|
Dapper_Swindler posted:apperently a couple of old members who didnt go in the first/second wave are kinda "keeping the lights on". Alot of people kinda forget, with the exception of the mass sucide, the heavens gate was pretty banal for weird cult. they were weird and a couple chopped their nuts off for higher eveolution and to get rid of sexual urges, but it wasnt "abusive" compared to say, jim jones in the traditional hell cult sense. it was more kinda just applewhite spiraling after his mentor and best friend died(nettles was the brains behind it all) and after she didnt come back, they were aimless until hale bob. in the end it was just a bunch of sad nerds who wanted to get isakied to the magic super alien citidel. Yea after I visited the site to grab that screenshot I was thinking "well isn't this quaint". E: hell yea cult snipe 400 hail zorp
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Trump removed from Colorado 2024 primary ballot. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html The CO Supreme Court did put a stay on their own ruling as they assume Trump will appeal to US Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Trump removed from Colorado 2024 primary ballot. yeah this is mostly just going to create annoying busy work for the MAGA members of the court during the week of christmas until they vacate this ruling
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
So basically the USSC gets to publically announce if Trump committed insurrection on Jan 6th or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Funny thing is the Roberts court now has an opportunity to not only do the funniest thing of all time, but also redeem a great deal of their lost political capital in the process while also returning power to the corporatist wing of the republican party. I wonder if they're smart enough to seize the chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Funny thing is the Roberts court now has an opportunity to not only do the funniest thing of all time, but also redeem a great deal of their lost political capital in the process while also returning power to the corporatist wing of the republican party. I wonder if they're smart enough to seize the chance. unfortunately it is now 2023 and not 2016 and there are people who will literally kill them if they do this
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:32
|
|
|
MaoistBanker posted:unfortunately it is now 2023 and not 2016 and there are people who will literally kill them if they do this ... bonus
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
MaoistBanker posted:unfortunately it is now 2023 and not 2016 and there are people who will literally kill them if they do this Yeah but what’s the downside?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So basically the USSC gets to publically announce if Trump committed insurrection on Jan 6th or not. That was going to be the case right from the start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:Yeah but what’s the downside? oh in full agreement thats why there's no chance they decide this way
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
It would be pretty funny if Trump appeals it and the SCOTUS holds not only that Colorado's holding stands, but that he's barred from all state primaries because of the insurrection clause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
I suspect SCOTUS splits it down the middle, the CO ruling stands but its a political question and they won't get involved, its up to the States to decide how to execute the 14th amendment etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Lol they are going to rule in Trump's favor in the most cowardly way possible. I'm guessing it will be something along the lines of "he hasn't been convicted therefore he hasn't done anything wrong". If somehow the case drags out long enough for him to have been convicted, they will just say it wasn't specifically for treason committed in 1865 or some other made up bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Funny thing is the Roberts court now has an opportunity to not only do the funniest thing of all time, but also redeem a great deal of their lost political capital in the process while also returning power to the corporatist wing of the republican party. I wonder if they're smart enough to seize the chance. That would leave the GOP with a patchwork ballot or force the party to drop him off itself, and the only thing the Roberts court loves as much as segregation is leaving other folks to clean up their messes. e: this doesn't do much to change the perception that the initial judge wanted to pass the buck in as effective a way as possible. editedit: 213 pages 
Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
The ruling directly quotes an older Gorsuch appeals court ruling 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Funny thing is the Roberts court now has an opportunity to not only do the funniest thing of all time, but also redeem a great deal of their lost political capital in the process while also returning power to the corporatist wing of the republican party. I wonder if they're smart enough to seize the chance. i think they take the coward option BUT i could see dems/roberts/gorsuch loving trump in some way
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I suspect SCOTUS splits it down the middle, the CO ruling stands but its a political question and they won't get involved, its up to the States to decide how to execute the 14th amendment etc. This was my first thought too. Since states have oversight over their elections, whether someone met the criteria of the 14th is up to the states. I can totally see that ruling. It can be defended as originalism and they duck specifically defining insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i think they take the coward option BUT i could see dems/roberts/gorsuch loving trump in some way Think of the columns david brooks and thomas friedman will write when and if the Supreme Court decides Donald Trump can't be president Proof the System Works!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:12
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:This was my first thought too. Since states have oversight over their elections, whether someone met the criteria of the 14th is up to the states. I can totally see that ruling. Sadly, this court has already had a couple of cases where they could have split the proverbial baby and didn't do it. I suspect they're going to reach the most obtuse and divisive opinion possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Think of the columns david brooks and thomas friedman will write when and if the Supreme Court decides Donald Trump can't be president thats kinda why i think they will do some "leave it up to the states or some poo poo" type deal. Eric Cantonese posted:Sadly, this court has already had a couple of cases where they could have split the proverbial baby and didn't do it. I suspect they're going to reach the most obtuse and divisive opinion possible. yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
It would be a massive precedent for the Supreme Court to interfere in how the State of Colorado conducts its elections. Not at all an opinion that the conservative justices want to write. Very funny outcome either way. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, Trump made me consider a State's Rights argument. He really is pulling us together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
I’m not sure how to feel here. Like on the one hand I believe Trump did the things, and should be disqualified, but I don’t super love a precedent that allows insanely gerrymandered states like Wisconsin to unilaterally decide no dems can be on the ballot because “they’re aiding and abetting the enemy hordes flooding over the border” or some poo poo. It seems like there should be some kind of clear standard that applies nationwide (the 14th doesn’t say who decides an insurrection has occurred or how culpability is assigned which feels different to me than the articles explicitly saying states administer elections, but  ) but lol at any coherent standard coming out of this SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:I’m not sure how to feel here. Like on the one hand I believe Trump did the things, and should be disqualified, but I don’t super love a precedent that allows insanely gerrymandered states like Wisconsin to unilaterally decide no dems can be on the ballot because “they’re aiding and abetting the enemy hordes flooding over the border” or some poo poo. What, you don't want to read this? quote:By failing to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Nation’s border, President Biden has tacitly permitted an “invasion” of the Nation by innumerable Subjects of Foreign States. Because “Invasion” and “Insurrection” are both three syllable words beginning with the letter “I,” it is conceivable—and more than likely—that they would have been confused by the illiterate yeoman farmer of the Nineteenth Century. Deferring to such idiosyncratic legal fictions is “deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions,” and thus, President Biden has violated the term of the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as his actions were “insurrection-ish.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
No 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
Jesus III posted:Him stroking out on television would be pretty bad. Pretty bad, you say? Pretty good, I say. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Sadly, this court has already had a couple of cases where they could have split the proverbial baby and didn't do it. I suspect they're going to reach the most obtuse and divisive opinion possible. Have they actually made any finding in his favor on any of these "throw me a line" suits? Because other than Thomas and maybe Alito the rest of conservatives on the court are creatures of the establishment Republicans and have no loyalty to Trump and can predict just how much chaos a Trump 2 run will generate and they could put an end to him right here and it's not like they'll suffer any actual consequences. I just don't see even this court declaring Trump king. If they were going to do that they'd have done it in 2020. This Colorado case could nip the the Trump campaign in the bud and I'm betting that the actual powers behind the GOP would be more than happy to roll the dice on Haley. Skex fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Cimber posted:What, you don't want to read this? lol what idiot thinks insurrection is three syllables??
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:lol what idiot thinks insurrection is three syllables?? "In a 5-4 decision..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
I think I shared this link earlier but things have happened since it was published in September: https://open.substack.com/pub/adamunikowsky/p/is-the-supreme-court-seriously-going?r=3lifg&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post We have cleared the first bar to getting the case to the SCOTUS but still a lot of ways it could fizzle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It would be a massive precedent for the Supreme Court to interfere in how the State of Colorado conducts its elections. Not at all an opinion that the conservative justices want to write. It’s a question of the GOP nominated justices going with their politics or their stated “Originalist” legal philosophy. In 1974 the Nixon appointees ruled against him in regard to the tapes (one abstained). Too tough to call
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
Setting aside for a moment what the Supreme Court may or may not do... Trump absolutely engaged in insurrection, and as such ought not apear on any ballots. So. The right wing is split between accelerationists and (little-r) republicans. Few things would better serve the accelerationist right wingers than for the Supreme Court to plainly demonstrate that the game is fixed. When the highest court of the land is backing a laughable clown's insurrection in plain contradiction of observed truth (the way thomas absolutely will push for), that's yet another severe fracture in the basic structure of the federal apparatus. The government itself will lose some degree of legitimacy in the eyes of the governed. I agree with earlier analysis in this thread that the Justices (with the excepting of compromised stooges obeying their minder) are unlikely themselves to be sympathetic to or eager to pursue accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 06:34
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It would be a massive precedent for the Supreme Court to interfere in how the State of Colorado conducts its elections. Not at all an opinion that the conservative justices want to write. No it wouldn't, at all. SCOTUS has interfered with how States conducts elections numerous times in the past. They directly caused Bush to be elected in 2000. edit: Also SCOTUS is not bound by precedent. They don't have to rule consistently. Fart Amplifier fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
The primary argument Trump made isn't whether or not he participated in an insurrection. The primary argument he's making is that the president is not an "officer of the United States." That clause of the 14th Amendment only applies to officers (and senators and representatives). But wait, you ask yourself, isn't it obvious that a"president" is an "officer?" No. Every single other place in the Constitution the drafters list "president" and "officer" separately and say that different standards apply to each of those positions. That gives a very, very strong presumption that they are different things. I'm phone posting so unfortunately I'll have to edit in an article later but there are very few legal scholars that think this clause applies to the office of the President. I mean, of all the lawsuits in all the states arguing this very thing, this is exactly the first time judges have ruled this way. Here's a New York University law review article arguing that he isn't an officer https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-post-four-2kpz7-7czmg-6fbsx-l9llc-btrht-lkg3w Interestingly, that article points out that Trump is basically the only president who has never been anything but president. Everyone else has been a senator or governor or general. A president who used to be a senator would fall under the Amendment because that person would have, at some point, taken an oath as an officer, and the Amendment bans anyone who has taken that oath in the past. Obviously you can go to the COSC opinion to read a counter argument. Starting here on page 69 (nice) https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf \/\/ I don't know if you're ok but read the article and opinion I posted and enjoy some real academic constitutional interpretation. BigHead fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 07:39
|
|
|
BigHead posted:The primary argument Trump made isn't whether or not he participated in an insurrection. The primary argument he's making is that the president is not an "officer of the United States." the argument isn't whether or not i made someone dead on fifth avenue because i wanted to shoot them. the argument is whether or not im responsible for the deadification of the person or if, after removed from my person through acceleration from the barrel of my gun, the bullet is considered to have autonomously held culpability for any resulting medical concerns of the dead person,
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 07:43
|
|
|
BigHead posted:The primary argument Trump made isn't whether or not he participated in an insurrection. The primary argument he's making is that the president is not an "officer of the United States." That clause of the 14th Amendment only applies to officers (and senators and representatives). The hilarious part is that he, as recently as July this year, used the argument that he was a federal officer to justify trying to move a case against him from other jurisdictions to the DC circuit federal courts. Edit: Specifically People of NY vs Trump, and K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC in 2020 when his hotel was getting sued for unfair business practices. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 08:26
|
|
|
BigHead posted:A president who used to be a senator would fall under the Amendment because that person would have, at some point, taken an oath as an officer, and the Amendment bans anyone who has taken that oath in the past. uh Trump took an oath
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
Despera posted:uh Trump took an oath BigHead posted:A president who used to be a senator would fall under the Amendment because that person would have, at some point, taken an oath as an officer, and the Amendment bans anyone who has taken that oath in the past. The argument here is that our hypothetical ex-senator would be disqualified as president due to taking the oath as a senator, which qualifies as an officer, while Trump escapes disqualification: He took the oath, but never did so as an officer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 08:42
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:While I'm not entirely on board with BigHead's read, you appear to have misread the argument (emphasis mine) Just to be clear I only posted what Trumps argument is. I don't endorse it. I also think it's important to understand that while 99% of his legal arguments are frivolous idiocy, this is the one thing that has some scholarly backing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
The dictionary definition of officer is "a holder of a public, civil, or ecclesiastical office." Article 2 of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years,"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 09:22
|
|
