Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

(07-25-2025 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

technically, they are rogue judges who were neutered.

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

(07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

(07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

May? I don’t think that means what you’re suggesting.

(07-25-2025 07:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

May? I don’t think that means what you’re suggesting.

Not knowing the difference between may and shall is one reason he's 0 -159.

He never stops talking does he?

(07-25-2025 07:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 07:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

May? I don’t think that means what you’re suggesting.

Not knowing the difference between may and shall is one reason he's 0 -159.

That difference doesnt affect the power of the district judges to do what they did. Think about it a bit.

Again, what 'rogue' judges -- doing what they are allowed to do. The horror. The sheer horror. I guess to you 'may' means 'shall not' or 'does not have the power to'. Good stuff there, my friend.

Ive got to say, your comment on 'may' v. 'shall' has to be amongst the stupidest pieces if English comprehension Ive seen from you -- which is already quite the deep pit to go down.

(07-25-2025 07:12 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  He never stops talking does he?

Rent Free from GI Joe-boy. Cool cool.

I grew up on Naval bases, so not GI Joe. Dimwit.

(07-25-2025 07:40 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I grew up on Naval bases, so not GI Joe. Dimwit.

GI joe boy is kinda touchy this evening. Cool cool.

I'm not touchy. You're just dumb. These two things are not the same.

(07-25-2025 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 07:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 07:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

May? I don’t think that means what you’re suggesting.

Not knowing the difference between may and shall is one reason he's 0 -159.

That difference doesnt affect the power of the district judges to do what they did. Think about it a bit.

Again, what 'rogue' judges -- doing what they are allowed to do. The horror. The sheer horror. I guess to you 'may' means 'shall not' or 'does not have the power to'. Good stuff there, my friend.

Ive got to say, your comment on 'may' v. 'shall' has to be amongst the stupidest pieces if English comprehension Ive seen from you -- which is already quite the deep pit to go down.

It did not work did it.

(07-25-2025 07:58 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I'm not touchy. You're just dumb. These two things are not the same.

Cool cool, GI Joe boi.

(07-25-2025 08:24 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 07:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 07:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

May? I don’t think that means what you’re suggesting.

Not knowing the difference between may and shall is one reason he's 0 -159.

That difference doesnt affect the power of the district judges to do what they did. Think about it a bit.

Again, what 'rogue' judges -- doing what they are allowed to do. The horror. The sheer horror. I guess to you 'may' means 'shall not' or 'does not have the power to'. Good stuff there, my friend.

Ive got to say, your comment on 'may' v. 'shall' has to be amongst the stupidest pieces if English comprehension Ive seen from you -- which is already quite the deep pit to go down.

It did not work did it.

No skin off my back. Just pointing out your thin battle cry of "ROGUE JUDGE" is just stupidly incorrect. And that is the only point I've made. Imagine that.

Lol you squirm more than the worms in my worm bin.

(07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you guys are really proud about a limited appointment for 120 days being re-extended time and time again.

It will be very interesting when the tide turns, and a progressive President seemingly bypasses the law in that manner. My bet is you all will be the first to ***** and moan. Ill point that out as improper as ****, but your guy is stupid enough to be the person that punches through that precedent.

Kind of a stupid ass precedent to set. But now the precedent is set for perpetual interim appointments. Cool cool.

About as stupid as the Dems nuking the filibuster on the judicial appointments and not expecting it to be used right back at them.

the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

"May appoint" would seem to indicate there may be other avenues. Like say the current interim position holder resigning the position and then being appointed again, rendering the courts involvement unnecessary.

Now if it said "will appoint", that's a different story.

Is there any proscription against what was done, was it illegal? If so, how?

(07-25-2025 10:42 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 06:25 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-25-2025 04:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  the tide turns? that will only happen when non-filth rogue judges are removed from NJ. In the meantime, enjoy Bondi handing you your ass.

Simply acting within the law as written is "rogue judges"? Cool cool. Goes back to my first post in this thread.

And, I doubt from the above you understand my last comment. But great rhetoric there, my friend. Neat stuff....

Rogue because they wanted to pick the nominee. That’s not in their acting within the law wheelhouse. Even a layman knows that.

Funny that --

28 U.S. Code § 546 - Vacancies

(d) If an appointment expires [after the 120 days has ended for an interim appointment] under subsection (2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.

Care to retract the bolded above? It had already been posted and cited several days ago. What do the English words italicized above mean to you? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

"May appoint" would seem to indicate there may be other avenues. Like say the current interim position holder resigning the position and then being appointed again, rendering the courts involvement unnecessary.

Now if it said "will appoint", that's a different story.

Is there any proscription against what was done, was it illegal? If so, how?

if it it wasn’t for ‘if, thens’, then not only would lawyers become doodoo via the dodo, but this response wouldn’t exist …

@oxymoron

subjectivity within ‘law’ is by design … some don’t shoot in the streets these days … yet some do!!!

#pardonReflection