FBI executes search warrant at Mar-a-Lago

[Terrywoodenpic]

That was the reason for the Constitution NOT to define term limits for judges. Once appointed and approved by the Senate, only impeachment can remove them. Therefore, from their appointment on, they are free to follow the law and their conscience.

They should be out of the hands of politics altogether. In the UK we now have an age limit for all judges.ostof your supreme court judges wouldn't qualify.
The political opinion of judges is unknown. They often rule against the government.of the day of the application of the law. It would be thought inappropriate to question a judges political opinion.

 

[Colt]

They should be out of the hands of politics altogether. In the UK we now have an age limit for all judges.ostof your supreme court judges wouldn't qualify.
The political opinion of judges is unknown. They often rule against the government.of the day of the application of the law. It would be thought inappropriate to question a judges political opinion.

In America if the spoiled Left doesn't like a Supreme Court judge they go to their private residence and protest in an effort to intimidate. Earlier this year a man was arrested en route to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In America if the spoiled Left doesn't like a Supreme Court judge they go to their private residence and protest in an effort to intimidate. ]

^ Such balanced reporting.

 

[Secret Chief]

They should be out of the hands of politics altogether. In the UK we now have an age limit for all judges.ostof your supreme court judges wouldn't qualify.
The political opinion of judges is unknown. They often rule against the government.of the day of the application of the law. It would be thought inappropriate to question a judges political opinion.

And the current shambles of a government is bringing in a Bill to limit judicial reviews. Can't have the government being held to account.

- Judicial review: Plan to reform scrutiny by courts revealed

- Restricting judicial review will undermine democracy, panel told

 

[metis]

No, I didn't say Trump should be exempt. Trump may not have wanted his document accidently stolen and destroyed by (D)'s going into the archives and accidently slipping them into ones socks.

They are the government's documents by federal law, not his.

 

[metis]

Yes, it's an exhaustive Wiki.

In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, of which Fusion GPS paid Orbis $168,000 to produce the dossier.[62] The DNC and Clinton campaign disclosed the total amount paid to Perkins Coie on campaign finance reports.[63] In March 2022, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 for misreporting those fees and expenses as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than "opposition research".[64][65]

Yes, and if one violates the law, they should be prosecuted, imo, thus I'm really not at all partisan about things like this.

 

[Colt]

Yes, and if one violates the law, they should be prosecuted, imo, thus I'm really not at all partisan about things like this.

I'm glad you are reasonable. Both sides dig up dirt in their op research election faze, but this went further. I believe that going to FISA courts with questionable material and withholding the fact that it was op research funded by the DNC was wrong! But all these lawyers in Washington politics know how to slither around legal culpability. They basically got away with it when all is said and done.

 

[metis]

I'm glad you are reasonable. Both sides dig up dirt in their op research election faze, but this went further. I believe that going to FISA courts with questionable material and withholding the fact that it was op research funded by the DNC was wrong! But all these lawyers in Washington politics know how to slither around legal culpability. They basically got away with it when all is said and done.

There were two agents that submitted false information to FISA, and they both resigned. Whether the court would have given the go-ahead without that false information I certainly cannot know.

But also, remember that the main points were never proven correct or false.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and if one violates the law, they should be prosecuted, imo, thus I'm really not at all partisan about things like this.

Oh, really?
I've not seen you advocate that Bill Clinton be
prosecuted for his many misdeeds, eg, selling
pardons, suborning perjury, lying to a grand jury.

I'm fair. I want to see many more politicians, &
especially ex-Presidents prosecuted, eg, Nixon,
Clinton, Trump.

 

[Colt]

^ Such balanced reporting.

Oh sorry, I left out one of Bernie Sanders crazed followers who was inspired by Sander's constant, divisive class rhetoric. It was the guy who went to a charity softball practice to kill (R)'s.

 

[Colt]

Oh, really?
I've not seen you advocate that Bill Clinton be
prosecuted for his many misdeeds, eg, selling
pardons, suborning perjury, lying to a grand jury.

I'm fair. I want to see many more politicians, &
especially ex-Presidents prosecuted, eg, Nixon,
Clinton, Trump.

They mean (R)'s. They are super strict on crime or even accusations of crime when it comes to (R)'s.

 

[Revoltingest]

They mean (R)'s. They are super strict on crime or even accusations of crime when it comes to (R)'s.

You suggest that partisanship influences opinions?
I'm shocked....shocked, I tell you!

Perhaps Trump's prosecution would signal a sea change,
by making acceptable prosecuting high officials for crimes.
This would be a welcome change.
I wonder if Clinton would evade prosecution due to time
limitation? One can hope that Trump would share a small
cell with Bill. I'd expect an interesting relationship.

 

[Colt]

You suggest that partisanship influences opinions?
I'm shocked....shocked, I tell you!

Perhaps Trump's prosecution would signal a sea change,
by making acceptable prosecuting high officials for crimes.
This would be a welcome change.
I wonder if Clinton would evade prosecution due to time
limitation? One can hope, that he'd share a small cell
with Bill.

Good point! Like the #metoo movement. It was directed sort of at Trump being elected but mainly high profile (D)'s were ensnared. Maybe a Trump conviction on something would open the door to convicting other presidents?

 

[Revoltingest]

Good point! Like the #metoo movement. It was directed sort of at Trump being elected but mainly high profile (D)'s. Maybe a Trump conviction on something would open the door to convicting other politicians?

#metoo existed before Trump rose to power.
But it suffered from the hypocrisy of giving Hillary
& Bill Clinton a pass on their enabling & commission
of sexism & assault. Liberals & feminists have been
far too partisan in such matters.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In America if the spoiled Left doesn't like a Supreme Court judge they go to their private residence and protest in an effort to intimidate. Earlier this year a man was arrested en route to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.

And the extreme right do all they can to pack the supreme court, with their fellow travellers.

Perhaps having ever been a supporter or member of a political party should disqualify them from being appointed to the judiciary at any level.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You suggest that partisanship influences opinions?
I'm shocked....shocked, I tell you!

Perhaps Trump's prosecution would signal a sea change,
by making acceptable prosecuting high officials for crimes.
This would be a welcome change.
I wonder if Clinton would evade prosecution due to time
limitation? One can hope that Trump would share a small
cell with Bill. I'd expect an interesting relationship.

They do not even share a vocabulary or level of intelligence.
So communication would be minimal.
However they do share a similar addiction for women.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And the current shambles of a government is bringing in a Bill to limit judicial reviews. Can't have the government being held to account.

- Judicial review: Plan to reform scrutiny by courts revealed

- Restricting judicial review will undermine democracy, panel told

Absolutely... this is an attempt by the Tory Party to avoid having their policies scrutinised when they are questioned as to their legality.,
Fortunately such a law change is easily reversible by an incoming government. It might even be reversed by the Supreme court if deemed outside the government's constitutional powers.,