Fiona Hill: "The president was trying to stage a coup"

[marke]

I admit the truth even when its is a tangent sometimes. In the case of Justice Thomas, his vote on that issue was inappropriate. And, no concurrence by other justices makes it glaringly obvious. On any lessor court, he would be reprimanded by the bar without question.

If you think judges should not issue rulings if they show biases against political ideas, movements, or activities, then you must think no judge should ever issue any ruling at all since all judges had biases and opinions that others do not agree with.

 

[Skeeter]

Democrats do not recuse themselves when ruling in cases in which they have a predisposition to bias or history of animosity towards a defendant. Obama appointee Judge Amy Berman Jackson refused to recuse herself from Roger Stone's appeal after presiding over the trial in which it was later discovered the jury forewoman had a history of virulent anti-Trump and anti-republican activism. Such undeclared bias on the part of the jury forewoman was grounds for a mistrial, but the case was decided by the corrupted jury before the facts about the crooked forewoman came out and Jackson refused to allow an appeal on that basis, itself a violation of law. Of course Jackson had no intention of allowing some other judge to handle the Roger Stone appeal because she had no guarantee another judge would be as hateful and partisan as she.

The juror was biased; that does not mean that the judge was. Thus there is no legitimate reason to recuse. Do you see the difference between a wife's interests and a juror biases?

Judges can sit on cases of clients of a former law firm as long as they were not a part of the firm during the previous case. Find a better example for your false equivalency google games.

 

[marke]

Justice Thomas cheapened a fine institution at a time when confidence in our government is already low. If you cannot appreciate the significance of this, it reflects your cognitive insufficiency.

Leftists cheapen the judicial institutions of America by appointing flaming leftist, anti-American, democrat activists to courts.

 

[Skeeter]

If you think judges should not issue rulings if they show biases against political ideas, movements, or activities, then you must think no judge should ever issue any ruling at all since all judges had biases and opinions that others do not agree with.

Here there is a personal interest of spouse, not just a political one. His wife had an interest that the records not be made public. Justice Thomas did what he could to make that happen.

 

[annabenedetti]

Then why say " It isn't partisan to expect SC justices to recuse themselves from cases whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Federal law requires exactly that of federal judges. The SC should be no different. "? You invoked the entire Court. So apparently you didn't get your own memo.

Saying it isn't partisan to expect SC justices to recuse themselves from cases whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned in no way "invokes the entire court." Where do you even come up with this stuff?

It seems the memo writer is you (and your memos are word salads).

Why would I think or suspect that he is corrupt

Again with your memo-writing. I didn't say "corrupt," you did. Just like you brought impeachment into the conversation. Strawman much?

I think "compromised" is a good start.

Because his wife has an opinion? Don't you have those? You just displayed one above. Should we think that people associated with you are corrupt because you have opinions? Is this how you see people generally, as all potentially corrupt? Corrupt until proven otherwise?

He did nothing that is even circumstantial let alone a smoking gun to indicate he's corrupt.

You have NO IDEA what Thomas did or didn't do. Amazing that you're this random guy out there (way, way out there) pontificating on the internet, telling us that you know what he has or hasn't done. You don't.

Because . . . you don't understand a thing about judicial philosophy, apparently. My answer would go over your head, again.

You don't know any more about 'judicial philosophy' than I do.

Democrat cheerleader, pretending to be impartial, unbiased and above the fray but you're not.

When you latch onto an idea, you hang on tight! Pretty soon you'll have said "cheerleader" as many times as ffreeloader has said "mockingbird media."

And I don't pretend to be impartial, unbiased, and beyond the fray so you're not nearly as perceptive as you think you are.

No one is impartial, we all have biases, both implicit and explicit, and I've been right in the thick of the fray here for years now.

So save me the faux philosophizing, if you can't answer in normal conversational English go practice your liberalism/illiberalism on someone else who agrees with you that we should be annexing the rest of the world.

 

[marke]

The juror was biased; that does not mean that the judge was. Thus there is no legitimate reason to recuse. Do you see the difference between a wife's interests and a juror biases?

Judges can sit on cases of clients of a former law firm as long as they were not a part of the firm during the previous case. Find a better example for your false equivalency google games.

The judge should have ordered a mistrial as soon as the defense raised those facts, but she didn't. She was not interested in a fair trial so the trial was unjust and when it became public knowledge that the jury foreperson was a flaming leftist anti-Trump democrat activist she should have recused herself from the appeal, but she didn't, because she did not want Stone released from democrat political prison. She owed Obama and the leftist democrats for her job on the bench and she intended to execute the most vengeful measures against Obama's enemies she could, just as did Mueller and his team of democrat inquisitors who failed to find dirt on Trump after their 4-year-long tens of millions of dollars witchhunt.

Here is the scumbag who lied to get on the jury with Jackson's help and refused to repent of her wickedness and deception once her wickedness was exposed:

Jury Foreman In Roger Stone Case Was Russia Collusion Hoaxer

Social media posts from the juror in the Roger Stone trial “standing up” for the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case this week reveal extreme bias.

thefederalist.com

Social media posts from the lead juror in the Roger Stone trial, who is “standing up” for the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case this week, reveal she was a perpetuator of the grand Russian collusion conspiracy theory in addition to showing an obvious bias against Stone.

In March of 2019, Tomeka Hart tweeted about the Mueller indictments which, at the time, included Stone.

In August last year, Hart also tweeted that anybody who supported President Donald Trump was racist.

“Then stop being racists. Co-signing and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank,” Hart wrote on Twitter while linking to a piece in the Atlantic of Trump supporters complaining about the label constantly being lodged against them.

But believe it or not, it gets worse. While Hart was serving on the jury, she tweeted about the president’s impeachment, sharing a letter to the editor in the New York Times requesting the outlet use more direct language to accuse Trump of committing a crime in his dealings with Ukraine.

 

[Idolater]

Justice Thomas cheapened a fine institution

Allegedly.

at a time when confidence in our government is already low.

Neat thing about our constitution is that it doesn't require a lot of confidence in it and it still works!

If you cannot appreciate the significance of this, it reflects your cognitive insufficiency.

Ouch. Seriously . . . that stings.

Plain.

 

[marke]

Here there is a personal interest of spouse, not just a political one. His wife had an interest that the records not be made public. Justice Thomas did what he could to make that happen.

You are accusing Justice Thomas of misjudgment or perverted judgment, an allegation that is not evidence, not fact, not proven, but just your opinion.

 

[Idolater]

Saying it isn't partisan to expect SC justices to recuse themselves from cases whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned in no way "invokes the entire court." Where do you even come up with this stuff?

It seems the memo writer is you (and your memos are word salads).



Again with your memo-writing. I didn't say "corrupt," you did. Just like you brought impeachment into the conversation. Strawman much?

I think "compromised" is a good start.



You have NO IDEA what Thomas did or didn't do. Amazing that you're this random guy out there (way, way out there) pontificating on the internet, telling us that you know what he has or hasn't done. You don't.



You don't know any more about 'judicial philosophy' than I do.

I call. What is utilitarian legal positivism?

When you latch onto an idea, you hang on tight! Pretty soon you'll have said "cheerleader as many times as ffreeloader has said "mockingbird media."

And I don't pretend to be impartial, unbiased, and beyond the fray so you're not nearly as perceptive as you think you are.

No one is impartial, we all have biases, both implicit and explicit, and I've been right in the thick of the fray here for years now.

So save me the faux philosophizing, if you can't answer in normal conversational English go practice your liberalism/illiberalism on someone else who agrees with you that we should be annexing the rest of the world.

Edit.

Go ahead and use whatever rhetorical explanation you want. Explain what utilitarian legal positivism is.

 

[ok doser]

You are accusing Justice Thomas of misjudgment or perverted judgment, an allegation that is not evidence, not fact, not proven, but just your opinion.

Racists have been attacking Justice Thomas all of his career. This is nothing new.

Attacks On Clarence Thomas Fit Decades-Long Smear Campaign

Not only are the attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni purely political, they're deeply hypocritical.

thefederalist.com

 

[annabenedetti]

You are accusing Justice Thomas of misjudgment or perverted judgment, an allegation that is not evidence, not fact, not proven, but just your opinion.

Silly, all we know right now is that Ginni Thomas was actively trying to enable the overthrow of the election at the very least through her communications with Trump's chief of staff, and coincidentally, Thomas was the lone dissent in allowing Trump's communications to be made available to the Jan. 6 commission. Like everyone else, I'm waiting to see what happens next.

 

[annabenedetti]

That's just showing off...

I miss the : eek : emoji...

 

[marke]

Saying it isn't partisan to expect SC justices to recuse themselves from cases whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned in no way "invokes the entire court." Where do you even come up with this stuff?

Judges have shown bias in their rulings since the beginning of human history, and that is especially true in modern America. Why would anyone think democrats were not interested in appointing only judges with leftist biases to the court after floating the idea of expanding the SCOTUS in order to force it to tilt more to the left?

Remember Proposition 8 against gay marriage, passed by a majority of millions of Californians only to be struck down by one homosexual judge? That sort of ruling by bias alone is wrong, of course, but such is the nature of modern American political partisanship.

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

"There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other...

www.sfgate.com

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

 

[annabenedetti]

Why would anyone think democrats were not interested in appointing only judges with leftist biases to the court after floating the ide of expanding the SCOTUS in order to force it to tilt more to the left?

OMG who's even talking about that right now, marke?

 

[marke]

Silly, all we know right now is that Ginni Thomas was actively trying to enable the overthrow of the election at the very least through her communications with Trump's chief of staff, and coincidentally, Thomas was the lone dissent in allowing Trump's communications to be made available to the Jan. 6 commission. Like everyone else, I'm waiting to see what happens next.

Ginni Thomas was one of tens of millions of Americans who were seeking to uncover and redress the grievances of democrat voter fraud. God bless her for that.

What does redress of grievances?

Redress of grievances means resolution to problems or complaints. Redress means resolution, grievances are complaints. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances means the right to ask a governmental body to solve a problem.

askinglot.com

What does redress of grievances?​

Redress of grievances means resolution to problems or complaints. Redress means resolution, grievances are complaints. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances means the right to ask a governmental body to solve a problem.

 

[annabenedetti]

Ginni Thomas was one of tens of millions of Americans who were seeking to uncover and redress the grievances of democrat voter fraud. God bless her for that.

So... were tens of millions of Americans texting the president's chief of staff ideas on how to overthrow the election?

 

[ok doser]

Ginni Thomas was one of tens of millions of Americans who were seeking to uncover and redress the grievances of democrat voter fraud. God bless her for that.

What does redress of grievances?

Redress of grievances means resolution to problems or complaints. Redress means resolution, grievances are complaints. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances means the right to ask a governmental body to solve a problem.

askinglot.com

What does redress of grievances?​

Redress of grievances means resolution to problems or complaints. Redress means resolution, grievances are complaints. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances means the right to ask a governmental body to solve a problem.

At the core of this is the fact that the Democrats stole the election.

And now we're dealing with the effects of that theft, a presidency that is hell-bent on destroying this country.

 

[marke]

OMG who's even talking about that right now, marke?

I am talking about political bias in appoints to the bench and the democrats want judges appointed who are deeply biased and committed to leftist democrat ideas, ideals, views, policies, and agendas. The democrats are not satisfied with the current court's make-up which is why they want to expand the court with additional leftist democrat judges who will faithfully support the democrat agenda by ruling by democrat bias.

 

[marke]

So... were tens of millions of Americans texting the president's chief of staff ideas on how to overthrow the election?

Tens of millions of Americans did what they could and said what they did in whatever capacity they did, but not everyone did the exact same thing to address the theft of the election by democrat voter fraud.

 

[annabenedetti]

Tens of millions of Americans did what they could and said what they did in whatever capacity they did, but not everyone did the exact same thing to address the theft of the election by democrat voter fraud.

So your answer is no, tens of millions of Americans did NOT text the president's chief of staff ideas on how to overthrow the election.