Jump to content

DDD Dad

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12214
  • Joined

Everything posted by DDD Dad

  1. Ooh. Forgot about the Big Sick. I really liked that.
  2. What is that saying? Better to be silent and... or something?
  3. BTW those pies and the cornbread and custard look pretty good. The guava cake? Not so much. I grew up in Miami but never acquired a taste for the stuff. Too cloying.
  4. <Sigh> This thread is terribly depressing.
  5. Ambiguous modifiers, bro. Be better.
  6. Why would leather smell like wood?
  7. I used to go to summer camp near Asheville and spent many days canoeing on Lake Toxaway and sliding on Toxaway Falls. Fond memories. /csb
  8. I agree that the first paragraph of your post wasn't wishcasting. It was the other two paragraphs to which I was referring: I don't see any indication that Trump has lost any blue collar workers. If anything they're more supportive of him than ever. If you have evidence to the contrary by all means please enlighten me. I think it's extremely naive to assume that Trump will lose. With all of the shenanigans and efforts the RNC has undertaken to preserve slim advantages in battleground critical electoral vote states the die is is far from cast on the outcome of this election. I don't want Trump off the ballot to give the Democratic nominee an advantage on Election Day. I want him off the ballot because I believe his actions disqualify him from public office. If that results in another Republican winning, so be it.
  9. What struck me from what I was able to hear of the argument (had to jump on a call during the SG's portion) was what seemed like another Calvinball argument that could result from a reversal. You can't remove Trump from the Ballot because he can only be removed after he attains office. You can't use the 14th amendment to remove him once he's obtained office because the only way to remove him is by impeachment.
  10. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/the-supreme-courts-legitimacy-dilemma/ From the article: The judiciary has no army; it must rely on others to obey its decrees. Government officials and the general public are more likely to comply if they view the Court as “legitimate” — that is, as an institution that does and should have the power to affect legal rights and obligations. It is particularly crucial that those who disagree with a given decision view the Court as legitimate; such disappointed individuals will respect the adverse ruling if they view the institution itself as authoritative. Thus, political scientists have a refrain: “Legitimacy is for losers.”
  11. Perceived legitimacy. Without it the court is neutered. He absolutely cares about that.
  12. This is wishcasting fan fiction. Roberts must feel desperate to sway at least one of the three non-Republican appointed justices to reverse here. Otherwise the court's already suspect legitimacy will suffer further and possibly irreparable erosion. There are some rumors/speculation floating about that there may be some horse trading going on at the court to garner votes on this case with the immunity case that follows. To me that makes no sense as the immunity case seems pretty obvious. I guess we'll see.
  13. Yep. I read September as January. Ban user, etc.
  14. Roberts (appointed during W's first term). Oops. Strike that. I got my years wrong. He was nominated in 2005.
  15. Watch out! You're gonna lose control.
  16. According to the petitioner, no. "Officer of the United States is a term of art limited to officials who are appointed, not the elected offices of President and Vice President."
  17. Different argument. Whether the President is an "officer of the united states" is a different issue from whether section 3 creates a qualification that can only be enforced once the president attains the office (office and officer being two different terms). The argument he was making is that it is premature to prevent him from being on the ballot if he has the chance to become qualified (for example by virtue of 2/3 of Congress vote).
  18. It's actually an interesting argument, contending that Section 3 is distinct from the age and term limit qualifications. And this.
  19. Current argument is that the amendment doesn't apply to candidates but only disqualifies someone after they've obtained the office from "holding" the office.
×
×
  • Create New...