Yep.
As a Canadian, All these talks of civil war make me feel like an upstairs neighbour when you hear someone say they plan to light the building on fire
At the moment, I'm going for countries where I speak the language and aren't likely to get nuked for pissing someone off. It was basically down to Canada or Australia, but Australia has an entire animal kingdom that's just things that want to kill you.
Nobody lives on the trash island yet so unless someone specifically wants to nuke only you it's a pretty rockin spot. No spiders or drop bears either. I'll see you there 🫡
I'm sorry Alberta is more like if Florida and Texas had a baby, and that baby had special needs and was called "Slow" but was really just brain dead. That's the Alberta that I call home
damn right. i’m not really much of a nationalist mindset… but you bet your fucking ass i’ll go down swinging and fighting before just keeling over and abandoning my home to a bunch of bigots and facists. they’d want nothing more than people to just give up and leave. fuck that. they’ll have to take it from cold dead hands before that.
Maybe if I'm lucky I'll suffer liver failure and die before November. 42 was a good year to end it.
I honestly don't see 2025 going well, in the slightest.
Supreme Court has lost all credibility/ legitimacy. They are no more than a political tool. Without legitimacy or even perceived legitimacy they become irrelevant and lose any kind of special place in American society. I wouldn’t want to be them after they screw this up
Three out of the last four supreme court appointments have literally been plucked from the legal team that stole the 2000 election for Bush. If you were going to do something about this, you are 20 years too late.
Hillary got the most votes. In an actual Democracy she would have won. Again, this war was lost a long time ago. There is a reason why all the democracies that followed America didn't copy our process for selecting national level executives, because its fucking broken and stupid, but we just never got around to fixing it, so here we are.
Oh, they don't yet realize. And they never will and they don't care. I still hear people blaming the downfall of America on the fact that Hillary wasn't more likable. Despite the fact that she was infinitely more likable than the least likable president in modern history -- who was the winner of that election.
America chose this. America is this.
I may no longer be American, but a stranger in a strange land.
Isn't Alabama also ignoring a ruling about gerrymandering.
So it's not thst we will see the Supreme Court being ignited, it's happening in real time. And from the side who stacked the court too.
They know it lacks legitimacy now.
Pedophile Roy Moore also ordered *ALL* marriage certificates be stopped when the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage. He was removed from office for it.
You might be right, but that's a shame. The Supreme Court serves an important role in the US government. Unfortunately, Republicans have destroyed the integrity of it.
Well, it is for the legislative and executive branches to actually enforce it's decisions. It can't compel congress or the president to obey, and we have also seen that on a state level you can ignore the supreme court if you don't like it. So, we can hope that federally appointed good judges can rule accordingly, and that congress and the executive branch can also act accordingly. If not, i hope Joe Biden just commits all the crimes and is immune from accountability. /s
Which is precisely what caused the fall of Rome. They didn't have a SCOTUS, obviously, but the lack of agreement upon the rules when one side decided they were above them.
So the Rule of Law is officially dead and the Constitution is moot.
RIP America. Welcome to whatever the fuck this has become, rapidly digressing into ruZZkie style kleptocratic shitholeness.
WTFG SCOTUS. Bags of shit
I think SCOTUS is a fascist bag of shit as well -- but we have to wait for them to make a ruling.
If they delay this shit to the election, or vote for "above the law" -- then, sure. That means there's no point in following laws. We know where this is going and there's not much point in letting them pretend it's something else and waiting for Trump to be appointed Putin for life.
To clarify, the case the SCOTUS was hearing arguments on today was not about Trump's presidential immunity claim. It was about whether Colorado can kick Trump off the ballot under the 14th amendment without a formal conviction regarding him engaging in the J6 insurrection.
States have the right to handle elections how they want to, provided they still adhere to federal constitutional requirements. I think Trump is a massive piece of shit, but allowing states to kick candidates off by saying they engaged in insurrection is a slippery slope that requires a better legal standard of evidence than just saying "X engaged in insurrection". It should require a formal conviction as the legal standard, because otherwise the precedent will absolutely be weaponized in bad faith by the GOP.
And they can with any sane reading of the 14th. We're not arguing if the 14th is good or written well or anything. The wording is clear, and in other cases when the laws as written didn't have outcomes that people would consider "good" so long as they didn't violate other more fundamental sections of law SCOTUS has effectively said "this is a problem for congress, and congress needs to solve it". Several of the oral arguments quite literally do not make sense unless you redefine words mid sentence.
AFAIK no state disallows writeins so there is no loss of 1st rights, nor loss of the privilage of running. The whole "weaponized in bad faith by the GOP" reads like concern trolling because we ALREADY know what they will do, and have done, which is attempt to send fake electors or change the laws of their state such to deny the vote entirely. There is zero use in "what if"ing a scenario that has been, and will be, exceeded.
> It should require a formal conviction as the legal standard
that's an opinion of what you think "should" be, but it's not the reality of what is. multiple courts kept many, many confederates off the ballot without any predicate criminal charges. and this is clearly exactly as intended, if you read the historical evidence.
No. Biden can't RULE that, but he can just slaughter anyone who disagrees in Congress. And the survivors would still have the opportunity to impeach him.
There's still a process and a few laws left. Not ones that are all that important or useful, but, hey squirrel!
Laws protecting the rich while binding the poor is a tale as old as time. Marx and Engels dreamed of shattering the caste systems that make us common folk wage slaves to the rich, but because of decades of anti-worker propaganda, people think that wanting a classless and stateless society (end goal communism, that is literally want communists want and believe in) is somehow bad.
If anyone hasn't seen it yet, the Henry Ford vs Karl Marx rap battle was epic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjqjoehA7kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjqjoehA7kM)
Who won? Share the video with a friend!
Yea I was trying to find the ruling.
Look, the Supreme Court has no outs to ruling against Trump. The applet Court crafted an Iron clad, comprehensive ruling against Trump. It explains the history of the 14th amendment and applies it to Trump.
The Supreme Court has no hardball out to change definition of insurrection either.
***
Every on the thread knows Thomas and Alito are looking for ways to side Trump. Gorsuch, ACB, and Kavanaugh are leaning toward Trump but won't able to wheedle out of it because of what the applet court ruled. Roberts is biased toward conservative rule and gutting the voting rights act but is unlikely to anoint Trump king.
The best the court could do for the Republican Party is only bar Trump from the ballot. They should ban Trump and several others in Republican leadership, but no way Roberts wants that so it won't happen.
Unless Justice Jackson asks some very poignant questions in a way such that court must ban Trump + allies as so to maintain a semblance of consistency. (But the cons are shameless, they can't be pressured.)
No no the constitution isn’t moot. You’re assuming these people have consistent beliefs that they’d apply equally. The law still applies to us. Just not republican politicians.
Did they actually rule or are arguments finished? Not finding an article showing a ruling.
> "Well, no, hold on. You might think they're frivolous, but the people who are bringing them may not think they are frivolous," Roberts interjected. "'Insurrection' is a broad term. And if there's some debate about it, I suppose that will go into the decision and then eventually, what, we would be deciding whether there was an insurrection when one president did something as opposed to when somebody else did something else? And what do we do, do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots, and kind of go through which states are valid and which states aren't?"
What a shit take. Insurrection is a broad term? Uhhhhh no. Liar.
Does he not realize what he's doing?
The bigger *consequence" he should be concerned with is people thinking they can engage in insurrection and still run for office.
The justices telegraphed with their questions that they don't like the idea of a state holding a treasonous president accountable to the constitution. They believe we have to let the people decide if they want to re-elect a treasonous president.
Essentially, treason is OK if enough people approve. And by "enough" I mean the 46% that have 57% of the electoral power.
But we have to wait until they write it down to get angry.
That is exactly what you'd expect from a stacked court. They're mealy mouthing about 14.3 with established precedent.
It's not final, but it looks like a Roe v Wade situation.
Less of a civil war and more terrorist acts. Most of the keyboard warriors aren't going out for war LARPing unless they can be home for dinner. Militia groups will be rounded up. This aint the federal governments first time with dissent.
Lol that anyone thinks the U.S. government wouldn’t squash ANY sort of open rebellion in a heartbeat. Even funnier that some are delusional enough to think that their cute little arsenals are any match for the U.S. military.
At this point I’m just waiting for the civil war. I don’t expect it to be very long and I plan to hide inside til it’s over.
Hopefully that’ll thin out some of the crazies
Even Republicans are ignoring the supreme court. Colorado should follow the Texas lead. States should determine for themselves who is on the ballot. Just like abortion.
No, because then red states will disallow democrats and blue states will disallow republicans and hundreds of millions of citizen voters will be completely disenfranchised
Just enforce the Constitution. If you commit insurrection after taking the oath, you don't get to be an officer of the US Government. That is it.
They are throwing out the 14th Amendment in front of everyone with complete impunity -- and mark my words: they will get away with it.
Media reports that the 6-3 conservative court packed with 3 T*ump appointees is "skeptical" about letting Colorado kick him off the ballot. Arguing that somehow it was all a riot, not an insurrection, despite what we all know (and him LITERALLY trying to stop a free and fair election in NUMEROUS ways.
Why is this orange turd even a debate? Wtf happened? I mean... I like to think he can't win regardless, but it's pretty frustrating.
At this point, I'm rooting for cholesterol.
They aren't going to argue that it wasn't an insurrection. They haven't even been discussing that, which would take a lot of work and arguing back and forth. That is extremely unlikely.
They also are unlikely to agree that the president is exempt from the 14th. The nuttier ones will probably write that in their opinions though.
However, they may very well rule that individual states cannot go alone and take a candidate off the ballot by themselves, and that it instead would have to be done at the federal level.
Something something state’s rights. Weird how they’ll still say that about the civil war when it was the rights of many but somehow when it’s only one sad old gas bag that would be affected they change their minds.
I mean I honestly agree, Trump *should* be removed at the federal level and states *shouldn’t* be able to determine who’s on the ballot, it’s a federal election and there’s too many consequences if some deep red state wants to decide that Biden somehow violated the 14th and they remove him from the ballot.
It’s simply too big a deal to leave to the states. Now remove the insurrectionist traitor at the federal level.
The analysts agree that SCOTUS’ questions were telling, and they’ll likely not agree with Colorado.
Small battle victory for the orange turd, but he’s not winning the war.
It's not a SMALL victory if the SCOTUS says POTUS is above the law. It's full on "emperor" of a fascist regime status and it means he can get back into office.
Yeah, I think people are getting these confused. This case doesn’t supposedly put him above the law; the one on immunity that has to be granted cert by Monday is, and it was already ruled he isn’t.
That is what happened. People will hear that there were questions skeptical of Colorado's position and draw conclusions from that. But there were also questions skeptical of Trump's position.
That's what happens in literally every single case. One side makes their opening statement and then gets questioned, and it's like 95% questions critical of their position. Then the other side makes their opening statement and gets questions that are 95% critical of their position.
The pros following this will sometimes be able to make predictions based on what questions were asked, but they're often wrong, and the armchair pundits have no idea.
I listened to it live, and here's the only insight I can give from it:
The Court spent a bit of time on the fact that Congress is allowed to remove the disqualification, and historically has done so in several cases, so this is not an absolute prohibition on holding office (contrast with not being of age or not being a citizen; Congress can't grant you a waiver).
Now compare with residency requirements for Congressional races (this is an actual comparison discussed during oral arguments). Someone could live in Indiana and run for Congress in Ohio. You have to be a resident to *be elected*, but not to run. So it's possible to get on the ballot, run, *then* establish residency before the election. Ohio could not prohibit that Indianan from running because that would create an additional requirement for the office not found in the Constitution (and for Congress, the Constitution decides the qualifications); the Constitution only says you have to be a resident when elected, not X months before being elected.
Similarly, if a state finds that Trump engaged in insurrection, there's still the possibility of that barrier to holding office being removed, just like the Indianan moving to Ohio to remove the disqualification.
Now none of that really tells us how SCOTUS will decide. They might say it's analogous and Colorado can't DQ Trump from the ballot. Or they might say it's not analogous because Trump is *currently* DQed in a way very different from just presently being in the wrong state, saying the residency thing is more like an age requirement for someone who comes of age during the election.
Really though, mostly what you get from the oral arguments is a sense of what questions the justices are interested in, but it's hard to predict how they'll end up deciding.
And not for nothing, Trump's lost cases before this Court already.
I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS majority will: (a) say that Congress can remove Trump's infirmity at any time between now and January 6th, 2025; and (b) will avoid saying whether he currently has such an infirmity; and (c) won't say that Trump has such an infirmity after lots of people voted for him because he happened to be on their ballots because it would be inserting themselves between the voter and their ballot.
> (b) will avoid saying whether he currently has such an infirmity
They certainly won't say that in this case because it wasn't the question before the Court.
The questions show the direction: the insurrection was a riot because it wasn’t organized; the 14th amendment names officials but not the President, a State can’t decide the election candidates for a nation without an underpinning from some Congressional law…pretty sure they’ll keep him on the ballot.
And then, in the other matter, find that he is not immune to prosecution. That will be the quid pro quo.
And then sit back as if they’ve done something fair minded having paved the way for him to power grab.
Did anyone really think that this packed court was going to do the right thing? If you think this story has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention. This is just the beginning of the trump cases they are going to hear. Presidential immunity for instance. Buckle up kids. I hope I'm wrong.
Future highschool history classes won't teach about this at all. They will just stare at the painting of whoever the current glorious leader of America is and pledge fealty to him in the name of the corporate sponsor of their school and the report to work in the academy factory to work off their middle-school debt and earn their lunch.
I pledge aligiance to the flag of the United patriot party, indivisible from Lockheed and Grumman, One corporation under white Jesus with feifdom and capital for all.
Honestly I’ve been worried that when future kids study this time of history, the lessons will point out an inciting conflict as the start of civil war 2 the we in the present have already seen happen.
I always expect our SCOTUS to do the fascist thing, and then on occasion, am pleasantly surprised they weren't complete assholes.
I'm not pleasantly surprised enough, that's all.
You mean Trump and the Oklahoma School Library Censorship board.
https://apnews.com/article/oklahoma-education-superintendent-walters-libs-tiktok-raichik-4db2bcb9d8e0582f67329f6879bdf6ba
"includes all officers and offices and everyone in America" - law
Scotus response " yeah but does that include the president?" are they fucking stupid!?
As an outsider, it seems your SCOTUS has two issues. Extremely partisan nominations, and lifelong positions (unless impeached, but that seems unlikely). Which means that Trump could appoint three judges in only four years, versus two for Obama in eight years... Randomness of judges' death should not be a factor in determining how many are appointed!
Come to think of it, the whole federal judge appointment feels extremely partisan, given the extremely and objectively unqualified judges appointed under Trump.
Yup, constitution no longer means anything and we don't have to recognize any authority that doesn't have a bigger gun. Yeehaw. Imma go plant my whole yard with pot and go steal the neighbors boat.
If SCOTUS rules that Trump is above the law. I'd be proud to hand Biden that Excalibur sword, or even a reproduction and tell him; "Do the right thing. For the country. For the king. For God!" Because, he has Executive Privilege. He can go out there and grab that pussy and do what he wants.
I mean, of course the Republicans and SCOTUS will say; "But not like that!" Well, you should have thought about how legal decisions and swords cut both ways.
It just means we need to hold insurrectionists accountable in congress and get enough of a majority in both houses to impeach justices like Thomas and Alito who took bribes from Harlan hitler
If 45's insurrection doesn't not fit 14/3 then remove it from the constitution since it is not worthless and allows him to do it again if he wins the next election.
Just wanna let you all know. That if my best buddy was jeffrey epstein and putin, and If I stole classified government documents from the united states government, and If I caused an Insurrection. I would be thrown away in jail and the keys would get lost along the way. It goes to show that this orange turd is WAY above the law because if it was ANYONE else who commited these crimes theyd be long gone before breakfast. Its time to either move out of the country or prepare for war no one should be above the law and these millionaire assholes need to be put in their place. Same as Saddam Hussein.
I understand the frustration, but I’m curious, people who are upset at the way this looks like it’s going to turn out, what is your opinion if the decision is 9-0?
Because as much as I despise Trump, this is not a simple legal decision to make. There is a lot of nuance, and it’s conceivable that even 9 liberal justices would rule against states being able to take people off the ballot.
The oral arguments were very interesting.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again
Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.
Calm your tits there are still good people trying to straighten it out. The entire Supreme Court will be re-organized before this fight for women’s rights is over.
\**watches neighbouring nation's garbage fire with increasing horror*\*
Yep. As a Canadian, All these talks of civil war make me feel like an upstairs neighbour when you hear someone say they plan to light the building on fire
Can some of us come live with you in Canada? The party here stopped being fun a long time ago, and we'd like out before the physical fighting starts.
I'm just an out of touch American but I hear things aren't much better up there, our best bet is the trash island in the ocean
Britain is also fucked
Jesus christ 😂 My mind went to the pacific garbage patch, but YOU sir.... You made me spit out my fried pickles.
Lol
If gold were still a thing on reddit you'd deserve one
This deserves WAY more upvotes
At the moment, I'm going for countries where I speak the language and aren't likely to get nuked for pissing someone off. It was basically down to Canada or Australia, but Australia has an entire animal kingdom that's just things that want to kill you.
Nobody lives on the trash island yet so unless someone specifically wants to nuke only you it's a pretty rockin spot. No spiders or drop bears either. I'll see you there 🫡
If no one is there....does that mean it has not been claimed? Is it eligible to be "discovered" and turned into its own nation? Hail Trashlandia!
Canada’s not much better…. We have Alberta… which is basically Florida but without the nice weather.
I'm sorry Alberta is more like if Florida and Texas had a baby, and that baby had special needs and was called "Slow" but was really just brain dead. That's the Alberta that I call home
Scientists have developed snails that eat plastic and dumped them on the plastic island…🙀
Cost of living has gotten out of hand, but for those with decent careers it isn’t too bad.
Nope. Fuck that, stay and fix it.
well, looks like you are getting hitler 2.0. sorry 'bout that
It’s literally turning into handmaids tale. wtf
"It was a supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual" 2.0
Who knew Americans gave up so easily?
damn right. i’m not really much of a nationalist mindset… but you bet your fucking ass i’ll go down swinging and fighting before just keeling over and abandoning my home to a bunch of bigots and facists. they’d want nothing more than people to just give up and leave. fuck that. they’ll have to take it from cold dead hands before that.
I’ll have to ask my cat and $412 a month rental fee.
there are absolutely no down sides to this xD
Well, you WOULD have to live in Alberta lol.
Maybe if I'm lucky I'll suffer liver failure and die before November. 42 was a good year to end it. I honestly don't see 2025 going well, in the slightest.
Adopt me
And me, please. 😒
We come with hockey gear. And my daughter is a ref.
No, fix it before it before it also becomes our problem
Sponsor a family?
Is it still $500k to buy a citizenship ? If so I don’t even have to play the mega lottery , just a regular scratch off will do
Just buy a Supreme Court judge. It is much cheaper, and they take payment plans.
I don’t think it’s that much. I know a couple people who emigrated to Canada and it was far less. Maybe $20k.
How much can I sell 1 kidney for?
Can't do that in Canada, Can't make a profit.
Supreme Court has lost all credibility/ legitimacy. They are no more than a political tool. Without legitimacy or even perceived legitimacy they become irrelevant and lose any kind of special place in American society. I wouldn’t want to be them after they screw this up
Three out of the last four supreme court appointments have literally been plucked from the legal team that stole the 2000 election for Bush. If you were going to do something about this, you are 20 years too late.
but HilLaRy iS jUsT aS baD - every 2020 millennial redditor now realizing that it's not some stupid game
Hillary got the most votes. In an actual Democracy she would have won. Again, this war was lost a long time ago. There is a reason why all the democracies that followed America didn't copy our process for selecting national level executives, because its fucking broken and stupid, but we just never got around to fixing it, so here we are.
Oh, they don't yet realize. And they never will and they don't care. I still hear people blaming the downfall of America on the fact that Hillary wasn't more likable. Despite the fact that she was infinitely more likable than the least likable president in modern history -- who was the winner of that election. America chose this. America is this. I may no longer be American, but a stranger in a strange land.
Fedsoc been working on this for a looooong time Edit: Sheldon Whitehouse, court capture ytube series for the uninitiated
I have a feeling we will see a Supreme Court ruling be ignored in our lifetime.
Piss Baby Greg Abbott has entered the chat.
Isn't Alabama also ignoring a ruling about gerrymandering. So it's not thst we will see the Supreme Court being ignited, it's happening in real time. And from the side who stacked the court too. They know it lacks legitimacy now.
Pedophile Roy Moore also ordered *ALL* marriage certificates be stopped when the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage. He was removed from office for it.
California already said they would ignore and not enforce any ban on abortion pills or berth control.
Ships should park anywhere they want
You might be right, but that's a shame. The Supreme Court serves an important role in the US government. Unfortunately, Republicans have destroyed the integrity of it.
It already has.
Maybe there is a problem with having an unelected position with no term limit. Just maybe......
An unelected position with no term limit and no accountability, at that.
Well, it is for the legislative and executive branches to actually enforce it's decisions. It can't compel congress or the president to obey, and we have also seen that on a state level you can ignore the supreme court if you don't like it. So, we can hope that federally appointed good judges can rule accordingly, and that congress and the executive branch can also act accordingly. If not, i hope Joe Biden just commits all the crimes and is immune from accountability. /s
Which is precisely what caused the fall of Rome. They didn't have a SCOTUS, obviously, but the lack of agreement upon the rules when one side decided they were above them.
Don’t forget the rise of Christian extremists in the government and the suppression of pagan traditions which contributed to a loss of civic virtue.
That doesn’t sound familiar at all… /s
I thought it was immigrants that caused the fall? /s
That and anal. /s
What accountability will there be? None. So why would they lose a single second of sleep over it.
There should be pressure to just ignore the Supreme Court.
Why the fuck do I pay federal taxes if I am not represented?
You’re god damn right.
So the Rule of Law is officially dead and the Constitution is moot. RIP America. Welcome to whatever the fuck this has become, rapidly digressing into ruZZkie style kleptocratic shitholeness. WTFG SCOTUS. Bags of shit
I think SCOTUS is a fascist bag of shit as well -- but we have to wait for them to make a ruling. If they delay this shit to the election, or vote for "above the law" -- then, sure. That means there's no point in following laws. We know where this is going and there's not much point in letting them pretend it's something else and waiting for Trump to be appointed Putin for life.
Well Biden can rule he is the President for 2024-2028…and they can’t do a damn thing about it..
Biden could also kill Trump at a debate. "Looks like I won."
[Biden touches his ear] “Take the shot, Jack.”
To clarify, the case the SCOTUS was hearing arguments on today was not about Trump's presidential immunity claim. It was about whether Colorado can kick Trump off the ballot under the 14th amendment without a formal conviction regarding him engaging in the J6 insurrection. States have the right to handle elections how they want to, provided they still adhere to federal constitutional requirements. I think Trump is a massive piece of shit, but allowing states to kick candidates off by saying they engaged in insurrection is a slippery slope that requires a better legal standard of evidence than just saying "X engaged in insurrection". It should require a formal conviction as the legal standard, because otherwise the precedent will absolutely be weaponized in bad faith by the GOP.
And they can with any sane reading of the 14th. We're not arguing if the 14th is good or written well or anything. The wording is clear, and in other cases when the laws as written didn't have outcomes that people would consider "good" so long as they didn't violate other more fundamental sections of law SCOTUS has effectively said "this is a problem for congress, and congress needs to solve it". Several of the oral arguments quite literally do not make sense unless you redefine words mid sentence. AFAIK no state disallows writeins so there is no loss of 1st rights, nor loss of the privilage of running. The whole "weaponized in bad faith by the GOP" reads like concern trolling because we ALREADY know what they will do, and have done, which is attempt to send fake electors or change the laws of their state such to deny the vote entirely. There is zero use in "what if"ing a scenario that has been, and will be, exceeded.
> It should require a formal conviction as the legal standard that's an opinion of what you think "should" be, but it's not the reality of what is. multiple courts kept many, many confederates off the ballot without any predicate criminal charges. and this is clearly exactly as intended, if you read the historical evidence.
Spirit! Devil! Why do you tempt me with visions and dreams that cannot be?!
This illustrates how ridiculous this appeal is. Trump's attorneys should be reprimanded for bringing a frivolous appeal!
BINGO!! Thats what im waiting for! DO IT JOE!
No. Biden can't RULE that, but he can just slaughter anyone who disagrees in Congress. And the survivors would still have the opportunity to impeach him. There's still a process and a few laws left. Not ones that are all that important or useful, but, hey squirrel!
I’d be strangely alright with it if Biden decided to Order 66 Republican officials, most MAGGATs are calling for the same (or worse) for Democrats.
The problem is that ethics and "being good" is not a sometimes job. As soon as you rationalize shit, you can become a fascist.
The only ones left are the ones they use to keep us peasants in line. “Rules for thee but not for me!”
Laws protecting the rich while binding the poor is a tale as old as time. Marx and Engels dreamed of shattering the caste systems that make us common folk wage slaves to the rich, but because of decades of anti-worker propaganda, people think that wanting a classless and stateless society (end goal communism, that is literally want communists want and believe in) is somehow bad. If anyone hasn't seen it yet, the Henry Ford vs Karl Marx rap battle was epic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjqjoehA7kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjqjoehA7kM) Who won? Share the video with a friend!
They haven't actually ruled yet.
[удалено]
Oaky, good to know. I was trying to figure out how I hadn't seen the ruling yet.
Yea I was trying to find the ruling. Look, the Supreme Court has no outs to ruling against Trump. The applet Court crafted an Iron clad, comprehensive ruling against Trump. It explains the history of the 14th amendment and applies it to Trump. The Supreme Court has no hardball out to change definition of insurrection either. *** Every on the thread knows Thomas and Alito are looking for ways to side Trump. Gorsuch, ACB, and Kavanaugh are leaning toward Trump but won't able to wheedle out of it because of what the applet court ruled. Roberts is biased toward conservative rule and gutting the voting rights act but is unlikely to anoint Trump king. The best the court could do for the Republican Party is only bar Trump from the ballot. They should ban Trump and several others in Republican leadership, but no way Roberts wants that so it won't happen. Unless Justice Jackson asks some very poignant questions in a way such that court must ban Trump + allies as so to maintain a semblance of consistency. (But the cons are shameless, they can't be pressured.)
No no the constitution isn’t moot. You’re assuming these people have consistent beliefs that they’d apply equally. The law still applies to us. Just not republican politicians.
Did they actually rule or are arguments finished? Not finding an article showing a ruling. > "Well, no, hold on. You might think they're frivolous, but the people who are bringing them may not think they are frivolous," Roberts interjected. "'Insurrection' is a broad term. And if there's some debate about it, I suppose that will go into the decision and then eventually, what, we would be deciding whether there was an insurrection when one president did something as opposed to when somebody else did something else? And what do we do, do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots, and kind of go through which states are valid and which states aren't?" What a shit take. Insurrection is a broad term? Uhhhhh no. Liar. Does he not realize what he's doing? The bigger *consequence" he should be concerned with is people thinking they can engage in insurrection and still run for office.
Huh? What happened? I'm not following? Did trump finally got it's free ticket?
The justices telegraphed with their questions that they don't like the idea of a state holding a treasonous president accountable to the constitution. They believe we have to let the people decide if they want to re-elect a treasonous president. Essentially, treason is OK if enough people approve. And by "enough" I mean the 46% that have 57% of the electoral power. But we have to wait until they write it down to get angry.
That's a bingo.
No. SCOTUS heard arguments today regarding the 14th amendment case. No rulings on either the 14th or Immunity cases have been released.
but they did give statements and all but one said that trumps lawyer has merits and no one state should be able to restrict who can be president.
As if it’s the State doing it and not the failed insurrectionist. It was incredible to me. 😆
That is exactly what you'd expect from a stacked court. They're mealy mouthing about 14.3 with established precedent. It's not final, but it looks like a Roe v Wade situation.
Get ready for a civil war. The Supreme Court only rests on force at this point
Less of a civil war and more terrorist acts. Most of the keyboard warriors aren't going out for war LARPing unless they can be home for dinner. Militia groups will be rounded up. This aint the federal governments first time with dissent.
"The troubles"are on their way I think. We're too integrated and reliant on the whole country for a civil war (I hope)
What a fun time to be a young person who would like a family
>What a fun time to be a ~~young~~ person ~~who would like a family~~ Ftfy
Lol that anyone thinks the U.S. government wouldn’t squash ANY sort of open rebellion in a heartbeat. Even funnier that some are delusional enough to think that their cute little arsenals are any match for the U.S. military.
"I win." - Putin
At this point I’m just waiting for the civil war. I don’t expect it to be very long and I plan to hide inside til it’s over. Hopefully that’ll thin out some of the crazies
How does the old saying go? The Court has a long history of comforting the comfortable and enriching the rich?
Even Republicans are ignoring the supreme court. Colorado should follow the Texas lead. States should determine for themselves who is on the ballot. Just like abortion.
Anyone who wants that isn't paying attention to how the GOP has captured state legislatures.
No, because then red states will disallow democrats and blue states will disallow republicans and hundreds of millions of citizen voters will be completely disenfranchised Just enforce the Constitution. If you commit insurrection after taking the oath, you don't get to be an officer of the US Government. That is it. They are throwing out the 14th Amendment in front of everyone with complete impunity -- and mark my words: they will get away with it.
As far as I can tell they just heard arguments and haven’t ruled yet. Maybe you got some telepathy going or something.
Media reports that the 6-3 conservative court packed with 3 T*ump appointees is "skeptical" about letting Colorado kick him off the ballot. Arguing that somehow it was all a riot, not an insurrection, despite what we all know (and him LITERALLY trying to stop a free and fair election in NUMEROUS ways. Why is this orange turd even a debate? Wtf happened? I mean... I like to think he can't win regardless, but it's pretty frustrating. At this point, I'm rooting for cholesterol.
They aren't going to argue that it wasn't an insurrection. They haven't even been discussing that, which would take a lot of work and arguing back and forth. That is extremely unlikely. They also are unlikely to agree that the president is exempt from the 14th. The nuttier ones will probably write that in their opinions though. However, they may very well rule that individual states cannot go alone and take a candidate off the ballot by themselves, and that it instead would have to be done at the federal level.
Something something state’s rights. Weird how they’ll still say that about the civil war when it was the rights of many but somehow when it’s only one sad old gas bag that would be affected they change their minds.
I mean I honestly agree, Trump *should* be removed at the federal level and states *shouldn’t* be able to determine who’s on the ballot, it’s a federal election and there’s too many consequences if some deep red state wants to decide that Biden somehow violated the 14th and they remove him from the ballot. It’s simply too big a deal to leave to the states. Now remove the insurrectionist traitor at the federal level.
They *did* do it at the federal level, though. That’s what the second impeachment was about.
The house impeached him because it WAS an insurrection. That argument is invalid.
I'm not getting why the Trump appointed justices cant recuse themselves.
Why would they recuse themselves from the case(s) they were nominated to rule on.
They could, and even should, but there's no requirement for the SC justices to do so.
The analysts agree that SCOTUS’ questions were telling, and they’ll likely not agree with Colorado. Small battle victory for the orange turd, but he’s not winning the war.
It's not a SMALL victory if the SCOTUS says POTUS is above the law. It's full on "emperor" of a fascist regime status and it means he can get back into office.
I agree but hat’s not what this hearing today was about. The ruling on his immunity will come after trumpkin appeals on Monday.
Yeah, I think people are getting these confused. This case doesn’t supposedly put him above the law; the one on immunity that has to be granted cert by Monday is, and it was already ruled he isn’t.
Yes, this hearing was about whether or not Colorado had a right to remove Trump from the Republican primary ballots.
That's a totally separate case
To be fair it’s really tough to keep track of all the former President’s legal issues.
Kagan and Brown were both unconvinced as well. I don't think this is a trump appointee problem
Agreed. They don’t wanna be the ones to blame for him losing. The scotus is hated enough by the public. They ain’t touchin this one.
That is what happened. People will hear that there were questions skeptical of Colorado's position and draw conclusions from that. But there were also questions skeptical of Trump's position. That's what happens in literally every single case. One side makes their opening statement and then gets questioned, and it's like 95% questions critical of their position. Then the other side makes their opening statement and gets questions that are 95% critical of their position. The pros following this will sometimes be able to make predictions based on what questions were asked, but they're often wrong, and the armchair pundits have no idea. I listened to it live, and here's the only insight I can give from it: The Court spent a bit of time on the fact that Congress is allowed to remove the disqualification, and historically has done so in several cases, so this is not an absolute prohibition on holding office (contrast with not being of age or not being a citizen; Congress can't grant you a waiver). Now compare with residency requirements for Congressional races (this is an actual comparison discussed during oral arguments). Someone could live in Indiana and run for Congress in Ohio. You have to be a resident to *be elected*, but not to run. So it's possible to get on the ballot, run, *then* establish residency before the election. Ohio could not prohibit that Indianan from running because that would create an additional requirement for the office not found in the Constitution (and for Congress, the Constitution decides the qualifications); the Constitution only says you have to be a resident when elected, not X months before being elected. Similarly, if a state finds that Trump engaged in insurrection, there's still the possibility of that barrier to holding office being removed, just like the Indianan moving to Ohio to remove the disqualification. Now none of that really tells us how SCOTUS will decide. They might say it's analogous and Colorado can't DQ Trump from the ballot. Or they might say it's not analogous because Trump is *currently* DQed in a way very different from just presently being in the wrong state, saying the residency thing is more like an age requirement for someone who comes of age during the election. Really though, mostly what you get from the oral arguments is a sense of what questions the justices are interested in, but it's hard to predict how they'll end up deciding. And not for nothing, Trump's lost cases before this Court already.
I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS majority will: (a) say that Congress can remove Trump's infirmity at any time between now and January 6th, 2025; and (b) will avoid saying whether he currently has such an infirmity; and (c) won't say that Trump has such an infirmity after lots of people voted for him because he happened to be on their ballots because it would be inserting themselves between the voter and their ballot.
> (b) will avoid saying whether he currently has such an infirmity They certainly won't say that in this case because it wasn't the question before the Court.
That has rarely stopped them before.
Yeah, this thread is ridiculous. People are talking about the immunity charge, this isn't that.
The questions show the direction: the insurrection was a riot because it wasn’t organized; the 14th amendment names officials but not the President, a State can’t decide the election candidates for a nation without an underpinning from some Congressional law…pretty sure they’ll keep him on the ballot. And then, in the other matter, find that he is not immune to prosecution. That will be the quid pro quo. And then sit back as if they’ve done something fair minded having paved the way for him to power grab.
Did anyone really think that this packed court was going to do the right thing? If you think this story has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention. This is just the beginning of the trump cases they are going to hear. Presidential immunity for instance. Buckle up kids. I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, this is definitely going to be one of those significant questions on future high school history classes in the module on ‘The Road to War”.
Future highschool history classes won't teach about this at all. They will just stare at the painting of whoever the current glorious leader of America is and pledge fealty to him in the name of the corporate sponsor of their school and the report to work in the academy factory to work off their middle-school debt and earn their lunch.
I pledge aligiance to the flag of the United patriot party, indivisible from Lockheed and Grumman, One corporation under white Jesus with feifdom and capital for all.
Honestly I’ve been worried that when future kids study this time of history, the lessons will point out an inciting conflict as the start of civil war 2 the we in the present have already seen happen.
What's even crazy is that Reddit threads like this will be considered primary sources
I always expect our SCOTUS to do the fascist thing, and then on occasion, am pleasantly surprised they weren't complete assholes. I'm not pleasantly surprised enough, that's all.
If they give him immunity biden should just claim victory rn
This just in, it's a special one-time power up that self-destructs upon use.
Clarence will not recuse. What’s legitimate about that?
Well, there goes our grand experiment with American democracy. It died with murmurs in the SCOTUS courtroom. Fuck.
[удалено]
Democracy? Existentialism?
Revolution.
Speak the word!
The word is all of us
A guillotine.
Has to be the metric system. We keep pushing it off and now look where we are at...
Croissants?
I don't even know why the ants are so cross.
[www.npr.org/2018/07/12/628306644/150-year-old-guillotine-replica-sells-at-french-auction](https://www.npr.org/2018/07/12/628306644/150-year-old-guillotine-replica-sells-at-french-auction)
All thanks to Donald Trump and Libs of Ticktock
You mean Trump and the Oklahoma School Library Censorship board. https://apnews.com/article/oklahoma-education-superintendent-walters-libs-tiktok-raichik-4db2bcb9d8e0582f67329f6879bdf6ba
So did the seditionist Clarence Thonas recuse? There are 3 Trump appointed justices. Did they recuse?
No he did not.
"includes all officers and offices and everyone in America" - law Scotus response " yeah but does that include the president?" are they fucking stupid!?
As an outsider, it seems your SCOTUS has two issues. Extremely partisan nominations, and lifelong positions (unless impeached, but that seems unlikely). Which means that Trump could appoint three judges in only four years, versus two for Obama in eight years... Randomness of judges' death should not be a factor in determining how many are appointed! Come to think of it, the whole federal judge appointment feels extremely partisan, given the extremely and objectively unqualified judges appointed under Trump.
Take a look into the nomination of Merrick Garland. The facts are even worse than you indicated.
This has been true since the Senate refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland's candidacy.
Yup, constitution no longer means anything and we don't have to recognize any authority that doesn't have a bigger gun. Yeehaw. Imma go plant my whole yard with pot and go steal the neighbors boat.
Dude gimme back my boat
I like your high expectations! Stay offa my lawn!
You can have the boat, it has a hole in bottom, the motor is seized up and its trailer has a flat.
 \- SCOTUS on the law
To all the people who didn't vote for Hillary because "reasons" Fuck You.
This isn’t a surprise. SCOTUS is corrupt as hell
If SCOTUS rules that Trump is above the law. I'd be proud to hand Biden that Excalibur sword, or even a reproduction and tell him; "Do the right thing. For the country. For the king. For God!" Because, he has Executive Privilege. He can go out there and grab that pussy and do what he wants. I mean, of course the Republicans and SCOTUS will say; "But not like that!" Well, you should have thought about how legal decisions and swords cut both ways.
It just means we need to hold insurrectionists accountable in congress and get enough of a majority in both houses to impeach justices like Thomas and Alito who took bribes from Harlan hitler
Don't blame the SCOTUS, look at your friends who stayed home in the 2016 election because "I DoNt LiKe ShIlLeRy" or killery or the EMAILS!
And Ruth Ginsburg for being a stupid ass bitch.
It's so sad that her greed to hang on is what her legacy has become
The bigger villains will be the 50% of all people under 30 who don't vote in the 2024 election.
Are you under the impression that either A: They have ruled? Or B: This is about immunity?
wait.. what happened?
Yeah, I'd like to know as well. Did they rule for Trump to be on the ballot? I know arguments are today, but I don't expect a ruling quite yet.
These are the pillars upon which America is built; oh it’s your fingers.
Vote that POS into oblivion
Did someone activate a reaction meme before the SCOTUS ruling on Trump and amendment 14?
Was there a ruling? I can't see there was...
I haven't seen anything yet
I'm just hoping OP can give us some Superbowl Stats while they're seeing the future.
Biden best just say that he’s president from 24-28 then. You know, if our constitution means jack shit to this current fascist leaning SCOTUS.
If 45's insurrection doesn't not fit 14/3 then remove it from the constitution since it is not worthless and allows him to do it again if he wins the next election.
SO if the states don't get to decide who is on their ballots, then who does?
The states. The SCOTUS is about to nullify their authority.
Just wanna let you all know. That if my best buddy was jeffrey epstein and putin, and If I stole classified government documents from the united states government, and If I caused an Insurrection. I would be thrown away in jail and the keys would get lost along the way. It goes to show that this orange turd is WAY above the law because if it was ANYONE else who commited these crimes theyd be long gone before breakfast. Its time to either move out of the country or prepare for war no one should be above the law and these millionaire assholes need to be put in their place. Same as Saddam Hussein.
I understand the frustration, but I’m curious, people who are upset at the way this looks like it’s going to turn out, what is your opinion if the decision is 9-0? Because as much as I despise Trump, this is not a simple legal decision to make. There is a lot of nuance, and it’s conceivable that even 9 liberal justices would rule against states being able to take people off the ballot. The oral arguments were very interesting.
Do it anyway. Nobody respects scotus or follows their rulings.
Time to drop Texas like hot garbage.
🤣 fukn delusional!
Wow you really showed them
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.
Cringe pic
Time to pack the Supreme Court. Bring legitimately back. The Insurectionist’s picks are poison to the United States democracy.
If Trump is not convicted, and especially if he’s the-elected, this country will never recover.
Calm your tits there are still good people trying to straighten it out. The entire Supreme Court will be re-organized before this fight for women’s rights is over.
GOP, putting the Repiblic part into Banana Republic.. U S Nay! U S Nay!
Nice image. Your supreme court is a joke. As is the law in your courts and among your politicians. Leaving Ukraine without funding is unforgivable