SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

Discendo Vox posted:

"If the democrats are planning to rework the federal judiciary, why do I keep insisting they aren't!?"

"A poll of registered voters funded by the Washington Examiner found court-packing is intensely divisive and more voters oppose than support it, even if ACB is confirmed. Why won't Biden, who is winning without talking about it, emphasize court packing like Trump wants him to!?"

"I hate Joe Biden, who is a murderous rapist, and I have signed up to be banned if I ever support him with my voice or vote. The least he could do is try to appeal to me".

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Oct 12, 2020 07:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 18:22

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

mandatory lesbian posted:

Goddamn you really drank the koolaid huh

What's the koolaid in this instance?

# ¿ Sep 15, 2021 11:33

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

VitalSigns posted:

Daring to be feted by the wealthiest 0.1%

The wealthiest 0.1% aren�t getting to Clarence Thomas. It�s more like 0.001%.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2023 22:09

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

Medullah posted:

Yep this is what I'm expecting. We're already seeing "Biden is allowing illegals into the country, this is an insurrection and since you don't need to be convicted it's all we need"

The Supreme Court is hearing this because nobody will take such a decision lying down.

Trump wasn�t convicted of insurrection, but a judicial finding was made that he had engaged in insurrection. And then that finding was upheld on appeal.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2024 05:58

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

werdnam posted:

I have a legitimate question that I'd love all y'all's opinions on: It makes sense to me that having a candidate for president on some states' ballots but not on others is an undesirable situation. So on the face of it, I agree that disbarring candidates shouldn't be something that states do. Am I wrong? And if not, what do you think would be a reasonable way for the Court to have ruled out a patchwork but also make it reasonably possible to bar an insurrectionist from the ballot?

Why does it make sense to have a patchwork on women's medical privacy but not on who gets to have their name on the ballot instead of being a write-in candidate?

# ¿ Mar 5, 2024 04:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 18:22

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

Main Paineframe posted:

This is 100% false, easily and verifiably so. The case is about whether Colorado is allowed to determine that Trump has violated the 14th and enforce consequences against him for it. Since the Supreme Court ruled against that, they reversed all of the consequences that Colorado had imposed for that purported 14th-violation, including (but not limited to) removal from the ballot.

Just look at the very first page of the Supreme Court's ruling, summarizing it:

The decision is almost entirely written about the 14th Amendment Section 3 specifically, with ballot removal only mentioned in the context of enforcement for that clause specifically.

They could have chosen to address the question of whether Trump was ineligible under the 14th amendment. The lower courts already decided as a question of fact that Trump participated in an insurrection.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2024 03:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?