(07-26-2025 12:33 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 01:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 12:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:31 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?


I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

Coming from the guy who railed that an order simply detailing the basic prohibitions of the 4th amendment was such a 'rogue judge shredding the Constitution' (twice now, in fact), Ill take your statement of them 'rul[ing] on the basis of their personal advocacy' as just more of your thin rhetoric.

My support os for judges who apply the rule of law. End of story. As opposed to your continuous railing on any decision going against your employer's means of law enforcement as just more of that typical broad (and thin) rhetoric you employ. As much as you even do right above.

Yeah, terrible that one has to actually articulate a specific rationale on an individualized basis for a detention. As opposed 'he was a brown dude walking along'. The sheer horror. Its a miracle how such horrendous viewpoints could ever emanate from the bench.

You say the same lies, accusations, and innuendo that's already been fried into oblivion. Seems like one would get bored and tired.

Activism behind the bench is the exact 180 degree opposite of rule of law. LMAO. You would think you would know that. You say one thing out of one side of your mouth and advocate for the opposite on the other side. No one is fooled. Your shtick is lame and old and withering.

Tanq always talks out of the side of his neck when he can no longer stand sound arguments against his propaganda biased arguments where he attempts to use legalese to support his gross misinterpretations

And Blue just goes to his 'giant chip on his shoulder trying make smack' crap right off the bat as usual. Cool cool.

(07-26-2025 12:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 12:16 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Firing attorneys who answer truthfully to direct questions

Direct quote from Tanq

One of the biggest whoppers of the year

Pinocchio proud

Erez Reuveni

Perhaps discuss why he was placed on leave and later fired for answering Boasberg's direct question.

Let me say this one more time for your boulder dense skull

Attorneys have never and won’t ever answer any questions truthfully for fear of liability

It’s the nature of the beast

Lord knows you wouldn’t know truth if it jumped up and bit you in the backside

The amount of sleaze you wear proudly and the justification for the malfeasance you support is reprehensible and repulsive

(07-26-2025 02:24 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 12:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-26-2025 12:16 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Firing attorneys who answer truthfully to direct questions

Direct quote from Tanq

One of the biggest whoppers of the year

Pinocchio proud

Erez Reuveni

Perhaps discuss why he was placed on leave and later fired for answering Boasberg's direct question.

Let me say this one more time for your boulder dense skull

Attorneys have never and won’t ever answer any questions truthfully for fear of liability

It’s the nature of the beast

Lord knows you wouldn’t know truth if it jumped up and bit you in the backside

The amount of sleaze you wear proudly and the justification for the malfeasance you support is reprehensible and repulsive

Rantburger supreme there bluie. Lolz.