Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmmengel]

"WE".   KEEP REPEATING.  At no point did I compare the Constitutional issues (issues which you frequently demonstrate you have no concept of, most recently when you suggested that whether one is "offended" plays a role in Constitutional analysis), only your apparent view, this time, that a 6-3 decision isn't close and shouldn't be subject to scrutiny.

As soon as you admit that all you care about is politics we might get somewhere.

The only issues to discuss are the constitutional issues.
The court interprets the law.  It does not create it. Your references to the court deciding cases based on politics is ridiculous. Obviously you use that as a crutch because you do not follow the law.

[Yankguy1]

Your references to the court deciding cases based on politics is ridiculous.

No wonder you're voting Trump.  You identify with his functional illiteracy.

[jmmengel]

Your references to the court deciding cases based on politics is ridiculous.

No wonder you're voting Trump.  You identify with his functional illiteracy.

I am not voting for Trump.  Never have.

[Hairy Lime]

Your references to the court deciding cases based on politics is ridiculous.

No wonder you're voting Trump.  You identify with his functional illiteracy.

I am not voting for Trump.  Never have.

Liar.

[Yankguy1]

Your references to the court deciding cases based on politics is ridiculous.

No wonder you're voting Trump.  You identify with his functional illiteracy.

I am not voting for Trump.  Never have.

Here's an example of a "we" actually working: We don't believe you.

[jmmengel]

Your references to the court deciding cases based on politics is ridiculous.

No wonder you're voting Trump.  You identify with his functional illiteracy.

I am not voting for Trump.  Never have.

Here's an example of a "we" actually working: We don't believe you.

Okay.
So what?

[Yankguy1]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

[jmmengel]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

[Oilcandide]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution? 

[Oilcandide]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

It seems like you have RW views, combined with a habit of regurgitating GOP/MAGA anti-Biden bile that youve been drip fed.  Perhaps you could treat us to a bit of blogging, setting out your political philosophy. 

[Hairy Lime]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

Of course you are. Every post of yours screams it. Liar.

[Hairy Lime]

 Constitutional issues

 What were the constitutional issues in Snyder?  They were interpreting a statute in US Code 18, but with reference to what part of the Constitution?

There were none. RedMAGADick has no clue as usual.

[jmmengel]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am not a MAGA guy.

[jmmengel]

So, you're a Maga guy.  Doesn't it feel good to admit it?

I am a MAGA guy? You are delusional.

Of course you are. Every post of yours screams it. Liar.

you can not post one that reflects that.

[jmmengel]

I'm confident that "we" just constitutes you. 

P.S.  Your use of the royal we makes you look, if possible, like more of a jerk.

And the comparison of the Constitutional issues in the two cases is based on what?
We get your inability to respond.

To repeat.
Your remarkably convenient, flexible and intellectually dishonest definition of "close call."
We.get your refusal to answer.

Refusal to point out the obvious? 6-3 three is not a close call