Trunp loses again in Court
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 04:15
VIEWED: 52231
PAGE 3 of 100
How is that an lol?
Says in the right column under his picture the following:
Quote:
Appointed by Bill Clinton
If the lol is simply because I used wikipedia, I better never see any of you chucklefucks use it again. None of you apparently ever got that memo. I know I didn't.
I could also bring in links to legal writings where they differentiate the meanings of both words in different circumstances as well as say that they can be used interchangeably in others.
For instance, how do you view Trump putting a ton of federal judges everywhere when he's got a GOP controlled Senate that just votes them all in?
Did he nominate them, or did he appoint them? Is there really any difference?
Would you like me to dig up the many posts here complaining about it where EVERYONE used the word "appoint" in his case?
T's just pissed off because I'm pointing out how retarded he is, and you're just sticking up for your retarded little buddy. You're The Skipper to his Gilligan.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There sure are a lot of chucklefucks in these here parts ...
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Friedman was nominated by Clinton dummy not appointed.
T
Wikipedia begs to differ, dummy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_L._Friedman
And even if you want to get all technical about it, sure, he was "Nominated" by Clinton in 1994. Then it was confirmed in a Democrat majority senate in the 103rd Congress.
Same thing.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
lol
Jack needs to follow his own link and take a thorough look. If he reads on he'll come upon this little tidbit that I cut and pasted here. And sure, if you spelling trolls want to make hay of someone typing out a quick post and using to, instead of too, this is something I'm going to get technical about. I'm surprised you're surprised by that.
Judicial appointment
Friedman was nominated by President Bill Clinton on March 22, 1994, to a seat vacated by Gerhard A. Gesell. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 15, 1994, and received his commission on June 16, 1994. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2009.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Friedman was nominated by Clinton dummy not appointed.
T
Wikipedia begs to differ, dummy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_L._Friedman
And even if you want to get all technical about it, sure, he was "Nominated" by Clinton in 1994. Then it was confirmed in a Democrat majority senate in the 103rd Congress.
Same thing.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
lol
Jack needs to follow his own link and take a thorough look. If he reads on he'll come upon this little tidbit that I cut and pasted here.
Judicial appointment
Friedman was nominated by President Bill Clinton on March 22, 1994, to a seat vacated by Gerhard A. Gesell. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 15, 1994, and received his commission on June 16, 1994. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2009.
T
No shit, buddy.
Then I asked you why you guys keep saying that Trump is "appointing" judges right now.
All he's doing is nominating them. Just so happens he's got a GOP controlled senate who's going to give them the pass every single time.
Just like Bill Clinton did with his Democrat controlled senate when he "nominated" your judge in 1994.
Don't try to match wits with me. Even with your smart phone you're no match. You're a fucking retard.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Supreme Court again confronts Trump’s authority, this time over DACA recipients
The Supreme Court on Tuesday will once again review a controversial policy initiated by President Trump and blocked by lower courts, this time ahead of an election year and with the fate of nearly 700,000 “dreamers” brought to the United States as undocumented children hanging on the outcome.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-again
-confronts-trumps-authority-this-time-over-daca-recipients/2019/11/11/45acf492-03f6-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html
Just in, and another court somewhere rules against Trump concerning his taxes. I'll update this shortly.
tick tock
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T
Here's the update. I'd point out this just happened and there's already a YouTube video.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
59 mins ago
Congress can have access to eight years of Trump’s tax records, appeals court order
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-can-have-access-to-ei
ght-years-of-trumps-tax-records-appeals-court-orders/ar-BBWI8Fg?ocid=spartandhps
T
Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just going to keep throwing everything at the wall and see if anything sticks, huh?
lol
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME