- 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 11:37 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:37 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Assuming facts not in evidence.
Uh...incorrect. 100%.
This is 100% civil litigation.
And the legal scheme being used is the Colorado election code.
2
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
With what, exactly?
TDS and other mental illnesses
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:38 am to Mickey Goldmill
no one ever is, bro.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:38 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Wait!
"innocent until proven guilty" is just silly
In a civil trial dealing with a novel claim, one is guilty until proven innocent?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
yes but they are using a federal crime as the DQ'ing condition.
why do you keep ignoring this?
why do you keep ignoring this?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:39 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I would absolutely love for another Republican to be the nominee so I could vote for them.
Simple question, no punting.
Who is the worse person, Biden or Trump?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In a civil trial dealing with a novel claim, one is guilty until proven innocent?
No.
"guilty" and "innocent" are not terms used in civil trials.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:39 am to dgnx6
quote:FIFY
mickey is a blew no matter who guy.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:39 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Definitely not a communist and I would absolutely love for another Republican to be the nominee so I could vote for them.
We know, you voted Biden last time, you'll vote for him again.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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)
And... this is why everyone on the board knows you are an idiot. Thanks for confirming
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
Kagan sure seemed to think Colorado overstepped its authority.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:In which insurrection, unestablished and outside the CO jurisdiction, is the requisite foundation.
And the legal scheme being used is the Colorado election code.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:40 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I would absolutely love for another Republican to be the nominee so I could vote for them.
Ah. The no true Scotsman fallacy.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:41 am to teke184
quote:So did the non-biologist.
Kagan sure seemed to think Colorado overstepped its authority.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:41 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
why do you keep ignoring this?
I'm not.
The Colorado Election code is (potentially, but likely) bound by the 14A. That's not relevant to that particular discussion (civil v. criminal litigation and terms).
The opinion gets into the CO Election code in some detail. Too much to post-quote.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
now you are just making Murrays case. LOL
and stop trying to be the arbiter of whats being discussed in this thread.
and stop trying to be the arbiter of whats being discussed in this thread.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 11:43 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:43 am to teke184
quote:
Kagan sure seemed to think Colorado overstepped its authority.
I said a while back I wouldn't be shocked if Kagan went with the 6 conservative justices.
Sontamayor and Jackson....they're more likely to bend towards partisanship.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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)
Strictly speaking, yes. However, the facts of the case tread heavily on determination of a criminal action and tiptoes right up to federal law. While the SC *can* do whatever they want in terms of how much rationale and descriptive language they use in the decision, I would imagine some of them can’t wait to slap down the NGO and the CO SOS for their “novel” arguments before the court. To do so, I see them addressing the issues that overlap with federal law and criminal law (how do we determine someone is a insurrectionist).
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:43 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Ah. The no true Scotsman fallacy.
This is Mickey we're talking about.
You misspelled "phallusy"....
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:43 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Ah. The no true Scotsman fallacy.
Not at all. I was told I vote blue no matter what. Absolutely not the case. I'm just not voting for trump.
Page 11 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News