Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

After he took Dan Quayle's sage advice, he was not considering not certifying. Before that? Well...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

DP. No, majority rules is not how the rule of law works. Even if unpopular, the Constitution controls. Sorry Charlie.

You can start a constitutional convention to five insurrectionists a pass and overturn that part of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to.

You really aren’t responding to what that PP is saying at all. The Constitution does control, on that we agree, and apparently 9 of the SCOTUS justices too.

PP said that if people vote for Trump, then he should be president. But he is disqualified under the Constitution. So whether he wins the election or not, being elected by the people isn't democracy. It is just making a statement, like voting for Felix the Cat.

Nope. Reread. PP is saying that whether he is disqualified is a matter of opinion because not all people are seeing Jan 6th as an insurrection which would trigger disqualification.

That's what PP is saying. But whether the sky is blue is not a matter of opinion. Even if 25% of the country thinks it's yellow.

Riiiiight, and my point is that you weren’t responding to her post. You should have just posted your opinion instead of responding to her when what you said had nothing to do with her point.

I was responding to her post, dear.

If you say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump can stay on the ballot.

Correct decision.

What happened to States Rights that they harped on in their confirmation hearings not to mention giving the individual states the right to ban abortions. May these Nine quivering Quisling-Laval doppelgangers meet the same end as the originals!

This isn’t a state office. Again. No brainer.

States run their own federal elections in the manner they see fit, and they all do it different ways: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-primary-election-types That is what makes it a states right issue. You will note that not every federal office candidate is on every state's ballot, see e.g. Cenk Uygur, who is on some ballots but not others because not born in U.S. Other states let anyone throw their own name in the hat.

No they don’t as SCOTUS just unanimously showed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. Democracy

Right. A decision the ensures voters get to decide who will be president is truly an assault to democracy? Do you even hear yourself?

And you are excusing insurrection as a viable and just fine action to take when losing an election.

They are and I think it’s time we stop pretending that Republican voters are good people with different values. They are actively bad people who will countenance any kind of crime so long as it serves their purposes.

People that disagree with me = bad
SCOTUS = bad
Half the voters = bad
Whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

After he took Dan Quayle's sage advice, he was not considering not certifying. Before that? Well...

Can you imagine? Dan Quayle, of all people, played a role in saving democracy for the time being by advising Pence to stand up to Trump's criminal cult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

And yet there was Nancy having herself filmed by her daughter in the momen of crisis. So her daughter could make money on the documentary. Yeah. Sounds so scary that Nancy decided to have her daughter stay and film it. So obviously boloney.

Are you trying to put forth the most unconvincing argument possible? You're doing a great job if so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

And yet there was Nancy having herself filmed by her daughter in the momen of crisis. So her daughter could make money on the documentary. Yeah. Sounds so scary that Nancy decided to have her daughter stay and film it. So obviously boloney.

Are you trying to put forth the most unconvincing argument possible? You're doing a great job if so.

Most people don’t agree with you. If it was that terrifying, most people would get their family out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

And yet there was Nancy having herself filmed by her daughter in the momen of crisis. So her daughter could make money on the documentary. Yeah. Sounds so scary that Nancy decided to have her daughter stay and film it. So obviously boloney.

Are you trying to put forth the most unconvincing argument possible? You're doing a great job if so.

Most people don’t agree with you. If it was that terrifying, most people would get their family out.

You've talked to most people, yeah?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

And yet there was Nancy having herself filmed by her daughter in the momen of crisis. So her daughter could make money on the documentary. Yeah. Sounds so scary that Nancy decided to have her daughter stay and film it. So obviously boloney.

Nancy didn't know there was going to be an insurrection that day and I can't tell what you are trying to suggest. Do you dispute Grassley was going to preside? Do you dispute that the Secret Service tried to wedge Pence away from the Capitol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

And yet there was Nancy having herself filmed by her daughter in the momen of crisis. So her daughter could make money on the documentary. Yeah. Sounds so scary that Nancy decided to have her daughter stay and film it. So obviously boloney.

Are you trying to put forth the most unconvincing argument possible? You're doing a great job if so.

Most people don’t agree with you. If it was that terrifying, most people would get their family out.

Have you ever met a videographer? A cameraman or a journalist/reporter? Those people are cray cray. They love danger, they aren't sensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

And yet there was Nancy having herself filmed by her daughter in the momen of crisis. So her daughter could make money on the documentary. Yeah. Sounds so scary that Nancy decided to have her daughter stay and film it. So obviously boloney.

You’re a liar and total garbage. I’m so sick of morons like you dismissing that day. It was an insurrection that’s why people have served time for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?