The Supremes

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

And that's how you let the fascists creep their way into incrementally more and more power. You simply let them fucking take it. 

To be clear, they didn’t have any real say in the decision here and if they’d ruled the way I think was legally correct and somehow gotten their way, Abbott and DeSantis (among others) would’ve seized on their reasoning to attempt to kick Biden off the ballot. 
 

They’re playing poker with shit hands. But they’re also not good at poker.

[Gap03 3308]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

To be clear, they didn’t have any real say in the decision here and if they’d ruled the way I think was legally correct and somehow gotten their way, Abbott and DeSantis (among others) would’ve seized on their reasoning to attempt to kick Biden off the ballot. 
 

They’re playing poker with shit hands. But they’re also not good at poker.

Bro, Abbott and DeSantis are going to suppress the shit outta urban voters anyway, so 6 of one, half dozen of the other ...

[YGIFS 19452]

Let him fight and fight.  Win and win.  Lose and lose.  Run and run.  Raise and raise.  grift and grift.  Rally and rally.  Consciously, he doesn't know what is happening.  But his body will wear down and wear down.  Nobody involved is going to say it out loud.  It will torch his insides.  He will be dead soon enough.  Maybe he wins.  Maybe he dies before the general.  The game is to run him ragged because, or the food supplier at Mar-a-Lago.  And then 25mm Americans don't acce[pt his death as legitimate.  And so we deal with that problem and the next problem and the one after that.  And we continue this experiment in Democracy and like Tommy in "Casino", when we wake up...we keep bashing the shit out of the asshole in front of us because we don't know any better.  

My parents instilled in me from a very young age that I was smart and passionate enough to change the world.  They were wrong.  We all need to come to terms with the fact that maybe our calling was something entirely different.  I have but two skill sets besides being a father.  I am tenacious.  And I have no problem hurting bad people.  Took me until my mid-40s to realize it.  Trump and his judicial enablers woke up the garbage in our nation.  And we've got a lot of work to do to rid the political landscape of them.  Jump in and  help or quit whining.  Because there's some crazy shit coming up soon.  Good news though is...they're fucking beyond stupid and it shouldn't he hard to arrange it that they take each other out.  

Did any of you who grew up with me in public school in the 1980's with American Exceptionalism ever think we'd ever see anything like this for this amount of time?  My hat's off to the Greatest Generation of which I had many relatives fight for peace and against fascism.  Now it's our turn.  Fuck these people, let's chlorinate the gene pool.  

[tx 3 putt 77129]

47 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What would happen if Colorado left him off the ballot anyway?

nothing 

[Neonmoon 38129]

55 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What would happen if Colorado left him off the ballot anyway?

The same consequences Trump will face for attempting a coup 

[Neonmoon 38129]

11 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

1. It is literally absurd to read a Constitutional provision that affirmatively gives Congress the power to expunge a disqualification by a 2/3rds vote, but says nothing about any Congressional power to impose the disqualification in the first place, as requiring Congress to act to impose the disqualification. 

2. This "states have no power here, only Congress does" in this case is completely at odds structurally with all of this court's other decisions regarding voting/elections and the 14th Amendment.

Thank you gif 

[Captainant 27682]

I'll be damned, the supreme court did actually step in to at least tap the breaks on our descent into fascism

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/texas-news/appeals-court-reverses-block-on-sb4-law-to-take-effect-unless-supreme-court-intervenes/3478941/

 

I wonder how seriously the supremes are going to take the """Mexican invasion!!!!!'"" line that's been the justification parroted ad nauseum

[David Dennison 18934]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

As expected the liberal justices apply the law and only the righties get to make it up as they go.

Democrats clearly do not understand the game they are playing.

[Mdhorn 5974]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Whether or not it is the correct legal decision depends on whether you think judges should have personal input into whether election law should make sense or not. The three liberals are clearly concerned about the possibility of GOP states ruling that all Dems are insurrectionists based on nothing and keeping them off the ballot (though one would think that SCOTUS could check that by determining whether or not someone actually committed insurrection) and see a real judicially cognizable interest in supporting some degree of uniformity in elections for federal office, but this decision isn't remotely based in the text or history of the 14th Amendment nor in structural Constitutional concerns (typically the Court looks at federalism, especially in elections, as good, not a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs even to the extent someone who committed treason should stay on the ballot).  

If you're a legal realist that thinks the courts have a role to play in filling in the blanks when the text of the law isn't entirely clear, I guess it's not insane for you to think that this is the correct legal decision (though I think the text of the law is fairly clear here). But if you've ever spent even a single fucking second touting anything any conservative legal commentators have said about what law should be and you want to pretend that this aligns with what you've previously touted, you should ___________________________________________________ [content that would get me suspended and/or might encourage someone to actually commit self harm has been censored by me]. 

A SCOTUS ruling that Colorado's electors can't be counted. Based on what? Who fucking knows, but that's what would happen.

Well they did go 0-62 in court already where they presented 0 evidence of fraud.  FFS, he was propped up by a foreign bank and governments.  He may as well be a foreign spy, campaigning for the American presidency.  He definitely hired spies into his cabinet--people working for other governments, thereby compromising them.  Flynn is roaming free and would probably join the sick, fat fuck's cabinet again should he be elected.  Fuckstain had a hotel down the street from the WH that had standing bribes booked with over 30 governments for the entirety of his presidency.  

[tx 3 putt 77129]

 

[elfenix 34328]

i thought conservatives didn't like when courts legislate from the bench.  was that wrong?

[NWBuck 8571]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Sotomayor: Well I guess Gorsuch has a point, the words “dirt bike” aren’t in the rules…..

Based on the precedent set by 1976s 'Gus v NFL' and affirmed in 1997 via 'Bud v WIAA' 

[Satchel 6938]

So, the only position faculty at Texas universities can take with impunity is one that uncritically supports Israel?

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/04/texas-tech-university-professor-israel-hamas/

https://forward.com/fast-forward/573226/university-texas-austin-teaching-assistants-suspended-palestinian/

 

 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Whether or not it is the correct legal decision depends on whether you think judges should have personal input into whether election law should make sense or not. The three liberals are clearly concerned about the possibility of GOP states ruling that all Dems are insurrectionists based on nothing and keeping them off the ballot (though one would think that SCOTUS could check that by determining whether or not someone actually committed insurrection) and see a real judicially cognizable interest in supporting some degree of uniformity in elections for federal office, but this decision isn't remotely based in the text or history of the 14th Amendment nor in structural Constitutional concerns (typically the Court looks at federalism, especially in elections, as good, not a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs even to the extent someone who committed treason should stay on the ballot).  

If you're a legal realist that thinks the courts have a role to play in filling in the blanks when the text of the law isn't entirely clear, I guess it's not insane for you to think that this is the correct legal decision (though I think the text of the law is fairly clear here). But if you've ever spent even a single fucking second touting anything any conservative legal commentators have said about what law should be and you want to pretend that this aligns with what you've previously touted, you should ___________________________________________________ [content that would get me suspended and/or might encourage someone to actually commit self harm has been censored by me]. 

A SCOTUS ruling that Colorado's electors can't be counted. Based on what? Who fucking knows, but that's what would happen.

It's going to go down as one of the most poorly-reasoned pieces of shit the court has ever produced. I thought they'd try a little harder to hide that they decided the result first and then worked backward. 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

20 minutes ago, Satchel said:

So, the only position faculty at Texas universities can take with impunity is one that uncritically supports Israel?

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/04/texas-tech-university-professor-israel-hamas/

https://forward.com/fast-forward/573226/university-texas-austin-teaching-assistants-suspended-palestinian/

 

 

Wow that's really pathetic of the University. What they wrote clearly came from a good place and was barely even pro-Palestinian. 

[Captainant 27682]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

That has been a constant feature of the Roberts court - unnecessarily broad rulings that far outstrip the facts of the cass, and leaves a million legal landmines for ratfucking

[Chad Fuck 17687]

That has been a constant feature of the Roberts court - unnecessarily broad rulings that far outstrip the facts of the cass, and leaves a million legal landmines for ratfucking

It’s a feature not a bug for them. Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way and they won’t like the results, though I doubt they (or many of us) will be alive long enough to see it.

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

Colorado Supreme Court removed dotard from the ballot on December 19, and the SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue.

Yet something like does Presidential immunity even exist?  Yeah, let's put that inconsequential shit on the back burner.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Whether or not it is the correct legal decision depends on whether you think judges should have personal input into whether election law should make sense or not. The three liberals are clearly concerned about the possibility of GOP states ruling that all Dems are insurrectionists based on nothing and keeping them off the ballot (though one would think that SCOTUS could check that by determining whether or not someone actually committed insurrection) and see a real judicially cognizable interest in supporting some degree of uniformity in elections for federal office, but this decision isn't remotely based in the text or history of the 14th Amendment nor in structural Constitutional concerns (typically the Court looks at federalism, especially in elections, as good, not a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs even to the extent someone who committed treason should stay on the ballot).  

If you're a legal realist that thinks the courts have a role to play in filling in the blanks when the text of the law isn't entirely clear, I guess it's not insane for you to think that this is the correct legal decision (though I think the text of the law is fairly clear here). But if you've ever spent even a single fucking second touting anything any conservative legal commentators have said about what law should be and you want to pretend that this aligns with what you've previously touted, you should ___________________________________________________ [content that would get me suspended and/or might encourage someone to actually commit self harm has been censored by me]. 

A SCOTUS ruling that Colorado's electors can't be counted. Based on what? Who fucking knows, but that's what would happen.

Your approach works if you're okay with every state getting to hold a hearing to determine if some politician "actually committed insurrection," whatever that means, with the total chaos (if not outright civil war) that resulted from forcibly removing people from ballots for political reasons. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

8 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

It's going to go down as one of the most poorly-reasoned pieces of shit the court has ever produced. I thought they'd try a little harder to hide that they decided the result first and then worked backward. 

No it won't. Not when you have unadulterated trash like Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, Dobbs, and the Obamacare decision. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

13 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Let him fight and fight.  Win and win.  Lose and lose.  Run and run.  Raise and raise.  grift and grift.  Rally and rally.  Consciously, he doesn't know what is happening.  But his body will wear down and wear down.  Nobody involved is going to say it out loud.  It will torch his insides.  He will be dead soon enough.  Maybe he wins.  Maybe he dies before the general.  The game is to run him ragged because, or the food supplier at Mar-a-Lago.  And then 25mm Americans don't acce[pt his death as legitimate.  And so we deal with that problem and the next problem and the one after that.  And we continue this experiment in Democracy and like Tommy in "Casino", when we wake up...we keep bashing the shit out of the asshole in front of us because we don't know any better.  

My parents instilled in me from a very young age that I was smart and passionate enough to change the world.  They were wrong.  We all need to come to terms with the fact that maybe our calling was something entirely different.  I have but two skill sets besides being a father.  I am tenacious.  And I have no problem hurting bad people.  Took me until my mid-40s to realize it.  Trump and his judicial enablers woke up the garbage in our nation.  And we've got a lot of work to do to rid the political landscape of them.  Jump in and  help or quit whining.  Because there's some crazy shit coming up soon.  Good news though is...they're fucking beyond stupid and it shouldn't he hard to arrange it that they take each other out.  

Did any of you who grew up with me in public school in the 1980's with American Exceptionalism ever think we'd ever see anything like this for this amount of time?  My hat's off to the Greatest Generation of which I had many relatives fight for peace and against fascism.  Now it's our turn.  Fuck these people, let's chlorinate the gene pool.  

You sound like a fucking lunatic. Switch to decaf.

[wildcat09 29355]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Your approach works if you're okay with every state getting to hold a hearing to determine if some politician "actually committed insurrection," whatever that means, with the total chaos (if not outright civil war) that resulted from forcibly removing people from ballots for political reasons. 

Every state already independently assesses federal eligibility in every election for every candidate for every office, including federal office, often with different conclusions reached by different states. This is where the "concurrence" that sure reads like a dissent gets it wrong too. It's like every justice decided to pretend that they had no clue how elections in America work.

ETA: Colorado didn't remove Trump for political reasons. They removed him because Colorado state law requires them to evaluate whether a candidate is disqualified by federal law, and they determined that the 14th Amendment disqualified Trump. That's all they did. If other states wanted to respond to that by removing Biden by pretending he'd done something insurrectionary as well, that's why we have a Supreme Court to determine whether the alleged insurrection was bullshit or not. They just don't want to do their jobs.

Edited March 5 by wildcat09

[BHMCruiser 1814]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Every state already independently assesses federal eligibility in every election for every candidate for every office, including federal office, often with different conclusions reached by different states. This is where the "concurrence" that sure reads like a dissent gets it wrong too. It's like every justice decided to pretend that they had no clue how elections in America work.

I respectfully disagree. There's an enormous qualitative difference between barring a candidate for failing to meet clearly established, evenly applied, objective criteria to be on a state's ballot and striking the presumptive candidate of one of the major parties because you don't like something he did. 

I disagree with the court for reaching the issue of HOW to enforce Section 3, but having a five day bench trial in Colorado to decide whether the former president is an insurrectionist (or Maine's secretary of parking just throwing him off the ballot there) ain't it. There has to be some sort of determination that Trump is guilty of insurrection for Section 3 to execute. And it has to be uniformly, nationally applied/applicable. 

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

I respectfully disagree. There's an enormous qualitative difference between barring a candidate for failing to meet clearly established, evenly applied, objective criteria to be on a state's ballot and striking the presumptive candidate of one of the major parties because you don't like something he did. 

I disagree with the court for reaching the issue of HOW to enforce Section 3, but having a five day bench trial in Colorado to decide whether the former president is an insurrectionist (or Maine's secretary of parking just throwing him off the ballot there) ain't it. There has to be some sort of determination that Trump is guilty of insurrection for Section 3 to execute. And it has to be uniformly, nationally applied/applicable. 

Sure, but you're making a policy argument here, not a legal argument. Would I like there to be uniform, objective election laws for federal office? Absolutely. I would fucking love it if confederate states weren't allowed to try every measure they can come up with to suppress minority and student votes. I would love it if Bush v. Gore's equal protection in voting ruling was real and not limited to that case as an excuse to allow them to stop a recount. Hell, I would love it if we actually got to vote for President and not for presidential electors. But that's not how our elections work and it's not how American election law works.

The plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump. Nobody can reasonably dispute that. Everything else is a political excuse so that the justices could avoid reaching the obvious but politically volatile conclusion. 

['stache 21823]

You know exactly how that would play out. Red states would disqualify any democrat from the ballot claiming "insurrection" because of the border (they already call it that) while the blue states would per usual be the grown ups in the room and not disqualify republicans for bullshit reasons. I haven't read the decisions but I have no doubt that reports are true that the righties went way beyond what was necessary.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

The plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump. Nobody can reasonably dispute that. Everything else is a political excuse so that the justices could avoid reaching the obvious but politically volatile conclusion. 

I bet half the Americans and all of the Supreme Court justices can reasonably dispute that.

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

You know exactly how that would play out. Red states would disqualify any democrat from the ballot claiming "insurrection" because of the border (they already call it that) while the blue states would per usual be the grown ups in the room and not disqualify republicans for bullshit reasons. I haven't read the decisions but I have no doubt that reports are true that the righties went way beyond what was necessary.

They did go beyond what was necessary. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

12 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I respectfully disagree. There's an enormous qualitative difference between barring a candidate for failing to meet clearly established, evenly applied, objective criteria to be on a state's ballot and striking the presumptive candidate of one of the major parties because you don't like something he did. 

I disagree with the court for reaching the issue of HOW to enforce Section 3, but having a five day bench trial in Colorado to decide whether the former president is an insurrectionist (or Maine's secretary of parking just throwing him off the ballot there) ain't it. There has to be some sort of determination that Trump is guilty of insurrection for Section 3 to execute. And it has to be uniformly, nationally applied/applicable. 

Not according to the constitution. You may disagree with it, and I would agree with you, but just because we want something doesn't mean jack shit. 

The states were following the letter of the constitution. 

As Wildcat said, if there was a disagreement over if any person disqualified was disqualified for a good reason or not, THAT is up to Supreme Courts or Congress. 

 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure, but you're making a policy argument here, not a legal argument. Would I like there to be uniform, objective election laws for federal office? Absolutely.

No I'm not. I'm not talking about uniform federal election law. I don't mind if the states control their ballots to some degree. But what they cannot do is strike a candidate on political grounds. That's just not tolerable, nor is it legal. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Not according to the constitution. You may disagree with it, and I would agree with you, but just because we want something doesn't mean jack shit. 

The states were following the letter of the constitution. 

As Wildcat said, if there was a disagreement over if any person disqualified was disqualified for a good reason or not, THAT is up to Supreme Courts or Congress. 

 

Obviously there's a disagreement as to the disqualification. Are you kidding me with that "of course we all agree" nonsense? 

The constitution still has to be enforced. That's why 1983 and 1988 exist. They are congressional legislation created for the enforcement of the Reconstruction Era amendments.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

14 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I see that the court ruled 9-0 and that is probably the correct legal decision. 
 

I just don’t understand why.  Why does the left wing play this game of law?  We have years of horrible and damaging 5-4 opinions where the concurring opinion reads something like:

”The case before the court goes at the heart of Habeas corpus and because this we must consult stare decisis with regards to the prima nocte nature of the matter before this court.  A close examination de novo in camera and ad litem means we must rule, prima facie, to issue certiorari that the shitlibs should lick my taint.” 
 
What are we even doing here? 

Tradition

[BHMCruiser 1814]

Let me ask you this:

Is Mike Pence able to run for President? Could Bill Barr run for President? What about Trump's children? How do we decide?

[Neonmoon 38129]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

No I'm not. I'm not talking about uniform federal election law. I don't mind if the states control their ballots to some degree. But what they cannot do is strike a candidate on political grounds. That's just not tolerable, nor is it legal. 

How is an insurrection “political grounds”?

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

Let me ask you this:

Is Mike Pence able to run for President? Could Bill Barr run for President? What about Trump's children? How do we decide?

Did any of them provide aid or support an insurrection?

[wildcat09 29355]

8 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I bet half the Americans and all of the Supreme Court justices can reasonably dispute that.

Stupid, dishonest, uninformed, and/or politically motivated actors can dispute it or pretend to dispute it (and before you ask which one you are, you're politically motivated).  I wouldn't consider any of their attempts reasonable. The language of Section 3 does not give Congress the power to disqualify those who've taken an oath of office and then committed insurrection or given aid and comfort to those who have. It by its express language disqualifies anyone who has done so and gives Congress the ability, with a supermajority, to remove that disqualification. 

No other provision of any of the Civil War amendments has been held to require legislation to give them effect. Congress wasn't required to pass any legislation for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to have legal effect. The framers of those amendments were suspicious of the judicial system that had produced Dredd Scott, so included enforcement clauses in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments expressly authorizing Congress to pass legislation to supplement and enforce the terms of those Amendments, but such legislation wasn't required for those Amendments to have any effect in the first place. This is a new requirement this Court invented because it was politically convenient for them to do so. 

The real legal question should have been did Colorado correctly determine that Trump had committed insurrection? If that invited mischief from other states, it would be the Court's duty to slap that shit down. That's the job these people wanted. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

15 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

No I'm not. I'm not talking about uniform federal election law. I don't mind if the states control their ballots to some degree. But what they cannot do is strike a candidate on political grounds. That's just not tolerable, nor is it legal. 

I think you need to recalibrate your definition of political. would your opinion of what Trump did change if he had a D next to his name? he should not be a candidate because he tried to overthrow our government. full fucking stop.

Edited March 5 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Neonmoon 38129]

11 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Obviously there's a disagreement as to the disqualification. Are you kidding me with that "of course we all agree" nonsense? 

The constitution still has to be enforced. That's why 1983 and 1988 exist. They are congressional legislation created for the enforcement of the Reconstruction Era amendments.

You misread what I wrote. Or I may have stated it poorly.

You stated there needs to be a conviction for section 3 to execute. I stated not according to the constitution 

You also states there needs to be a uniformly applicable federal law. Which I agree, there should be one. The fact we’re relying on 7 political appointments to interpret words written by a bunch of rich fucks from 150 years ago to determine the outcome of our country is insanity. 

[David Dennison 18934]

But how?

 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

55 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

No it won't. Not when you have unadulterated trash like Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, Dobbs, and the Obamacare decision. 

Those are all trash for sure but I think refusing to apply the plain language of the constitution solely because of fear of MAGAts takes the cake. 

[wildcat09 29355]

Wickard and Roe were correct and the only problem with the Obamacare decision (I'm assuming he's referring to the first one) is it unnecessarily analyzed and reached a conclusion on the interstate commerce argument and invalidated the Medicaid expansion with what can't even charitably be called legal reasoning. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But how?

 

Here's the thing: the SCOTUS will be functionally dissolved.

Plot twist: it will be by the Trump regime.  If the SCOTUS fails to 100% in all respects do exactly what Trump wants, his next administration will simply disregard it, fully and finally destroying its last vestige of legitimacy (the next Trump regime won't make the mistake of the first one: actually obeying court orders is for libtard cucks). 

[Pato del Muerto 52530]

23 hours ago, Underdog said:

Try that shit at Franklin and he’ll get shot. 

I think the death toll at tcby is higher than that of Franklin’s 

[RomaVicta 29938]

On 3/4/2024 at 9:37 AM, Zonahorn said:

It's official, the only way to prevent an authoritarian overthrow of our government is for the American voters to protect it. I think I'm gonna be sick.

From the beginning, the problem has been the electorate. 

When I read 1984 the first two times, my main objection was how totalitarian rule could be imposed on a once free society. I read it the last time in 1984, and I finally got it.

The people will not consider the change an imposition. The vast number of proles (in the book) are totally content with the dissolution of truth, the limiting of language, and the choreographed displays of emotion.

Big Brother Cares About You!

[The Original Greaser Bob 2841]

Just to keep things in perspective, current anthropologic theory suggests that the original hunter gatherers were extremely happy - arguably more so than men at any other time in history.

(Except for their final day, when they were (hopefully) surprised and murdered due to their inability to pull their fair share.)

So things can, indeed, get better. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2841]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The people will not consider the change an imposition. The vast number of proles (in the book) are totally content with the dissolution of truth, the limiting of language, and the choreographed displays of emotion.

The trick is to understand this, but not to let that understanding ruin your day.

[RomaVicta 29938]

11 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The trick is to understand this, but not to let that understanding ruin your day.

Truly. I'm glad the windows can be opened out here in the country. I can listen to the bird, feel the breeze, and check for emerging flowers. Never thought I'd like it so much out here, but I love it. 

I do try to change my gaze more often.

[Stilicho 1397]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's the thing: the SCOTUS will be functionally dissolved.

Plot twist: it will be by the Trump regime.  If the SCOTUS fails to 100% in all respects do exactly what Trump wants, his next administration will simply disregard it, fully and finally destroying its last vestige of legitimacy (the next Trump regime won't make the mistake of the first one: actually obeying court orders is for libtard cucks). 

The Ds need to expand the Court if they ever manage to capture the executive and Congress again.

To my eyes, the current Court is on a revenge tour against substantive due process, voting rights, and the old torchbearers like Brennan and TMarshall. It’s become less about being the nation’s high court, and more about regressively rolling back individual rights at the behest of money interests and their own fundamentalist political values. That doesn’t change without expansion, death, or… overthrow I guess. 

[jimmyjazz 45989]

Democrats:  we can't pack the court, such an aggressive move would just be matched by the Republicans in due time

Republicans:  hold our beer, we've been unilaterally making aggressive moves for over 50 years

[TexasEd 8067]

wrong thread

Edited March 5 by TexasEd

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Did any of them provide aid or support an insurrection?

You tell me. I don't think DJT fomented an insurrection, or that what happened on 1/6 was an insurrection. I also think they should have shot every single person who tried to storm the Capitol that day.

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I think you need to recalibrate your definition of political. would your opinion of what Trump did change if he had a D next to his name? he should not be a candidate because he tried to overthrow our government. full fucking stop.

No my opinion would not change based on the political party. 

[Captainant 27682]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

You tell me. I don't think DJT fomented an insurrection, or that what happened on 1/6 was an insurrection. I also think they should have shot every single person who tried to storm the Capitol that day.

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

We have so many other pieces of evidence and text messages and emails and all the receipts of them knowingly pushing the lie that "the election was stolen from trump". How is fabricating that story, working with multiple billion dollar media empires to amplify that message, coordinating a funding a rally to bring all the rioters to the capital on J6, SPEAKING AT THAT RALLY AND TELLING THEM TO MARCH AND THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW THEM, and then actively preventing the military from taking substantive action against the fascists as they attacked?

 

You didn't think ....... THAT was insurrection?

What, did he have to be shouting "IM DOING AN INSURRECTION" as he did it for it to count?

What the fucking fuck?

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

You misread what I wrote. Or I may have stated it poorly.

You stated there needs to be a conviction for section 3 to execute. I stated not according to the constitution 

You also states there needs to be a uniformly applicable federal law. Which I agree, there should be one. The fact we’re relying on 7 political appointments to interpret words written by a bunch of rich fucks from 150 years ago to determine the outcome of our country is insanity. 

Sorry my fault. I don't think there needs to be a "conviction," per se. I do think that there has to be some sort of federal government action against an individual before he or she can be categorized as an insurrectionist and therefore subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 3. It could be legislative, or some sort of judicial process, but it cannot just be states taking their best shot at it, so to speak. I should have been more clear. 

2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Those are all trash for sure but I think refusing to apply the plain language of the constitution solely because of fear of MAGAts takes the cake. 

I disagree but I understand your point.