Liberal Forum

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 7:04 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:04 pm

Semantics.

shall we spend the next week arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Or about how I am NOT a ******* because fifty votes are NEVER enough to pass a bill in the Senate if all senators are present and voting?

   

You'll spend a week repeating yourself, without ever producing ANYTHING to support your claims, because you don't HAVE anything to support your claim. 
They didn't agree with your racist daughter, no matter how hard you try to spin it. 
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 7:10 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:10 pm

You'll spend a week repeating yourself, without ever producing ANYTHING to support your claims, because you don't HAVE anything to support your claim. 
They didn't agree with your racist daughter, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

They made a conscious decision to NOT disagree with her.  A distinction without a difference.

And so did every other court that heard the case.

How many angels on a pin????
 

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:12 pm

They made a conscious decision to NOT disagree with her.  

And so did every other court that heard the case.

How many angels on a pin????

No, they made a conscious decision not to waste their time. 
They didn't agree with your racist daughter, or you would produce the vote. 
Got a vote?
Of course you don't.  You got NOTHING, like always. 

Room. ****. Temperature. IQ
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 7:15 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:15 pm

No, they made a conscious decision not to waste their time. 
They didn't agree with your racist daughter, or you would produce the vote. 
Got a vote?
Of course you don't.  You got NOTHING, like always. 

Room. ****. Temperature. IQ

it would have been a waste of their time to spend any of it reviewing a weak defense case without merit that had been soundly and wisely refuted in every lower court.  On the docket.  denied Cert.  Adios losing case.  No Batson violation.

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm

it would have been a waste of their time to spend any of it reviewing a weak defense case without merit that had been soundly and wisely refuted in every lower court.  On the docket.  denied Cert.  Adios losing case.  No Batson violation.

You just admitted they didn't review it, and didn't agree with your racist daughter.
Stupid ****. 

 

sunburn » 12 Jun 2023, 6:39 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:39 pm

but the supreme court said national archives have no claim on them if they're not in their possession.

--------------------------------------


https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics ... index.html


In its statement Friday, the National Archives flatly disputed that claim, stating, “There is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports.”Asked about Parlatore’s comments that presidents have two years to go through their records after leaving office, Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told CNN, “The statement is false.”“Only during his time in office does a President have the right to go through his records to separate what may be ‘personal records’ of his, from official records within the scope of the Presidential Records Act,” Baron added.
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 7:36 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:36 pm

You just admitted they didn't review it, and didn't agree with your racist daughter.
Stupid ****.

They consciously chose not to review a worthless case without merit.  They chose to let the lower court ruling stand.  That is, by definition, an agreement with the lower courts' interpretation.

stick to the fry line... leave the legal arguments to guys who can read more than six sentences without getting drowned in word soup, moron

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 7:09 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:09 pm

Nope DOPE, they belong TO THE PRESIDENT/ EX PRESIDENT and the ARCHIVES have ZERO AUTHORITY OVER THEM....

Tell a DEMOCRAT APPOINTED JUDGE THAT, ****!!

ex president means not president anymore.

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 7:44 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:44 pm

They consciously chose not to review a worthless case without merit.  

NO ****, moron.  They didn't agree with your racist daughter. 
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:48 pm

NO ****, moron.  They didn't agree with your racist daughter.

if they didn't agree with her, they would have heard the case.

idiot

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 7:49 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:49 pm

if they didn't agree with her, they would have heard the case.

idiot

They didn't even CONSIDER the **** case, *******. 
You just admitted that fact, yourself.  

.
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm

They didn't even CONSIDER the **** case, *******. 
You just admitted that fact, yourself.  

.

Of course, they did.  It was on their docket and then they denied cert, which de facto affirms the judgments of the lower courts.

Seriously, Mister Fifty.... quit while your nostrils are above water.  Don't you have some french fries to cook?  

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:56 pm

Of course, they did.  It was on their docket and then they denied cert, which de facto affirms the judgments of the lower courts.

Seriously, Mister Fifty.... quit while your nostrils are above water.  Don't you have some french fries to cook?

What was the vote?
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm

They didn't even CONSIDER the **** case, *******. 
You just admitted that fact, yourself.  

.

Of course, they did.  It was on their docket... they considered it and decided not to waste their time on it.  If there HAD BEEN an inappropriate diminishment of the Batson Rule, why would they NOT take the opportunity to redress it?  Are you suggesting that the GOP-dominated SCOTUS hates ******?

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 8:02 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:02 pm

What was the vote?

who cares?  I don't... I don't care if it was 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0.  It was a denial of cert.

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:05 pm

who cares?  I don't... I don't care if it was 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0.  It was a denial of cert.

^^ admits there was no vote.  Already admitted there was no consideration.
Meaning he lied when he said the court agreed with his racist daughter. 
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 8:07 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:07 pm

^^ admits there was no vote.  Already admitted there was no consideration.
Meaning he lied when he said the court agreed with his racist daughter.

I admit nothing of the sort.  I admit I don't know what the vote count was.  The court refused to reverse the decisions of all the lower courts that ALL ruled that there was no violation of the Batson rule.  That's a fact.

And I dare you to come to Maine and call my daughter a racist to my face.  You may be dyslexic and brain-damaged, but you're not THAT **** dumb.

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 8:11 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:11 pm

I admit nothing of the sort.  I admit I don't know what the vote count was.  The court refused to reverse the decisions of all the lower courts that ALL ruled that there was no violation of the Batson rule.  That's a fact.

And I dare you to come to Maine and call my daughter a racist to my face.  You may be dyslexic and brain-damaged, but you're not THAT **** dumb.

You don't know the vote count, because there wasn't one. 
It wasn't even considered.   *******.

Come to Boise, internet tough guy.   I'll pick you up at the airport, take you out in the desert and then after telling you that your daughter is a racist whore, I'll leave your fat *** out there for the badgers and wolverines. 
 
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 8:21 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:21 pm

You don't know the vote count, because there wasn't one. 
It wasn't even considered.   *******.

Come to Boise, internet tough guy.   I'll pick you up at the airport, take you out in the desert and then after telling you that your daughter is a racist whore, I'll leave your fat *** out there for the badgers and wolverines.

how did they decide to DENY cert for a case that made it onto  the docket if they didn't vote on it?

so... too much of a ****** to come to Maine and meet your maker?
 

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:23 pm

how did they decide to DENY cert for a case that made it onto  the docket if they didn't vote on it?

so... too much of a ****** to come to Maine and meet your maker?

This fat, bald old bastard thinks he's scary from behind his computer screen. 
I guess when you realize you've lost ANOTHER argument, you have to resort to impotent threats.