Congrats on posting the stupid thing in this forum this week!

I don't know what this means. Scalia is dead and no longer on the court. Dershowitz is at least alive, though he has essentially no credibility beyond being a right wing TV news character.

Uh, what? It's a "dissent", not a dissention, and that's not ironic. A prediction coming true is the exact opposite of irony. Also, lol this faux-intellectual ", no?" rhetorical trick the MAGA chuds like to use. Just write like a normal ****ing person.

LOL wow right after trying a ****tier version of this insane gotcha with Qatar you've sure got me here. Anyone who ever prefers the side that won the court case to the side that lost is, obviously, endorsing all court case victors ever. That's just logic.


P.S. Again, again, maybe pump the breaks on the civil war **** until your side stops throwing temper tantrums about their beloved statues of slaveholders being moved or taken down. We all know where each of us would've ended up if this was 1860.

I agree - trying to follow Liberal logic does make one pretty stupid.

You were the one who Lol'ed at me pointing to a dissent, which just so happened to originate from a prescient and poignant legal scholar. When Scalia dissents, those who are wise take notice. I was just reminding you that laughing at those predictions, particularly when they come true seems to be foolhardy. Your rebuttals prove my point.

lol

A what? A legal scholar who evokes a sense of sadness?

Did you read the dissent or do you just have nothing? I'm guessing not since you probably support legislating from the bench, which will be good when the court goes 6-3 Conservative after Ruth's retirement.

Unlike some other Justices, Scalia knows how to read the Constitution instead of just making it up.

It takes a special kind of conservative to argue a victory based on a case where the side he's arguing lost 7-1.

fat boy DID love to compare everything to food, didn't he.

you can say the same about every single crime that's ever been committed that requires intent. are we mind readers? can we really commit this guy for murder 1? sure, he shot the guy in a drive-by style chain of events, but he SAYS he was on the other end of town for which he had no business otherwise to grab a slushy and THOUGHT that the victim was pulling a gun on him, so really it was self defense. don't mind the fact that the guy in question owed him life changing money.

WE CANT READ MINDS BRO!


What are words even, when you think about it? How can we claim to know anything in life? What if his name isn't even Donald? Just get over the russia case, I'm sure there's nothing there... he's operated himself with such integrity over his life, I can't imagine why someone wouldn't take him at his word when all the suspicious activity starts piling up. MAGA!!!

Scalia is dead. And when he was alive he was an ignorant and despicable jerk. And your acquaintance with the English language is laughably poor. 'Poignant' doesn't mean what you think it means. You made the same mistake as Marn, who poses as someone not possessing English as a first language.

The dissent is the side that lost, Jiggy.

What? You're claiming that there's some sort of unique-to-the-President immunity from obstruction of justice based on a 78 year old crank who doesn't really even practice law anymore and a dissent. Which, lol never thinking ahead, you're kind of admitting that he obstructed justice there.

Not the ideal line the "drain the swamp" team might want to make, that the President is allowed to cover up crimes.

Might have to re-post my nothingburger meme shortly.

Like this is the harvest that studiously chasing out all the intellectuals has gotten, the GOP has trained people to just come up with some bull**** because that's good enough, and now we have all sorts of contradictory lines here.

Comey is lying.
Comey vindicated Trump by saying he didn't ask him to drop the Flynn investigation.
Trump did ask Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, but he's allowed to do that.
The real story is the leaks.

It's all just incoherent nonsense because the bar as been set at "contradict them smug college boy libtards" for so long you've all deluded yourself into believing that actually knowing what the **** you're talking about is impossible.

.

Since the meme is intended to satirise Republicans who handwave away any sign of corruption in the Trump administration, it's not clear what you, as a Trump supporter, mean by repeatedly posting it.

I'm curious about your answer to this question still:

Your question was answered - "If you like your healthplan..."

You, with the applesauce logic again. Do you even read what you post?

Giving your subordinate a legitimate order is not obstruction of justice. By your logic, ordering military personnel to kill someone would make a President guilty of murder. If the President is not under investigation, then using his prosecutorial discretion as the country's Chief Executive Officer is not obstruction of justice.

Let me ask you - does the President have the authority to decide who to prosecute? Think carefully before you answer.

And the dissent is no longer relevant consider the LAW EXPIRED (vindicating the dissenter) - why is this so difficult for you to understand??

On the contrary, it satirizes leftists who continually support conspiracy theories without evidence, e.g. Russian collusion, and try to shout down Trump supporters who disagree.

The Comey testimony similarly was supposed to be a big "gotcha" and turned out to be nothing of the sort. i.e. it was a nothingburger.

I was actually asking BroadwaySushy, not you.

Boy is there a lot of stupid in this post.

Nope.

Nixon was innocent! #FreeNixon

If Congress chooses to let a law that SCOTUS found to be constitutional expire, that doesn't all of a sudden mean the law is actually unconstitutional or that the one justice out of eight who thought it was unconstitutional is all of a sudden correct. It means Congress decided to let the law expire. What on earth kind of logic is this?

It's charming that you imagine that.

was this really a lie tho? I mean, did obama actually know that people would not be able to keep their plan and he said it anyway? or did obama have every intention of allowing ppl to keep their plans and attempted in every reasonable way to fulfill that?

Does that invalidate my response?

It was Politifact's 2013 "Lie of the Year".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-plan-keep-it/

"Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" when seeking re-election last year."

Of course Obama knew. To be fair, politics is persuasion. I'd sooner ask for a Unicorn than an 100% honest politician - I'd be less disappointed.