Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:14 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:01 am

I don't think I will, ****.  You come here, ranting and raving like a madman, misusing the word ponce, and saying the numbers in the post are wrong.

With no proof.  You get the **** out of here with that whiny **** or YOU bring some numbers to refute it, Balless Wonder.

Just run away because you will not defend it.
 


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:26 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:16 am

Tell you what Balless Wonder, go back to the Supreme Court thread I started and post proof 

It's not that you will actually commit to defending this drivel, it is that you will sit idly by while I pose the necessary questions...which you will then demand I answer.

SC, DD


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:21 am

Huey » Yesterday, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:37 am

I take ot you have nothing to prove the article wrong.  Got it.  Looks I have nothing to say on your thread.

you fail to understand that the question is not about signed decisions - where it is a matter of WHICH decisions...

It's about the use of the shadow docket.


 

Huey » Today, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:26 am

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:39 pm

You're a **** idiot...


Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?
 



 

Waiting on those numbers, not questions, Askholio.  If you don't have them, just say so, Asshole.
 


 

Cases clearly stated.


And stapled shut.