Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)

47. Of course he can't

Reply to LaydeeBug (Reply #45)

Sat May 13, 2017, 08:29 PM

May 2017

And why would it be Roberts and Kagan?

(Thus completely ignoring the fact that the court has no power to do anything even if they did receive information)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Has the Supreme Court stepped in behind the scenes? (Twitter link) [View all] rainbow4321 May 2017 OP

"High treason"? That's likely to get Cheetolini to pay attention. oasis May 2017 #1

The courts are our only hope at this point. CottonBear May 2017 #2

+100000 CentralMass May 2017 #33

The moment we need to approve a new vice-president nomination, we become a bi-partisan nation. L. Coyote May 2017 #40

You must have a different Constitution FBaggins May 2017 #43

I doubt he knows what "high treason" means. He has to ask an aide what a tblue37 May 2017 #3

Wow!! Blue_Roses May 2017 #4

I'm thinking it's not a coinkydink rainbow4321 May 2017 #7

Why would the CIA be involved......... SergeStorms May 2017 #5

If foreign intel Blue_Roses May 2017 #13

"Recusal" is something done voluntarily. Roberts couldn't have recused Gorsuch. Demit May 2017 #6

Yeah - that jumped out at me too. Kber May 2017 #22

leaks are coming out... SledDriver May 2017 #27

It wouldn't surprise me, either. Volaris May 2017 #48

This is such bullshit onenote May 2017 #8

Thanks for clarifying the situation OldRedneck May 2017 #10

At this point so many people are just making stuff up Lee-Lee May 2017 #9

yup Ligyron May 2017 #11

If alot of intel Blue_Roses May 2017 #12

Nope FBaggins May 2017 #15

First of all, let me be clear Blue_Roses May 2017 #18

Well your "friend" Lee-Lee May 2017 #19

Um, okay Blue_Roses May 2017 #21

C'mon, you can't very well come on a board where you are anonymous, Demit May 2017 #26

This of course is real by brothers uncles cousins hairdresser Lee-Lee May 2017 #29

That is not what I said Blue_Roses May 2017 #30

You're trying to argue from authority. Worse than that, anonymous authority. Demit May 2017 #35

I'm not trying to "argue" at all Blue_Roses May 2017 #38

"Argument" as in presenting a series of statements meant to lead to a logical conclusion. Demit May 2017 #39

Did this "friend of yours" ever pass a HS civics class? FBaggins May 2017 #32

Damn Blue_Roses May 2017 #34

No, they wouldn't Lee-Lee May 2017 #17

Okay Blue_Roses May 2017 #20

I am not talking about Blue_Roses May 2017 #23

And your still wrong Lee-Lee May 2017 #28

Okay, Blue_Roses May 2017 #31

These are just idiots throwing around words they heard on "Law and Order" DefenseLawyer May 2017 #14

I see no reson to believe any ofthose tweets about SCOTUS are legitimate. Foamfollower May 2017 #16

Does SCOTUS have FISA appellate authority? sharedvalues May 2017 #24

FISA Appeals onenote May 2017 #25

When in history did the CIA ever brief the SCOTUS on anything? Mr. Ected May 2017 #36

Never, but some here refuse to believe anything that conflicts Lee-Lee May 2017 #37

They have been there all along. They are the final arbiters of the secret FISA court. L. Coyote May 2017 #41

Sorry... that's nonsense. FBaggins May 2017 #42

So, who do you think picks the FISA Court? L. Coyote May 2017 #44

What's interesting is that you think that matters FBaggins May 2017 #46

some of these tweets seem "off" to me...Can Roberts recuse another justice? LaydeeBug May 2017 #45

Of course he can't FBaggins May 2017 #47