U.S. Supreme Court Trump Ruling Today at 10 AM....Live feeds up.....Update: Reversed 9-0

[Missourian]

Joe Biden wasn’t the sitting president. He was an outside chance to win.

No...he was vice president of a very popular two term president four years before running.



And it traditionally is significantly more difficult for a candidate that has lost a presidential election to come back from that.

Didn't see Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush Sr, Carter, or Mondale ever come back to run again.

Hell... Grover Cleveland may have been the last guy to even attempt it...and that was 1893.


It's congruous enough for government work.

Biden 51% and he became president.

Trump 60% is pretty fucking good for a guy who was falsely investigated for the Russian Delusion, falsely impeached twice, falsely indicted, falsely arrested, had his mugshot taken and kicked liberals in the ballsack with it. Was falsely held liable in two New York civil trials and was removed from the ballot in four states.

After writing it all out... You're going to lose. To muscle through those kind of Hurricaine force headwinds to continue to gather 60% of the Republican vote.

Expect the ass whoopin' of a lifetime.

 

[citygator]

Nostra

Me back in December:

November:

 

[Rawley]

I never argued that Congress passed legislation finding Trump to be an insurrectionist.

I said two things:

• A majority of both chambers agreed that FPOTUS#45 engaged in insurrection as part of impeachment 2.0. This isn't saying legislation was passed as impeachment isn't legislation.
• That Congress called the J6 riot an "insurrectionist mob" when it passed Public Law 117-32. I never claimed that this law identified FPOTUS#45 as engaging in insurrection, but that the riot was insurrectionist.

So please comment on what I said and not what you claim I said and then argue against that.

WW

Do you really not read what you write?

"Public Law 117-32 where both chambers of Congress called J6 an "insurrectionist mob" and that was signed by the President."

January 6th was an insurrection. Trump was part of January 6th, he's an insurrectionist. Otherwise, what is your point in citing a law where you believe Congress legislated that January 6th was an insurrection?

 

[citygator]

No...he was vice president of a very popular two term president four years before running.



And it traditionally is significantly more difficult for a candidate that has lost a presidential election to come back from that.

Didn't see Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush Sr, Carter, or Mondale ever come back to run again.

Hell... Grover Cleveland may have been the last guy to even attempt it...and that was 1893.


It's congruous enough for government work.

Biden 51% and he became president.

Trump 60% is pretty fucking good for a guy who was falsely investigated for the Russian Delusion, falsely impeached twice, falsely indicted, falsely arrested, had his mugshot take and kicked liberals in the ballsack with it. Was falsely held liable in two New York civil trials and was talked off the ballot in four states.

After writing it all out... You're going to lose. To muscle through those kind of Hurricaine force headwinds to continue to gather 60% of the Republican vote.

Expect the ass whoopin' of a lifetime.

What ever. We will see in the general. All I am saying is Trump is the best match up Biden could ask for.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are a bright boy, I am sure you can figure it out.

Probably.

I’m guessing it’s someone I have on ignore. Who else would be so lame?

 

[1srelluc]

In Major Blow To Democracy, Supreme Court Rules Voters Can Vote For Favorite Candidate


View attachment 912277

See this pic....It's normally the one you see of the SCOTUS building.....Now check out CNN, they have the same pic but with dark storm clouds shopped in all around it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because you were arguing that Congress had passed legislation finding Trump to be an insurrectionist. 100% applicable

I never argued that Congress passed legislation finding Trump to be an insurrectionist.

I said two things:

• A majority of both chambers agreed that FPOTUS#45 engaged in insurrection as part of impeachment 2.0. This isn't saying legislation was passed as impeachment isn't legislation.
• That Congress called the J6 riot an "insurrectionist mob" when it passed Public Law 117-32. I never claimed that this law identified FPOTUS#45 as engaging in insurrection, but that the riot was insurrectionist.

So please comment on what I said and not what you claim I said and then argue against that.

WW

Do you really not read what you write?

"Public Law 117-32 where both chambers of Congress called J6 an "insurrectionist mob" and that was signed by the President."

January 6th was an insurrection. Trump was part of January 6th, he's an insurrectionist. Otherwise, what is your point in citing a law where you believe Congress legislated that January 6th was an insurrection?

You maybe should try reading what I wrote.

I NEVER said that Congress passed legislation that FPOTUS#45 was an insurrectionist.

#1 Impeachment isn't legislation, it's not. I said a majority of both Chambers found that FPOTUS#45 engaged in insurrection which they did. But the Senate requirement was 2/3rds for conviction, which I also previously said. But the fact is that a majority of BOTH chambers did find against FPOTUS#45.

#2 I never claimed that FPOTUS#45 was named in Public Law 117-32, only that Congress referred to J6 rioters as an "insurrectionist mob".

Again, address what I wrote, not what you claim I wrote and then argue against that.

WW

 

[marvin martian]

What ever. We will see in the general. All I am saying is Trump is the best match up Biden could ask for.

Trump is leading Biden by every measure that's tracked.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Probably.

I’m guessing it’s someone I have on ignore. Who else would be so lame?

A simple name change would not take someone off ignore as my entire post history still exist prior to the Mod approved name change.

 

[Missourian]

You are a bright boy, I am sure you can figure it out.

Oh hey...it's the fake independent #golfin' gay-tor.

Shit, good for you...escaping your old compromised handle.

If I were you, I'd hide too.

When did you transition into a woman?

( Seymour Flops )

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You maybe should try reading what I wrote.

I NEVER said that Congress passed legislation that FPOTUS#45 was an insurrectionist.

#1 Impeachment isn't legislation, it's not. I said a majority of both Chambers found that FPOTUS#45 engaged in insurrection which they did. But the Senate requirement was 2/3rds for conviction, which I also previously said. But the fact is that a majority of BOTH chambers did find against FPOTUS#45.

#2 I never claimed that FPOTUS#45 was named in Public Law 117-32, only that Congress referred to J6 rioters as an "insurrectionist mob".

Again, address what I wrote, not what you claim I wrote and then argue against that.

WW

neither of those things make prove or involve a verdict against Trump. He is not an insurrectionist and no matter how convoluted you get you can't make him one.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Irony.

Quote me saying that the system is rigged, simp.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Oh hey...it's the fake independent #golfin' gay-tor.

Shit, good for you...escaping your old compromised handle.

If I were you, I'd hide too.

When did you transition into a woman?

( Seymour Flops )

Really? Geez, Gator is a shell of his former self. He used to be a halfway decent poster.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Really? Geez, Gator is a shell of his former self. He used to be a halfway decent poster.

And you used to call yourself a libertarian and were not a shill for the GOP.

I guess we all change, hell once you even had some honesty in what you posted. The good old days.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And you used to call yourself a libertarian and were not a shill for the GOP.

I guess we all change, hell once you even had some honesty in what you posted. The good old days.

Why the name change and why to a female mythological creature?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why the name change and why to a female mythological creature?

It is an actual animal.

Harpy eagle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It represents my future. It is the national bird of Panama. When we were there in February we saw them flying around and I was not sure what they were, but they were beautiful birds.

 

[Richard-H]

What I said was: "After a quick read of the ruling, thanks for the link, it's not a ruling in favor of President Trump, it is a ruling overturning the CO state decision."

The ruling did NOT vindicate FPOTUS#45, the ruling was a procedural ruling based on CO taking action. That was the SCOTUS off ramp.

The ruling was that it was up to Congress under Section 5 to address how federal office insurrection would be determined. It didn't say FPOTUS#45 didn't engage in insurrection.

WW

The ruling seemed to have 2 parts:

That a State cannot determine the eligibility of a candidate for Federal Office,

And that it would take Congressional legislation to make someone ineligible for a Federal Office.

Both arguments are absolutely lame.

States routinely rule on eligibility for Federal office. Based on age and whether they are a naturalized citizen.

Congress having to pass legislation on an individual basis. to disqualify is nonsense because:

1. Congress could not pass legislation for each and every confederate that participated in the Civil War.
2. Congress barring someone by a simple majority, then having the option to reverse that by a 2/3 majority in both houses is obviously not the original intention of the Amendment.
3. Congress is a political body and should not be able to determine who can and cannot run for office on a case by case basis.
4. Congress already passed the only legislation needed - the 14th amendment Sec. 3

As of now, if a State cannot bar someone from office, then somebody should file a suit in Federal court to remove them.

There is something severely wrong with this SCOTUS!!!

MAGA thug tactics?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Congress having to pass legislation on an individual basis. to disqualify is nonsense because:

The ruling doesn't say that Congress would have to pass legislation on an individual basis. Congress can pass legislation to define a process, such as through the courts.

Problem is right now that SCOTUS used that for an off ramp as there is no legislation at all on the matter. They said, and I paraphrase "until Congress does something, the ball isn't in the states wheelhouse".

WW

 

[Richard-H]

So the task is clear: win the House and senate, pass a law stating Trump is ineligible for office per the 14th amendment. Just like the punting SCOTUS prescribes.

Yes!

If the Dems take the House, they'll be instated on Jan. 3 - long before Trump is sworn in.

They can vote to impeach and remove him the second he finishes his oath.

They should also severely admonish SCOTUS for this BULLSHIT!

 

[Richard-H]

The ruling doesn't say that Congress would have to pass legislation on an individual basis. Congress can pass legislation to define a process, such as through the courts.

Problem is right now that SCOTUS used that for an off ramp as there is no legislation at all on the matter. They said, and I paraphrase "until Congress does something, the ball isn't in the states wheelhouse".

WW

Congress already passed very powerful legislation - the 14th amendment Sec. 3.

The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and it's up to the courts to enforce that law.

SCOTUS FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB.