Why the Supreme Court Refused to Bail Out Trump This Time

10 comments

1. It was only by one vote. The Gang of Four still sucked Trumps dick.

2. Hilarious, Refused? They knew there was no Consequence what was there to refuse, lol

3. ACB has become a thorn in his side, sure she sides with Donald most of the time, but my theory is that she’s looking out for herself in a post Trump world

4. You got it wrong, they tried to bail him out, but 2 of them decided this was wrong. Maybe those two have some integrity left in them. The rest can go to hell

5. So many people here said the Supreme Court was corrupt and controlled by Trump. Obviously that was just partisan BS. So now we wait to see if liberals are rounded up, elections are canceled, etc…

6. They said he had to get a “no punishment” isn’t that bailing him out?

7. This is one of those decisions they make to bank so as an example of supposed impartiality. They knew that there were no real consequences, so they just let it happen.

   Watch what they do once Trump’s in.

8. You guys need to change the way you appoint these supremes.
   These fuckers should be appointed by independent selection boards not by your president

9. What the actual fuck is up with this headline.

   The Supreme Court literally noted in their reasoning that preventing sentencing wasn’t “necessary” because the judge had indicated that he would give him a no-consequence sentence.

   They didn’t “refuse to bail him out”, they didn’t feel the *need* to bail him out because they knew the fix was already in place.

10. And he’s going to undermine the justice department for giving him all the power. They’re such idiots

Comments are closed.