Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "BREAKING NEWS: Alan Dershowitz Torches Colorado Supreme Court's Decision To Block Trump From Ballot" video.

@doug6723 LOL. Colorado "determined" something. So, you follow a cult. Your cult doesn't define reality for anyone but its followers. Do you even know what Due Process means? Obviously not. You don't know what anything means.
10
If nobody defends infamous people then nobody will defend infamous innocent people. That's EXACTLY what you yearn for.
7
@bedelian No, liar. He called for a suspension of the calendar in order to insert an investigation period as suggested by Ted Cruz at the Joint Session. He did not call to be "reinstated". He called for honest forensic audits of the ballots.
7
@CRT4Dummies Elected judges must be neutral on Constitutional jurisprudence. They can be "partisan" on things not strictly governed by the US Constitution itself. The fact that they're elected makes them "politicians" which is true but only to the extent that "politics" affects whether or not they get the job. Political in the US legal lexicon means that legislators create law and so forth. Judges rule on fidelity to the law. That's their oath. The executive branches sign legislation and defend the law as written. That's the oath. Oath breakers do whatever they can get away with. By the way, in common law republics without a Constitution the judges do make new law in what is known as case precedents. Case precedents in the USA can't supersede legislative law. They can only abrogate law that violates the US Constitution.
6
You think that mean anything any court does is therefore totally compliant with Constitutional law? What's wrong with you people?
4
@SandySanderson_95 If it was an Insurrection they should arrest and charge the ones that did the shooting. But those guys are lauded as heroes.
4
@Dwall-e1c <--Another idiotic liar enters the chat.
4
@thomaswinston6671 If you believe in Jesus you know that God is not on the side of the father of lies. The one that you follow is the father of lies. You should not worry do much about Trump.
3
@AuditioningByHeart The Insurrection ended in 1865. Get it?
3
Try to focus.
3
@diannbrown7665 He volunteered to defend the Constitution, sociopath.
2
@cherylmcnutt9905 What kind of stupid question is that?
2
@Yaqeen2013 Yeah, we need to run the place based on your delusions.
2
@thechiefwildhorse4651 What makes any land yours?
2
@kel8727 Epstein was a client.
1
@doug6723 LOL. Your party is the party of racketeering, slavery and actual insurrection to overthrow the US Constitution. Until this day.
1
@eniselmenic5056 The root fallacy here is pretending that there was an actual insurrection. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. You've had years now. Time to grow up. Of course Presidents are expected to Pardon innocent victims of malignant government actions.
1
@gasstationpeanuts1814 They have Selfish Gene Theory. There's no such thing as good faith debate with pathological liars.
1
Another label for "conservative" judges is competent. Critical Theory judges don't "twist" the law. They clearly corrupt it. Their agenda is also very clear for those of us that know how to read properly.
1
@cconnon1912 Dude, your first sentence is correct. The second is unhinged stupidity. It's not a "coup" to petition for forensic audits before certifying a winner. The actual complaint is that your cult defrauded the public by "certifying" by fiat. They entirely violated the FISMA cybersecurity legislation passed with the Homeland Security Act to have uniform standards for "cybersecurity" and data integrity. Just like Hillary, by the way. This is how they knew they could get away with it in 2020.
1
@CRT4Dummies But in a broader sense, appointed politicians are also politicians. Bureaucrats are also politicians. This idea that careerists are neutral in their exertion of political power is idiotic. They're much more dangerous than sociopathic Marxist judges because they work in secret and only when the scheme is hatched do we hear about "Climate Change" theory and other similar idiocy.
1
@gobob2220 Like you can properly parse fact from lie.
1
@alexaustin5664 Correct. Which claim are you referring to?
1
Bad spellers of the world, unite!
1
@PinnacleWindPower The first rule is that you must learn to read properly before commenting on Constitutional law.
1
@sarahhearn-vonfoerster7401 You're obviously a pathological liar. Quote the section where he said anything like that.
1
@tinameyer7080 There's a narrow window of reasonable disagreement. The US Democratic Party was never reasonable. And even the Civil War nor any of the Amendments solved the problems of rulings like Missouri's Dred Scott Case. And actually, even today, the "splits" are exploiting this wiggle room created by Dred Scott. It was seemingly abrogated by the 13th and 14th Amendments but it was not abrogated. Just obviated by removing the thing that it defended legally. So these evil people know what they can get away with by controlling the judiciary.
1
@edwill62 "The special pleading fallacy occurs when someone gives certain conditions and that individual claims a special exception to that condition without proper justification."
1
@orlandominichiello You call it a "conservative" majority meaning that there are only 3 Critical Theory Marxists out of 9. Critical Theory Marxism is only legitimate under the law in narrow contexts. You can use some of the doctrines to sow doubt in a prosecution or to pump up arguments for a jury verdict. No judge should favor Critical Theory jurisprudence because that in and of itself overthrows the entire Bill of Rights. Another way to put it is that there are only 3 out of 9 illegitimate Justice on SCOTUS.
1