badgerx16

Painless

Tinpot, clichéd, obviously false, reads like a 14 year old wrote it. An astute summary of Express and Mail editorial content.

Junction

Or switching from Conservative to REFORM. Labour on 39% are well behind where Blair was in 1997 yet as far ahead of the Tories as he was.

Glamorgan chasing a record 593 to beat Gloucestershire get to 592:9 in the last over then lose their last wicket off the last ball of the match.

My son works with his dad.

There you go !!!

Looks like a draw.

Duckie thinks most of what we have had for the last 14 years are pinkos. Labour are pretty much commies.

On being asked whether BoJo's speech worried him, Kier Starmer said no, Johnson is 'Exhibit A' in Labour's argument about Tory chaos, and he fully expects to see a joint presser with Truss joining Sunak to talk about economic stability.

Moon

From videos released by the Ukrainian forces, it looks like Russia has started recruiting storm troops from female prisons.

Pretty

If you intend to apply for a job requiring a 'degree level qualification' it would help.

Trump is a Putin wannabe.

Maria Caulfield, Tory junior Minister, said on SKY News that by knocking off at 6 on Friday evening Starmer was reducing the job of PM to a 4 day week. They are just spouting bollox on the fly, especially considering last week Sunak said Starmer's wanting to keep Friday evening for his family was an admirable thing. Loved Wes Streating's response to her, saying that just like the cleaners in number 10 after the lockdown parties, Labour were ready to clean up the Tories' vomit.

Do you think that if the UN Court ruled against the US the American Government would pay it any attention ? Edit; as the US has never signed up to the Court, as accepting it's authority would be in breach of the US Constitution, they wouldn't. In any case, the UN Security Council is the enforcement body, so it would never get past a US veto.

Yes they were appointed by Trump, but the majority were appointed by Dubya or Democrat Presidents. Whoever put them in position, Article 8 defines their constitutional role. Whether they are being a-political in their considerations is open to question, but we must now wait for the lower Courts to work out how the SC declaration can be interpreted, implemented, and possibly challenged. The checks and balances you mention are created by the Constitution and theoretical separation and independence of the 3 branches. As for asking for something akin to the ECHR, that initially requires such an organisation to exist, then you have to sign up to it and accept it's judgements, and at the end of the day there is nothing to stop a member country that disagrees with one of it's rulings leaving it's jurisdiction and ignoring it.

People who park their cars right next to a junction, half on the pavement, straddling double yellow lines, and think it's OK because they have their blue badge displayed on the dashboard.

They are the 'higher and totally impartial court'. If there was a next level, who is to say they coul not be compromised in turn ? How many layers of appeal judiciary are required ?

God gave up on that shitshow decades ago.

"8. Independent Judiciary Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life (subject to good behavior), ensuring they are insulated from political pressure and can make decisions based on the Constitution rather than popular or political considerations." Yeah, right.

Most of his acts of incitement are now moot as he was apparently acting in his official capacity in claiming fraud, and most of the evidence against him is ruled out as it is communications created by him acting as President. So much for an independent Judiciary.

Imagine JB encouraging a mob march to prevent the certification of a Trump victory amidst Social Media claims of ballot fraud.