Supreme Court ‘Must Be Dissolved’: Liberals Melt Down over Ruling that States Can’t Disqualify Trump from Ballots

[Crepitus]

The mask is ripped off and they are now exposed as naked communists. Such a typical response from liberals. When they don’t get their way they change laws, ignore rulings and just generally try to change organizations. They are children, mentally, and I see any way to live side by side with them in peace if this country is to endure as it was founded.

Supreme Court 'Must Be Dissolved': Libs Melt Down over SCOTUS Trump Ruling

Progressives bashed the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that states could not disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot, with some even suggesting that the court be "dissolved."

www.breitbart.com

Meh. We all knew the court was corrupted before this.

 

[Nostra]

The mask is ripped off and they are now exposed as naked communists. Such a typical response from liberals. When they don’t get their way they change laws, ignore rulings and just generally try to change organizations. They are children, mentally, and I see any way to live side by side with them in peace if this country is to endure as it was founded.

Supreme Court 'Must Be Dissolved': Libs Melt Down over SCOTUS Trump Ruling

Progressives bashed the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that states could not disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 presidential ballot, with some even suggesting that the court be "dissolved."

www.breitbart.com

How long before lil Chucky Schumer puts out another hit on Supreme Court Justices?

 

[Rawley]

Not an opinion. A fact that is going to happen.

We will overturn the Stalinist.Leninist. Marxist. Fascist. Republican. Conservative court.

It is illegitimate. It is corrupt. The people know it is illegitimate, and corrupt.

And it will be filled with justices that reflect the will of the people.

Just curious, are you also going to kill the three women liberal Justices?

 

[Nostra]

The court is illegitimate. It is corrupt.

But it doesn't need to be resolved. We just have to wait until we have 52 uncontested Senate seats. Then we use Mitch McConnell rules to expand the court.

No problem.

Cry more.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Seems like it's the ''media'' wing of the swamp who are just extentions of it are the ones instigating a lot of this turmoil.

Few, if any of them, are actual journalists in the traditional sense of the term.

These are special interest corporate conglomerates now and most times it's a lawyer reading off the teleprompter, presenting the illusionary role of a journalist, instead of an actual journalist.

I don't know that I believe that they should be provided the same protections as actual journalists.

Again, they're pretty much just an extention of one side of the swamp or the other.

 

[22lcidw]

Just curious, are you also going to kill the three women liberal Justices?

The way Progs are going with their groups seeming to have issues with each other, Progs may end up doing it.

 

[Nostra]

Not an opinion. A fact that is going to happen.

We will overturn the Stalinist.Leninist. Marxist. Fascist. Republican. Conservative court.

It is illegitimate. It is corrupt. The people know it is illegitimate, and corrupt.

And it will be filled with justices that reflect the will of the people.

Why did all the commies on the court vote the way they did, Simp?

Keep crying.

 

[Rawley]

Meh. We all knew the court was corrupted before this.

You going to join in hanging Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown?

 

[Dante]

Who the **** are you decide that?

A keen observer?

 

[Crepitus]

You going to join in hanging Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown?

YOu barkin' up the wrong tree, kid. I've been saying to flush the whole thing for a couple of years now.

There was an opportunity for them to vote on their own ethics code, and all of them said no.

There's only one reason for that. They are all corrupt. Flush them all and start over.

 

[Dante]

more trollish spam
grow up

@Lastamender Who the **** are you decide that?

A keen observer? Just look at the shit below.

Do you refute anything or debate? What do you do? "more trollis spam"

If Trump were to win the USA would survive the chaos. He would enter office as a Lame Duck prez, as would Biden if he wins.

This election is so different. And an overwhelming majority of people cannot see the forest for the trees.

You mean there are people out as stupid as gullible as you. That is not news.

thank you

next

 

[Dante]

Feel free to remove the 3 liberal justices who are part of this unanimous ruling.

now that is funny

 

[Rawley]

YOu barkin' up the wrong tree, kid. I've been saying to flush the whole thing for a couple of years now.

There was an opportunity for them to vote on their own ethics code, and all of them said no.

There's only one reason for that. They are all corrupt. Flush them all and start over.

And you think the next crew would be less "corrupt" because ...?

 

[Crepitus]

And you think the next crew would be less "corrupt" because ...?

Need to ban the from accepting gifts, favores, and money. and come up with an enforceable code of ethics.

 

[Dante]

1) It is clear they did not address Trumps involvement in the insurrection.

2) Instead they looked at one picture.

3) States cannot ban anyone from the ticket. I can see that as it would open the floodgates

4) They are saying It something that only congress can do which is a nice dodge

5) Knowing full well congress cannot do it as it to politically divided

6) Yeah they all dodged that one

7) Congress was able to impeach trump but they could not remove him from office as it requires a conviction in congress with a 2/3 majority

8) Nixon resigned and Congress said never mind. Dodged that bullet

9) I guess it will be up to the voters to tell trump your not getting a get out of jail card from us.

1) Were they asked to?

2) Did they? Hmm...

The final product was thus the apparent result of a compromise in which all nine justices could say they were united on a narrow bottom line. Still, the scope of the majority opinion was the subject of harsh criticism from the liberal justices.

“The court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual state may keep a presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot,” they wrote. “The majority resolves much more than the case before us.

“Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue,” the opinion said, “the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”

3) Okay

4) It wasn't a dodge. If you believe that, what exactly is is that you believed they dodged by this?

5) Why would that be a part of a legal ruling? Do you believe the Judicial Branch should rule on things based on how the Congress acts or doesn't act?

6) Huh?

7) And...?

8) Huh? Are you conflating issues from that time?

9) Yep. And is that so terrible?

 

[Rawley]

Need to ban the from accepting gifts, favores, and money. and come up with an enforceable code of ethics.

You really think they are going to change an opinion over a couple of grand vacation?

 

[Dante]

The court is illegitimate. It is corrupt.

This makes you part of the problem.

 

[Dante]

So Keith Olbermann says it should be dissolved and you wet your panties?
Y-A-W-N. Most of us knew this ruling was coming.

Too funny MAGA Macho Man is more of Prissy, Hysterical Tea Party Dame, than a macho man

 

[Crepitus]

You really think they are going to change an opinion over a couple of grand vacation?

We're talking about billions of dollars here, not "a couple grand".

 

[Dante]

Mitch never expanded the court, and Dems did it first with lower courts, so stop trying to re-write history.

The 9-0 quick result shows this was how it was going to happen even if the Dems had a liberal majority.

It's about the constitution and not politics or ideology

So I guess you still miss the point