- 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: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:29 am to LSU5508
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:29 am to LSU5508
Tuned in to MSDNC for the melt. 
“There’s a lot of danger in how the court ruled on this”.
9-0 MFers.
They now saying SCOTUS is interfering in the election.
Yeah - it’s SCOTUS. Not the states. Not Jack Smith.
“There’s a lot of danger in how the court ruled on this”.
9-0 MFers.
They now saying SCOTUS is interfering in the election.
Yeah - it’s SCOTUS. Not the states. Not Jack Smith.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 9:58 am
0
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:29 am to bluedragon
quote:
CNN is about to go into the tank .....
Call their legal idiots and demand their money back.
Even Elie Honig was on there saying this wouldn't hold up.
I think even the left MSM knew this was a bridge too far. It came back to bite them too. The per curiam went farther than it had to, and not in the favor of the States.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:30 am to bluedragon
quote:
CNN is about to go into the tank .....
Call their legal idiots and demand their money back.
Is Joy Reid now eating crow this morning?
The View will have the "Vapors" to day
I have a feeling the story will not be talked about that much in TDS circles today.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:31 am to Nosevens
quote:
Not that I enjoy this statement but SFP was on the same thought that it wasn’t going to hold up in keeping OMB off ballot
But he specifically rejected the argument that was the ultimate basis of decision.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:31 am to LSU5508
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:31 am to udtiger
quote:
A certain Pro that is all about a Flo that is Slow thought otherwise.
Eh, the argument that he wasn't an "officer" is still a strong one (it's what won at the district court level).
I will never presume that the USSC will break protocol and add another layer of unnecessary analysis, b/c that only happens in like 1/1000 casess.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:31 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The per curiam went farther than it had to, and not in the favor of the States.
This is what happens when “novel legal theory” loses. New limits come up to limit stupid shite in the future.
Like putting a blunt “do not eat” label on something clearly inedible because some dumbass did it and sued.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:31 am to Wednesday
quote:
This is why they will ultimately lose.
no, they will ultimately win. they are normalizing lawfare and all of this chaos knowing that the Supreme Court as it is today is, in the grand scheme of things, temporary. eventually it will be lost to the Leftists, and this is how they will "legally" usher in single party rule.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:31 am to udtiger
quote:
But he specifically rejected the argument that was the ultimate basis of decision.
I don't think so. What SFP, myself and others were saying was that the whole "impeachment and removal only" theory wasn't going to fly.
That's not what the Court said.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 9:33 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:32 am to udtiger
quote:
But he specifically rejected the argument that was the ultimate basis of decision.
I played the odds and the longshot won. 2-outers on the river happen about 5% of the time, too (and I have lost to those as well)
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:32 am to teke184
quote:
This is what happens when “novel legal theory” loses. New limits come up to limit stupid shite in the future.
Yep.
The liberal concurrence is full of sadness that they couldn't find a way to outright dissent
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:33 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I don't think so. What SFP, myself and others were saying was that the whole "impeachment and removal only" theory wasn't going to fly.
Yes.
I was also with you about the officer issue being the most likely win.
I straight up made the argument about lacking Congressional statutes as well, to counter the "impeachment and removal" silliness, however.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:33 am to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
9-0!
did not expect that
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I was also with you about the officer issue being the most likely win.
I'm guessing that is one of the referenced "other reasons" from the per curiam, but they wanted a unanimous decision and settled on the one issue all nine concurred with.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I played the odds and the longshot won.
What?
Were there really odd on this besides your own?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:34 am to LSU5508
These Dem Underground people (most liberals, really) are so mixed up in the head.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:34 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Yep.
The liberal concurrence is full of sadness that they couldn't find a way to outright dissent
that was the funniest part to me.
Talk about dissenting without dissenting
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:35 am to GumboPot
quote:
Were there really odd on this besides your own?
The USSC added a layer of analysis that was not needed and VERY rarely happens. I bet they wouldn't do this.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:36 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I'm guessing that is one of the referenced "other reasons" from the per curiam, but they wanted a unanimous decision and settled on the one issue all nine concurred with.
I will also wager since this was 9-0, and clearly the court was pushing their apolitical existence (the unusual timing), they didn't wax poetic like I thought they would.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:36 am to tigersbh
Their TDS rants never contain substance and examples but contain tremendous projection.
Page 4 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News