SCOTUS completely ignores cuntrywrong and allows full travel ban
- Thread starter dave
- Start date
This is what happens when ignorance is combined with arrogance. The poor idiot just cant help himself and all because he doesnt want me to be an engineer for whatever reason.
When you are supremely arrogant, it's hard for you to realize what you don't know because you think you know it all which ironically makes you even more arrogant that inevitably leads to a never ending abyss of ignorant arrogance.
In his defense he read it from the experts on here and was confused because they sounded so much more intelligent than his mom and aunt Bessie.
Does anyone have a running total of just how many times country has struck out wrong on issues? I can't think of many where his positions ended up verifiably true and that is just amazing to me.
If it’s a controversial issue of importance, he 0fer. I can’t think of a singal situation where he’s been right on a matter of substance with a defined outcome.
One of my favorites was when he swore that a defendant had the right to be present and testify before a grand jury. Hahahaha
******** you're a moron.
Preliminary examination
- Probable Cause Finding. — If from the evidence it appears that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the magistrate shall forthwith hold the defendant to answer in circuit court. The state shall be represented by the prosecuting attorney at the preliminary examination. Witnesses shall be examined and evidence introduced for the state under the rules of evidence prevailing in criminal trials generally, except that hearsay evidence may be received, if there is a substantial basis for believing:
- That the source of the hearsay is credible;
- That there is a factual basis for the information furnished; and
- That it would impose an unreasonable burden on one of the parties or on a witness to require that the primary source of the evidence be produced at the hearing.
That isnt describing a grand jury. The next time you call someone a moron think hard to figure if you even understand the topic. In that description that you quoted but didnt link it described a majistrate and circuit court, neither of which are present at a grand jury.
Here is countrys link where he copy and pasted from.
https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1993/20999.html
This is going to be a lot of fun. The poor POS has resorted to blatent dishonesty.
How can he keep showing his face here? I mean, at least disappear and come back with a new logon every now and then.
he's pretty good at calling people pieces of ****, but when he gets his *** handed to him by you, atlkvb and occasionally yours truly then it either disappears to pout or comes back with more name calling....which will it be this time?
Like always, he’ll pretend it never happened or try to lie and say he never said something. He’ll absolutely never own up to being wrong, why, I don’t know.
Doesn't mean anything if they don't discipline these judges that ignore the law and rule on their 'feelings'.
We’re stuck with the Sotomayor. God willing, Ginsburg will retire in the next year or two. I’d like to see Kennedy and Thomas go as well. Get a bunch of youngins on the court to stand for a couple of decades. If they’re anything like Gorsuch, I’d be damn happy.
********. You tripled down on just a few posts.
[QUOTE="dave, post: 1779955, member: 94"]That isnt describing a grand jury. The next time you call someone a moron think hard to figure if you even understand the topic. In that description that you quoted but didnt link it described a majistrate and circuit court, neither of which are present at a grand jury.[/QUOTE]
A grand jury occurs in circuit court.
Damn!!!!!!!
The grand jury
- Summoning Grand Juries. — The court may order that a grand jury be summoned at each term of the circuit court or at any specified time for either a regular, special or adjourned term of court. The grand jury shall consist of 16 members, but any fifteen or more members attending shall constitute a quorum. The court shall direct that a sufficient number of legally qualified persons be summoned to meet this requirement as prescribed by Chapter 52, Article 2, Section 3, of the West Virginia Code of 1931, as amended.
- Objections to grand jury and grand jurors. —
- Challenges. — The prosecuting attorney or a defendant who has been held to answer in the circuit court may challenge the array of jurors on the ground that the grand jury was not selected, drawn, or summoned in accordance with law, and may challenge an individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified. Challenges shall be made before the administration of the oath to the jurors and shall be tried by the circuit court.
You are one amazingly stupid mother f'ucker. I feel sorry for you. You attempt to make an argument even after you are obviously wrong and you continue to double and triple down.
A majistrate is a judge not involved in a grand jury. Please keep trying. It is glorious.
I just owned your stupid ***. Tell us again how a defendent can't be present at a grand jury. Tell us again how a grand jury doesn't occur in circuit court.
Still think people under 75k are getting tax breaks - permanently?
LMAO!!!!!!
I didnt say a defendent cant appear moron. You said that a defendant had the right to appear with his attorney. I told you that a prosecutor is under no obligation to allow a defendant appear before the grand jury. Why do you lie?
I think THAT (what you've posted here) is the calling card country leaves when he's been "destroyed" to use his popular bragging point. It is simply amazing to me how many times other posters bring facts to counter his incorrect statements and then he simply runs off into cyberspace. I have never seen anything like it.
he...like country..is still in shock that the supreme court is racist...he'll return when there is something anti trump that he can link or cut and paste.... cue.memories of Bud
Ha ha ha ha.......I just got my *** handed to me but you misspelled "magistrate"........and THAT my friends is a microcosm of the liberal mind thought.....and poor country thinks that it won that argument....just like the pantssuit won the election........priceless stuff here....and we've got 7 more years[banana][roll][banana][roll]:boxing:
Snow, I am sorry that you have been misled by dumb dave again. He is so f'ucking stupid that he didn't realize that the SCOTUS didn't rule on the ban. They ruled on whether the temporary injunction should be enforced or removed, as eloquently explained by BRU here:
And Snow went and started a thread about it without realizing the SC didn't actually rule on the order....and 2007 revived an old thread thinking he was bragging about a SC ruling, which wasn't actually the ruling on the validity of the ban.
You guys are f'ucking morons and don't even realize how stupid you are.
This is hilarious.
Poor little fella. Keep hope alive. If SCOTUS thought the ban was unconstitutional would it rule to allow it to continue while lower courts mull over cases? Try thinking.