Lies SCOTUS told me.
-
All this because Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trumps appointees, voted to allow access to his finances?
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
The first time a Supreme Court justice votes political and not legal is the time you can close the court and agree you live in a totalitarian state.
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
Not only Supreme Court judges. Here, all judges are appointed and all, it seems, put the law first once they are on the bench. Politicians of all stripes often bear the brunt of their rulings.
-
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
Not only Supreme Court judges. Here, all judges are appointed and all, it seems, put the law first once they are on the bench. Politicians of all stripes often bear the brunt of their rulings.
@renauda said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@bachophile said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
It’s a story I’ve seen many times, also here in Israel, conservative judges get appointed by conservative governments and then are deeply surprised when said appointees don’t exactly conform to what is expected of them. You would think people would figure it out. If you are honestly good enough to be a Supreme Court justice, you probably are very much committed to the rule of law.
Not only Supreme Court judges. Here, all judges are appointed and all, it seems, put the law first once they are on the bench. Politicians of all stripes often bear the brunt of their rulings.
Electing judges has always struck me as a rather silly idea.
"Sure", they say, "we can't trust politicians to choose judges, so we'll choose them the same way we choose politicians" -
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
-
Seems like fewer and fewer of us want a Supreme Court to act like one. Everyone wants a super-legislature with their team in charge.
@jon-nyc said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
Seems like fewer and fewer of us want a Supreme Court to act like one. Everyone wants a super-legislature with their team in charge.
Warren Court.
Don't start nuthin' won't be nuthin'.
Link to videoImpeachment is going to follow the same path.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Doesn't matter what they say. He wasn't convicted. Period.
Anything else is just political fodder.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Doesn't matter what they say. He wasn't convicted. Period.
Anything else is just political fodder.
@jolly said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Doesn't matter what they say. He wasn't convicted. Period.
Anything else is just political fodder.
Impeachment trials are political fodder. The rule of law does not apply. Facts do not apply. Partisanship is all that applies. Similar to Jolly’s thread about the son who turned his dad in recently. You dont betray your own. Its ok, The footsteps of legal doom are approaching. This impeachment was the least of his worries
-
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
We don't trust the courts to provide justice, but the Senate is another matter entirely.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
I dont believe that "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing, from my understanding of the words.
For example, a store is robbed. For no reason, police stop a car near the store and without asking, open the trunk and find the stole goods.
The judge does not allow that. Says it was illegal search and anything they found during the search cannot be used during trial. They have no other evidence. So, he is found "not guilty". But is he "innocent"? I dont think so.
I certainly agree that President Trump was not guilty. But it apprears that Senator McConnell (and some others) do not think he was innocent.
-
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
I dont believe that "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing, from my understanding of the words.
For example, a store is robbed. For no reason, police stop a car near the store and without asking, open the trunk and find the stole goods.
The judge does not allow that. Says it was illegal search and anything they found during the search cannot be used during trial. They have no other evidence. So, he is found "not guilty". But is he "innocent"? I dont think so.
I certainly agree that President Trump was not guilty. But it apprears that Senator McConnell (and some others) do not think he was innocent.
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
I dont believe that "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing, from my understanding of the words.
For example, a store is robbed. For no reason, police stop a car near the store and without asking, open the trunk and find the stole goods.
The judge does not allow that. Says it was illegal search and anything they found during the search cannot be used during trial. They have no other evidence. So, he is found "not guilty". But is he "innocent"? I dont think so.
I certainly agree that President Trump was not guilty. But it apprears that Senator McConnell (and some others) do not think he was innocent.
You are never proven innocent in a court of law.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
I dont believe that "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing, from my understanding of the words.
For example, a store is robbed. For no reason, police stop a car near the store and without asking, open the trunk and find the stole goods.
The judge does not allow that. Says it was illegal search and anything they found during the search cannot be used during trial. They have no other evidence. So, he is found "not guilty". But is he "innocent"? I dont think so.
I certainly agree that President Trump was not guilty. But it apprears that Senator McConnell (and some others) do not think he was innocent.
You are never proven innocent in a court of law.
@jolly said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@mik said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
@taiwan_girl said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
said in Lies SCOTUS told me.:
In other words, a stolen presidential election—if it happens, we don’t really know in this case—has an almost immediate statute of limitations,
Just like the last President Trump impeachment has a statute of limitations. Wasn't that one of the main arguments on why he was not impeached? LOL
He was impeached. He was not convicted. These are two separate things.
True. I am corrected.
But one of the things said by some (alot?) of the senators is that it is not that President Trump was not "guilty" of the crime, but rather that he could not be convicted of it anymore. The time had run out.
He was found to be "not guilty", but that does not mean he was "innocent".
Yes, it does mean exactly that. To be found not guilty is the same thing. If you wish to believe he is guilty you have every right to do so. But neither your opinion nor anyone else's has any bearing on his legal status.
I dont believe that "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing, from my understanding of the words.
For example, a store is robbed. For no reason, police stop a car near the store and without asking, open the trunk and find the stole goods.
The judge does not allow that. Says it was illegal search and anything they found during the search cannot be used during trial. They have no other evidence. So, he is found "not guilty". But is he "innocent"? I dont think so.
I certainly agree that President Trump was not guilty. But it apprears that Senator McConnell (and some others) do not think he was innocent.
You are never proven innocent in a court of law.
Maybe we are saying the same thing with different words.
But I think that there is a difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".
