Hahahahaha
You are really married to this conclusion
Time will tell
There’s a thing called free will. Those who decide to reject God go to a place where God is not present. It’s really the only way that makes sense.
Man. You should study philosophy so that you can engage in actual substantive debate about things humans have pondered since the first human.
Being someone who dismisses it out of hand with utterly ridiculous mockery doesn’t make you smart or persuasive, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a complete buffoon.
And you only give us one picture. Come on, man!
The truth is that Lin Wood is calling out John Roberts because there is no other prominent John Roberts
You fucking dumbass
Why are you shilling for the demons?
And he is a defamation lawyer which suggests that what he is doing is not defamation
Which means it is true
“Occasional addict”
Lol
I think trump legitimately wanted to serve his country and was disappointed when he couldn’t
Your comment makes you seem like you’re purposely spreading disinformation.
It’s that stupid.
No, I’m not. I’m interested in a substantive argument that includes a basis in an actual decision written by Barrett.
Fuck you, demon.
I am not asking for an unreasonable level of justification for your skepticism
I am asking for a SINGLE CONCERNING DECISION WRITTEN BY BARRETT
If you can’t provide that simple requirement as the basis of your opinion the your opinion has no basis and your skepticism is not in fact healthy.
The word slave comes from Slav
Please note that my comment is in no way a endorsement - I find him interesting as a curiosity.
No, I did not say the decision was concerning to me. I said the opposite, in fact.
I said (and will now say again for the third time, but you already know that, demon) that there was a portion of the decision which was in passing and inconsequential to the actual decision that she need not necessarily agree with in order to agree with the overall decision. I also pointed out that no decision which she authored has been offered as evidence that there is any concern whatsoever.
Fuck you, shill.
Consensus cracking is a tactic used by cia disinfo teams etc, media matters/David brick types to infiltrate and divide.
You telling me that you’ve only heard leftists use it is a proof to me that you are a totally disingenuous shill.
Post a link to a Barrett decision that she wrote that is of concern. Or....SHUT THE FUCK UP.
No, I didn’t say that at all.
I said the SPECIFIC reference BY THE JUDGE WHO WROTE THE DECISION which was a passing statement - was concerning.
She did not herself cite that concerning thing.
Again. ANY PERSON WHO HAS A DECISION THAT SHE ACTUALLY FUCKING WROTE THAT IS CONCERNING
Please link it at once. If she’s so cOncErNiNg there should be enough of them, right?
Kim Clement?
Mark Taylor is the trump prophecy guy who said he’d get five
Look at him show us his horns
She looks like a Fremen lol
No, I want SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT.
Linking a decision that she was part of (which was actually a decision that gave Pritzker the leeway to allow church worship services but not battle of the bands or picnics at the church property) just because the author of that decision who was not ACB made a passing comment about a concerning case, is consensus cracking.
If a SINGLE FUCKING POST contained a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION ACTUALLY AUTHORED BY ACB I would consider it relevant. So far, nothing.
I agree the decision was concerning. Barrett didn’t fucking write it, though.
It’s definitely concern trolling and verges on consensus cracking. Not even once has anyone linked a concerning opinion that she herself authored.
So stupid. She has no conflict of interest if she is on the court. She doesn’t win or lose anything by trump being re-elected or not.
Uh, what? No, they’re saying he is consequential. They do not like the consequences. How could this possibly be construed as bending the knee?
All we’ve got is the name on the flight log from Epstein’s pilot flying with Epstein. Still trying to figure out what John Roberts it was.