|
kzin602 posted:Conservatives have an interest in destroying the federal government as anything other than a mechanism to transfer public funds to corporations and the wealthy. The conservatives on the court will place that goal above preserving institutions. Their personal power is the institution of the court. Again yeah Thomas and Alito would. But I don’t see the other conservatives undermining their own personal power. Robert’s has been especially interested in not doing that.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Keisari posted:But all of this is purely academic, of course. As I am certain the Supreme Court will overturn this as even the Colorado state court had only a 4-3 vote on this. It’s worthy to note the 3 dissenters bailed on the initial jurisdictional questions of whether or not Colorado could adjudicate the federal Constitution so it’s not quite as split on the substance of the case as we might think. quote:The court’s extensive ruling ultimately boiled down to four questions: That said the SCOTUS Republican majority rules however the hell they want and will probably make the decision with the least amount of change so I’m guessing they decide not to hear the appeal at all to try to avoid any more media attention on them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:That said the SCOTUS Republican majority rules however the hell they want and will probably make the decision with the least amount of change so I’m guessing they decide not to hear the appeal at all to try to avoid any more media attention on them. If they refuse to hear it, the ruling stands and Trump loses. They might do this, but the right would freak the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
It’s amazing we’re all still dealing with this poo poo 3 years later because Mitch got cold feet on impeaching Trump because he thought the situation had resolved itself and he was worried about taking a stand on something that wasn’t necessary any more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If they refuse to hear it, the ruling stands and Trump loses. They might do this, but the right would freak the gently caress out. There are any number of ways they could refuse to hear it while staying the ruling. SCOTUS can do what they want
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
If the Supreme Court decides not to overturn the decision, I would have to think the most concerned person in the world is Lauren Boebert. She barely escaped defeat last time, and while I am sure Republicans in Colorado would be pissed if Trump gets struck, I doubt they'd be pissed in the sort of way that leads them to vote on a ballot Trump isn't on and was specifically excluded from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
GlobalMegaCorp posted:It’s amazing we’re all still dealing with this poo poo 3 years later because Mitch got cold feet on impeaching Trump because he thought the situation had resolved itself and he was worried about taking a stand on something that wasn’t necessary any more. The Republicans are cowards and Mitch McConnell is the biggest coward of them all
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:There are any number of ways they could refuse to hear it while staying the ruling. SCOTUS can do what they want Could you give an example of a way that they can overturn the ruling without hearing the case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Could you give an example of a way that they can overturn the ruling without hearing the case? Unsigned ruling on the shadow docket
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Could you give an example of a way that they can overturn the ruling without hearing the case? Punt on a technical ruling is a possibility. "The state of Colorado can't interpret the 14th Amendment, only a federal court can. Reversed."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
GlobalMegaCorp posted:It’s amazing we’re all still dealing with this poo poo 3 years later because Mitch got cold feet on impeaching Trump because he thought the situation had resolved itself and he was worried about taking a stand on something that wasn’t necessary any more. There’s a reason he has a 6% approval rating right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
once invested, the office and the man become one, with and by divine provedence, all executive authority derives from them, is of then, and henceforth they are the executive, the embodiment or spirit of the executive and the individual. President in three persons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Could you give an example of a way that they can overturn the ruling without hearing the case? Can’t they stay it until it is heard and schedule it after it would matter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
lol that the way the Justices rule might come down to this
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
The SC is well aware that if CO gets away with taking Trump off the ballot then there will be a cascade effect of states taking whichever candidate they dislike off their ballots and we will have a full blown constitutional crisis and disintegration of the country. For this reason I expect the SC to strike down CO. They will make up whatever argument they need to reach that goal. And yes I know Biden hasn't been involved in any insurrection that could lead to him being 14thed in any state but red states will just make up whatever they need to make up to do it. Probably some border poo poo or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The SC is well aware that if CO gets away with taking Trump off the ballot then there will be a cascade effect of states taking whichever candidate they dislike off their ballots and we will have a full blown constitutional crisis and disintegration of the country. For this reason I expect the SC to strike down CO. They will make up whatever argument they need to reach that goal. I'm sorry, but the 'well, if we do the right thing then people might misuse it' line is bullshit. We should not have a court system afraid to make ruling because it could be misused by bad actors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm sorry, but the 'well, if we do the right thing then people might misuse it' line is bullshit. We should not have a court system afraid to make ruling because it could be misused by bad actors. I don’t think Charliegrs was saying that this is good and how it should work, just that this is probably what SCOTUS will end up doing because it and many of our governmental systems are currently broken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:Wow. So if the courts decide that's what it comes down to they pretty much are gonna be saying "you can't touch this President and this very specifically only this President for this reason". You may remember Bush v. Gore? They explicitly said that, except for vote-counting instead of disqualification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I don’t think Charliegrs was saying that this is good and how it should work, just that this is probably what SCOTUS will end up doing because it and many of our governmental systems are currently broken. Oh, I wasn't attacking Charliegrs, I was saying that if the USSC uses that as a way out that its a bullshit line. But they give no fucks so they probably would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The SC is well aware that if CO gets away with taking Trump off the ballot then there will be a cascade effect of states taking whichever candidate they dislike off their ballots and we will have a full blown constitutional crisis and disintegration of the country. For this reason I expect the SC to strike down CO. They will make up whatever argument they need to reach that goal. I know there's that murphy's law style rule that describes "conservatives do something and then the democratic party takes the blame for "letting" it happen so everything gets worse" or whatever which rule is it that the courts always tryna stop people from using a law properly today because conservatives will then use the law improperly tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The SC is well aware that if CO gets away with taking Trump off the ballot then there will be a cascade effect of states taking whichever candidate they dislike off their ballots and we will have a full blown constitutional crisis and disintegration of the country. For this reason I expect the SC to strike down CO. They will make up whatever argument they need to reach that goal. Or, you know, each case could be decided on its own merits. The logical conclusion of your argument is that no law should constrain a would-be dictator, which is just another way of saying, "I hope our tyrant is benevolent."
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
The only way to avoid mass casualties is to keep the fascists scattered and unsure of when to strike, by not doing anything that bothers them too much, until they are all too old to fight. Obviously
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm sorry, but the 'well, if we do the right thing then people might misuse it' line is bullshit. We should not have a court system afraid to make ruling because it could be misused by bad actors. I'm not in disagreement with you. But I'm talking about the SC and like I said they will probably just do whatever they want. Just like they did with Roe Vs Wade. Edit: I'm not the most articulate person out there. I wasn't saying I WANT the SC to come to a judgement based on total bullshit. I'm saying that I think that's what they will do. There's a big difference there. Charliegrs fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Dec 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
Judge says Rudy Giuliani must pay $148 million judgment immediatelyquote:Rudy Giuliani must immediately pay the $148 million he owes two Georgia women he falsely accused of helping steal the 2020 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday in a scathing order accusing the former Trump attorney of ongoing dishonesty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I'm not in disagreement with you. But I'm talking about the SC and like I said they will probably just do whatever they want. Just like they did with Roe Vs Wade. I don't disagree. The ability of this court to do the absolute wrong thing that will resonate for decades to come and not give two fucks is astounding. Though I am wondering if they are going to punt on this issue because saying he did insurrection things and shouldn't be on the ballot is basically declaring him guilty of the Washington DC criminal case against him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 02:37
|
|
|
Haha, the judge was obviously so sick of poo poo. Good for her tearing him a new one. Hopefully the two ladies in the case do manage to get a good chunk of change. Rudy certainly doesn't have $148 million, but he might still have quite a bit hidden away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 02:57
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I don't disagree. The ability of this court to do the absolute wrong thing that will resonate for decades to come and not give two fucks is astounding. He offered to pardon people convicted of seditious conspiracy, is that giving aid and comfort to an insurrection? Honestly, I don't know. We're looking for heroes and finding nothing of the sort from our institutions and officials. Just loving stacks of mewling sycophants, crazy people looking to bilk stupid people out of their money, and the political equivalent of Mark Wahlberg, who totally would have done something but I couldn't at the time but buy my book as I explain why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
lol that his attempts to hide his assets from the court gave the court freedom to say "Well he's not shown us that he has lost all that money he used to have or that there's some kind of extenuating circumstance, so pay the loving piper Rudy  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:lol that his attempts to hide his assets from the court gave the court freedom to say "Well he's not shown us that he has lost all that money he used to have or that there's some kind of extenuating circumstance, so pay the loving piper Rudy Its almost like the Alex Jones legal strategy of telling the judge to go gently caress himself is sub-optimal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Its almost like the Alex Jones legal strategy of telling the judge to go gently caress himself is sub-optimal. But I heard judges looked really favorably upon you when you do that. Showing dominance and what not. This is also why at the start of any case you should piss on the prosocutors table, the judges throne thingo, and the jury box, just to mark your territory. So yeah drink a lot before you go in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Its almost like the Alex Jones legal strategy of telling the judge to go gently caress himself is sub-optimal. The Buzz Hickey defense: Be the baboon with the biggest, reddest rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 05:30
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Its almost like the Alex Jones legal strategy of telling the judge to go gently caress himself is sub-optimal. Nah, what you do is deliberately piss off the judge as much as possible, then when they get angry at you that means they’re being biased, then they’re not allowed to judge you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 09:41
|
|
|
Asgerd posted:Nah, what you do is deliberately piss off the judge as much as possible, then when they get angry at you that means they’re being biased, then they’re not allowed to judge you! Mr. Trump I loved you in Home Alone 2
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 13:52
|
|
|
Nash posted:Mr. Trump I loved you in Home Alone 2 Those libs robbed him of an oscar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Isn't the president also a military officer during his term in office? Specifically so he can order around the troops properly? That's a military office right there and well people can wear more than one hat, so even if the PRESIDENT is not an "officer" He was also a general at that time per the military chain of command... and thats an office of the USA right there. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
A game following the events of Jan 5-7th as Donald Trump in the style of Disco Elysium would definitely be something with the potential to be very funny. Dickhead Elysium
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:But I heard judges looked really favorably upon you when you do that. Showing dominance and what not. Negging the judge
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:A game following the events of Jan 5-7th as Donald Trump in the style of Disco Elysium would definitely be something with the potential to be very funny. Hell, a Disco Elysium-style game focusing on the court cases as well as the attempted coup would be... something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
Asgerd posted:Nah, what you do is deliberately piss off the judge as much as possible, then when they get angry at you that means they’re being biased, then they’re not allowed to judge you! It's foolproof, as in it's proof that you're a fool!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Madkal posted:It's foolproof, as in it's proof that you're a fool! I really want Trump to be reduced to going pro se
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 16:37
|
|
