because everyone's anon
no IDs
we trust each other
we can spot shillbakers
we can spot moldy breads
and double bakes
and poisonous bakes
so trust shill spotting anons know what they are doing with shills
and do what YOU do best
no
yeah get out of here before someone drops a house on you. we aren't buying your b.s.
or your supporting flank shills
that's not dox that's tobacco brand
we haven't needed to sort bakers for 8 fucking months. anons stay anon and that includes bakers
blow
it always works itself out. we are not id-ing or vetting bakers so you can follow them, clown.
we know better, some of us have dealt with you for over 10 years or more.
you aren't setting up IDs so you can track bakers
its copypasta and a lot of people use it when it ironically is needed to be used
It comes with time and observation, but it comes.
we've been studying shills for years and years
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1561031.html
they have nothing left in their toolbox. nothing is working. their regular shills dont work. their expertly crafted psyops are threads full of just their own paid agents. David brock is probably screaming down their necks and standing over them. the tranny clowns in their offices are probably triggering and leaking hairballs out of the open wounds and wailing and ready to jump off roofs. the JIDF can't make us fight each other. You. are. so. right. They are losing so big. so big. Just as big as we are winning? that's how big they are losing. and justice is coming like a flaming sword for them.
Baker
nominating this for a
notable
from another thread
but hitting the target
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1929639.html#1929865
Im a half/pol who came when Q moved. Since flimflam days. we've got lots more confirmations and proofs than just that.
You'll have fun.
but stay /pol stay /pol
i dont do plebbit tho. after my 100th ban or so, that's how I drilled down to the toxic underbelly of the internet and the hacker known as 4 chan and the hilarity hurtbox that is 4chan/pol
soros is using someone else's money–rots
>what happens next
this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU
it has the plan outline
for details?………..
LURK MOAR
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/qualifications-to-become-a-supreme-court-justice/
anon, your feels don't matter here. facts are all that matter.
The qualifications are listed. and they are ALL that are required.
so jelly
let's break down the technical qualifications and THEN you tell me where he doesn't meet YOUR idea of 'realistic qualifications'
ahem (clears throat)
"There are no specific guidelines in the United States Constitution that determine what qualifies one to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. It is not required that justices attend law school or even serve as lawyers prior to being appointed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court."
"What Are the Preferred Qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice?
"The Constitution does not say that a Justice must be American born, a certain age or hold any particular profession before being selected. However, most Justices tend to begin their tenure while in their 40s or 50s and may remain with the court as long as they wish or until they are impeached for improper behavior. Most Supreme Court nominees are personal acquaintances of the sitting President. An overwhelming majority of them attended law school and worked as a lawyer or served as a judge prior to their nomination. In fact, in the long history of the court, most of the Justices held some kind of public office before being confirmed. Looking at the court’s history also reveals that where each Justice was educated is important. Most of the Justices past and present attended either Harvard or Yale Law School. Many of the others were educated at Columbia, Northwestern or other top tier law schools."
"Qualifications to be the Chief Justice"
"The court’s highest Justice also is not required to have any specific qualifications. In fact, the Chief Justice isn’t even required to have served as an Associate Justice. Once again, an individual is nominated by the President when the Chief Justice’s seat becomes vacant, and the Senate must confirm the President’s choice."
which of these qualifications do you personally think Mr. Gowdy doesn't meet?
"There are no specific guidelines in the United States Constitution that determine what qualifies one to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. It is not required that justices attend law school or even serve as lawyers prior to being appointed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court."
"What Are the Preferred Qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice?
"The Constitution does not say that a Justice must be American born, a certain age or hold any particular profession before being selected. However, most Justices tend to begin their tenure while in their 40s or 50s and may remain with the court as long as they wish or until they are impeached for improper behavior. Most Supreme Court nominees are personal acquaintances of the sitting President. An overwhelming majority of them attended law school and worked as a lawyer or served as a judge prior to their nomination. In fact, in the long history of the court, most of the Justices held some kind of public office before being confirmed. Looking at the court’s history also reveals that where each Justice was educated is important. Most of the Justices past and present attended either Harvard or Yale Law School. Many of the others were educated at Columbia, Northwestern or other top tier law schools."
"Qualifications to be the Chief Justice"
"The court’s highest Justice also is not required to have any specific qualifications. In fact, the Chief Justice isn’t even required to have served as an Associate Justice. Once again, an individual is nominated by the President when the Chief Justice’s seat becomes vacant, and the Senate must confirm the President’s choice."
woooo lawyerfagging and thinking anons are basement dwellers
you've seen what we can do. if you really have those credentials we'll found out who you are in an hour or two
there are no qualifications. and mcConnell's been sitting on nuclear option for some a reason. An opportune moment.
you got a crystal ball up your ass that you know what will happen?
bet you never saw kennedy retiring didya
Im not saying gowdy will be picked, dont put words in my mouth. Im contesting your assertion that he is not qualified…
when there are 0 qualifications.
You have the responsibility of backing up your claim he is not qualified. You made the statement. sauce it.
according to the law mag https://thelawdictionary.org/article/qualifications-to-become-a-supreme-court-justice/ i linked at you it says that past nominees are usually personally known to the Potus.
you're the one who has to prop up your lame arguments with credentials
anons need none, their arguments are valid on their own
you get angry like a leftist professor
I dont want him to be.
I have only challenged your assertion that you say he's not qualified.
Please provide measurable, quantifiable facts to back up your assertion
hate rage isn't cutting it
that has nothing to do with me asking lawyerfag to back up his personal assertions with some quantifiable facts
this is a logical fallacy lawfag. you know that.
and what
would those qualifications that were behind the putting together of the list
be
EXACTLY
again,
lawfag?
ok lets pretend you're a lawyer
Put together a brief for me
about why Gowdy doesn't
meet the qualifications.
one that will hold up to legal scrutiny.
do that instead of name calling
we do facts and logic here
If you can do facts and logic
that outweigh my facts and logic
I will concede you the argument
not what Im asking. I said multiple times I dont want Gowdy as SC.
I am asking credentialfag lawfag to back up his assertion.
that's all.
there are no side issues.
ah so the name calling is free, but facts and actually backing up your opinion, I'd have to pay you for.
Well I guess you won since name-calling trumps facts all dey