- 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
0
Posted on 11/8/25 at 4:03 pm to Froman
quote:
This is the typical level of political knowledge on this board. So it tracks.
You disagree with Wednesday?
Posted on 11/8/25 at 4:06 pm to loogaroo
She got a lot wrong in this thread, which formed the backbone of her argument
Posted on 11/8/25 at 4:33 pm to FLTech
quote:
Thune has nothing to do with it.. It's because of John Kennedy. He is the one raising hell about it. You probably didn't notice because everything he says is methodically supposed to be funny like he is a comedian.
I must say, the Will Rogers “witty everyman” act got old probably 2-3 years ago. Kennedy is another one that needs to get out of the way.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 4:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wednesday never recovered once the "The President must be convicted by the Senate before he can be prosecuted criminally" theory she pushed HARD was shot to shite a few years ago.
I forgot about that. That’s a bad look.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 5:53 pm to FLTech
quote:
let's just sit on our asses and wait for Democrats to get in power to remove the filler buster - This way it makes Republicans look great while destroying our country at the same time. Genius!!
They tried in the past and it was only Manchin & Sexy-arse Sinema who stopped them.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:30 pm to Kafka
quote:
term was applied to adventurers like William Walker who were engaging in private military expeditions in Latin America.
This is why I come here.
I go down many rabbit holes and learn new things from this board.
I have a page about him to read later unless LSU starts losing bad early. LOL.
No deflect intended.
OP is not a panican as FLTech contended.
She does great work on this board and her legal background has educated my more history based background many times.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:42 pm to newmexicotiger
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:47 pm to ezride25
quote:
The left has perverted the filibuster, just like everything else they touch.
Both parties have been perfectly happy to utilize the filibuster whenever they are in the minority, but it's only now become a perversion?
Posted on 11/8/25 at 6:49 pm to Wednesday
Maybe...
Constitution allows each chamber to determine their own rules.
I don't think the SCOTUS would be willing to wade into what it would consider a political question.
Constitution allows each chamber to determine their own rules.
I don't think the SCOTUS would be willing to wade into what it would consider a political question.
This post was edited on 11/8/25 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:11 pm to Padme
Right
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I forgot about that. That’s a bad look
I was actually correct on that issue within the scope of his executive authority.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:21 pm to Wednesday
That’s word salad
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:30 pm to boosiebadazz
The court found he was immune from prosecution within the zone of his executive authority.
One of the arguments raised was that he had to be impeached first if he were in that zone.
This was partially adopted by the SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS has never considered whether if something has a majority of votes, it is required to be presented to the President.
In this case, the Senate has refused to take a vote, effectively providing a veto power to a minority number of legislators.
It violates the presentment clause, and it violates the separation of powers.
2/3 of the vote is necessary to override a veto. 68, not 60.
Sorry if I’m willing to look to the text of the constitution. None of that has been addressed by anyone. Yall just keep saying I’m wrong bc I was correct about an argument partially adopted by the SCOTUS.
Congress has a check on the President with respect to whether a law passed by the majority should prevail. Its a 2/3 majority
One of the arguments raised was that he had to be impeached first if he were in that zone.
This was partially adopted by the SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS has never considered whether if something has a majority of votes, it is required to be presented to the President.
In this case, the Senate has refused to take a vote, effectively providing a veto power to a minority number of legislators.
It violates the presentment clause, and it violates the separation of powers.
2/3 of the vote is necessary to override a veto. 68, not 60.
Sorry if I’m willing to look to the text of the constitution. None of that has been addressed by anyone. Yall just keep saying I’m wrong bc I was correct about an argument partially adopted by the SCOTUS.
Congress has a check on the President with respect to whether a law passed by the majority should prevail. Its a 2/3 majority
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:33 pm to Wednesday
Socialism is unconstitutional. Don’t be a pursy.
This post was edited on 11/8/25 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:35 pm to Wednesday
quote:
This was partially adopted by the SCOTUS.
Show me this part.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:36 pm to FLTech
I have always felt you fight evil with more evil, fire with bigger fire, and so on. Democrats take advantage of GOP's unwillingness to get down and get real dirty.
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:36 pm to Wednesday
Don't think it's unconstitutional, just think they were dumb from moving away from the floor filibuster to the virtual filibuster and cloture vote
Posted on 11/8/25 at 7:40 pm to Wednesday
quote:
One of the arguments raised was that he had to be impeached first if he were in that zone.
You're adding the bold post hoc
The immunity aspect wasn't really highly contested because everyone assumed he has some form of it, but the question was exactly how it would work. There was very little, if any, contested discussions on here over the minutia of the immunity portion
If he's immune, then he couldn't be prosecuted for anything, Senate trial or no. It would make no sense to combine the two into one argument.
This post was edited on 11/8/25 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 11/9/25 at 11:14 am to Wednesday
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News