Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] +1[/quote] 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.”[/quote] They made up that legislation standard. [/quote] 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.[/quote] If a person is disqualified from holding the office, Congress can and should reject any electoral votes cast for that ineligible candidate. This decision opens that possibility by refusing to provide for judicial review of the disqualification before the election. Legislation is not needed. The disqualification standard is sufficiently defined in the Constitution. [/quote] It’s like you want another 9-0. [b]SCOTUS just said that legislation is required[/b]. There is no legislation authorizing the discarding of electoral college votes, whether for the winner of the election or the loser.[/quote] That's just dicta.[/quote] Where are you going to get the SCOTUS votes to allow the Congress’ action to stand, in this hypothetical scenario? It’s isn’t going to happen.[/quote] Are you kidding? You think that if Congress chooses not to swear in Trump because of the Fourteenth Amendment, that SCOTUS would overrule them? [/quote] Of course I do and I think 5 of the judges just made that clear.[/quote] No, the Supreme Court is not going to tell Congress that they have to swear in the other guy on January 21. Really? [/quote] No, I’m saying SCOTUS would not allow Congress to disqualify the winner by tossing out electoral votes after the fact. Whether they would take the case for the loser, doubt it. Standing would be an issue.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics