9-0!

[BDKJMU]

[Caribbean Hen]

Take a vacation Mrs Griswold and never come back …. Elitist idiot


Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said that she was "disappointed" in the ruling.

"I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates," she said in a statement. "Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot."

[Pwns]

Darn conservative wing of the court...

Oh, wait...

[BDKJMU]

Hey Kalm, was it really 5-4?

[UNI88]

Should have been 8 - 0.

Thomas should recuse himself from any case involving trump.

Clear conflict of interest and using the BDKKKaren standard, he’s more biased than any judge in any of trump’s criminal charges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Hey Kalm, was it really 5-4?

the important part was 5-4 and the dissenters were all the courts women members - this is a big deal but you won't realize it or another six months.

"..the majority attempts to insulate all alleged isurrectionists from future challenges to their holding Federal office.." - interesting that Amy Coney Barret joined the other women in dissenting and could be even more interesting in November

[GannonFan]

Hey Kalm, was it really 5-4?

the important part was 5-4 and the dissenters were all the courts women members - this is a big deal but you won't realize it or another six months.

"..the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding Federal office.." - interesting that Amy Coney Barret joined the other women in dissenting and could be even more interesting in November

Already answered this in the other thread. Your spin on this just flies in the face of the actual facts. Biggest issue was states unilaterally deciding on their own who gets to run in federal elections. Court couldn't have been any more united in refuting that. Court wins like that are significant and clear. That was the big issue.

As for Trump being an insurrectionist, that wasn't the issue in the case and all 9 judges acknowledged that, despite you thinking otherwise. And again, if the avenue to remove insurrectionists from federal office was closed off, as you seem to insinuate although I doubt you even read the opinion, then how come the majority make clear reference to 18 US Code 2383, passed by Congress so satisfying Sec 5 of the 14th, as the means to charge and convict people of insurrection, thereby giving a clear path on how to remove people from federal office? Those folks who spun the "lost cause" myths for almost a century should give you a call and get you on their team, your penchant to spin things to something completely opposite of what it really is can be in high demand from those who want to avoid the truth.

[houndawg]

the important part was 5-4 and the dissenters were all the courts women members - this is a big deal but you won't realize it or another six months.

"..the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding Federal office.." - interesting that Amy Coney Barret joined the other women in dissenting and could be even more interesting in November

Already answered this in the other thread. Your spin on this just flies in the face of the actual facts. Biggest issue was states unilaterally deciding on their own who gets to run in federal elections. Court couldn't have been any more united in refuting that. Court wins like that are significant and clear. That was the big issue.

As for Trump being an insurrectionist, that wasn't the issue in the case and all 9 judges acknowledged that, despite you thinking otherwise. And again, if the avenue to remove insurrectionists from federal office was closed off, as you seem to insinuate although I doubt you even read the opinion, then how come the majority make clear reference to 18 US Code 2383, passed by Congress so satisfying Sec 5 of the 14th, as the means to charge and convict people of insurrection, thereby giving a clear path on how to remove people from federal office? Those folks who spun the "lost cause" myths for almost a century should give you a call and get you on their team, your penchant to spin things to something completely opposite of what it really is can be in high demand from those who want to avoid the truth.

likewise other thread - my comment pertains to the dissent by the four women judges which I think is interesting because of its breaking along gender lines.

After the election when the conks are working on their battle damage assessment they'll be wondering why they didn't see it. You can tell them CS.com was onto that shit 9 months ago.

[GannonFan]

Already answered this in the other thread. Your spin on this just flies in the face of the actual facts. Biggest issue was states unilaterally deciding on their own who gets to run in federal elections. Court couldn't have been any more united in refuting that. Court wins like that are significant and clear. That was the big issue.

As for Trump being an insurrectionist, that wasn't the issue in the case and all 9 judges acknowledged that, despite you thinking otherwise. And again, if the avenue to remove insurrectionists from federal office was closed off, as you seem to insinuate although I doubt you even read the opinion, then how come the majority make clear reference to 18 US Code 2383, passed by Congress so satisfying Sec 5 of the 14th, as the means to charge and convict people of insurrection, thereby giving a clear path on how to remove people from federal office? Those folks who spun the "lost cause" myths for almost a century should give you a call and get you on their team, your penchant to spin things to something completely opposite of what it really is can be in high demand from those who want to avoid the truth.

likewise other thread - my comment pertains to the dissent by the four women judges which I think is interesting because of its breaking along gender lines.

After the election when the conks are working on their battle damage assessment they'll be wondering why they didn't see it. You can tell them CS.com was onto that shit 9 months ago.

They. Didn't. Dissent. It was a 9-0 judgement, and one of the four women judges specifically wrote her concurring opinion to reiterate that.