- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:22 am to flownthecoop
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:22 am to flownthecoop
quote:
Romney would be the exact sort to try and make some Section 3 claim when certifying the electoral votes.
Oh come on...no Republican, even Romney, will stand in the way if Trump wins in November.
No need to be dramatic, leave that for the liberal side.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 10:23 am
1
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:23 am to LSU5508
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Your point would require an examination of all the potential arguments. That's why the rulings are supposed to be limited.
No, I don't think so. I don't see any other "potential arguments" here that could be relevant to this scenario.
It's still my position that they are simply stating what is inherent in reaching their decision and that there is a good reason for doing so in addressing something as unprecedented as this scenario.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:23 am to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:24 am to LSU5508
I am sure some legal beagles may not agree, but I contend that the disposition of what is and is not an official act of POTUS can only be decided by impeachment.
The determination cannot be made by a Fulton County DA, by a jury of mindless "peers" in a DC court, nor should it be the purview of SCOTUS.
The FFs included impeachment as a means to address POTUS getting outside the lines of official acts & responsibilities. All other processes would lead to utter chaos and a POTUS unable to govern.
The determination cannot be made by a Fulton County DA, by a jury of mindless "peers" in a DC court, nor should it be the purview of SCOTUS.
The FFs included impeachment as a means to address POTUS getting outside the lines of official acts & responsibilities. All other processes would lead to utter chaos and a POTUS unable to govern.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:25 am to LSU5508
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:28 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I don't see any other "potential arguments" here that could be relevant to this scenario.
I'll give you one: is the President even an office that falls under the 14A?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:30 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Meh. Tailoring opinions to highlight consensus on politically charged issues is the right track to take, IMO.
LOL...Jim Crow says hi.
Rodo
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:30 am to LSU5508
Get the Supreme Court some coats!
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:31 am to Sam Quint
quote:
in the grand scheme of things, temporary. eventually it will be lost to the Leftists, and this is how they will "legally" usher in single party rule.
Maybe.... but you must admit, lately it appears that conservative and logical reasoning has been fighting against the leftist insanity and doing well. We have a long long long way to go but I'll take every bit of hope I can.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:32 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Now this is interesting. Didn't think they would go this far. Glad they did, but it is certainly something to unpack
It comes across, to me, as a shot across the bow towards the "lawfare" types. I see it as "you pushed this when you knew you shouldn't so here's the result and it sucks to be you right now." I see this as a bit of an extension of Clarence Thomas' warning to district courts during the Trump era when every liberal judge would try tossing up blocks to his attempts at thwarting illegal immigration (especially when they clearly should have no jurisdiction).
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:32 am to LSU5508
Shame on Colorado
I don’t know squat about election laws but it seems patently wrong to leave someone off of a ballot for any reason
I don’t know squat about election laws but it seems patently wrong to leave someone off of a ballot for any reason
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:32 am to LSU5508
quote:
Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Glad I was wrong on this
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:36 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Maybe.... but you must admit, lately it appears that conservative and logical reasoning has been fighting against the leftist insanity and doing well. We have a long long long way to go but I'll take every bit of hope I can.
I agree that there has been some solid pushback lately. But ultimately, they own all the infrastructure (or are very well on their way to owning it). it's only a matter of time.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:37 am to LSU5508
Can Colorado be forced to pay Trump’s legal bills? Just wondering if there is any recourse for Trump to get his legal fees paid over a frivolous lawsuit
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'll give you one: is the President even an office that falls under the 14A?
But that's not relevant to the decision as pertaining to a candidate, which is what they addressed.
I'm not suggesting they couldn't have actually expanded constitutional interpretation further. I'm suggesting they didn't, beyond what was necessary for this absurd scenario.
But I would also suggest that the Court has a greater duty to dissuade further absurdities to Constitutional understanding than they do to be concerned with the "temperature" of the populace, whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:37 am to Bourre
quote:
Can Colorado be forced to pay Trump’s legal bills?
Technically, CO wasn't the plaintiff in the suit.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:39 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
But that's not relevant to the decision as pertaining to a candidate, which is what they addressed.
The ruling could have just been as easily that the CO decision was reversed because 14A(3) doesn't apply to the President.
How is that not worth discussing Trump as a candidate?
quote:
But I would also suggest that the Court has a greater duty to dissuade further absurdities to Constitutional understanding than they do to be concerned with the "temperature" of the populace, whatever the hell that is supposed to be.
I did not include that language in response to you to avoid the diversionary discussion
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:39 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Oh come on...no Republican, even Romney, will stand in the way if Trump wins in November.
No need to be dramatic, leave that for the liberal side.
i am not confident of this at all. the unending praise of the mob (the MSM) that would be showered on such a republican has to be extremely tempting for people with no moral compass and who love to be loved.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:41 am to LSU5508
But Trump should be in jail already. I don't understand?
WHERE'S MY LITHIUM!?
WHERE'S MY LITHIUM!?
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News