Posted on 12/14/2020 6:38:37 PM PST by Til I am the last man standing
A Supreme Court clerk reports that shouting and conflict between the justices of the nation's highest court occurred on Friday, Dec. 11, as the court was deciding to reject a Texas lawsuit challenging presidential election results in four key swing states.
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
This is poorly written fiction. Embarrassing.
I wonder......
What with what control freaks democrats are and how much dirt they must have on each other, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he had said something like that.
Yeah, but remember, she was pretty unflappable during her confirmation hearings.
Some people have pretty good poker faces.
But gun owners are not organized in a way or morally bound in righteous militia regulations or codes that give us some legitimacy. We are not in fighting trim. Are we ready to come to back up fellow militia members should cops or detachments of troops try to come into a neighborhood to capture a fellow member or to do unrighteous things in that region? We could be chopped up piecemeal. Are large numbers of us ready to die for what we believe in?
“It would seem to indicate that BLM and Antifa have a stranglehold over the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Republic.”
If that’s true, that tells us what we need to do. We have to terrorize these cowardly bastards more than antifa/blm does.
Question is, do we have it in us to do that?
Proves once again that terrorism work!
Bttt.
Fake news.
What’s your point?
I agree. If this were true one or more of the Justices would have had something to say about why they believe the court should have heard the case.
And people wonder how this country made dark skinned people worth 3/5 of a vote and they had the audacity to write it down.
We are no different now. Decisions are not made about right and wrong. They are made based upon which side has more power. The threat of a military action by the democrat party’s paramilitary armies (euphemistically called riots) is enough for 7 activists in black robes to destroy our republic.
JoMa
Interesting. If the rats 🐀 are able to make 2022 as bad as that, then 2020 might be considered a great year, when compared to how bad it might potentially get.
Yes, according to the article.
There was a similar story years ago relating to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Allegations of fisticuffs. Great stuff.
It pleases me to no end that these so-viewed “calm and deliberative” schmucks are under mental stress.
Given my point of view that the institution tends to be harmful to the public, it also pleases me that the public is treated to a view of the Justices acting like adolescents as they participate in selling out the country.
"When they left the room, Roberts and the liberals and Kavanaugh had big smiles; Alito and Thomas [were] visibly upset; ACB and Gorsuch didn't seem fazed at all,"
Maybe ACB and Gorsuch are accustomed to being in charge of the public and are willing to take orders from peers in order to maintain what they view as the "supreme" nature of SCTOUS. They think themseves as gods. All the rhetoric to the contrary is an act - they are "good" gods, which is why we should respect their conclusions.
80% of the legal profession is flaming liberal. About the same in SCOTUS. 2 of 9 are not.
As were were drilling in law school, in a decision in court, there is a stated reason, and there is a real reason. These often diverge. The point being that a judge can order any outcome. Outcome first, stated reason later is not a joke, sarcasm, or similar. It is truth. These is enough slack on the so called rule of law to justify any outcome desired.
It's not the violence that concerns them. It's the speculation that the court would be assigned blame. The court only has reputation in mind. Legacy, it's all about legacy and popularity / acceptance by the public.
They crave a legacy that views SCOTUS as doing the right thing, even if for the wrong reason.
This is what a "country falling" looks like. Some big things, some small things. Not so much principled things and truth.
SCOTUS did the same side-step on the fake pro forma sessions that effectively gut POTUS recess appointment power. SCOTUS just says "they are in session if the say they are, even if they are not." Not in their purview, portfolio.
I'm not of a mind that this is a healthy or correct view in either case, just pointing out that there are sufficient points on both sides of any issue, that any court can take any outcome it wants to.
Yup. You get him to leave by threatening him with whatever the other side has, and more.
Take him out as an example. The others that want their lifetime appointments will fall in line.
“The sh*t’s chess, it ain’t checkers.”
Amen, amen and amen...
“We get rid of Trump and his anyway Vito. Francis Vito. And those, da with us, blood, ropes and nails. We get back our IRblack bag, all of it. Remember Sammy?...George and Kenyan?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.