Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
seriously he's THIS close to asking "How about another campaign promise, Murraay?"
Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
KF wasn't the only one who was "DDosed", a documentary movie was also targeted.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2022
im glad they explain what the documentary is about
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
looks to be an interview with a gal named Ziwe Fumudoh
I have it downloaded but it's slow uploading for some wacky reason. I can get the audio in at least.
edit- patience prevails!
Last edited:
mandatorylurk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Mark Meadows had his appeal to move his GA case to the federal level was denied, but it was done less than 1 day after the hearing, almost like the liberal judges had their answer made before the hearing even began. Another example of the faggots in the judiciary not even pretending there aren't two systems of justice:
The world is falling apart but one of Joepedo's puppetmasters sits down with that tiktok astroturfed faggot:
"rule of law matters," why not get the sergeant at arms to drag Hunter from the White House to Congress and testify.
Christina Pushaw, foreign asset and Meatball's right hand faggot, her own lawyer is one of the cucks who has been prosecuting Jan. 6th political prisoners. But go on, tell me how Meatball is going to fight for us.
The world is falling apart but one of Joepedo's puppetmasters sits down with that tiktok astroturfed faggot:
"rule of law matters," why not get the sergeant at arms to drag Hunter from the White House to Congress and testify.
Christina Pushaw, foreign asset and Meatball's right hand faggot, her own lawyer is one of the cucks who has been prosecuting Jan. 6th political prisoners. But go on, tell me how Meatball is going to fight for us.
Qtinterval
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Yea that probably was the tipping point.....but still didn't see TLS actually go publicly (as far as the forum goes) denounce her. It's still a shock and shows some growth. Well that or he decided to try and IRL hook up with her and missed the back of his head with the shotgun so changed his thoughts on her.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2021
I see a lot of posts about how SCOTUS is ‘cucked’ or ‘too slow’ or ‘sleeping at the wheel’, and I think I should point out that SCOTUS is legally very powerful but civilly powerless. They have no enforcement branch. Their rulings are meant to be accepted by those who accept the Constitution, and empower the people to push back against tyranny. It is still the responsibility for everyone to uphold the law after SCOTUS, or any court, makes a ruling. If you’ve ever won a judgement against someone, you might have an idea of what I’m talking about.
They are also not a legislature. They do not exist to correct shitty laws. They will intervene when the time comes, but if legislatures are incompetent it’s up to the people to vote them out of office. This is clear when you see that the structure of the court itself is controlled by Congress. Congress can grow or shrink the court. It can also impeach justices. What SCOTUS has over Congress is Judicial Review, but again that’s only as powerful as the people who can uphold the law.
If SCOTUS were to grant every injuction, hear every case, make every ruling as swiftly as possible, they would be brought to heel quickly, by either Congress or people ignoring them entirely. And once they show themselves to be toothless, they will turn into noise, a rubber stamp not unlike the House of Lords or the Canadian Senate. Indeed, this has happened before. The Dredd Scott case is perhaps the most famous example of SCOTUS acting too strongly, whether you agree with the ruling or not. It remains, in my opinion, the one event guaranteeing the Civil War’s imminence.
They are also not a legislature. They do not exist to correct shitty laws. They will intervene when the time comes, but if legislatures are incompetent it’s up to the people to vote them out of office. This is clear when you see that the structure of the court itself is controlled by Congress. Congress can grow or shrink the court. It can also impeach justices. What SCOTUS has over Congress is Judicial Review, but again that’s only as powerful as the people who can uphold the law.
If SCOTUS were to grant every injuction, hear every case, make every ruling as swiftly as possible, they would be brought to heel quickly, by either Congress or people ignoring them entirely. And once they show themselves to be toothless, they will turn into noise, a rubber stamp not unlike the House of Lords or the Canadian Senate. Indeed, this has happened before. The Dredd Scott case is perhaps the most famous example of SCOTUS acting too strongly, whether you agree with the ruling or not. It remains, in my opinion, the one event guaranteeing the Civil War’s imminence.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
On the other hand, it takes only one willing to obey, or better yet, fearing that others will, for enforcement to happen. Say SCOTUS demands that the Governor go to prison for failure to abide by the court order, something the court could do (though that'd be until the governor complied). The Governor refuses. But that's not really the end. What if the Police decide to arrest them, something they could do? Even if its only one officer, things start burning. Staffers start seeing a ship with holes, jump to winning side. We know from Trump administration (or Boris for that matter), when staff are against you, you are very heavily fucked.
That's just one example. Alternatively, SCOTUS could issue a bounty on arrest. They'll cite some inherent power of the court to punish abusers, and boom. You think people aren't going to get greedy? That there's no one who'd love to take any excuse to fuck a Governor up?
Obviously, also literally nothing could happen. My examples are a bit on the optimistic side, but in an 'dog eat dog' environment the media and political parties have created, and with how much we know they like to eat one another, is that so farfetched? Maybe.
My point, ultimately, is that there's no reason to be a doomer about SCOTUS' power because then you already playing from a losing position.
As an aside, lol at the "They are also not a legislature" bit. Never stopped them before.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Sherman wasn't bloodthirsty at all. Here's what he wrote in a letter in May of 1865.
And here's what he told the people of Atlanta when they complained about his evacuation:
The man was so bloodthirsty he was desperate to have the USA avoid turning into Mexico...
Of course, like everyone else who was forced to deal with them, he inevitably began calling for Total Sioux Death when he was posted to the frontier. Man was remarkably consistent in his view that the only way to deal with those who wish for war is to give it to them good and hard.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2022
This isn't "every injunction"
This is the felonization of millions of people for exercising an explicit portion of the bill of rights, in direct defiance of their Bruen decision, by a portion of THEIR branch.
Again, I ask anyone to imagine the 11th circuit simply refusing to uphold the 13th.
Does anyone here seriously think SCOTUS wouldn't intervene same day rather than allow black people to be rounded up as cattle for 3 years?
They certainly do within their own branch of government: it's called the injunction and remand.
If a presidential administration is going to be lawless, all the more reason to issue the injunction.
Let them pull Jackson's "Let them enforce it" bullshit front and center before every normie voter.
- Joined
- May 8, 2020
God of Nothing
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2016
since when the fuck could a single state determine who runs for president?
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
since orange man was bad
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2022
Let's not pretend Colorado was ever going to be red in an election.
Also, yawn until this reaches the supreme court.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
and so it begins.....expect more states to be emboldened and follow CO's example. Either that, or the SC smacks this down in time
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2021
Speaking of SCOTUS, here's another case about to get tossed in front of them very shortly.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
And you have now abandoned all pretense that 2024 will be a free or fair election.
mandatorylurk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
LOL, it's an unsigned opinion that doesn't say why exactly and their 14th amendment claim holds nothing because Trump has never been charged or convicted of anything. This is levels of gay we've not really seen yet.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2022
As I said, yawn.
Up it goes to the next appellate level (which is the US supreme court).
Also: absolute LOL at colorado ever going red again after their state GOP backstabbed their voters, who threw out 2 democrats in a recall explicitly over a mag ban the GOP then refused to act on.
In other news radio host Jesse Kelly's check from DeSantis has apparently cleared the bank.
Is there a single fucking person on "the right" who isn't an absolute grifting piece of shit with utter contempt for voters?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
If they were confident in Biden's re-electability, this wouldn't be necessary.
I'm not trying to doom or be dramatic. These are latter-day Intolerable Acts. This is the work of wannabe dictators. They have opened yet another Pandora's Box in their pursuit of power.
I'm not trying to doom or be dramatic. These are latter-day Intolerable Acts. This is the work of wannabe dictators. They have opened yet another Pandora's Box in their pursuit of power.
- Status