14th has its day in court tomorrow

[Delldude]

That wasn't a yes or a no.

"Fee-fi-fo-fum"

 

[22lcidw]

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.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Fee-fi-fo-fum"

I don't understand you guys
.. hang out on a discussion board and hide from honest discussion... sissified...

 

[Delldude]

I don't understand you guys
.. hang out on a discussion board and hide from honest discussion... sissified...

Oh, by the way, I support the rule of law....Take that any way you want.

 

[Billiejeens]

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!

The 14th does not pertain to the President or Vice President -
That will be the narrow ruling.

 

[Blaster]

SCOTUS should rule in Trump's favor but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

 

[Mac-7]

No judge will ever assume there's only one correct answer to every legal question. If there was SCOTUS themselves would be unnecessary.

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 pointless

Otherwise why should the people allow some lard ass in black robes tell them what to do?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, by the way, I support the rule of law....Take that any way you want.

Okay.

 

[Delldude]

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.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Yes, the precedent that was set is that Trump is not eligible and did participate in insurrection.

The orange slob didn't like that precedent. So here we are.

 

[toobfreak]

You do remember the Supreme Court being so dismissive of those claims that they refused to even hear Trump's case right...?

No I don't. You cannot be dismissive of claims without actually trying the evidence which they did not. Weren't they the ones who just refused to hear the case because they decided that Texas didn't have standing to bring the case to them? That says NOTHING about the actual evidence within.

 

[Blaster]

Yes, the precedent that was set is that Trump is not eligible and did participate in insurrection.

Trump was never charged with insurrection.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump was never charged with insurrection.

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.

 

[Delldude]

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.

Why hasn't He been charged then? There's your precedent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why hasn't He been charged then? There's your precedent.

That's not a precedent. When your points all fail, you don't then get to make up new definitions of words.

 

[Blaster]

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.

The Colorado Court was wrong.

 

[Delldude]

That's not a precedent. When your points all fail, you don't then get to make up new definitions of words.

Oh, just like the woke smacks?

So they proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Trump is guilty of insurrection.....where are the indictments and formal charges?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, just like the woke smacks?

No, you can't blame your own mistakes on them.

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.

Good luck. Maybe you will succeed where all of Donald's lawyers have failed.

Or not.

 

[Delldude]

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.

Let me see......so your favorite president was found guilty, in a civil court, of violating criminal statutes........yet was never criminally charged......hmmmm, methinks I see your case unraveling before SCOTUS.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so your favorite president was found guilty, in a civil court, of violating criminal statutes........yet was never criminally charged

So what?

You forgot to make any points again.

You really suck at this.