Thread: U.S. Attorney: 'I was ordered to resign'

Look Bama,

I recovered it from my cache. Have at it!

We all know you and Ghost were speaking of federal judges by your shorthanded if unknowledgeable reference to "district judges".

Oh do tell, you've been quoting us all this time how did you get Federal Judges out of District Judges? Literaly, I did not say Federal Judges and CG hasn't mentioned them at all.

Let me put it to you simply, I played you! And you hardcore fell for it. As Puck would say, you're still not awake.

I've heard all I want to hear about your misdirected imput.

What do you have to say about illegal immigration?

Dixie

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Because their advisory opinions are now rarely overturned

I missed this gem of yours.

Federal courts do not issue "advisory opinons".

In fact, they refuse to do so.

Why?

Because of Article III's "case or controversy" requirement.

Google it.

You really should desist in any discussion about the law. You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Dixie

Look Bama,

I recovered it from my cache. Have at it!

We all know you and Ghost were speaking of federal judges by your shorthanded if unknowledgeable reference to "district judges".

Oh do tell, you've been quoting us all this time how did you get Federal Judges out of District Judges? Literaly, I did not say Federal Judges and CG hasn't mentioned them at all.

Let me put it to you simply, I played you! And you hardcore fell for it. As Puck would say, you're still not awake.

I've heard all I want to hear about your misdirected imput.

What do you have to say about illegal immigration?

Dixie

Let's get to it:

What did you think you meant by "district judges"?

I am providing exactly one response to your attempted baiting, because we have seen clearly what your intent on this site is and because I am not going to contribute to your mayhem.

1. The decision of a given judge, and especially a Supreme Court justice or other federal judge, is often political. FDR manipulated Supreme Court judges by threatening to stack the courts, and other Presidents have used other subtle and not-so subtle tactics to attempt to influence retirement plans of these judges. The topic of the thread was U.S. attorneys, and though the subject of judges had been introduced, I was also referring to the attorneys who were the topic of discussion. There was much discussion as Bsuh took office about the possibility of the retirement of several Supreme Court justices and other judges, and Conservatives had high hopes that those judges would in fact be influenced to take their retirements and that they would be replaced by Bush with the aforementioned strict constructionists. Part and parcel to the desired outcome was the replacement of lesser judges (magistrates) and other appointees, such as federal prosecutors, whose biased prosecutions and interventionist/activist leanings were seen as a threat to traditional American values.

2. Magistrates are federal judges and have been since 1990. It was you who introduced the "red herring" by artificially limiting the discussion to Art. III judges and excluding Art. I judges. Many people may have missed the intent of your specifying Art. III judges, but I did not. As mentioned, it is not uncommon for new appointees to replace magistrates and to be expected to replace magistrates with new MJs whose ideology more closely matches their own and that of the President who appointed the justice.

3. "Clearing out judges" means encouraging long-tenured judges to retire, having appointees clear out magistrate judges, and diluting the field with new judgeships. I don't give a flying poop how much you do or do not care for the honest explanation I provide, because I know your purpose and I know your identity. Facts don't matter to you. Intent doesn't matter to you. You're just cruising the parking lot like an insurance scammer trying to induce a wreck.

4. See above. Shifting the courts' ideology is a multipronged strategy for which Presidents assign advisors who work tirelessly on multiple fronts.

The situation here is obvious. You have no interest in this site other than disrupting it. You lurk here for long periods of time (you can be plainly observed lurking) until you find something that you think you can attack or nitpick. That's just pathetic.

Again, this is the only comment I will make because it is the only comment that is necessary and because I will not abet your disruptions. No one here cares one whit about your silly attempted "gotchas," except that more than a few are irritated by their clear disruptive intent.

Dixie and 2ndamendsis, I will ask you to note the inflammatory and confrontational language used by Strother/Bama. He did not ask for an explanation nor did he await one, but rather launched in with both barrels blazing by generically referring to my posts as "senseless rhapsodies of falsehood and folly." He continues by calling me a liar, referring to a comment of mine as "just a load of doggy poopy poo poo," and another as "a bunch of filler crap." This person is not here to debate, but rather to attempt to attack and defame with the most inflammatory language that he thinks he can get away with. I believe that you guys have permitted him a fair degree of latitude and that you have given him more than ample time to demonstrate that he is here to discuss the topic of illegal immigration. Well, there has been plenty of time for his intent to be demonstrated, and where are the discussions of illegal immigration from this guy? They are nonexistent is where they are.

Originally Posted by Dixie

CG said nothing about District Judges. You claimed they were Federal Judges.

What do you have to say about illegal immigration?

Dixie

He doesn't care what was actually said, Dixie, which is why he artificially limited the discussion the Art. III judges. This is about trying vainly to discredit people on this site. He won't discuss illegal immigration (unless he thinks that he has to in order to maintain his posting privileges) because that's not what he is here for.

Bamajdphd,

Our moderators feel that you have continued to insult other ALIPAC users even after we made arrangements with you that those would end.

I am giving them my thumbs up on their decision to disable your account for continuing this practice on our boards.

W

Bama got banned last night???


Praise the LORD!!!!