Jump to content

Breaking! This Is Hot!


BarryLaverty

Recommended Posts

Not really a surprise. Although the "dissent" (if you want to call it that) was interesting. The dissent basically said that they felt they shouldn't prevent the state from filing the complaint. But they said nothing about actually hearing the case or how they'd rule on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

'You are going to get a lesson on the Constitution!' (Who said that, for 60 cents!)

Was it: @KirtFalcon or @ObiOne or @trashyhound or @gamewatcher63 or @RETIREDFAN1 I can't remember! Someone claim it? 

 

 

Wasn't me.

All I said was Barry is a complete idiot who waste taxpayers dollars sucking at the taxpayer tit while posting on smoaky. 

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

Wasn't me.

All I said was Barry is a complete idiot who waste taxpayers dollars sucking at the taxpayer tit while posting on smoaky. 

First, you just keep getting smaller and smaller. Soon, you won't be here. You will be missed. Second, when you stop wasting the BK Corporation's dime, maybe you should yap then. 

 

3 minutes ago, ObiOne said:

I think that was probably me. I thought it if I didn’t type it. 

I commend you for your honesty. It WAS you, and you were right. I did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

Wasn't me.

All I said was Barry is a complete idiot who waste taxpayers dollars sucking at the taxpayer tit while posting on smoaky. 

Obviously you support our AG wasting taxpayer dollars. Also, you have no idea what Barry’s schedule is so you don’t know whose time he is wasting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PepeSilvia said:

Obviously you support our AG wasting taxpayer dollars. Also, you have no idea what Barry’s schedule is so you don’t know whose time he is wasting. 

I never said I supported our AG. Also, if the shemale who sings the praises of the public school system post all day long, then he has to be posting while he should be teaching. 

But I applaud you sticking up for your liberal buddy. That's cute

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

First, you just keep getting smaller and smaller. Soon, you won't be here. You will be missed. Second, when you stop wasting the BK Corporation's dime, maybe you should yap then. 

 

I commend you for your honesty. It WAS you, and you were right. I did. 

Trust me, thanks to miller lite and blue bell I am not getting smaller! 

I work for my corporation so the boss gives me a pass to waste company time! 

Don't get too sensative, you rattled my cage to start this thread if you recall! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said Friday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to turn away a lawsuit from Texas and 17 other states challenging the election results in four battleground states on the justification that they didn’t have standing to bring the suit indicates the court just didn’t want to get involved.

Appearing on Newsmax TV’s ''Stinchfield,'' Dershowitz agreed with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who indicated that Texas did have standing, saying they ''get the better of the argument,'' but that the court just didn’t want to deal with what may be perceived as political.

''This Supreme Court decision sends a message,'' Dershowitz said. ''The majority included the three justices appointed by President [Donald] Trump, and they all said, 'We’re not going to hear the Texas case. We’re not going to get involved in this election”

 

 

 

 

 

COWARDS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Youngcoach123 said:

The irony of the Supreme Court's latest duck is that, in the end, it may have ruined itself -- that is, if the Democrats take both Senate seats in Georgia, and Biden is sworn in as presidents
 

~Mark Levin

Presidents - plural? 
😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

The whole thing was just so predictable. This was "THE BIG ONE" then after that blew up SCOTUS is COWARDS. The same SCOTUS teh was the great hope. The same ones who were posting how it was all coming together because of the justices in charge of the circuit courts. The only issue was that courts want real evidence. 

Kindergarten class doesn’t understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Old49er60 said:

The whole thing was just so predictable. This was "THE BIG ONE" then after that blew up SCOTUS is COWARDS. The same SCOTUS teh was the great hope. The same ones who were posting how it was all coming together because of the justices in charge of the circuit courts. The only issue was that courts want real evidence. 

You don’t get evidence when you don’t hear the case 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...