search results matching tag: Justice

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (809)     Sift Talk (47)     Blogs (44)     Comments (1000)   

Let's talk about Republican reaction to the SCOTUS leak....

newtboy says...

You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that if you lie or intentionally mislead under oath, even to congress, it’s perjury.
You also don’t need to be a lawyer to know that 99.9% of undeniably proven perjury isn’t prosecuted.
I’m not a lawyer, but I grew up surrounded by lawyers and judges in the immediate family. Grandfather, uncle, and 3 cousins were lawyers, 2 of them judges….all Republicans btw. I’m no stranger to the law, thanks.
Trump lied on every question he answered under oath and nothing….but justices are SUPPOSED to be above reproach, no longer true.


(Edit; it bears noting, the petitioners claimed “ The legislature (not scientists or doctors) then found that at five or six weeks’ gestational age an unborn human beings heart begins beating“. But reality and science say “ the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week” meaning it’s not a heart until 20 weeks in, so can’t possibly be a heart beating 14 weeks before there’s a heart…it’s a muscle cluster pulse, not a heartbeat anymore than a spark plug test firing is a running car.)

Did every justice in that 1954 Supreme Court say in their confirmation hearings under oath that Plessy was settled, reaffirmed precedent they respected? Was Plessy repeatedly challenged and upheld by multiple supreme courts? If not, I call red herring.

Your intentional pedantry is tiresome and uninteresting. Enjoy your beliefs. Bye Felicia.

dogboy49 said:

Your opinion about perjury duly noted. I assume that you are a lawyer, and know exactly what you are talking about. Since all of their testimony is public record, shall I expect to see the appropriate prosecutor convening a grand jury to address this crime?

Your other opinion as to "how it works" is also duly noted. I guess SCOTUS should not have overruled Plessy vs Ferguson (decided in 1896) when they heard Brown vs Board of Education (1954).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Let's talk about Republican reaction to the SCOTUS leak....

newtboy says...

Perhaps I should have paraphrased, because you’re correct, they didn’t say exactly those words…mea culpa…, they did all say it was settled law and established and repeatedly reaffirmed Supreme Court precedent that they respected as such…. https://videosift.com/video/They-All-Lied ….which has clearly the same meaning.

Red herrings, justices didn’t answer questions about those issues back then, so never insisted they respected and accepted those laws as settled precedent, these were asked and they answered, with lies, that’s perjury.

Historically they do restrict themselves based on previous SUPREME COURT decisions, which this was. I guess you believe nothing is settled law or overriding precedent then, all laws are up for grabs based on the current courts whims and nothing more. So you believe Muslims can now be banned from the country, women and non whites no longer get to vote, any law not in the constitution is in peril.

That’s just not how it works.

I have no hope women would be smart enough to follow through….especially red state women. Women in the 2020’s don’t have the spine or attention span women in the 1920’s had.

dogboy49 said:

I don't recall any SCOTUS nominee ever stating outright that Roe "...would not be overturned by me..." during their confirmation hearings. My memory says that they all refused to limit their discretion as to what their decisions would be in any new case. Citation?

Prohibition of same-sex marriage was once "settled law" - until it wasn't. "Settled law" in the end only acts as a restriction on lower courts. The fact of the matter is that the Supremes can decide any issue in any way they deem fit, regardless of precedents set in any previous Federal cases.

Good luck with your "sex strike". Maybe that will solve the population problem to which you refer.

Teachers Sabotage Don’t Say Gay Law By Following It

newtboy says...

Way to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia despite all studies showing the opposite is true.

https://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_molestation.html
https://psmag.com/social-justice/do-gay-men-have-more-sexual-interest-in-children-than-straight-men-do-62127

Because I know you won't read either study, let me quote....
"Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1." If homosexuals were even equal in child molesting, that would be closer to 9:1.
I guess you now agree that heterosexual teachers shouldn't be in the classroom because they are more likely to be child molesters, because scientific fact overrides prejudicial opinion.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Already proven that Trump tampered with the official call log in the whitehouse because phone calls on record to senators from the whitehouse, on their official call logs from the WH number, we’re not on the call log Trump’s team turned over (with 7 hours of calls erased).
Proven within days to be a fraud, obstruction of justice, and creating a false government record for the purposes of court.

This is you guy. This is you pick?

Yeah yeah, I know….”BUT HUNTER” you say. Sorry buddy, Hunter isn’t in the government, doesn’t work for the president, and is a private citizen, so keep going after uninvolved children of politicians, it doesn’t tarnish Joe one bit, and so far hasn’t produced anything against him, only baseless accusations that he might have used daddy’s position for personal gain, not something the Trumps want criminalized to be sure, since we have the recordings of them doing exactly that.

Unlike the Trump crime family that absolutely took in hundreds of millions in gifts and sweetheart deals from (hostile) foreign nations while working for the administration and during trade negotiations they were involved directly in….that’s normally called bribery, and it’s not a guess or fantasy, it’s public record….and they did work for the government in as nepotistic a way as possible.

Last Week in the Republican Party

newtboy says...

I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. 😉
Democrats have failed at some decent legislation because Republicans think “just say no” works for drugs and Legislating, it’s the Republican platform….and it’s a losing one.
There is no actual platform, they have no plans, no accomplishments. Only sedition, comforting our enemies, obstruction of legislation and justice, insanity and lies, praising Putin, and attacking each other for not cowtowing to Trump enough.

The Republican Party is too busy calling each other RINOs and crazy morons to campaign, and Republican voters are disillusioned again and will likely not vote. Those that do will be split between feculent and dishonest but sane old school candidates and the Trump/“freedom caucus” bat shit crazy nonsense candidates. They have no issues to campaign on thanks to Trump who made them the party of spend and spend. Economic superiority is now a Democratic trait, as is standing up to our enemies instead of cuddling up to them. What, besides “we aren’t liberals” do Republicans have left?

Not to mention the growing number of sitting representatives who are being made incapable of or disqualified from holding office by being convicted of felonies and/or giving aid and comfort to enemies of America…. Republican Congressman Jeff Fortenberry for instance, found guilty Thursday of 3 felonies and facing 15 years in prison. He’s still in office…an incumbent that’s going to have a hard time keeping his seat. Green too, being seriously challenged on being fit for office under the 14th amendment thanks to her support for sedition along with 6 others. Suddenly Republicans hate the constitution and want much of it abolished.

Also, Republican support by independents, the group that let Trump only lose the popular vote by 3million, no longer supports Republicans. Mid terms will be interesting, but a Trump in the whitehouse? Keep dreaming the national nightmare…ain’t gonna happen. It’s likely to be another Red tsunami like 2018, but never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter, anything could happen.

eoe said:

I don't think you've been paying attention. Democrats have been failing at all attempts at decent legislation. A lot of the progressive democrats are disillusioned (again) and will likely not vote. I'm guessing there's gunna be a Republican sweep and possibly even Trump in office in 2024.

Captured Russian Admits Everything They Were Told Are Lies

cloudballoon says...

Coming up next: Putin claims this is an Ukrainian propaganda video forcing a confession under duress/a staged act or whatever hell Putin want to say it is, and most of the old gen Russians will believe him.

Meanwhile, the Blues in America keep on gaslighting POC victims into false statements to keep as many of them in jail to the detriment of the victims, tax-payers, the justice system, and society-at-large, while criminals still walk free and private correctional services providers make a killing.

It's all the same trick of the trade.

Jury Finds Kim Potter Guilty Of Manslaughter

newtboy says...

What she did was a true injustice.
Her convictions are only justice if she gets the maximum 15 years in gen pop. That’s still only 10 years in prison (or less) before parole for killing a kid.
She had a greater duty of care than a normal citizen, abused her authority, and caused a great danger to bystanders (the passenger, other officers, and civilians on the busy street), so if anyone does, she deserves the maximum sentence if not an upward departure from sentencing guidelines for extenuating circumstances (meaning more than 15 years).

Jury Finds Kim Potter Guilty Of Manslaughter

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

What did I tell you!?! States rights! Suckers! Bwaaaahahahahaha!

“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place,” Newsom said. “But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.” Newsom said he will work with his staff, the Legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to craft a bill that would let citizens sue anyone who “manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” in California. They could seek damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees, Newsom said.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article256524466.html#storylink=cpy

I told you this would happen.

BTW, the Presidential coup Plan PowerPoint handed over by Meadows pretty much obliterated the lies that 1) it wasn’t an attempted coup 2) it wasn’t expected 3) it wasn’t planned 4) it wasn’t Trump supporters being violent and 5) the white house wasn’t directly involved.
Contemporaneous records of the planning, including texts to organizers and militias claiming that the national guard is poised to protect Trump rioters from arrest or attack….as if any non cultist needed more evidence beyond the live broadcast of the coup attempt, but now there’s publicly available physical documentation/evidence directly from the highest levels in Trump’s cabinet of their own direct involvement in the planning to overturn the certified election by fraud and force.….which I’m certain you will dismiss as fake news with no hint of evidence because your little brain can’t handle facts.

the PowerPoint laid out a plan to effectively use the military to steal the election outright, undeniably. That’s treason.

The plan was to use the military, specifically the national guard, declare a state of emergency, throw out most of the ballots from the 2020 election, and then have the national guard run by people that Trump handpicked himself count only the paper ballots that they deemed to be legitimate. essentially giving them a free ride to throw out any ballots that were for Biden. Only count the ones for Trump and boom, Donald Trump gets all the electoral votes. That's how the coup was supposed to happen. So again, these lawmakers were briefed on this two days before the capital riot. So they knew exactly what Donald Trump was trying to do, what his administration, what his friends, what his allies had suggested to him. There is no indication at all that one of these lawmakers alerted the department of justice, the FBI, local authorities, anyone, they had this information and they did nothing with it.

Any official who knew and didn’t report to the FBI or DOJ should be removed immediately, get the firing squad, and their entire estate (and their spouses estate, and minor children’s estates) seized. That’s a lot of Republicans.

Also, Fox hosts, the same ones who now claim Jan 6 was a peaceful picnic, families calmly touring congress, and it was BLM and ANTIFA and the FBI that perpetrated the violence that didn’t happen, were all frantically trying to reach the president to stop the attack on January 6, outraged he wouldn’t tell his supporters to stop attacking America, explaining how not acting to stop the coup was destroying his legacy and theirs.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

dogboy49 says...

To me, the current crop of justices seem to be less willing to deviate from the Constitution as written. Should abortion be allowed? IMO, yes. BUT, are laws banning abortion unconstitutional? According to the Constitution as written and amended, probably not. Roe v Wade was written by a court that believed that abortion and the "right to privacy" should carry the weight of constitutional law, even though the Constitution is silent on these "rights".

My suggestion: If abortion should be considered to be a "right", then so amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be subject to the vagaries of "interpretation" forever.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Unpack the court, it’s packed with unqualified fraudulent unscrupulous appointments now.

Democrats hold control now, and can make the court have as many seats as they like. Shitty, but those are the rules…rules they should change as soon as they take advantage of them. Not unconstitutional. No whining like you normally do….like you are now….crybaby.

Not holding a hearing when the constitution says they “shall”, not they “may choose not to until their party makes the nomination”, is unconstitutional and not following the “rules”, on top of being hypocritical, unethical, and immoral. He wasn’t denied the position by vote, like Bork, he was denied the constitutionally required hearing and vote he was constitutionally guaranteed.

Left of center, yes, but centrists. You clearly don’t know what that means. Holy shit.
Rabid leftists? far from it. You can’t say the same for the right leaners, they are extremist far right wing activist judges, out of touch with the majority of the country and the law. One is a blatant unapologetic rapist, another a dishonest religious zealot with no judicial experience.
I didn’t expect a respected serious jurist like RGB, but didn’t expect people less respectable and less serious than ODB.

I overstate! LMFAHS!! Hilarious coming from the bombastic liar completely divorced from reality that overstates everything that he doesn’t just completely make up.
If overstating everything, desperate to prove himself at every instance makes one a miserable poser and a child looking for approval, why are you so in love with and a zealous follower of a desperate miserable poser child begging for approval, namely Trump?
🤦‍♂️

I must have hit a real nerve to get you this triggered, Snowflake. Whine like a spoiled little girl some more, bobby. Your Trumpist tears are delicious….and your broken English blather makes an entertaining, if fact free, read.

Edit: more good news for ya….the DC appellate court just ruled unanimously that Trump has no say in the release of White House documents surrounding Jan 6 (or any others). The unanimous ruling makes it unlikely the Supreme Court will even consider it. We’re going to see what he’s so terrified will come to light, his complicity in the attempted coup, and exactly what he expected to come from it. Hint, it’s not what he’s been telling you.
Oh, and it sounds like there may be more obstruction of justice investigations since Trump admitted he fired Comey to derail the investigation, and if he hadn’t he would have been convicted and removed from office. His words. Not smart to admit on the air.
Aaaaaand, the full, unedited by Barr, Mueller report may be released soon. The one the investigators wrote before the one they released, including all their findings that Barr apparently refused to accept, allegedly containing lots of never before released findings, charges,evidence, and information. A FOIA request prompted the DOJ to begin vetting it for classified info, should be ready mid February. Not good for a Trump comeback, or Republican mid terms. D’oh! Don’t cry….don’t cry.

bobknight33 said:

You bitch like a little girl.
Now you want to stack the court?


Republicans had control and Garlend was denied. Those are the rules, as shitty as they are.

Shitty but not un Constitutional.

Sotomayor and Kagan are centrist in your eyes but left of center in everyone else eyes.

Kavenaugh and Barrett are conservatives. You hoped for an RGB?

The left held the majority for quite a while and now doesn't.



We all know you over state everything trying to be some beacon of knowledge light.

You just a miserable poser, desperately to prove yourself at every instance.


Do you want a cookie for your efforts? You a child just looking for approval.

News Fails to Ask WHY Police Seized $100K From Traveler

bobknight33 says...

from Asset Forfeiture
Policy Manual 2021


I. Guidelines for Planning for Seizure and Restraint
A. Background
The Department of Justice (Department) Asset Forfeiture Program (Program) encompasses the
seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal
crimes. The Program has four primary goals:
(1) Punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used in or acquired
through illegal activities.
(2) Promote and enhance cooperation among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
(3) Recover assets that may be used to compensate victims when authorized under federal law.
(4) Ensure that the Program is administered professionally, lawfully, and in a manner consistent
with sound public policy

II. Payment of Attorneys’ Fees in Criminal Forfeiture Cases
A. Defendant’s attorneys’ fees
The defendant in a criminal forfeiture action may file for an award of attorneys’ fees only under
the Hyde Amendment.4 A motion for fees and costs filed in a civil forfeiture case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2465(b) cannot include fees and costs incurred in even a directly related criminal proceeding.5
To prevail on a Hyde Amendment claim, the defendant must prove that: (1) the defendant was the
prevailing party in the underlying action; (2) the government’s position was vexatious, frivolous, or in
bad faith; and (3) there are no special circumstances that would make the award unjust.6
This burden
is heavier than the one the government must meet under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

bobknight33 said:

To say that Republicans are politicizing the supreme court is nonsense. Democrats pick left leaning and Republicans pick right leaning. This is not new. Where were your complaints of politicizing when Sotomayor or Kagen were appointed?

But if you want to go there it started with Senator Ted Kennedy within minutes of Bork being picked by POTUS Reagen to be appointed took to the floor of the senate and thrown down the gauntlet.


They may be lean more conservative today however Its been leaning left last 50 years.

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

Terry Pratchett on Why we need to believe in things...

vil says...

I saw this whole movie and its not bad.

The books are great.

You have to believe in something to have a goal in life but you need to pick well.

Justice and mercy (opposites in a way, no?) are IMHO good things to hope for, hoping to prove election fraud is like praying your neighbors goat should die. Morals and politics are a personal choice. Morals are what you hope to be and politics are what you hope the world around you will be.

Pratchett does a good job explaining to kids that its how you change yourself is more important than how you change the world.

The universe offers entropy.

Terry Pratchett on Why we need to believe in things...



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon