Um, no.
Congress actually has codified insurrection as a crime.
The 22nd Amendment, just like most of the Constitution, doesn't require any law to be effective.
Supreme Court reverses CO
- Thread starter St. Louis Hawk
- Start date
Congress actually has codified insurrection as a crime.
The 22nd Amendment, just like most of the Constitution, doesn't require any law to be effective.
You might be right, you probably are, but evidently that's not how the opinion was written. But that's what I just heard one analyst say. They may not be right either but they are far more knowledgeable about these sorts of things than I am. I guess we'll find out if others pick up on that as well and start talking about it.
Right now, democrats are messing with democracy. Won’t be voting for Trump but trying to do what the blue states were trying is a slap in the face of democracy.
I still say Trump won’t win, but you guys are attempting to disinfranchise the voters that support him. Who are the dangerous ones.
Now Trump can lose fair and square. There is no negative to this outcome. Any thinking American sees that, and fortunately there are 9 thinking Americans serving in the SCOTUS.
Ds and Rs should be thrilled with this outcome.
Ds and Rs should be thrilled with this outcome.
No it didn’t. What happened on Jan 6 should never happen again. But the fact they didn’t charge anyone with insurrection, blew their attempts to pull doofus from the ballot out of the water.
That's not remotely what I'm doing, and you thinking that shows a lack of general intelligence.
9 justices struck down this Colorado ruling, meaning the personal political beliefs of one judges wife had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Can you grasp that or no?
He should be arrested for incitement and treason. That's how this works right? He's a deranged puke.
Dissolved? Even he doesn’t believe that but it sure drives traffic and clicks.
i wouldn't have quite put it that way, but if you really think about it, you're more right than wrong. (there's always the hope of congress recognizing/counting electors though)
You really haven’t heard of Harlan Crowe and David Sokol and the largesse they’ve shown to Thomas?
Have you been under a rock the last 12 months?
it's not an insane position, though there was a fair bit of navel gazing in the briefs over so-called 'objective' qualifications for the presidency (eg, age, citizenship, and i suppose term limits) and 'other' limits like the insurrection clause. i'm not sure i found all of the distinctions that satisfying or clear, but there were pointy-headed people thinking a fair bit about them
FFS you think no other Justice has never been a guest of anyone
(**cough** Sotomayor **cough**)
It proves nothing except that they’re no different than any Prez or any member of Congress.
Did she disclose those visits? Did she rule on cases that directly affected those people? The biggest problem with what the conservative judges were doing is they were not disclosing these visits and then were making rulings on cases that directly affected the people they were visiting.
Tell me again what ruling Thomas participated in that affected TrammellCrow (Harlan’s company)
So Thomas has just been fortunate to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from Crow (and others) because he’s a swell guy?
I read the opinion, a couple of times. The opinion was referring to Congress creating a process, and not the fact there's already a criminal statute for insurrection on the books. That's what the 3 justices concurring in the decision, but not the opinion, were writing about. I actually see their side of the argument in a way, but they seem to be straddling a very narrow fence as well. On one hand, they don't want states to be deciding who is on the ballot based on 14A, but they also seem to be encouraging states to challenge the ballot in other situations. In the end, they've set their own precedent that lower courts will have to follow.
Donald Trump being the bigger man
In January 2000, Thomas sat on a flight next to Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns where he complained about the current salary for Supreme Court justices and intimated that his frustrations may lead to his resignation. At the time Thomas was reportedly hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt when he began complaining about his salary, which was $173,600 a year in 2000—equivalent to more than $300,000 today.
Stearns recorded this interaction in a letter where he stated: "...as we agreed, it is worth a lot to American to have the constitution properly interpreted. We must have the proper incentives here, too."
Following Thomas' complaint, Stearns pledged in a letter to the justice that he would "look into a bill to raise the salaries of members of the Supreme Court" and later "sought help from a lobbying firm working on the issue."
Congress did not end up giving the justices a substantial raise.
Lo and behold, Thomas starts to expand his circle of billionaire friends and the largesse began flowing.
So....yeah...those are the circumstances.
But I'm sure Stearns' original vision to have the "Constitution properly interpreted" and any "incentives" are completely unrelated.
I don't know if there is an award for most petty post ever but this has to rank in the top 5. The level of awesome here is hard to match. I mean, I probably agree with the people you called out in this but I have to acknowledge a masterpiece when I see it.
The talk about Thomas is just a strawman. The decision in this case was 9-0.
How did a thread about the 9-0 decision devolve to Thomas again? Haven’t read the entire thread, so I’ll assume one of the usuals didn’t like the decision so they brought up Thomas yet again?
Good lord.
Is buying your way out of debt and securing a life of leisure via having the “constitution properly interpreted” a conflict of interest?
Not sure why you’re defending Thomas so vigorously. The dude is a shitbag - and was a shitbag from his confirmation hearing to present.
Good lord. Is a 9-0 decision not good enough? Would 8-0 help you feel better?
Before you were saying you didn't wish him dead just considering the possibility or hoping for it or something. Now you are openly calling for his assassination?
Dude. Get some help. I know a few counselors down in CR that can help you.
Reading isn't your strong suit clearly. But you are conservative, so you have limited intelligence and capacity to comprehend the written word.
I said things wont get better until he is dead. They won't.
As for the 2nd part, if a president gets immunity, as your orange God is claiming, they could do exactly what I said.
I’m more concerned that Thomas isn’t recusing himself in situations where he clearly has a conflict of interest.
And Thomas did sit in the majority of the opinion that laid out how Section 3 could be enforced by Congress. Sotomayor, Kagan, KBJ, and ACB agreed that the court went further than required in the opinion, which could insulate Trump as it shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.
Thomas has no business sitting in on this business or the immunity claims.
You have no proof he did that but you’re obsessed.
You’re also a bit of a racist. I wonder if you were alive and watched those confirmation hearings.
I’m a racist because Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill and has accepted gifts from billionaires as he sits on the nation’s highest court?
Wow.
Goldy: I generally like you but you’re way over your skis on this one.
