Supreme court jusr ruled that innocent prisoners cant be released

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,062
Reputation
8,025
Daps
122,420
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks

hashmander

Hale End
Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
21,087
Reputation
5,567
Daps
90,633
Reppin
The Arsenal
They are in control of 2/3rd of the govt no?!!?:patrice:
1/3

the 3 branches of govt are legislative, executive and judicial. the judicial branch is what this thread is about and conservatives control it. democrats have 1/2 of the legislative (senate) and the executive.

keep on revealing yourself though.
 

Kyle C. Barker

Migos VERZUZ Mahalia Jackson
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
28,920
Reputation
9,782
Daps
124,389
1/3

the 3 branches of govt are legislative, executive and judicial. the judicial branch is what this thread is about and conservatives control it. democrats have 1/2 of the legislative (senate) and the executive.

keep on revealing yourself though.


shyt, and even if the Dems had full control over the executive and legislative branches the repubs basically have a playbook to invalidate new laws by sending bogus court cases up to the supreme court where they can strike down whatever dem law they don't like.
 

TheAnointedOne

Superstar
Joined
Jul 30, 2012
Messages
8,705
Reputation
1,001
Daps
34,199
No one wants to address the issue. Just blame the other side

"#Bothsiders though"
"This is Trump's fault!" (even though we have a democratic president now)
"This is the democrat's fault!" (even though the supreme court is mostly conservative)

Something bad happens and people just point at the other side, and nothing gets done about it.
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,062
Reputation
8,025
Daps
122,420
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
"that at least some federal prisoners"
Um... what's the determining factors in who??
This is crazy regardless..
Basically, there was a law that allowed Federal prisoners to seek a retrial more than once in the court they were originally convicted in based on evidence discovered after a conviction. Problem was it was worded too broadly. Supreme Court (Thomas) said 'fukk this!! We ain't got time to figure this out and if they were convicted, oh well!'

Now, they get ONE retrial.

That's it.

The End

:snoop:
 
Top