2023 SCOTUS Rulings

[BDKJMU]

alabama congressional map upheld 5-4 as unconstitutional

Good.

Thats a lot of zig amd zag, but there’s states with more zig zag than that.

[UNI88]

Good.

Thats a lot of zig amd zag, but there’s states with more zig zag than that.

Yes there are. The amount of zig and zag isn't the issue. It's the intentional placement of a large number of African Americans in one district and then spreading the remainder out across the remaining districts so that Blacks who make up 25+% of the state's population only have 14% (1/7) of the representation.

Donk states do the same thing to Conk voters but it's more difficult to demonstrate a racial impact.

Illinois went from 18 to 17 House seats. Donks redrew the map so that 2 Republican incumbents lived in the same district twice.



Yeah, that makes sense.

[BDKJMU]

Thats a lot of zig amd zag, but there’s states with more zig zag than that.

Yes there are. The amount of zig and zag isn't the issue. It's the intentional placement of a large number of African Americans in one district and then spreading the remainder out across the remaining districts so that Blacks who make up 25+% of the state's population only have 14% (1/7) of the representation.

Donk states do the same thing to Conk voters but it's more difficult to demonstrate a racial impact.

Illinois went from 18 to 17 House seats. Donks redrew the map so that 2 Republican incumbents lived in the same district twice.



Yeah, that makes sense.

So SCOTUS is saying Alabama need 2 black representatives?

[UNI88]

Yes there are. The amount of zig and zag isn't the issue. It's the intentional placement of a large number of African Americans in one district and then spreading the remainder out across the remaining districts so that Blacks who make up 25+% of the state's population only have 14% (1/7) of the representation.

Donk states do the same thing to Conk voters but it's more difficult to demonstrate a racial impact.

Illinois went from 18 to 17 House seats. Donks redrew the map so that 2 Republican incumbents lived in the same district twice.



Yeah, that makes sense.

So SCOTUS is saying Alabama need 2 black representatives?

No, it's not about having a guaranteed number of representatives. It's about having an opportunity to be represented which the state has taken away with how they gerrymandered the map.

The state was in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which ...

bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race. Voters and other groups went to court in 2021 to challenge Alabama’s redistricting map for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They argued that the map violated Section 2 by diluting the votes of the state’s Black residents, who make up 27% of the state’s population. Specifically, they said, the state’s new plan packed many Black voters into a single district in a part of central Alabama known as the “Black Belt,” while at the same time dispersing Black voters in the rest of the Black Belt into several other districts.
...
In a 34-page opinion by Roberts, the majority agreed with the challengers that the lower court had correctly applied the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, which outlines a three-part test to evaluate claims brought under Section 2, to reach its conclusion that the new map violated the VRA.

Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act

[kalm]

Sheldon Whitehouse has some questions regarding Alito’s PR piece in the WSJ…

[BDKJMU]

Unusual case here where you have the Biden admin along with 2 blue, 1 purple, & 1 red states aligning with the conservative majority.

…The high court determined by a 5-4 vote that a treaty signed more than 150 years ago did not require the federal government develop a plan to ensure the tribe had adequate water supplies.

“In short, the 1868 treaty did not impose a duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe — including the steps requested by the Navajos here, such as determining the water needs of the Tribe, providing an accounting, or developing a plan to secure the needed water,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissenting.

In the Navajo Treaty of 1868, the US government agreed to “‘set apart’ a reservation for the ‘use and occupation of the Navajo tribe.'”

Lawyers for the Navajo Nation argued this language amounted to assurances they would be provided with an ample water supply.

“The promise of a permanent home necessarily implies certain benefits for the Tribe (and certain responsibilities for the United States). One set of those benefits and responsibilities concerns water. This Court long ago recognized as much,” Gorsuch wrote in his dissent.

In the 1908 Winters v. United States case that Gorsuch referenced, the high court concluded that the establishment of a reservation implied tribes had certain water rights…

…Meanwhile, the Biden administration and allied states countered that a ruling in favor of the Navajo Nation could open a Pandora’s box leading to a bevy of lawsuits from other tribes with similar demands, or upend existing water agreements between states.…

https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/scotus-si ... ater-case/

…Navajo Nation has secured water rights to the San Juan River but its efforts to do the same with the Little Colorado River and the Lower Colorado River still hang in the balance…

….The Biden administration and the three states appealed the Supreme Court after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tribe in 2021, saying it could sue the government for an alleged failure to carry out its duties on behalf of the tribe.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna83584

[GannonFan]

Sheldon Whitehouse has some questions regarding Alito’s PR piece in the WSJ…

The day Sheldon Whitehouse doesn't have serious concerns about conservative conspiracies would be the same day the sun rises in the West and sets in the East. He's the liberal equivalent of BDK on here - always seeing nefarious things in whatever the other political side is doing. He may have been a bright guy when he started but his quarter century of political life have turned him into a bit of a kook. Maybe he realized after being able to make so many inside deals himself that it's possible there is a fair amount of corruption in political life?

[kalm]

Sheldon Whitehouse has some questions regarding Alito’s PR piece in the WSJ…

The day Sheldon Whitehouse doesn't have serious concerns about conservative conspiracies would be the same day the sun rises in the West and sets in the East. He's the liberal equivalent of BDK on here - always seeing nefarious things in whatever the other political side is doing. He may have been a bright guy when he started but his quarter century of political life have turned him into a bit of a kook. Maybe he realized after being able to make so many inside deals himself that it's possible there is a fair amount of corruption in political life?

He’s not the only one with concerns regarding Thomas and now Alito. The court has become a joke that props up the oligarchy.

[kalm]

Unusual case here where you have the Biden admin along with 2 blue, 1 purple, & 1 red states aligning with the conservative majority.

…The high court determined by a 5-4 vote that a treaty signed more than 150 years ago did not require the federal government develop a plan to ensure the tribe had adequate water supplies.

“In short, the 1868 treaty did not impose a duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe — including the steps requested by the Navajos here, such as determining the water needs of the Tribe, providing an accounting, or developing a plan to secure the needed water,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissenting.

In the Navajo Treaty of 1868, the US government agreed to “‘set apart’ a reservation for the ‘use and occupation of the Navajo tribe.'”

Lawyers for the Navajo Nation argued this language amounted to assurances they would be provided with an ample water supply.

“The promise of a permanent home necessarily implies certain benefits for the Tribe (and certain responsibilities for the United States). One set of those benefits and responsibilities concerns water. This Court long ago recognized as much,” Gorsuch wrote in his dissent.

In the 1908 Winters v. United States case that Gorsuch referenced, the high court concluded that the establishment of a reservation implied tribes had certain water rights…

…Meanwhile, the Biden administration and allied states countered that a ruling in favor of the Navajo Nation could open a Pandora’s box leading to a bevy of lawsuits from other tribes with similar demands, or upend existing water agreements between states.…

https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/scotus-si ... ater-case/

…Navajo Nation has secured water rights to the San Juan River but its efforts to do the same with the Little Colorado River and the Lower Colorado River still hang in the balance…

….The Biden administration and the three states appealed the Supreme Court after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tribe in 2021, saying it could sue the government for an alleged failure to carry out its duties on behalf of the tribe.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna83584

This is some serious bullshit. And nice argument by the admin. We fucked over the indians so many times as a country that it would be unfair if they all sought water rights. It’s too complicated! Argh!

[BDKJMU]

Biden admin gets 8-1 win on ICE removal enforcement. Stautus quo since 2021 remains.
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2023/06/2 ... ge-n765880

[GannonFan]

The day Sheldon Whitehouse doesn't have serious concerns about conservative conspiracies would be the same day the sun rises in the West and sets in the East. He's the liberal equivalent of BDK on here - always seeing nefarious things in whatever the other political side is doing. He may have been a bright guy when he started but his quarter century of political life have turned him into a bit of a kook. Maybe he realized after being able to make so many inside deals himself that it's possible there is a fair amount of corruption in political life?

He’s not the only one with concerns regarding Thomas and now Alito. The court has become a joke that props up the oligarchy.

Please, that's just your progressive talking point coming through. The Court isn't any fundamentally different in terms of how it operates and the integrity of the folks on it than it's been at any point in the past 50 years. People like you, however, who don't like certain decisions (e.g. Citizens, Heller, Dodd) have been on a fairly consistent crusade to discredit both the Court and the individuals on it going back at least as far as the Citizens decision. And hey, I get it, if you don't like something, try to lash out and get it changed, especially when the routine ways to get the Court changed (i.e. different justices) is a slow and uncertain process. That's why you have a President berate the Court in attendance during a SOU address, that's why you accuse potential justices of being serial gang rapists during confirmation hearings, and that's why you basically get an assassination attempt on a sitting judge pooh-poohed in the media as not really news worthy.

I agree that it's not a great look for the stuff that Thomas and Alito and Jackson, and probably others, did in the past that wasn't reported. But apparently with the change in reporting rules that's already happened those actions that happened years ago would be reportable now. And as far as I can see, there's not even the idea that any of these judges ruled differently in any cases due to these potential outside influences. But hey, in the face of not really having any evidence to turn to I certainly understand the glib response that you gave. For a post partisan you sure do follow the party line pretty well.

[kalm]

He’s not the only one with concerns regarding Thomas and now Alito. The court has become a joke that props up the oligarchy.

Please, that's just your progressive talking point coming through. The Court isn't any fundamentally different in terms of how it operates and the integrity of the folks on it than it's been at any point in the past 50 years. People like you, however, who don't like certain decisions (e.g. Citizens, Heller, Dodd) have been on a fairly consistent crusade to discredit both the Court and the individuals on it going back at least as far as the Citizens decision. And hey, I get it, if you don't like something, try to lash out and get it changed, especially when the routine ways to get the Court changed (i.e. different justices) is a slow and uncertain process. That's why you have a President berate the Court in attendance during a SOU address, that's why you accuse potential justices of being serial gang rapists during confirmation hearings, and that's why you basically get an assassination attempt on a sitting judge pooh-poohed in the media as not really news worthy.

I agree that it's not a great look for the stuff that Thomas and Alito and Jackson, and probably others, did in the past that wasn't reported. But apparently with the change in reporting rules that's already happened those actions that happened years ago would be reportable now. And as far as I can see, there's not even the idea that any of these judges ruled differently in any cases due to these potential outside influences. But hey, in the face of not really having any evidence to turn to I certainly understand the glib response that you gave. For a post partisan you sure do follow the party line pretty well.

Would you have accepted the bribes or at least reputed them? Or recused yourself from cases involving those who you’d recently received bribes from?

[UNI88]

Please, that's just your progressive talking point coming through. The Court isn't any fundamentally different in terms of how it operates and the integrity of the folks on it than it's been at any point in the past 50 years. People like you, however, who don't like certain decisions (e.g. Citizens, Heller, Dodd) have been on a fairly consistent crusade to discredit both the Court and the individuals on it going back at least as far as the Citizens decision. And hey, I get it, if you don't like something, try to lash out and get it changed, especially when the routine ways to get the Court changed (i.e. different justices) is a slow and uncertain process. That's why you have a President berate the Court in attendance during a SOU address, that's why you accuse potential justices of being serial gang rapists during confirmation hearings, and that's why you basically get an assassination attempt on a sitting judge pooh-poohed in the media as not really news worthy.

I agree that it's not a great look for the stuff that Thomas and Alito and Jackson, and probably others, did in the past that wasn't reported. But apparently with the change in reporting rules that's already happened those actions that happened years ago would be reportable now. And as far as I can see, there's not even the idea that any of these judges ruled differently in any cases due to these potential outside influences. But hey, in the face of not really having any evidence to turn to I certainly understand the glib response that you gave. For a post partisan you sure do follow the party line pretty well.

Would you have accepted the bribes or at least reputed them? Or recused yourself from cases involving those who you’d recently received bribes from?

We should ask the Big Guy what he thinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Would you have accepted the bribes or at least reputed them? Or recused yourself from cases involving those who you’d recently received bribes from?

We should ask the Big Guy what he thinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which big guy?

[kalm]

[UNI88]

We should ask the Big Guy what he thinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which big guy?

Hunter’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Which big guy?

Hunter’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How does that pertain to what Ganny and I are discussing?

[UNI88]

Hunter’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How does that pertain to what Ganny and I are discussing?

As usual, you are laser focused on what you perceive to be malfeasance by conservatives while you ignore, minimize or attempt to deflect attention away from possible illiberal malfeasance.

To paraphrase Ganny: it’s not a great look for the stuff that Hunter, the big guy and probably others, did in the past.

To paraphrase you: Would you have accepted the bribes or at least reputed them? Or recused yourself and your entire administration from cases involving those who you and/or your son had received bribes from?

Just pointing out that your double standard is extremely partisan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

How does that pertain to what Ganny and I are discussing?

As usual, you are laser focused on what you perceive to be malfeasance by conservatives while you ignore, minimize or attempt to deflect attention away from possible illiberal malfeasance.

To paraphrase Ganny: it’s not a great look for the stuff that Hunter, the big guy and probably others, did in the past.

To paraphrase you: Would you have accepted the bribes or at least reputed them? Or recused yourself and your entire administration from cases involving those who you and/or your son had received bribes from?

Just pointing out that your double standard is extremely partisan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a simple answer. No. I wouldn’t accept the bribes in either instance.

I would think I’ve been clear on both Hillary and Hunter that if they broke laws, fire away. If Big Guy is tied to the corruption go after that too. I don’t want any leader committing acts of corruption.

All of which has zero to do with the SCOTUS, especially considering its lifetime appointment status and seeming lack of oversight both internally and externally.

It’s amazing how many things like insurrections and overt public corruption are just meh…it’s no big deal, whatabouts.

With attitudes like that, we so deserve most of this. And yes, sweetheart, “this” includes both sides.

[UNI88]

As usual, you are laser focused on what you perceive to be malfeasance by conservatives while you ignore, minimize or attempt to deflect attention away from possible illiberal malfeasance.

To paraphrase Ganny: it’s not a great look for the stuff that Hunter, the big guy and probably others, did in the past.

To paraphrase you: Would you have accepted the bribes or at least reputed them? Or recused yourself and your entire administration from cases involving those who you and/or your son had received bribes from?

Just pointing out that your double standard is extremely partisan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a simple answer. No. I wouldn’t accept the bribes in either instance.

I would think I’ve been clear on both Hillary and Hunter that if they broke laws, fire away. If Big Guy is tied to the corruption go after that too. I don’t want any leader committing acts of corruption.

All of which has zero to do with the SCOTUS, especially considering its lifetime appointment status and seeming lack of oversight both internally and externally.

It’s amazing how many things like insurrections and overt public corruption are just meh…it’s no big deal, whatabouts.

With attitudes like that, we so deserve most of this. And yes, sweetheart, “this” includes both sides.

Do you have proof of this overt public corruption? What the SCOTUS justices did looks bad and shouldn’t be allowed but did it actually impact their rulings?

Which insurrections are meh and to who? January 6 or the AnTiFa riots?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

It’s a simple answer. No. I wouldn’t accept the bribes in either instance.

I would think I’ve been clear on both Hillary and Hunter that if they broke laws, fire away. If Big Guy is tied to the corruption go after that too. I don’t want any leader committing acts of corruption.

All of which has zero to do with the SCOTUS, especially considering its lifetime appointment status and seeming lack of oversight both internally and externally.

It’s amazing how many things like insurrections and overt public corruption are just meh…it’s no big deal, whatabouts.

With attitudes like that, we so deserve most of this. And yes, sweetheart, “this” includes both sides.

Do you have proof of this overt public corruption? What the SCOTUS justices did looks bad and shouldn’t be allowed but did it actually impact their rulings?

Which insurrections are meh and to who? January 6 or the AnTiFa riots?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds legit…

In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.

Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.


Get Our Top Investigations
Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.
Email address:

In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.

Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.

Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.

“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.

Justices are almost entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.

https://www.propublica.org/article/samu ... reme-court

Anti-fa? Worst insurrection ever! Didn’t even get close to breaching the capital!

[UNI88]

Do you have proof of this overt public corruption? What the SCOTUS justices did looks bad and shouldn’t be allowed but did it actually impact their rulings?

Which insurrections are meh and to who? January 6 or the AnTiFa riots?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds legit…

In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.

Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.


Get Our Top Investigations
Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.
Email address:

In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.

Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.

Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.

“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.

Justices are almost entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.

https://www.propublica.org/article/samu ... reme-court

Anti-fa? Worst insurrection ever! Didn’t even get close to breaching the capital!

And in true BDKian fashion you jump right to attempting to narrow the debate to parameters that support your partisan point of view.

When discussing corruption, let’s focus on conservative SCOTUS justices and forget about the POTUS and his son with a “yes they should be prosecuted if an investigation uncovers anything” while ignoring the possibility that investigations have been unethically stymied by supporters within the DoJ.

Regarding the AnTiFa fascists, no they didn’t reach the capital which is why you want to focus on that rather than the months of seditious behavior and attacks on other bastions of government authority such as federal courthouses, police stations, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Sounds legit…




https://www.propublica.org/article/samu ... reme-court

Anti-fa? Worst insurrection ever! Didn’t even get close to breaching the capital!

And in true BDKian fashion you jump right to attempting to narrow the debate to parameters that support your partisan point of view.

When discussing corruption, let’s focus on conservative SCOTUS justices and forget about the POTUS and his son with a “yes they should be prosecuted if an investigation uncovers anything” while ignoring the possibility that investigations have been unethically stymied by supporters within the DoJ.

Regarding the AnTiFa fascists, no they didn’t reach the capital which is why you want to focus on that rather than the months of seditious behavior and attacks on other bastions of government authority such as federal courthouses, police stations, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s an entire thread on Hunter. He’s been investigated by the DOJ and there’s an ongoing congressional investigation of Hunter and Joe.

If there are more facts tying it all together then we’ll see them. There are very few if any facts regarding the DOJ cover up that you allege. Just whistleblowers who haven’t panned out. It’s a conspiracy theory that conveniently hides something you have trouble with. That one party or one politician from one party can be worse/more criminal than the other in certain regards.

And nice dodge on SCOTUS corruption. It must be ok because it’s happened before and/or both sides do it.

That’s why it’s ok.

[UNI88]

And in true BDKian fashion you jump right to attempting to narrow the debate to parameters that support your partisan point of view.

When discussing corruption, let’s focus on conservative SCOTUS justices and forget about the POTUS and his son with a “yes they should be prosecuted if an investigation uncovers anything” while ignoring the possibility that investigations have been unethically stymied by supporters within the DoJ.

Regarding the AnTiFa fascists, no they didn’t reach the capital which is why you want to focus on that rather than the months of seditious behavior and attacks on other bastions of government authority such as federal courthouses, police stations, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s an entire thread on Hunter. He’s been investigated by the DOJ and there’s an ongoing congressional investigation of Hunter and Joe.

If there are more facts tying it all together then we’ll see them. There are very few if any facts regarding the DOJ cover up that you allege. Just whistleblowers who haven’t panned out. It’s a conspiracy theory that conveniently hides something you have trouble with. That one party or one politician from one party can be worse/more criminal than the other in certain regards.

And nice dodge on SCOTUS corruption. It must be ok because it’s happened before and/or both sides do it.

That’s why it’s ok.

I’m drawing parallels between your criticism of SCOTUS justices and conservative criticism of the Bidens.

I agree that what Alito and Thomas did was unethical but was it against the rules? It’s only fair that we apply similar logic and processes to how Alito and Thomas’ alleged transgressions are handled to how you want the Biden’s alleged transgressions handled. So their alleged transgressions should be investigated and steps taken using the rules and processes currently in place.

To be clear, potential issues with the DoJ are deeper than just this possible coverup. Suppressing the laptop story is also an element of concern and I’m sure there are more that aren’t popping into my head that should bother people. Clear thinking Americans who love their country should be just as bothered by Hunter’s Ukrainian and Chinese income as they are by Kushner’s Saudi income and SCOTUS "perks”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

There’s an entire thread on Hunter. He’s been investigated by the DOJ and there’s an ongoing congressional investigation of Hunter and Joe.

If there are more facts tying it all together then we’ll see them. There are very few if any facts regarding the DOJ cover up that you allege. Just whistleblowers who haven’t panned out. It’s a conspiracy theory that conveniently hides something you have trouble with. That one party or one politician from one party can be worse/more criminal than the other in certain regards.

And nice dodge on SCOTUS corruption. It must be ok because it’s happened before and/or both sides do it.

That’s why it’s ok.

I’m drawing parallels between your criticism of SCOTUS justices and conservative criticism of the Bidens.

I agree that what Alito and Thomas did was unethical but was it against the rules? It’s only fair that we apply similar logic and processes to how Alito and Thomas’ alleged transgressions are handled to how you want the Biden’s alleged transgressions handled. So their alleged transgressions should be investigated and steps taken using the rules and processes currently in place.

To be clear, potential issues with the DoJ are deeper than just this possible coverup. Suppressing the laptop story is also an element of concern and I’m sure there are more that aren’t popping into my head that should bother people. Clear thinking Americans who love their country should be just as bothered by Hunter’s Ukrainian and Chinese income as they are by Kushner’s Saudi income and SCOTUS "perks”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair. And good point on Kushner. It hasn’t received nearly enough attention. They both are at the very least unethical.

I’ll also remind that the DOJ isn’t some wildly left group. They probably if anything lean conservative. And I don’t believe the FBI has ever had a Democrat leading it.

Both are taking some serious criticism from the left as well.