Supreme Court Won't Address Blatant Election Fraud
#11
(02-23-2021, 08:39 PM)Paul Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 06:53 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Gorsuch is an absolute tool and the most despicable cretins to walk this Earth.  He's the genius who decided to exonerate a Native American child rapist and on top give half of Oklahoma back to the Native Americans.

Because we should only apply the law to saints? Or ignore the law when it gives bad results?

The decision didn't 'exonerate' anyone. Now the rapist gets to be tried in federal court, and the federal government doesn't have parole. If Congress wants to get rid of the Indian reservation in Tulsa, it can do so.

It ceased to be one when OK became a state.

This is the one time Roberts actually ruled correctly. The reservation was disestablished leading up to the establishment of the OK, but Gorsuch and RBG decided to look to an earlier law to override the precedent. With that logic, we can ignore the XIV Amendment based on the 3/5s clause.

It's the same logic that that moron Gorsuch used.
Reply
#12
(02-23-2021, 10:43 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-23-2021, 07:49 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Yeah I was shocked to find out that attendees of Joel Osteen's motivation seminar is more Christian than ACB's cult.

What is this a reference to?

ACB's "Church" People of Praise.

It's a charismatic non-denominational community and is often referred to as a cult.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#13
(02-23-2021, 11:06 PM)austenbosten Wrote: It ceased to be one when OK became a state. 

This is the one time Roberts actually ruled correctly.  The reservation was disestablished leading up to the establishment of the OK, but Gorsuch and RBG decided to look to an earlier law to override the precedent.  With that logic, we can ignore the XIV Amendment based on the 3/5s clause. 

It's the same logic that that moron Gorsuch used.

It never was disestablished. Congress talked about doing it but never did. And Thomas's point was even worse: 'let's ignore the law because it'll create a big mess if we say Tulsa's an Indian reservation'. With that logic, the Supreme Court was right to dismiss Trump's cases.

But even if the decision was wrong, so what? Because it gives a rapist a new trial? Plenty of guilty people get new trials on some technicality or another, so why the outrage over this one? Because it 'gives away' a big chunk of Oklahoma? So the Indians get more land, which probably won't affect most of the people who live in Tulsa, anyway. Maybe they get another casino. Nothing particularly anti-Catholic or immoral about any of this.

What Gorsuch deserves criticism for is the decision where he said that 'sex' includes sexual orientation and whatever sex you believe yourself to be. That's far worse than the Indian reservation case.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#14
Obviously his LGBT decision was wrong, but that's a red herring. You are still wrong on the OK case. I never said it was anti-Catholic or immoral so I'm not interested in defending your strawmen. I'm saying it was a stupidly bad decision.


As to why it matters? It doesn't. I'm simply pointing out that you have guys like Gorsuch on the court making these horribly bad decisions.

That should not surprise anyone that they decided not to listen to PA's case.
Reply
#15
If you don't like the laws of the US and the Constitution and rules of the SCOTUS regarding when they hear a case or not, so be it.

Next time someone else might not like the fact that the SCOTUS won't hear a case that you didn't think should be heard.

We are a nation of laws and rules. Not everyone will agree with things that are done but as long as the rules are followed people shouldn't get their shorts in a bunch over it.

BTW, was the case about election fraud or a failure of the state to follow the rules it put in place for itself? Big difference.
Reply
#16
(02-24-2021, 10:20 PM)farronwolf Wrote: as long as the rules are followed people shouldn't get their shorts in a bunch over it

The rules weren't followed.  Have you been asleep for four months?
🤡 There's no such thing as a Catholic Democrat  🤡
Reply
#17
(02-24-2021, 10:25 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 10:20 PM)farronwolf Wrote: as long as the rules are followed people shouldn't get their shorts in a bunch over it

The rules weren't followed.  Have you been asleep for four months years?

Fixed.
Filioli mei, non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate.

non qui parum habet, sed qui plus cupit, pauper est
Reply
#18
(02-24-2021, 10:25 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 10:20 PM)farronwolf Wrote: as long as the rules are followed people shouldn't get their shorts in a bunch over it

The rules weren't followed.  Have you been asleep for four months?

The SCOTUS followed their rules by not hearing the case.   They require 4 justices to agree to hear the case.   4 did not, only 3.
Reply
#19
(02-24-2021, 10:20 PM)farronwolf Wrote: If you don't like the laws of the US and the Constitution and rules of the SCOTUS regarding when they hear a case or not, so be it. 

Next time someone else might not like the fact that the SCOTUS won't hear a case that you didn't think should be heard.


We are a nation of laws and rules.  Not everyone will agree with things that are done but as long as the rules are followed people shouldn't get their shorts in a bunch over it.

BTW, was the case about election fraud or a failure of the state to follow the rules it put in place for itself?  Big difference.


[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.witf.io%2Fwp-conten...f=1&nofb=1]


Reply
#20
(02-24-2021, 10:45 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(02-24-2021, 10:20 PM)farronwolf Wrote: If you don't like the laws of the US and the Constitution and rules of the SCOTUS regarding when they hear a case or not, so be it. 

Next time someone else might not like the fact that the SCOTUS won't hear a case that you didn't think should be heard.


We are a nation of laws and rules.  Not everyone will agree with things that are done but as long as the rules are followed people shouldn't get their shorts in a bunch over it.

BTW, was the case about election fraud or a failure of the state to follow the rules it put in place for itself?  Big difference.


[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.witf.io%2Fwp-conten...f=1&nofb=1]



Not certain if you are an American or not, but maybe you need a lesson in civics, and how our Constitution works.

Besides the fact this new topic you introduce has nothing to do with this thread, what is your point?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)