(01-16-2024 07:38 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gosh, taint actually thinks someone wanted his opinion.

That's just farking sad.

Somebody asked for his opinion directly...

And love him or hate him, Tanq does actually know the inner working of the court system. His opinion does carry some weight to it. More so than random Twitter(X) influencers regurgitating something they read

I also had no clue what an en banc was either. Now I do, kinda.

(01-16-2024 07:38 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gosh, taint actually thinks someone wanted his opinion.

That's just farking sad.

Somebody asked for his opinion directly...

And love him or hate him, Tanq does actually know the inner working of the court system. His opinion does carry some weight to it. More so than random Twitter(X) influencers regurgitating something they read

Dude, *I am* the one that asked for his opinion directly.

Surely no one here actually thought I was being serious??

(01-16-2024 09:48 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:38 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gosh, taint actually thinks someone wanted his opinion.

That's just farking sad.

Somebody asked for his opinion directly...

And love him or hate him, Tanq does actually know the inner working of the court system. His opinion does carry some weight to it. More so than random Twitter(X) influencers regurgitating something they read

Dude, *I am* the one that asked for his opinion directly.

Surely no one here actually thought I was being serious??

Nope brother, your <sarc> vs <a$$hole> escapes even some of us. Gemini had the actual earnest request for an explanation

(01-16-2024 04:21 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 04:19 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  But it’s too late. Jack got to see his messages that he shouldn’t have. There’s no consequences for doing that

pretty certain that would be inadmissible ... however, don't be surprised if some 'anal leakage' appears in the not-too-distant....

@gameOnBubby

Word for word whatever they can find that would cast doubt or embarrass. At this point that’s all they got.

(01-16-2024 04:36 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Ol' Jack has a penchant for overreach. Just ask Bob O'Donnell. His wife was an absolutely miserable c*nt, but Jack decided to go hard after Gov. Bob, as well. How a prosecutor stays employed when overreach has been proven in the past is beyond me. Once dirty, always dirty.

Oh come on. You know the answer to that.

(01-16-2024 09:46 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:38 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gosh, taint actually thinks someone wanted his opinion.

That's just farking sad.

Somebody asked for his opinion directly...

And love him or hate him, Tanq does actually know the inner working of the court system. His opinion does carry some weight to it. More so than random Twitter(X) influencers regurgitating something they read

I also had no clue what an en banc was either. Now I do, kinda.

In quickie layman’s terms ifn’s I’m remembering correctly.

You get a 3? Judge panel of the appeals court.

If that schit doesn’t go your way you can file appeal (or apply?) to have your case heard En Banc which means the entire Appeals Court.

Not sure what that number is, maybe 7 deep state jurists? Maybe 9.

It’s been a few years and clearly we’re all better for it…

Go Sloe* Go!

God help us if the steal happens again.

(01-16-2024 07:26 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gosh, taint actually thinks someone wanted his opinion.

That's just farking sad.

I did want his input. *shrugs*

I may not agree with tanq on most things, but he's actually a decent fellow. He only gets nasty because y'all get nasty with him. It's kinda like a "you get what you give and give what you get" situation, at least from what I've seen.

My point is we really do need to treat each other better.

Anyway, thank you, tanq, for the explanation.

That’s great! Now just don’t disagree with him.

(01-17-2024 12:12 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:26 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gosh, taint actually thinks someone wanted his opinion.

That's just farking sad.

I did want his input. *shrugs*

I may not agree with tanq on most things, but he's actually a decent fellow. He only gets nasty because y'all get nasty with him. It's kinda like a "you get what you give and give what you get" situation, at least from what I've seen.

My point is we really do need to treat each other better.

Anyway, thank you, tanq, for the explanation.

That’s great! Now just don’t disagree with him.

Feel absolutely free to disagree with me on subjective issues. For example, you hold Trump in high regard, and I absolutely do not. No skin off my back.

When a one puts out addled garbage as fact, I don’t hesitate to call it out.

That’s when some folks turn to their version of ‘debate’ in the vein of Barteet, or you for that matter many times.

And my direct and specific response on this matter was a reply to Georgia’s direct and specific query. Apparently Barteet didn’t see that quoted query in my post, or simply chose to overlook it. Or Barteet has such a small amount of self-control he has to latch into it as such means to do yet another attack.

(01-16-2024 11:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 09:46 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:38 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Oh my gosh, taint actually thinks someone wanted his opinion.

That's just farking sad.

Somebody asked for his opinion directly...

And love him or hate him, Tanq does actually know the inner working of the court system. His opinion does carry some weight to it. More so than random Twitter(X) influencers regurgitating something they read

I also had no clue what an en banc was either. Now I do, kinda.

In quickie layman’s terms ifn’s I’m remembering correctly.

You get a 3? Judge panel of the appeals court.

If that schit doesn’t go your way you can file appeal (or apply?) to have your case heard En Banc which means the entire Appeals Court.

Not sure what that number is, maybe 7 deep state jurists? Maybe 9.

It’s been a few years and clearly we’re all better for it…

Go Sloe* Go!

God help us if the steal happens again.

You nailed it on the process.

The numbers from Circuit to Circuit vary. Both with the number allocated by Congress, and with actual seats filled and not vacant.