ADVERTISEMENT

Trump 2024!

Valid points, except... you leave out the fact that she was slapped down early on by the 11th for her favorable-to-Trump (delaying tactics) rulings, not once but twice. That's given rise to the narrative that she's either in over her head or is giving the defense every benefit of the doubt no matter how ludicrous. Her giving credence to the use of the PRA as a legitimate defense follows the same pattern, and further inflames those who questioned her competence and/or impartiality. Her refusal to decide on the PRA aspect until after double jeopardy applies is yet another reason that many think she's doing whatever it takes to tilt things in Trump's favor.
Doubt she’s over her head to that extent. As an attorney I hope is very much less qualified than she is to manage a federal trial, she’s missing uncontested layups. No way it’s inexperience or lack of competence to THAT degree.
 
Valid points, except... you leave out the fact that she was slapped down early on by the 11th for her favorable-to-Trump (delaying tactics) rulings, not once but twice. That's given rise to the narrative that she's either in over her head or is giving the defense every benefit of the doubt no matter how ludicrous. Her giving credence to the use of the PRA as a legitimate defense follows the same pattern, and further inflames those who questioned her competence and/or impartiality. Her refusal to decide on the PRA aspect until after double jeopardy applies is yet another reason that many think she's doing whatever it takes to tilt things in Trump's favor.
And I’m chalking up her mistakes (I can’t really comment on if they are mistakes other than that first injunction brought by Trump) to lack of guidance in settled law, inexperience on the bench, maybe some stupidity, and a mistrust of the government, not a desire to help Trump win his election or help his campaign.

I think that’s far more likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312
And I’m chalking up her mistakes (I can’t really comment on if they are mistakes other than that first injunction brought by Trump) to lack of guidance in settled law, inexperience on the bench, maybe some stupidity, and a mistrust of the government, not a desire to help Trump win his election or help his campaign.

I think that’s far more likely.
So in over her head? I'll buy that. In that case, she still needs to go. This needs to be done right.
 
Smith can’t. Shitty rulings doesn’t get a judge removed. Conflict extrajudicial bias illegal conduct. Not following the law won’t even do it. Watch

It sounds like it would be a long shot, but not an impossibility. The talking heads on the Kommie channels and the Kommie stations and the Kommie rags seem to think the 11th might yank her if Smith can get the PRA question in front of them and they find it as ludicrous as it sounds like it is to me. Worth a shot I suppose. It's not like she's going to treat the prosecution any worse if they piss her off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Smith can’t. Shitty rulings doesn’t get a judge removed. Conflict extrajudicial bias illegal conduct. Not following the law won’t even do it. Watch

It would be for a conflict. Having said that, she’s walking the line and it’s very unlikely she would get removed. Trump’s team has smartly asked for some things they don’t care about to give her a chance to rule against him for purposes of laymen perception.
 
Valid points, except... you leave out the fact that she was slapped down early on by the 11th for her favorable-to-Trump (delaying tactics) rulings, not once but twice. That's given rise to the narrative that she's either in over her head or is giving the defense every benefit of the doubt no matter how ludicrous. Her giving credence to the use of the PRA as a legitimate defense follows the same pattern, and further inflames those who questioned her competence and/or impartiality. Her refusal to decide on the PRA aspect until after double jeopardy applies is yet another reason that many think she's doing whatever it takes to tilt things in Trump's favor.
So if I understand this correctly, you are an unqualified hack, who is not a lawyer and are extremely partial to get Trump at ANY COST, who gets all their opinions from Kommie talking heads, is worried that the judge is not impartial and not doing what you want to happen.
Is that the unclemark clift notes?
 
So if I understand this correctly, you are an unqualified hack, who is not a lawyer and are extremely partial to get Trump at ANY COST, who gets all their opinions from Kommie talking heads, is worried that the judge is not impartial and not doing what you want to happen.
Is that the unclemark clift notes?

That's dead on.
 
So if I understand this correctly, you are an unqualified hack, who is not a lawyer and are extremely partial to get Trump at ANY COST, who gets all their opinions from Kommie talking heads, is worried that the judge is not impartial and not doing what you want to happen.
Is that the unclemark clift notes?
I particularly enjoy it when he bitches about the judge and the possibility she's not impartial.

Meanwhile, another Judge's daughter is raising $93 million for the Democrat Party and not a word about it from him.

Fascinating.
 
I particularly enjoy it when he bitches about the judge and the possibility she's not impartial.

Meanwhile, another Judge's daughter is raising $93 million for the Democrat Party and not a word about it from him.

Fascinating.
Ginni Thomas approves this message.
 
Ginni Thomas approves this message.
How many more trips will Sotomayor have to add that she didn't report?

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
How many more trips will Sotomayor have to add that she didn't report?

I'm no fan of Sotomayor and I like Thomas, and have defended him many times, but this attempt to defend him by attacking Sotomayor is pathetic and weak. She got "Transportation, Lodging and Meals." These weren't private yacht cruises or expensive vacations; it was more of exactly the same things she disclosed on her original FDR. She spoke and participated in moot courts at various universities. They're exactly the kind of law related things you'd expect a Supreme Court Justice to participate in.

You remain a bad faith poster who will try anything to defend what you perceive to be your side - and it doesn't matter how weak, misguided or false your defense is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I'm no fan of Sotomayor and I like Thomas, and have defended him many times, but this attempt to defend him by attacking Sotomayor is pathetic and weak. She got "Transportation, Lodging and Meals." These weren't private yacht cruises or expensive vacations; it was more of exactly the same things she disclosed on her original FDR. She spoke and participated in moot courts at various universities. They're exactly the kind of law related things you'd expect a Supreme Court Justice to participate in.

You remain a bad faith poster who will try anything to defend what you perceive to be your side - and it doesn't matter how weak, misguided or false your defense is.
Trumpers are big on false equivalencies. Probably because they are uneducated and dimwitted.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT