TXAggie2011 said:

---

I don't think they're ruling Trump was an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" or not.

It's a hypothetical. Obviously the whole discussion of who decides how the Amendment is enforced is predicated on the hypothetical that someone broke an oath and participated in an insurrection.

---

I think it's both...they're speaking about a hypothetical, but with a little backhand at Trump...

Better send a 747 full of head doctors to fix the stupid at CNN and all the other news organizations that are afflicted today.

Antoninus said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

CNN: "This is a HISTORIC day in the taking down of our Constitutional Democracy"

MSNBC: "This decision will go down in HISTORY as the beginning of the end of free and fair elections"

These people are insane.....

---

To the extent that there are any rational thinking dems left in the world, I hope you read this tripe and wake up to the fact that everything you've been hearing from these idiots for the past 20 years is absolute horse ***** These people are clinically insane. It's not a "constitutional crisis" every time you lefty idiots don't get your way.

---

Here's a sample. WHTF?! Is Whoopi Goldberg literally suggesting Biden should "throw every Republican in jail" if Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump

WHAT?! Whoopi Goldberg even leaves libs co-hosts on The View STUNNED LIVE on-air after suggesting Biden should "throw every Republican in jail” if Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump pic.twitter.com/Socxef6Bkt

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 4, 2024

---

Benny, Whoopi is an idiot, but that is NOT what she said. She said that he COULD throw every Republican in jail, and you can also hear her say "This is not a good thing."

She is saying that Trump's claims to absolute Presidential Immunity are ... problematic ... no matter WHO is in the White House.

---

I agree with that, but with the caveat that there does need to be, if not wide latitude, then wide presumed deference to the POTUS for many actions. Otherwise, a POTUS making a widely non-popular, but legally allowable decision/action could result in where we are right now...and if that deference is not allowed, then future POTII (shush) might be afraid to make that unpopular choice.

Ag with kids said:

---

future POTII (shush) .

---

I laughed.

Does this mean that multiple Supreme Courts would be SCOTI?

If Laura, Michelle and Melania do brunch, are they FLOTI?

Antoninus said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

By her own words, she want's Biden to arrest all the Republicans. She wants Biden to throw Trump in jail so he can't run again.

She absolutely thinks it would be a good thing as long as a Democrat is doing it and Republicans are the ones suffering. She's so obsessed with Trump she can't even see that what she wants Biden to do is the same thing she fears in Trump.

---

Three options here. (1) you did not watch the video, (2) you are deaf, or (3) you are disingenuous.

She (again) says that a president (here, Biden) COULD (not "should") make those arrests, IF Trump's theory of Presidential Immunity is accepted. AND she says "This is not a good thing."

Seriously, if you did not watch the video, you should do so. If you are deaf, you should see a doctor. If you are just being dishonest ... carry on.

---

I think everyone knows how problematic Trump's immunity argument is and the implications it has not only for Biden but for any president, which is why it's a foregone conclusion they wont side with Trump when that opinion is released.

---

I wish you were correct, but I am not hopeful.

Come April, this board will be inundated with threads supporting his position.

When the ruling comes down against him, it will again be inundated with threads asserting that every Justice ruling against him has been either bribed or blackmailed and insisting that the ruling is a sign of the impending collapse of the USA.

Mark your calendar accordingly.

---

If precedent is set, look for all the crawfishing from lefties as the right goes after Biden and Obama.

bobbranco said:

---

Better send a 747 full of head doctors to fix the stupid at CNN and all the other news organizations that are afflicted today.

---

I don't think so. Only the far left nutjobs and partisan hacks like Olberman are going to have a problem with this ruling. I doubt there is much disagreement on CNN. Maybe on MSNBC but not CNN.

Listen to Dan Abrams at 1pm today if you get a chance. I am sure it will be his entire show. 124 on XM radio

more on whether this applies to senators and us representatives:

Quote:

---

Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers "'owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,'" powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically "delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States." U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 803804 (1995) (quoting 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 627, p. 435 (3d ed. 1858)). But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.

---

what was the thornton case?

it was arkansas trying to enact term limits for US representatives.

agsalaska said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Better send a 747 full of head doctors to fix the stupid at CNN and all the other news organizations that are afflicted today.

---

I don't think so. Only the far left nutjobs and partisan hacks like Olberman are going to have a problem with this ruling. I doubt there is much disagreement on CNN. Maybe on MSNBC but not CNN.

Listen to Dan Abrams at 1pm today if you get a chance. I am sure it will be his entire show. 124 on XM radio

---

Dan Abrams, the founder of mediaite?

They are pissing and moaning about the ruling on CNN.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

so much for states rights

---

States actually have plenty of rights when it comes to electing a president. The problem is that they didn't really opt to use any of those means. Instead they tried to do a mob hanging of Trump by riding the wave of insurrection propaganda using the 14th amendment instead. If they would have reformed their own election laws they could have come up with any number of different means to keep Trump off the ballot or change the way they choose their electors.

More losers: American "historical" scholars pic.twitter.com/3pcD2NKyPO

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 4, 2024

And of course no J6 farce is complete without the involvement--and lies--of the federally funded Capitol Police. pic.twitter.com/DIzINnBibW

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 4, 2024

Holy cow - Thornton was a relative of mine. Small freaking world. Ha!

on state's rights, as roberts alluded to during oral argument:

Quote:

---

Proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment "expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy" and thus "fundamentally altered the balance of state and federal power struck by the Constitution."

---

like it or not, part of the purpose of 14th amendment was to take certain power away from that states.

Kinda need a tears thread.

You can’t be stripped of something you didn’t have.

“Should be able to” is not an argument that carries any Constitutional weight. https://t.co/b277HiZ3Mn

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) March 4, 2024

This comes on top of last week’s Supreme Ct action delaying Trump’s Jan 6 trial until possibly past the election, depriving you&me of a public trial where the evidence for/against Trump would be laid out for the world to see

I’ll cover the Supreme Ct decision live at 10AM on…

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) March 4, 2024

And finally...

BREAKING: Democrats announce they are now working on federal legislation to remove Trump from the ballots

In the name of Our Democracy...pic.twitter.com/z7hfZGU0lo

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 4, 2024

Antoninus said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

By her own words, she want's Biden to arrest all the Republicans. She wants Biden to throw Trump in jail so he can't run again.

She absolutely thinks it would be a good thing as long as a Democrat is doing it and Republicans are the ones suffering. She's so obsessed with Trump she can't even see that what she wants Biden to do is the same thing she fears in Trump.

---

Three options here. (1) you did not watch the video, (2) you are deaf, or (3) you are disingenuous.

She (again) says that a president (here, Biden) COULD (not "should") make those arrests, IF Trump's theory of Presidential Immunity is accepted. AND she says "This is not a good thing."

Seriously, if you did not watch the video, you should do so. If you are deaf, you should see a doctor. If you are just being dishonest ... carry on.

---

Not trolling or being disingenuous. Went back and listened again and I'll own it that in my haste and general dislike for Whoopi I missed her point. That's what I get for trying to post and work at the same time. My apologies.

Sorry for the derail.

will25u said:

---

And finally...

BREAKING: Democrats announce they are now working on federal legislation to remove Trump from the ballots

In the name of Our Democracy...pic.twitter.com/z7hfZGU0lo

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 4, 2024

---

Working with Swalwell on the proposal.

When it comes to threats to our republic, no one should know more regarding the subject than someone who is actually a threat to the republic.

In a way, it is entirely logical.

The question will be can they do it with a simple majority. All signs point to yes, except that removal of the disability requires a 2/3rds vote. If they try that and succeed, I think we're at guns in the streets time.

Shagga said:

---

Quote:

---

The majority's choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

---

---

I 100%, absolutely, positively derive from this it was DEFINITELY not written during the PMS portion of her monthly cycle; had it been, we would have received a much harsher rebuke of those who brought the claim. Instead, this is more of a typically emotional woman's attempt at a kumbaya moment -- trying to get the kids in the back of the minivan to quietly eat their gogurts and drink their juices as she's still about 15 minutes away from soccer practice.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Thus was a colorado, progressive Democrat conspiracy , Trump should have some legal recourse against the 7 and colorado.

---

He should take the W, for now, and shut the **** up. After the election, sure. Right now? Keep his pie hole closed about it.

---

This unpeels a layer of the entire national venture -- how many states did they file this nonsense in?

Those behind this movement to disqualify Trump from the ballot never expected to succeed. What they did -- successfully -- was drain time and legal fees from the Trump camp while ginning up publicity in the mainstream media and getting their heroes in Congress and in the states to be able to yell "Insurrectionist! Insurrectionist!" while rolling video of Jan. 6 on an endless loop.

What they didn't expect was for SOCTUS to nip it in the bud with the 5-4 declaration that Congress would have to pass a bill to outline how it would be enforced. This denies the same camp the opportunity to speculate in the receptive media for the next eight months and one day that Trump's status as an insurrectionist means that under the 14th Amendment Congress would not be required to ratify his Electoral College victory.

9-0 shutout. I didn't think you could get the Supreme Court to vote 9-0 on if the sky is blue on a cloudless day.

halfastros81 said:

---

9-0 shutout. I didn't think you could get the Supreme Court to vote 9-0 on if the sky is blue on a cloudless day.

---

believe it or not, this century 9-0 is the most common ruling that comes out. believe is just over 1/3 of cases

halfastros81 said:

---

9-0 shutout. I didn't think you could get the Supreme Court to vote 9-0 on if the sky is blue on a cloudless day.

---

there are a lot, actually. you just dont hear about them because they aren't as newsworthy.

I'm surprised but your'e probably right, I only pay attention to a relatively small subset of cases.

HTownAg98 said:

---

The question will be can they do it with a simple majority. All signs point to yes, except that removal of the disability requires a 2/3rds vote. If they try that and succeed, I think we're at guns in the streets time.

---

Given their past history of unethical behavior related to the impeachment process, let's hope the Democrats are never able to get that far.

It used to be that 50% or more of decisions were unanimous. That's been going down in recent years.

BMX Bandit said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

9-0 shutout. I didn't think you could get the Supreme Court to vote 9-0 on if the sky is blue on a cloudless day.

---

believe it or not, this century 9-0 is the most common ruling that comes out. believe is just over 1/3 of cases

---

Yep, those are the insignificant ones where Roberts gets to pad his stats to pretend he is a conservative.

agsalaska said:

---

doubledog said:

---

These fools just got ***** slapped. We would hope that a judge that has reached this level in the judiciary would have read the constitution. Back to law school for this bunch.

---

One think that has stuck with me about these fools is the three that ruled for keeping him on the ballot all went to law school at U of Denver. The other four, the ones that thought they had the authority to remove him from the ballot, are all ivy league.

---

What worries me is if they cannot understand something this obvious, how are they suppose to rule on something that has complex constitutional or criminal implications?

Claverack said:

---

will25u said:

---

And finally...

BREAKING: Democrats announce they are now working on federal legislation to remove Trump from the ballots

In the name of Our Democracy...pic.twitter.com/z7hfZGU0lo

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 4, 2024

---

Working with Swalwell on the proposal.

When it comes to threats to our republic, no one should know more regarding the subject than someone who is actually a threat to the republic.

In a way, it is entirely logical.

---

I came here to post that the next phase of this would be interesting to see how elected Democrats would respond. And I was going to specifically mention Swalwell who literally last week said he would abide by whatever the SC ruled and would move on.

Behold, that was a lie. And it took all of a few hours for him to renege on his comments.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Not trolling or being disingenuous. Went back and listened again and I'll own it that in my haste and general dislike for Whoopi I missed her point. That's what I get for trying to post and work at the same time. My apologies.

---

none necessary. Glad we sorted it out.

The majority was right to rule that only Congress can enforce Section 3, in order to close any loopholes , like Biden's DOJ getting involved. Jack Smith would be chomping at the bit . The three liberals were mad about this for that reason.

Logos Stick said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

9-0 shutout. I didn't think you could get the Supreme Court to vote 9-0 on if the sky is blue on a cloudless day.

---

believe it or not, this century 9-0 is the most common ruling that comes out. believe is just over 1/3 of cases

---

Yep, those are the insignificant ones where Roberts gets to pad his stats to pretend he is a conservative.

---

How do you "pad stats" by voting alongside all 8 other justices?

Most SCOTUS cases just are not very political.

Every decision thus far in this term has been unanimous.

YouBet said:

---

Claverack said:

---

will25u said:

---

And finally...

BREAKING: Democrats announce they are now working on federal legislation to remove Trump from the ballots

In the name of Our Democracy...pic.twitter.com/z7hfZGU0lo

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 4, 2024

---

Working with Swalwell on the proposal.

When it comes to threats to our republic, no one should know more regarding the subject than someone who is actually a threat to the republic.

In a way, it is entirely logical.

---

I came here to post that the next phase of this would be interesting to see how elected Democrats would respond. And I was going to specifically mention Swalwell who literally last week said he would abide by whatever the SC ruled and would move on.

Behold, that was a lie. And it took all of a few hours for him to renege on his comments.

---

Swalwell? Lie!

What ever gave you that idea?



Wonder if that would be justice for those who get hooked up with Chinese communist agents while sitting on Intel committees?

Birdwatcher said:

---

On the plus side, we get to make Trump a loser one more time in November now. On the downside, the Supreme Court is insane.

---

Dumb comment is dumb

Democracy?

It's MF communism, ass holes.