14th has its day in court tomorrow

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump, the 14th and barring from office

Congress passed a law when they passed the 14th amendment. Therefore using your position Texas can control its border. What law did they pass when the 14th Amendment was ratified, PussyBitch?

www.usmessageboard.com

So, here's my prediction:

The SCOTUS will refuse to rule on the decision of whether or not the 14th Amendment refers to Presidents. Meaning, they won't get 2 of the righties to agree to rule the obviously correct way (that it refers to all Officers), and the Roberts court prefers punting over embarrassing itself with its own opinions.

They will, instead, rule 5-4 or 6-3 that the decision of whether a person is disqualified for elected, Federal office (elected by the Electoral College, that is) cannot be determined by the States. That the only federal machine in place designed to deal with such a decision is the Congress. In this respect, the Offices of President and Vice president are, indeed, unique.

This will void any and all State decisions regarding Presidential ballot access and the 14th Amendment, thenceforth. But only Presidents/VPs.

But the rules of the Senate of course pragmatically prohibit such a successful vote for any but the most heinous of criminals. In fact, a healthy percentage of our sitting Senate is just fine with the prospect of Trump being elected and making his federal charges go away

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump, the 14th and barring from office

Congress passed a law when they passed the 14th amendment. Therefore using your position Texas can control its border. What law did they pass when the 14th Amendment was ratified, PussyBitch?

www.usmessageboard.com

So, here's my prediction:

The SCOTUS will refuse to rule on the decision of whether or not the 14th Amendment refers to Presidents. Meaning, they won't get 2 of the righties to agree to rule the obviously correct way (that it refers to all Officers), and the Roberts court prefers punting over embarrassing itself with its own opinions.

They will, instead, rule 5-4 or 6-3 that the decision of whether a person is disqualified for elected, Federal office (elected by the Electoral College, that is) cannot be determined by the States. That the only federal machine in place designed to deal with such a decision is the Congress. In this respect, the Offices of President and Vice president are, indeed, unique.

This will void any and all State decisions regarding Presidential ballot access and the 14th Amendment, thenceforth. But only Presidents/VPs.

But the rules of the Senate of course pragmatically prohibit such a successful vote for any but the most heinous of criminals. In fact, a healthy percentage of our sitting Senate is just fine with the prospect of Trump being elected and making his federal charges go away

After listening to most of the hearing, it seems clear the above is true, and they will punt.

 

[forkup]

Any decision by left wing judges, I automatically assume is political in some way sue me!

Let me call BS. I just saw 3 left-wing pile on together with 6 right-wing judges to dismantle a lawyer trying to get Trump of the ballot. You don't think that's political I'm pretty sure.

A few days ago, I saw a right-wing judge rule together with 2 left-wing ones rule that Trump isn't immune. I'm sure you think that's political.



What you assume is that any judge ruling against Trump is biased, every judge that rules for Trump isn't, it's results that count, NOT political leaning.

 

[Delldude]

I will note that for the last few years only one party has said they have a problem with that.

Judicial bias is in the eyes of the beholder. Does an opinion support itself with solid case law and/or precedent or is the author 'spinning' due to personal views....Which, BTW, have no place in decisions.

It's NOT the Democrats.

Oh really?

 

[Delldude]

After listening to most of the hearing, it seems clear the above is true, and they will punt.

Looking 8-1

Update 9-0

 

[forkup]

Then we should term limit federal judges

And lets end the Kabuki theater of opposing arguments when the learned judges should already know how they are going to rule

This is so telling. You are literally saying that a judge NEEDS to be biased. While at the same time complaining that they lost respect because of bias.

What I suspect is that you want a judge to be biased... FOR YOUR SIDE.

 

[Delldude]

This is looking like the argument against Trump isn't going to float. Even the liberal Justices were asking questions leaning against ballot removal.

Very little time was spent focusing on Trump's actions.

This is going to be fun to watch.

 

[forkup]

Judicial bias is in the eyes of the beholder. Does an opinion support itself with solid case law and/or precedent or is the author 'spinning' due to personal views....Which, BTW, have no place in decisions.


Oh really?

Yes really. Democrats aren't yelling Hunter Biden is being persecuted. They're not yelling Menedez is being persecuted. What they say everybody is innocent until proven guilty and we'll let the courts decide. I'm NOT saying SCOTUS is being biased because they'll rule for keeping Trump on the ballot.

Tell me. If it gone otherwise, do you think ANYONE on the right would have reacted the same way if the hearing would have shown the judges wanted to rule against Trump?

Republicans are yelling. Trump's being persecuted. And any decision they make against Trump is by definition biased. Not Democrats.

 

[Frankenstein]

But you agree, right?

No I do not want the courts overstepping their boundaries!

 

[Frankenstein]

Let me call BS. I just saw 3 left-wing pile on together with 6 right-wing judges to dismantle a lawyer trying to get Trump of the ballot. You don't think that's political I'm pretty sure.

A few days ago, I saw a right-wing judge rule together with 2 left-wing ones rule that Trump isn't immune. I'm sure you think that's political.



What you assume is that any judge ruling against Trump is biased, every judge that rules for Trump isn't, it's results that count, NOT political leaning.

Yes, the Supreme court in this instance is doing the right thing! Yes that was political in the second instance who was the conservative judge in question! Any judgement against Trump is political yes!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Any judgement against Trump is political yes!

That's cultism for ya!

 

[forkup]

Yes, the Supreme court in this instance is doing the right thing! Yes that was political in the second instance who was the conservative judge in question! Any judgement against Trump is political yes!

As long as we agree that the basis of your argument is completely grounded on your political bias I'm fine. At least it makes it clear you're a political hack.

 

[Frankenstein]

That's cultism for ya!

Nope that is watching the last 6 years of the deep state using judges for political reasons to harm Trump!

 

[Frankenstein]

As long as we agree that the basis of your argument is completely grounded on your political bias I'm fine. At least it makes it clear you're a political hack.

Negative it is based on the last 6 years of a witch hunt!

Judge blocks Trump effort to subpoena Jan. 6 documents

A federal judge Monday rejected former President Trump’s efforts to subpoena information related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack that the former president had accused government officials of failing to…

thehill.com

Tanya Sue Chutkan is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. district judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Wikipedia
Born: July 5, 1962 (age 61 years), Kingston, Jamaica
Education: Penn Carey Law (1987), The George Washington University (1983)
Nationality: American
Appointed by: Barack Obama

 

[Delldude]

Tell me. If the decision was otherwise, do you think ANYONE on the right would have reacted the same way if the hearing would have shown the judges wanted to rule against Trump?

If the decision is based upon law, precedent and/or other opinions, I can accept that. I can't speak for others.

Republicans are yelling. Trump's being persecuted. And any decision they make against Trump is by definition biased.

You are familiar with the term lawfare aren't you? It won't matter if Trump is guilty or innocent, what will matter is if they've broken Him financially, in the end.

 

[Delldude]

That's cultism for ya!

Don't fear the reaper.

 

[forkup]

If the decision is based upon law, precedent and/or other opinions, I can accept that. I can't speak for others.


You are familiar with the term lawfare aren't you? It won't matter if Trump is guilty or innocent, what will matter is if they've broken Him financially, in the end.

You are familiar with the term lawfare aren't you?

I am. The trouble I see is that you guys assume it applies to Trump. I'll illustrate.

If the decision is based upon law

obstruction of justice

www.law.cornell.edu

This is one of the statutes he's charged under.

He lied about having document bearing classification markings in a sworn affidavit. There's security footage of documents being moved before a search was conducted, and such documents were found in his desk. Feel free to explain how a prosecution under those statutes is not based in the law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope that is watching the last 6 years of the deep state using judges for political reasons to harm Trump!

Yeah, that's what cultists say. Everyone is corrupt EXCEPT for the orange pile of shit.

Yawn

 

[Mac-7]

This is so telling. You are literally saying that a judge NEEDS to be biased. While at the same time complaining that they lost respect because of bias.

What I suspect is that you want a judge to be biased... FOR YOUR SIDE.

I’m saying they ARE biased

And the more lib they are the less common sense their logic becomes

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’m saying they ARE biased

Yet you couldn't argue why if your life depended on it. This is a coping mechanism, because you simply cannot accept that your orange God did a damn thing wrong.