-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Just finished the Tony Bobulinski interview on Tucker. Pretty damning stuff. Details meetings with Joe Biden and explains context around emails and texts released implicating Biden family business dealings with the CCP for financial gain.
Dem's (Biden/Schiff + much media) basically calling Bobulinski (Veteren with high security clearance) a russian agent and refusing to take back the claims is what made him come forth publicly and release all. There are also voice recordings of a Biden representative trying to stop Bubulinski from going public as it would 'bury them all'.
I don't think Russia Russia Russia and lying about Trump doing what they are doing is working anymore. Trump and his team might have timed everything perfectly. And its not just about Biden. Its as much about waking people up. By shining a bright light on the truth. That's why twitter etc are trying to close it all down.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Russian interference is not a conspiracy theory. They interfered, plain as day.
The issue though is the evidence for this is so weak its a joke. And how many millions were wasted to find this evidence. And it doesn't even clearly link to the Russian Govt with a preference for one party
No. The evidence is very strong regarding interference. Preference for one party is only an aspect of the 'crime' not the crime itself. Having a foreign power interfere in your democratic process is a big thing.
You are conflating the evidence of interference with the search for evidence of collusion. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Russian interference is not a conspiracy theory. They interfered, plain as day.
The issue though is the evidence for this is so weak its a joke. And how many millions were wasted to find this evidence. And it doesn't even clearly link to the Russian Govt with a preference for one party
No. The evidence is very strong regarding interference. Preference for one party is only an aspect of the 'crime' not the crime itself. Having a foreign power interfere in your democratic process is a big thing.
You are conflating the evidence of interference with the search for evidence of collusion.What do you make of the existence of the subsequent investigation of the investigators authorized by Bill Barr involving John Durham?
There are suggestions from the right that there was significant wrongdoing on the part of the FBI and others. (though not proven yet) That Russia undoubted attempt to influence the election was an excuse to go after Trump.
-
I'm not a lawyer (so anyone who is please correct the following).
But my understanding is judges should interpret the law made by elected reps. Not make up the new laws based on what they believe.
What has happened in the US is activist (leftist) judges have been appointed (by democrat Presidents) who make up new laws. The three originalist judges appointed by Trump believe they shouldn't do this. . There were 4 + 1 floater (John Roberts) who sometimes sided with the activist judges. Now it 3 vs 5 with Roberts as a floater.
Its already having an impact. (and I know some consider this a nutcase site). For me reverting to originalist judges is one key part of Trumps job
According to this report, the main star in the “Barrett Bobulinski Show” is new Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett—who just three days ago, joined the majority of her fellow judges on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to once again slap down a leftist lower court federal judge and order him to stop rewriting the election laws of the State of Indiana—a slap down of a lower court leftist judge joined by the majority of the Supreme Court issuing the same order to one of them trying to rewrite the election laws of the State of Wisconsin—a slap down disagreed with by minority opinion leftist Associate Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote in her dissent: “On the scales of both constitutional justice and electoral accuracy, protecting the right to vote in a health crisis outweighs conforming to a deadline created in safer days”—but who was countered by the majority opinion of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who answered that “Kagan’s “green light” to federal courts to rewrite dozens of state election laws around the country over the next two weeks seems to be rooted in a belief that federal judges know better than state legislators about how to run elections during a pandemic”.
Most critical to notice about this Supreme Court decision slapping down a leftist lower court ruling to extend Wisconsin’s deadline for counting mail-in ballots, this report notes, is that it puts on full display activist versus originalist judicial applications of law—with leftist activist Justice Kagan believing that federal judges should be allowed to make up new laws when needed, as opposed to originalist Justice Kavanaugh believing that federal judges are strictly constrained by laws’ words exactly as they are written, which means that if someone doesn’t like what a law says, legislators elected by citizens are free to change them, not unelected federal judges.
The historic significance of which, this report explains, sees Justice Barrett being an originalist like Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch—which gives these originalists a majority of the Supreme Court—and sees opposing them leftist activist Justices Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor—while in the middle sees Chief Justice John Roberts, who though siding with the originalists the majority of times, has in the past sided with the leftist activists—the most immediately consequential result of which was last week Chief Justice Roberts sided with these leftist activists to keep in place a dangerous ruling allowing the State of Pennsylvania to keep counting ballots weeks after the 3 November election and not allowing signatures to be verified, and whose decision he based on this Pennsylvania case involving the authority of State courts to interpret their own constitutions—a case strongly disagreed with by originalist Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch—but with them now being joined by Justice Barrett, the originalists now have the majority to quickly rehear the Pennsylvania case—the greatest significance of which lies in one understanding that if Chief Justice Roberts sides with the leftist activists again, Justice Thomas will decide who writes the majority opinion that could affect the entire outcome of this election—the same Justice Thomas well known for his sweeping originalist opinions slapping leftist judicial activists back into place.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger do some reading about what 'originalist' actually means in regards to SC.
What you quoted above has it wrong.
i have. But this is a good case to show the difference
with leftist activist Justice Kagan believing that federal judges should be allowed to make up new laws when needed, as opposed to originalist Justice Kavanaugh believing that federal judges are strictly constrained by laws’ words exactly as they are written, which means that if someone doesn’t like what a law says, legislators elected by citizens are free to change them, not unelected federal judges.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger do some reading about what 'originalist' actually means in regards to SC.
What you quoted above has it wrong.
i have. But this is a good case to show the difference
with leftist activist Justice Kagan believing that federal judges should be allowed to make up new laws when needed, as opposed to originalist Justice Kavanaugh believing that federal judges are strictly constrained by laws’ words exactly as they are written, which means that if someone doesn’t like what a law says, legislators elected by citizens are free to change them, not unelected federal judges.
Yes. That's the bit that is incorrect in its definitions.
The writer is describing textualism not originalism -
no idea how true the commentary but an interesting read on the swing states
-
@Rembrandt nah, they'll likely have a T&C that relates to a subset of something shared I reckon. So they can dance on the head of a pin and say A, B, C was fine but that Z bit violated terms. Wouldn't be surprised if their T&Cs are undergoing constant revamp to 'manage' this.
-
@Paekakboyz Likely or they'll put it down as a 'mistake' from a junior member of staff.
More revelations on Tucker today
-
@Rembrandt revelations I still lol at the lawsuit where Fox lawyers said you should be careful about believing what Tucker says.
""Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes.""
Much in the vein of ol Brownlee's boo boo prior to the election about 'just putting ideas out there", and 'asking questions'.
I do wonder how long the reporting will last post-election... probably depends on the outcome aye
-
-
Sounds like Fox has lost the only copy of all that damming evidence on Biden...
US Politics