BREAKING: Supreme Court rules on abortion case

Buy1Sell2 said:
This is why SCOTUS needs to have more actual traditional justices appointed. John Roberts is anti-American and anti-Constitution. I pray that in Trump's second term we have a couple of Idiot Liberal judges step down and get replaced.
More...
lol good luck with that one, dipshit.
 
Here4money said:
& Donnie used leverage he had on Kennedy's son to force him to step down & appoint Beer Kavanaugh. Same shit they accuse the FBI of doing
More...
There seems to be no evidence supporting this conjecture. Apparently it is 100% innuendo based on nothing other than Justice Kennedy's son once worked for Deutsche Bank and was once involved in deciding how to limit Deutsche's risk exposure on one of Trump's loans* -- the Chicago Loan (~600Million) -- years before Trump ran for President. Trump defaulted on about half the loan and sued Deutsche claiming it was Deutsche's fault! This was after, I think, Kennedy's son was no longer involved with Deutsche. The suit was settled out of court.

Deutsche made the loan at a time when no U.S. Bank would loan Trump anything because he had defaulted on so many loans, as he eventually did on the Deutsche Loan as well. It seems Trump made a practice of supporting himself and his family by borrowing money, not paying it back, then blaming someone else, and suing. One wonders why, after a few rounds of this, any bank would lend to him. The explanation is probably no more complicated than Trump lied to the banks on his loan applications -- as confirmed by Michael Cohen -- just like he continues to lie about everything today...
 
VEGASDESERT said:
Roberts the flip flopper. I was for it before I was against it.


View attachment 231982
More...
With that kind of reasoning there can be no question that you are well suited to the Republican Party. You should join if you haven't already.

I am no Roberts fan, but I can interpret his decision correctly for you. Roberts has been adamant about maintaining the integrity of the Court. He made his decision to side with the liberal court members because he recognized that to do otherwise would create an inconsistency in the Court's rulings. Thus while his personal predilection may have been, probably was, to side with those who favor limiting access to abortion, he made his decision dispassionately based on upholding the law as it stands. To rule inconsistently with previous Court decisions is unusual and should require correspondingly unusually strong arguments. Roberts demonstrated, with his action, that he is committed to dispassionate consideration of the issues before the Court.
 
piezoe said:
With that kind of reasoning there can be no question that you are well suited to the Republican Party. You should join if you haven't already.

I am no Roberts fan, but I can interpret his decision correctly for you. Roberts has been adamant about maintaining the integrity of the Court. He made his decision to side with the liberal court members because he recognized that to do otherwise would create an inconsistency in the Court's rulings. Thus while his personal predilection may have been, probably was, to side with those who favor limiting access to abortion, he made his decision dispassionately based on upholding the law as it stands. To rule inconsistently with previous Court decisions is unusual and should require correspondingly unusually strong arguments. Roberts demonstrated, with his action, that he is committed to dispassionate consideration of the issues before the Court.
More...

Yeah, i read all that precedent stuff also but its half bullshit.
Precedent matters until it doesnt. You do get that there have been 100's of
overruled scotus cases right?

Like I dont know.... ummm. Citizens United?

Johnny boy didn't care much about precedence then.


Let me interpret something correctly for you also. You're an idiot.
 
Last edited:
VEGASDESERT said:
Yeah, i read all that precedent stuff also but its half bullshit.
Precedent matters until it doesnt. You do get that there have been 100's of
overruled scotus cases right?

Like I dont know.... ummm. Citizens United?

Johnny boy didn't care much about precedence then.


Let me interpret something correctly for you also. You're an idiot.
More...
Hundreds ???? I'm guessing that's probably about right. Reverses several hundred times probably in it's history, but it is a long history. Maybe on average a couple times a year. So relatively rare.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top