Liberal Forum

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/05/politics ... index.html


The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an effort by Missouri’s Republican attorney general to lift a gag order and delay the sentencing of former President Donald Trump following his conviction in the New York hush money case.Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey attempted to file the longshot suit against New York in early July, claiming in part that the gag order violated the First Amendment rights of voters in his state to hear Trump speak.

Apparently this MAGA twat needs a refresher course on the limits of his jurisdiction. And his constituents deserve a rebate.

"Deep State", my ***.
 
 

Excellent point!

Why are my tax dollars being given to illegals?

BooRadley » 06 Aug 2024, 6:51 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 6:51 am

Excellent point!

Why are my tax dollars being given to illegals?

Read the OP again.

Then answer the question,  Hole.

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Aug 2024, 7:01 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:01 am

Read the OP again.

Then answer the question,  Hole.

The question is answered in your citation and the full article.

Look for first amendment rights and original jurisdiction.

Plus, the Court rejected the case.  

 

*Huey » 06 Aug 2024, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:11 am

The question is answered in your citation and the full article.

Look for first amendment rights and original jurisdiction.

Plus, the Court rejected the case.

brown's not the brightest bulb...
 

ROG62 » 06 Aug 2024, 7:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:27 am

brown's not the brightest bulb...

Yeah, he has never been known for understanding the talking points he is given.  

*Huey » 06 Aug 2024, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:11 am

The question is answered in your citation and the full article.

Look for first amendment rights and original jurisdiction.

Plus, the Court rejected the case.

Stay under the porch, quietly.

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Aug 2024, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:34 am

Stay under the porch, quietly.

LMAO!  

ROG62 » 06 Aug 2024, 7:27 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:27 am

brown's not the brightest bulb...

Where did you go to become so smart?


I predict an ***-haul...

*Huey » 06 Aug 2024, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:11 am

The question is answered in your citation and the full article.

Look for first amendment rights and original jurisdiction.

Plus, the Court rejected the case.

Look for first amendment rights and original jurisdiction.

That's a hell of a case...

Plus, the Court rejected the case.

Maybe not..

Looks like a complete waste of tax payer resources, to support a political candidate.

Blackvegetable » 06 Aug 2024, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:39 am

That's a hell of a case...

Maybe not..

Looks like a complete waste of tax payer resources, to support a political candidate.

Well, CNN says the court rejected the case.  CNN also told you what the case was about.  And it is up to MO voters to decide whether they have an issue with it or not.  That is an elected position.  

*Huey » 06 Aug 2024, 7:44 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:44 am

Well, CNN says the court rejected the case.  CNN also told you what the case was about.  And it is up to MO voters to decide whether they have an issue with it or not.  That is an elected position.

Standard idiot commentary from a reliable source..


 

But conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have previously suggested that the court is required to take such original jurisdiction cases, said they would have allowed the lawsuit itself to continue.

ibid.


Heeding their Masters' voices.


What a pair of whores.

Blackvegetable » 06 Aug 2024, 7:47 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:47 am

Standard idiot commentary from a reliable source..


 

 

Nope, just the facts.

I am guessing you didn't read your entire citation or the article.  

Blackvegetable » 06 Aug 2024, 7:36 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:36 am

Where did you go to become so smart?

I predict an ***-haul...

Sorry to break your bubble, brown, "muh skool" doesn't cut it...it's what's upstairs that matters...ya follah?
 

*Huey » 06 Aug 2024, 7:58 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:58 am

Nope, just the facts.

I am guessing you didn't read your entire citation or the article.

Tiny,

That he can be "unelected" is irrelevant. 

As an elected official, his discretionary acts are fair game for criticism.

Specifically, the waste of tax payer resources to advance the interests of one political candidate.

I guess you rationalize it as The New New Federalism.
 

*Huey » 06 Aug 2024, 7:32 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 7:32 am

Yeah, he has never been known for understanding the talking points he is given.

It's possible he only reads the headline and a few words, drawing uninformed conclusions and posting stupid ****...
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Aug 2024, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 8:02 am

Tiny,

That he can be "unelected" is irrelevant. 

As an elected official, his discretionary acts are fair game for criticism.

Specifically, the waste of tax payer resources to advance the interests of one political candidate.

I guess you rationalize it as The New New Federalism.

Again, you miss the point.  This is a matter for the voters of Missouri.  Not some old guy who is a tax payer of NH.

And I see no monetary value that you are worried about.  

ROG62 » 06 Aug 2024, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 8:02 am

Sorry to break your bubble, brown, "muh skool" doesn't cut it...it's what's upstairs that matters...ya follah?

But you're the one making an issue of it, Speedy...


 
 

*Huey » 06 Aug 2024, 8:05 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2024, 8:05 am

Again, you miss the point.  This is a matter for the voters of Missouri.  Not some old guy who is a tax payer of NH.

And I see no monetary value that you are worried about.

That is NOT the point, Controlly.

Neither is what you think you see.