Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘A headscratcher’: USAID claims win in US supreme court" video.

So the gifts and payments to Clarence Thomas and Samual Alito from Republicans billionaires didn’t worry you, but a judgment against the Trump administration does. By the way yelling just make you sound like a demented lunatic.
7
And your evidence for this claim is?
7
By the way 4 other justices agreed with her. Are they all corrupt as well?
7
@ Right so we have established that you literally have no evidence whatsoever, just a baseless claim of total ignorance. No worries I fully understand.
6
@ Just provide your evidence she is corrupted. Simple
6
@alantasman8273 So the Chief Justice of the Supreme court is corrupted, and what is your evidence for such a claim? You didn't like its decision? I don't suppose you actually have any facts or a logical sound argument. That would be too much to expect.
5
@williambryant-ld4kv And the evidence of your claim is?
3
No MAGA fanatics are.
2
@rickreallylikedthevideobut7899 Yes they did, the decision was 5-4. 4 + 1 = 5
2
@PruneHub And what's wrong with that?
2
@ Who is blackmailing Justice Roberts?
2
@ Which law of the land?
2
@alantasman8273 There is no law preventing American citizens from adopting children internationally.
2
@Phillip-xl5nj no you are factually incorrect. USAID was created by legislation in the congress. If you don’t understand this, provide the Presidental executive order and the President who created it.
2
Well you aren’t exactly correct there. USAID was created by congressional legislation and congress funded it not the President. There is still stuff to be sorted out in the courts.
1
@ No I’m simply asking what evidence exists that Justice Barrett has been corrupted. Tell me what is so obvious. It is just ludicrously stupid to suggest just because a ruling went against the government that she must be corrupt. That’s just nonsensical idiocy. I’d be happy to see her in jail for being a criminal if you could provide a reason why.
1
@alantasman8273 There is no suggestion Justice Roberts and his wife did anything illegal in adopting their children from Ireland. Roberts was appointed 5 years after the adoption (President Bush). Exactly who is blackmailing him? or is this as i suspect just another conspiracy theory.
1
@cathyknott9062 No. Factually incorrect Chief Justice Roberts was a Republican nomination.
1
@ No laws were broken, everything was above board. There is nothing that he could possibly be blackmailed about, otherwise you would have stated explicitly what he had done wrong. I smell conspiracy theory.
1
@ I have. Nothing illegal whatsoever.
1
@ Just tell me in your own words what you think was done illegally.
1
@garymorris5974 So I'm not sure you understand how the US constitution works or have any knowledge of the separation powers. The SCOTUS regularly sits and makes judgements on legislative matters that have been brought before it. You appear to have literally no understanding of the US legal system. Are you even a US citizen?
1
@garymorris5974 So you can blindly say with no evidence that every single Justice on the Supreme Court is corrupted. Fine well i can just blindly claim Trump is a Russian asset. There we are, even.
1
@garymorris5974 Read the constitution, not only is the court allowed to restrain presidential authority it is virtually obligated to do so.
1
@ Simply provide the evidence, just one single piece of evidence that a Supreme Court justice has received a corrupt payment, just one.
1
So numerous comments and now I have asked several times for evidence, so once again can anyone provide just one single piece of evidence of a corrupt payment to a Supreme Court justice, any justice will do, and any payment, just one.
1
@alantasman8273 So what you are talking about is just mere rumour with literally no substance. The New York Times investigated the rumours and found nothing, zip , zero, nothing. There was no third country, no Latin American country, and Roberts mother-in-law is Irish by decent. Sorry you got nothing, next.
1
@quantumviewtherapy8926 No you are completely wrong. The constitution is explicit in its description of the separation of powers. You are not describing America. Trump was elected on a very small margin, he needs to create legislation and conform to the constitution. Every word you said is totally and completely factually incorrect.
1
@ where did you get the idea Trump won with 77%? He won with 49.8% of the vote. What imaginary world are you living in?
1
@ I like to think of myself as the tin man, but the great and powerful Oz does have a ring to it. Thanks.
1
@ Trump was elected on 49.8% of the vote. 77% was made up inside your head.
1
@melodydgates No, Justice Roberts and Barrett were Republican appointees (Bush and Trump) so your argument is nonsensical.
1
@dawnbeckering806 Two separate issues. The current administration is perfectly within its right to reduce or eliminate foreign aid, that's one issue, but it still has to pay its bills and all this ruling said was USAID must pay for the goods and services that had already been provided, that's the second issue and the one that relates directly with the SCOTUS ruling.
1
@audreyodonoghue462 Yeah, so i have read and re-read your reply several times and it remains nonsensical. Try again.
1
A tariff is a tax, what are you talking about? Seriously what are you talking about? Please explain. Everyone knows a tariff is a tax, what do you think it is?
1
Do you have any understanding at all about the separation of powers.
1
@TrussttN01 What a wonderfully crafted misogynist comment.
1
@stennablue8620 Right so you have no evidence and no legal training to make any sort of qualitative judgement on the SCOTUS ruling on USAID (which was simply that the US has to pay its bills the same as anyone who has bought something) You just didn't like the ruling, which is just your personal opinion and worthless. I too wish I could buy stuff without paying for it, unfortunately there is reality.
1
@stennablue8620 And by the way, the SCOTUS ruling wasn't in favour of USAID it was the companies that had provided USAID with goods and services that had not been paid.
1