Why Is Trump Now Going After Good Ole Racist Boy Jeff Sessions

[grean]

Originally Posted by garhkal

OR Scouts Kagen and Ginsburg recuse themselves from any of those "gay marriage rights" cases, when BOTH HAVE precided over gay marriages/?

Had they been asked to precide and declined to do so because they oppose gay marriage, would that not also prove bias?

Justices all have political leanings. In fact, divided cases are already decided by one justice. We can almost with certainty know how Thomas or Ginsburg will vote on some of those. Should all judges permanently recuse themselves from almost every case?

You really don't want them to recuse themselves unles's there is a very very good reason. Here is why.


Justices perform wedding ceremonies on occasion. If Roberts or Thomas precided over heterosexual marriages but then refused to precede over a homosexual marriage, would that not also show bias?

If they were then forced to recuse themselves because of that, every conservative judge would be targeted and setup to be forced to recuse themselves because they refused to precide over a gay marriage. Then the liberal judges would only be left to decide cases over LGBT issues.

[grean]

Jeff Sessions recused himself because he would be essentially investigating himself.

I highly doubt Sessions did anything inappropriate with the Russians. I really doubt the Russians would be ballsy enough to discuss anything like tampering with our elections with Sessions.

He may be racist. He definitely hates the Clintons.

I dont believe he'd sell out the country to Russia.

Allegations were made, however. It just looks better if nothing else.

[bamscram]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...s-into-ag.html

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Old T.. Why is it dumb?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Because he doesn't agree with it.

That's the Liberal's standard grade school playground response.

Garhkal, you really need it spelled out for you? I was actually giving you a modicum of credit--maybe I overestimated you. As grean pointed out, if you want justices to recuse themselves because they presided at a gay wedding, then those who presided at heterosexual weddings should also recuse themselves. After all, the issue at hand was whether gay marriages should have the same standing as heterosexual ones. Then there would be very few justices left to decide--but what you really want is to eliminate anyone who would not vote as you wish them to.

But I strongly suspect that point of yours was not made in seriousness, but rather the all too oft regurgitated bilge water that RWWs are constantly using to defend Trump: "Well Obama did something bad, so why are you complaining about Trump?" Kind of like the LWWs mantra excuse of "Well, Bush did something bad, so why are you complaining about Obama?"

And LL, well he has such a myopic view of life that he is quite willing to attack most anything I say, and only afterwards maybe read it.

Originally Posted by grean

Had they been asked to precide and declined to do so because they oppose gay marriage, would that not also prove bias?

Justices all have political leanings. In fact, divided cases are already decided by one justice. We can almost with certainty know how Thomas or Ginsburg will vote on some of those. Should all judges permanently recuse themselves from almost every case?

You really don't want them to recuse themselves unles's there is a very very good reason. Here is why.

Justices perform wedding ceremonies on occasion. If Roberts or Thomas presided over heterosexual marriages but then refused to precede over a homosexual marriage, would that not also show bias?

If they were then forced to recuse themselves because of that, every conservative judge would be targeted and setup to be forced to recuse themselves because they refused to preside over a gay marriage. Then the liberal judges would only be left to decide cases over LGBT issues.

And as an exercise in honesty, Gar, ( yes, I know, many of the Wackos on here don't actually believe in that word) go look through this and almost every other thread on this forum. Calling your point "dumb" you find offensive and insulting, but the homophobic, excrement intensive, sewer laced diatribes are perfectly fine to you? The IBHomophobe speech is just cool by you since it is directed at others, but you poor little feelings are hurt by a scandalous term like "dumb"? Or Yssup's XXXX-rated guy-on-guy running commentary? As I said, you really need a refresher on the word "honest".

LL does too, but I suspect he might be beyond hope on that one.

[I B Hankering]

You're an illiterate drunkard, Old-THUMPER. That your inebriated ass can misrepresent a detailed analysis -- actually directed at puke green -- of Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predators' attempt to subvert justice as a "homophobic rant" aimed at someone else illustrates just how much you are into your fucking cups, Old-THUMPER.

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're an illiterate drunkard, Old-THUMPER. That your inebriated ass can misrepresent a detailed analysis -- actually directed at puke green -- of Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predators' attempt to subvert justice as a "homophobic rant" aimed at someone else illustrates just how much you are into your fucking cups, Old-THUMPER.

OK.

I'll play.

What details am I misrepresenting?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're an illiterate drunkard, Old-THUMPER. That your inebriated ass can misrepresent a detailed analysis -- actually directed at puke green -- of Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predators' attempt to subvert justice as a "homophobic rant" aimed at someone else illustrates just how much you are into your fucking cups, Old-THUMPER.

Your reading comprehension is slipping IB.

I was not commenting on your comments on grean's comments.

Garhkal got massively insulted that I called one of his post "dumb". I was pointing out that in the standards of this forum, calling someone's thought "dumb" is not an insult--certainly not when viewed in the light of yours and Yssup's exceedingly long list of homosexual and excrement diatribes. It was a general comparison, not pointing at any specific post of yours or Y's.

And please don't try and convince us that you don't use those kinds of negative comments in many of your posts.

PS: Do you have an automated word search constantly going on to find when I mention you? Just curious.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

OK.

I'll play.

What details am I misrepresenting?

Explained to you @ #17, puke green.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Your reading comprehension is slipping IB.

I was not commenting on your comments on grean's comments.

Garhkal got massively insulted that I called one of his post "dumb". I was pointing out that in the standards of this forum, calling someone's thought "dumb" is not an insult--certainly not when viewed in the light of yours and Yssup's exceedingly long list of homosexual and excrement diatribes. It was a general comparison, not pointing at any specific post of yours or Y's.

And please don't try and convince us that you don't use those kinds of negative comments in many of your posts.

PS: Do you have an automated word search constantly going on to find when I mention you? Just curious.

No, Old-THUMPER, because nowhere in this thread is there such an exchange as you describe, you drunk and lyin' SOB.

[Old-T]

Typical IBChangeTheRulesToFitHisArgume nt.
I pointed to the two of you as long-standing-VOLUMINOUS posters in this forum. Which you both are.

You have pulled quotes from one threaqd to make an argument in a different thread, but now you call FOUL when I refer to your general thread-presence.

Typical IBHypocrite. Allowable for you, but not for those who disagree with you.

Well done IB--but no surprise at all. It is who you are.

---------------------------------
Example for comparison:

My post: "Your second point is dumb"

Your post from a few minutes ago: "Did your miscreant ass ever apologize for electing Odumbo or fielding hildebeest as a presidential candidate, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM?

Go fuck yourself, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM."

So I think my point that your post is far more insulting than mine is blatantly true. Do you deny it?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

[I]Typical IBChangeTheRulesToFitHisArgume nt.
I pointed to the two of you as long-standing-VOLUMINOUS posters in this forum. Which you both are.

You have pulled quotes from one threaqd to make an argument in a different thread, but now you call FOUL when I refer to your general thread-presence.

Typical IBHypocrite. Allowable for you, but not for those who disagree with you.

Well done IB--but no surprise at all. It is who you are.

---------------------------------
Example for comparison:

My post: "Your second point is dumb"

Your post from a few minutes ago: So I think my point that your post is far more insulting than mine is blatantly true. Do you deny it?

That wasn't in this thread as you lying implied in your original post, was it, Old-THUMPER, nor does it include all of the niceties you lyingly attributed to it, you hypocritical, lying and drunk SOB.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by grean

Had they been asked to precide and declined to do so because they oppose gay marriage, would that not also prove bias?

Yes it would have shown willful bias...

Originally Posted by grean

Justices perform wedding ceremonies on occasion. If Roberts or Thomas precided over heterosexual marriages but then refused to precede over a homosexual marriage, would that not also show bias?

Yes it would have.. And you can bet had any of the conservative ones DID that, the left would have been screaming that they should have recused themselves..

Garhkal, you really need it spelled out for you? I was actually giving you a modicum of credit--maybe I overestimated you. As grean pointed out, if you want justices to recuse themselves because they presided at a gay wedding, then those who presided at heterosexual weddings should also recuse themselves. After all, the issue at hand was whether gay marriages should have the same standing as heterosexual ones. Then there would be very few justices left to decide--but what you really want is to eliminate anyone who would not vote as you wish them to.

Old-T, i agree HAD any of those other jutices have shown a willful bias on that case, by ONLY preciding over straight, not gay marriages, AS I SAID ABOVE, they should have recused themselves for showing willful bias..

And as an exercise in honesty, Gar, ( yes, I know, many of the Wackos on here don't actually believe in that word) go look through this and almost every other thread on this forum. Calling your point "dumb" you find offensive and insulting, but the homophobic, excrement intensive, sewer laced diatribes are perfectly fine to you? The IBHomophobe speech is just cool by you since it is directed at others, but you poor little feelings are hurt by a scandalous term like "dumb"? Or Yssup's XXXX-rated guy-on-guy running commentary? As I said, you really need a refresher on the word "honest".

Actually no, i can't STAND all the explitive laced, virtuol i see on this site, and wonder WHY the mods keep seeming to let it all slide...

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by grean

Justices perform wedding ceremonies on occasion. If Roberts or Thomas precided (sic) over heterosexual marriages but then refused to precede (sic) over a homosexual marriage, would that not also show bias?

No, it wouldn't. Before same-sex marriage was legal, any such ceremony was not legally binding or enforceable. Roberts or Thomas could have simply declined for that reason, without showing bias.

Will you dumbasses learn how to spell? The word is "presided" - not "precided" or "preceded"!

[R.M.]

Where did that ass hat OP run off to?