Supreme Court Reverses Liberal Judges Yet Again

This reads like a massive hit to government transparency. If that's the case, nobody should be happy about it, no matter what the imaginary scoreboard says.

Also, OP is wrong again about anybody being "reversed."

Plus white people will have to do all those jobs they don't want to do anymore . . . the horror...
 
Why should anyone believe your analysis of a SCOTUS decision when you don't even have a basic understanding of jurisdiction?



i understand jurisdiction.

the problem is you think that my point has to do with jurisdiction, however it does not.

the lawyers for these anti-Trump cases are an extremely large " National " group of people, who have admitted that they're specifically looking for clients, located on coasts of the country & not the rest of the country.

" National " ,not local.

also- if you were to look at my other threads, you'll see that almost all the non-liberal posters who agree with me, have already participated in my detailed breakdown of why its so suspicious, that the automated court-assignment computer keeps spitting out 100% liberal judges.
 
Great news


thanks, agreeing with you.


also, i note for the liberals :

you think that my point has to do with jurisdiction, however it does not.

the lawyers for these anti-Trump cases are an extremely large " National " group of people, who have admitted that they're specifically looking for clients, located on coasts of the country & not the rest of the country.

" National "
 
i understand jurisdiction.

the problem is you think that my point has to do with jurisdiction, however it does not.

the lawyers for these anti-Trump cases are an extremely large " National " group of people, who have admitted that they're specifically looking for clients, located on coasts of the country & not the rest of the country.

" National " ,not local.

also- if you were to look at my other threads, you'll see that almost all the non-liberal posters who agree with me, have already participated in my detailed breakdown of why its so suspicious, that the automated court-assignment computer keeps spitting out 100% liberal judges.

1. You are the one who keeps bringing up "cherry-picking judges". Do you not see the irony in the fact that without Trump's "cherry picked" SCOTUS appointment SCOTUS would be deadlocked?

2. WRONG again. The lawsuit was brought by multiple state AGs not individual people. Why should anyone believe your nonsense when you don't even know basic details about the case?

3.Sounds like you are alleging the Court's case assignment system has been tampered. Conspiracy theory nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Politifact is liberal.

their analysis is meaningless.

Facts don't have political ideologies. No court has ruled DACA is unconstitutional. Why should anyone believe you, when you are struggling with simple facts?
 
The lawsuit was brought by multiple state AGs


exactly my point.

lots of lawyers who are a " National " group, choosing to seek lead clients on the coasts of the country, not the rest of the country.

because without a liberal judge, from a coast, they'll lose on their legal arguments.
 
Incorrect
It's insane how much time around here is dedicated to arguing about basic, demonstrable, objective facts with people who don't know what those things are.
 
exactly my point.

lots of lawyers who are a " National " group, choosing to seek lead clients on the coasts of the country, not the rest of the country.

because without a liberal judge, from a coast, they'll lose on their legal arguments.

State AGs, by definition, are lawyers. The "lead client" is their state. Your argument is nonsensical. You should work on learning how our Courts work before pretending to be a legal expert.
 
incorrect.
tExQ9o4.gif
 
1. Not sure who is saying that since there was no final order in the lower court. Still an ongoing case.

2. You clearly have no idea how the Courts work. You can't cherry pick a judge when you are filling in your own jurisdiction.
You can when most of the judges in that area are liberal.
 
State AGs, by definition, are lawyers. The "lead client" is their state. Your argument is nonsensical. You should work on learning how our Courts work before pretending to be a legal expert.


my point is perfectly valid, and all non-liberals on this board agree with me.
 
Back
Top