- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LIVE (*now adjourned*): Supreme Court hearing case on Trump's Colorado ballot eligibility
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:45 am to Scruffy
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:45 am to Scruffy
quote:
Conservative states can ban Democrats, progressive states can ban Republicans, for no other reason than “because”.
That won't be the outcome in any case, I don't believe. If SCOTUS goes deeply into what an insurrection is for the purpose of the 14A, they're going to establish a rule or benchmark for determining it. Section 3 is pretty narrow in scope as far as disqualifying actions.
1
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:45 am to ArHog
quote:Exactly.
What a clusterfrick this would be.
The system essentially falls apart.
I understand having requirements, age, citizenship, legal history, but this adds “subjective view of the state government” to the list.
If Trump committed and is found guilty of a felony, then he can no longer run, but that isn’t what has happened here.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:47 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:46 am to Fun Bunch
Thomas has a speech impediment IIRC and doesn’t like public speaking. So when he does speak, it means he is doing so for a reason.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:46 am to Lsupimp
quote:
“ Insurrection “
just tuned in to this thing - has anyone actually defined what constitutes 'insurrection' ???
How the hell can this thing survive at ANY level - what am I missing here
Is it really up to some official in some podunk state just decide that someone is an "insurrectionist?"
Could not a case be made that Biden is 'insurrecting' - not to mention 'treason' and 'bribery' - at this very moment based on their determination of what he 'meant' to do - or was 'alleged to have done." ???
This make ZERO sense to me on ANY level -
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:46 am to BearCrocs
quote:
Also, why are the justices not letting the attorney respond in full? They keep cutting him off.. Jesus
They are there to answer the Court's questions. Everything the lawyers are saying in their argument was already briefed.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:46 am to Indefatigable
For a shitlib, Kagan is somewhat reasonable at times and can at least write an opinion that tries to justify it.
Kentaji and Soto are complete jokes.
Kentaji and Soto are complete jokes.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:47 am to Indefatigable
If a state treats what is happening at the border as an insurrection, they can decide that anyone aiding and abetting it is in violation of Section 3.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:49 am to BearCrocs
quote:
Also, why are the justices not letting the attorney respond in full? They keep cutting him off.. Jesus
That’s winding me up too.
The Justices would probably say, “because time constraints;” but common sense tells me they could find more natural/appropriate time points to stop counsel from responding or to ask for clarification.
This is what happens when you have too many cooks in the kitchen—each one thinks what s/he has to say is more important what anyone else thinks.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:50 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:50 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
has anyone actually defined what constitutes 'insurrection'
That's several analytical steps away from what the Court is seeming to focus on, at least initially.
They are always going to look for the threshold issues first, which in this case are at least (1a) state authority over ballot eligibility and (1b) the applicability of Section 3 to POTUS. If they find in favor of Trump on either of those things, they don't have to even get into "insurrection" if they don't want to.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:54 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:50 am to EKG
quote:
That’s winding me up too.
Is this the first time yall have ever watched an Appeal argument?
That's how this works.
This isn't statements or briefs, they already have all that written out.
This is a totally different thing just to get specific questions and arguments out, and sometimes it is a peppering of questions and you have to be as concise as possible
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:51 am to EKG
quote:
The Justices would probably say, “because time constraints;”
Its more "everything the attorneys are saying has been briefed no less than 4 times and we've read them all."
Oral argument is for the justices, not for the parties.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:52 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
That's how this works.
Fair enough.
Doesn’t mean it’s not irritating.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:52 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Oral argument is for the justices, not for the parties.
yup
Sometimes its just to send messages to other Justices as well
Posted on 2/8/24 at 9:55 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Its more "everything the attorneys are saying has been briefed no less than 4 times and we've read them all."
Oral argument is for the justices, not for the parties.
That makes sense, and I appreciate that perspective.
I’d just like to see the Justices allow Mitchell to answer the actual question(s) they pose, irrespective of at what stage we are in the case.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:01 am to Indefatigable
quote:
That's several analytical steps away from what the Court is seeming to focus on, at least initially.
thanx - that seems to be what is happening
but is not the core concern =
"first - is what happened on J6 really an insurrection - under what definition - under what determination - under what action taken in response?
"second - IF there really is a technical finding of 'yes - it was an insurrection' - THEN - did Trump participate in the 'insurrecction' or did he incite the 'insurrection'?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:04 am to EKG
Ketanji Brown Jackson ….
I just can’t with her.
I just can’t with her.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:06 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
That is HIGHLY unusual. I mean...I'm sure one can count on one hand the amount of times this is happened his entire time on the Court.
Thomas has been extremely active in asking questions the last several years. He is probably more active than any other Supreme Court Judge and if you were an attorney you would know that.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 10:07 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:06 am to BearCrocs
quote:First oral argument, eh?
why are the justices not letting the attorney respond in full? They keep cutting him off.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:08 am to MrLSU
I'm watching Good Lawgic on YouTube listening to the arguments (he's 1 of the "LawTube" guys like Rekieta Law)
Not sure what KBJ asked or said exactly but it caught his ear and he said he thinks it's possible she sides with Trump
Not sure what KBJ asked or said exactly but it caught his ear and he said he thinks it's possible she sides with Trump
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:09 am to FearTheFish
So CO has no examples of this being inacted ever at the federal level?
Thomas going in hard on this.
Thomas going in hard on this.
Page 3 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News