This is where you are completely wrong. The judges have been put there precisely for this purpose.
The SCOTUS judges all lied at their confirmation hearing. “Roe v Wade is completely safe in my hands.”
As is my natural instinct, I want to challenge each point you've made as they are mostly shaky, but I don't think it would get us far.They have subsequently ruled for Trump in the immunity case by subverting the constitution. They have demonstrated complete willingness to ignore the law. Why would they ever not rule in his favour again? They have created a precedent.
At the lower level we have seen his pet judge in Florida go against well established precedent (which she did not have the power to do) and rule that special counsels were not lawful.
During the next two years Trump will appoint scores of federal judges to do exactly the same. There is no chance whatsoever that they will not rule in his favour. They are hand picked for the purpose. Every lawyer in the US knows that the courts are powerless to rein him in. Fuck, his counsel argued before SCOTUS that the president could lawfully order the death of a political rival, and SCOTUS AGREED WITH HIM.
I am not speculating, it is a certainty as J Michael Luttig, an arch conservative has said.
The precedents have now been established and the rule of law is dead. Your earlier statement that Trump did not wield unlimited power was well wide of the mark. All cases revolving around him will be decided in his favour, the little nicety of deciding what the limit of his core powers is will not be necessary.
You must be posting shite if Dax agrees with you.Tbh if I was a us citizen I'd be more bothered about what biden is up to between now and Jan 25 than what trump did in the past. A lesson the democrats should have learned from the last few years and the election result is that by going after trump this way they feed the notion of him as a martyr/victim fighting the system/deep state and play into his hands.
As is my natural instinct, I want to challenge each point you've made as they are mostly shaky, but I don't think it would get us far.
Rather is just post each Justice view on Roe v. Wade... Let you be the judge of if as you claimed they ALL lied.
Here is Gorsuch on Roe:
Here is Kavanaugh on Roe:
Here is Barrett on Roe:
I'll let you be the judge.
The rest we can agree to disagree on.
Just to be clear, you are admitting your claims that they said "Roe v Wade was save" is false, Correct?The best you can say for any of them is that they were evasive and that is being kind. No judge in a real case would accept those answers without demur. After all the questions were very straightforward. Evasive witnesses are usually lying.
Lol. That's objectively funny.You must be posting shite if Dax agrees with you.
Be gone with your pointless insult based nonsense. It's nearly Xmas you miserable nonce!You must be posting shite if Dax agrees with you.
Lol. That's objectively funny.
You were on a pretty good streak of not posting hamster shit, but streaks are meant to be broken I guess.Tbh if I was a us citizen I'd be more bothered about what biden is up to between now and Jan 25 than what trump did in the past. A lesson the democrats should have learned from the last few years and the election result is that by going after trump this way they feed the notion of him as a martyr/victim fighting the system/deep state and play into his hands.
More evidence of why you have no friends’ pictures on your Facebook page. This is a shocking post. I know exactly how you would have behaved in the Stanford Experiment.Theoretically, yes. Id prefer someone of high moral character. Everyone would. But we are not always lucky enough to always have such options. More importantly, most prefer to just have someone seemingly capable of doing the Job well.
Perhaps. But when should we start such scrutiny? In 2024?
Having not investigated and prosecuted President Joe Biden in 2019 when her ran for President in spite of the existence of credible evidence that he and his family peddled influence while he was VP. And the FBI was in possession of President Biden"s son's laptop clearly that gave detail to this potential crime.
Not to mention, they could have brought a potential case of child abuse regarding his own daughter, that was discovered in her own handwritten diary that she misplaced. Perhaps even a potential accusations of rape by Ms. Reid also could have been investigated and charged. Not to mention harassment claims by Dr Biden regarding a supposed unaccepted grandchild and her mother.
In short, the potential for abuse for charging every potential crime by a candidate, far outweigh the benefits.
The greatest irony of your post is that Trump himself was admonished and then impeached for suggesting exactly what you are suggesting now :)
India have too much sway. You can look to them being allowed to not use DRS in their test matches for years as a good example.What's your view on the jurisdiction of the ICC?