To: E. Pluribus Unum
No conflict of interest at all here. None whatsoever.
2 posted on
08/01/2015 8:23:58 AM PDT by
ealgeone
To: E. Pluribus Unum
With his obvious po.itical activism why is he a federal judge? Doesn’t the Hatch Act apply?
3 posted on
08/01/2015 8:24:52 AM PDT by
The Great RJ
(“Socialists are happy until they run out of other people's money.” Margaret Thatcher)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
The judge has no right to do this. None.
Regardless, the video-makers should tell the judge to piss off and release the video.
It's time for some civil disobedience.
"Mr. Goebbels prefers that you not release the videotapes of the gas chambers. Thank you."
4 posted on
08/01/2015 8:26:06 AM PDT by
St_Thomas_Aquinas
( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Well, well, well, WHO could have guessed? .
5 posted on
08/01/2015 8:26:26 AM PDT by
TLI
( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
It’s called speaking truth to power yer honor.
6 posted on
08/01/2015 8:26:48 AM PDT by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
King Obama’s communists empire included hundreds of judges.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Most transparent administration EVAH!
8 posted on
08/01/2015 8:27:35 AM PDT by
null and void
(If the government can't protect the Marines, how can we expect it to protect us?)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
.
9 posted on
08/01/2015 8:29:33 AM PDT by
TLI
( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
politicians on the bench, don’t expect justice
10 posted on
08/01/2015 8:30:13 AM PDT by
GeronL
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I understand why blacks support a baby killing evil bastard like Obama and all the evil bastard democrats but I can’t say why I understand it. That would be considered racist.
11 posted on
08/01/2015 8:31:14 AM PDT by
VerySadAmerican
(Since you're so much smarter than me, don't waste your time insulting me. I won't understand it.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Isn’t it against the law to harvest tissue from aborted fetuses? Aren’t there huge profits being made? Where is the IRS investigation?
14 posted on
08/01/2015 8:35:03 AM PDT by
GSWarrior
(Click HERE to skip this tag line.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
16 posted on
08/01/2015 8:46:58 AM PDT by
PROCON
(FReeping on CRUZ Control)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Prior Restraint
In First Amendment law, a prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. There are two common forms of prior restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking, and the second is a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both types of prior restraint are strongly disfavored, and, with some exceptions, generally unconstitutional.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint
To: E. Pluribus Unum
OH MY now that’s like the old saying ‘hands caught in the cookie jar’ except the whole body is in there...
This explains a lot...to bad we have such a corrupt government and corrupt people running it....
I for one, would love to be the fly on the wall if this ever went anywhere, which it won’t.....
I need to get rich by starting a ‘gossip column’ my oh my, oh my....
21 posted on
08/01/2015 9:34:16 AM PDT by
HarleyLady27
(Send 'slob boy of the oval office' back to Kenya ASAP, and save America...)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
an abomination of a Judge in ObamaNation??
take a number.. nothing new here..
23 posted on
08/01/2015 9:56:19 AM PDT by
NormsRevenge
(SEMPER FI!! - Monthly Donors Rock!!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Wasn’t that Judge bound by law to tell everyone about a conflict of interest?
25 posted on
08/01/2015 10:26:35 AM PDT by
A CA Guy
( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
