- 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 Rules for Trump
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:04 am to Lsuhoohoo
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:04 am to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
The "national temperature" should have no bearing on the courts writings.
Meh. Tailoring opinions to highlight consensus on politically charged issues is the right track to take, IMO.
1
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:06 am to Fun Bunch
Oy the most severe partisan would have thought the Court would rule against Trump on this. This was showboating by Colorado and a waste of paper in December
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:07 am to KiwiHead
It helped Trump in the Primary, though, and getting this ruling before Super Tuesday helps even more.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:08 am to LSU5508
I thought the new one was gonna blink ,but it was unanimous.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:09 am to LSU5508
I think this was Nancy, Chuck, et al’s setup from the get go. They carefully worded J6 as an insurrection and the MSM parroted the phrase, designed to fit into the Article 3 language to disqualify Trump. Glad this blew up in their faces.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:09 am to Fun Bunch
I can't wait to listen to the next episode of Pod Saves America. Last week they had a segment on the immunity case and their expert (I forget her podcast...Strict Scrutiny maybe) was very smug about the court and Trump. She joked that she wanted the liberal justices to wink to say they're OK and not being held hostage, even.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:10 am to Houag80
quote:
Stupid Fägs in Colorado.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:10 am to KiwiHead
New poster here, so be gentle. SCOTUS got this one absolutely right and even took it a step further by appearing to tell Congress that if Trump is elected in November, they should not use Section 3 as a way to not properly count the electoral votes on Jan 06, 2025 in favor of Trump.
That is at least my early understanding and seems appropriate as there is already buzz growing around that scenario.
I also believe this provides some insight into how they will consider the immunity for POTUS and will again tell Congress that if you want to remove immunity for POTUS actions whilst POTUS is in office, then that begins with impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
Regardless, great day for team Trump and great day for America.
That is at least my early understanding and seems appropriate as there is already buzz growing around that scenario.
I also believe this provides some insight into how they will consider the immunity for POTUS and will again tell Congress that if you want to remove immunity for POTUS actions whilst POTUS is in office, then that begins with impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
Regardless, great day for team Trump and great day for America.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:11 am to LSU5508
quote:
Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Has anyone checked in with the DU? Must be a lot of coping and seething going on over there.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:13 am to flownthecoop
quote:
I also believe this provides some insight into how they will consider the immunity for POTUS and will again tell Congress that if you want to remove immunity for POTUS actions whilst POTUS is in office, then that begins with impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sure, but it's very rare that they take the extra step (hence the "long shot" description). The last time they did this was what, Citizens United?
But that's sort of the inherent problem in thinking you can provide some sort of conventional analysis to something that is indeed COMPLETELY unprecedented.
I think the idea that one can pretend that this stuff is just subject to normal precedential analysis is actually what is most absurd.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:15 am to flownthecoop
Someone go to the Senate and take McConnell and Romney's guns from them ......On second thought
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I can't wait to listen to the next episode of Pod Saves America. Last week they had a segment on the immunity case and their expert (I forget her podcast...Strict Scrutiny maybe) was very smug about the court and Trump. She joked that she wanted the liberal justices to wink to say they're OK and not being held hostage, even.
Political podcasts have been very fun to listen to during this election season
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:19 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
But that's sort of the inherent problem in thinking you can provide some sort of conventional analysis to something that is indeed COMPLETELY unprecedented.
I think the idea that one can pretend that this stuff is just subject to normal precedential analysis is actually what is most absurd.
The issue is there are other arguments/avenues they didn't address. Your point would require an examination of all the potential arguments. That's why the rulings are supposed to be limited.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:19 am to jcaz
quote:
DU will still call this unconstitutional.
They did!
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:20 am to tigersbh
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:20 am to Don Quixote
Anybody check in on the Maine SOS?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:20 am to bluedragon
quote:
I also believe this provides some insight into how they will consider the immunity for POTUS and will again tell Congress that if you want to remove immunity for POTUS actions whilst POTUS is in office, then that begins with impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
I read an article yesterday that a lot of court insiders are very curious about the wording the supreme court used in granting the writ on immunity. They focused on the words official acts which many believe gives Trump a favorable argument and also gives the Court a way to kick it back to the appellate level without really doing anything. That alone would kill all chance of a trial before the election.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 10:22 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:20 am to bluedragon
Romney would be the exact sort to try and make some Section 3 claim when certifying the electoral votes.
McConnell will likely be silenced by the Chicoms before he makes it to Jan 06, 2025 - they are already working on loose ends within his family in preparation for Trump's return to 1600 Pennsylvania.
McConnell will likely be silenced by the Chicoms before he makes it to Jan 06, 2025 - they are already working on loose ends within his family in preparation for Trump's return to 1600 Pennsylvania.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:22 am to LSU5508
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 10:37 am
Page 7 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News