i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilege 2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hack
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?
That's an unattainable bar.
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't. The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in control 2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same. 3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.
You literally made every one of my points.
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determined
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..
i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilege 2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hack
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?
That's an unattainable bar.
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't. The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in control 2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same. 3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.
You literally made every one of my points.
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determined
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilege 2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hack
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?
That's an unattainable bar.
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't. The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in control 2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same. 3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.
You literally made every one of my points.
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determined
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a pass
i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilege 2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hack
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?
That's an unattainable bar.
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't. The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in control 2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same. 3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.
You literally made every one of my points.
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determined
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a pass
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.
i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilege 2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hack
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?
That's an unattainable bar.
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't. The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in control 2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same. 3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.
You literally made every one of my points.
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determined
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a pass
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.
Ok That’s your view it doesn’t make it true . i ask you again tell us what you would of done in pelosi’s shoes?
i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilege 2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hack
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?
That's an unattainable bar.
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't. The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in control 2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same. 3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.
You literally made every one of my points.
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determined
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a pass
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.
Ok That’s your view it doesn’t make it true . i ask you again tell us what you would of done in pelosi’s shoes?
would have made subpoenas during inquiry a requirement. but in so doing, had the courts ruled FOR the house that would contrain a future Dem President in the same way.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilege 2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hack
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?
That's an unattainable bar.
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't. The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in control 2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same. 3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.
You literally made every one of my points.
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determined
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a pass
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.
Ok That’s your view it doesn’t make it true . i ask you again tell us what you would of done in pelosi’s shoes?
I already said I agreed with her strategy. And it's not my opinion until someone can describe what Mitch is doing to make it rigged, that couldn't be changed with 51 votes.
Second, how is Roberts rigging this, which was the point from the beginning.
Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.
Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.
Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.
Where are you seeing that it would take years?
They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year.
They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.
are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases?
Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.
Where are you seeing that it would take years?
They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year.
They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.
are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases?
I have no idea if that's the same as witness subpoenas in an impeachment hearing or not. I haven't read anything that indicates it would take that long but maybe it would? I just want to read it from a journalist who knows what they're talking about.
Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.
Where are you seeing that it would take years?
They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year.
They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.
are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases?
I have no idea if that's the same as witness subpoenas in an impeachment hearing or not. I haven't read anything that indicates it would take that long but maybe it would? I just want to read it from a journalist who knows what they're talking about.
Well if you figure it would start at the local circuit and move through the appellate channel, with each court having to schedule and hear the case, and then because of the high profile nature, at least a month each to write the opinion. Then it has to go the the scotus session. So it could definitely take a while.
Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.
Where are you seeing that it would take years?
They have been suing to get the redacted portions of muller report released. Is it out yet? That’s almost a year.
They’ve been suing to get McGahn to testify since before Ukraine was a thing.
are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases?
I have no idea if that's the same as witness subpoenas in an impeachment hearing or not. I haven't read anything that indicates it would take that long but maybe it would? I just want to read it from a journalist who knows what they're talking about.
Well if you figure it would start at the local circuit and move through the appellate channel, with each court having to schedule and hear the case, and then because of the high profile nature, at least a month each to write the opinion. Then it has to go the the scotus session. So it could definitely take a while.
Oh, sure. And everything I've read has said months. Which is way different than years.
The reason I'm pushing on it is I think it makes a big difference. Even if it took months, I thought the House should have fought to hear from Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, etc. If someone in the know is saying it could take years, that's another story.
The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day.
70% of Americans want witnesses. On what other subject do 70% of us agree on? Not much. They're in a bad spot either way...and that's a good thing, folks.
Edit---plus, I have heard Bolton's book might be out by the Spring. Let's say they vote no for witnesses and his book is damning. That's even worse for them.
The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day.
The McGahn case isn't a good analogue, though. This is from a New York Times story about the Charles Kupperman subpoena in December.
The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day.
The McGahn case isn't a good analogue, though. This is from a New York Times story about the Charles Kupperman subpoena in December.
They probably should have at least issued the subpoenas. But I doubt they would have gotten these guys to come in and testify any time soon. My point remains.
The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day.
The McGahn case isn't a good analogue, though. This is from a New York Times story about the Charles Kupperman subpoena in December.
They probably should have at least issued the subpoenas. But I doubt they would have gotten these guys to come in and testify any time soon. My point remains.
I think we just disagree on the impact. I'm fine with it dragging into the summer to give every effort to get those guys in. I hope you're right about 4 Republicans voting for witnesses, but even then the best case scenario is that you get Bolton. No way those other dudes are coming in unless they're compelled.
John Roberts should be sent home. He's supposed to be there to make sure people follow the rules and he isn't doing anything at all in that regard much less having any influence with people telling the truth. The Senators are supposed to sit in their seats and listen. No electronics and that means Apple watches. Crossword puzzles, toys...what a joke. These are toddlers, not Senators. Roberts is useless and I can't see justice ever coming from him in any court or anywhere else. I guess his soul has been eaten too. Very sad. :(
he didn't even know when it was appropriate to use his gavel during the beginning of the proceedings. he's an idiot.
I'm sorry, Roberts is hardly an idiot. As to enforcement of the rules, I'm sure my perspective would be "I'm going to pick my battles and not interrupt the trial to lecture someone about playing Candy Crush". Let the press filet them for it.
i'm not talking about the enforcement of the rules (but he's also not really doing any of that, either). he's the fucking presiding judge, and didn't have the respect enough of the responsibility to know when to use the gavel. it wasn't to enforce the rules, it was the end of a certain proceeding (my memory currently fails me); he whispered to someone next to him "is this when i use this?".
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
John Roberts should be sent home. He's supposed to be there to make sure people follow the rules and he isn't doing anything at all in that regard much less having any influence with people telling the truth. The Senators are supposed to sit in their seats and listen. No electronics and that means Apple watches. Crossword puzzles, toys...what a joke. These are toddlers, not Senators. Roberts is useless and I can't see justice ever coming from him in any court or anywhere else. I guess his soul has been eaten too. Very sad. :(
he didn't even know when it was appropriate to use his gavel during the beginning of the proceedings. he's an idiot.
I'm sorry, Roberts is hardly an idiot. As to enforcement of the rules, I'm sure my perspective would be "I'm going to pick my battles and not interrupt the trial to lecture someone about playing Candy Crush". Let the press filet them for it.
i'm not talking about the enforcement of the rules (but he's also not really doing any of that, either). he's the fucking presiding judge, and didn't have the respect enough of the responsibility to know when to use the gavel. it wasn't to enforce the rules, it was the end of a certain proceeding (my memory currently fails me); he whispered to someone next to him "is this when i use this?".
Pretty sure this is the first impeachment trial where he's presided. There's no rule book. I'm guessing he asked the parliamentarian, which is essentially the official historian of the Senate. That person will have a much stronger understanding of proper etiquette than the chief justice.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Republican senators seemed relieved to finally have the president’s side of the debate presented on the floor.
“They completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff,” Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told reporters afterward.
Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, who joined Mr. Trump onstage to address abortion opponents at the March for Life on Friday, said the president’s lawyers showed that the managers were selective in their presentation of the facts.
“It happened over and over again for three days where they really cherry-pick one part of a sentence and then would not read the full part of the sentence,” he said. “Today we got a chance to see the whole sentence.”
The McGahn case started in, what, June? Can you imagine the house dragging this into the summer during the general election? I want to hear those guys as much as the next person but they would have lost all public support by then. I think they've handled things pretty darn well thus far and I still think there is a chance of 4 repubs voting for witnesses this week. If not, fuck them. They will be bombarded by ads for the next 9 months and it will only hurt them come Election Day.
70% of Americans want witnesses. On what other subject do 70% of us agree on? Not much. They're in a bad spot either way...and that's a good thing, folks.
Edit---plus, I have heard Bolton's book might be out by the Spring. Let's say they vote no for witnesses and his book is damning. That's even worse for them.
Comments
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
i ask you again tell us what you would of done in pelosi’s shoes?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Second, how is Roberts rigging this, which was the point from the beginning.
He pretty much says nothing will happen to the president, so yeah he had already made up his mind ..
are we even close to getting the USSC hearing anything on those cases?
The reason I'm pushing on it is I think it makes a big difference. Even if it took months, I thought the House should have fought to hear from Bolton, Giuliani, Mulvaney, etc. If someone in the know is saying it could take years, that's another story.
70% of Americans want witnesses. On what other subject do 70% of us agree on? Not much. They're in a bad spot either way...and that's a good thing, folks.
Edit---plus, I have heard Bolton's book might be out by the Spring. Let's say they vote no for witnesses and his book is damning. That's even worse for them.
-EV 8/14/93
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Republican senators seemed relieved to finally have the president’s side of the debate presented on the floor.
uccchchhh. These assholes.