The Race For 2024

[Elixir]

They did not deny the adjudicated fact that Trump is an insurrectionist

Exactly. THAT is the important part IMO. Their failure to touch the fact finding is consistent with their mandate. Now, should trump win, it will at least force Congressional hearings and hopefully a vote on whether he may serve, given that the fact that he is an insurrectionist has been adjudicated and SCOTUS declined to contest it. Almost certainly to no avail of course, but forcing true colors is a little something..

 

[TSwizzle]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

Yes. We understand that little Johnny. Here’s some bubble gum - why don’t you go outside and play while the adults have a conversation.

LOL. What adults? What conversation? All I see are a few crybaby fascists whining about Trump being allowed on the ballot.

NINE to zero, fella, nine to zero.

You will get the opportunity to show your disapproval of Trump in November.

 

[Elixir]

Trying to cancel out extremism with even more radical counter-measures is how you get an escalating state of intergenerational violence that can never be resolved.

If the alternative is having significant portions of the population incarcerated, deported and disappeared after the illegal installation of a racist despot, I’ll happily risk a one-time violent quelling of the next attempt at violent insurrection. I don’t think using lethal force is great, but the lethality of allowing fascism is far greater.

 

[Copernicus]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

We were talking about the concurrences, which departed from the majority opinion of five justices. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then maybe it's time for you to move on.

Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with the majority over Trump, but admonished the liberals instead​

 

[TSwizzle]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

We were talking about the concurrences, which departed from the majority opinion of five justices. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then maybe it's time for you to move on.

Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with the majority over Trump, but admonished the liberals instead​

“All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” Barrett wrote. “That is the message Americans should take home.”

Nine to zero fella, nine to zero.

I'll leave you to it, I'm tapping out

 

[Shadowy Man]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

Yes. We understand that little Johnny. Here’s some bubble gum - why don’t you go outside and play while the adults have a conversation.

LOL. What adults? What conversation? All I see are a few crybaby fascists whining about Trump being allowed on the ballot.

I know that’s all you see. That’s my point.

NINE to zero, fella, nine to zero.

You will get the opportunity to show your disapproval of Trump in November.

Indeed I will. And one can only hope that Trump and his supporters will abide by the scoreboard. But since they did not the last time I won’t hold out hope that they will this time.

 

[TomC]

“All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” Barrett wrote. “That is the message Americans should take home.”

I agree with Barrett. The current SCOTUS cannot be trusted when the political issues involved impact their top patron, ex-president Trump.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Yeah, it's not a football match. There are actual, real world, consequences of judicial decisions, beyond "The supporters of the team in the red Gurnseys get bragging rights, and anyone who bet on the Blue team loses their money".

Your crowing would make sense in a sports context, where the only real difference between the teams is the colours they wear.

This is not that context, and that you are apparently unable to see beyond the petty tribalism of a game your side has won, has me embarrassed for you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

We were talking about the concurrences, which departed from the majority opinion of five justices. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then maybe it's time for you to move on.

Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with the majority over Trump, but admonished the liberals instead​

“All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” Barrett wrote. “That is the message Americans should take home.”

Nine to zero fella, nine to zero.

I'll leave you to it, I'm tapping out

And, importantly, right before she said that she said this:

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 Presidental election. Particularly, in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.

Which indicates pretty clearly that they were making a politically-minded opinion and not a purely legal one.

The Court had a conclusion first, and chose a legal reasoning to support that, rather than let their interpretations of the Constitution lead them to a conclusion.

That it was a unanimous decision further amplifies the political nature of the decision, as the concurrence by the liberal justices reads more like a dissent but exposes them to a similar political culpability that the conservatives tend not to care about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We were talking about the concurrences, which departed from the majority opinion of five justices. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then maybe it's time for you to move on.

Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with the majority over Trump, but admonished the liberals instead​

“All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” Barrett wrote. “That is the message Americans should take home.”

Nine to zero fella, nine to zero.

I'll leave you to it, I'm tapping out

Are you really leaving them to it, when you keep parroting the same thing over and over? The right-wing conservative majority somehow turned a 9-0 case into a 5-4 one. And that is what some are speaking on here.

The funny thing is that the arguments made by Trump's lawyers weren't used at all by anyone. It is almost like they suck as lawyers.

 

[TSwizzle]

And, importantly, right before she said that she said this: {snip}

The most important part and what actually counts is “All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case”

Not five to four.

Not six to three.

Not even eight to one.

NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

I've moved on. Maybe you will too one day.

I'll let the adults continue with their whining, I'm tapping out.

 

[Elixir]

Barrett: 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 Presidental election. Particularly, in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.

Which indicates pretty clearly that they were making a politically-minded opinion and not a purely legal one.

It reeks of fear to me. She (like the others) is terrified that Trump might see her as an ingrate and make mention of it to some of his thugs.
Intimidation is Trump's only stock in trade, which is why James, Smith, Chutkin - all those who aren't intimidated by his thugs and bluster, freak him out so badly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 Presidental election. Particularly, in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.

Which indicates pretty clearly that they were making a politically-minded opinion and not a purely legal one.

It was 9-0. The liberals on the bench explained why they were part of the 9-0 and it wasn't unreasonable.

The Court had a conclusion first, and chose a legal reasoning to support that, rather than let their interpretations of the Constitution lead them to a conclusion.

For the 5-4 ruling, yes, not the 9-0 ruling.

That it was a unanimous decision further amplifies the political nature of the decision, as the concurrence by the liberal justices reads more like a dissent but exposes them to a similar political culpability that the conservatives tend not to care about.

It was 9-0 because it needed to be 9-0. Also, the case law and other aspects to this and the general basics of federalism required it to be. This was never going to work.

 

[laughing dog]

It isn't a bad ruling.

Wouldn’t be a nice change to get a good ruling? IMO, that is a reasonable standard for a SCOTUS decision.

 

[Elixir]

This was never going to work.

Right about that. 9-0 was a face-saving political "decision" to not address how the underlying set of facts related to the plain text of the Constitution. But the facts and the text remain, and may come into play at a later date.
So, two good things:
* the fact that it leaves Republitards with the LOSER on their ticket, and
* they in no way assailed the finding of fact, that Trump is an insurrectionist.

Party on, Swiz!

 

[Shadowy Man]

, I'm tapping out.

thank God!

 

[TSwizzle]

, I'm tapping out.

thank God!

NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

PSYCH!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Tapping out for realz now.

I'll see myself out.

 

[Shadowy Man]

, I'm tapping out.

thank God!

NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

PSYCH!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Tapping out for realz now.

I'll see myself out.

Haha. You couldn’t resist. Thought you tapped out. You just need the attention that trolling us gives you.

How’s that bubble gum tasting, little Johnny? I don’t expect an answer because you have tapped out “for realz” now and won’t be checking up on this thread anymore.

Sheesh….

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm tapping out.

thank God!

NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

PSYCH!!

Nothing worse than an unfunny post laughing at itself.

But feel free to post Nine to zero like Giuliani kept saying 9/11. It in no way appears trite.

 

[lpetrich]

Haley faces growing third-party speculation | The Hill

The group No Labels has said it would be open to the possibility of Haley leading its ticket as it scrambles to find a candidate to top its ticket.

Haley, for her part, has brushed off the No Labels speculation, arguing her place is in the Republican Party. She is also coming off her first primary victory after winning the GOP nominating contest in Washington, D.C. on Sunday.

That will be fun - splitting the Republican vote.