The Supreme Court

Jake from State Farm wrote:Is Ginni Thomas behind door number 6 ?

Cameron wrote:Yet the Republicans manage to get their way when they have less than 60% of the country voting for them. Weird.

It's almost as if being limp-wristed, impotent scolds isn't actually a winning strategy either...

The ruling could also provide a boost to Democrats in their quest to retake the House next year. Rather than using the Republican-drawn lines for the 2024 election cycle, the order paves the way for an independent expert appointed by a panel of federal judges to design the boundaries instead.

steveschneider wrote:Next time there’s an opening they should put Coach Prime on the highest court in the land. Wouldn’t that be something?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday turned his focus to the promise, and shortcomings, of artificial intelligence in the federal courts, in an annual report that made no mention of Supreme Court ethics or legal controversies involving Donald Trump.

Trapper Gus wrote:Better to have Artificial Intelligence than whatever they have been using during the Robert's Court.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday turned his focus to the promise, and shortcomings, of artificial intelligence in the federal courts, in an annual report that made no mention of Supreme Court ethics or legal controversies involving Donald Trump.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-john-roberts-artificial-intelligence-3445b0df1ccf15e1e7ac13476fc935d7

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.

The high court’s decision to intervene, which both sides called for, is the most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore in 2000, when a conservative majority effectively decided the election for Republican George W. Bush. Only Justice Clarence Thomas remains from that court.

The 4-3 Colorado decision cites a ruling by Gorsuch when he was a federal judge in that state. That Gorsuch decision upheld Colorado’s move to strike a naturalized citizen from the state’s presidential ballot because he was born in Guyana and didn’t meet the constitutional requirements to run for office. The court found that Trump likewise doesn’t meet the qualifications due to his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. That day, the Republican president had held a rally outside the White House and exhorted his supporters to “fight like hell” before they walked to the Capitol.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus says No way, states can't carry out the constitution themselves, apparently.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

Jake from State Farm wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus says No way, states can't carry out the constitution themselves, apparently.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

I suppose that was inevitable. States haven't been able to force term limits either on Senators or Representatives running for federal office.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

I suppose that was inevitable. States haven't been able to force term limits either on Senators or Representatives running for federal office.

Indeed, I do believe it should be very "hard" to disqualify someone, but keeping it at the state level is a strong deterrence for this kind of anti American behavior. Making it only enforceable at the federal level effectively destroys the amendment and greatly insulates trump and people like him. Insulates him so much that it is never really an option, never really something that can happen, no matter what he says or does. Sadly, there is no mechanism at all that can reign him in even a little, so long as our politicians will never lift a finger to eat one of their own and so long as trump himself doesn't physically engage in insurrection (i.e. commit actual crimes himself. I'm not yet convinced he would be held to account even then).  Sadly, he can essentially say and provoke whatever he wants now.  As long as he himself isn't doing it. This is going to get so so so much worse now, watch.

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Indeed, I do believe it should be very "hard" to disqualify someone, but keeping it at the state level is a strong deterrence for this kind of anti American behavior. Making it only enforceable at the federal level effectively destroys the amendment and greatly insulates trump and people like him. Insulates him so much that it is never really an option, never really something that can happen, no matter what he says or does. Sadly, there is no mechanism at all that can reign him in even a little, so long as our politicians will never lift a finger to eat one of their own and so long as trump himself doesn't physically engage in insurrection (i.e. commit actual crimes himself. I'm not yet convinced he would be held to account even then).  Sadly, he can essentially say and provoke whatever he wants now.  As long as he himself isn't doing it.  This is going to get so so so much worse now, watch.

As much as I'd like to see DJT go away, I'm not sure enforcing the 14th amendment against someone who has never been convicted of insurrection would be a good idea.  Heck, even the impeachment against him didn't reference insurrection.  Seems like a bad move on the Dems part.

This post in no way implies support for Donald Trump, right leaning conservatives, religious nut jobs, or the Supreme Court.

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Indeed, I do believe it should be very "hard" to disqualify someone, but keeping it at the state level is a strong deterrence for this kind of anti American behavior. Making it only enforceable at the federal level effectively destroys the amendment and greatly insulates trump and people like him. Insulates him so much that it is never really an option, never really something that can happen, no matter what he says or does. Sadly, there is no mechanism at all that can reign him in even a little, so long as our politicians will never lift a finger to eat one of their own and so long as trump himself doesn't physically engage in insurrection (i.e. commit actual crimes himself. I'm not yet convinced he would be held to account even then).  Sadly, he can essentially say and provoke whatever he wants now.  As long as he himself isn't doing it. This is going to get so so so much worse now, watch.

As much as I'd like to see DJT go away, I'm not sure enforcing the 14th amendment against someone who has never been convicted of insurrection would be a good idea. Heck, even the impeachment against him didn't reference insurrection. Seems like a bad move on the Dems part.

This post in no way implies support for Donald Trump, right leaning conservatives, religious nut jobs, or the Supreme Court.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As much as I'd like to see DJT go away, I'm not sure enforcing the 14th amendment against someone who has never been convicted of insurrection would be a good idea. Heck, even the impeachment against him didn't reference insurrection. Seems like a bad move on the Dems part.

This post in no way implies support for Donald Trump, right leaning conservatives, religious nut jobs, or the Supreme Court.

the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist isn't going anywhere as long as the mainstream media is involved, along with the republican/libertarians.

that people somehow delude themselves into believing otherwise, given everything we've witness about human depravity as it relates to christians, the mainstream media and republicans/libertarians, is mind-boggling.

one of these days, maybe a sanitation worker will hose his bloated, drug-addicted sack of rapist christian filth into a sewer.. that'll be a good day for decency.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist isn't going anywhere as long as the mainstream media is involved, along with the republican/libertarians.

that people somehow delude themselves into believing otherwise, given everything we've witness about human depravity as it relates to christians, the mainstream media and republicans/libertarians, is mind-boggling.

one of these days, maybe a sanitation worker will hose his bloated, drug-addicted sack of rapist christian filth into a sewer.. that'll be a good day for decency.

A member of the MSM wishing Donald Trump away would be like Jim Cantore wishing hurricanes would go away.

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Indeed, I do believe it should be very "hard" to disqualify someone, but keeping it at the state level is a strong deterrence for this kind of anti American behavior. Making it only enforceable at the federal level effectively destroys the amendment and greatly insulates trump and people like him. Insulates him so much that it is never really an option, never really something that can happen, no matter what he says or does. Sadly, there is no mechanism at all that can reign him in even a little, so long as our politicians will never lift a finger to eat one of their own and so long as trump himself doesn't physically engage in insurrection (i.e. commit actual crimes himself. I'm not yet convinced he would be held to account even then).  Sadly, he can essentially say and provoke whatever he wants now.  As long as he himself isn't doing it. This is going to get so so so much worse now, watch.

As much as I'd like to see DJT go away, I'm not sure enforcing the 14th amendment against someone who has never been convicted of insurrection would be a good idea. Heck, even the impeachment against him didn't reference insurrection. Seems like a bad move on the Dems part.

This post in no way implies support for Donald Trump, right leaning conservatives, religious nut jobs, or the Supreme Court.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As much as I'd like to see DJT go away, I'm not sure enforcing the 14th amendment against someone who has never been convicted of insurrection would be a good idea. Heck, even the impeachment against him didn't reference insurrection. Seems like a bad move on the Dems part.

This post in no way implies support for Donald Trump, right leaning conservatives, religious nut jobs, or the Supreme Court.

Many of the people barred from office by this amendment were never convicted of insurrection, historically that dog doesn't hunt.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Many of the people barred from office by this amendment were never convicted of insurrection, historically that dog doesn't hunt.

Doesn't mean that was a correct decision, either. But given the "delicacies" of moving past a civil war, I suppose I see the logic. This is a much different situation. The dog may or may not hunt, but it'll run around and bark, for sure.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Doesn't mean that was a correct decision, either.  But given the "delicacies" of moving past a civil war, I suppose I see the logic.  This is a much different situation.  The dog may or may not hunt, but it'll run around and bark, for sure.

As this court keeps proving, the Republican/Conservative commitment to "Originalism" is a lie and a sham.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-v-anderson-fourteenth-amendment-originalism/677636/?gift=j43dmafZti9kgQ5HJxDAVL9P9Mjsci3OSEgSJLdSII4&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As much as I'd like to see DJT go away, I'm not sure enforcing the 14th amendment against someone who has never been convicted of insurrection would be a good idea.  Heck, even the impeachment against him didn't reference insurrection.  Seems like a bad move on the Dems part.

This post in no way implies support for Donald Trump, right leaning conservatives, religious nut jobs, or the Supreme Court.

Many of the people barred from office by this amendment were never convicted of insurrection, historically that dog doesn't hunt.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Many of the people barred from office by this amendment were never convicted of insurrection, historically that dog doesn't hunt.

There was a 2/3 clause that could overturn the disqualification and sometime in the early 1870s there was an amnesty act that superseded the disqualification.   Hence the ability of ex-Confederates to be elected despite the amendment.

Specifically, the 1872 Act removed office-holding disqualifications against most of the secessionists who rebelled in the American Civil War, except for "Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:

There was a 2/3 clause that could overturn the disqualification and sometime in the early 1870s there was an amnesty act that superseded the disqualification.   Hence the ability of ex-Confederates to be elected despite the amendment.

Not so fast, birdbrain...

Specifically, the 1872 Act removed office-holding disqualifications against most of the secessionists who rebelled in the American Civil War, except for "Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."

Of course since this applied to specific people the question can be asked if Trump would qualify under these classes of people.

Well, he is very old and has dementia, but no, his insurrection, as defined by the court cases he lost in Colorado, was not part of the War of Rebellion, which ended in 1865.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Of course since this applied to specific people the question can be asked if Trump would qualify under these classes of people.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Of course since this applied to specific people the question can be asked if Trump would qualify under these classes of people.

Wasn't this question just answered by tSCOTUS? I've been told by Bob and others around here that questioning any court decision is the same as an attack on the Constitution and democracy itself.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Of course since this applied to specific people the question can be asked if Trump would qualify under these classes of people.

Wasn't this question just answered by tSCOTUS?   I've been told by Bob and others around here that questioning any court decision is the same as an attack on the Constitution and democracy itself.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution.

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1857 following the Dred Scott Decisiion:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1896 following the Plessy Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1989 after Carlos DeLuna was executed despite evidence of his innocence:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 2022 following the Dobbs Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution."

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution.

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1857 following the Dred Scott Decisiion:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1896 following the Plessy Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1989 after Carlos DeLuna was executed despite evidence of his innocence:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 2022 following the Dobbs Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution."

DWags wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1857 following the Dred Scott Decisiion:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1896 following the Plessy Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 1989 after Carlos DeLuna was executed despite evidence of his innocence:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution"

Robert J Sakimano as quoted in 2022 following the Dobbs Decision:  "you won't see me arguing with court decisions, which are established in their very foundation by our Constitution."

RQA, you wouldn’t be confusing disagreeing with a court decision based on ethics or morals vs a court decision that was voted on by our peers according to our laws and accepted?

In the one case you sight that was voted on by our peers, you make the strongest case possible for eliminating the death penalty. I for one, think you’re kind of being a snake by trying to hide behind “Zurn “ but I admire your stance on the death penalty.

DWags wrote:

RQA, you wouldn’t be confusing disagreeing with a court decision based on ethics or morals vs a court decision that was  voted on by our peers according to our laws and accepted?  

In the one case you sight that was voted on by our peers, you make the strongest case possible for eliminating the death penalty.   I for one, think you’re kind of being a snake by trying to hide behind “Zurn “ but I admire your stance on the death penalty.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
congrats on paying attention in middle school civics and for making my point.

now let's hear more about your christian hero and his rape conviction and how you plan to overturn it.  

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yeah, I'm not sure he meant for his blinding support of the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist to make him seem anti-death penalty.. - but here we are.

however, I, too, congratulated him on his anti-death penalty stance and have encouraged him to speak to his fellow church goers on the evils of 'murder'.

Trapper Gus wrote:He will be extending that anti-death penalty thing to fertilized eggs and zigots in 5...4...3...2...

Not sure of any logic to that of course because more of those die before much development by that blood thirsty monster sky fairy in the sky than by any human agency...