reSee.it - Related Post Feed

bberghofsr
Posted - September 2, 2023 at 3:57 AM
Saved - September 2, 2023 at 1:24 PM

@bberghofsr - bberghofsr

This is a judge in one of the Trump cases how the hell is this possible

@earthing5000 - EARTH!🇺🇸

How the hell can she be the judge presiding over Trumps indictment. She needs to step down! This needs to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court! How can this actually be happening in America?

Video Transcript AI Summary
We will challenge this illegitimate president and focus on Donald Trump. Investigating his finances fuels my determination. As the attorney general, I sue him regularly.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, we're gonna definitely assume we're gonna be a real pain in the ass. I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president. We need to focus on Donald Trump. We need to follow his money. What is fueling my soul right now is Trump. Illegitimate president. I respond to going into the office of attorney general every day, suing him, and then going
julie_kelly2
Posted - September 18, 2023 at 9:27 PM
Saved - September 18, 2023 at 11:26 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Judge Chutkan's controversial sentencing of a J6er sparks outrage. Her misinformed view of the events on January 6 is evident. Comparing it to Game of Thrones and dismissing the erection of gallows, she lacks evidence. Offended by references to civil rights protests, she questions a citizen's political beliefs. Impartiality in Trump's case seems far-fetched. Chutkan's actions raise concerns about justice.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

NEW CHUTKAN FILES: I just obtained transcript of another sentencing by Judge Chutkan for a J6er, convicted by her of 4 misdemeanors after a brief bench trial. To say her view of what happened on January 6 is misinformed in an understatement. It's not hyperbole, it's a lie:

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

After admitting she watched J6 select committee hearings--and asking a defendant if he had, lol--Chutkan compares Jan 6 to Game of Thrones. And no one saw anyone erecting gallows. There is no video of it--and I've been trying to hunt it down for 2 years with no luck.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Chutkan gets very offended that Mr. Hager, who entered the upper west terrace door where several Capitol police stood by inside, talked about MLK Jr. protests. Who is she to decide what is and is not a civil rights demonstration? https://t.co/dlOqmRSQ3k

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Chutkan, who emigrated here from Jamaica, urges an American citizen convicted of no violent crime to "reconsider" his political views and beliefs. Of course, she's not the only judge to do so. But the idea she is impartial in Trump's case is pure fantasy. https://t.co/hOXLm2nrAT

DogRightGirl
Posted - December 31, 2023 at 3:48 PM
Saved - December 31, 2023 at 11:26 PM

@DogRightGirl - Spitfire

Now Raskin wants Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the Trump ballot decision 😂😂 How do these people not see what they are doing? https://t.co/8YyET6b99v

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Supreme Court has established a code of ethics, which they are using to determine if any justices should recuse themselves from a case. It is not binding, as they are not seeking input from other courts. However, it is clear that if a justice's spouse was involved in spreading false claims about the election and supporting the events leading up to January 6th, they should recuse themselves. It is important to consider what actions can be taken if a justice refuses to recuse themselves.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Should any of the justices recuse themselves if they take this up? Speaker 1: Well, finally, the Supreme Court has developed what they're describing as a code of ethics. It's not binding in the sense that they're not going to anyone else. They could have gone to, for example, circuit court justices. You you could have had state Supreme Court justices on a panel. But so they're they're deciding for themselves again whether air in violation of their code of ethics. But I think anybody looking at this in any kind of dispassionate, reasonable way would say, if your wife was involved involved in the big lie in claiming that Donald Trump had actually won the presidential election and been agitating for that and participating in the events since leading up to January 6th that you shouldn't be participating in Speaker 0: should recuse himself. Speaker 1: He should oh, he absolutely should recuse himself. The question is, what do we do if he doesn't recuse himself?
EndWokeness
Posted - March 18, 2024 at 5:38 PM
Saved - March 18, 2024 at 8:50 PM

@EndWokeness - End Wokeness

This is the most horrifying thing I've ever heard from a Supreme Court Justice. Ketanji Brown-Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment is making it harder for the government to censor speech. That's literally the entire point. https://t.co/oqBwVZQB0l

Video Transcript AI Summary
My concern is that you believe the First Amendment restricts the government during critical times. How can the government protect citizens if it can't remove harmful information? It seems like you think the government can't address the root of the issue.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Justice Jackson? So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the Government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech. But in my hypothetical, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems? And your Honor, I understand that in seeing that I guess what I tell you is
rajnishradu
Posted - March 18, 2024 at 7:28 PM
Saved - March 19, 2024 at 4:29 AM

@rajnishradu - रजनीश दुबे

@bennyjohnson @GenFlynn This is the most horrifying thing I've ever heard from a Supreme Court Justice. Ketanji Brown-Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment is making it harder for the government to censor speech. That's literally the entire point. https://t.co/OYQV6kdrjC

Video Transcript AI Summary
My concern is that you believe the First Amendment limits the government too much during critical times. How can the government protect citizens if it can't remove harmful information? It seems like you're saying the government can't address these issues. Can you clarify your stance on this?
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Justice Jackson? So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the Government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech. But in my hypothetical, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems? And your Honor, I understand that in seeing that I guess what I tell you is
4Mischief
Posted - March 22, 2024 at 9:35 PM
Saved - March 23, 2024 at 1:56 AM

@4Mischief - • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ ™ •

Hillary Clinton is deathly afraid that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of fair and safe elections. She wants to secure that her friends could use Dominion voting machines and “allegedly” steal another election in 2024 https://t.co/yteWFE8XMd

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Supreme Court, controlled by the right wing, might allow state legislatures to overturn presidential elections. This means the 2024 election could be decided by republican-controlled state legislatures, bypassing the popular vote and electoral college, potentially leading to election theft.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The right wing controlled Supreme Court may be poised to rule on giving state legislatures, yes you heard me that correctly, state legislatures the power to overturn presidential elections. Just think, if that happens, the 2024 presidential election could be decided not by the popular vote or even by the anachronistic electoral college, but by state legislatures many of them republican controlled to literally steal the next presidential election.
JoshWalkos
Posted - April 9, 2024 at 2:50 PM
Saved - April 9, 2024 at 8:20 PM

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

MAJOR EMBARRASSMENT This is why the courts are so broken right now. Listen to Sen. Kennedy question Biden’s nominee about her record and why she should be given what amounts to a promotion. Also, listen to why she thinks “assault weapons” should be banned. https://t.co/SuVcxIwwSr

Video Transcript AI Summary
I have not considered myself the least productive district court member, but I have 125 pending motions. I rank 7th worst nationally in making decisions. I am not familiar with these statistics, but I prioritize quality over quantity. I am not an expert on assault weapons, and I signed a brief without fully understanding its content. Despite my record, I stand by it. Translation: I don't see myself as the least productive district court member, but I have many pending motions. I rank 7th worst nationally in making decisions. I am not familiar with these statistics, but I prioritize quality over quantity. I am not an expert on assault weapons, and I signed a brief without fully understanding its content. Despite my record, I stand by it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You are probably the least productive member of your district court. Isn't that right? Speaker 1: Well, I have not, considered myself in those terms, senator. Speaker 0: Well, let me explain what I mean. You have a 125 motions pending that you've declined to decide. Well well just let me finish. That's more than any other district judge in the entire 7th Circuit. In fact, you ranked 7th highest nationally. Do you not? Speaker 1: I am not familiar with those statistics, senator Kennedy. Speaker 0: You haven't looked? Speaker 1: I did look in in preparation for this hearing, but I didn't compare myself to others. Speaker 0: You haven't seen that you ranked the 7th worst in the country in terms of making decisions? Speaker 1: You are the first to tell me this. And I think for me, I I stress the quality of my decision to making. And as I explained, I came on. I was the 1st, district judge to come on during this administration. Speaker 0: Yeah. But so did so were all the others. I mean, there have been 68 district judges confirmed in the 117th congress. In terms of motions pending for more than 6 months, you rank number 3. You all came on at the same time. You all had the same problems with COVID. You're the 3rd worst. You really think of all the other district judges in the 7th circuit, you're the one that ought to be promoted based on this record? Speaker 1: Senator, this is something that I've discussed with my fellow judges. All many of us knew judges from Speaker 0: But you said you'd never looked at these statistics. Speaker 1: I I haven't these particular statistics, I have I am not familiar with. But in terms of new judges, both from the current administration and the former administration, we are quite a collegial bunch and oftentimes talk about the pressures of a new judge and the way reassignments work in our district, which is that you get, for example, 300 cases Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am. I understand. I'm familiar with the procedure in federal court. Here's what I'm trying to understand. Why is your record so bad? Speaker 1: Well, I don't view it that way, senator. When I, look at the quality of my decision making, you know, the feedback that I get from parties. You you know Speaker 0: parties are not gonna criticize you. They want you to rule them in their favor. Speaker 1: I I understand, senator Kennedy. Speaker 0: I mean that's just the way it works. Help me understand why you have such an abysmal record in moving cases. I mean, it costs a lot of money to mitigate. And people are paying lawyers. And time is money. And and of all the district court judges in your in in in the 7th circuit, you're the worst in terms of moving cases. Why do you think you deserve to be promoted over all of those others? Speaker 1: So, senator, again, I'm I'm not familiar with the statistics, but I stand by my record and that I give parties what they need. I think, you know, I am regularly in my courtroom. I am regularly issuing decisions. I just came on at a very difficult Speaker 0: to to to to write a brief on behalf of the Brady Center. You wrote the brief, and this is what you said. You volunteered for this. You weren't being paid. Is that right? Speaker 1: This was a pro bono case that one of my partners brought in. Speaker 0: Yeah. You said, quote, assault weapons may be banned because they're extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self defense purposes, close quote. Tell me what you meant by assault weapons. Speaker 1: Thank you, senator Kennedy. Just to clarify just to clarify there, I was local counsel. Our supreme Speaker 0: But you wrote the brief. Tell me what you meant by assault weapons. Speaker 1: Senator Kenny, actually, I I did not write the brief. The brief was written by, Speaker 0: You signed the brief though, didn't you? Speaker 1: Correct. I signed the brief. Speaker 0: You signed a brief. You're testifying to the court that everything in it is is true. Right? Speaker 1: Yes. That and and I I booked They're your words Speaker 0: in terms of the court. Right? Speaker 1: Well, I you're you're correct, senator Kennedy. I would never find Speaker 0: what you meant by assault weapons. Speaker 1: So I I am not a gun expert. And at the time, that brief, I think, was about 10 Speaker 0: given the court advice about, say, ban assault weapons. What is I'm just you told the court you were you were you were an expert. Just tell me what he wanted to ban. Speaker 1: Senator, sitting here today, as I said, I did not write that brief. I was local counsel. The brief. I understand. At at the time Speaker 0: Tell me what you wanted to ban. That's all I'm I'm gonna know, judge. Speaker 1: I I don't remember the exact definition of assault weapons in the the ordinance that was at issue. Speaker 0: So you submitted a brief to the to to to an appellate brief. You signed it, and you don't know what and you said abolish assault weapons, and you don't know what you wanted them to abolish? Speaker 1: Senator, at the time that I signed the brief, I I read the brief, because the our supreme court required someone, an Illinois bar member to sign the brief. I was not responsible for researching the content. Speaker 0: You were responsible for the brief. You Speaker 1: I absolutely. Absolutely. And sitting here today, I do not remember the characteristics of of that were that were cited in the ordinance for the assault weapons ban. Alright. Is that an area of practice that I have, specialized in? I'm sure 10 years ago, I re I would I could have answered your question. It's sitting here today. Speaker 0: You won't you think you deserve to be promoted? What's your record? Speaker 1: Senator, I I stand by my record. I stand by my record.
pjcolbeck
Posted - August 6, 2024 at 1:33 PM
Saved - August 6, 2024 at 4:18 PM

@pjcolbeck - Patrick Colbeck✝️

7 courts found @jocelynbenson in violation of the law yet she gets on a national platform to lecture us on election integrity...aye caramba. https://t.co/3QE3ugQFFg

@matthewmaddock - Matt Maddock

Benson broke 22 election laws in 2020 and should go to prison for what she did to rig our elections

JasonBeaudry6
Posted - August 25, 2024 at 10:23 PM
Saved - August 26, 2024 at 1:21 AM

@JasonBeaudry6 - JB America

Is Merrick Garland now threatening those who question the election results? https://t.co/OX5QUrJSlH

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Justice Department has prosecuted over 1400 individuals for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. These prosecutions demonstrate how seriously the department takes efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, whether regarding the last January 6th, the coming January 6th, or any January 6th in the future. The Justice Department aims to make clear to anyone contemplating interference that they can see the consequences based on the January 6th prosecutions. The Justice Department will continue to protect democracy.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I guess as a follow-up on Scott's question, you're sitting in these hearings with, prosecutors and judges at the courthouse down the street. They're increasingly expressing concerns about the upcoming transfer of power and potential danger of another January 6th. Do you share those concerns at all? Speaker 1: I think our prosecutions have made clear what we think about people who try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which is essential and fundamental element of our democracy. I quibble about whether we have 1500 or slightly less than 1500, but we have way more than 1400 now, prosecutions. We have a substantial number of convictions. I think that's shown to everybody how seriously we take an effort to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, the last January 6th, the coming January 6th, and every January 6th after that. I wanna make clear to anybody who is thinking about interfering with that. They can see what we've done with respect to the January 6th prosecutions, and the justice department will continue to protect our democracy.
kylenabecker
Posted - August 28, 2024 at 6:03 AM
Saved - August 28, 2024 at 12:36 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m deeply concerned about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's remarks in Murthy vs. Missouri, which seem to undermine the First Amendment and suggest a troubling pro-authoritarian stance. This follows Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's regret over censoring Americans before the 2020 election, highlighting ongoing government interference in elections. I believe the Supreme Court must address these First Amendment violations to protect our democracy. Additionally, KBJ's recent comments on contested elections raise further concerns about her judgment and qualifications.

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's remarks in Murthy vs. Missouri are some of the most chilling ever to be uttered in the court. KBJ's pro-authoritarian statement looms large in the aftermath of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's letter expressing regret for censoring Americans prior to the 2020 election. The U.S. government is still interfering in America's elections and the Supreme Court has all but rubber-stamped it. The SCOTUS needs to rectify the U.S. government's infringement of the First Amendment and its election interference or we no longer have a "democracy."

Video Transcript AI Summary
Justice Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment significantly hinders the government during critical times. She questions what actions the government can take, suggesting that simply posting its own speech, like "kids, this is not safe, don't do it," is insufficient. Some argue the government has a duty to protect citizens, but Justice Jackson appears to suggest this duty cannot involve encouraging or pressuring platforms to remove harmful information. She expresses worry about the First Amendment's impact in threatening circumstances, questioning whether the government can interact with the source of these problems.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Justice Jackson? So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple of times that the government can post its own speech. But in my hypothetical, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective. And you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems? And your Honor, I understand that in seeing and I guess what I tell you is

@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker

KBJ recently remarked, inappropriately, on the likelihood of adjudicating a contested election. This is the same SCOTUS appointee who could not tell the Senate what a "woman" is. https://t.co/SEmmUnVHsv

trumprealparody
Posted - September 5, 2024 at 12:30 AM
Saved - September 7, 2024 at 7:45 PM

@trumprealparody - Donald J. Trump - Parody

🚨BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas just said that the E. Jean Carroll case is election interference orchestrated by the Democrats. Do You Agree? A. Yes B. No https://t.co/l06AltSYUF

bennyjohnson
Posted - January 29, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Saved - January 29, 2025 at 6:04 PM

@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson

Elizabeth Warren has humiliating psychotic breakdown doing everything she can to protect her big corporate pharma donors. RFK ends her in 7 second masterclass: RFK: "You're asking me not to sue pharma companies" Warren: "NO I AM NOT!" RFK: "That's exactly what you're doing" https://t.co/I2SCwy4K4R

Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm asking if you will agree not to sue drug companies. I'm not agreeing to that. As secretary of HHS, you could influence lawsuits in many ways, such as promoting anti-vaccine views, appointing like-minded individuals, or changing vaccine schedules and compensation rules. You could even share FDA data with law firms for their benefit. I'm asking you to commit not to financially benefit from these lawsuits while serving as secretary. I will comply with ethical guidelines. You're trying to undermine vaccines. As secretary, you could harm vaccine access while profiting from it. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule; I just want good science. Then say you won't profit from your role as secretary.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I'm asking about fees from suing drug companies. Will you agree not to do that? Speaker 1: You're asking me to not sue drug companies, and I'm not gonna agree to Speaker 0: that separate companies as much as you want. Speaker 1: I'm not gonna agree to not suit our companies or anybody. Speaker 0: So let's do a quick count here of how, as secretary of HHS, if you get confirmed, you could influence every one of those lawsuits. Well, let me start the list. You could publish your anti vaccine conspiracies, but this time, on US government letterhead, something a jury might be impressed by. You could appoint Speaker 1: people I don't understand. Speaker 0: Vaccine panel who share your anti vaxx views and let them do your dirty work. You could tell the CDC vaccine panel to remove a particular vaccine from the vaccine schedule. You could remove vaccines from special compensation programs, which would open up manufacturers to mass torts. You could make more injuries eligible for compensation even if there is no causal evidence. You could change vaccine court processes to make it easier to bring junk lawsuits. You could turn over FDA data to your friends at the law firm, and they could use it however it benefited them. You could change vaccine labeling. You could change vaccine information rules. You could change which claims are compensated in the vaccine injury compensation program. There's a lot of ways that you can influence those future lawsuits and pending lawsuits while you are secretary of HHS, and I'm asking you to commit right now that you will not take a financial stake in every one of those lawsuits so that what you do as secretary will also benefit you financially down the line. Speaker 1: I I I'll comply with all the ethical guidelines, sir. Speaker 0: Not the question. You and I, you have said Speaker 1: Sir, you're asking me not to serve vaccine No. I am not. My You are. That's exactly what you're doing. Look. Speaker 0: No one should be fooled here. Speaker 1: I I As secretary Speaker 0: of HHS, Robert Kennedy will have the power to undercut vaccines and vaccine manufacturing across our country. And for all of his talk about follow the science and his promise that he won't interfere with those of us who wanna vaccinate his kids, the bottom line is the same. Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make 1,000,000 of dollars while he does it. Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in. Speaker 1: Senator, I support vaccines. I I support the childhood schedule. I will do that. The only thing I want is good science, and that's it. Speaker 0: How about then say you won't make money off what you do as secretary of HHS?
ImMeme0
Posted - February 8, 2025 at 8:07 PM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 1:01 AM

@ImMeme0 - I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

Over a decade ago, Elizabeth Warren advocated for investigating institutions that mismanaged funds and insisted on holding those responsible accountable. UNBELIEVABLE! Now that she’s on the other side of the coin, she’s championing fraud and the reckless waste of taxpayers’ dollars.

Video Transcript AI Summary
It's astonishing that the people responsible for the financial collapse are shaping the bailout. Historically, such failures resulted in job loss. Large-scale financial losses usually involve criminal activity, yet a criminal investigation is absent. We need to uncover what happened, determine if laws were broken, and identify systemic failures. I want accountability—not just blame, but a commitment to preventing future occurrences. We need to know who did what, and how to fix the system.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's the most astonishing part of this whole wreck now is that the very people who drove the car over the cliff have been instrumental in shaping how the American taxpayer was supposed to save it and reconstruct it. And that's really, that's really amazing. In the past, when you drove the car over the cliff, you lost your job. I was talking to someone who spent many years as a prosecutor, and he said, you know, when that much money disappears, it's usually because somebody broke some laws somewhere. But if we don't look, if we don't ask, if we don't uncover it and make it all public, we'll never find out. Where is the criminal investigation that needs to happen here? I haven't seen it. Yeah. I I just haven't seen it at all. What the government didn't do is it didn't turn around and say, you lost how much money and you wiped out how many pensions and you wiped out how many jobs? I wanna know who did what, whether or not any laws were violated, where the gaps are in the system that would permit this to happen. I want to hold somebody responsible. Responsibility is not just about blame. Responsibility is about making sure we fix this and it will not happen again.
julie_kelly2
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 1:47 AM
Saved - February 11, 2025 at 2:08 AM

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

For four years, these same DC judges routinely lamented attempts to “overthrow democracy” on Jan 6. Now these same unelected judges are defying the will of a president who won at least 77 million votes to protect unelected nameless bureaucrats.

@kyledcheney - Kyle Cheney

JUST IN: Judge Amy Berman Jackson becomes the 5th judge *today* to block an aspect of Trump's early-term orders, this time the firing of ethics watchdog Hampton Dellinger. And night isn't over. yet ... https://t.co/dUaxwZeOmq

amuse
Posted - February 11, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 1:32 AM

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: I'm old enough to remember when top Democrats like Rep AOC and Senator Wyden call on the Biden administration to ignore court orders and rulings they disagreed with. Something about what is good for the goose is good for the gander? h/t @EndWokeness

Video Transcript AI Summary
There's been some thought given to this issue, and Senator Ron Wyden has already advised on what actions to take. I agree that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling. The courts depend on the legitimacy of their rulings, but they are currently eroding that legitimacy through deeply partisan and unfounded decisions. The justices themselves are undermining their own enforcement power. A ruling depends on enforcement, and the Biden administration has the power to choose whether or not to enforce it.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There has been thought, I believe, given to this. Senator Ron Wyden has already issued statements, for example, advising what we should do in a situation like this, which I concur, which is that I believe that the Biden administration should ignore, this ruling. I think that we, you know, the courts have the legitimacy, and they rely on the legitimacy of their rulings. And what they are currently doing is engaged in an unprecedented and dramatic erosion of the legitimacy of the courts. They it it is the justices themselves through the deeply partisan and unfounded nature of these rulings that are undermining their own enforcement. Speaker 1: So you're saying the Biden administration should ignore this court, but what does that look like? What does that actually mean? Speaker 0: You know, I think the interesting thing when it comes to a ruling is that it relies on enforcement, and it is up to the Biden administration to enforce to choose whether or not to enforce such a ruling. Speaker 1: But is that
elonmusk
Posted - February 12, 2025 at 4:23 PM
Saved - February 12, 2025 at 8:56 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

Impeach this activist posing as a judge! Such a person does great discredit to the American justice system.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: The Obama-appointed judge that threatened the Trump administration with arrest if funding was not restored to USAID previously likened Trump's first term to the Civil War and Jim Crow and compared Trump to a tyrant in 2021 video footage uncovered by @nataliegwinters. Judge McConnell is an activist who has no business sitting in judgement of the president or his administration.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Over the past four years, our nation's core values and institutions have faced a new kind of test, reminiscent of challenges during the Civil War era. It felt like a balloon being inflated to its breaking point. The courts play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, acting as a safeguard against arbitrary actions and defending our constitutional values. In the legal system, especially during sentencing, it's vital to recognize the individual before you. Whether they are a woman, Black, transgender, poor, rich, or anything else, they bring life experiences that you may not have shared. To apply the law justly, you must understand their perspective and apply the law accordingly.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So, what's happened over the last four years or so, and at other times in our country's history, going back to the Civil War and Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights and during the last four years is that the values that we live by, the constitutional values that form the basis of our country have been tested and our institutions have been tested in ways that I don't think a lot of folks thought would survive. It got tested in the 1800s by a war, and we survived the war, sometimes well and sometimes not so well, but that's for another story. So what we saw the last four years in my mind was a new testing of it. And how I think about it is, it's like a balloon, you know, and and you're blowing up a balloon and and you and you keep pushing that air in. Well, at some point, the balloon's gonna pop. Right? And and and and and it feels like over the last four years with the challenges that have occurred to the rule of law in this country, that we came very close to that balloon popping. But where courts stand and enforce the rule of law that is against arbitrary and capricious actions by, what could be a tyrant or could be what happened. We saw plenty of examples of that recently. And it enforces our values. Our values, in a legal sense, the Constitution. And it's that reason that, and we find there are plenty of examples of a history and there's plenty of examples over the last four years through government actions when you're sentencing someone, when we talk about sentencing, that you have to take a moment and realize that this, you know, middle class white male, privileged person, needs to understand the human being that comes before us that maybe a woman and maybe black, maybe transgender, maybe poor, maybe rich, maybe whatever, may have experiences that aren't yours and you have to walk in their shoes and understand that the law applies to them where they are. And then you have to apply the law accordingly.
RepEliCrane
Posted - February 15, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Saved - February 16, 2025 at 12:32 AM

@RepEliCrane - Rep. Eli Crane

I’m one of them. Activist judges are out of control.

@LeadingReport - Leading Report

BREAKING: Several House Republicans are preparing articles of impeachment against the federal judges blocking some of President Trump’s and Elon Musk’s key policies.

RonDeSNews
Posted - March 4, 2025 at 10:34 PM
Saved - March 6, 2025 at 6:19 AM

@RonDeSNews - Ron De Santins 🇺🇸 NEWS

🚨 BREAKING: Multiple House Republicans are moving to IMPEACH federal judges who are obstructing key policies from President Trump & Elon Musk! Do you support this bold move? 🔴 YES 🔵 NO https://t.co/IcBvIosyCy

Windoctorx
Posted - March 5, 2025 at 2:23 PM
Saved - March 6, 2025 at 2:32 AM

@Windoctorx - The Win Doctor

Maybe the reason Amy Coney Barrett CONTINUOUSLY votes with Democrats is because she was endorsed by the guy on the right https://t.co/WjLrUdJphI

julie_kelly2
Posted - March 13, 2025 at 1:10 PM
Saved - March 13, 2025 at 2:06 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
For years, I've called for the impeachment of Beryl Howell, whom I see as a reckless and partisan judge. In December 2023, she received an award from Loretta Lynch, praising various figures in the justice system. During her time as chief judge, she seemed focused on undermining Donald Trump and his associates. Howell frequently warns about threats to democracy while disregarding the Constitutional rights of Americans. Her belief in a "living" Constitution, which she interprets flexibly, raises serious concerns about her judicial approach.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

For years covering both Jan 6 cases and the criminal indictments against President Trump, I pleaded for the impeachment of Beryl Howell. She arguably is the most reckless, partisan, vindictive, and lawless judge on the federal bench. Here is Howell in Dec 2023 receiving an award given to her by Loretta Lynch. She heaps praise on Lynch, Lisa Monaco (deputy AG at the time), Sally Yates, and Andrew Weissmann. Howel had just completed her 7-year stint as chief judge of DC district court, where she did little more than use her unchecked power to try to destroy Donald Trump and everyone around him.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Thank you, Kathy and Loretta, for your kind words. I'm deeply honored to receive the Champion Award and to be among past recipients like Loretta and Sally Yates, who are true heroes of the law. It's also an honor to share the stage with Lisa Monaco. Lisa, I've always admired your calm and graceful approach to your immense responsibilities, both now and in your previous national security role. Thank you for your service to our country and for your unwavering commitment to justice. This event feels like a homecoming, as many of us have crossed paths professionally and personally over the years. I'm happy to see so many friends from the Eastern District of New York here tonight, including Loretta, Karen, Kirby Heller, Jody Avrigan, and Andrew Weisman.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Teacher, friend, mentor, please welcome our first winner this evening of the WWCDA champion award, judge Beryl Howell. Well, thank you very much Kathy. And thank you very much Loretta. I'm very humbled by your words tonight, and I'm very humbled to receive the Champion Award, and to be included in this pantheon of other Champion Awardees, like Loretta herself, Sally Yates, who's here, who are all living heroes in the law. It's also an honor to share the stage tonight with Lisa Monaco, who's also receiving the champion award tonight. Congratulations, Lisa. Having watched your career over the years, I've been in awe of how you remain a model of calm and grace when carrying enormous responsibility for the safety of so many, not just in your current job, but in your prior national security role. Thank you for all of your service to the country and for being an unshakable force for justice. So this event has always felt like a little bit like a homecoming, since so many of us have crossed professional paths and friendship paths with each other in years past. And so many dear friends from the Eastern District Of New York here tonight, from Loretta, Karen, Kirby Heller, Jody Avrigan, Andrew Weisman, I too saved him for last for the same reason.

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Howell, perhaps more than any DC judge, constantly lectures about "threats to democracy" and looming "authoritarianism" as she acts like a one-woman wrecking crew against the Constitutional rights of Americans (and the president). Any wonder why she is so angry? https://t.co/AWmhvSD0IL

Video Transcript AI Summary
We're at a troubling moment where facts are dismissed, a risky business for our democracy. Historian Heather Cox Richardson explains in her book, Democracy Awakening, that burying facts with false history is a key to authoritarianism. Big lies are springboards for authoritarians. America is at a crossroads, teetering on authoritarianism, but it is in our hands to change this. The book focuses on historical facts to set the record straight about conspiratorial retellings of our history. My judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of big lies when sentencing individuals convicted for their offense conduct on January 6th. We are all about the facts and enforcing the rules to ensure authentic and reliable facts are brought forward.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are having a very surprising and downright troubling moment in this country when the very importance of facts is dismissed or ignored. That's a very risky business for all of us and our democracy. The historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose book I've been reading, explains in her new book, which is a best seller, so many of you may have already read it, Democracy Awakening, that burying facts with false history telling is one of the keys to the rise of authoritarianism. As she bluntly puts it, big lies are springboards for authoritarians. She cautions in her book's opening line, it's her very first line, America is at a crossroads, teetering on the brink of authoritarianism. And she echoes this thought in her closing line that we are at a time of testing and how it comes out resting as it always has is in our own hands. In between those two points in the first line and the last, her book focuses on historical facts to set the record straight about recreated and imagined conspiratorial retellings of our country's history, recent and long ago. My DC judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of big lies at the sentencing of hundreds hundreds of individuals who have been convicted for offense conduct on 01/06/2021 when they disrupted the certification of the twenty twenty presidential election at The US Capitol. As district court judges, we are all about the facts and enforcing the procedural and evidentiary rules to make sure authentic, reliable, and tested facts are brought forward to resolve a case with serious consequences for noncompliance

@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Howell, appointed by Obama, believes in a "living" Constitution that is malleable because white men wrote it. (Of course, her devotion to the actual Constitution depends on how her Trump ox is gored.) This is batshit crazy talk: https://t.co/q9pSd8JSev

Video Transcript AI Summary
Our constitution had some fundamental flaws at its inception. Black men, native peoples, and women were not considered people who were equal or who needed to consent to the government. However, the forces pushing our democracy to fulfill the ideals laid out in the text of our constitution have most often come from those very folks entirely left out or marginalized in the constitution's original iteration. The WWCDA is one of those forces pushing and is a shining example of how women joining together, and including some extraordinary men too, can empower change. This gala is an important opportunity to remind ourselves of the important work that still needs to be done.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We all recognize today the harsh fact about our own history that when our constitution was written, it had some fundamental flaws since no black men, native peoples, no women were considered to fall within the definition of people who were equal or who needed the consent needed to consent to the government under which they lived. Our country's history shows that the forces pushing our democracy to fulfill the ideals laid out in the text of our constitution have come most often from those very folks entirely left out or marginalized in the constitution's original iteration. The WWCDA is one of those forces pushing and is a shining example of how women joining together and including some extraordinary men too, can empower change. So this gala is an important opportunity to remind ourselves both of the important
nataliegwinters
Posted - March 14, 2025 at 2:19 PM
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 10:11 PM

@nataliegwinters - Natalie Winters

The federal Judge who blocked President Trump from firing bureaucrats and stripping Perkins Coie’s security clearances is on tape going on a crazy tirade against Trump. She melts down about the rise of “authoritarianism” and the “big lie.” https://t.co/VPMgDQa71D

Video Transcript AI Summary
Historian Heather Cox Richardson argues in her book, *Democracy Awakening*, that dismissing facts and using false history telling are key to the rise of authoritarianism, stating that "big lies are springboards for authoritarians." She claims America is at a crossroads, teetering on the brink of authoritarianism, and that the outcome rests in our own hands. The book aims to set the record straight about conspiratorial retellings of American history. The speaker notes that they and their judicial colleagues regularly see the impact of big lies when sentencing individuals convicted for offenses on January 6, 2021, related to the disruption of the 2020 presidential election certification. As district court judges, they focus on facts.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Having a very surprising and downright troubling moment in this country when the very importance of facts is dismissed or ignored. That's a very risky business for all of us and our democracy. The historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose book I've been reading, explains in her new book, which is a best seller, so many of you may have already read it, Democracy Awakening, that burying facts with false history telling is one of the keys to the rise of authoritarianism. As she bluntly puts it, big lies are springboards for authoritarians. She cautions in her book's opening line, it's a very first line, America is at a crossroads, teetering on the brink of authoritarianism. And she echoes this thought in her closing line that we are at a time of testing and how it comes out resting as it always has is in our own hands. In between those two points in the first line and the last, her book focuses on historical facts to set the record straight about recreated and imagined conspiratorial retellings of our country's history, recent and long ago. My DC judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of big lies at the sentencing of hundreds hundreds of individuals who have been convicted for offense conduct on 01/06/2021 when they disrupted the certification of the twenty twenty presidential election at The US Capitol. As district court judges, we are all about the facts.
elonmusk
Posted - March 17, 2025 at 1:20 PM
Saved - March 17, 2025 at 2:29 PM

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

The list of “enemies” on the right or left has changed, as the left is now pro war and has captured the judiciary, but the general principle is timeless https://t.co/fN1abDrZx5

Video Transcript AI Summary
Extremism's primary advantage is the good feeling derived from having enemies. Enemies allow extremists to project all the world's badness onto them, while claiming all the goodness for themselves. This is especially appealing to those who enjoy abusing others, as it provides a justification for their behavior. Joining the hard left provides a list of enemies including authority figures like police, corporations, Americans, and moderates. The hard right offers a different list: minority groups, unions, Russia, the BBC, communists, and moderates. Arming oneself with such a list allows extremists to be nasty while feeling morally justified. They can abuse others while seeing themselves as champions of truth, rather than paranoid individuals.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Seriously, though, we've heard a lot about extremism recently. A nastier, harsher atmosphere everywhere, more abuse and bother boy behavior, less friendliness and tolerance and respect for opponents. Alright. But what we never hear about extremism is its advantages. Well, the biggest advantage of extremism is that it makes you feel good because it provides you with enemies. Let me explain. The great thing about having enemies is that you can pretend that all the badness in the whole world is in your enemies, and all the goodness in the whole world is in you. Attractive, isn't it? So if you have a lot of anger and resentment in you anyway, and you therefore enjoy abusing people, then you can pretend that you're only doing it because these enemies of yours are such very bad persons. And that if it wasn't for them, you'd actually be good natured and courteous and rational all the time. So if you want to feel good, become an extremist. Okay. Now you have a choice. If you join the hard left, they'll give you their list of authorized enemies. Almost all kinds of authority, especially the police, the city, Americans, judges, multinational corporations, public schools, furriers, newspaper owners, fox hunters, generals, class traitors, and, of course, moderates. Or if you'd rather be an extremist on the hard right, no problem. Fine. You still get a lovely list of enemies, only they're different ones. Noisy minority groups, unions, Russia, weirdos, demonstrators, welfare sponges, meddlesome clergy, pea sneaks, the BBC, strikers, social workers, communists, and, of course, moderates and upstart actors. Now once you're armed with one of these super lists of enemies, you can be as nasty as you like and yet feel your behaviors morally justified. So you can strut around abusing people and telling them you could eat them for breakfast and still think of yourself as a champion of the truth, a a fighter for the greater good, and not the rather sad paranoid schizoid that you really are.
amuse
Posted - April 1, 2025 at 12:50 PM
Saved - April 1, 2025 at 8:07 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that judges appointed by Democrats who issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration are overstepping their constitutional and statutory powers. If Congress and the Supreme Court don't intervene, the rule of law could deteriorate into judicial overreach.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Democrat-appointed judges who issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration are acting beyond both their constitutional and statutory authority. If Congress and the Supreme Court fail to rein them in, the very idea of the rule of law risks collapsing into judicial fiat. h/t @WallStreetApes

Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator questions a witness about universal injunctions, which are court orders affecting parties beyond the specific case. The witness admits there's no statutory or Supreme Court basis for them. The senator suggests these injunctions circumvent the need for class action lawsuits. The witness agrees that universal injunctions encourage forum shopping, where plaintiffs seek favorable judges to enjoin policies nationwide. The senator states universal injunctions were unknown in English common law and cites that only about 27 were issued in the 20th century, but 86 were issued against President Trump in his first term, and 30 so far in his second. The senator suggests universal injunctions have become a weapon against the Trump administration. The witness confirms Article Three doesn't mention universal injunctions, and the senator proposes Congress could limit judges' power to impact those outside their courtroom, suggesting class actions as the appropriate mechanism.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator, a universal injunction is what we call, an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case, but applies nationwide or in some cases universally to enjoin the gov Speaker 1: Is it sometimes referred to as a nationwide injunction? Speaker 0: Yes. It is, senator. Speaker 1: What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of a statutory basis, senator. Speaker 1: There is no statutory basis, is there? Speaker 0: No, senator. Speaker 1: What's the sir United States Supreme Court opinion which interprets the constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this? Can you name me that case? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of one senator. Speaker 1: There isn't one, is there? Speaker 0: I'm not aware of one senator. Speaker 1: Explain to me how this works. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her. How is that possible? Speaker 0: It shouldn't be possible, senator, but district courts do it all the time. I think on the theory that the the courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it as nationwide so all nonparties are protected by that injunction. Speaker 1: I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action. Speaker 0: That's correct here, senator. Speaker 1: So why don't the federal judges, instead of issuing a a universal injunction with no legal basis, tell the part the plaintiff, look. You gotta go file a class action if you wanna impact parties who aren't subject to my court. Speaker 0: Senator, the Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. I think in many cases, class actions would be inappropriate. They wouldn't the the the the plaintiffs couldn't satisfy rule 23 to establish a class. Speaker 1: So they couldn't? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: So they prefer to ask for a universal injunction? Yes. Does this encourage forum shopping? Speaker 0: Yes, senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to pick find one judge that will enjoin a single policy nationwide. If you have five lawsuits, a plaintiff one of only one of those five cases needs to be successful. Speaker 1: Okay. We've established that there's no basis in statute and no basis in supreme court precedent for universal injunction. How about a common law? I mean, this is universal injunction is basically an equitable remedy. Did this exist in common law courts in England on which our law is based? Speaker 0: I don't believe so, senator. I think we've the government has cited, cases, from the Supreme Court that says, you know, courts are really bound by the scope of relief that a court in equity would have granted, back in England before the founding, and the courts at that time would grant relief to the parties in the in the case, not far beyond the Speaker 1: A universal injunction is a remedy is is unknown in English common law, is it not? Speaker 0: I haven't done the research that far back, but I'm not aware of it. Speaker 1: I have. It's unknown. Wasn't part of of equity. Only about 27 universal injunctions were issued in the twentieth century. Does that sound about right? Speaker 0: That's that sounds about right, senator. Speaker 1: But 86 of them were issued against president Trump in his first term. Is that correct? Speaker 0: I don't know the specific number, but they were a high number. Speaker 1: And so far in president Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him. Have they not? Speaker 0: Senator, I don't have a specific number, but that sounds about right. Speaker 1: The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not? Yes. And tell me again in my last ten seconds. Tell me the basis for universal injunction in article three. I I read article three, which defines judicial power. Where does it mention universal injunction? Speaker 0: It does not, senator. It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case. Speaker 1: So the congress could act and say, look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can't impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action. That's why God created class actions, isn't it? Speaker 0: Yes, senator.
LauraLoomer
Posted - May 23, 2025 at 9:22 PM
Saved - May 24, 2025 at 7:26 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve come across some concerning information regarding Lynsey Heffernan, the wife of Massachusetts District Judge Brian Murphy. She actively supports illegal aliens and criticizes Trump’s immigration policies, advocating for the integration of around 50 non-English speaking illegal alien students into the Shrewsbury Public School system. Her remarks during a recent School Committee meeting highlight her commitment to these students. Given her stance, questions arise about Judge Murphy's impartiality in a recent ruling against the Trump administration regarding deported migrants, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.

@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer

EXCLUSIVE: 🚨 Wife of Massachusetts district judge Brian Murphy, who just ruled that the Trump administration must bring back dangerous criminals—including child rapists and murderers—who were deported to South Sudan, actively posts Anti-Trump commentary in support of illegal aliens and against @realDonaldTrump’s immigration policies 🚨 Lynsey Heffernan, a Shrewsbury School Committee member and the wife of Biden appointed U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, has publicly championed the integration of approximately 50 illegal Alien students, many of whom are non-English speaking, into the Shrewsbury Public School system. The Shrewsbury School @ShrewsburyPS system is located in Massachusetts. During a September 6th, 2023 School Committee meeting, as reported by the *Community Advocate*, Heffernan praised the district’s efforts to provide robust educational support to these homeless and illegal alien students, whom she called “our kids.” SOURCE: https://www.communityadvocate.com/education/shrewsbury-schools-welcome-roughly-50-homeless-students/article_6c8d8aa5-3e39-5bf9-8448-091dd4409ff6.html Her remarks reveal that she, like her husband, is an advocate for illegal aliens. Heffernan’s advocacy for illegal aliens aligns with the judicial actions of her husband, Judge Murphy, who ruled yesterday against the Trump administration in a high-profile immigration case. Murphy ordered the Trump administration to retain custody of migrants deported to South Sudan, citing violations of his earlier injunction requiring sufficient time for deportees to challenge their removal. The comments made by Judge Murphy’s wife on her social media, and in her capacity as a school committee member is another example of an egregious CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Judge Murphy should have recused himself from the South Sudan case, given his wife’s vocal support for illegal aliens and her public opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies. The overlap between Heffernan’s advocacy and Murphy’s rulings raises serious questions about judicial impartiality as the activist JUDICIAL COUP to undermine President Trump continues. It’s worth noting that Joe Biden appointed Judge Murphy after he was recommend by rabid Trump-hating Massachusetts Senators Elizabeth Warren @SenWarren and @SenMarkey Ed Markey. Follow: @LoomerUnleashed @CcpSkipTracer Cc: @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @SusieWiles @elonmusk @StephenM @LoomeredStrat RECEIPTS 👇🏻

Shrewsbury schools welcome roughly 50 homeless students Joe Sawyer and Christian Girardi gave the School Committee an update on Sept. 6 on the influx of homeless students in the school system. communityadvocate.com
teameffujoe
Posted - September 9, 2025 at 7:18 PM
Saved - September 9, 2025 at 10:49 PM

@teameffujoe - The Older Millennial

I wasn’t aware judges didn’t even have to go to Law School. https://t.co/LxihfQjO2R

Video Transcript AI Summary
"Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer." "These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers." "They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar." "They just got appointed to be judges." "No training required." "They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges." "They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar." "How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law?" "But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar." "How is this a fucking thing?"
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer. Yeah. These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers. They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar. They just got appointed to be judges. No training required. Oh, yeah. And that's the case in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia, Texas, Arizona. They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges. They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar. However, they sit in judgment over people who did. How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law? How did this ever become a thing? That's that's one of the most insane things I've ever heard. Like, to to be somebody's lawyer, you have to go to law school. You gotta pass the bar. Like, just to represent a client, you have to do that. To be able to prosecute that person, you gotta go to law school. You gotta pass the bar. But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar. How is this a fucking thing?
View Full Interactive Feed