(Thread IKs:
weg, Toxic Mental)
|
Justice is a damage-over-time spell that does far more hit points in damage than Trump has left. Trump’s already dead, he just doesn’t know it yet.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Scotus is not running on whether or not Trump can be in the ballot and whether or not he did insurrection. They are ruling on whether or not individual states can do that
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:Kagan is trying to find some sort of argument that'll pull a majority and she might have found it, seeing how Barrett and Gorsuch picked up on it What argument is this? I can't listen in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
Judges are making stronger arguments for Trump than his lawyer
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:23
|
|
Rescue Toaster posted:What argument is this? I can't listen in. Basically why does one state get to kick people off the ballot and that means all states have to kick him off is the gist of it
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
kazil posted:Judges are making stronger arguments for Trump than his lawyer Conservative judges who already know where they want to go hand-feeding arguments to incompetent lawyers is pretty normal. Look at the Florida documents case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
gamer logic : they did enough blue things and now theyre going for their big red action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
Anyone else feel that Murray's tone is a little combative?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
kazil posted:Judges are making stronger arguments for Trump than his lawyer It's is sounding a lot like they're leaning toward the obvious ruling that everyone expected. But oral arguments are always about attacking the position and they really don't change anything. This is going to be decided behind closed doors by the briefs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:It's is sounding a lot like they're leaning toward the obvious ruling that everyone expected. Yeah, Emptywheel is reporting the same. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1755628058751431158
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:29
|
|
Rescue Toaster posted:Conservative judges who already know where they want to go hand-feeding arguments to incompetent lawyers is pretty normal. Look at the Florida documents case. Justices do this all the time on both sides. It's not just conservative ones
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Scotus is not running on whether or not Trump can be in the ballot and whether or not he did insurrection. They are ruling on whether or not individual states can do that so if individual states can't do that, then the only time section 3 can be invoked is in Congress...on Jan 6. That's all very neat and tidy lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Yeah this is sounding a lot like it's going to break for Trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
kazil posted:Yeah this is sounding a lot like it's going to break for Trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:It's is sounding a lot like they're leaning toward the obvious ruling that everyone expected. Would those closed doors happen to be on Harlan Crowe’s yacht?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:the ballot thing or the immunity? The arguments right now are about the ballot
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:the ballot thing or the immunity? Ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
It's astounding to me that if you are a chud you don't even have to make a decent legal argument to this shithead filled SCOTUS. They will just walk you right through the goal posts of a legal argument themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
I can see them siding with Trump here and then smacking down his claim of immunity and spin that as them being completely impartial and not undemocratically life-appointed demagogues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
Military members are obligated to disobey illegal orders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
kazil posted:Yeah this is sounding a lot like it's going to break for Trump The big question is if they'll put out a test for insurrections and it's really sounding like they don't want to do that much which will leave things a mess. Maybe they're hoping Trump will lose and they don't have to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
LOL
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
saintonan posted:so if individual states can't do that, then the only time section 3 can be invoked is in Congress...on Jan 6. That's all very neat and tidy lol. That's their argument, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:35
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:I can see them siding with Trump here and then smacking down his claim of immunity and spin that as them being completely impartial and not undemocratically life-appointed demagogues. It's likely that this is what'll happen
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
kazil posted:So Thomas's argument here is because this hasn't come up before it doesn't count? NASCAR sitting off in the distance going, “well, all it took for us was a gamer to become a car driver and suddenly everything changed.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
Pot Smoke Phoenix posted:Justice is a damage-over-time spell that does far more hit points in damage than Trump has left. Trump’s already dead, he just doesn’t know it yet. Not really, the thing most likely to stop him is time itself, he’s quite old and has lived poorly, even with rich people medicine he’s likely to run out the clock before justice catches up to him. Even then his effects will outlive him I’d bet. This will probably break for Trump but the real crazy town ruling comes if/when they rule on presidential immunity. If SCOTUS rules in favor of immunity, I can’t even fathom what downstream effects that could have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
The conservatives are being brutal with Murray.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1755625115360878904?s=46&t=G1x8XWIwrNxUQoXItlkh2w Seems like good question to ask knowing the Trump ideas of “entitled to an extra round!”
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
This is actually a problem if they rule in favor of Trump on the ballot issue; that means there's little means by which to legally disqualify a candidate for any reason, especially a crime, and that basically leaves it up to the conventions, which is dumb in this case because a large tract of the GOP has definitely asked for pardons for unspecified crimes. This leaves (especially the Supreme Court) open for all kinds of stupid poo poo later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
Yeah, conservatives are doing the whole "well won't Red states disqualify Biden then?" poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
Loving Alito making up random scenarios and just throwing his hands up "What if the presidential election was going to be in 3 days and the Bills played the Knicks and during that game a ghost appeared that just screamed "BERDERS!!!" over and over... what would we do then?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
Nodelphi posted:Not really, the thing most likely to stop him is time itself, he’s quite old and has lived poorly, even with rich people medicine he’s likely to run out the clock before justice catches up to him. Even then his effects will outlive him I’d bet. Biden would legally be allowed to do whatever he wants before the end of his term if that happens, they aren't doing that Immunity is an insane argument. Individual states not having authority to remove candidates is at least an actual logical angle you can take with this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Biden would legally be allowed to do whatever he wants before the end of his term if that happens, they aren't doing that It's a bad one though as stripping states of the right to determine who is on their ballot goes against the history and tradition of the constitution allowing states to do just that. But lol intellectual consistency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
armchairyoda posted:Loving Alito making up random scenarios and just throwing his hands up Unless that's  , why would a football team play a basketball team?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
Neito posted:Unless that's You'd have to ask Alito.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Neito posted:Unless that's There's no rule that says a football team can't play basketball!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
It is frustrating to try and figure out which way the court is going to rule when i'm not a lawyer steeped in case law. It's usually fun to speculate but the implications and complexities here are obnoxious as hell to wrap my head around. Oh no...is doomerism taking me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
PuttyKnife posted:It is frustrating to try and figure out which way the court is going to rule when i'm not a lawyer steeped in case law. It's usually fun to speculate but the implications and complexities here are obnoxious as hell to wrap my head around. It's only doomerism if it comes from the CSPAM region of Something Awful, otherwise it's sparkling pessimism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
BUG JUG posted:It's a bad one though as stripping states of the right to determine who is on their ballot goes against the history and tradition of the constitution allowing states to do just that. Yeah IMO that is well within States' rights to do so, they all have individual processes and do in fact have authority to oversee that because there's distinct separation of processes AND powers between states and the national results; I don't think it's valid to create an instant escalator to the Supreme Court every single time there's some kind of an issue with a candidate. Trump doesn't exactly have much of a leg to stand on in the first place, he's just in desperate pleading, and his lawyers didn't exactly bring a game whatsoever, so what we're seeing is the SC taxing itself to death trying to play devil's advocate I guess?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:47
|
|