- 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 11:17 am to Lsut81
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:17 am to Lsut81
Interesting how they just let the CO rep off the hook and stopped asking questions.
I guess it became obvious that since she is tied to CO and nothing here is really going after the CO process itself, there was little reason to badger her.
I guess it became obvious that since she is tied to CO and nothing here is really going after the CO process itself, there was little reason to badger her.
1
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:18 am to Corso
quote:
I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure this has been said, but isn't this as simple as how can you penalize somebody who hasn't been found guilty? Wouldn't this clearly violate innocent until proven guilty? This seems like a judge giving a defendant 20 years at the arraignment
This isn't a criminal trial.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:19 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
This isn't a criminal trial.
Even in a civil trial, the standard still applies ...
But you're not smart enough to understand this.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:20 am to AmishSamurai
Done and over...
8-1 or 9-0
8-1 or 9-0
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:20 am to BHTiger
quote:
This woman gonna get blown up.
After Alito got finished with her, she sounded like she started gargling peanut butter.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:20 am to Mickey Goldmill
Court is adjourned.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:20 am to laxtonto
quote:
Interesting how they just let the CO rep off the hook and stopped asking questions.
They heard enough of this bullshite, it is lunch time.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:20 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:21 am to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:21 am to AmishSamurai
quote:
Even in a civil trial, the standard still applies ...
But there was a civil trial.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:23 am to Corso
quote:
how can you penalize somebody who hasn't been found guilty?
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 11:25 am to AmishSamurai
he doesnt care about the law. hes solidly for lawfare against people he disagrees with.
In any event, you can tell he didnt listen to the arguments. The justices referenced over and over again; what legal underpinnings does CO have for DQ'ing Trump for an insurrection that he hasnt been charged with under any state's definitions of such? What stops a state judge or SOS from unilaterally DQ'ing a candidate for whatever reason they choose? The states cart is solidly before its horse.
In any event, you can tell he didnt listen to the arguments. The justices referenced over and over again; what legal underpinnings does CO have for DQ'ing Trump for an insurrection that he hasnt been charged with under any state's definitions of such? What stops a state judge or SOS from unilaterally DQ'ing a candidate for whatever reason they choose? The states cart is solidly before its horse.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:26 am to SlowFlowPro
there still needs to be an objective and consistent definition of the disqualifying condition.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:26 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The justices referenced over and over again; what legal underpinnings does CO have for DQ'ing Trump for an insurrection that he hasnt been charged with under any state's definitions of such?
That is a different argument than pointing out the fact that the CO case is a civil case that had a civil trial.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:27 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
there still needs to be an objective and consistent definition of the disqualifying condition.
The problem is Congress has not passed a law currently in effect to do so. That's their mandate from the Amendment.
The Court can dismiss the CO suit without creating this definition, also.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:27 am to SlowFlowPro
you better let the SCOTUS know then, because even the dem tokens took issue with it.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:28 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
he doesnt care about the law. hes solidly for lawfare against people he disagrees with.
In any event, you can tell he didnt listen to the arguments. The justices referenced over and over again; what legal underpinnings does CO have for DQ'ing Trump for an insurrection that he hasnt been charged with under any state's definitions of such? What stops a state judge or SOS from unilaterally DQ'ing a candidate for whatever reason they choose? The states cart is solidly before its horse.
lol. I listened to the entire proceeding and never argued for Colorado's posistion here at all. I simply said this wasn't a criminal trial so using "innocent until proven guilty" is just silly when trying to make a point.
Try harder next time
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:28 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
you better let the SCOTUS know then, because even the dem tokens took issue with it.
Stating a fact (the case/trial was civil) is not stating an opinion (a civil case/trial was Constitutional)
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
here 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.
My God man, just stop already. You are an obnoxious blowhard that, based on what I've seen you write, adds zero to this board.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Court can dismiss the CO suit without creating this definition, also.
and it will. without entertaining the latter, likely because no one on the planet has brought these charges.
Page 9 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News