Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

610

(post is archived)

[–] • 12 pts

The Supreme Court exists to carry out the orders of those in charge. Hence their constant inability to rule on anything that favors the actual right.

2nd amdmt cases? Won’t even hear them. Abortion? Nah. Gay marriage? Go wild. Financial rape in the guise of ‘healthcare’? Have at ‘er.

Basically if it pushes the country to a more Jewish direction, they are compliant. If it seeks to halt that or reverse it, they will either ignore or stab you in the back... Or they hand you a ‘win’ that contains a legal loophole so huge and obvious that even the biggest nose could fit through.

[–] • 2 pts

There's a jewish "think tank" that's rubber stamped every living justice.

[–] • 2 pts

Thinking about it in their defense had they heard the case all 9 would have committed suicide and they didn't want to kill them selves so with no explanation they just said na we will pass

[–] • 2 pts

Has there ever been a massive anti Supreme court rally? This is fucking insane. Robert's is absolutely bought and paid for or blackmailed which ever you choose he should be kicked of.

The media completely ignores this shit. We need a grass roots movement to go protest the Supreme court for fuck sake

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

The rally would be attacked by blm and antifa while "thin blue line conservatives" stood down. And those blue liners would wait on the sidelines to arrest anyone that defended themselves from being stabbed or bricked in the head by blm/antifa marxists.

Then the media would declare that the right was rioting, and blame the stabbings on the right.

And the intelligence agencies, there to take pictures of peoples faces and license plates to leak to the marxist mobs, would use this news reported by the media as justification to go after our side.

And then the GOP would grandstand for a bit and shrug or claim they just cant win or do anything about it.

Say it with me. Say it. We are in a war. And ALL of them, DNC, GOP, police, federal agencies, are the enemy and they mean to harm us and our families.

It's us vs them.

[–] • 2 pts

I don't think there is enough of us

[–] • 1 pt

I don't think there is enough of us

Thats what recruiting is for.

[–] • 1 pt

The "Just Us" system at work.

[–] • 0 pt

This case is a simple procedural running that there isn't a private right of action in this instance. It's actually a good thing, because could you imagine the bullshit if leftists were allowed private rights of action for criminal laws?

[–] • 0 pt

Dear admins;

Watts V US + True Threat doctrine.

[–] • 0 pt

Not that I care, and SCOTUS protects free speech if ALL justices threatened , not just some. And SCOTUS protects the OP title becuase it lacks a date under 365 days from now.

... but... FBI does that type of shit talking to smear social free speech sites, even though this site is only a 90% free speech site. It does annoy Jews though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

To type something in a public forum, or utter it aloud in public, to be a crime, to be a "Imminent Lawless Action" it MUST not be a list of all targets of a class :

"SHOVE ALL JEWS INTO OVENS" ...

...is free speech in USA because that lacks a subset of the class of targets, and is ALL jews, and furthermore is not imminent, because SCOTUS , time and time again, defines imminent as UNDER 365 days.

If either criteria missing (time and subclass of target(s) ), or both criteria missing, it is free speech protected by US Supreme Court.

But the point I am making is... glow in the dark CIA niggers type similar pleas to shoot every judge online.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Non archive link for those of us who aren't into doing 6 gorillion captchas that don't even display properly.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/545361-supreme-court-rebuffs-bid-for-hillary-clinton-deposition-about

[–] • 1 pt

I saw the discussion about that last night. When I see archive.is I have to pass on it. I thought it was just me until last night. Everyone who still uses that is a faggot.

[–] • 0 pt

What was the lower court's argument for not allowing it?