|
I wonder if colorado has even bothered printing ballots with trump on them gonna be a mad rush to get that done by tuesday morning
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Javid posted:I wonder if colorado has even bothered printing ballots with trump on them If they're smart, they have ballots with and without him at the ready
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:If they're smart, they have ballots with and without him at the ready nah they need to be dragged kicking and screaming to enforce it
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
Unanimous lol - so much for the liberal girl bosses
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
scrotus thank you
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
I'm in love with the fact that our judicial system is so broken that the highest court will unanimously use "poo poo, if we enforce the law then other lower courts could do literally whatever they wanted without any proof or evidence" as legal reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Libs btfo All they did with the ballot chicanery was make themselves look as crooked as Trump
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
the states yet again have the right to suck it
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Libs btfo Yeah for real do you think the fact that it’s an obvious 9-0 will be a wake up call? Odd are: no
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Supremes knew they needed a little duct tape slapped on this crumbling empire to hold it together a bit longer. Handing that over to the states would have been weaponized by both of these lackluster parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
I genuinely don't understand how anyone could have expected anything else here
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I genuinely don't understand how anyone could have expected anything else here Yeah for real. I like what the Oregon state Supreme Court did when they got asked to weigh in back in January where they were just like “eh let’s wait and see what the Supreme Court says first. This isn’t worth our time until then” I honestly don’t understand the play here. There were only ever downsides to the move to disqualify trump
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
You get to Do Something that doesn't actually have any effect, and looking good to your donors is more important than pissing off everything else
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
it's like how biden only went along with the student debt cancellation because he knew the court would stop it
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
HallelujahLee posted:scrotus thank you wow fascism much???
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:it's like how biden only went along with the student debt cancellation because he knew the court would stop it surely using covid money instead of legally hand waving away the debt will pass muster
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I genuinely don't understand how anyone could have expected anything else here Some people still live the vote blue no matter who life, you have to pretend doing that has amounted to something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Yeah for real do you think the fact that it’s an obvious 9-0 will be a wake up call? Odd are: no While leaving him on the ballot in the 14th Amendment case (but refusing to rule out that Jan. 6, 2021, was an “insurrection”), the Supreme Court has taken every opportunity to delay four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 trial. In late December, the court declined to consider the absolute immunity claim, preferring to wait for the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. After the appellate decision, the high court was not obliged to take the case. It could have affirmed summarily. Nevertheless, after nearly two weeks, the court decided it did need to take the case. Then it set the hearing for April 22. Trump’s team undoubtedly celebrated the latest delay. But should it? As a preliminary matter, the Justice Department has clarified that its guideline to refrain from initiating indictments or investigations about 60 days before an election is inapplicable to pending cases that a court schedules during that time frame. Cases that are ready to go can start regardless of the campaign calendar. The Supreme Court could — as it did in Watergate, emergency cases involving the coronavirus or Bush v. Gore — move promptly and decide the immunity case within a few weeks of the hearing. Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua Kolb at Just Security explained: “For example, in U.S. v. Nixon, the Court held oral argument on July 8, 1974 and issued its decision on July 24, 1974 — an interval of three weeks. If the Court were to follow that example here, we would receive a decision around Tuesday, May 13.” (In the 14th Amendment case, the opinion came in slightly less than a month after oral arguments.) Arguably, any further delay would look hyperpartisan even for this court. With a May ruling, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan could stick to her schedule (i.e., each day lost since the December stay gets added back to the schedule, and the trial could start on Aug. 2. The trial would run through the campaign’s final months. Trump, rather than campaigning in the last months of the campaign, would be sitting (pouting, if his previous courtroom demeanor is predictive) in court. During the fall, daily testimony concerning his 2020-2021 coup attempt would be front and center. As Eisen, Seligman and Kolb calculated, “If the trial starts on Aug. 2 and lasts eight weeks it will be submitted to the jury on Sept. 27; and if the trial lasts 12 weeks, it will be submitted to the jury on Oct. 25.” That schedule is Trump’s worst nightmare. Then-FBI Director James B. Comey claimed 11 days before the 2016 election that “new” documents had turned up concerning former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails. That threw a monkey wrench into the campaign, arguably costing her the election. Here, an October guilty verdict — even if appealed — would be curtains for the MAGA crowd. Alternatively, Just Security’s authors calculated a trial start date around Sept. 20 if the Supreme Court slow-walks a ruling on the immunity claim until the end of June, the session’s traditional endpoint. A verdict would be nearly impossible before the election, but the campaign’s close would be consumed with testimony about Trump’s alleged involvement in the coup. That would be nearly as devastating as a verdict. Four other considerations: First, any prospect of starting the Jan. 6 trial before the election evaporates if the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves application of immunity to this case less than airtight. After Chutkan rules, Trump then might take another interlocutory appeal, effectively foreclosing any pre-election trial. Second, however, no serious lawyer thinks the court would agree that Trump enjoys absolute immunity for alleged crimes in office. Even a court this partisan would not countenance immunity for assassinating political enemies, as the D.C. Circuit postulated. Whatever the timing, therefore, the court almost certainly would issue a stark rebuke to Trump’s fantasy of absolute immunity. Voters would still have the benefit of the court’s rejection of his view of the presidency as dangerous and unconstitutional, infuriating Trump and giving President Biden a powerful closing message. Third, the Jan. 6 trial delays have opened up the calendar. New York’s hush-money trial is scheduled to get underway March 25, with a likely May verdict. Disregard pundits’ sneering: The facts and the law strongly favor prosecutors. A conviction (maybe with an embarrassing cross-examination if Trump insists on testifying) surely would be a blow to Trump. “The first former president convicted of a felony!” would dominate the news, as would discussion about whether to incarcerate him. It is also possible, although unlikely, given Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s slow-walking, that the Jan. 6 delays would allow the trial for Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents to begin, if not finish, before the election. (Special counsel Jack Smith wants to start the case in July; Trump’s lawyers counteroffered August.) A trial highlighting Trump’s disdain for national security and alleged obstruction of justice would easily monopolize fall campaign coverage. Fourth, beginning but not completing the Jan. 6 and/or classified documents trials before the election would have a silver lining: The prosecution could present devastating evidence without the risk of losing before voters cast ballots. Any not-guilty verdict would give Trump an enormous boost, vindicating his persecution claim. But despite the slothlike pace of the Supreme Court, through much of the fall, Trump likely will be off the trail and on trial — as voters get nonstop reminders about his contempt for the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
the states of course should be able to remove people from the ballet. that action still represents exactly one state's worth of power, they aren't getting special treatment or unfairly overleveraging power over the federal government or the other states. it really doesn't affect anyone outside of that state i any way except feels and social media posts. bad call justices, not impressed
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 01:52
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:the states of course should be able to remove people from the ballet. that action still represents exactly one state's worth of power, they aren't getting special treatment or unfairly overleveraging power over the federal government or the other states. it really doesn't affect anyone outside of that state i any way except feels and social media posts. bad call justices, not impressed It is not the job of the state to decide who can dance
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It is not the job of the state to decide who can dance it's my goddamn right to spin on my tippie-toes
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 02:58
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:the states of course should be able to remove people from the ballet. that action still represents exactly one state's worth of power, they aren't getting special treatment or unfairly overleveraging power over the federal government or the other states. it really doesn't affect anyone outside of that state i any way except feels and social media posts. bad call justices, not impressed this is very stupid op who do you think they're going to remove
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
HallelujahLee posted:this is very stupid op who do you think they're going to remove All that aside it didn’t make sense because it was obvious from the beginning that the Supreme Court would say gently caress off, so what did you get even if you’re a hardcore Biden bitch? You get to look like petty tyrants and give your opponent fuel for his oppression narrative which already resonates with his base and you look like idiots without any power in the process. Just a bad idea even at the most cynical strategic level
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 03:11
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:All that aside it didn’t make sense because it was obvious from the beginning that the Supreme Court would say gently caress off, so what did you get even if you’re a hardcore Biden bitch? You get to look like petty tyrants and give your opponent fuel for his oppression narrative which already resonates with his base and you look like idiots without any power in the process. Just a bad idea even at the most cynical strategic level yeah it was an incredibly moronic move, lets play into the opponents "im being chased for my beliefs" i have no idea how these morons actually believed it would not be 9-0
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 03:23
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:the states of course should be able to remove people from the ballet. that action still represents exactly one state's worth of power, they aren't getting special treatment or unfairly overleveraging power over the federal government or the other states. it really doesn't affect anyone outside of that state i any way except feels and social media posts. bad call justices, not impressed the amendment in question was drafted specifically and explicitly to neuter individual states after a bunch of them did a civil war at us and we couldn't trust every state to wield their powers in good faith anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 04:16
|
|
|
HallelujahLee posted:yeah it was an incredibly moronic move, lets play into the opponents "im being chased for my beliefs" i have no idea how these morons actually believed it would not be 9-0 Yeah, states don't get to interpret federal poo poo. However, they can pass state-level laws of their own that gently caress with elector selection based on whatever criteria they want, I think. I'd have expected them to go that way instead if they really wanted something to survive a challenge, though that would probably be too indecorous for them and give away the game that they don't really care about democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 04:25
|
|
|
HallelujahLee posted:yeah it was an incredibly moronic move, lets play into the opponents "im being chased for my beliefs" i have no idea how these morons actually believed it would not be 9-0 Thing is a lot of people are spinning it as 5-4 and not actually reading the decision or looking at the reporting of the hearings and just assuming that ACTUALLY the liberal wing 100% supports removing Trump from the ballot Like the Mueller report, reality poked through the liberal bubble and now they have to create complex BlueAnon conspiracies for how this actually means Trump is going to be executed at any moment
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 04:48
|
|
|
severe cope
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 04:49
|
|
|
Telluric Whistler posted:Thing is a lot of people are spinning it as 5-4 and not actually reading the decision or looking at the reporting of the hearings and just assuming that ACTUALLY the liberal wing 100% supports removing Trump from the ballot At least they're trying to hobble trump through lawfare Trump said he'd lock Hillary up but was too lazy to even attempt a follow through. Even if you don't succeed, trying to proscribe your enemies is a worthy act
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 05:44
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:At least they're trying to hobble trump through lawfare it's his biggest sin. He would've won a second term if he would've done it. Maybe this time
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 14:38
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:At least they're trying to hobble trump through lawfare Thank god that the Democrats are trying to hobble Trump through lawfare. These efforts might be key to getting the senile genocidal rapist Joe Biden elected President!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Telluric Whistler posted:it's his biggest sin. He would've won a second term if he would've done it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
In Training posted:Didn't read!!!!!!! i reead it and it was interesting
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 23:21
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:the states yet again have the right to suck it its right there in the constitution
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Thank god that the Democrats are trying to hobble Trump through lawfare. These efforts might be key to getting the senile genocidal rapist Joe Biden elected President! I have no love for the senile genocidal rapist Joe Biden or care about his re-election prospects, but appreciate the Democrats trying to destroy a political enemy which is the right and moral thing to do. Trump's failure to even try to do the same to Hillary Clinton is yet another of his many failings
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 04:32
|
|
|
a federal court ruled that the minority business agency need to also give handouts to whites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1775249263423099089
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 14:27
|
|
|
my money is on donald trump withdrawing from consideration
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
these guys keep turning the dial on fuckin with us turning to see if the audience will wake up and it turns out we are all dead
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 20:40
|
|