Office of Oakvale, attorney at law

[windjammer]

Oakvale,
You have spent all your atlasian career violently harassing people through the IRC. If really you were so concerned about "violent mobs" or whatever bull**** point you are trying to make, you should have first acknowledged how s*itty you behavior was when you were still active and ask for forgiveness.

[windjammer]

Oakvale,
You have spent all your atlasian career violently harassing people through the IRC. If really you were so concerned about "violent mobs" or whatever bull**** point you are trying to make, you should have first acknowledged how s*itty you behavior was when you were still active and ask for forgiveness.

Like you I'm certainly no stranger to rough and tumble politics (with a caveat - I don't think I ever sounded so much like Tony Soprano). Indeed, if I'd seen your, er, statement, in any other context I doubt I'd have so much as batted an eye.

But what we have here is a situation where the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court threatened like a low-rent thug, from the bench, to destroy the careers of those who dared to criticise the Court's handling of a politically prominent case.

How on earth could anyone possiblynow believe the Court is impartial and operates without prejudice? How are any of your internal critics ever going to bring a case to your Court without constant fear of bias or brutal retribution? Do you really not comprehend the problem here?

Not at all. I stand by my comments. I believe the supreme court should be an independent institution and that its members shouldn't be threatened by impeachments when a ruling doesn't please to some players.

[windjammer]

Oakvale,
You have spent all your atlasian career violently harassing people through the IRC. If really you were so concerned about "violent mobs" or whatever bull**** point you are trying to make, you should have first acknowledged how s*itty you behavior was when you were still active and ask for forgiveness.

Like you I'm certainly no stranger to rough and tumble politics (with a caveat - I don't think I ever sounded so much like Tony Soprano). Indeed, if I'd seen your, er, statement, in any other context I doubt I'd have so much as batted an eye.

But what we have here is a situation where the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court threatened like a low-rent thug, from the bench, to destroy the careers of those who dared to criticise the Court's handling of a politically prominent case.

How on earth could anyone possiblynow believe the Court is impartial and operates without prejudice? How are any of your internal critics ever going to bring a case to your Court without constant fear of bias or brutal retribution? Do you really not comprehend the problem here?

Not at all. I stand by my comments. I believe the supreme court should be an independent institution and that its members shouldn't be threatened by impeachments when a ruling doesn't please to some players.

Saying that you stand by such threats as the ones you made is not a good argument for the independence of the court at all.

It is a very good argument. I'm going to fight hard against anyone impeaching members of the court because they want a ruling to be overturned.

[windjammer]

The evidence mounts.

“I’m going to fight hard....”

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Well to be fully Frank with you, I did enjoy it quite a bit lol.

[windjammer]

C'mon Oakie, literally one of my first actions after returning to the Presidency in 2019 was scheming behind the scenes to make sure BK got his seat all those years later...after you tried to put him on the court in the final weeks in 2015 before I became President during Bore's lameduck and I wanted to install Dear Sweet Jambles.

They're both on the court now! Can't we just let bygones be bygones? We all know the Court is a travesty of partisan control: just because I have the biggest fingerprints on a 4-year majority-Liebor Court doesn't mean we didn't all get what we wanted in the end!

This incident involved a Federalist escaping justice. It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with incompetence and/or non-transparency.

Escaping justice because of your incompetence*

[windjammer]

C'mon Oakie, literally one of my first actions after returning to the Presidency in 2019 was scheming behind the scenes to make sure BK got his seat all those years later...after you tried to put him on the court in the final weeks in 2015 before I became President during Bore's lameduck and I wanted to install Dear Sweet Jambles.

They're both on the court now! Can't we just let bygones be bygones? We all know the Court is a travesty of partisan control: just because I have the biggest fingerprints on a 4-year majority-Liebor Court doesn't mean we didn't all get what we wanted in the end!

This incident involved a Federalist escaping justice. It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with incompetence and/or non-transparency.

Escaping justice because of your incompetence*

Nope, because of your conduct and ethical failures. You are a disturbed individual and frankly shouldn't be anywhere near the bench.

The ruling unanimously ruled that you filed a lawsuit way too late that made it unconstitutional. Whether or not I'm a "disturbed" individual doesn't matter in the outcome.