- 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 9:36 am to tigersbh
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:36 am to tigersbh
Reminds me of an old SNL skit on Weekend Update.
The White House supposedly received a bunch of letters from kindergarten aged kids and published them.
The first one is a long empty letter full of flowery speech to say “Republicans aren’t fair” and ends with “PS, Paula Jones was asking for it.”
The second one reads “Newt Gingrich is a BAD BAD MAN! PS, Paula Jones was asking for it.”
The White House supposedly received a bunch of letters from kindergarten aged kids and published them.
The first one is a long empty letter full of flowery speech to say “Republicans aren’t fair” and ends with “PS, Paula Jones was asking for it.”
The second one reads “Newt Gingrich is a BAD BAD MAN! PS, Paula Jones was asking for it.”
0
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I will never presume that the USSC will break protocol and add another layer of unnecessary analysis,
LOL, what?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:36 am to LSU5508
Do you think the CO SC feels any shame to be bitch slapped 9-0?
I thinks not
I thinks not
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:37 am to rt3
quote:
With lowest regards
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:38 am to LSU5508
So mad he’s not even typing anything legible!
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:39 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
48% of the 58 decisions.
quote:
So more than 1-2?
48% is less than 1-2.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:40 am to tigersbh
quote:
that otange fat fool is their freakin' leader.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 9:40 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:40 am to tigersbh
“You are the ones who are the ball lickers!” - Jay the drug dealer
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:41 am to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
48% is less than 1-2.
I thought he meant "one or two," not "one of two."
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:41 am to LSU5508
This is far better reasoning than I recall from the Colorado dissenters. Barrett (and to a lesser extent the liberal justices) may have a point that the majority opinion decides more than it needed to, but this is still a 9-0 decision and all justices agree that a state cannot enforce Article 3. This is a good day and decision for our republic!
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:41 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
LOL, what?
I'm reading now, but I can just quote ACB to explain:
quote:
I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:43 am to LegalEazyE
quote:
Now the Secretary of State and any government official in Colorado who supported that BS should be immediately stripped of office... for blatant subversion of the Constitution and right to vote in free/fair elections.
Wouldn’t thier actions be “election interference”? If so I wonder if the DoJ will open a case? Maybe send an FBI swat team to their house at 5AM with CNN in tow!
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:44 am to LSU5508
Wow a 9-0 sweep.
DU will still call this unconstitutional.
DU will still call this unconstitutional.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
I reject the idea that they are somehow addressing an additional "complicated question" here.
I submit they are simply stating what is inherent in the rationale of actually reaching the decision that there is no way a state can unilaterally determine such a thing.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:48 am to Y.A. Tittle
Sure, but it's very rare that they take the extra step (hence the "long shot" description). The last time they did this was what, Citizens United?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:50 am to Paddyshack
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Sorry about this loss. You’ll get some wins soon.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:51 am to SlowFlowPro
Barrett's full concurrence:
quote:
I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced. The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 9:52 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 9:51 am to roadGator
quote:
Sorry about this loss. You’ll get some wins soon.
What?
Page 5 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News