|
MGDRAGOON posted:Wasn't a major part of the rationale for the failure to convict was that it wasn't congress' job to enforce the punishment, it was the courts? Since that rationale has been proven wrong by the SC, doesn't that make the failure to convict on those grounds make it a mistrial? That's the bullshit excuse the GOP gave because "we will never convict one of our own, gently caress you" wouldn't have gone over as well come election season.
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Unfortunately its unlikely 14 would ever apply to trumps conduct under this ruling and the firm precedent on ex post fact law. New federal law could be passed defining acts as insurrection and carrying the disqualification, though I suspect such law would be held with deep scrutiny. Its trivially easy to use simple definitions to say, mass disqualify protestors because someone beaned a cop with a rock If our courts refuse to accept that Trump's actions which fulfill the literal textbook definition of Insurrection means he's blocked by the 14th and no other politicians are willing to ignore such a bullshit ruling then I hope when Trump wins, which he probably will if Biden doesn't get his pudding-brained act together, his redhats at least kill those useless idiots before the rest of us. Javid posted:Given the extremely thin precedent, and the now-explicit ruling that "congress has sole authority to enforce this provision, specifically" why would "j6 was an insurrection" be any less constitutional for them to decree than "that war we just had was an insurrection" back in the day? Because the legal reality is whatever the SCOTUS majority says it is and nobody in a position of power will ever challenge them on it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:we already have a functioning patchwork: an applicant needs to qualify by 50 different rules in 50 different states in order to show up on 50 different ballots, why are we clutching pearls about States determining qualification now? Because this time, the states are punishing a Republican's crimes. Though as I said before, the only real upside to this ruling is that, in theory, it permanently kills the idea of the Independent Legislature Theory because if a state can't kick Trump off the ballot for violating the 14th, then state Legislatures definitely are not the ultimate authority on their state's elections because otherwise Colorado's legislature can kick Trump off the ballot instead of the court doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/03/politics/texas-immigration-law-appeals-court/index.html Surely the fact that the SCOTUS in 2012(?) said that states are prohibited from passing their own immigration laws (US v. Arizona) and the recent ruling that states don't get to enforce the 14th and block an insurrectionist from the ballot means that they will take up this case and issue a quick 9-0 ruling against Texas, right? Main Paineframe posted:This ruling is not about "whether states can remove someone from a ballot", it's about "whether states can declare someone constitutionally ineligible to be president of the US". What? The case is literally about whether Colorado's allowed to remove Trump from their ballot (for violating the 14th) or not. The method of removal was his violation of the 14th amendment but if they were removing him because of any other reason it'd still be the same result. If Colorado had a law saying that dementia-riddled assholes couldn't be on their ballot for any office it'd still be struck down when they try to remove Trump or Biden. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 5, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
It's moot in the case of Trump because even if Congress were to pass a law tomorrow, the SCOTUS majority would rule against applying it to Trump. Whether saying it's an ex posto facto violation or some other blatant bullshit that'd give him electoral immunity for his crime.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
Morrow posted:If they'd executed the confederate leadership for treason, you'd have a huge bloc of the country still angry about the civil war instead of reintegrating. You mean the exact thing that happened anyways, only with the Confederate leadership being alive to take advantage of it and form groups like the KKK and sabotage what little effort was put into Reconstruction before being abandoned? There's a reason other countries look at the US's post Civil War treatment of the Confederacy and do the opposite. IIRC, part of the reasoning for the Nuremberg Trials was because the Allies saw the failures of Reconstruction and problems caused by Confederate leaders and decided to try and execute Nazi leadership instead of just letting them all go (for the most part).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Once again I am begging for a POTUS, who isn't some right wing fascist, to tell the SCOTUS to gently caress off and to bring people like Abbott to heel instead of kicking the can down the road until we're a theocracy run by Talibangelicals.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
Jesus III posted:You just want a little tyranny Yes wanting people to stop bending over backwards for fascists and actually punish them when they abuse their authority is tyranny, thank you for your deep take. Main Paineframe posted:Sure, but the part that's referencing was right there in ACB's opinion: The SCOTUS conservatives may be many (mostly bad) things, but "stop creating busywork for us you assholes" is not a surprising stance for someone to take and it'll be interesting to see if the 5th keeps doing this and if so, if/when the SCOTUS will finally have to give a ruling that administrative stays in X or Y situation are to be treated as stays pending appeal from now on. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
With the SCOTUS agreeing to take up the abortion pill case I wonder how much of it is Roberts screaming at the conservatives to rule mostly/entirely in favor of the FDA unless they want to ensure Dem turnout jumps in November like it did when they issued the Dobbs ruling. Because ruling in favor of the fundie doctor group bringing this lawsuit rips away any remaining weak argument of "we totally aren't trying to outlaw abortion nationwide" the GOP has tried to make. Granted, the fact they're even agreeing to hear the case in the first place and not immediately throwing it out for lack of standing just underscores how nakedly political the SCOTUS majority is at this point. Even the initial ruling from the GOP's go-to rubberstamp judge in Texas had to be pulled back a bit by the appeals court because it was too overboard even for fellow 5th circuit right wingers. Jesus III posted:It's ok for POTUS to ignore SCOTUS when you don't like what SCOTUS says. Gotcha. You sound like a FREEPer. Not to waste more time on a threadshitter like you but you should at least pretend to read a reply before throwing out some half-assed response.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I predicted ACB to replace RBG and got laughed at. When RBG refused to retire in 2014 I called her getting replaced by some right wing dipshit but I think it was more along the lines of "president Ted Cruz replaces her with standard FedSoc lackey" and less "thin-skinned orange fascist replaces her with cultist who was part of the Bush v. Gore legal team".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
The Gerrymander cases are absolutely being sat on though. These aren't the first cases they've heard about racial Gerrymanders after gutting Shelby and they won't be the last. Running out the clock and issuing some "these are bad and must change... for the next election because it's too late now" rulings suit their needs much more than ruling early enough that the states actually have to not use the racist maps (or outright ignore a ruling like Ohio did).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The court declined to see a case where a BLM organizer was held responsible for the injuries on a police officer because they organized a protest. That's the 'fun' thing, a SCOTUS decision doesn't have to make sense. The political will to ignore rulings that are nakedly political with no basis in reality is non-existent among politicians who are left of a Hitler-Reagan-Thatcher chimera. So right now no matter how bad the rulings are their legitimacy and weight are never called into question in a meaningful sense. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:clarence thomas was absent from oral arguments today without explanation They want to get our hopes up that Thomas is dying/dead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Kaal posted:If a Supreme Court Justice can fulfill their "Good Behavior" requirement while completely asleep during courtroom discussions, they can do it while being dead. I continue to be disappointeed with RBG's family for not going full Weekend at Bernie's when she died. Or do a burial in secret and just outright lie about her being alive but closed away recuperating and that she'll totally be back on the bench soon, then announce her death after Biden got sworn in. Though if she wasn't a selfish rear end in a top hat it wouldn't have mattered.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 15:18
|
|