Friendly forums for passionate Dems!
More than 94 million posts since 2001
Home Latest Greatest Videos Forums Hide ads Join up!
Home Latest Greatest
Videos Forums Help
Hide ads Join up!
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'Supreme Court justices s...»Reply #29
Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: 'Supreme Court justices stone-faced in front row as Trump calls their tariff ruling 'unfortunate' [View all]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
'Supreme Court justices stone-faced in front row as Trump calls their tariff ruling 'unfortunate' [View all] Joinfortmill Yesterday OP
Was it a threat? /nt bucolic_frolic Yesterday #1
Not sure. Joinfortmill Yesterday #3
Of course it was, although he was a bit more explicit in his enraged niyad Yesterday #18
AGREED vapor2 19 hrs ago #26
This message was self-deleted by its author Joinfortmill 5 hrs ago #31
I'm shocked he left it at unfortunate. dem4decades Yesterday #2
The consensus seems to be that everything not totally unhinged was Suzy Wiles putting her foot down... Volaris Yesterday #12
Me too. I didn't think he could command that much self-control Bluetus Yesterday #20
Could somebody please turn the settings up? niyad Yesterday #22
im glad they see their handi work in progress samnsara Yesterday #4
After shaking boof boys hand, chelsea0011 Yesterday #5
Maybe she's "not his type". llmart Yesterday #6
Sure wouldn't want that snub to influence her decision-making down the road .... TheRickles Yesterday #7
How many justices were present? Dulcinea Yesterday #9
4. Roberts, Kavanaugh, Kagan and Barrett. Katinfl Yesterday #11
And Kagan looked like she drew the short straw this time. Volaris Yesterday #13
Clarance was probably taking a nap or trying to hide Ginny's gin bottle. 3Hotdogs Yesterday #17
Ooh, a middle school burn. That's how you show a Supreme Court Justice who's boss! tanyev Yesterday #10
That might be a good thing for us. Joinfortmill Yesterday #16
A rapist doesn't listen when a woman tells him "no" Walleye 19 hrs ago #29
We need to write our R Congress Critters and ask........... KS Toronado Yesterday #8
I'm surprised Kavanaugh wasn't groveling at his feet whining to be invited to an Epstein... NNadir Yesterday #14
Roberts knows the president is an unstable moron dalton99a Yesterday #15
Mere whimsy NJCher Yesterday #21
How DARE they... GiqueCee Yesterday #19
"I told you before that you blew the Citizens United case, muf. Now look at what you've done, you arrogant ass." Marcuse Yesterday #23
President Shitzinpants blows hot air out his ass Emile Yesterday #24
He wants to make room for Cannon. Marcuse 19 hrs ago #25
Can Scotus revisit the immunity thing? vapor2 19 hrs ago #27
;-{)..... Goonch 19 hrs ago #28
SC justices are not for or against tRump per se BWdem4life 10 hrs ago #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'Supreme Court justices s...»Reply #29
Home | Latest Discussions | Greatest Discussions | Latest Videos | All Forums

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2026 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.