Jump to content

Ojo Rojo

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1546
  • Joined

Everything posted by Ojo Rojo

  1. Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much. It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise. If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip: use less teeth.
  2. I've read it. It doesn't say anything that disproves my point.
  3. You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right? "The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states. The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."
  4. I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.
  5. Anderson: Sec. 3 of the 14th left to Congress to enforce. Right on the law. Trump v. U.S.: Immune for official acts. Did not determine that acts of insurrection were official acts. Left it to lower courts. Right on the law.
  6. LOL, fanboi. Okay. As this is the Leopards thread I'll leave it alone, but when he's the swing vote or there is a 9-0 majority punking Trump's EOs I will bring it back up elsewhere.
  7. He ruled according to the law. What was he supposed to do? Rule in such a way for a desired outcome? Long-term, that would be far worse. He also signaled how to stop it when he didn't need to.
  8. Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements. But that's okay.
  9. Roberts has ruled against Trump and the GOP in the past. That's it. That's the whole point some people here don't want to recognize for some reason. It doesn't take much "research" to know that about Roberts. It should be common knowledge.
  10. It was sarcasm. I read the opinion referenced and it didn't say what Wildcat says it did.
  11. Okay, so who do you think John Roberts is?
  12. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/politics/john-roberts-supreme-court-liberals-daca-second-amendment/index.html https://afj.org/article/strategic-considerations-john-roberts-swing-votes-all-about-politics-court-watchers-say/ https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/27/conservatives-blast-roberts-1386124 https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/18/politics/john-roberts-donald-trump-impeachment/index.html https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-john-roberts-trump-supreme-court-2040802 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roberts-rebuke-trump-shows-seriousness-concern-white-house/story?id=119921304
  13. Lighten up, Francis. I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible. You should try it.
  14. Help a brother out.(?)
  15. I think the Supreme Court will hold the line. Roberts has shown he's not just a GOP/Trump shill.
  16. The Constitution doesn't allow a third term, period. If he tries, either by arguing that the Constitution does allow it or by just defying the Constitution outright, then it goes to the courts and ultimately SCOTUS will rule. There, either SCOTUS abandons the Constitution and officially becomes a member of the fascist Trump party or they rule against him and according to the Constitution. From there, if he defies the SCOTUS order then SCOTUS will order federal marshals to remove him from the White House. If those dudes refuse to enforce the order then we're fucked. Trump Co. could also meet those marshals at the White House with armed guards. There might actually be a shootout. Whoever is left standing when the smoke clears wins.
  17. Altuve, Yordan, Diaz, Pena, Hader, Framber, Paredes, Walker, Brown, Abreu and the possibility of getting LMJ, Garcia, France and Javier back at some point this season.
  18. I'm not sure how best to say this, but the lawyers are the ones standing between Trump Co. and all the bad shit you imagine has already happened. https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ And they are winning. Don't get me wrong, SCOTUS could abandon the Constitution and fuck us all or Trump Co. could start ignoring court orders. That would be when the fun shit starts.
  19. It's a shame, but bodies stacked in the streets like cordwood should do it.
  20. I bet it sucked cleaning the shit out of that wetsuit.
×
×
  • Create New...