Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, South Austin said:

The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to disqualify those who served in the Confederate Army.  Did Donald Trump serve in the Confederate Army?  No?  Case closed.

 

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, that is basically the exact vibe I'm getting from Thomas and Alito here. 

SCOTUS has held a number of times that the 14th Amendment, although enacted as a part of Reconstruction, is not limited to post-war matters. As far as should there be a conviction, that's a closer policy issue in my opinion. There wouldn't have been much fact or legal dispute after the civil war that anyone who fought for the Confederacy by definition committed rebellion and insurrection. This question (in a legal vacuum at least) is much closer. He encouraged the mob but was in his bunker so didn't participate in storming the capital. He also can argue (again in a vacuum) that his pressuring of officials to not certify the vote isn't the same as rebellion or insurrection. This issue would be cleaner if brought after he is found guilty in the Georgia case for election interference and for trying to overturn a free and fair election and preclude a peaceful transition of power (he can also argue that he ultimately did leave and Biden took office).

I'm trying to be clear here that the above is considered in a legal vacuum because we all know he committed these acts, but I would be more comfortable if a lower court or jury do fact finding and find him guilty of election interference, which leads to a cleaner determination that he is disqualified. My policy concern is that if a court can just determine that insurrection occurred outside the original obviousness of "if you fought for the Confederacy you committed insurrection" the continued packing of right wing loons to the court will result in democrats being disqualified for bullshit reasons. The loons in the House literally just tried to impeach Mayorkas arguing that policy disagreements on border security constitues a "high crime or misdemeanor." They could just as easily say that Biden or anyone in his administration has committed "treason" or "insurrection" based on their bullshit talking points about immigration and the border. And if enough Uncle Clarences hit the bench, that absurd argument could prevail. 

Ultimately, however, I don't think it really matters one way or the other. Citizens of this country should be loathe to elect an insurrectionist. If he wins the presidency after everything we know about him and his actions on Jan. 6 and beyond, the constitution is meaningless anyways, and we don't deserve to be a civil society anymore. The United States will implode like Rome or the French Empire. 

Edited by 'stache
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love hearing some of these justices arguing that states don't have the authority to determine who committed an insurrection per section 3, and at the same time arguing/bitching why it's their job to determine if section 3 applies? 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

I love hearing some of these justices arguing that states don't have the authority to determine who committed an insurrection per section 3, and at the same time arguing/bitching why it's their job to determine if section 3 applies? 

 

people just don't want to work these days....

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Ultimately, however, I think that it doesn't matter one way or the other. If he wins the presidency after everything we know about him and his actions on Jan. 6 and beyond, the constitution is meaningless anyways, and we don't deserve to be a civil society anymore, and the United States will implode like Rome or the French Empire. 

This is where I'm at

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Ultimately, however, I don't think it really matters one way or the other. Citizens of this country should be loathe to elect an insurrectionist. If he wins the presidency after everything we know about him and his actions on Jan. 6 and beyond, the constitution is meaningless anyways, and we don't deserve to be a civil society anymore. The United States will implode like Rome or the French Empire. 

This is what it ultimately comes down to.

If we actually choose to elect Trump at POTUS, after all that he's done, we just chose suicide.  Consciously and knowingly.  It's hard to argue that, among the things the Republic can choose to do, "blow itself up completely" isn't one of those things.

Dumbest.  Timeline.  Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Also, it's wild that Dems have held the WH for 12 of the last 16 years and the court is 6-3. Just SMDH.

I've lost track of the number of justices that were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote. Four?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, South Austin said:

One the one hand, keeping Trump on the ballot could motivate those Dems and Independents to vote for Biden to keep that fucker away from the White House.

On the other hand, be careful what you wish for.

He'll remain on the ballot in every state that could possibly go red.  That's the funny thing -- in terms of "deciding the election," this is all a phony war.  It may affect the total national popular vote, but it won't affect the only thing that matters -- the EC vote totals -- at all.  Hell, if Trump is off the ballot in 10 blue states, then he'll really get his ass kicked in national popular vote numbers, but he could still be elected POTUS because he wins the necessary swing states in addition to his red state base.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I love hearing some of these justices arguing that states don't have the authority to determine who committed an insurrection per section 3, and at the same time arguing/bitching why it's their job to determine if section 3 applies? 

 

I fully expect a ruling that there is qualified immunity for sedition - so long as the people you were committing sedition against were making furtive movements. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gatorubet said:

I fully expect a ruling that there is qualified immunity for sedition - so long as the people you were committing sedition against were making furtive movements. 

Actually, that could work.  See, the sedition was really against the Democrats.  And Democrats got the majority of the black vote.  Which makes the Dems functionally black.  And black people are scary, and how was Trump to know that was just a cell phone in their hands and not a gun!  

That works.  It would sure as shit work in the Fifth Circuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

kavanaugh, ACB, Gorsuch

Roberts (appointed during W's first term).

Oops.  Strike that.  I got my years wrong.  He was nominated in 2005.

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

See, the sedition was really against the Democrats.  And Democrats got the majority of the black vote.  Which makes the Dems functionally black.  And black people are scary, and how was Trump to know that was just a cell phone in their hands and not a gun!  

Okay, did somebody already leak the Clarence Thomas opinion?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Also, it's wild that Dems have held the WH for 12 of the last 16 years and the court is 6-3. Just SMDH.

Republicans have won the popular vote ONCE since 1988, yet have appointed 7 of the 12 Justices since then.  Maddening. 

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Actually, that could work.  See, the sedition was really against the Democrats.  And Democrats got the majority of the black vote.  Which makes the Dems functionally black.  And black people are scary, and how was Trump to know that was just a cell phone in their hands and not a gun!  

That works.  It would sure as shit work in the Fifth Circuit.

You don't even have to get that creative with it. 

Trump had to do it to keep that uppity nigress from being second in line for the presidency.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Actually, that could work.  See, the sedition was really against the Democrats.  And Democrats got the majority of the black vote.  Which makes the Dems functionally black.  And black people are scary, and how was Trump to know that was just a cell phone in their hands and not a gun!  

That works.  It would sure as shit work in the Fifth Circuit.

In 1868, black people could no longer be enslaved, but were still inferior under the law, therefore, members of today's Democratic party are all disqualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He'll remain on the ballot in every state that could possibly go red.  That's the funny thing -- in terms of "deciding the election," this is all a phony war.  It may affect the total national popular vote, but it won't affect the only thing that matters -- the EC vote totals -- at all.  Hell, if Trump is off the ballot in 10 blue states, then he'll really get his ass kicked in national popular vote numbers, but he could still be elected POTUS because he wins the necessary swing states in addition to his red state base.

“We could end up with just a few or even one state deciding the presidency”

 

and that’s different from what we have how?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

This originalist SCOTUS thus would only allow you to listen to 3/5 of that song.

In all fairness, that's usually the point of the song when I hit the wedding bar for a refill.  I guess I'm an originalist at heart.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Unlike Judge Judy and the TV judges, a good judge with the proper judicial demeanor will not be rude or snarky to someone delivering an appellate argument.  You might get skewered a bit in the actual decision and the logic of your argument or your ability to correctly understand case precedent might be indirectly questioned -  but I do not expect disrespect or Snark from SCOTUS in an oral argument. 
Also, don’t read too much into the justices’ demeanor in asking questions. They often ask questions to drill down on a certain point.  What seems to be a friendly judge talking with counsel is often that Justice narrowing a point and getting admissions, so that Justice can later do a kill-shot on that point.  

Very much all of this. If you’re new to listening to these things it’s very easy to entirely misread a judge. Comments like “assume I agree with you on that point” do NOT mean they agree. Typically, that means “if I ultimately agree with that point, then I know what comes next so I don’t need to hear more about that from you” or “I already have my decision on that, but I want to hear what you think comes after.”

But they aren’t going to disqualify him. The concern that other states will then say Biden is ineligible for X reason and remove him from the ballot is legitimate. The point about states doing it days before an election are very real and dangerous. Do you then postpone voting until it plays out in court? Potentially for years? What happens if they go ahead with the vote and that candidate isn’t on the ballot and presumably loses because a bunch of people don’t know how to write in a candidate? They’re going to find the most legitimate reason they can to punt this to Congress or a criminal trial before they can properly review applicability of the constitutional provision. It could be unanimous to shut it down forever, and that’s probably for the best since the no votes are going to win anyway. Don’t need a dissenting opinion that can provide any fuel for some R state to base a claim on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SquishMitten said:

Typically, that means “if I ultimately agree with that point, then I know what comes next so I don’t need to hear more about that from you

I need to use this at work then. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He'll remain on the ballot in every state that could possibly go red.  That's the funny thing -- in terms of "deciding the election," this is all a phony war.  It may affect the total national popular vote, but it won't affect the only thing that matters -- the EC vote totals -- at all.  Hell, if Trump is off the ballot in 10 blue states, then he'll really get his ass kicked in national popular vote numbers, but he could still be elected POTUS because he wins the necessary swing states in addition to his red state base.

Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada all have Democratic Secretaries of State. All are "swing states' where he could be kicked off the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems the natural reading of "Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" is what KBJ is saying.  a state can't put a piece of shit up as its representation in the government.  those are fundamentally different positions than the president that represents everyone that every state only has a partial say in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...