Trump's three Supreme Court picks...

All ruled against him in both the voter fraud case and his latest tax returns.

Can my right wing friends tell me why?



.

how many SC judges will fiden/harris put in?? 5, 9, 15, 24, ???
How many radical DPST judges does it take to get the DPST/ccpers your marxist wet dreams accomplished????
55 new SC judges?
how about 435 new SC judges - and then the House can battle the SC for marxist Supremacy in Amerika!

All ruled against him in both the voter fraud case and his latest tax returns.

Can my right wing friends tell me why? Originally Posted by WTF

Why do you need to ask? Just go to the SCOTUS website and read their opinions. Oh wait, I forgot how LAZY you are!

Btw the SCOTUS has heard more than one case relating to voting rules. Evidently you're too LAZY to specify which case you're referring to.

You do know all Justices swear to uphold the Constitution and not the interests of the POTUS who nominated them, right?

Why do you need to ask? Just go to the SCOTUS website and read their opinions. Oh wait, I forgot how LAZY you are!

Btw the SCOTUS has heard more than one case relating to voting rules. Evidently you're too LAZY to specify which case you're referring to.

: Originally Posted by lustylad

pick one and tell me if they sided with Trump!

You do know all Justices swear to uphold the Constitution and not the interests of the POTUS who nominated them, right? Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes I know it....but maybe you should have informed Trump because he sure seemed to not know it!

I'll leave you with this....if all swear to uphold the Constitution, how come they differ on what is and isn't constitutional? How come none joined Alito and Thomas?

Are you now still in the dark as to the point of my question?

last sentence - Good point - LL
One the DPST/ccp marxists are unaware of/in denial of/ in outright revolt against the Constitution in favor of tyranny of marxism.

I'll leave you with this....if all swear to uphold the Constitution, how come they differ on what is and isn't constitutional? Originally Posted by WTF

Because they're interpreting the words differently, which happens a lot when the author has been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. Religious texts seem to be one of the best examples of this.

It's such a common thing that there are several judicial schools of thought.

You do know all Justices swear to uphold the Constitution and not the interests of the POTUS who nominated them, right? Originally Posted by lustylad

last sentence - Good point - LL
One the DPST/ccp marxists are unaware of/in denial of/ in outright revolt against the Constitution in favor of tyranny of marxism. Originally Posted by oeb11

The three Justices Trump picked are in revolt of the constitution in favor of tyranny and Marxism?

That seems to be wtf you are saying.

Yes I know it....but maybe you should have informed Trump because he sure seemed to not know it!

I'll leave you with this....if all swear to uphold the Constitution, how come they differ on what is and isn't constitutional? How come none joined Alito and Thomas?

Are you now still in the dark as to the point of my question? Originally Posted by WTF

Not news worthy!

Not news worthy! Originally Posted by winn dixie

Tell that to the January 6th rioters!

Could be that all three are honorable Justices who actually do rule on cases according to the law and merits of each case.

As opposed to Justices appointed by Democrats.

Could be that all three are honorable Justices who actually do rule on cases according to the law and merits of each case.

As opposed to Justices appointed by Democrats. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The 3 voted the exact same as the Justices appointed by a Democrat.

Alito and Thomas seem to be the ones not following the rule of law if we go with your logic.

Does Vanoss will antifa you guys even saw me videos

Are you all trying to teach WTF about JUDGES?

It's rather simple, which means complicated for WTF.

When THE BIDENS attempt to resist producing THEIR TAX RETURNS then there will be PRECEDENTS....in a recent decision by the same court.

WTF thinks they "ruled against Trump"!