Super-lib Justice Sotomayor took $3 MILLION in bribes! USUAL MEDIA BLACKOUT!!!

archives said:
And she was suppose to cause Tucker says so? She declared the relationship as required, the other clowns didn’t
Click to expand...

If you have a personal involvement with one of the parties in a lawsuit before you as a judge you recuse yourself from that suit. You don't say, I have a personal involvement with one party but it won't affect anything...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If you have a personal involvement with one of the parties in a lawsuit before you as a judge you recuse yourself from that suit. You don't say, I have a personal involvement with one party but it won't affect anything...
Click to expand...

The case wasn't in front of the USSC. It never was heard by the USSC.

The case that was appealed to the appeals court was only about whether Greenspan should be allowed to amend his complaint which had been dismissed because it didn't have a claim upon which relief could be granted. It really had nothing to do with Random House at that point.
we would also conclude that appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to allow a
court to "infer that there was factual copying" and thus to clear the initial hurdle of demonstrating
probative similarity.
Click to expand...

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134567/00106444406/greenspan-v-random-house-inc/
 
Nordberg said:
Yeah, but if it would have, she would have been just like Thomas. That is how the righty mind works.
Click to expand...

And if you perceived this as a "liberal" court you wouldn't be talking about this. That is how the lefty "mind" works.
 
the press makes a big deal of the nephew of Clarence Thomas getting school paid, but Hunter Biden getting 6 figures for his paint by number endeavors is ignored
 
zymurgy said:
the press makes a big deal of the nephew of Clarence Thomas getting school paid, but Hunter Biden getting 6 figures for his paint by number endeavors is ignored
Click to expand...

What crime is that, making paintings and selling them? What charges would you make? Good thing Van Gogh isn't painting now.
 
"Bribes"?

They were payments from her publisher from sales of her books.

The article cited for this thread tells you how deep in bs Thomas's apologists need to go in order to defend him.
 
Grokmaster said:
Here's the point you obviously missed, in your desperation to cover for the racist Sotomayer:


"...Despite this, Sotomayor did not recuse herself when making a decision in the 2013 case of Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. "


DIRECTLY INVOLVED HER PUBLISHER, NOT "REMOTELY".

Nice try.
Click to expand...

the POINT you do not understand is no judge is required to recuse. That is not the issue.

Some of us may not like that they did not recuse, others may like it. That is fine.

What is not fine, is HIDING the conflict so people cannot examine how egregious or not the lack of recusal is, or not.
 
QP! said:
the POINT you do not understand is no judge is required to recuse. That is not the issue.

Some of us may not like that they did not recuse, others may like it. That is fine.

What is not fine, is HIDING the conflict so people cannot examine how egregious or not the lack of recusal is, or not.
Click to expand...

Should be obvious but for many of these people on the Right that issue is too fine a point.
 
Yakuda said:
And AGAIN if leftists viewed this as a "liberal" court we would be spared all this whining.
Click to expand...

Your 'again' is simply not true. The right mocks the left for always 'eating their own', which is very true. The left tends to push out others in the left for even minor perceived wrongs that most others do not see as wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top