Anonymous
03/04/2024 18:59
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS gave Trump a big beautiful gift.
Just wait for the immunity ruling before thanking SCOTUS.
If they were going to vote that he did ors not have immunity then they would have scheduled line before the end of April. He bought and paid for three justices to give him a judgment proof court. The only hope is a the March 25 criminal trial in New York and that he's found guilty and is sentenced to prison before the election. As well athe Georgia case putting him in prison. Another DA can take over from Fani, if necessary.
You are woefully misinformed. No, another DA cannot take over. If she is removed the case dies.
I predict that she will not be removed.
Wonder what happens to her, Garland and Jack Smith(ans his team) after Trump wins? Guess we will never see those guys again.
What do you think Trump can do to any of them? So strange.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 18:06
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS gave Trump a big beautiful gift.
Just wait for the immunity ruling before thanking SCOTUS.
If they were going to vote that he did ors not have immunity then they would have scheduled line before the end of April. He bought and paid for three justices to give him a judgment proof court. The only hope is a the March 25 criminal trial in New York and that he's found guilty and is sentenced to prison before the election. As well athe Georgia case putting him in prison. Another DA can take over from Fani, if necessary.
You are woefully misinformed. No, another DA cannot take over. If she is removed the case dies.
I predict that she will not be removed.
It’s not a zero percent chance, and that makes me nervous.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 18:06
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Colorado should ignore this ruling.
Interesting test. What could SCOTUS do about it?
Nothing but the Feds can. It would be state in open rebellion and would need to be taken over and occupied by federal troops until democracy would be restored
Abbott in TX said he wasn't going to obey SC and nothing happened. Oh, dear, I forgot Trump country and the SC is owned by him.
Abbott never said that. Nothing Texas has done went against the SCOTUS ruling.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 17:41
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS gave Trump a big beautiful gift.
Just wait for the immunity ruling before thanking SCOTUS.
If they were going to vote that he did ors not have immunity then they would have scheduled line before the end of April. He bought and paid for three justices to give him a judgment proof court. The only hope is a the March 25 criminal trial in New York and that he's found guilty and is sentenced to prison before the election. As well athe Georgia case putting him in prison. Another DA can take over from Fani, if necessary.
You are woefully misinformed. No, another DA cannot take over. If she is removed the case dies.
I predict that she will not be removed.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 17:34
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Colorado should ignore this ruling.
Interesting test. What could SCOTUS do about it?
Nothing but the Feds can. It would be state in open rebellion and would need to be taken over and occupied by federal troops until democracy would be restored
Abbott in TX said he wasn't going to obey SC and nothing happened. Oh, dear, I forgot Trump country and the SC is owned by him.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 17:20
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
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.
Pence is an idiot. He called Dan Quayle to ask what he should do and Quayle told him he had no choice but to follow the Constitution!
Anonymous
03/04/2024 17:19
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS gave Trump a big beautiful gift.
Just wait for the immunity ruling before thanking SCOTUS.
If they were going to vote that he did ors not have immunity then they would have scheduled line before the end of April. He bought and paid for three justices to give him a judgment proof court. The only hope is a the March 25 criminal trial in New York and that he's found guilty and is sentenced to prison before the election. As well athe Georgia case putting him in prison. Another DA can take over from Fani, if necessary.
You are woefully misinformed. No, another DA cannot take over. If she is removed the case dies.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 17:16
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS gave Trump a big beautiful gift.
Just wait for the immunity ruling before thanking SCOTUS.
If they were going to vote that he did ors not have immunity then they would have scheduled line before the end of April. He bought and paid for three justices to give him a judgment proof court. The only hope is a the March 25 criminal trial in New York and that he's found guilty and is sentenced to prison before the election. As well athe Georgia case putting him in prison. Another DA can take over from Fani, if necessary.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 17:09
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:CO took the biggest L in court history.
State should be called LOLARADO now because they lost so bad.
Not really. Colorado got Trump's Insurrection entered into the Supreme Court's historical record. None of the justices wanted to actually attach themselves to the insurrection itself and just said it was the job of Congress to deal with him. It was a predictable outcome because they couldn't risk candidates being thrown off the ballot for other reasons not akin to Trump's Insurrection, but Trump doesn't come out of this looking great.
Actually he did, and the democrat party takes another L as well.
They took took the leading opposition candidate off of the ballot like a thrived world banana republic does, the SCOTUS smokes the state of LOLARADO and says they can’t. Trump looks like a guy who the deep state hates, the majority of real Americans hate the deep state.
The state of LOLARADO looks like it’s involved in election interference (which it is), bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe has attempted to weapons the DOJ to get anyone he disagrees with.
The Fannie what’s her face from GA is going to be impeached because she’s corrupt.
The NY ruling looks corrupt to the point even the bank who lended the money to Trump was like “he didn’t do anything wrong, in fact we’d do business with home again in a second”.
All of this out together along with the lefts seething hatred of a man that most of middle America and blue collar people like is going to get home elected.
LOLRADO and bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe take the huge Ls, MSNBC and CNN look like idiots again…Trump gets more support.
I’m telling you and I hope this post gets marked, Trump will landslide into 2024 victory. PA, MI, OH will swing to Trump. Wisconsin will you most likely. It will be a victory almost as big as Reagan’s.
The majority of "real" Americans hate the deep state. Nice, too bad that's not going to be enough for him this fall. Haley is pretty badly embarrassing him by pulling as many votes as she is from the presumed nominee. Aside, the New York banks are free to lend money to him related to his fraud disgorgement. Let's see what happens there. How many days left on that? And, of course, SCOTUS said it was the job of Congress (and not them or the states) to deal with Trump's Insurrection.
lol…Haley hasn’t won a primary. It only that she’s lost hugely.
Trump will win
Win the candidacy? Very likely (although Haley has won one primary to date, not zero). Win the presidency? Of course not. He didn't have the votes last time. He doesn't have the votes now.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 17:06
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:CO took the biggest L in court history.
State should be called LOLARADO now because they lost so bad.
Not really. Colorado got Trump's Insurrection entered into the Supreme Court's historical record. None of the justices wanted to actually attach themselves to the insurrection itself and just said it was the job of Congress to deal with him. It was a predictable outcome because they couldn't risk candidates being thrown off the ballot for other reasons not akin to Trump's Insurrection, but Trump doesn't come out of this looking great.
Actually he did, and the democrat party takes another L as well.
They took took the leading opposition candidate off of the ballot like a thrived world banana republic does, the SCOTUS smokes the state of LOLARADO and says they can’t. Trump looks like a guy who the deep state hates, the majority of real Americans hate the deep state.
The state of LOLARADO looks like it’s involved in election interference (which it is), bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe has attempted to weapons the DOJ to get anyone he disagrees with.
The Fannie what’s her face from GA is going to be impeached because she’s corrupt.
The NY ruling looks corrupt to the point even the bank who lended the money to Trump was like “he didn’t do anything wrong, in fact we’d do business with home again in a second”.
All of this out together along with the lefts seething hatred of a man that most of middle America and blue collar people like is going to get home elected.
LOLRADO and bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe take the huge Ls, MSNBC and CNN look like idiots again…Trump gets more support.
I’m telling you and I hope this post gets marked, Trump will landslide into 2024 victory. PA, MI, OH will swing to Trump. Wisconsin will you most likely. It will be a victory almost as big as Reagan’s.
The majority of "real" Americans hate the deep state. Nice, too bad that's not going to be enough for him this fall. Haley is pretty badly embarrassing him by pulling as many votes as she is from the presumed nominee. Aside, the New York banks are free to lend money to him related to his fraud disgorgement. Let's see what happens there. How many days left on that? And, of course, SCOTUS said it was the job of Congress (and not them or the states) to deal with Trump's Insurrection.
lol…Haley hasn’t won a primary. It only that she’s lost hugely.
Trump will win
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:56
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
Please look up what per Curiam means.
Please read the actual opinion, including the concurrences by these justices.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:55
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
Please look up what per Curiam means.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:54
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
"All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
9-0 only on the point that one state alone can’t make the call.
Not a ruling that Colorado made the wrong call, and nothing about whether Trump’s actions are insurrection against the Constitution. Just a dodge by SCOTUS.
By 5 of them.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:52
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
"All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
9-0 only on the point that one state alone can’t make the call.
Not a ruling that Colorado made the wrong call, and nothing about whether Trump’s actions are insurrection against the Constitution. Just a dodge by SCOTUS.
Anonymous
03/04/2024 16:50
Subject: Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.
It’s literally section five of the amendment.
Interesting how the lack of enforcement legislation wasn’t an obstacle when the republicans on the court wanted to strike down affirmative action because it violates the 14th amendment.
Exactly. SCOTUS has cut the cake both ways throughout history on this one. As much respect as I have for the highest court in the land, this one feels very political.
Repeat after me: 9-0.
Actually in this particular point it’s 5-4. You’d know that if you read the case. Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote concurrences saying they disagreed with this part of the majority opinion.
"All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.
The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Try reading the whole thing next time:
"Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment."