Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

More projection from the right.

Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Actually it is very interesting.

Numerous cases deferring to states on abortion and voting rights, including a direct parallel case where the decision was written by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch.

would rhe Defer to states of states made lgbt people ineligible for public office? No you’d be Demanding federal courts act. Because you hate Trump you ignore the possibility this could be done to someone you don’t hate

What is this gibberish? The Colorado decision has nothing to do with hating or loving Trump. It has to do with the Constitution setting forth qualifications for President: you have to be 35, you have to be a natural born citizen, and you can't have engaged in insurrection against the U.S. Even if a judge loved Trump, the fact is that he tried to overthrow the government and thereby disqualified himself from future office.

Trump is definitely 35. He's on death's doorstep actually. I'm not sure where he was born, but I'm assuming the US since he ran last time. So, he's got two of the three. He almost qualifies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Meh, not really. We're playing with house money on this one. Trump's the one that needs SCOTUS to establish precedent and write their own professional legacies for the historical record by siding with him. We'll see what happens, but Democrats have absolutely nothing to lose here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Actually it is very interesting.

Numerous cases deferring to states on abortion and voting rights, including a direct parallel case where the decision was written by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch.

would rhe Defer to states of states made lgbt people ineligible for public office? No you’d be Demanding federal courts act. Because you hate Trump you ignore the possibility this could be done to someone you don’t hate

What is this gibberish? The Colorado decision has nothing to do with hating or loving Trump. It has to do with the Constitution setting forth qualifications for President: you have to be 35, you have to be a natural born citizen, and you can't have engaged in insurrection against the U.S. Even if a judge loved Trump, the fact is that he tried to overthrow the government and thereby disqualified himself from future office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

DP. A person isn't entitled to hold office as President if, having taken an oath to support to support the Constitution of the United States, engaged in insurrection against it. Trump took a Presidential oath, and he tried to use violence to take control of the government so he could retain the office to which he was no longer entitled. What's your argument:

1. He didn't take an oath?
2. Using violence to overthrow the government isn't "insurrection?"
3. The office of President isn't an "office?"

Why are you so eager to have this ineligible person back in office?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

Goes hand in hand with "well regulated" meaning "not regulated, actually."

Are my guns part of a militia ?

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

+1 Can we throw out the electoral college too? Because that’s hideously anti-democratic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Actually it is very interesting.

Numerous cases deferring to states on abortion and voting rights, including a direct parallel case where the decision was written by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch.

would rhe Defer to states of states made lgbt people ineligible for public office? No you’d be Demanding federal courts act. Because you hate Trump you ignore the possibility this could be done to someone you don’t hate

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

Goes hand in hand with "well regulated" meaning "not regulated, actually."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Actually it is very interesting.

Numerous cases deferring to states on abortion and voting rights, including a direct parallel case where the decision was written by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

Well I really hope that SCOTUS enforces the constitution. If not I think it is time for the states to go their own way. Why should California or New York be forced to follow SCOTUS interpretations of the 2nd amendment or Roe v. Wade?

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

It's just them following their "rules for thee not for me" playbook. Jared got $2 billion from the Saudis? Who cares, Biden made three car payments for his kid.

Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.