Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard. The insurrection clause has been used for lower office without legislation. If Congress rejected Trump’s electoral votes after determining that he had engaged in insurrection and it would not affect who won the election, SCOTUS would not take the case. They blew their chance to take jurisdiction of the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

Democrats still have majority support in the country. Republicans have lost support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Not true at all. If anything he is stronger than he was in 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

Democrats still have majority support in the country. Republicans have lost support.

The presidential election isn’t for “democrats.” It’s Biden vs Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

Democrats still have majority support in the country. Republicans have lost support.

Just wait. The Red Wave has been slow getting started but it's almost ready. Almost ready to start. Just wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

Democrats still have majority support in the country. Republicans have lost support.

The presidential election isn’t for “democrats.” It’s Biden vs Trump.

Right? And no one cares about Dobbs. Why won't everyone stop caring about Dobbs?!? Stop caring about Dobbs!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

They made up that legislation standard.

Doesn’t matter. Congress is free to craft legislation to resolve enforcing this amendment, and that will be subject to judicial review. But it can’t refuse to count votes absent such legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

Democrats still have majority support in the country. Republicans have lost support.

The presidential election isn’t for “democrats.” It’s Biden vs Trump.

Right? And no one cares about Dobbs. Why won't everyone stop caring about Dobbs?!? Stop caring about Dobbs!!!

You’re all over the place. This thread is about the colorado decision today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

Democrats still have majority support in the country. Republicans have lost support.

The presidential election isn’t for “democrats.” It’s Biden vs Trump.

Right? And no one cares about Dobbs. Why won't everyone stop caring about Dobbs?!? Stop caring about Dobbs!!!

You’re all over the place. This thread is about the colorado decision today.

Trump isn't going to win the election. Whether he should be disqualified or not, he won't win the election. Whether he has more or less support than he did four years ago, whether Biden has more or less support than he did four years ago. Dobbs means that Trump won't win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

Democrats still have majority support in the country. Republicans have lost support.

The presidential election isn’t for “democrats.” It’s Biden vs Trump.

Right? And no one cares about Dobbs. Why won't everyone stop caring about Dobbs?!? Stop caring about Dobbs!!!

You’re all over the place. This thread is about the colorado decision today.

Trump isn't going to win the election. Whether he should be disqualified or not, he won't win the election. Whether he has more or less support than he did four years ago, whether Biden has more or less support than he did four years ago. Dobbs means that Trump won't win.

Everyone is entitled to their predictions but this is supposed to be a thread about the scotus decision and you are specifically quoting inside a thread about a plan to toss electoral college votes post election. Helps to stay on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

The only option is "one of the two of them"? Ha! We don't live in Russia. We can certainly choose to send a message to the RNC and DNC by not rewarding them with a vote for their awful candidates. You are not an American if you think Trump and Biden are our "only" options. Real Americans have had enough of this garbage.