So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

(12-04-2017 06:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

(12-04-2017 06:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

I know it's just a pipe dream, but it ticks me off that many of these judges -- I have to think intentionally due to political ideology -- read things the way they want rather than what the law -- spirit and letter -- says.

For example, I think when it comes to criminal convictions and paroles, I think judges and probation boards should bear some responsibility for the people they're releasing.

Think about it... a convicted criminal is either given a very lenient sentence or granted parole. He's being released back into society. It's society that basically is put in harm's way.

If the judge or parole board had to accept accountability for any of his future crimes they might think differently.

If a convicted felon is released early and he commits another crime, the judge or PB members are punished at a fraction of his sentence.

If he kills somebody, then the judge or PB should get 5 years in prison. Make THEM responsible given that they saw fit to release him back into society where he could basically target you or your family.


But that's just me.

(12-04-2017 06:23 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I remember an argument I had with a resident alt-leftist about how Kagan would rule.

I was right, he was wrong.

I figured Breyer would be for the rule of law. He's a liberal, not a progressive. Ginsburg is a radical bigoted against southerners progressive. Sounds like Sotomayor is following Ginsburg's footsteps.

(12-04-2017 07:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:23 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I remember an argument I had with a resident alt-leftist about how Kagan would rule.

I was right, he was wrong.

I figured Breyer would be for the rule of law. He's a liberal, not a progressive. Ginsburg is a radical bigoted against southerners progressive. Sounds like Sotomayor is following Ginsburg's footsteps.

This is just an injunction, you guys know that, right?

(12-04-2017 06:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

Also it'd be patently unconstitutional and goes against the entire basis of our judicial system, but besides those minor issues, it's still a sh*t idea. Now if they refuse to uphold the SCOTUS injunction, then they'll be removed, like the GOPs favorite lying child touched Roy Moore.

(12-04-2017 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

Also it'd be patently unconstitutional and goes against the entire basis of our judicial system, but besides those minor issues, it's still a sh*t idea. Now if they refuse to uphold the SCOTUS injunction, then they'll be removed, like the GOPs favorite lying child touched Roy Moore.

You know practically all of Moore's accusers have been proven to have lied, right?

(12-04-2017 07:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

Also it'd be patently unconstitutional and goes against the entire basis of our judicial system, but besides those minor issues, it's still a sh*t idea. Now if they refuse to uphold the SCOTUS injunction, then they'll be removed, like the GOPs favorite lying child touched Roy Moore.

You know practically all of Moore's accusers have been proven to have lied, right?

I think that's just what you want to believe, whereas Moore literally has interviews where his story has changed since the accusations came public. But I'd love a source if you have one.

(12-04-2017 08:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

Also it'd be patently unconstitutional and goes against the entire basis of our judicial system, but besides those minor issues, it's still a sh*t idea. Now if they refuse to uphold the SCOTUS injunction, then they'll be removed, like the GOPs favorite lying child touched Roy Moore.

You know practically all of Moore's accusers have been proven to have lied, right?

I think that's just what you want to believe, whereas Moore literally has interviews where his story has changed since the accusations came public. But I'd love a source if you have one.

They've already been provided in other threads by other members. You just refuse to click on them.

(12-04-2017 08:33 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

Also it'd be patently unconstitutional and goes against the entire basis of our judicial system, but besides those minor issues, it's still a sh*t idea. Now if they refuse to uphold the SCOTUS injunction, then they'll be removed, like the GOPs favorite lying child touched Roy Moore.

You know practically all of Moore's accusers have been proven to have lied, right?

I think that's just what you want to believe, whereas Moore literally has interviews where his story has changed since the accusations came public. But I'd love a source if you have one.

They've already been provided in other threads by other members. You just refuse to click on them.

Oh, so you mean statements made by an accused sexual predator's lawyer without any supporting evidence? Like I said, I think that's just what you want to think. By the way, another one of his accusers, who he admitted knowing before denying knowing, found another signed photo in an old scrapbook. Guess that's fake too?

Like I said, if you choose to ignore the evidence that has already been presented to you in other threads by other people, well, that's not my problem. And if the yearbook (or scrapbook, as you put it) is real, why haven't we seen it yet? What is she hiding?

(12-04-2017 09:21 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Like I said, if you choose to ignore the evidence that has already been presented to you in other threads by other people, well, that's not my problem. And if the yearbook (or scrapbook, as you put it) is real, why haven't we seen it yet? What is she hiding?

Uh, check the front page. There's an entire thread on it.

But back to my point, why do you believe someone who has objectively lied? He stated he knew two of the accusers when interviewed by Hannity, and is now stating he knows none of them. Why do you believe someone willing to lie so blatantly and flippantly to those he deems stupid enough to buy it?

(12-04-2017 08:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:44 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  So if some of these district or appeals judges get something so grossly wrong, shouldn't there be some way to remove them from the bench?

How many other things have they gotten wrong (due to apparently being completely inept) which never made it to the SCOTUS?


Put some skin in the game and see if they straighten up.

That might work. Then again, some of them might dig in their heels, then sue if they ever get ousted.

Also it'd be patently unconstitutional and goes against the entire basis of our judicial system, but besides those minor issues, it's still a sh*t idea. Now if they refuse to uphold the SCOTUS injunction, then they'll be removed, like the GOPs favorite lying child touched Roy Moore.

You know practically all of Moore's accusers have been proven to have lied, right?

I think that's just what you want to believe, whereas Moore literally has interviews where his story has changed since the accusations came public. But I'd love a source if you have one.

Release the yearbook!!!!

Winning

(12-04-2017 06:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 05:50 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Without even looking was it Sotojusticewarrior and Darth Bader who held out?

Yep.

Quote:Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented without explanation.

Was Ruthie awake when she said no. Or did she just keep nodding off and people thought she was dissenting. LOL

(12-04-2017 09:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:21 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Like I said, if you choose to ignore the evidence that has already been presented to you in other threads by other people, well, that's not my problem. And if the yearbook (or scrapbook, as you put it) is real, why haven't we seen it yet? What is she hiding?

Uh, check the front page. There's an entire thread on it.

But back to my point, why do you believe someone who has objectively lied? He stated he knew two of the accusers when interviewed by Hannity, and is now stating he knows none of them. Why do you believe someone willing to lie so blatantly and flippantly to those he deems stupid enough to buy it?

You don't get to vote boy.

(12-04-2017 10:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 06:02 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 05:50 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Without even looking was it Sotojusticewarrior and Darth Bader who held out?

Yep.

Quote:Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented without explanation.

Was Ruthie awake when she said no. Or did she just keep nodding off and people thought she was dissenting. LOL

+3

President Trump needs to retweet this.

(12-04-2017 06:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  the meltdown from chirpy/squirmy mika and weirdo joe should make for a smoothie turd venti latte in the a.m. 'morrow.....

Thanks for that now indelible visual.

FFS.

Cmon, man!

(12-04-2017 08:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:33 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:46 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Also it'd be patently unconstitutional and goes against the entire basis of our judicial system, but besides those minor issues, it's still a sh*t idea. Now if they refuse to uphold the SCOTUS injunction, then they'll be removed, like the GOPs favorite lying child touched Roy Moore.

You know practically all of Moore's accusers have been proven to have lied, right?

I think that's just what you want to believe, whereas Moore literally has interviews where his story has changed since the accusations came public. But I'd love a source if you have one.

They've already been provided in other threads by other members. You just refuse to click on them.

Oh, so you mean statements made by an accused sexual predator's lawyer without any supporting evidence? Like I said, I think that's just what you want to think. By the way, another one of his accusers, who he admitted knowing before denying knowing, found another signed photo in an old scrapbook. Guess that's fake too?

Hunh.

So he’s guilty of signing a photo. OooooMmmmGgggg!

What law does/would that violate?

Why would a prosecutor sign schit if it puts him in legal jeopardy?

You leftists make no damn logical or rational sense.

It should amaze, but sadly no longer even raises an eyebrow.