- 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 11:29 am to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:29 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
listened to the entire proceeding and never argued for Colorado's posistion here at all.
It never gets old to see the mob demand adherence to emotional-rage responses, and anything but that means you support the worst interpretation of their perceived enemy.
3
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:30 am to dafif
Look for Haley to drop out this weekend.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:30 am to dafif
quote:
SFP
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:30 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
simply said this wasn't a criminal trial so using "innocent until proven guilty" is just silly when trying to make a point.
You realize insurrection is a federally defined crime right?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Dude is ate up
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:31 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
no one on the planet has brought these charges.
Why would they even discuss this, within my hypo?
I'm saying they can dismiss this suit without getting into ANY of that...anything relating to the concept of "insurrection"
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It never gets old to see the mob demand adherence to emotional-rage responses, and anything but that means you support the worst interpretation of their perceived enemy.
Every single time
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:32 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
Dude is ate up
With what, exactly?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
With what, exactly?
TDS
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
With what, exactly?
TDS
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
I’d imagine the shame of being a groomer
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:33 am to dafif
quote:
You realize insurrection is a federally defined crime right?
And? This was neither a criminal nor federal litigation.
The issue is a civil-administrative determination of Colorado law (and judicial interpretations of that state law)
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 11:34 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It never gets old to see the mob demand adherence to emotional-rage responses, and anything but that means you support the worst interpretation of their perceived enemy.
Lol you and mickey have def pushed media lies about trump on here.
You are a never trumper, mickey is a communist and a vote blue no matter who guy.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:34 am to jbdawgs03
quote:
I’d imagine the shame of being a groomer
Wait what?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:34 am to dgnx6
quote:
Lol you and mickey have def pushed media lies about trump on here.
Which "media lies" did I push about Trump?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:35 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
TDS
Explain the application of "TDS" to this:
quote:
There was a trial and the Supreme Court overruled the trial court and made the determination.
There was no finding of "guilty" as this was a civil issue (eligibility for running for office) and not a criminal issue.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:35 am to Mickey Goldmill
you are once again missing the point.
The absence of charges reinforces the point justices were making about who gets to decide who is DQ'd and by what objective legal standards? What legal recourse exists for the candidate? No one needs to be charged with being too young to run for example, yet there needs to be a clear and objective legal definition qualifying age somewhere. And insurrection is a federal crime, so why use this crime as the basis if its not charged?
The absence of charges reinforces the point justices were making about who gets to decide who is DQ'd and by what objective legal standards? What legal recourse exists for the candidate? No one needs to be charged with being too young to run for example, yet there needs to be a clear and objective legal definition qualifying age somewhere. And insurrection is a federal crime, so why use this crime as the basis if its not charged?
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 11:38 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Assuming facts not in evidence.
The issue is a civil-administrative determination of Colorado law
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
Sorry that was for Mickey
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:37 am to dgnx6
quote:
mickey is a communist and a vote blue no matter who guy.
Definitely not a communist and I would absolutely love for another Republican to be the nominee so I could vote for them.
Page 10 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News