This guy can almost equal Bidens lies https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexican-president-claims-criminal-groups-195600552.html

[the annoying thing]

Mexican president claims that criminal groups are 'respectful' and 'respect the citizenry'

Mexico’s president said Thursday that the country’s violent criminal gangs and drug cartels are essentially “respectful people” who “respect the citizenry” and mostly just kill each other. The claims by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador are clearly at odds with the reality of millions of...

www.yahoo.com

 

[pjmret]

so in other words nowhere near trump's number of lies. lol

 

[mark francis]

so in other words nowhere near trump's number of lies. lol

Democrat judges of who lies are brainwashed by leftist Marxists who have long histories of pathological lying in support of the wicked and opposed to the just.

 

[pjmret]

Democrat judges of who lies are brainwashed by leftist Marxists who have long histories of pathological lying in support of the wicked and opposed to the just.

right wing blather.
i hope you get paid to make these stupid posts.

 

[mark francis]

right wing blather.
i hope you get paid to make these stupid posts.

Americans know judges and courts are subject to unjust bias and that the problem is getting worse.

Partisan Justice | ACS

www.acslaw.org

Partisan Justice​

How Campaign Money Politicizes Judicial Decisionmaking in Election Cases​

by Joanna Shepherd and Michael S. Kang

Summary​

The upward spiral of big money fundraising and aggressive politics in state judicial elections pressures judges to become partisan actors who favor their own party in deciding election disputes. Bush v. Gore is by far the most famous of this kind of election case, but state courts decide many similar cases every year, regularly determining who wields power at the state and local level. State judges are under enormous political pressure to join in party-based fundraising and campaign networks to survive what has become a fiercely competitive electoral environment. Analyzing a new dataset of cases from 2005 to 2014, this study finds that judicial decisions are systematically biased by these types of campaign finance and re-election influences to help their party’s candidates win office and favor their party’s interests in election disputes.

Principal Findings​

1. Judges favor litigants from their own party in head-to-head cases.
2. Campaign finance exacerbates partisan behavior.
3. Judges are less likely to be partisan when they no longer need to run for office.
4. The problem of partisan decision making is arguably getting worse over time.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Mexican president claims that criminal groups are 'respectful' and 'respect the citizenry'

Mexico’s president said Thursday that the country’s violent criminal gangs and drug cartels are essentially “respectful people” who “respect the citizenry” and mostly just kill each other. The claims by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador are clearly at odds with the reality of millions of...

www.yahoo.com

No one tells more lies than Trump. Certainly not Amlo, certainly not Biden.

 

[pjmret]

Americans know judges and courts are subject to unjust bias and that the problem is getting worse.

Partisan Justice | ACS

www.acslaw.org

Partisan Justice​

How Campaign Money Politicizes Judicial Decisionmaking in Election Cases​

by Joanna Shepherd and Michael S. Kang

Summary​

The upward spiral of big money fundraising and aggressive politics in state judicial elections pressures judges to become partisan actors who favor their own party in deciding election disputes. Bush v. Gore is by far the most famous of this kind of election case, but state courts decide many similar cases every year, regularly determining who wields power at the state and local level. State judges are under enormous political pressure to join in party-based fundraising and campaign networks to survive what has become a fiercely competitive electoral environment. Analyzing a new dataset of cases from 2005 to 2014, this study finds that judicial decisions are systematically biased by these types of campaign finance and re-election influences to help their party’s candidates win office and favor their party’s interests in election disputes.

Principal Findings​

1. Judges favor litigants from their own party in head-to-head cases.
2. Campaign finance exacerbates partisan behavior.
3. Judges are less likely to be partisan when they no longer need to run for office.
4. The problem of partisan decision making is arguably getting worse over time.

Supreme Court judges show the right wing bias