Orange Duce

[old salt]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

[a fan]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

Great. If you think having the Fed step in and tell each States how to run their elections is such a cool idea, lets have Federal Courts decide how each State handles Federal election ballots. You know, things like where Congressional districts are fairly drawn, or who gets to put their names on a , etc., or how many polling stations Republican-run States put in poor neighborhoods. Oh, and things like forcing every State to have absentee ballot system like Colorados because it improves voter engagement with their Democracy. The Fed knows best according to you now, so you should LOVE this.


You're good with this, right?

I'm 100% on board with this. You and your party would rather secede than let this happen. But I like that you're pretending to clutch pearls.

[dislaxxic]

So, after today’s argument, where does the 14th amendment, section 3 stand? Under what circumstances would a candidate for president be disqualified? It sure sounds like the Supreme Court is going to read this section effectively out of existence. That would be really bad jurisprudence.

That's the fascinating nut here for me. This, so far, is shaping us as "who is going to successfully step up to enforce Section 3 of the 14th. It's CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE! They kinda DID "read it out" today for several reasons, i think. Colorado counsel having a pretty bad game plan going in. Legitimately ill- or non-defined procedures surrounding execution. One more example of 19th century legal language being applied in a new and unprecedented 2024 situation.

Could Jack Smith amend the J6 complaint at this point? Doubtful, right? The sheer TIMING of the situation may make an outcome impossible to effectuate before November 5th, but could it happen before January 6, 2025? If elected, he wouldn't "hold the office" until January 20, 2025 when, on that very date, in theory, he could have the case thrown out by his new AG. Could the J6 jury "decide" Trump committed insurrection in a trial that doesn't (at present) include an actual charge of insurrection??

My head hurts.

..

[NattyBohChamps04]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

We fought a civil war over less. Apparently you and your people are now against states' rights.

[old salt]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

We fought a civil war over less. Apparently you and your people are now against states' rights.

Nothing stopped Jack Smith from charging Trump with insurrection, ...except for his ability to read.

[old salt]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

Great. If you think having the Fed step in and tell each States how to run their elections is such a cool idea, lets have Federal Courts decide how each State handles Federal election ballots. You know, things like where Congressional districts are fairly drawn, or who gets to put their names on a , etc., or how many polling stations Republican-run States put in poor neighborhoods. Oh, and things like forcing every State to have absentee ballot system like Colorados because it improves voter engagement with their Democracy. The Fed knows best according to you now, so you should LOVE this.


You're good with this, right?

I'm 100% on board with this. You and your party would rather secede than let this happen. But I like that you're pretending to clutch pearls.

So run your bright idea before the Supreme Court. It will likely suffer the same fate as the latest whacky idea coming out of CO.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

Great. If you think having the Fed step in and tell each States how to run their elections is such a cool idea, lets have Federal Courts decide how each State handles Federal election ballots. You know, things like where Congressional districts are fairly drawn, or who gets to put their names on a , etc., or how many polling stations Republican-run States put in poor neighborhoods. Oh, and things like forcing every State to have absentee ballot system like Colorados because it improves voter engagement with their Democracy. The Fed knows best according to you now, so you should LOVE this.


You're good with this, right?

I'm 100% on board with this. You and your party would rather secede than let this happen. But I like that you're pretending to clutch pearls.

So run your bright idea before the Supreme Court. It will likely suffer the same fate as the latest whacky idea coming out of CO.

pretty soon you’ll be chewing on your tongue with crumbs in your lap…. Going down hill fast.

[old salt]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

Great. If you think having the Fed step in and tell each States how to run their elections is such a cool idea, lets have Federal Courts decide how each State handles Federal election ballots. You know, things like where Congressional districts are fairly drawn, or who gets to put their names on a , etc., or how many polling stations Republican-run States put in poor neighborhoods. Oh, and things like forcing every State to have absentee ballot system like Colorados because it improves voter engagement with their Democracy. The Fed knows best according to you now, so you should LOVE this.


You're good with this, right?

I'm 100% on board with this. You and your party would rather secede than let this happen. But I like that you're pretending to clutch pearls.

So run your bright idea before the Supreme Court. It will likely suffer the same fate as the latest whacky idea coming out of CO.

pretty soon you’ll be chewing on your tongue with crumbs in your lap…. Going down hill fast.

You should be redirecting those good wishes to our President.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

Great. If you think having the Fed step in and tell each States how to run their elections is such a cool idea, lets have Federal Courts decide how each State handles Federal election ballots. You know, things like where Congressional districts are fairly drawn, or who gets to put their names on a , etc., or how many polling stations Republican-run States put in poor neighborhoods. Oh, and things like forcing every State to have absentee ballot system like Colorados because it improves voter engagement with their Democracy. The Fed knows best according to you now, so you should LOVE this.


You're good with this, right?

I'm 100% on board with this. You and your party would rather secede than let this happen. But I like that you're pretending to clutch pearls.

So run your bright idea before the Supreme Court. It will likely suffer the same fate as the latest whacky idea coming out of CO.

pretty soon you’ll be chewing on your tongue with crumbs in your lap…. Going down hill fast.

You should be redirecting those good wishes to our President.

Soon

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not sure what the argument here is really about.

It was pretty clear from the outset that this SCOTUS would likely look for a way out. It's also pretty clear that there'd be a mess if they didn't, more cases to address...work to do...what's seemingly not of concern to them is the mess that will happen if he's on the ballot in the general as a convicted felon under the various charges currently made, including: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. And wins. And begins to execute on the policies and legal theories which he has argued for and promised, as if he indeed as total immunity...and can ignore any and all rulings of SCOTUS.

However, if we're arguing about the hypocrisy of textualists, original intent adherents, being afraid to actually make a judgement as to what the language of the Constitution means...well...

And if we're talking about the hypocrisy of adherents to state's rights preeminence, in this one instance deciding to overrule plain language of state control of elections...well...

Bottomline, this guy needs to be defeated at the polls.

[a fan]

Uh, guys: right now, today, most individual States get to draw how Congressional districts are put together....and Gerrymand to their heart's content. Therefore, individual States RIGHT NOW get to decide the balance of power in the House..,"a single state ha(s) the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation".

FFS, you're lawyers. How do you not know this? These are brilliant legal minds?

Berman and Kagan seem to think that the Federal Government draws Congressional districts . Nope. Wake up, Justices.

They are brilliant enough to realize that a gerrymandered district elects just 1 representative for the voters of that district, not the entire nation.
A distinction which you are apparently not brilliant enough to recognize. One size fits all "logic".

One State doesn’t elect a President, by your logic.

Don't bog him down with details, TLD.

... ...yeah, I sure whiffed on that one.

We obviously need civil trials in all 50 states to determine whether or not Trump fomented or participated in an insurrection.

Great. If you think having the Fed step in and tell each States how to run their elections is such a cool idea, lets have Federal Courts decide how each State handles Federal election ballots. You know, things like where Congressional districts are fairly drawn, or who gets to put their names on a , etc., or how many polling stations Republican-run States put in poor neighborhoods. Oh, and things like forcing every State to have absentee ballot system like Colorados because it improves voter engagement with their Democracy. The Fed knows best according to you now, so you should LOVE this.


You're good with this, right?

I'm 100% on board with this. You and your party would rather secede than let this happen. But I like that you're pretending to clutch pearls.

So run your bright idea before the Supreme Court. It will likely suffer the same fate as the latest whacky idea coming out of CO.

My "bright idea" is for our Judges to show legal and intellectual consistency: if they think that Federal Judges should tell States how to run their elections and how they decide who goes on a ballot? Great. Let that happen, soup to nuts.

[a fan]

I'm not sure what the argument here is really about.

It was pretty clear from the outset that this SCOTUS would likely look for a way out.

Yep. Clear as day.

However, if we're arguing about the hypocrisy of textualists, original intent adherents, being afraid to actually make a judgement as to what the language of the Constitution means...well...

And if we're talking about the hypocrisy of adherents to state's rights preeminence, in this one instance deciding to overrule plain language of state control of elections...well...

Yep. These fake-conservative judges are LYING. They want the outcome they want, and could give two figs about the Constitution, or the rights of States to run their elections any well they want. Well, unless, of course, a State wants to keep poor voters from voting. Then it's all about the States right to F their own poor citizens.

Bottomline, this guy needs to be defeated at the polls.

Good luck with that.

[Kismet]

I'm not sure what the argument here is really about.

It was pretty clear from the outset that this SCOTUS would likely look for a way out.

Yep. Clear as day.

However, if we're arguing about the hypocrisy of textualists, original intent adherents, being afraid to actually make a judgement as to what the language of the Constitution means...well...

And if we're talking about the hypocrisy of adherents to state's rights preeminence, in this one instance deciding to overrule plain language of state control of elections...well...

Yep. These fake-conservative judges are LYING. They want the outcome they want, and could give two figs about the Constitution, or the rights of States to run their elections any well they want. Well, unless, of course, a State wants to keep poor voters from voting. Then it's all about the States right to F their own poor citizens.

Bottomline, this guy needs to be defeated at the polls.

Good luck with that.

Additionally, it gives them the rationale to pass on the immunity case and then think it all balances out. The LAST thing they want is another Bush v. Gore debacle

[ggait]

Yup.

This Colorado insurrection case is a completely pointless waste of time. Idiotic to have filed it in the first place. I really hope the morons from my home state get squashed 9-0.

The important SCOTUS case starts Monday. The future of the Republic hangs in the balance.

[old salt]

And if we're talking about the hypocrisy of adherents to state's rights preeminence, in this one instance deciding to overrule plain language of state control of elections...well.... These fake-conservative judges are LYING. They want the outcome they want, and could give two figs about the Constitution, or the rights of States to run their elections any well they want. Well, unless, of course, a State wants to keep poor voters from voting. Then it's all about the States right to F their own poor citizens.

Justice Jackson pointed out that the 14th Amendment specifically restricted States' rights, not expanded them.
That's why she's on the Supreme Court & you're not....& she's hardly a fake-conservative.

[a fan]

And if we're talking about the hypocrisy of adherents to state's rights preeminence, in this one instance deciding to overrule plain language of state control of elections...well.... These fake-conservative judges are LYING. They want the outcome they want, and could give two figs about the Constitution, or the rights of States to run their elections any well they want. Well, unless, of course, a State wants to keep poor voters from voting. Then it's all about the States right to F their own poor citizens.

Justice Jackson pointed out that the 14th Amendment specifically restricted States' rights, not expanded them.
That's why she's on the Supreme Court & you're not....& she's hardly a fake-conservative.

Her pointing out her opinion of the 14th Amendment is why she's on the SCOTUS?

Neat.

Tell me out loud that you want DC to dictate how every State runs their elections, OS. Tell me that's what you want.

You won't because you DON"T want DC to tell States how to run their elections. I love how you're pretending that you do, and that this is somehow a complicated concept.

[MDlaxfan76]

And if we're talking about the hypocrisy of adherents to state's rights preeminence, in this one instance deciding to overrule plain language of state control of elections...well.... These fake-conservative judges are LYING. They want the outcome they want, and could give two figs about the Constitution, or the rights of States to run their elections any well they want. Well, unless, of course, a State wants to keep poor voters from voting. Then it's all about the States right to F their own poor citizens.

Justice Jackson pointed out that the 14th Amendment specifically restricted States' rights, not expanded them.
That's why she's on the Supreme Court & you're not....& she's hardly a fake-conservative.

Her pointing out her opinion of the 14th Amendment is why she's on the SCOTUS?

Neat.

Tell me out loud that you want DC to dictate how every State runs their elections, OS. Tell me that's what you want.

You won't because you DON"T want DC to tell States how to run their elections. I love how you're pretending that you do, and that this is somehow a complicated concept.

yes, it's the hypocrisy.

That Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks "states rights" should be constrained is not a big surprise...it's consistent.

[ggait]

Tell me out loud that you want DC to dictate how every State runs their elections, OS. Tell me that's what you want.

Article I section 4 does give states primary responsibility over time, place, manner of federal elections. There simply was no other way to practically conduct a national election. But the state power over federal elections is best understood as administrative. Not substantive.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and the Twenty-sixth Amendments are all examples of the federal government exercising their broad authority over the states when it comes to elections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the finest example of this. Because without the Feds telling the states what to do, the states mess it up very badly.

In fact, the fundamental thrust of the Civil War Amendments was to expand federal power at the expense of the states. 700,000 Civil War dead (equivalent to six million lives based on today's US population) teaches that you really don't want to let the states have too much leeway.

Take note that rightie ACB, leftie KBJ and center Kagan all agree on this. This should be a federal thing.

[a fan]

Tell me out loud that you want DC to dictate how every State runs their elections, OS. Tell me that's what you want.

Article I section 4 does give states primary responsibility over time, place, manner of federal elections. There simply was no other way to practically conduct a national election. But the state power over federal elections is best understood as administrative. Not substantive.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and the Twenty-sixth Amendments are all examples of the federal government exercising their broad authority over the states when it comes to elections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the finest example of this. Because without the Feds telling the states what to do, the states mess it up very badly.

In fact, the fundamental thrust of the Civil War Amendments was to expand federal power at the expense of the states. 700,000 Civil War dead teaches that you really don't want to let the states have too much leeway.

Take note that rightie ACB, leftie KBJ and center Kagan all agree on this. This should be a federal thing.

Oh, I'm on board with Federal control of elections----ESPECIALLY when it comes to drawing Congressional districts. Gerrymandering is WHY we have more and more nutjobbery in the House. Then there's the game playing with making voting hard for the poor & disabled/old, and easy for the rich. You and I both know that the Colorado System is as fair and easy as it gets. I'd LOVE to have that be the US standard.

My point is: Old Salt and his Party would lose their minds if this happened, and the Fed were in charge of elections. This is the LAST thing that they want.

Well, until now, of course. And ONLY in this specific Colorado case, of course.

[ggait]

Well, the righties were also OK with federal election control in Bush v. Gore.

States rights (but only when it works for my party).