Kansas Crimson

John Oliver takes the SCOTUS to task in his new episode

SCOTUS allows trump on ballot(s)

14th amendment judgement kicked to (a corrupt) congress

Because they serve a party and not the constitution. States do have a right to determine basic qualifications.

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:09 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

It was a unanimous decision.

It will be interesting to hear what Judge Luttig has to say.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:09 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

Except the Constitution did not require it. For the record, Congress did declare in both houses by clear majority that Trump was an insurrectionist during impeachment. Which carries such a partisan lift of 2/3 Senate votes. The court should have decided the issue but punted it thinking they could avoid responsibility. This is exactly the opposite of Bush v. Gore.

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:19 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:09 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

It was a unanimous decision.

It will be interesting to hear what Judge Luttig has to say.

This was group cover and cowardice

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:04 am SCOTUS allows trump on ballot(s)

14th amendment judgement kicked to (a corrupt) congress

So much for states' rights, eh?

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:40 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:09 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

Except the Constitution did not require it. For the record, Congress did declare in both houses by clear majority that Trump was an insurrectionist during impeachment. Which carries such a partisan lift of 2/3 Senate votes. The court should have decided the issue but punted it thinking they could avoid responsibility. This is exactly the opposite of Bush v. Gore.

In a manner of speaking, yes.

In another manner of speaking, this is exactly the same as Bush v. Gore.

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution. States do have a right to determine basic qualifications.

9-0

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:42 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:19 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:09 am

i actually have little issue putting the onus on congress…if congress could be trusted

It was a unanimous decision.

It will be interesting to hear what Judge Luttig has to say.

This was group cover and cowardice

LOL

The fact Trumps political opponents attempted to do this is insane and as anti democratic as anything I've lived through in this country

There is a reason it was a 9-0 unanimous decision

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:32 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution. States do have a right to determine basic qualifications.

9-0

What point do you think this proves?

The conservative justices went against here - for whatever reason, or probably for a mix of reasons - what you and I would both consider to be traditionally-conservative principles.

The liberal justices didn't have the votes, and so of COURSE they're not going to put dissents out there that could later be used to undercut the relative power of Congress vis a vis the states.

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:36 am The fact Trumps political opponents attempted to do this is insane and as anti democratic as anything I've lived through in this country

There is a reason it was a 9-0 unanimous decision

Me, I would consider trying to avoid the peaceful transfer of power to be significantly more anti-democratic than...checks notes...trying to enforce the Constitution as written.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:42 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:36 am The fact Trumps political opponents attempted to do this is insane and as anti democratic as anything I've lived through in this country

There is a reason it was a 9-0 unanimous decision

Me, I would consider trying to avoid the peaceful transfer of power to be significantly more anti-democratic than...checks notes...trying to enforce the Constitution as written.

^^^

Randy reminds us nearly every day why he supports a Piece of Shit like Trump.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:42 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:36 am The fact Trumps political opponents attempted to do this is insane and as anti democratic as anything I've lived through in this country

There is a reason it was a 9-0 unanimous decision

Me, I would consider trying to avoid the peaceful transfer of power to be significantly more anti-democratic than...checks notes...trying to enforce the Constitution as written.

Trump did nothing violent. He questioned the results, same as democrats did in 2016.

That's why the court ruled unanimously. Just because the media repeats something a lot, doesn't mean that's how it actually happened. There is a reason the viewership of those media outlets drops every year. Most people see through the propaganda, maybe eventually you will too

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:40 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:32 am

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:07 am Because they serve a party and not the constitution. States do have a right to determine basic qualifications.

9-0

What point do you think this proves?

In this case, a very simple one (and nothing more): that Sparky's knee-jerk reaction that this is a party-determined decision is patently and inarguably wrong on its face.

I get it you guys are upset that you couldn't get trump removed from the ballot.

Personally I don't think anyone should ever be removed from a ballot. That isn't how this country is supposed to work. Let the people decide. If someone truly did something worth being taken off a ballot, they'd never get elected by the people anyways

randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:48 am I get it you guys are upset that you couldn't get trump removed from the ballot.

Personally I don't think anyone should ever be removed from a ballot. That isn't how this country is supposed to work. Let the people decide. If someone truly did something worth being taken off a ballot, they'd never get elected by the people anyways

So, if Obama had been born in Kenya after all...let the people decide?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:47 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:40 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:32 am
9-0

What point do you think this proves?

In this case, a very simple one (and nothing more): that Sparky's knee-jerk reaction that this is a party-determined decision is patently and inarguably wrong on its face.

Is there a reason you barbered my post in responding? Because if you think my analysis was wrong, tell me, and let's discuss.

I don't think it was: I think the side that had the votes exercised those votes politically (and inconsistent with their supposed ideological principles), and the side that did not have the votes exercised the votes it had pragmatically (and consistent with their supposed ideological principles).