar,
Confused about what you yourself even say
And biased against women.

Your comments will be treated accordingly.
 
anatta said:
(f)(1) ..you idiot.. there are 2 subsections - (f)(2) does require intent.

no I will not be digging around dead posts to please you- you're incapable of understanding what you write,
and it would be unleashing yet more self-confusion on your part..

Take this crap to the war zone, unless you want to stay on a current topic -and frame a coherent argument if you do so for a change
Click to expand...

Again, for the mentally retarded, I never said intent was required in section f.
This is legitimate debate, there is nothing zone worthy about it.

Go fuck yourself, you will not tell me how, where or what to post.
 
Rune said:
Oh so sorry scumbag but you don't get to decide where I post.

Fuck off and die.
You have been found to be a liar,
Confused about what you yourself even say
And biased against women.

Your comments will be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...
ignorant troll. still unable to compose a counter-argument reduced to ad homs and purposely pushing lies.

stimpyendurance_by_doctorworm1987-d9ylx2j.png

you eeediot.

 
Rune said:
Again, for the mentally retarded, I never said intent was required in section f.
This is legitimate debate, there is nothing zone worthy about it.

Go fuck yourself, you will not tell me how, where or what to post.
Click to expand...
ya you did. now you're lying to cover up your confusion. plus still unable to discern part of section (f) does require intent.
Dolt. you don't 'get' subsections'
 
Rana said:
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11...icial-ethics-headlining-wing-fundraisers.html
Click to expand...

I note that the article had to put "fundraiser" into quotes......that is because the event was not in fact a fundraiser.....since the code of ethics does not prohibit justices from attending events which are not fundraisers your example appears to fail miserably......

as to the other partisan rants, I find it significant that not even the Obama administration paid any attention to the accusations.......
 
Rune said:
Lol; anatta has started thread after thread in which he gives his legal opinion.
My point is that if he can't even write correctly then he certainly isn't capable of rendering legal judgement.

FYI, Lol; in the future try to refrain from addressing me. It will never go well for you....never has.
Click to expand...
I would rather have a legal opinion from a lawyer than from a Viking blacksmith who can't even make horseshoes.....
 
Ziggy said:
Supreme court justices MUST not favor one over the other except in the privacy of a voting booth, or they must resign. Ginsburg may want off the court now and thus she may resign while Obama can still replace her along with Scalia tipping the court for decades.
Click to expand...

I'll support RBG resigning when cons allow Merrick Garland to be confirmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top