- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:19 am to udtiger
quote:
Going deeper, imagine the outrage about all of this results in BOTH houses of Congress going to the GOP. The NEW Congress is the one that certifies the Electoral votes. They would be completely justified in refusing to certify the votes of those states, or awarding the Electoral votes to Biden (or the Democrat candidate).
Apparently, Thomas Massie agrees...
LINK
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the court sees the argument as incorrect, it is their job to correct it.
No, it's to reject it. Not correct it.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:21 am to Westbank111
quote:
They will stop at nothing to keep him out of DC.
Except for simply killing him. Y'all believe "they" have killed several people to serve this agenda, now including Scalia.
Why not avoid all of this logistical nightmare and just remove their target?
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 9:22 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:34 am to Dday63
quote:
Except for simply killing him. Y'all believe "they" have killed several people to serve this agenda, now including Scalia.
Why not avoid all of this logistical nightmare and just remove their target?
That's what I never understood. Hillary Clinton has had all these people killed around her over the years but she didn't think to do the same to Donald Trump at any point?
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:37 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
No, it's to reject it. Not correct it.
So if both lawyers make bad argument the court simply doesn't rule?
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:39 am to SlowFlowPro
And now you're chosen to move the goalpost and deflect, rather than address the issue.
Seems totally on brand, I guess.
Seems totally on brand, I guess.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 9:39 am to udtiger
quote:
He just ruled it was a tax under the taxing power granted to Congress. Even though the Dems denied itnwas a tax when it was drafted and the USA expressly denied it was a tax in its briefing and argument.
That wasn't even the example he was citing
And yes, the Obama admin made a political choice to avoid the "tax" issue although it clearly was tax. The tax ruling was better than what the Obama admin was proposing, however, so at least we didn't get that.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:06 am to udtiger
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:12 am to GoblinGuide
quote:
That's what I never understood. Hillary Clinton has had all these people killed around her over the years but she didn't think to do the same to Donald Trump at any point?
There are different ways to kill people.
Look at what has been done to Trump for the last 7 years and tell me there's not an effort to completely and utterly destroy him, his family and his business?
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:16 am to udtiger
If "they" were that powerful they could just kill him.
That's the problem with making these shadow enemies too OP. Any opposition stops making sense pretty quickly (because if they are that powerful, there would be no opposition). You can typically sniff out the egotistical origin of these theories pretty quickly in responses to this logical issue.
That's the problem with making these shadow enemies too OP. Any opposition stops making sense pretty quickly (because if they are that powerful, there would be no opposition). You can typically sniff out the egotistical origin of these theories pretty quickly in responses to this logical issue.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:24 am to udtiger
quote:
There are different ways to kill people.
All of which take infinitely longer and are less efficient than just killing.
quote:
Look at what has been done to Trump for the last 7 years and tell me there's not an effort to completely and utterly destroy him, his family and his business?
It turns out encouraging insurrection comes with its fair share of consequences.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:25 am to GoblinGuide
quote:
quote:
Look at what has been done to Trump for the last 7 years and tell me there's not an effort to completely and utterly destroy him, his family and his business?
It turns out encouraging insurrection comes with its fair share of consequences
You don't math well.
This post was edited on 12/30/23 at 10:47 am
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:31 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
No, it's to reject it. Not correct it.
Exactly. When a judge doesn’t reject an argument, but just invents his own - it causes utter turmoil.
I can handle losing, if I understand why I’m wrong. I just move on to other issues in the case that work for my client or reserve for appeal. 9/10 the parties just need an answer to a question so they can figure out how to try a case or settle. Nothing more endlessly frustrating than a punt by the freaking ref.
Roberta made no effort to explain why the two arguments he rejected were rejected, or why the record necessarily supported his own conclusion.
That Obamacare decision was the biggest rationalization ever, and one of the most intellectually dishonest examples of jurisprudence I can remember reading. Roberta will be anyone to avoid being “the bad guy.” It’s frustrating beyond measure the lengths that man will go to avoid an issue. Making a tough call is basically the man’s job, and he’s never once done it.
It wasn’t his job to rewrite Obamacare- which he did to try to appease everyone - his job was to decide whether Congress had the power to enact it. He dodged the issue and created a fricking mess.
Nobody can count on him to hear a writ in the middle of a controversial proceeding, which is what the CO decision would require him to do. He’d just screw it up anyway, so it’s probably for the best.
I can see the court hearing it if Trump sues and loses in some final opinion, but only then. The Colorado thing was basically drafted to give Roberta the excuse he needed.
He needs to submit a TRO/DJ in Maine FCT as soon as he can. Colorado is useless and there’s been a ruling by the state Supreme Court.
Oh and PS
I LOATHE administrative proceedings like the Maine one. The whole thing is just lip service to due process.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If "they" were that powerful they could just kill him.
Martyrs are immortal. Easier/better to blacken and sully him, drive him to ground and make him kneel.
The fact that Trump isn't doing that is what is driving them insane - because they know they could NEVER withstand a small part of what he has to tolerate on a daily basis.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 11:05 am to Wednesday
quote:
Exactly. When a judge doesn’t reject an argument, but just invents his own - it causes utter turmoil.
Not at the final appellate level
If the lawyers make the wrong arguments, that's on them. Binding a court to either not rule or pick a bad argument, at the final appellate level, is not a +EV system
Posted on 12/30/23 at 11:07 am to udtiger
I think one of the reasons SCOTUS will use is that in Colorado and now Maine, the decision to exclude Trump are solely being made by the opposing political party in power. The Democrats in power in these states are overreaching their authority to dictate who the opposing political party can endorse for elections.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 11:08 am to udtiger
quote:
Martyrs are immortal.
Trump won't be a martyr
The people who support Trump supported: GWB, John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. Maybe even showed they had no personal political compass by flirting with an actual small government proponent for a brief time. They will pick the next flashy thing that comes along that their in-group approves as palatable.
MAGA is going to disintegrate into 1000 shades of pills hocked by all the Trump-adjacent grifters. They will all claim only they pass the MAGA purity test.
Then something new will come along and the same group will just redefine "conservatism" and pretend that they didn't spend years using a different definition previously. Washi, rinse, and repeat.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 11:17 am to udtiger
quote:
Colorado SOS (along with a host of other Dem SOSs) declare that based on the final judgment of the COSC, Trump will be excluded from the ballot. Biden (or Democrat nominee) and lesser qualifying candidates will be the only ones in the ballot. Others (like Maine) follow suit.
Fun fact when you vote for President, you are not voting for the individual. You are voting for a set of electors that will vote for your choice for president.
So it would depend on if Colorado or another that would exclude from the ballot anyone that would vote for Trump as an elector.
Posted on 12/30/23 at 11:17 am to Wednesday
there were 35 states that participated in the 1860 presidential election. 8 Democrat aligned states refused to put Abe Lincoln on the ballot as is being done today. Abe won but the political process holding the nation together was totally destroyed . With the civil war starting a few months later.
This is the national issue for the next 12 months.
This is the national issue for the next 12 months.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News