this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
-1 points (45.5% liked)
conservative
941 readers
153 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Any conflict of interest? LOL you'd be hard pressed to find any politician that hasn't had some COI transactions.
That's why I asked you, tell me what case he's ruled on that he got bought off. I'm encouraging you to show me.
That's court cases from the 80's. How does that prove your point that our current SC is in the pocket of the rich?
You'd have to do more than show that sometimes the cases go against the 'marginalized' - you have to prove it's bad law. The SC is supposed to rule on if the law supports one side or not - it's not their place to empathize with one party over the other. You want the SC to rule more friendly to you? Get 'better' law makers in office.
You: The systems broken, I can't get what I want!
Me: It's up to your representatives, get involved, get better people in office
You: They call me a communist :(
I think I'm alright. I'm not going to waste my time any further.
Why say anything if you're just gonna misrepresent what I've said?
I know, hard to make an argument when you just make wild claims.
That's what you said, like 2nd comment of our conversation.
No, it's just hard to talk with people who do not do so in good faith.
I asked you to support your claim that the reason why supreme court cases are being rule dhow they are is because they are in rich folks pockets.
You really couldn't, so I don't see why there would be a point to continue this convo.
You can lead a horse to water...
It takes a lot of logical leaps to go from 'someone paid for his vacation' to say 'they're just ruling with whatever rich person is sending them money! I can't point to any specific people....or cases they ruled on, BUT THEY ARE!!"
I can't explain something to somebody who doesn't want to listen to the explanation.
You can't explain anything because you can't prove what you need to about your statement. You made a statement, but you failed to prove any part of it. I've read every single word you've wrote and gone to each of your sources.
Show me how money has altered any of the sitting current justices opinions.
Reading something doesn't mean anything if you don't understand it.
See above and actually read in good faith.
Hahaha, come back with an actual argument, instead of some loose 'see he went on a paid vacation, therefore he just gets paid to rule court cases for rich people.'
You made the claim, I asked which case you thought that they ruled on based on corruption, and what their flawed legal reasoning was.
You can't back anything up that you've said. If you want to be convincing, you gotta back up your claims.
I did, see above.
You did not note 1 single case ruling that can be related to corruption nor that the ruling had poor law.
If that's all your back up was, it's not convincing.