Supreme Court


DaSleeper
#1
Question: Has a Supreme Court Justice ever commented on a presidential candidate in the past....?
If so, when.....
 
Corduroy
#2
Google
 
DaSleeper
#3
Some people have never heard of a Rhetorical Question


To start a discussion
 
Corduroy
#4
Do you think your question is rhetorical? You can't just write a question and say it's rhetorical.
 
DaSleeper
#5
 
DaSleeper
#6
www.youtube.com/watch?v=grHBZlTho5A

Supreme court non partisan???

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-nSaJxYiDI
 
Tecumsehsbones
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Google

Bet if I tell you to make me a sammich, you'll just respond with a recipe for a sammich, won't you?

Feminazi.
 
Corduroy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Bet if I tell you to make me a sammich, you'll just respond with a recipe for a sammich, won't you?

Feminazi.

Is that a rhetorical question? Are you just trying to start a discussion?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post

Is that a rhetorical question?

I'm not sure I'd dignify it with the term "rhetoric."

Quote:

Are you just trying to start a discussion?

I'm just hungry.
 
TenPenny
+2
#10  Top Rated Post
I don't think much of Trump, but the fact that a sitting SC justice thinks it's okay to comment like this means that particular justice is not fit to sit any longer. The justices are supposed to be impartial and above the fray. Absolutely unacceptable.
 
Corduroy
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I don't think much of Trump, but the fact that a sitting SC justice thinks it's okay to comment like this means that particular justice is not fit to sit any longer. The justices are supposed to be impartial and above the fray. Absolutely unacceptable.

If you try answering the question in the OP, you might arrive at a different opinion. But the question is rhetorical, so don't answer it. This is an information-free discussion DaSleeper is trying to start. All we need are ignorant opinions.
 
TenPenny
#12
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
 
Corduroy
#13
This thread.
 
DaSleeper
#14
Tag team trolling.....I'm in somebody's head, TBone and the cu ntless wonder......love it!
 
Walter
#15
Courts Cannot Block Gerrymandering
https://www.newsmax.com/draft-storie.../27/id/922289/

A win for federalism.
 
Serryah
-1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Courts Cannot Block Gerrymandering
https://www.newsmax.com/draft-storie.../27/id/922289/

A win for federalism.


How is this a win for any... oh wait...


So long as a republican/conservative pushes their agenda and Gerrymanders, it's all good.

I bet your tune would change though if, say, liberals/democrats started to Gerrymander for THEIR side.


AmIright?
 
taxslave
+2
#17
If it helps keep the looney left from ruining the country then yes.
 
Serryah
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

If it helps keep the looney left from ruining the country then yes.


Looney left? Ojay, yeah, the extreme left are quite a bit looney. But we've also got the extreme right who are down right dangerous AF.
 
Twin_Moose
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

How is this a win for any... oh wait...
So long as a republican/conservative pushes their agenda and Gerrymanders, it's all good.
I bet your tune would change though if, say, liberals/democrats started to Gerrymander for THEIR side.
AmIright?

They both have which is why it went to court Rep. in North Carolina, the Dems. in Maryland
 
Serryah
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

They both have which is why it went to court Rep. in North Carolina, the Dems. in Maryland


And the court is saying it's okay.


When it's not.


Which should have everyone up in arms about the decision.



My question still stands: is Gerrymandering okay for the extreme right but not for the looney left?
 
Hoid
#21
The problem with gerrymandering is that it straddles many horses.

Very difficult to get a Supreme Court to hear a case let alone make a comprehensive ruling. There are many layers of government and justice that are or should be involved in decision making in that area.
 
petros
+1
#22
I see so you agree it's wrong to pass a Bill even when the other layers which include you and I disagree?
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

And the court is saying it's okay.
When it's not.
Which should have everyone up in arms about the decision.
My question still stands: is Gerrymandering okay for the extreme right but not for the looney left?

No the SCOTUS said that it is a state matter not a national matter unless it involves discrimination or race
 
Serryah
-1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

No the SCOTUS said that it is a state matter not a national matter unless it involves discrimination or race


And you're an idiot if you think gerrymandering isn't inherently racist or discriminatory.


So is the SCOTUS.
 
Walter
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

How is this a win for any... oh wait...


So long as a republican/conservative pushes their agenda and Gerrymanders, it's all good.

I bet your tune would change though if, say, liberals/democrats started to Gerrymander for THEIR side.


AmIright?

Both sides do it already. Iamright.
 
Serryah
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Both sides do it already. Iamright.


You are. I've even mentioned it.



That doesn't make it right.
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

And you're an idiot if you think gerrymandering isn't inherently racist or discriminatory.
So is the SCOTUS.

But it wasn't a factor in this particular case that is why it was sent back to the lower courts to decide, no need to call me an idiot because you don't understand this ruling.
 
Serryah
-1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

But it wasn't a factor in this particular case that is why it was sent back to the lower courts to decide, no need to call me an idiot because you don't understand this ruling.


I called you an idiot because you think gerrymandering isn't inherently racist or discriminatory. It doesn't matter what political party is in power, when you realign districts to ensure that your party has a better chance of being elected, that's wrong. When a lot of those districts are realigned on racial lines, it's automatically racist.
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#29
Where in here have I said it wasn't discriminatory? Or not racist? I was saying this particular case wasn't about anything more than jurisdiction, they would have ruled if it had anything to do with racism or discrimination.
 

Similar Threads

13
US Supreme Court moves even further right.
by Hard-Luck Henry | Jul 20th, 2019
0
The War between Harper and the Supreme Court
by mentalfloss | Mar 11th, 2015
51
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled....
by B00Mer | Sep 12th, 2011
2