Clarence (Uncle) Thomas stomps Colorado

justoffal

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2013
22,559
14,824
1,405
He didn't even break a sweat on this one. Here's something I thought was going to be the debate of the century at the SCOTUS and it shook out in like 10 minutes with Roberts waiting on the sideline to find a spine and then speaking up after Clarence led the way.

 
We've been telling you for years on The BradCast that most rightwingers who claim to be "Constitutional Conservatives" --- such as the corrupted bunch now packed onto the Republican U.S. Supreme Court supermajority --- are nothing of the sort. Today's oral argument at SCOTUS, on whether Donald Trump must be disqualified from the 2024 ballot under the very clear text of the Constitution's "Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause", appear set to prove that point yet again. [Audio link to full program is posted below this summary.]

In December, the SCOTUS Appears Set to Ignore Text of Constitution's 'Insurrectionist' Clause: 'BradCast' 2/8/2024 found Trump had violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office public officials who, after taking an oath to support the Constitution, "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same". The mandate applies, according to the actual text of the clause, to "any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State". The Colorado Supremes compiled an airtight, 200+ page ruling [PDF] that was both "textualist" (adhering to the simple text of the clause) and "originalist" (carefully hewing to the original intent of its post-Civil War framers) in order to appeal to the legal principles supposedly most important to the Republican majority at SCOTUS.
Again, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office public officials who, after taking an oath to support the Constitution, "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same". The mandate applies, according to the actual text of the clause, to "any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State".
 
He didn't even break a sweat on this one. Here's something I thought was going to be the debate of the century at the SCOTUS and it shook out in like 10 minutes with Roberts waiting on the sideline to find a spine and then speaking up after Clarence led the way.

Soon, Uncle Tom can go back to serving drinks for his billionaire benefactors who are bankrolling his & lardass Ginni's lifestyle.

"Yes, Masta"!
 
Again, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office public officials who, after taking an oath to support the Constitution, "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same". The mandate applies, according to the actual text of the clause, to "any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State".
So when 45 becomes 47 he'll probably get another two appointments.
 
So when 45 becomes 47 he'll probably get another two appointments.
EEEEEK.gif
 
So when 45 becomes 47 he'll probably get another two appointments.

A) Would he become 47? No, he'll still be 45. Precedent is there


Rutherford B. Hayes became president after serving two terms, 1868-1872 and 1876-1877

He is the 29th governor of Ohio. Number 30 is Noyes and 31 is Allen. He didn't become number 31 as well as number 29.

B) And in a country with supposed "democracy" where the Republicans have won the majority of the vote for president ONCE since 1990, and yet have the majority on the court... something will snap...
 
A) Thankfully, even if The Supremes do go ahead and void State rulings prohibiting 45 from appearing on their ballots despite the clear wording in Amendment 14.3, that still doesn't translate into insurrectionist/rapist45 being allowed to hold the office of President ever again.

B) Emma Stone rocks. So? :dunno:
 
A) Would he become 47? No, he'll still be 45. Precedent is there


Rutherford B. Hayes became president after serving two terms, 1868-1872 and 1876-1877

He is the 29th governor of Ohio. Number 30 is Noyes and 31 is Allen. He didn't become number 31 as well as number 29.

B) And in a country with supposed "democracy" where the Republicans have won the majority of the vote for president ONCE since 1990, and yet have the majority on the court... something will snap...
Oh thanks....I always wondered about that.
 
A) Thankfully, even if The Supremes do go ahead and void State rulings prohibiting 45 from appearing on their ballots despite the clear wording in Amendment 14.3, that still doesn't translate into insurrectionist/rapist45 being allowed to hold the office of President ever again.

B) Emma Stone rocks. So? :dunno:
Meh..... you're whistling....of course that's what it translates to. I mean you can tag name till your heart's content and it won't matter a damn.
 
.....lol....You're intentions were good.

It's my "strategy" for things. I put things out there, if nobody tells me otherwise I go with it until I find out otherwise. Weird how for Ohio it's one thing, I just looked up Clinton, he's 40 and 42 in Arkansas...
 

Forum List

Back
Top