- 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: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:37 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Removing the VPOTUS from the equation
Same idea as to why it wouldn’t be wise to have VPOTUS be the officeholder where election certification bottlenecks, right?
3
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:39 pm to boosiebadazz
Posting that case made things real quiet.
I thank Robin Masters for the biggest self-own on the poli board in some time, for linking it (thinking it supported his side).
I mean I found the case example, but had no idea the actual ruling was so strong for my side (even my Double Jeopardy argument).
I thank Robin Masters for the biggest self-own on the poli board in some time, for linking it (thinking it supported his side).
I mean I found the case example, but had no idea the actual ruling was so strong for my side (even my Double Jeopardy argument).
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:40 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Same idea as to why it wouldn’t be wise to have VPOTUS be the officeholder where election certification bottlenecks, right?
My position on Pence’s inability to do anything other than open envelopes is well documented in my post history
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:41 pm to Indefatigable
I don't think boosie was taking a shot at you directly, more adding to your point to make a larger one
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
I thought Robin Masters was legitimately in good faith and confused the other night. I had no idea he was this viciously stupid.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
thank Robin Masters for the biggest self-own on the poli board in some time, for linking it (thinking it supported his side).
I posted it knowing full well what it said. The reason was because the attorneys who won the case made the same argument I was making. An argument you seemed to be treating as ludicrous.
Constitutional scholars agree with me
Alexander Hamilton agrees with me.
If the USSC agreed with you they wouldn’t be hearing the case.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Posting that case made things real quiet.
And the cert denial is found at 103 S.Ct. 1188.
But let’s ignore actual cases that have been litigated by the highest courts in the land. A law professor wrote a law review article!
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:56 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
The reason was because the attorneys who won the case made the same argument I was making.
Literally not true
Posted on 4/29/24 at 12:57 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
boosiebadazz
It’s sad enough being a fake lawyer on a chitchat board but when another one shows up to suck his dick it becomes absolutely tragic.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 1:17 pm to Robin Masters
And even us fake lawyers understand opinions from actual appellate courts.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 1:22 pm to DotBling
quote:
quote:Andrew Weissmann
Is whatever scum is to scum.
Evil POS
Posted on 4/29/24 at 1:28 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
And even us fake lawyers understand opinions from actual appellate courts.
It would appear the USSC doesn’t put too much weight in them.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:A litany of things, as did Roberts' absence from the J6 charade trial.
What else could it imply?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 1:40 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:and yet, we do.
Same idea as to why it wouldn’t be wise to have VPOTUS be the officeholder where election certification bottlenecks, right?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 2:03 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A litany of things, as did Roberts' absence from the J6 charade trial.
And which of those removes the President from the same Constitutional analysis of any other person to which the clause applies, and which Constitutional clause specifically makes this distinction?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 2:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A litany of things
Such as?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:There is no clarifying clause one way or the other.
which Constitutional clause specifically makes this distinction?
There is no precedent, despite your claim to the contrary.
Any ruling would be subject to Constitutional interpretation.
However, as a trial would significantly undermine the president's ability to do his job, (contradistinct from the coequals judicial hierarchical structure, or that of the legislative branch) a trial could therefore hamper the country. So the chance that SCOTUS would simply lump findings in with some generic Judicial Branch treatment is remote to nonexistent.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:07 pm to NC_Tigah
Alexander Hamilton again from the top rope:
Federalist 77
quote:
The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law.
Federalist 77
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:26 pm to Robin Masters
quote:But, but, but, but ... that implies a different treatment for the POTUS vs a no-name federal judge??? Oh my. How totally unexpected.
Alexander Hamilton again from the top rope:
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
However, as a trial would significantly undermine the president's ability to do his job, (contradistinct from the coequals judicial hierarchical structure, or that of the legislative branch) a trial could therefore hamper the country. So the chance that SCOTUS would simply lump findings in with some generic Judicial Branch treatment is remote to nonexistent.
What does this have to do with impeachment, though?
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News