- 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 10:10 am to EKG
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:10 am to EKG
I'm baffled that the outcome of an entire Presidential election hinges on a fricking lawsuit by a single woman in Colorado with TDS and is based on a criminal charge that never took place.
Is this the threat to democracy we've been hearing about?
Is this the threat to democracy we've been hearing about?
2
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:11 am to FearTheFish
FYI, the current attorney:
Jason Murray — Olson Grimsley
quote:
Jason clerked for Honorable Justice Elena Kagan of the U.S. Supreme Court and Honorable Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit. Jason graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2011, after earning a B.A. in Political Science and Government from Harvard University in 2008.
Jason Murray — Olson Grimsley
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:11 am to EKG
Thomas in boss mode
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:12 am to GeauxGutsy
Thomas and now Roberts going in hard on him... Roberts now saying that the 14th doesn't give the states the right to bar someone.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:13 am to Lsut81
Chief Justice Roberts Justice Thomas and now Justice kavanagh given this guy a constitutional lesson I don't know what the liberal justices will argue
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:15 am to windhamtiger
Yeah, Kavanaugh asking basically "who gets to decide whats insurrection and whether someone is guilty of it"
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:16 am to windhamtiger
Kagan:
“The question you need to answer is why a single state gets to answer who the President of the United States is.”
“The question you need to answer is why a single state gets to answer who the President of the United States is.”
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:16 am to Lsut81
Kagan and Barrett are voting for Trump based on these questions.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:18 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
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'?
No, at least not from my perspective. The first questions are the ones I posed in my prior post. The questions you pose are only relevant if Colorado had the authority to make the decision AND the 14th Section 3 applies to Trump. Only then do the 'merits' of their decision come into play.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:19 am to EKG
quote:
Kagan:
“The question you need to answer is why a single state gets to answer who the President of the United States is.”
And that's why the national popular vote movement will end up failing... b/c too few states would end up determining POTUS
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:19 am to MrLSU
Trump winning seems evident given the arguments.
What I’m wondering about is what precedents will be set from this going forward.
States will be unable to DQ someone. What about a federal government where the incumbent declares his opponents insurgents?
What I’m wondering about is what precedents will be set from this going forward.
States will be unable to DQ someone. What about a federal government where the incumbent declares his opponents insurgents?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:19 am to Scruffy
quote:
This is a watershed moment.
If states can choose who they allow to run for federal office, this could get wildly out of hand.
If it is upheld, Texas should prevent Biden from running for president within the state.
If states want the ability to determine who can run for state office, so be it.
They can choose “how” elections should be run within their states, but the concept of them choosing “who” can run for federal office is out of the question.
It would be another step toward balkanization. Nobody wants that big picture speaking.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:21 am to Lsut81
Gorsuch is hammering Murray right now.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:24 am to EKG
quote:
“The question you need to answer is why a single state gets to answer who the President of the United States is.”
The only question that matters. This should have never even gone on this long
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:24 am to teke184
quote:
What about a federal government where the incumbent declares his opponents insurgents?
There’s a word for that: dictatorship.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:25 am to teke184
quote:
What I’m wondering about is what precedents will be set from this going forward.
It certainly opens the door up for uniform Ballot laws and standards as opposed to each state making their own ballot counting measures which can disenfranchise other states.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:25 am to Godfather1
It gets a fresh coat of paint when it is a donkey doing it.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:26 am to Lsut81
When this is all finished I can guarantee you this Jason Murray cat is going to wish he would have never taken this argument on I mean he is being reamed in my opinion
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:26 am to teke184
this Murray guy seems smart but in way over his head.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:27 am to Vacherie Saint
Roberts is working this kid over 
Page 4 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News