From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics,or.politics,seatttle.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Definitely A Foundation Failure
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:49:40 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2024-06-05 08:35, Loran wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-06-04 08:02, Loran wrote:
>>> Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:58:35 -0700, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-06-01 07:53, Loran wrote:
>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/31/intentional-misfeasance-makes-show-trial-conviction-ripe-for-reversal-legal-experts-say/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Come back when you're sober.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be so thick.
>>>>
>>>> The entire US Legal Profession is Dreaming On
>>>> the Apropos Weasel Werds to exonerate Drump.
>>>>
>>>> Havin' a Prez who owes ya' beats bein' one
>>>> that owes ;-)Â Bet'er, he *knows* how to beat
>>>> that game an' they'll lose their shirts bein'
>>>> ow'ed by 'im.
>>>>
>>>> Dhu
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They have even worse planned, because they want ALL control, not just
>>> the pResidency:
>>>
>>> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/02/alito-letter-flags-controversy/
>>>
>>> Finally, the recommendations above, if unsuccessful in curbing the
>>> courtâs arrogance, would set the stage for wholesale court reform.
>>> Should Democrats win the White House and majorities in the House and
>>> Senate, no matter how narrow, the entire panoply of reforms and
>>> responses should be on the table. Those could include Alitoâs
>>> impeachment (especially if he snubs a subpoena), a mandatory ethics
>>> code, Supreme Court term limits and court expansion. (If need be,
>>> Democrats would need to adjust the too-long abused filibuster to
>>> attend to the job of fixing a disgraced court.)
>>>
>>>
>>> FASCISM!!!!
>>
>> A "mandatory ethics code" is "FASCISM!!!!"
>
> You got it, yes.
>
> WHO's minding the hen house when the Dems start eating liberty.
"eating liberty" is refusing to even give a nomination hearing to a
presidential supreme court nominee because a year is too close to an
election...
...and then nominating and ratifying someone ONE MONTH before the next
election.