Supreme Court hearing on Trump, Colorado

[Fnord 2,051]

24 minutes ago, Horseman said:

POTUS isn't a state office dumbasss.  

The states oversee their own elections, dumbass. If the R majority of SCOTUS now goes against decades of conservative doctrine regarding state's rights, what does that mean?

[The Real timschochet 6,413]

Much more interesting is whether or not they take up the immunity case, and if so, will they stay the trial? That takes 5 justices, and will have a profound effect on the election either way. We’ll know next week. 
 

Basically: if the Supreme Court takes up immunity and stays the trial, Trump will have achieved his goal of delaying all of the indictments until after the election (except for the hush money case which most people don’t care about.) But if the SC does not grant a stay, there will be a Jan 6 trial beginning early summer. And a likely conviction by August. Which will, let’s be frank, aid Biden considerably. So there is much at stake here. 

[Strike 5,186]

57 minutes ago, Strike said:

Link to me ripping people for starting threads?

Bump for @The Real timschochet or were you just making sh*t up again?  As I noted yesterday, the difference between you and I is that I provide proof of your ignorance/being wrong.  You just make stupid assertions that you can't back up. 

[The Real timschochet 6,413]

Just now, Strike said:

Bump for @The Real timschochet or were you just making sh*t up again?  As I noted yesterday, the difference between you and I is that I provide proof of your ignorance/being wrong.  You just make stupid assertions that you can't back up. 

Fock your bump. I’m not going to go looking. I don’t care. The accusation stands. If you want to discuss rhe topic go ahead. But I’m not interested in any further discussion of what a jackass you are. That’s your thing not mine. You love to attack people, I don’t. I said my piece, it’s true, and now we’re done talking about it. 

[Strike 5,186]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Fock your bump. I’m not going to go looking. I don’t care. The accusation stands. If you want to discuss rhe topic go ahead. But I’m not interested in any further discussion of what a jackass you are. That’s your thing not mine. You love to attack people, I don’t. I said my piece, it’s true, and now we’re done talking about it. 

Except it's not true.  That's the point.  You're just making sh*t up again. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

20 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is correct. It will be a 7-2 or 8-1 decision, perhaps unanimous. But they will avoid discussing whether or not Trump committed or aided insurrection. 

They did discuss it you clown. 

[squistion 1,947]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

They did discuss it you clown. 

Actually they didn't, they avoided the issue of whether or not Trump committed or aided insurrection. 

[Horseman 2,358]

25 minutes ago, Fnord said:

The states oversee their own elections, dumbass. If the R majority of SCOTUS now goes against decades of conservative doctrine regarding state's rights, what does that mean?

So you don't think the SCOTUS should weigh in on the state's handling of a federal election.   

[Fnord 2,051]

5 minutes ago, Horseman said:

So you don't think the SCOTUS should weigh in on the state's handling of a federal election.   

Jesus you're simple. Where did I say that? Is it possible for you to take words at face value? Or is your need to project yourself as an Alpha "life winner" SOOOO overpowering that you just need to respond instinctively like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,237]

19 minutes ago, squistion said:

Actually they didn't, they avoided the issue of whether or not Trump committed or aided insurrection. 

so its the supreme courts job to add charges that have never been filed now?

 

[Horseman 2,358]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jesus you're simple. Where did I say that? Is it possible for you to take words at face value? Or is your need to project yourself as an Alpha "life winner" SOOOO overpowering that you just need to respond instinctively like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant?

So you know what the ruling is going to be right?   show.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

19 minutes ago, squistion said:

Actually they didn't, they avoided the issue of whether or not Trump committed or aided insurrection. 

“Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson grills Trump lawyers claim that Jan 6 was not an insurrection”  STFU. 

[Fnord 2,051]

5 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jesus you're simple. Where did I say that? Is it possible for you to take words at face value? Or is your need to project yourself as an Alpha "life winner" SOOOO overpowering that you just need to respond instinctively like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant?

 

Just now, Horseman said:

So you know what the ruling is going to be right?   show.

Instinct. Dog piss. You.

Are those words simple enough to avoid misinterpreting?

[weepaws 3,154]

29 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Jesus you're simple. Where did I say that? Is it possible for you to take words at face value? Or is your need to project yourself as an Alpha "life winner" SOOOO overpowering that you just need to respond instinctively like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant?

Don’t take God’s name in vain angry elf.  

[squistion 1,947]

22 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

“Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson grills Trump lawyers claim that Jan 6 was not an insurrection”  STFU. 

Whether it was or was not an act of insurrection is a different issue than if Trump committed or aided that insurrection.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,700]

Justice Brown can’t define a woman.  How can she define an insurrection?

[RLLD 4,143]

30 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

“Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson grills Trump lawyers claim that Jan 6 was not an insurrection”  STFU. 

I am disappointed that she is so clearly partisan and not simply doing her job  

[Tree of Knowledge 1,700]

10 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am disappointed that she is so clearly partisan and not simply doing her job  

 

Her opinion will be interesting.  

[TrailGuy 552]

She's not gonna rule against Trump.  That would be very very bad.

[Horseman 2,358]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

 

Instinct. Dog piss. You.

Are those words simple enough to avoid misinterpreting?

  TRIGGERED   

[lod001 1,344]

This idiot lawyer for Colorado is getting absolutely destroyed as he should.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,700]

12 minutes ago, lod001 said:

This idiot lawyer for Colorado is getting absolutely destroyed as he should.

Yes.  All involved should be tarred and feathered before leaving DC. 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

4 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Yes.  All involved should be tarred and feathered before leaving DC. 

While I have disagreed with their position, strongly cleaving myself to Justice Samour's dissent, i would not go so far as to denigrate the position of the people who brought the ballot challenge or their lawyers.  I think their position was weak, but could be propounded in good faith as there was no clear and unequivocal precedent against their interpretation.  As far as i remember that is the standard for bringing an action, a good faith belief that one has a chance to prevail on the merits.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,700]

30 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

While I have disagreed with their position, strongly cleaving myself to Justice Samour's dissent, i would not go so far as to denigrate the position of the people who brought the ballot challenge or their lawyers.  I think their position was weak, but could be propounded in good faith as there was no clear and unequivocal precedent against their interpretation.  As far as i remember that is the standard for bringing an action, a good faith belief that one has a chance to prevail on the merits.

This is not good faith it is continuing lawfare and election interference. These people are a threat to the Republic.  There was no insurrection.  

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

Bump for @The Real timschochet or were you just making sh*t up again?  As I noted yesterday, the difference between you and I is that I provide proof of your ignorance/being wrong.  You just make stupid assertions that you can't back up. 

Yeah, nah, you never do anything to derail a thread.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Ain’t no way the Supreme Court is upholding Colorado keeping Trump off the ballot. Only question is how they get there.

And no, in this case, I don’t think it’s political. Even the liberal justices seemed to struggle with the idea that all 50 states could decide in their own fashion who could and could not be on the ballot for president. It would be chaos

[Fnord 2,051]

55 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Don’t take God’s name in vain angry elf.  

I will if I want to. But I do appreciate you looking out for my eternal soul. Someone has to, I guess.

[iam90sbaby 2,486]

Has trump won yet? 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

They're going to b*tch slap Colorado.  Even Kagan's comments during the hearing suggest this, and she's one of the far lefties on the court.  Just because a case gets to the SCOTUS doesn't mean the case has serious merit.

Notably that was kagan’s own former law clerk arguing for Colorado. She did not seem impressed 

[Fnord 2,051]

14 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

This is not good faith it is continuing lawfare and election interference. These people are a threat to the Republic.  There was no insurrection.  

These are your opinions. Many, many PATRIOTS strongly disagree.

[Mike Honcho 5,096]

I for one will rest better at night knowing that a president has the right to engage in insurrection.  

[5-Points 3,387]

4 hours ago, Fnord said:

The states oversee their own elections, dumbass. If the R majority of SCOTUS now goes against decades of conservative doctrine regarding state's rights, what does that mean?

What if it is a unanimous decision? Will you admit it was all buIIshit to begin with? 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,700]

50 minutes ago, Fnord said:

These are your opinions. Many, many PATRIOTS strongly disagree.

Nope.  I am the patriot spokesperson 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

This is not good faith it is continuing lawfare and election interference. These people are a threat to the Republic.  There was no insurrection.  

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  You seem to be arguing a political point while I am discussing a legal point, a legal standard.  Perhaps I should not have interjected.

[Ron_Artest 1,053]

 

[Fnord 2,051]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

What if it is a unanimous decision? Will you admit it was all buIIshit to begin with? 

A unanimous decision wouldn't be very surprising. I don't think the cases were bullshit, since I believe Trump DID participate in an insurrection. BUT, I'm also not comfortable with the Maine and Colorado rulings, despite my feelings about Trump. 

My point with the post you quoted was that conservatives have always supported states' rights, and if the conservatives on SCOTUS decide that the states don't have the right to make decisions like removing Trump from the ballot, that perhaps the whole argument for states' rights, specifically about abortion, may be tougher to defend. It's an interesting quandary. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

What if it is a unanimous decision? Will you admit it was all buIIshit to begin with? 

I think you are approaching this incorrectly.  JMHO

You will not likely change the minds of the hard core indoctrinated.   Imagine trying to deprogram someone who was in a cult.....

Instead, we need to move forward, and accept that hate is not integral to the core essence of our ideological opponents, and wrong is only wrong when it feeds the core tenets of their cult.

[5-Points 3,387]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

A unanimous decision wouldn't be very surprising. I don't think the cases were bullshit, since I believe Trump DID participate in an insurrection. BUT, I'm also not comfortable with the Maine and Colorado rulings, despite my feelings about Trump. 

My point with the post you quoted was that conservatives have always supported states' rights, and if the conservatives on SCOTUS decide that the states don't have the right to make decisions like removing Trump from the ballot, that perhaps the whole argument for states' rights, specifically about abortion, may be tougher to defend. It's an interesting quandary. 

Denying the people of a state the right to vote for who they want to be POTUS isn't a "states rights" issue on my opinion. 

Especially when that person hasn't been convicted of any disqualifying offenses. The whole, "innocent before proven guilty" thing takes precedence and rightly so. Despite the left's insistence on trampling on the Constitution to avoid having to run against Trump again. 

 

[5-Points 3,387]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think you are approaching this incorrectly.  JMHO

You will not likely change the minds of the hard core indoctrinated.   Imagine trying to deprogram someone who was in a cult.....

Instead, we need to move forward, and accept that hate is not integral to the core essence of our ideological opponents, and wrong is only wrong when it feeds the core tenets of their cult.

If the far left Justices on SCOTUS say keeping Trump off the ballot is nonsense, even the hardcore lefties have to rethink their position. If not, they shouldn't be taken seriously. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

If the far left Justices on SCOTUS say keeping Trump off the ballot is nonsense, even the hardcore lefties have to rethink their position. If not, they shouldn't be taken seriously. 

Perhaps we should allow them opportunity.....though based on experience I rarely detect self-awareness.....

So far the judges across the board, seem highlight skeptical.  I take heart in that.

Sadly, this failure will not impeded the general effort overall on the part of Democrats to pervert our democracy, and in fact it could make them even more desperate.....their only goal being to grab at power.