- 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: SCOTUS oral arguments on Trump vs Colorado
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:48 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:48 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
His supporters are so unhinged, I'm afraid that anything short of that will turn them loose on the country.
Say when.
1
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:51 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Are you saying the democrat inspired George Floyd riots never happened and that’s just a figment of imagination?
People like you will be the first ones against the wall when the real radicals take over
People like you will be the first ones against the wall when the real radicals take over
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:52 am to Bourre
quote:
People like you will be the first ones against the wall when the real radicals take over
Useful idiots tend to be some of the first to go when new people take over.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:52 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
To say, "But they do it too!" isn't not a valid refutation.
They almost exclusively do it, and don't come back with Jan 6 as that likely would have never gotten violent if not for Antifa and Feds in the crowd escalating everything.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:53 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Both the House and the Senate voted to impeach Trump for inciting an insurrection. They just didn't have the two-thirds required to censure him.
That second sentence is sorta important. You may as well claim that they voted to override a veto, they just didn't have the numbers to override the veto.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:54 am to Flats
“He got charged with murder… he just didn’t get convicted because there was a hung jury.”
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:56 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:There is the progressive I know you are.
Besides, your post is avoiding the point. To say, "But they do it too!" isn't not a valid refutation.
Like I posted in a previous thread, why you act like people on here are not aware of your political views after so many years is funny.
Also, this isn’t even a “they did it too” argument.
Can I have an example of Republican riots that destroyed cities?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:57 am to Bourre
quote:
Are you saying the democrat inspired George Floyd riots never happened and that’s just a figment of imagination?
No. Can you provide a link to where I did?
What I implied was, the Floyd riots have nothing to do with whether Trump should be on the ballot or not. Why is this so hard to understand?
quote:
People like you
And people like you are the ones who always act first, think later, and have deep regrets for their actions.
Welcome to the Patriot Act.
But all I'm saying is that Trump's case looks weak to me. Is that really some kind of outrageous statement?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:00 am to PsychTiger
quote:
don't come back with Jan 6
January 6.
quote:
would have never gotten violent if not for Antifa and Feds in the crowd
It's pathetic that you people actually believe this.
Regardless of all that, I still think you people would go apeshit if either Trump were not allowed to win, or lost the race. Other riots notwithstanding.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:00 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
But all I'm saying is that Trump's case looks weak to me. Is that really some kind of outrageous statement?
No, White T-Privilege, it's "wish-casting".
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:03 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm not so sure it is a good case. Their claim about Trump not being an "officer" seems pretty thin to me.
bruh
This is one of the easiest cases of all time, should be 9-0.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:12 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Trump's team is trying to say that only an appointed official who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution can be an "officer of the United States", while elected officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution cannot.
That's in line with SCOTUS jurisprudence on who is an "officer of the United States" for other purposes in the Constitution, such as for appointments, etc., is it not?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:18 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Wild- are you always this pathetically ignorant or is today a special day?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:18 am to Scruffy
quote:
Like I posted in a previous thread, why you act like people on here are not aware of your political views after so many years is funny.
I'll tell you what's funny, no one except me is actually trying to discuss the topic of the thread. It's just a bunch of whataboutism and name-calling.
quote:
Also, this isn’t even a “they did it too” argument.
What isn't? I'm not aware of you making any actual argument, or even valid point, ITT.
quote:
Can I have an example of Republican riots that destroyed cities?
First you need to provide examples of cities "destroyed" by Democratic riots.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:19 am to dafif
quote:
Wild- are you always this pathetically ignorant or is today a special day?
That's what this board seems to be all about, just a bunch of kids trying out-cute each other.
Too bad no one cares to actually have a meaningful discussion.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:21 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Too bad no one cares to actually have a meaningful discussion.
Ok, answer this: what gives the states the right to take away a constitutional right ?
Explain your answer in the context of this specific case.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:23 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
But all I'm saying is that Trump's case looks weak to me. Is that really some kind of outrageous statement?
Yes it is. It's void of all legal knowledge.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:23 am to ForeverGator
quote:The Supreme Court could always do that.
But the Supreme Court can go against its own precedent nowadays, so it's not a surprise.
That's how we got from Plessy to Brown and from Roe to Dobbs.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:49 am to Indefatigable
quote:
That's in line with SCOTUS jurisprudence on who is an "officer of the United States" for other purposes in the Constitution, such as for appointments, etc., is it not?
In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, it states:
Article II, § 1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. . . ." This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.
LINK
ETA:
The Postal Act of 1799:
“And be it further enacted, That letters and packets to and from the following officers of the United States, shall be received and conveyed by post, free of postage. Each postmaster, provided each of his letters or packets shall not exceed half an ounce in weight; each member of the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States; the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of House of Representatives, provided each letter or packet shall not exceed two ounces in weight, and during their actual attendance in any session of Congress, and twenty days after such session; the President of the United States; Vice President; the Secretary of the Treasury...”
LINK
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:53 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Both the House and the Senate voted to impeach Trump for inciting an insurrection. They just didn't have the two-thirds required to censure him.
Yes. In other words he was acquitted of Muh Insurrection, and has not otherwise been charged with it. In my mind this is the biggest reason that 14th amendment sham doesn’t work.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News