Reply to Judge Intimidation

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Judge Intimidation - Pizza Delivery"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I mean, at least MSN, is telling the truth:

“President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized judges who rule against them, at times describing them as radicals.”

Many, many people, including just about all of the elected GOP actively like and support this. It’s shocking, but that’s the truth.

They. Do. Not. Care. Because . They. Like it.[/quote]

You progressives wanted "[b]No Justice[/b], No Peace".

Now what?[/quote]

NP....

You're complaining about progressives wanting justice?  Isn't justice what judges are supposed to provide?  Upholding rule of law?  And now you act like it's a bad thing.

But then again it's all in line with the difference between progressives and MAGAs - progressives [b]want rule of law fairly applied, [/b]and will protest when it isn't, like in the case of George Floyd and police violence, whereas MAGAs don't care about rule of law or fairness, they protest because they demand loyalty to Trump, laws be damned.

So yes, it's a whataboutism fail because it's apples and oranges[/quote]

Ah yes, progressives, the people who "want rule of law fairly applied."

{Record scratch} 1973

Progressive: i'd like an abortion.

Conservative: well, it's against the law.

Progressive: the law is against the law! Read the constitution.

Conservative: what? Where does the Constitution say that?

Progressive: uh, well, thats what, uh, "due process" means. Yeah, yeah, due process. That's abortions.

{Skip to 2022}

Supreme Court: "due process" obviously doesnt mean abortion

Progressive: " we know where you live"[/quote]

In US law and other systems of common law, precedents are considered to be binding and persuasive sources of law to be upheld, following the principle of stare decisis.

Neil Gorsuch, 2017 Confirmation Hearing:  "Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

Brett Kavanaugh, 2018 Confirmation Hearing:  Roe is an "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times" and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is "precedent on precedent."

Amy Coney Barrett, 2020 Confirmation Hearing:  While there have been calls for the overturn of Roe, "that does not mean that Roe should be overruled."

Stare decisis, until activist judges decide the law is no longer the law.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics