Trump's Conviction and the 6th Amendment.

[Laniakea]

What other account?

Forgot already, eh?

 

[Laniakea]

You forgot that you do not know what a "leftist" is either.

I have never forgotten it. That is you. Be polite and ask when you do not understand something and I will give you the evidence that you should already know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never forgotten it. That is you. Be polite and ask when you do not understand something and I will give you the evidence that you should already know.

I am always polite. And as you have continually demonstrated, I am not the one that lacks an understanding of the law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Trump has just lost an appeal in this case already. Not the verdict. He lost his appeal on the gag order. It is constitutional:

'No substantial constitutional question': NY's top court throws out Trump's challenge of gag

The top court in the Empire State has unceremoniously dismissed Donald Trump's appeal to lift the gag order in his hush-money case.

lawandcrime.com

"
New York’s Court of Appeals, the top court in the Empire State, on Tuesday unceremoniously jettisoned Donald Trump’s appeal to lift the gag order in his hush-money case, weeks after the former president was convicted of 34 felony counts in Manhattan.

Without elaborating further, the court tossed the appeal without costs “upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved,” yet another blow to the Trump team’s lingering efforts to undo Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s gag order, which ordered the defendant to “refrain” from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses,” jurors, court staff, and the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) staff in the case.

"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When people speak publicly about him, he has every right to publicly respond.

I guess he doesn't. They gagged him, and they fined him for violating the gag order. Those who are predicting prison for Trump cite his contempt for the welfare of others including the judge, the judge's daughter, and witnesses, his contempt of court for repeatedly violating his gag order, his lack of remorse, and the fact that his underlings like Cohen and Weisselberg did time for corrupt business practices at Trump's behest add up to slam.

If you don't like it, petition your liberal democrat reps to throw out the Constitution.

YOU have the burden of petitioning given that the judge successfully gagged him and punished him for violating the gag order. It's history now. If you don't like how it turned out, protest or write your congressman.

*Mod edit*

 

[SkepticThinker]

The trial is over, in case you haven't noticed.

This was in response to, "No, your feelings about the gag order are your feelings.

Gag orders are perfectly legal. You're upset because it's Dear Leader."


No kidding.

Notice how yet again, you have nothing to say about the content of the post.

 

[Laniakea]

And Trump has just lost an appeal in this case already. Not the verdict. He lost his appeal on the gag order. It is constitutional:

'No substantial constitutional question': NY's top court throws out Trump's challenge of gag

The top court in the Empire State has unceremoniously dismissed Donald Trump's appeal to lift the gag order in his hush-money case.

lawandcrime.com

"
New York’s Court of Appeals, the top court in the Empire State, on Tuesday unceremoniously jettisoned Donald Trump’s appeal to lift the gag order in his hush-money case, weeks after the former president was convicted of 34 felony counts in Manhattan.

Without elaborating further, the court tossed the appeal without costs “upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved,” yet another blow to the Trump team’s lingering efforts to undo Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s gag order, which ordered the defendant to “refrain” from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses,” jurors, court staff, and the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) staff in the case.

"

That was expected for the NEW YORK appeals court. It was just a necessary step toward getting to the SCOTUS.
Now that the appeals court is out of the way quickly, we can get on to the real court of appeals, the one that actually gets things done.

 

[Laniakea]

This was in response to, "No, your feelings about the gag order are your feelings.

Gag orders are perfectly legal. You're upset because it's Dear Leader."


No kidding.

Notice how yet again, you have nothing to say about the content of the post.

I give posts the credibility they deserve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was expected for the NEW YORK appeals court. It was just a necessary step toward getting to the SCOTUS.
Now that the appeals court is out of the way quickly, we can get on to the real court of appeals, the one that actually gets things done.

Except that the USSC is totally corrupt. Judge Thomas has taken millions of dollars in gifts from a right wing business. Alito has shown open political bias. All of the Republican nominees since Thomas at the least lied to get on the Court.

You keep complaining about "kangaroo courts" and then never can recognize actual kangaroo courts.

Can you put your prejudices aside for a while? I can. That is why I am no longer a Republican.

 

[Laniakea]

Except that the USSC is totally corrupt. Judge Thomas has taken millions of dollars in gifts from a right wing business. Alito has shown open political bias. All of the Republican nominees since Thomas at the least lied to get on the Court.

You keep complaining about "kangaroo courts" and then never can recognize actual kangaroo courts.

Can you put your prejudices aside for a while? I can. That is why I am no longer a Republican.

This SCOTUS has proven themselves to be impartial many times. They even ruled against removing Trump's gag order. So what makes you think they're corrupt?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This SCOTUS has proven themselves to be impartial many times. They even ruled against removing Trump's gag order. So what makes you think they're corrupt?

Not recently. I have seen terrible decisions where they ignore the Constitution or break their own promises. I doubt if you can come up with a valid example.

 

[Laniakea]

Not recently. I have seen terrible decisions where they ignore the Constitution or break their own promises. I doubt if you can come up with a valid example.

"I have seen terrible decisions where they ignore the Constitution or break their own promises." is your own claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I have seen terrible decisions where they ignore the Constitution or break their own promises." is your own claim.

Yes, and I can support that. But I asked you to support your claims first.

You do not seem to understand how and when one needs to support their claims. There are some claims that anyone that has followed the topic would know. For example all of the recent nominees lied about Roe v. Wade. To all of them it was settled law. No new arguments were made to overturn it, no new evidence arose. They lied. You should know this. I cannot think of any examples that support your claims, if there is something that I should have known about that I missed I would be surprised but admit it.

So where is your evidence? I asked you first which puts the burden of proof upon you before it is on me.

 

[Laniakea]

Yes, and I can support that. But I asked you to support your claims first.

You do not seem to understand how and when one needs to support their claims. There are some claims that anyone that has followed the topic would know. For example all of the recent nominees lied about Roe v. Wade. To all of them it was settled law. No new arguments were made to overturn it, no new evidence arose. They lied. You should know this. I cannot think of any examples that support your claims, if there is something that I should have known about that I missed I would be surprised but admit it.

So where is your evidence? I asked you first which puts the burden of proof upon you before it is on me.

Well, I tried to be reasonable with you today, but you insist upon being unreasonable.
Have a good rest of your day!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I tried to be reasonable with you today, but you insist upon being unreasonable.
Have a good rest of your day!

Projection. You are never reasonable. You can never support your claims when people demand that they support them. But you are ignorant of basic facts that you should be aware of and then demand evidence. This is called "hypocrisy" on your part.

 

[wellwisher]

Yes, and I can support that. But I asked you to support your claims first.

You do not seem to understand how and when one needs to support their claims. There are some claims that anyone that has followed the topic would know. For example all of the recent nominees lied about Roe v. Wade. To all of them it was settled law. No new arguments were made to overturn it, no new evidence arose. They lied. You should know this. I cannot think of any examples that support your claims, if there is something that I should have known about that I missed I would be surprised but admit it.

So where is your evidence? I asked you first which puts the burden of proof upon you before it is on me.

One argument that was used to challenge Roe v Way, had to do with the 10th Amendment and States Rights. This was the summary argument since abortion is still available.

Tenth Amendment is about the Rights Reserved to the States and the People. These rights are based on powers not delegated to the United States Government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it.

Allowing states to make marijuana laws used this same argument. There is nothing in the Constitution about Federal Government and marijuana; victimless crimes. The Liberals used that argument and now the States get to decide on marijuana. Conservatives did not panic but allowed the States to tailor a local solution. instead of one size fits all.

Abortion is not in the Constitution and is therefore not specifically under Federal Jurisdiction. We have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, with life coming first; unborn life was first. The pursuit of happiness does not apply since the Government did not force the pregnancy but rather it occur while women pursued their happiness. Marijuana does not kill or take away liberties, but is part of pursuit of happiness for some. The Federal cannot interfere with victimless pursuit of happiness.

Roe v Way became law in 1973. This was during the peak of the hippie generation; teenage wasteland, free love, and ending the war. The end of the Viet Nam War was still 2 years away. Lots of women had been and still were getting knocked up at a time; free sex. when culture was divided generational, and the older generation was more Old Fashion; Golden Generation were straight as an arrow. Abortion was a clandestine way to deal with unwanted pregnancy. At that time, pregnancy would make the girl and her family, targets of gossip. This is why young women, to protect their reputation and even that of their parents, would take risks with back alley abortions. They did not wish to bring shame or get the boot from their parents. It was also causes a lot of extra social expense in inner cities; unwed mothers.

The law, although Unconstitutional, was very empathetic to the plight of these young women, making it safer and easier for the women to hide in plain sight, and shield parents from gossipy neighbors, and not end in poverty. It was a much different time and it made sense, then. Today abortion is more like big Business and a supply side driven birth control alternative. The government has no need to protect naive young girls from anything and supplement the Abortion Industry. It can go private sector and back to the States.

It was time to sent it back to the States, since there was no constitutional or even empathetic or emergency reason any longer, like when the law was formed. There will still be plenty of places to get abortions, seeing half the states are Democrat. It now more about being lazy with the free ride gone in many states and more travel time. Law of supply and demand may cause the prices to go up in Democrat states, without the deep pockets of Uncle Sam to pick. Economics has a way of helping people moderate behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One argument that was used to challenge Roe v Way, had to do with the 10th Amendment and States Rights. This was the summary argument since abortion is still available.



Allowing states to make marijuana laws used this same argument. There is nothing in the Constitution about Federal Government and marijuana; victimless crimes. The Liberals used that argument and now the States get to decide on marijuana. Conservatives did not panic but allowed the States to tailor a local solution. instead of one size fits all.

Abortion is not in the Constitution and is therefore not specifically under Federal Jurisdiction. We have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, with life coming first; unborn life was first. The pursuit of happiness does not apply since the Government did not force the pregnancy but rather it occur while women pursued their happiness. Marijuana does not kill or take away liberties, but is part of pursuit of happiness for some. The Federal cannot interfere with victimless pursuit of happiness.

Roe v Way became law in 1973. This was during the peak of the hippie generation; teenage wasteland, free love, and ending the war. The end of the Viet Nam War was still 2 years away. Lots of women had been and still were getting knocked up at a time; free sex. when culture was divided generational, and the older generation was more Old Fashion; Golden Generation were straight as an arrow. Abortion was a clandestine way to deal with unwanted pregnancy. At that time, pregnancy would make the girl and her family, targets of gossip. This is why young women, to protect their reputation and even that of their parents, would take risks with back alley abortions. They did not wish to bring shame or get the boot from their parents. It was also causes a lot of extra social expense in inner cities; unwed mothers.

The law, although Unconstitutional, was very empathetic to the plight of these young women, making it safer and easier for the women to hide in plain sight, and shield parents from gossipy neighbors, and not end in poverty. It was a much different time and it made sense, then. Today abortion is more like big Business and a supply side driven birth control alternative. The government has no need to protect naive young girls from anything and supplement the Abortion Industry. It can go private sector and back to the States.

It was time to sent it back to the States, since there was no constitutional or even empathetic or emergency reason any longer, like when the law was formed. There will still be plenty of places to get abortions, seeing half the states are Democrat. It now more about being lazy with the free ride gone in many states and more travel time. Law of supply and demand may cause the prices to go up in Democrat states, without the deep pockets of Uncle Sam to pick. Economics has a way of helping people moderate behavior.

That was hardly a new argument.

 

[Laniakea]

Projection. You are never reasonable. You can never support your claims when people demand that they support them. But you are ignorant of basic facts that you should be aware of and then demand evidence. This is called "hypocrisy" on your part.

Now you get personal when you can't win an argument. Not very mature of you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you get personal when you can't win an argument. Not very mature of you.

Again this is projection on your part. I asked you to support a claim and your excuse was to make a personal comment about me rather than supporting what even you seem to know was false.

Asking you to properly support claims is not making it personal. But for some odd reason you took that as a threat and made it personal.

 

[Laniakea]

Again this is projection on your part. I asked you to support a claim and your excuse was to make a personal comment about me rather than supporting what even you seem to know was false.

Asking you to properly support claims is not making it personal. But for some odd reason you took that as a threat and made it personal.

Let's take a look at what I was replying to......

Projection. You are never reasonable. You can never support your claims when people demand that they support them. But you are ignorant of basic facts that you should be aware of and then demand evidence. This is called "hypocrisy" on your part.

So, who were you referring to if you weren't referring personally about me?