14th has its day in court tomorrow

[Delldude]

So what?

You forgot to make any points again.

You really suck at this.

Already made several valid points...........you don't want to accept anything other than your own.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Already made several valid points...........you don't want to accept anything other than your own.

You sure didn't.

Take your time. When asked to make a point, you degenerated into a quivering little blob of tantrum.

Give it a shot.

 

[Delldude]

You sure didn't.

Take your time. When asked to make a point, you degenerated into a quivering little blob of tantrum.

Give it a shot.

 

[Billiejeens]

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

The more that I listen to the proceedings -

It's going to be almost as if I am writing the decision.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't think this will be close. You can tell that even the liberal judges weren't buying it.

It'll be the right decision. Disqualifying him would create pure chaos.

 

[forkup]

Opinions. So being practical would be preventing Trump from being on the ballots?

SCOTUS interprets the law.

Good example- SCOTUS did an end around on the 10th with R v W........took 50 odd years but it was corrected.

Actually no. Vice versa. I've just been listening to the oral arguments. Which by the way point to an unanimous or nearly unanimous decision to keep him on the ballot. An argument that's in my view compelling.

It's not that they will rule that he's not an insurrectionist. It's the argument that if they affirm the decision they will be put in the impossible position to have to rule on the merit of every state disqualifying a candidate for whatever reason even when some of those states don't require a clear reason for disqualification. Creating a basically unmanageable election system.

In other words it doesn't matter what the constitution says. Applying the Constitution rigidly would make the country unmanageable.

 

[Billiejeens]

Actually no. Vice versa. I've just been listening to the oral arguments. Which by the way point to an unanimous or nearly unanimous decision to keep him on the ballot. An argument that's in my view compelling.

It's not that they will rule that he's not an insurrectionist. It's the argument that if they affirm the decision they will be put in the impossible position to have to rule on the merit of every state disqualifying a candidate for whatever reason even when some of those states don't require a clear reason for disqualification. Creating a basically unmanageable election system.

In other words it doesn't matter what the constitution says. Applying the Constitution rigidly would make the country unmanageable.

No,
Section 3, left off President and Vice President.
Intentionally, unintentionally - doesn't matter.

 

[Delldude]

In other words it doesn't matter what the constitution says. Applying the Constitution rigidly would make the country unmanageable.

I await their opinion.

 

[forkup]

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?

I don't consider a judge infallible, I'm sure you don't consider a judge infallible.

The point is that you accept that they aren't infallible and accept the decision as final anyway. Even IF you consider they're biased you still have to go by the assumption they act on food faith.


I will note that for the last few years only one party has said they have a problem with that. Even more than that problems with juries deciding.

Tip. It's NOT the Democrats.

 

[Mac-7]

I don't consider a judge infallible, I'm sure you don't consider a judge infallible.

The point is that you accept that they are infallible and accept the decision as final anyway. Even IF you consider they're biased you still have to go by the assumption they act on food faith.


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

Tip. It's NOT the Democrats.

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

 

[forkup]

I await their opinion.

As I said . It's pretty clear where they will land. And I have no problem with it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yep, as expected. You don't have any points.

 

[forkup]

Then we should term limit federal judges

Again no problem with that. The only thing I expect is that when the courts rule. Or a jury rules. People don't say. "Oh it's invalid, because they're biased." A proposition most people on the right seem to have a problem at the moment.

 

[Frankenstein]

Again no problem with that. The only thing I expect is that when the courts rule. Or a jury rules. People don't say. "Oh it's invalid, because they're biased." A proposition most people on the right seem to have a problem at the moment.

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

But not the right wing judges?

 

[Mac-7]

Again no problem with that. The only thing I expect is that when the courts rule. Or a jury rules. People don't say. "Oh it's invalid, because they're biased." A proposition most people on the right seem to have a problem at the moment.

I dont think you can impose respect for the courts after is has been lost

You will have to live with widespread disapproval of the demigods in black robes and whatever that leads to

 

[Frankenstein]

But not the right wing judges?

Not most!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not most!

But when it is, you're fine.

In short, politically motivated decisions are fine with you.

 

[Frankenstein]

But when it is, you're fine.

In short, politically motivated decisions are fine with you.

Not what I said!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not what I said!

But you agree, right?