Sugar Baby Clarence Thomas
-
Cal flailing around and panic posting to avoid the subject. Hilarious
-
You even miss the point on your beak, freak.
The subject IS free stuff that people can get.
If I get a free lesson on shooting by an instructor friend, is that not ethical?
or if I was a Supreme Court Justice, you don't like, THEN it would be unethical ?
A Supreme Court Justice can not have friends?
I believe the ethical problem is CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Like the judge who hates Trump, and a leftist cativist and conservtive hater - is still the judge of Trump's fake trial ?
Pelosi is fine with free struff, Schumer is fine with free stuff, etc etc etc = but JUSTICE THOMAS ? THEN you
all of a sudden have a fake gripe?
that is the point.
If a Justice gets gifts or cruises, and benefits from a decision that Justice makes - that would be
extremely bad, no matter who the justice is.
-
Noted.
We'll keep this all in mind when a liberal judge inevitably dies the same thing and you have the completely opposite reaction
-
Noted.
We'll keep this all in mind when a liberal judge inevitably dies the same thing and you have the completely opposite reaction
Noted.
We'll keep this all in mind when a liberal judge inevitably dies the same thing and you have the completely opposite reaction
Maybe, maybe not. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that liberal judges are way more corrupt than conservative judges though.
WSS
-
Noted.
We'll keep this all in mind when a liberal judge inevitably dies the same thing and you have the completely opposite reaction
Maybe, maybe not. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that liberal judges are way more corrupt than conservative judges though.
WSS
Maybe, maybe not. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that liberal judges are way more corrupt than conservative judges though.
WSS
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be liberal or conservative judges. There should just be judges. No party affiliation
"And they don't really know even what they're talkin' about And I can't imagine what empty heads can achieve." -
Maybe, maybe not. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that liberal judges are way more corrupt than conservative judges though.
WSS
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be liberal or conservative judges. There should just be judges. No party affiliation
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be liberal or conservative judges. There should just be judges. No party affiliation
Party affiliation means absolutely nothing. Ideology probably means more. And Democrats just happen to be more ideologically to the left. But when I think about corruption I'm thinking about over prosecuting your enemies while wedding your friends off the hook. That just seems to go along more with Democrats or liberals than conservatives.
WSS
-
Maybe, maybe not. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that liberal judges are way more corrupt than conservative judges though.
WSS
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be liberal or conservative judges. There should just be judges. No party affiliation
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be liberal or conservative judges. There should just be judges. No party affiliation
I will agree - but it is those conservative judges are are Constitutionalists - it's the liberal judges who vote by their leftwing ideology and don't even refer to our Constitution in their opinions. Which, the leftwing judges LIE about supporting our Constitution
ALL judges should honestly decide based on our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
-
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be liberal or conservative judges. There should just be judges. No party affiliation
I will agree - but it is those conservative judges are are Constitutionalists - it's the liberal judges who vote by their leftwing ideology and don't even refer to our Constitution in their opinions. Which, the leftwing judges LIE about supporting our Constitution
ALL judges should honestly decide based on our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
I will agree - but it is those conservative judges are are Constitutionalists - it's the liberal judges who vote by their leftwing ideology and don't even refer to our Constitution in their opinions. Which, the leftwing judges LIE about supporting our Constitution
ALL judges should honestly decide based on our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
This nails it, there should be no party affiliation, but it's mostly the left that that ignore the constitution.
-
"judges shouldn't have political affiliation. They should just all agree with me."
Brilliant
-
"judges shouldn't have political affiliation. They should just all agree with me."
Brilliant
"judges shouldn't have political affiliation. They should just all agree with
meOUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS"FIFY
-
That’s the problem. There shouldn’t be liberal or conservative judges. There should just be judges. No party affiliation
I will agree - but it is those conservative judges are are Constitutionalists - it's the liberal judges who vote by their leftwing ideology and don't even refer to our Constitution in their opinions. Which, the leftwing judges LIE about supporting our Constitution
ALL judges should honestly decide based on our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
I will agree - but it is those conservative judges are are Constitutionalists - it's the liberal judges who vote by their leftwing ideology and don't even refer to our Constitution in their opinions. Which, the leftwing judges LIE about supporting our Constitution
ALL judges should honestly decide based on our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
I agree. Judges don’t make the laws. They are there to enforce the laws already on the books.
Their personal opinions and views should have NOTHING to do with the decisions the make. It should SOLELY be based on the law -
I will agree - but it is those conservative judges are are Constitutionalists - it's the liberal judges who vote by their leftwing ideology and don't even refer to our Constitution in their opinions. Which, the leftwing judges LIE about supporting our Constitution
ALL judges should honestly decide based on our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
I agree. Judges don’t make the laws. They are there to enforce the laws already on the books.
Their personal opinions and views should have NOTHING to do with the decisions the make. It should SOLELY be based on the lawI agree. Judges don’t make the laws. They are there to enforce the laws already on the books.
Their personal opinions and views should have NOTHING to do with the decisions the make. It should SOLELY be based on the lawPolice enforce the laws. Judges make decisions based on the laws.
-
I agree. Judges don’t make the laws. They are there to enforce the laws already on the books.
Their personal opinions and views should have NOTHING to do with the decisions the make. It should SOLELY be based on the lawPolice enforce the laws. Judges make decisions based on the laws.
Police enforce the laws. Judges make decisions based on the laws.
Ok. Judges are supposed to make decisions based on laws that already exist.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login