Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Gatorubet 30185]

Things are Biggly rigged.   He should tell his supporters to boycott the vote.   That way, when he loses, he won’t have lost.

[dcbc 14465]

Let the Clarence Thomas bidding begin… 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
again. 

I'll start at tree-fiddy

[TwiceHorn 31438]

1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

The national abortion ban the GOP wants says yes.

That's so fucked up.  One of the central criticisms of Roe was that it was an issue for the states under their police power, but now that they got that, they want to federally legislate.  FUBAR.

[tx 3 putt 76870]

9 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Let the Clarence Thomas bidding begin… 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

again. 

genni is working the phones !

[Foosters 17840]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In case you haven't noticed, since Trump left office, the Supreme Court hasn't done him one single favor.

I didn't say they weren't jackholes or they weren't enacting whatever conservative policies they were chosen to enact.

It just so happens that conservative policies apparently don't quite line up with Trump policies, at least not those that keep him out of jail or in office.

Forget it Twice, it's Captainant 

[Red Five 40845]

Any legit reason for Thomas to not recuse himself here?

[tx 3 putt 76870]

Just now, Red Five said:

Any legit reason for Thomas to not recuse himself here?

thomas / kavanaugh / gorsuch / barret 

 

[dcbc 14465]

Any legit reason for Thomas to not recuse himself here?

Million$ of them, I a$$ume.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

37 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

They'll go the chicken shit way and not hear it on it's merits.  

Possible.  But seems like too important an issue to dodge and they could make a decision independent of the facts.

One plausible way I see it going down is:

• The 14th is silent as to the mechanism for determining whether a candidate engaged in insurrection
• At the time of its enactment, as today, states are responsible for determining who to put on ballots and who is a valid candidate, carrying out Constitutional rules
• The "original" understanding then must have been that the states would figure this one out too
• Congress conceivably could have elaborated on this like the KKK Act (28 USC 1981 and 1983), but has not
• So, bingo, bango, Colorado ruling valid

[Brisketexan 105066]

Possible.  But seems like too important an issue to dodge and they could make a decision independent of the facts.
One plausible way I see it going down is:

• The 14th is silent as to the mechanism for determining whether a candidate engaged in insurrection
• At the time of its enactment, as today, states are responsible for determining who to put on ballots and who is a valid candidate, carrying out Constitutional rules
• The "original" understanding then must have been that the states would figure this one out too
• Congress conceivably could have elaborated on this like the KKK Act (28 USC 1981 and 1983), but has not
• So, bingo, bango, Colorado ruling valid

You’re adorable sometimes. Look at all of that legal reasoning you typed out. Now look at the naked disregard for legal reasoning in all recent big policy decisions of the SCOTUS. Calvin. Ball.

[hornbri 1396]

If they pass on it, and more states block him from appearing in the primaries then it becomes very possible for him to not get the nomination.

[BamaATL 16593]

Just now, hornbri said:

If they pass on it, and more states block him from appearing in the primaries then it becomes very possible for him to not get the nomination.

Nice thought, but no.  The only states that might pursue it are ones that are solid Democrat anyway.  This won't change the electoral math at all.  

[Gil Bang 25920]

who's the bulldyke with Ingraham? 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45665]

8 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

who's the bulldyke with Ingraham? 

Perhaps you should.  Fuck around and find out motherfucker.

[pantone159 719]

6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Nice thought, but no.  The only states that might pursue it are ones that are solid Democrat anyway.  This won't change the electoral math at all.  

He said nomination, so Democrat/Republican leaning doesn't matter.

There is still no chance though, primaries are winner-takes-most enough that no other R candidate is going to win any state where Trump is on the ballot. If they did this in half the states Trump would still win the R nomination, as other candidates will split the rest of the votes.

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You’re adorable sometimes. Look at all of that legal reasoning you typed out. Now look at the naked disregard for legal reasoning in all recent big policy decisions of the SCOTUS. Calvin. Ball.

But you know as well as I do that it has never been anything else.  More subtle, sure, more incremental, absolutely, but it's always been calvinball.

Nevertheless, Trump getting immunity or being free of the consequences of the events surrounding January 6 has never seemed to be one of this majority's priorities or pre-ordained outcomes, despite it being convenient or conducive to carrying out the right-wing authoritarian agenda.

The best explanation I can come up with is that the majority wants the Court to retain its power over the presidency, what little it's got.

[hornbri 1396]

13 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Nice thought, but no.  The only states that might pursue it are ones that are solid Democrat anyway.  This won't change the electoral math at all.  

It changes the RNC primary math. 

They will count votes from all 50 states to decide who wins the nomination, if he doesnt get any votes from those states wont it effect that?

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

It changes the RNC primary math. 

They will count votes from all 50 states to decide who wins the nomination, if he doesnt get any votes from those states wont it effect that?

 

It's cute that you think the RNC will go by any regulations and rules they have if it comes to that.

 

 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

It changes the RNC primary math. 

They will count votes from all 50 states to decide who wins the nomination, if he doesnt get any votes from those states wont it effect that?

Well it might if there any other viable Republican candidate, but that doesn't appear to be the case.  

[Gatorubet 30185]

[hornbri 1396]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

It's cute that you think the RNC will go by any regulations and rules they have if it comes to that.

 

 

You dont think the RNC would love to get rid of Trump? If they have a excuse to do it they are going to take it. (The key is them doing it in a way to blame someone else, like the SC)

Edited December 20, 2023 by hornbri

[Underdog 28580]

10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

Tens of people will be crushed if Vickie bails out. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

You dont think the RNC would love to get rid of Trump? If they have a excuse to do it they are going to take it. (The key is them doing it in a way to blame someone else, like the SC)

 

They have had plenty of excuses to by now.  He's their salvation.  

[Gatorubet 30185]

22 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Nice thought, but no.  The only states that might pursue it are ones that are solid Democrat anyway.  This won't change the electoral math at all.  

The redness of a state does not always reflect the redness of its Supreme Court, although very often it does, with the longer it’s been red the more fucked up it is.  But as the 60 cases across the country decided against Trump show, the judiciary is not as robustly GQP as the legislature are, even when Trump appointees.   

Also, it is possible to have been a lifelong Republican and to be absolutely appalled at the Hitler wannabe who currently controls the GQP.   The difference seems to be how badly the politician wants to be elected again.    

And anyone with standing can bring the suit, red state officials be dammed. 

[tx 3 putt 76870]

26 minutes ago, hornbri said:

If they pass on it, and more states block him from appearing in the primaries then it becomes very possible for him to not get the nomination.

swing states would have to get involved

[BamaATL 16593]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

The redness of a state does not always reflect the redness of its Supreme Court, although very often it does, with the longer it’s been red the more fucked up it is.  But as the 60 cases across the country decided against Trump show, the judiciary is not as robustly GQP as the legislature are, even when Trump appointees.   

Also, it is possible to have been a lifelong Republican and to be absolutely appalled at the Hitler wannabe who currently controls the GQP.   The difference seems to be how badly the politician wants to be elected again.    

And anyone with standing can bring the suit, red state officials be dammed. 

Maybe, but the Colorado case has been active for months on end now.  To my knowledge, no one else has even started litigation, even if anyone wanted to, I doubt it would get far enough in time to matter.  

[tx 3 putt 76870]

Gravy Seals getting cranky …

 

[Captainant 27637]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's so fucked up.  One of the central criticisms of Roe was that it was an issue for the states under their police power, but now that they got that, they want to federally legislate.  FUBAR.

Gee, it's almost like the republicans are operating exclusively in bad faith with the okeydoke of the federal court system to help them push the Overton window even farther right. The courts may not be helping trump personally, but they have been THE mechanism by which they have fought their culture war against our civil rights. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

 

Quote

Fun fact: In Hassan v. Colorado, while serving on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, future SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch affirmed the state’s “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” by barring ineligible candidates from the ballot. It would be so strange for him to just “change his mind” now, wouldn’t it?

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89628]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

This is true, and like I said, because they aren't necessarily aligned with Trump, though aligned with right wing policy ideology, I don't think they will even hear the case.  This won't effect the electoral math one way or the other, and accordingly, sticking their necks out for it does them nor their ideology any favors.  

45 minutes ago, hornbri said:

If they pass on it, and more states block him from appearing in the primaries then it becomes very possible for him to not get the nomination.

Yeah, this is an easy one for them to pass, given that it doesn't affect the general election at all.

In terms of other states...if the RNC wants him as their candidate, they'll make him their candidate - all they need are 1,235 delegates to the national convention to support Trump.

Some of us think that the people casting their votes in the primaries elect the candidates to run in the general, but it's the delegates that are sent to the national conventions that ultimately decide who gets the nominations.

But it's all a state-by-state case - some states can force delegates to vote for the primary winner, but

https://ballotpedia.org/Republican_delegate_rules,_2024

Quote

Pledged delegates, also called bound delegates, are bound to vote on at least the first ballot at the national convention based on the results of their states' primary or caucus. The Rules of the Republican Party, as passed in July 2020 and amended in July 2022, state the following:

"Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner for at least one round of balloting, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters or delegates bound to a candidate that withdraws from the presidential race."

In theory, I think delegates from Colorado have to go with Trump on the first round, but not sure after that.  More info at the ballotpedia link if somebody wants t dig into that.

[atomheartbevo 89628]

35 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

They have had plenty of excuses to by now.  He's their salvation.  

Or their damnation - he cost them the White House, House, and Senate, and may cost them the House again.

After he loses next year, he's done.  No way the RNC will let him be on the 2028 ballot regardless of whether he's capable of it or not.

[Exposition 93]

Question for those who would know the answer ( @TwiceHorn)? Does this relate to the recent ruling striking down ISL? Is the logic behind one connected at all to the other and would that somehow impact the SCOTUS ruling on this issue?  

[TwiceHorn 31438]

2 minutes ago, Exposition said:

Question for those who would know the answer ( @TwiceHorn)? Does this relate to the recent ruling striking down ISL? Is the logic behind one connected at all to the other and would that somehow impact the SCOTUS ruling on this issue?  

Yeah, that figured into my analysis there.  When I said "judicial lawmaking."

Because that is, apparently, a valid form of state law governing elections, which is the primary source of that law until Congress enters the field, that would seem to give Colorado's determination of a valid candidate some extra force.

[Exposition 93]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that figured into my analysis there.  When I said "judicial lawmaking."

Because that is, apparently, a valid form of state law governing elections, which is the primary source of that law until Congress enters the field, that would seem to give Colorado's determination of a valid candidate some extra force.

Thanks, and really appreciate all your contributions and analysis on here. 

[NAVY 6740]

Interesting ‘times’. Will the Supreme Court slow walk some Trump stuff while expediting other Trump stuff?   

[StassneyHorn 6573]

Boehbert is toast if that holds up and he’s not eligible statewide in November.

[Gatorubet 30185]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.  Between the fact that "it doesn't fucking matter" (Colorado wasn't going to vote for Trump in the general anyway, and no state that he has a chance of winning will similarly disqualify him), and the fact that the Supremes can't wait to step in and suck Republican cock, this is a nothing.

OK, so I have a slightly different take, although I am in no way, saying this is the likely thing to happen. Brisket knows that I might not have been the first person on the ledge, but I was there fairly early.   I think Brisket’s take on this is the best bet. And yet….,

It is true that the current make up of the Supreme Court makes it very unlikely on its face to rule against the GOP powers that be.  On the other hand, I have found over the years, never to underestimate the power of self interest. When it comes to self interest, the Supreme Court finds itself in uncharted territory, as far as people denigrating their authority and questioning the correctness of their decisions. The corrupt pieces of shit like Thomas have brought criticism and shame to the court at a level that is frankly unheard of in my many decades on earth. 

There is a tiny chance that Roberts will try, vain though it may be, to repair the trust and image of the court in a decision that upholds the Colorado Supreme Court decision - due to that decision being crafted through an original intent lens. Well, while SCOTUS can absolutely overturn that, the gymnastics and gyrations that will accompany reversal will truly finish tanking whatever legitimacy Scotus still possesses.

Going back to self interest, Roberts can uphold the decision under the rationale that Federalist and original intent scholars always adore, while at the same time getting rid of the orange cancer in the GOP that is interfering with the normal GOP routine business of protecting money, interest, and ignoring the little people - and may well lead to civil war when Trump goes all bargain basement Mussolini in his second term.   

While we have seen most spineless GOP politicians bending over backwards to pander to Trump (because of his moronic cult members hold over their elections), we have also seen the GOP judiciary stuff Trump in the many election related cases brought before them. Here, Roberts can cut out the orange cancer from the GOP and get back to business as usual. I have to think that there are a number of business people who want that to happen.

Anyway, that is my 30 to 1 long-shot at the judicial fairgrounds.   

[BamaATL 16593]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

OK, so I have a slightly different take, although I am in no way, saying this is the likely thing to happen. Brisket knows that I might not have been the first person on the ledge, but I was there fairly early.   I think Brisket’s take on this is the best bet. And yet….,

It is true that the current make up of the Supreme Court makes it very unlikely on its face to rule against the GOP powers that be.  On the other hand, I have found over the years, never to underestimate the power of self interest. When it comes to self interest, the Supreme Court finds itself in uncharted territory, as far as people denigrating their authority and questioning the correctness of their decisions. The corrupt pieces of shit like Thomas have brought criticism and shame to the court at a level that is frankly unheard of in my many decades on earth. 

There is a tiny chance that Roberts will try, vain though it may be, to repair the trust and image of the court in a decision that upholds the Colorado Supreme Court decision - due to that decision being crafted through an original intent lens. Well, while SCOTUS can absolutely overturn that, the gymnastics and gyrations that will accompany reversal will truly finish tanking whatever legitimacy Scotus still possesses.

Going back to self interest, Roberts can uphold the decision under the rationale that Federalist and original intent scholars always adore, while at the same time getting rid of the orange cancer in the GOP that is interfering with the normal GOP routine business of protecting money, interest, and ignoring the little people - and may well lead to civil war when Trump goes all bargain basement Mussolini in his second term.   

While we have seen most spineless GOP politicians bending over backwards to pander to Trump (because of his moronic cult members hold over their elections), we have also seen the GOP judiciary stuff Trump in the many election related cases brought before them. Here, Roberts can cut out the orange cancer from the GOP and get back to business as usual. I have to think that there are a number of business people who want that to happen.

Anyway, that is my 30 to 1 long-shot at the judicial fairgrounds.   

Again, the easy way out for them is the chicken shit way, don't even hear the case.  That's politically convenient for them, and my guess is how that will play out.  

[Biff Tannen 45665]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Gravy Seals getting cranky …

 

Maybe they are all just big GnR fans. 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

OK, so I have a slightly different take, although I am in no way, saying this is the likely thing to happen. Brisket knows that I might not have been the first person on the ledge, but I was there fairly early.   I think Brisket’s take on this is the best bet. And yet….,

It is true that the current make up of the Supreme Court makes it very unlikely on its face to rule against the GOP powers that be.  On the other hand, I have found over the years, never to underestimate the power of self interest. When it comes to self interest, the Supreme Court finds itself in uncharted territory, as far as people denigrating their authority and questioning the correctness of their decisions. The corrupt pieces of shit like Thomas have brought criticism and shame to the court at a level that is frankly unheard of in my many decades on earth. 

There is a tiny chance that Roberts will try, vain though it may be, to repair the trust and image of the court in a decision that upholds the Colorado Supreme Court decision - due to that decision being crafted through an original intent lens. Well, while SCOTUS can absolutely overturn that, the gymnastics and gyrations that will accompany reversal will truly finish tanking whatever legitimacy Scotus still possesses.

Going back to self interest, Roberts can uphold the decision under the rationale that Federalist and original intent scholars always adore, while at the same time getting rid of the orange cancer in the GOP that is interfering with the normal GOP routine business of protecting money, interest, and ignoring the little people - and may well lead to civil war when Trump goes all bargain basement Mussolini in his second term.   

While we have seen most spineless GOP politicians bending over backwards to pander to Trump (because of his moronic cult members hold over their elections), we have also seen the GOP judiciary stuff Trump in the many election related cases brought before them. Here, Roberts can cut out the orange cancer from the GOP and get back to business as usual. I have to think that there are a number of business people who want that to happen.

Anyway, that is my 30 to 1 long-shot at the judicial fairgrounds.   

Yeah, that's a factor, in addition to maintaining their own power.  It seems ol' Kav is quite sensitive to appearances and so is Barrett.  See this. https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%3A//www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/supreme-court-dobbs-roe-abortion.html#site-content

But, taking the longer view, I think they understand that putting the president above the law is very dangerous, even if it is considered to be advantageous in the short term.  And, again, putting the president above the law derogates their own power.

Also, worth noting that many of their recent controversial decisions (example the Clean Water Act, but cf. Dobbs) could be easily undone by a functional congress. so they are aware that the impact of a lot of them may be less than permanent.  Ruling in favor of Trump would be pretty permanent, although this is a very small wrinkle in the overall Trump problem (compared to immunity, for example).

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2026]

10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

OK, so I have a slightly different take, although I am in no way, saying this is the likely thing to happen. Brisket knows that I might not have been the first person on the ledge, but I was there fairly early.   I think Brisket’s take on this is the best bet. And yet….,

It is true that the current make up of the Supreme Court makes it very unlikely on its face to rule against the GOP powers that be.  On the other hand, I have found over the years, never to underestimate the power of self interest. When it comes to self interest, the Supreme Court finds itself in uncharted territory, as far as people denigrating their authority and questioning the correctness of their decisions. The corrupt pieces of shit like Thomas have brought criticism and shame to the court at a level that is frankly unheard of in my many decades on earth. 

There is a tiny chance that Roberts will try, vain though it may be, to repair the trust and image of the court in a decision that upholds the Colorado Supreme Court decision - due to that decision being crafted through an original intent lens. Well, while SCOTUS can absolutely overturn that, the gymnastics and gyrations that will accompany reversal will truly finish tanking whatever legitimacy Scotus still possesses.

Going back to self interest, Roberts can uphold the decision under the rationale that Federalist and original intent scholars always adore, while at the same time getting rid of the orange cancer in the GOP that is interfering with the normal GOP routine business of protecting money, interest, and ignoring the little people - and may well lead to civil war when Trump goes all bargain basement Mussolini in his second term.   

While we have seen most spineless GOP politicians bending over backwards to pander to Trump (because of his moronic cult members hold over their elections), we have also seen the GOP judiciary stuff Trump in the many election related cases brought before them. Here, Roberts can cut out the orange cancer from the GOP and get back to business as usual. I have to think that there are a number of business people who want that to happen.

Anyway, that is my 30 to 1 long-shot at the judicial fairgrounds.   

This makes a lot of sense. Could be their opportunity to reset the gop. But the problem is… it makes logical sense so I’m guessing it’s a no go for them 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

3 minutes ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

This makes a lot of sense. Could be their opportunity to reset the gop. But the problem is… it makes logical sense so I’m guessing it’s a no go for them 

The nazis at the Supreme Court represent the really dangerous ideologue brainiac segment of conservatism in a lot of or most ways.  The "dominionists" or "common good" theorists.

They no longer need Trump and view him as a truly useful idiot but idiot nevertheless.  Because they don't need to win elections, they're not nearly as beholden to him as elected officials, who have lost sight of the fact that he is truly an idiot.

[tx 3 putt 76870]

14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Maybe they are all just big GnR fans. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89628]

41 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

While we have seen most spineless GOP politicians bending over backwards to pander to Trump (because of his moronic cult members hold over their elections), we have also seen the GOP judiciary stuff Trump in the many election related cases brought before them. Here, Roberts can cut out the orange cancer from the GOP and get back to business as usual. I have to think that there are a number of business people who want that to happen.

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They no longer need Trump and view him as a truly useful idiot but idiot nevertheless.  Because they don't need to win elections, they're not nearly as beholden to him as elected officials, who have lost sight of the fact that he is truly an idiot.

You have both hit on something a lot of people are missing when it comes to who is and isn't helping Trump or who is criticizing him, and Chip Roy's comments about Trump basically hiding out in a basement because he's scared of DeSantis got me thinking.

All of those justices (including the Supreme Court) that ruled against Trump in the dozens of election cases his campaign/followers filed?  Trump couldn't fire them and can't primary them.

Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis?  Trump can't fire them, and they are term limited or have moved on from state politics, so they have nothing to lose by running against him.

Chip Roy and Bob Good (House Freedom Caucus leader), both of whom are openly supporting DeSantis and in the news this week?  Trump can't primary them, Trump probably wouldn't push MAGA to vote for their Democratic opponents in the general, and Good was elected by the Freedom Caucus who knew he was a DeSantis supporter. There are other Republican politicians that could be on this list, but these folks are currently trending. 

I find it very interesting that so many high-profile Republican politicians who are not beholden to Trump in terms of remaining in office, are attacking him.  I also find it interesting that so many Republican judges ruled against him, including ones that he put in their current positions, and again, none of them are beholden to Trump in terms of remaining in office.

Makes you wonder how many other Republicans would be against Trump if they didn't think their political careers were on the line.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33864]

 

 

[Captainant 27637]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, worth noting that many of their recent controversial decisions (example the Clean Water Act, but cf. Dobbs) could be easily undone by a functional congress.

Mfw the flood of dark money that Roberts unleashed have made a functional Congress nearly impossible. He's very effectively kneecapped every mechanism citizens had to actually get the ear of their rep 

[Rimbo 25911]

6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

This will get overturned on appeal.

How? The Constitution and SCOTUS have been pretty clear that states can decide how they divvy up Electors however they want. There's literally zero grounds for appeal here other than "WAH I DON' LIKE IT!"

[Rimbo 25911]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It just so happens that conservative policies apparently don't quite line up with Trump policies, at least not those that keep him out of jail or in office.

See also: Georgia