IGotWorms

Bunch of kweers up in here

Lol, you’re a focking doosh

Suck my c0ck, Phylis!

I see from her resume that you are correct, but I’d never heard of her

Daddario-esque. They were both in White Lotus But didn’t get nekkid

Aren’t you one of those incels that claims any woman having sex outside of marriage is a slut?

It’s a quote from the opinion, dumbass. You want to read the same thing in the opinion, here you go https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Nope, I agree in the result. Just question the rationale for getting there, but that’s all academic anyway

That’s to allow enabling legislation like the Civil Rights Act. Not to allow Congress to not act, on the basis of a simple majority (in the face of a constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3rds supermajority and ratification by the states), thereby completely undermining the Constitution. That would be stupid

Trump argued it and the Supreme Court agreed “What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big, plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked Jason Murray, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Colorado voters. “I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added. Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s liberal justices, echoed Roberts’ line of questioning. While the constitution grants states an enormous amount of power, Kagan said to Murray, there are some national questions where states are not the “responsitory of authority”. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?,” she said. … In their briefing to the supreme court, Trump’s lawyers have claimed there will be “chaos and bedlam” in the US if a leading presidential candidate is blocked from the ballot. They gave an array of arguments to the justices for why he should not be disqualified, including that the word “officer” does not apply to the president and that he did not engage in insurrection. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/us-supreme-court-donald-trump-eligibility-2024-election The concern ignores the federalist reality in which American elections are already conducted, with different rules, eligibility requirements, verification systems, and election management procedures existing in each state. But the Court, in the majority, feared “disruption,” which “could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result — if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.” Maybe focking educate yourself before spouting off

Did Congress pass a law saying what “establishment of religion” is? Or what “freedom of speech” means? How about what is a “well regulated Militia”? Etc. Etc. The list goes: - Constitution - Statutes - Regulations You can’t say a constitutional provision doesn’t hold water because there’s no statute. The constitution reigns supreme. Only way I could see that is if the constitution explicitly said that a statute was required, which it did not with this provision. But like I said, the alternative would apparently be all 50 states deciding in their own fashion who should be allowed on the ballot or removed, and how. That’s chaos. So I get it, and the decision is the right one, but it’s an interesting legal discussion nonetheless and we are here for discussion, are we not?

Pretty funny you tools can’t even handle someone agreeing with you 90% of the way. That’s MAGA for you

Well I mean that section of the fourteenth amendment HAS to mean something. The Supreme Court basically just interpreted it out of existence. So legally that’s my one issue. But like I said, adopting what Colorado etc did could only lead to chaos. So I do think it was most likely the right decision

Most likely the correct decision there. Would’ve been pure chaos otherwise

Exactly

But there’s so many incels like yourself out there

Mikey no likey

She’s been gaining popularity since that hbo show that also put Zendaya on the map. About the teenage drug addict. Euphoria, that was it.

lol you’re nuts. For candid shots of a gal over 50, that’s super good

Dude you’re nuts if you think she’s not hot for an over 50 broad

Kind of. But she has another work husband too!

Trump 2024!

Man you guys are racist POSes

Elizabeth Hurley

Judges 19:2 And his concubine played the wh0re against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months