It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge who blocked Planned Parenthood videos RAISED $230,000 for OBAMA

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
This just won't go away.

Now we find out the Judge that "blocked" those Planned Parenthood videos is a BIG Obama supporter !!!

Politics is everything as they say.

Hmmm.

Guess the outfit knew what judge network to make contact with. Winky Winky was in play.

Surprise Surprise !



Judge who blocked Planned Parenthood videos RAISED $230,000 for OBAMA


Well damn it looks like the fix is in. The good people at the Federalist found out that the judge who has blocked footage from being released in the fourth Planned Parenthood is not only an Obama appointee, but he raised a whole lotta money for his campaign:



Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.


You think maybe Judge Billy might be slightly biased towards the left? Sounds mighty suspicious to me.





AND ...

1960's thinking at PP..


BOMBSHELL Planned Parenthood Brochure: “Abortion kills the life of a baby…”

“An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life.”







Why would anyone be surprised? Obama is completely corrupt...as are his minions.




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Grimpachi

Impartiality Counts.



Who would be impartial? A judge is in the business of being impartial.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Judges run on political tickets.

They are elected on political tickets.

I've never heard any Republican concerned about republican appointees or elected officials ...

Now there's a "koinky dink" for you.

This is ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Who would be impartial? A judge is in the business of being impartial.


So he campaigns and raises money for Obama, and he is impartial?




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
So he campaigns and raises money for Obama, and he is impartial?


Who would be impartial?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: xuenchen
So he campaigns and raises money for Obama, and he is impartial?


Who would be impartial?


Why a Republican of course! Siwwy Heretic!



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The "judge" should have recused himself in the interests of justice.

He had prior and personal knowledge.




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: xuenchen
So he campaigns and raises money for Obama, and he is impartial?


Who would be impartial?


Why a Republican of course! Siwwy Heretic!


In this case, an "Independent" would have been better.

Didn't they think that somebody would find out the connections?




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
And they said those PP videos were a 'hoax'!

Don't look like one eh.

Trying to cover their tracks.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "judge" should have recused himself in the interests of justice.

He had prior and personal knowledge.




So, in any ruling right-wingers don't agree with, the judge should have recused themselves.

Think about what you're saying.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why would I not agree with the ruling?




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "judge" should have recused himself in the interests of justice.

He had prior and personal knowledge.




So, in any ruling right-wingers don't agree with, the judge should have recused themselves.

Think about what you're saying.



Using the judicial system to crush FREEDOM of SPEECH is RIGHT WING.

I really wish people would use the term correctly.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

There are no "connections."

Find fault with the Judge's ruling.

The rest of this is "stupidity."

You don't disqualify judges who have a political opinion.

If you did you wouldn't have any judges.

Perhaps you'd feel better if Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito all stepped down from the Supreme Court? They're ALL on the record as stating that their political beliefs inform their decisions.

You just haven't thought this one through Xuen.
edit on 19Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:44:23 -050015p072015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "judge" should have recused himself in the interests of justice.

He had prior and personal knowledge.




So, in any ruling right-wingers don't agree with, the judge should have recused themselves.

Think about what you're saying.



Using the judicial system to crush FREEDOM of SPEECH is RIGHT WING.

I really wish people would use the term correctly.


Right-wingers want to crush freedom of speech???

Okay Neo, I've known this for some time, but thanks for finally admitting it so plainly.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Right-wingers want to crush freedom of speech???


That is what their critics have been saying for years.

As the op says a judge blocked PP videos pretty much shows just how hot for 'freedoms' PP defenders are.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




Right-wingers want to crush freedom of speech???


That is what their critics have been saying for years.

As the op says a judge blocked PP videos pretty much shows just how hot for 'freedoms' PP defenders are.


Can you explain how a judge's ruling on the merits of a filed motion, in California, shows anything at all about, oh say, me as a "defender" of Planned Parenthood (as long as defender means insisting on the truth) in Georgia?

Just because you don't like a ruling doesn't make it bad, or questionable, and you know as well as I do that freedom of speech ends at falsehood causing damage done to another.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
You will probably find it is not just Baby parts they are selling.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gestas
You will probably find it is not just Baby parts they are selling.


Don't be coy, what else do you think they're selling?

*munches popcorn*



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Nvm.
edit on 8/2/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I`ll bet if investigators dig deep enough they will find connections to Cecil.I think the judge turned down Cecil's request for asylum.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join