Anonymous wrote:Good. Not putting another DNC politburo gatekeeper in place as a form of a dirty tricks shop.

If you don't like the court's decisions, you need to come up with better logical (and less emotional) arguments.

No you just need to give the conservative judges money or have Trump tell the court what ruling he wants. That is how it works. I have heard rumors that lawyers are planning on not arguing cases before SCOTUS because they know how the conservative judges will rule- ie all the cases are pre determined based on political or financial benefit. They feel morally obliged not to participate in a farce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Not putting another DNC politburo gatekeeper in place as a form of a dirty tricks shop.

If you don't like the court's decisions, you need to come up with better logical (and less emotional) arguments.

Why shouldn’t these federal judges be subject to the same standards of conduct as every other federal judge?

They aren’t the same, and it’s too ripe for politicization and misuse by political opponents.

Why aren’t they the same?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Not putting another DNC politburo gatekeeper in place as a form of a dirty tricks shop.

If you don't like the court's decisions, you need to come up with better logical (and less emotional) arguments.

Why shouldn’t these federal judges be subject to the same standards of conduct as every other federal judge?

They aren’t the same, and it’s too ripe for politicization and misuse by political opponents.

Anonymous wrote:Good. Not putting another DNC politburo gatekeeper in place as a form of a dirty tricks shop.

If you don't like the court's decisions, you need to come up with better logical (and less emotional) arguments.

Why shouldn’t these federal judges be subject to the same standards of conduct as every other federal judge?

Good. Not putting another DNC politburo gatekeeper in place as a form of a dirty tricks shop.

If you don't like the court's decisions, you need to come up with better logical (and less emotional) arguments.

“The United States Supreme Court revealed what some justices touted as a landmark new ethics code last year.

But critics noted that the scandal-plagued institution’s new rules lacked any enforcement mechanisms, making them essentially a 14-page long list of suggestions.

A new leak of secret discussions from behind the bench, published in The New York Times Tuesday, reveals which justices fought to keep the code of conduct toothless.”

Spoiler alert: Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-scotus-leak-reveals-who-didnt-want-ethics-rules-enforced/

NYT article here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/03/us/supreme-court-ethics-rules.html

Anonymous wrote:Not that there needs to be any more proof of the corruption in the court, but this is a good reminder (and no different than the inconsistency associated with McConnell and Garland/Barrett)

No, see, it’s different when the GOP looks like they’re going to lose and needs all the boosts that the idiot John Roberts can give. He’s not there for a thoughtful application of the law, he’s there to let us know that in fascism the law is whatever the fascists want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God help us if this election is appealed to SCOTUS. Six members of the "McConnell" court is as corrupt as McConnell.

What do they think will happen when they make up something and award the election to Trump. Trump lost last election by 10 million votes! Does SCOTUS really think everyone will just accept their made up nonsense?

They're in their position for life, what do they have to fear? Probably just the hope that secret security keeps doing its jobs

Anonymous wrote:God help us if this election is appealed to SCOTUS. Six members of the "McConnell" court is as corrupt as McConnell.

What do they think will happen when they make up something and award the election to Trump. Trump lost last election by 10 million votes! Does SCOTUS really think everyone will just accept their made up nonsense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure it is upsetting that federal voting law be followed by judges and states for those who want to override it in the courts to service their own political ideology. If we’ve learned anything in this election cycle, it’s that the ends justify the means in the Democratic Party.

You literally stated the exact opposite of what happened. Virginia wanted to purge voter rolls after the deadline imposed by federal law. The right wing Supreme Court activist justices handpicked by the Federalist Society said that was fine by them, even though the Justice Department said that some of the voters Virginia was trying to purge were legitimately registered voters.

+1. The law on purging exists for a reason. It’s not ok to try to vote as a citizen and find you’ve been randomly purged but had no idea

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure it is upsetting that federal voting law be followed by judges and states for those who want to override it in the courts to service their own political ideology. If we’ve learned anything in this election cycle, it’s that the ends justify the means in the Democratic Party.

The GOP are the ones subverting free and fair elections and trying to suppress votes.

But you know that.

GOP are lying cheaters. It's that simple.

It’s against federal law for noncitizens to vote. Ask any naturalized citizen.

Yes it is. And multiple investigations have shown this is not a problem. This is the GOP pulling stunts to try and get actual American citizens off the voter rolls under the guise of remedying a problem that isn't a problem.

Typical GoP lies.

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure it is upsetting that federal voting law be followed by judges and states for those who want to override it in the courts to service their own political ideology. If we’ve learned anything in this election cycle, it’s that the ends justify the means in the Democratic Party.

You literally stated the exact opposite of what happened. Virginia wanted to purge voter rolls after the deadline imposed by federal law. The right wing Supreme Court activist justices handpicked by the Federalist Society said that was fine by them, even though the Justice Department said that some of the voters Virginia was trying to purge were legitimately registered voters.

Not that there needs to be any more proof of the corruption in the court, but this is a good reminder (and no different than the inconsistency associated with McConnell and Garland/Barrett)

God help us if this election is appealed to SCOTUS. Six members of the "McConnell" court is as corrupt as McConnell.