- Thread starter
- #41
"Fee-fi-fo-fum"That wasn't a yes or a no.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Fee-fi-fo-fum"That wasn't a yes or a no.
Much of our laws and ways of thinking is not totally separate. There is intertwining and entanglements. Many people do not believe in 100% of each political party. However, one party is way to the left of left and the other is left to the middle of its voters. Things pushed from Progs are acceptable to a point for many voters. From Republican voters' point of view. Roers should be a conservative. Instead, they got the middle ground person like many others for some reason that came from Republican legislatures. Progs get what they push. And even more. Many Republican justices have helped Prog agendas.Are you capable of a coherent point? I didn't really have an issue with the legal reasons the Supreme Court used to over turn Roe vs. Wade. I don't think people should mistake that as an example of this Court being radically right wing. Its right wing for sure but not radically so. In fact I've been impressed by Roberts ability to keep the far right in relative check.
I don't understand you guys"Fee-fi-fo-fum"
Oh, by the way, I support the rule of law....Take that any way you want.I don't understand you guys
.. hang out on a discussion board and hide from honest discussion... sissified...
Wrong, they will be ruling rightfully so only if Trump is left on the ballot. Which law will SCOTUS be refusing to adhere to Trump has not been even indicted for insurrection!
there has to be a correct answer in the public’s mind and the judges must maintain an assumption infallibility or what they do is pointlessNo judge will ever assume there's only one correct answer to every legal question. If there was SCOTUS themselves would be unnecessary.
Okay.Oh, by the way, I support the rule of law....Take that any way you want.
The 14th does not pertain to the President or Vice President -
That will be the narrow ruling.
SCOTUS should rule in Trump's favor but I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Yes, the precedent that was set is that Trump is not eligible and did participate in insurrection.I don't think they'll delve into that. John Roberts isn't in to jumping into the political arena.
I think the precedent has been set already is several lower federal courts.
You do remember the Supreme Court being so dismissive of those claims that they refused to even hear Trump's case right...?
Trump was never charged with insurrection.Yes, the precedent that was set is that Trump is not eligible and did participate in insurrection.
And the constitution does not state that as a requirement.Trump was never charged with insurrection.
Why hasn't He been charged then? There's your precedent.And the constitution does not state that as a requirement.
The Colorado Supreme Court and the lower Colorado Court both ruled that he participated in insurrection.
That's not a precedent. When your points all fail, you don't then get to make up new definitions of words.Why hasn't He been charged then? There's your precedent.
The Colorado Court was wrong.And the constitution does not state that as a requirement.
The Colorado Supreme Court and the lower Colorado Court both ruled that he participated in insurrection.
Oh, just like the woke smacks?That's not a precedent. When your points all fail, you don't then get to make up new definitions of words.
No, you can't blame your own mistakes on them.Oh, just like the woke smacks?
I'm not your assistant. These are your points to try to make, not mine.So they proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Trump is guilty of insurrection.....where are the indictments and formal charges?
I'm not your assistant. These are your points to try to make, not mine.
Nobody cares about these failed points. it's up to you make a point and then to argue why anyone should care about it.
So what?so your favorite president was found guilty, in a civil court, of violating criminal statutes........yet was never criminally charged