|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case.
It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people.
|
United States42519 Posts
On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people.
Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing.
|
On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people.
Among the Democrats, or among everyone? Obligatory reminder that Trump needed to select a new runningmate because he gaslighted his supporters to the point where they tried to assassinate his previous runningmate for not helping Trump steal the 2020 election. Registered Republicans tried to kill Pence, and a registered Republican tried to kill Trump. There are plenty of examples of political violence to go around; it's hardly unique to the left. If you're only referring to issues you have with certain TL posters, and not the general public, then the best route is to bring it to the feedback/moderation threads.
|
United States24664 Posts
The classified documents news just reinforces what we were already seeing, that the judge wasn't going to allow a resolution prior to the election because she was not disinterested. I'm sure Jack Smith will appeal, etc.
|
On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing.
Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like?
|
Northern Ireland24995 Posts
On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like?
Well I mean there’s decisions I don’t like and brazen hypocritical nonsense. If not for the latter Merrick Garland would currently be on the Supreme Court no?
|
United States42519 Posts
On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like?
The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it.
JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them.
|
Northern Ireland24995 Posts
On July 16 2024 06:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2024 05:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump's runningmate used to think that Trump was as bad as Hitler, called Trump an idiot, and vowed to never support Trump. lol. So like most Republicans, party over country. I am surprised he would pick someone that was publicly against him tho. I would have expected that unwavering devotion would be the #1 requirement after Pence failed to award Trump the Presidency in 2020. Every single one of Trump's potential runningmates had some anti-Trump baggage and quotes attached to them. Apparently, J.D. Vance did a complete 180 at some point, where he started to publicly support Trump and Trump endorsed him for Senate. He's been a full-fledged MAGA cultist for some time now, very similar to Vivek Ramaswamy (although Vance has more political experience and is probably more likeable than Ramaswamy). J.D. Vance now represents the next/younger generation of MAGA, and basically agrees with everything Trump says and does. In fact, Vance currently aligns with Trump so closely, that I'm eagerly awaiting Introvert's inevitable post criticizing Trump for not choosing a runningmate that would really welcome more Trump-hesitant voters to vote for the Republican ticket. Trump decided to double-down on the MAGA positions for his runningmate, instead of considering more moderate and non-MAGA conservative alternatives, and Republicans really should be considering more compromise and concessions these days. It's definitely a missed opportunity!
If I had one criticism of Trump it’s that he hasn’t done enough to court moderate Democrats
|
On July 16 2024 07:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? Well I mean there’s decisions I don’t like and brazen hypocritical nonsense. If not for the latter Merrick Garland would currently be on the Supreme Court no?
Merrick Garland not being on the court has nothing to do with justices “abusing a lifetime appointment”
|
Northern Ireland24995 Posts
On July 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:47 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? Well I mean there’s decisions I don’t like and brazen hypocritical nonsense. If not for the latter Merrick Garland would currently be on the Supreme Court no? Merrick Garland not being on the court has nothing to do with justices “abusing a lifetime appointment”
Aye one bloke being blocked from appointment to the position, while subsequently that rationale was dropped when it suited to appoint other Justices has absolutely nothing to do with assessing the activities and alignment of the current court.
|
On July 16 2024 07:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:47 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? Well I mean there’s decisions I don’t like and brazen hypocritical nonsense. If not for the latter Merrick Garland would currently be on the Supreme Court no? Merrick Garland not being on the court has nothing to do with justices “abusing a lifetime appointment” Aye one bloke being blocked from appointment to the position, while subsequently that rationale was dropped when it suited to appoint other Justices has absolutely nothing to do with assessing the activities and alignment of the current court.
Yes, Garland getting blocked has nothing to do with the current justices and their so-called “abuse of lifetime appointment.” He wasn’t blocked by the current justices. He was blocked by Congress. The only roundabout way this would be relevant is an argument where it’s not fair Garland isn’t on the court so the right thing to do is to kill whoever got that seat so that Biden gets a replacement. But that argument is even more deranged than Kwark’s.
|
On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them.
Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar.
Edit: Just to be clear I'm not saying this is entirely Kosher. It's just amusing the selective outrage you're applying when there is money infused into American politics and corruption on every corner. Nancy Pelosi's husband buys a bunch of TSLA calls before Biden mandates all federal vehicles to be electric, The Clintons can get wealthy powerful people to give them $250,000 "speaking fees" whenever they want. Jared Kushner getting multi-billion dollar investment from the Saudis or Hunter Biden making millions. It's everywhere. The fact that some obscure sale of a property that Gorsuch had a 20% stake in is the final straw is laughable. It's obvious you're just super salty about Roe being overturned and other decisions. Which is fine. I didn't want Roe overturned either. I'm just not deranged.
|
United States42519 Posts
On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar.
This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. And yeah, for SCOTUS I think a low bar for improper transactions is extremely appropriate. They’re the highest court in the land, they should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Appearances matter a lot when it comes to things like this because you’re trying to convince 300 million people to believe in an idea like justice. Imagined damage to the idea is real damage because justice only works if people believe in it.
This isn’t a new idea, historically Supreme Court judges have accepted the reality that they should avoid even the suggestion of impropriety. The idea that they can do whatever the fuck they like is extremely new.
|
On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. .
Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court
|
United States42519 Posts
On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579
For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times.
I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that.
The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. I'm not saying that it's definitely a quid pro quo, I'm saying that it doesn't matter. We only accept the rulings of judges because we believe that they're just rulings, if they undermine that then they're sawing at the branch they're sitting on.
|
On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579Show nested quote +For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there.
Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged.
|
On July 15 2024 23:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2024 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 22:56 Introvert wrote:On July 15 2024 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 21:46 gobbledydook wrote:
I don’t think pro life vs pro choice was ever defined by individual belief.
It has always been about whether you want everyone to have a choice of abortion, or whether you believe the life of the unborn trumps that choice.
It was never about what your own choice would be, if you became pregnant. That's fine. Speaking in terms of what *everyone* ought to do, Introvert's assertion that pro-life and pro-choice are compatible is still wrong, and his assertion that Democrats should compromise/concede the pro-choice position just to appeal to Republican voters is still very controversial. I will try this one more time: you don't even have to agree. You csn agree to disagree! You can agree on some things and work together on those! A pro-choice Dem can say, "we as a party are generally pro-choice, but I welcome pro-lifers to come and advocate their positions while I work with you on things like expanding social services and addressing racial injustice." Obviously you don't have to surrender all your principles but dems could definitely have a bigger tent, ans given how in danger they say we are, probably should. ...That's literally what I had originally said, and you had mocked me for saying it. I had written this: "maybe a universally-enforcing pro-life Democrat doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Democratic party when it comes to abortion, but agrees enough on other issues that they still identify more as a Democrat than as a Republican". And I also wrote that we could "appeal to the other non-abortion similarities". And then you responded with this: "You are displaying the exact thing I'm talking about. And you will be able to do this every issue. I guess Trump winning is more acceptable than compromises and allowing people with differing views into the tent. Or maybe people who talk like this don't actually believe what they are saying about Trump." Yes, two people can both be Democrats and not agree on everything. That's exactly why we were all scratching our heads when you asserted that Democrats are gate-keeping anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of the official party platform, and when you asserted that it's a shame that Democrats can't compromise or concede anything. It's simply not true. It seems you and I are on the same page now. Idk you were one of the people telling me compromise was impossible, almost as a matter of logic. But that was clearly wrong since most people who call themselves pro-life don't go all the way, logically consistent or not. This is what I've been saying the whole time, and you've been disagreeing. but maybe now we are at understanding if not an agreement, perhaps by accident. I suspect the topic is about to move to the big news of the day lol Edit: ans moreover my point is that dems have very obviously not done that on anything in the name of beating Trump
Correct me if I'm misremembering this...
D: We want more funding to aid Ukraine.
R: Sure, if you also fund Isreal.
D: Okay.
R: Uh, I mean, you also have to do border stuff too!
D: I guess so.
R: Actually, we changed our mind, we don't want to do anything because optics.
I can smell the dust being warmed on the overhead projector's bulb.
|
On July 16 2024 06:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2024 05:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump's runningmate used to think that Trump was as bad as Hitler, called Trump an idiot, and vowed to never support Trump. lol. So like most Republicans, party over country. I am surprised he would pick someone that was publicly against him tho. I would have expected that unwavering devotion would be the #1 requirement after Pence failed to award Trump the Presidency in 2020. Every single one of Trump's potential runningmates had some anti-Trump baggage and quotes attached to them. Apparently, J.D. Vance did a complete 180 at some point, where he started to publicly support Trump and Trump endorsed him for Senate. He's been a full-fledged MAGA cultist for some time now, very similar to Vivek Ramaswamy (although Vance has more political experience and is probably more likeable than Ramaswamy). J.D. Vance now represents the next/younger generation of MAGA, and basically agrees with everything Trump says and does. In fact, Vance currently aligns with Trump so closely, that I'm eagerly awaiting Introvert's inevitable post criticizing Trump for not choosing a runningmate that would really welcome more Trump-hesitant voters to vote for the Republican ticket. Trump decided to double-down on the MAGA positions for his runningmate, instead of considering more moderate and non-MAGA conservative alternatives, and Republicans really should be considering more compromise and concessions these days. It's definitely a missed opportunity!
I mean I don't know why you think it's going to be hard for me to criticize Trump lol. It is totally a missed opportunity, Youngkin is precisely the sort of person who appeals to voters the GOP has lost in the Trump era, and the bonus is he's actually a pretty conservative guy, from what I've read.
All that being said, Trump definitely does better job getting Democrats to vote for him then you guys are giving him credit for. How do you think he won the blue wall in 2016? How do you think he got so close to winning most of them again in 2020? Democrats went from the self-proclaimed party of the "working man" to trying to forget they exist, he's got at least some crossover appeal where it counts. And now he's running to the middle again, making pro-lifers eat crap, etc, etc. The man is moderating way more than his opponent.
On July 16 2024 09:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2024 23:47 Introvert wrote:On July 15 2024 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 22:56 Introvert wrote:On July 15 2024 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 21:46 gobbledydook wrote:
I don’t think pro life vs pro choice was ever defined by individual belief.
It has always been about whether you want everyone to have a choice of abortion, or whether you believe the life of the unborn trumps that choice.
It was never about what your own choice would be, if you became pregnant. That's fine. Speaking in terms of what *everyone* ought to do, Introvert's assertion that pro-life and pro-choice are compatible is still wrong, and his assertion that Democrats should compromise/concede the pro-choice position just to appeal to Republican voters is still very controversial. I will try this one more time: you don't even have to agree. You csn agree to disagree! You can agree on some things and work together on those! A pro-choice Dem can say, "we as a party are generally pro-choice, but I welcome pro-lifers to come and advocate their positions while I work with you on things like expanding social services and addressing racial injustice." Obviously you don't have to surrender all your principles but dems could definitely have a bigger tent, ans given how in danger they say we are, probably should. ...That's literally what I had originally said, and you had mocked me for saying it. I had written this: "maybe a universally-enforcing pro-life Democrat doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Democratic party when it comes to abortion, but agrees enough on other issues that they still identify more as a Democrat than as a Republican". And I also wrote that we could "appeal to the other non-abortion similarities". And then you responded with this: "You are displaying the exact thing I'm talking about. And you will be able to do this every issue. I guess Trump winning is more acceptable than compromises and allowing people with differing views into the tent. Or maybe people who talk like this don't actually believe what they are saying about Trump." Yes, two people can both be Democrats and not agree on everything. That's exactly why we were all scratching our heads when you asserted that Democrats are gate-keeping anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of the official party platform, and when you asserted that it's a shame that Democrats can't compromise or concede anything. It's simply not true. It seems you and I are on the same page now. Idk you were one of the people telling me compromise was impossible, almost as a matter of logic. But that was clearly wrong since most people who call themselves pro-life don't go all the way, logically consistent or not. This is what I've been saying the whole time, and you've been disagreeing. but maybe now we are at understanding if not an agreement, perhaps by accident. I suspect the topic is about to move to the big news of the day lol Edit: ans moreover my point is that dems have very obviously not done that on anything in the name of beating Trump Correct me if I'm misremembering this... D: We want more funding to aid Ukraine. R: Sure, if you also fund Isreal. D: Okay. R: Uh, I mean, you also have to do border stuff too! D: I guess so. R: Actually, we changed our mind, we don't want to do anything because optics. I can smell the dust being warmed on the overhead projector's bulb.
While I'm here...
You should see my response to to Drone earlier. I don't know if you are aware, but there was a bipartisan Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan bill passed and signed just a few months ago.
|
Northern Ireland24995 Posts
On July 16 2024 08:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 07:55 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:47 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? Well I mean there’s decisions I don’t like and brazen hypocritical nonsense. If not for the latter Merrick Garland would currently be on the Supreme Court no? Merrick Garland not being on the court has nothing to do with justices “abusing a lifetime appointment” Aye one bloke being blocked from appointment to the position, while subsequently that rationale was dropped when it suited to appoint other Justices has absolutely nothing to do with assessing the activities and alignment of the current court. Yes, Garland getting blocked has nothing to do with the current justices and their so-called “abuse of lifetime appointment.” He wasn’t blocked by the current justices. He was blocked by Congress. The only roundabout way this would be relevant is an argument where it’s not fair Garland isn’t on the court so the right thing to do is to kill whoever got that seat so that Biden gets a replacement. But that argument is even more deranged than Kwark’s.
When most people complain about Supreme Court justices and the power that they wield, it’s based upon what calls they are making and why they may be making them.
Seems a bit odd to discount the appointment process and how that’s gone in the relatively recent past from a lifetime position.
You seem to have a microscope when it comes to criticising the centre left thru left’s inconsistency and a convenient cataract when the centre right thru right is involved. I’m hardly advocating for murdering the Supreme Court here lol
|
On July 16 2024 09:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 08:12 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:55 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:47 WombaT wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:On July 14 2024 12:35 KwarK wrote:
Maybe stop virtue signaling for a second. Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle. But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? Well I mean there’s decisions I don’t like and brazen hypocritical nonsense. If not for the latter Merrick Garland would currently be on the Supreme Court no? Merrick Garland not being on the court has nothing to do with justices “abusing a lifetime appointment” Aye one bloke being blocked from appointment to the position, while subsequently that rationale was dropped when it suited to appoint other Justices has absolutely nothing to do with assessing the activities and alignment of the current court. Yes, Garland getting blocked has nothing to do with the current justices and their so-called “abuse of lifetime appointment.” He wasn’t blocked by the current justices. He was blocked by Congress. The only roundabout way this would be relevant is an argument where it’s not fair Garland isn’t on the court so the right thing to do is to kill whoever got that seat so that Biden gets a replacement. But that argument is even more deranged than Kwark’s. When most people complain about Supreme Court justices and the power that they wield, it’s based upon what calls they are making and why they may be making them. Seems a bit odd to discount the appointment process and how that’s gone in the relatively recent past from a lifetime position. You seem to have a microscope when it comes to criticising the centre left thru left’s inconsistency and a convenient cataract when the centre right thru right is involved. I’m hardly advocating for murdering the Supreme Court here lol
Not to be a broken record on this, but it is in fact normal for a seat to go unfilled if the president is a different party as the senate in an election year. The Scalia seat was the longest number of days before the election, but what happened with that and then with ACB was not unusual, it was just rare. It doesn't happen very often, but it has happened. It fact, it would have been more rare and more unusual for the GOP senate to confirm Obama's pick. And once again, we can thank the Dems for a pointless filibuster of Gorsuch paving the way for both Kavanaugh and ACB to get through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
