Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Hunter Biden’s lawyers requesting a criminal investigation is ‘oddly coincidental’: Rep. Biggs" video.

  1. 2
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6.  @rujiel4620  What an insane comment. You think Trump was not scrutinized? Are you insane? No President has faced such an onslaught that started when he was campaigning in 2015 and remains unabated. Trump has never been accused of sending drug addicted bag men around the world in order to bend US policy to suit a nuclear armed enemy. I just don't understand how you lunatics can remain so incorrigible. It's one thing to simply ignore the facts and life a life like Hunter does. But you come and try to "debate MAGA" or whatever as if you have some Special Insight. Not one "Republican" that I know of has pulled any punches on Trump. Some of the triggered traitors posed as "Republican". Like Mitt Romney, his failed running mate, and the list continues. You're just triggered by Trump and you have no idea how anything is supposed to work according to the US Constitution. The best "rule of law" Constitutionalist alive is Ted Cruz. But you categorically condemn "Republicans" in favor of wannabes. "The Justice Party is a political party in the United States. It was organized in November 2011 by a group of political activists including former mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson as an alternative to what they saw as a duopoly of the two major political parties. One of the major goals of the Justice Party is removing corporate domination and other concentrated wealth from politics. In 2012, the Justice Party nominated Rocky Anderson for president and Luis J. Rodriguez for vice president. The Justice Party endorsed Bernie Sanders during the primary election in 2016." So, you went from "Republican" straight to Communist. LOL. Liar.
    1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13.  @AuroraColoradoUSA  No President has ever been removed by Impeachment. And just as we have hearings from special committees, nobody goes to jail directly from the scandals and illegality discussed. It's an interim step. And in cases where you have a political party that is basically an organized crime outfit what you do is expose more of it to the public and build on previous hearings that are relevant. All of the Obama scandals are still relevant because this is actually the Obama Clinton crime syndicate. Biden is an inept moron. You should read Harry Truman's biography if you want to know what kind of graft was already normal in the early New Deal era. The Bidens are particularly egregious because they're so freaking incompetent that it's obvious that they are blatant dupes of the Communists. They go along with "Communist Common Sense" like Climate Change and so forth and therefore when they do Xi's bidding they swear they it wasn't affected by the millions of dollars in fees that Hunter got as "lawyer" and Hunter just buys stuff for dad (like cars and houses) out of familial love! These clowns are simply more blatant about status quo corruption in post New Deal DC. And it's about time one of these emmefers got Impeached over this insane corruption known as "Our Democracy". And this is precisely what Impeachment is for. It's not for prosecuting drug addicts and frauds that get elected. It's for holding hearings and possibly removing and then prosecuting corrupt public officials. It's part of Congressional oversight. And Impeachment Hearings give the most power to Congress to subpoena the EB. There's just no question that it's the most valuable tool. The Senate really isn't even necessary to hold given the value of the House Impeachment process itself. The most important stage is getting the votes on the Articles of Impeachment. I can't believe how few people understand this. If you're Impeaching a judge you are better off waiting until you know the Senate will go along with the House. It's no good Impeaching a judge and then having the Senate blow you off in the case of corrupt judges. People don't understand the debates when it comes to corrupt judges. Either remove them or wait. For checking the EB, Impeachment is an underused tool.
    1
  14. 1
  15.  @AuroraColoradoUSA  " Ousting those judges requires a super majority. Extremely rare, and that's the reason our SC legislates from the bench." Is that a "fact" or another one of your random, illogical opinions? "Legislating from the bench" is called "Judicial Activism" by the Progs. They claim it's also done "by the political Right" under Judicial Review. SCOTUS may legitimately abrogate bad laws but not create their own. What they do instead is spin stories about "racism" or "bigotry" in the "old" interpretations and say it's a Fourteenth Amendment "found right". This really all started to happen during FDR's New Deal fascism when he started yelling about Justices that found some aspects of New Deal legislation unconstitutional. He threatened to pack the courts and got his way eventually when the legitimate Justice started to waffle and then retire one by one. And then the public went through WWII before FDR finally croaked and the public at large (and the corporate media) were not about to look back and slippery slope Progressivism as a problem that needed to be solved. The Republican Party returned to the Oval Office with Eisenhower. An ignoramus at best who did not have any clear problems with Progressivism per se. He seems like he just wanted to pivot faster against foreign rivals while everyone reorganized their new "command economy" post WWII economic paradigms. SCOTUS has been damaged since WWII. Reagan and Bush were the first to even try to groom and promote sound Constitutionalist judges. Look what happened to Bork and Thomas. That's where we are today. Before you carry on with more snark you should find yourself some good, old-fashioned reference dictionaries. And Impeaching judges does nothing about disagreeing with (or rectifying) their bad rulings. I suppose the "Realists" would say that it's a warning shot to the others. You're just fixated on the fallacious idea that you can't do anything useful with Impeachments without having a clear shot at removal.
    1
  16.  @AuroraColoradoUSA  EARLY HISTORY OF THE TERM "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" Keenan D. Kmiec A. In Search of the Earliest Use The idea of judicial activism has been around far longer than the term. 3 Before the twentieth century, legal scholars squared off over the concept of judicial legislation, that is, judges making positive law. "Where Blackstone favored judicial legislation as the strongest characteristic of the common law, Bentham regarded this as an usurpation of the legislative function and a charade or 'miserable sophistry." Bentham, in turn, taught John Austin, who rejected Bentham's view and defended a form of judicial legislation in his famous lectures on jurisprudence.' In the first half of the twentieth century, a flood of scholarship discussed the merits of judicial legislation, and prominent scholars took positions on either side of the debate. Criticism of constitutional judicial legislation was particularly vehement during the Lochner era. Critics assailed the Court's preference for business interests as it repeatedly struck down social legislation in the name of substantive Due Process. While some modem scholars consider Lochner and its progeny virtually synonymous with "judicial activism," the term is conspicuously absent from contemporaneous criticism. The New Deal and the "revolution" of 1937 ushered in another spate of critical commentary, but again, contemporaneous literature does not mention "judicial activism" by name. Years later, after the justices agreed that the New Deal was on firm constitutional ground, the term finally surfaced in legal discourse.
    1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1