Jump to content

wildcat09

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    10,994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by wildcat09

  1. Guys, if Donald Trump is reelected there is no way in hell Chubb is selling any of his assets. He'll be having his political opponents rounded up and imprisoned. You think some fucking CEO is going to risk that over pawning his fucking plane?
  2. Chubb's problem is that if Trump wins the election there's no way he's repaying them or letting them take his shit.
  3. The line on Tebow being a child molester just moved to -150.
  4. Guys, look who you’re arguing with.
  5. I swear Whitmire has fucked up the syncing of the downtown traffic lights. For a couple of weeks now, every time I leave work I catch a red at literally every intersection until I can get out of downtown. Yes I’m blaming this on him, I’m sure he did it himself just to piss me off.
  6. Yeah, they won't say he's immune, but they'll say he might be and punt it back down with some new procedural hurdles (e.g. the trial judge must make an appealable determination whether Trump's behavior constituted "official acts"). There is no way this trial will start before the election.
  7. Notably, the very last day of oral arguments this term.
  8. Man look who you're talking to.
  9. Sengun put Wemby in a blender approximately 6,340 times tonight.
  10. wildcat09

    Texas Primaries

    It blows my mind that chron.com doesn't even have the primary results available anywhere on their website.
  11. And she didn’t incite a violent assault on the Capitol in an effort to have her installed as president despite the results of the election. You fucking clown.
  12. Stealing the appropriate gif from page 1.
  13. Nobody serious thinks there's any equivalence between how Hillary responded to her loss and how Trump responded to his. BHM is clearly not serious. Donald putting on a confederate uniform, picking up a musket, and actually shooting Biden. And only that, probably.
  14. It became an insurrection when his criminal conspiracy to remain in power despite losing led him to incite a violent assault upon the Capitol as his method of pressuring allied members of Congress to refuse to certify the electoral votes. This isn't a hard question. There's no gray here. It's entirely black and white, and you're just pretending otherwise.
  15. It's very hard to treat you as a good faith interlocutor when you say shit like this.
  16. Don't forget the most damning fact (at least the most damning absent direct evidence of him scheming through Roger Stone with the Proud Boys, which I do think likely happened): that Trump tried to use the delay caused by the violence to stop the certification. He called Mike Lee (meaning to call Tuberville) during the attack and pressured Tuberville to delay the certification. He didn't just fail to do his duty, he actively betrayed his duty by trying to use the violent attack to his personal advantage.
  17. Wickard and Roe were correct and the only problem with the Obamacare decision (I'm assuming he's referring to the first one) is it unnecessarily analyzed and reached a conclusion on the interstate commerce argument and invalidated the Medicaid expansion with what can't even charitably be called legal reasoning.
  18. Stupid, dishonest, uninformed, and/or politically motivated actors can dispute it or pretend to dispute it (and before you ask which one you are, you're politically motivated). I wouldn't consider any of their attempts reasonable. The language of Section 3 does not give Congress the power to disqualify those who've taken an oath of office and then committed insurrection or given aid and comfort to those who have. It by its express language disqualifies anyone who has done so and gives Congress the ability, with a supermajority, to remove that disqualification. No other provision of any of the Civil War amendments has been held to require legislation to give them effect. Congress wasn't required to pass any legislation for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to have legal effect. The framers of those amendments were suspicious of the judicial system that had produced Dredd Scott, so included enforcement clauses in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments expressly authorizing Congress to pass legislation to supplement and enforce the terms of those Amendments, but such legislation wasn't required for those Amendments to have any effect in the first place. This is a new requirement this Court invented because it was politically convenient for them to do so. The real legal question should have been did Colorado correctly determine that Trump had committed insurrection? If that invited mischief from other states, it would be the Court's duty to slap that shit down. That's the job these people wanted.
  19. Sure, but you're making a policy argument here, not a legal argument. Would I like there to be uniform, objective election laws for federal office? Absolutely. I would fucking love it if confederate states weren't allowed to try every measure they can come up with to suppress minority and student votes. I would love it if Bush v. Gore's equal protection in voting ruling was real and not limited to that case as an excuse to allow them to stop a recount. Hell, I would love it if we actually got to vote for President and not for presidential electors. But that's not how our elections work and it's not how American election law works. The plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump. Nobody can reasonably dispute that. Everything else is a political excuse so that the justices could avoid reaching the obvious but politically volatile conclusion.
  20. Every state already independently assesses federal eligibility in every election for every candidate for every office, including federal office, often with different conclusions reached by different states. This is where the "concurrence" that sure reads like a dissent gets it wrong too. It's like every justice decided to pretend that they had no clue how elections in America work. ETA: Colorado didn't remove Trump for political reasons. They removed him because Colorado state law requires them to evaluate whether a candidate is disqualified by federal law, and they determined that the 14th Amendment disqualified Trump. That's all they did. If other states wanted to respond to that by removing Biden by pretending he'd done something insurrectionary as well, that's why we have a Supreme Court to determine whether the alleged insurrection was bullshit or not. They just don't want to do their jobs.
  21. Why do you support corporate executives committing fraud to deceive their shareholders?
  22. To be clear, they didn’t have any real say in the decision here and if they’d ruled the way I think was legally correct and somehow gotten their way, Abbott and DeSantis (among others) would’ve seized on their reasoning to attempt to kick Biden off the ballot. They’re playing poker with shit hands. But they’re also not good at poker.
×
×
  • Create New...