- 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: Supreme Court agrees to review Trump’s Colorado ballot ban in historic case
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:34 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:34 am to BamaAtl
quote:
But the right to attempt to overthrow the government is not protected, and excludes anyone who does it (or offers aid/comfort to those who did) from running for federal office again.
I see you woke up just as dumb as you went to bed.
0
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:37 am to BamaAtl
quote:You've been eviscerated on that idiotic claim. Yet you raise it again?
But the right to attempt to overthrow the government is not protected,
Is this some form of internet-related NSSID?
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:40 am to BamaAtl
quote:
But the right to attempt to overthrow the government is not protected
Going to have a long hill to climb to prove any relevance with this statement. But I'm sure you have your evidence lined up, right?
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:44 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Who was convicted of impeachment?
A lot of people have been over the years.
We are discussing Constitutional interpretation, so hypotheticals are allowed.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:47 am to BamaAtl
quote:
But the right to attempt to overthrow the government is not protected
Who was attempting to overthrow the government? You are doubling down on stupid again this morning.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:47 am to jatilen
I’m surprised they didn’t turn it down and say “no standing”.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:52 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Unconstitutional electoral processes
---
Which did not occur
Of course it did. Those facts are not even in dispute.
quote:They weren't lost. They were malignantly avoided. i.e., the courts claimed plaintiffs had "no standing". Courts maintained that stance for over 2 1/2 yrs until it was established on review that their rulings were FOS. Of course by then though, there was no "remedy."
dozens of lawsuits that MAGA lost in court.
quote:It did though. That is why Congress closed it several months later.
This loophole didn't exist
Apparently you missed that little detail, or Don Lemon was too busy feeding you other things to pass it on.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 8:59 am to Indefatigable
quote:
office UNDER the United States” and “officer OF the United States” are not the same thing. And I’m thinking you’re aware of that distinction.
There is no need to be cryptic and accusatory.
Just say, "Yes, I believe 'office under the United Ststes' only applies to appointed positions, and therefore the emoluments clause and the impeachment disqualification clause do not apply to any elected officials."
Why make everyone play guessing games?
Posted on 1/6/24 at 9:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
But the right to attempt to overthrow the government is not protected,
You've been eviscerated on that idiotic claim.
The problem is you think your feelings override the Constitution. You've constantly been reminded that they don't, so I'll remind you again.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 9:59 am to jatilen
Doesn’t the electoral college already solve this issue, technically the electors can choose whomever they want to be president.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
dozens of lawsuits that MAGA lost in court.
They weren't lost.
And Bama didn't lose on Monday, we just ran out of time. Same outcome, a loss is a loss no matter how you go about it.
quote:
This loophole didn't exist
It did though. That is why Congress closed it several months later.
That Congress took action to fortify language to ensure that you and your insurrectionist buddies don't try the same "one neat trick" in 2025 doesn't mean that your attempt 3 years ago today was any more legal at the time.
The Vice President did not have the power to overturn the election because he didn't like the outcome. No matter how many times you say that, you won't be right.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:43 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Which did not occur - everything in the 2020 election was legal, per the dozens of lawsuits that MAGA lost in court.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagrees. And since all we need is one state Supreme Court to make a finding, per your standard, we can say the election was not conducted legally.
Game, set, match. Moron.
This post was edited on 1/6/24 at 10:44 am
Posted on 1/6/24 at 10:48 am to VOR
quote:
If they follow originalism and textuali, Trump loses.
What cha smoking to get dem crazy notions?
Posted on 1/6/24 at 11:57 am to BamaAtl
quote:Correct.
The Vice President did not have the power to overturn the election
No one has made that claim.
The VP had the power to send the result to the House.
VP capacity in the EC rules allowed it.
The House had power to hear arguments contained in TX v PA. The House had the power to render a correct electoral result, whatever it may have determined such a correct result to have been. All Constitutional, all legal, despite what your CNN cretins may have told you.
Congressional rule changes in Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act confirm the validity of legitimate belief that there was an enabling VP EC loophole to work with.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Vice President did not have the power to overturn the election
Correct.
No one has made that claim.
Except Trump, hundreds of times.
quote:
The VP had the power to send the result to the House.
He did not - there were no disputes about electoral votes that needed adjudication.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:19 pm to BamaAtl
Still waiting pussy. Bet on Trump appearing on the ballot. :)
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:35 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Negative.
Except Trump, hundreds of times.
quote:Irrelevant, and even if it was relevant, it's complete bullshite. TX v PA was demonstrative of that. Nonetheless, the only relevant fact is that Pence did not have to open envelopes of disputed states. Adjudication would then be addressed by the House.
He did not - there were no disputes about electoral votes that needed adjudication.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:38 pm to BamaAtl
It took many many years, but I have officially found the craziest person on tigerdroppings.com.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Except Trump, hundreds of times.
Negative.
"If only Mike Pence would do the right thing..."
Once again, your feelings attempt to override facts.
quote:
the only relevant fact is that Pence did not have to open envelopes of disputed states.
The more relevant fact is that no states were disputed. Every state only sent one slate of electors, duly chosen pursuant to state law. There was no dispute outside of Trump's mind and the minds of those gullible enough to follow him - and that isn't the speck of enough to overthrow our government.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 1:53 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
There was no dispute outside of Trump's mind
You are agreeing that Trump believes he won.
Good, that's part of his defense.
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News