31–40 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you’re splitting hairs over whether an intentionally misleading response is technically a lie, it’s a good sign the whole system has lost whatever good faith it once had.
Doesn’t have to be “the whole system.” You can pin blame directly on the people doing it.
It is both down to the system and the individuals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court? How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent? While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details sh…
Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it.
Public certainly can request information via FOIA, but US government has many different security classifications and timeframes. Your mileage may vary but I would argue that yes, the public does have that kind of access, even if timeframes might be decades instead of days or months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always maintained, while he was sitting and afterwards, that Scalia's deep corruption was one of the only things protecting US civil liberties. His desire not to be examined informed his decisions on investigative overreach. The liberal justices sitting now are leaders in corruption, so it's not exclusive to people whose decisions we don't like.
Evidence please?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clarence Thomas did exactly this.
Which ones haven't? RGB, Sotomayor, Breyer, Jackson have all done the same things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justices cannot talk to the president?
Judges in general cannot talk to parties with business before their court. Fortunately / unfortunately, our Supreme Court has no ethical standards, so there’s no prohibition here like there would be for a lower court. BTW I think you meant “President elect”, who is still a private citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evidence please?
Are their rulings not evidence enough?
Not only should GP provide evidence that liberal justices are routinely receiving bribes, but that, as "leaders", they are dwarf the ones Clarence Thomas took and didn't report.
So the US Supreme Court is corrupt, well why not join the rest of the US Gov. in getting "gifts and tips".
I have always maintained, while he was sitting and afterwards, that Scalia's deep corruption was one of the only things protecting US civil liberties. His desire not to be examined informed his decisions on investigative overreach. The liberal justices sitting now are leaders in corruption, so it's not exclusive to people whose decisions we don't like.
wow this is the craziest thing written here in years. unless clarence turned liberal and we missed the news? or kavanaugh paid her own debts with monopoly money. you are too funny (if you are trying to be …)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn’t have to be “the whole system.” You can pin blame directly on the people doing it.
The system everyone sort of assumed would punish bad behavior, it turns out did not at all punish bad behavior. It is both down to the system and the individuals.
What makes me livid is a number of these Trump appointees lied in to congress when they said "Roe was settled law" (It's a precedent, ... "settled" here meaning "why change it, it's the law of the land") only to waste no time in unsettling it. The Trump / MAGA / right-wing takeover of America is a thing I never would have wished even on my enemies.
This was a clear rhetorical tactic, the type a lawyer would employ. Saying Roe is settled law is a factual observation about the world, not a statement of personal opinion. When you look at it that way, it wasn't a lie, but an observation that is no longer true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was a clear rhetorical tactic, the type a lawyer would employ. Saying Roe is settled law is a factual observation about the world, not a statement of personal opinion. When you look at it that way, it wasn't a lie, but an observation that is no longer true.
I don’t think this captures it all. The “observation” was also about whether they would change the world. They strongly implied they wouldn’t, then did anyway.