En banc, homosexual - and your "forecast" in THIS thread has you eating crow, bitch.R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑ Per curiam, not en banc, **** idiot.
And the decision is consistent with my forecasts of late dec (already posted)
I think the Court made an awful decision for spurious reasons.RedheadedStranger » 04 Mar 2024, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑ You sound upset... but keep telling us you're not.
Just put the butterballer down, clown.Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑ En ban, homosexual - and your "forecast" in THIS thread has you eating crow, bitch.
Okay - I figured it out.
Just suck up another humiliating defeat, fruity.
So, are we to assume you'd also find no problem with a ruling from the states with Republican controlled Supreme Courts that Biden could be forced off the ballot because he refused to follow the Constitution regarding our laws on illegal immigration? Or that he illegally stole classified documents when he was VP? Or that he clearly lied about being involved in Hunter's influence peddling with China and Ukraine? Or for the pedophilia with his young daughter in the shower?R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑ No...that's the point.
They are reinterpreting the application of Section 3, as well as states' role in administering their elections.
Of COURSE you weren't, pookie.R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑ I think the Court made an awful decision for spurious reasons.
But I wasn't surprised
Why would anyone believe a lying cocksucker?Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Just suck up another humiliating defeat, fruity.
EVERY SINGLE TIME you uncharacteristically take an actual position, you suck the pipe.
When will you learn, you blunt nosed instrument?
We didn't, fruitcake. We laughed you down.
No....if you notice, SCOTUS "respun" Section 3, thereby granting Congress the right to establish election law procedure in individual states.Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑ Of COURSE you weren't, pookie.
You were merely gloating about the anticipated outcome to stay in practice, pookums.
I'm 100% hetero.Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑ We didn't, fruitcake. We laughed you down.
When will you learn to NEVER stop dancing, NEVER take an actual position.
You get humiliated every time.
We never believe you ......LOL.
What I notice is that you finally dared take a position - and got stuffed. Again.R.Suave » 04 Mar 2024, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑ No....if you notice, SCOTUS "respun" Section 3, thereby granting Congress the right to establish election law procedure in individual states.
You cannot tell a man from a woman - by your own admission.
Not once have I ever found myself gnawing on penis.Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑ You cannot tell a man from a woman - by your own admission.
And you despise those who can.
Define penis.
Given these possibilities, it is at least understandable that the majority wanted to take Section 3 off the table. To get there, the court relied, albeit not in a full-throated way, on the only precedent of any importance: Griffin’s Case, an 1869 circuit court decision written by then Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in his capacity as a circuit justice. At oral argument, Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the one pushing this precedent, and it’s a fair assumption that his view prevailed among the other conservatives excluding Barrett.Cannonpointer » 04 Mar 2024, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑ What I notice is that you finally dared take a position - and got stuffed. Again.