Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


I wonder if it requires a conviction of being under 35 to keep someone off the ballot. 
 

Does someone need to be convicted of having not lived in the US long enough? Or convicted of being born elsewhere?


I’m not sure, I really wish Bonnie would come back and clear this up for us. 
 

He’s an expert.

 

 

 

Posted
6 minutes ago, BillStime said:


I’m not sure, I really wish Bonnie would come back and clear this up for us. 
 

He’s an expert.

 

 

 


Maybe he needs to be convicted of being wrong in order to respond 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I’m predicting a 5-4 decision…😉

I'm going with 6-3, but I think they punt the whole insurrection part, and make some ruling on a different issue, that overturns.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

So it would require a conviction I guess?

no.  I'm predicting 8-1.  slightly better odds than 9-0.  clarence may try to save face.

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Posted
1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Should read PAC* vs democracy. 

 

Hopefully the courts do the right thing and let the people choose.  

 

* - only PACS that Chris does not approve.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I’m not sure that he should be off the ballot anyway
 

People should be allowed to vote for whoever they want and live with the consequences of it

So …disregard the constitution?

Scotus just going to say this doesn’t apply to the Office of the Presidency

Edited by TH3
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Eyeroll 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

no.  I'm predicting 8-1.  slightly better odds than 9-0.  clarence may try to save face.

Edited by Pokebball
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
10 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

A political cartoon, so some of the dullards here might understand the argument.

 

363235_image.jpg

 

 

.


What if they were voting for someone under 35?

 

What if they were voting for someone who wasn’t a natural born citizen?

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
  • 1 month later...
Posted
On 1/5/2024 at 7:13 PM, B-Man said:

Not much to “hear”.

 

The 14th amendment doesn’t apply here, NO ONE has been charged with insurrection. 
 

Let me know if anyone ever is. 
 

 

 

 

.

 

 

raised-palms-up-unanimous-decision-votin         UNANIMOUS !

 

 

 

.

  • Shocked 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted (edited)

The King and Daz come to mind...

 

Not sure where Finding Qanon came down on this, but likely took the commie position.

 

PER CURIAM, *****.

 

It's certainly gratifying that @dhillonlaw client Donald Trump won the Colorado case before the Supreme Court. (I was not part of the superb SCOTUS advocacy, but I was very involved in DJT's challenge to Colorado's actions which SCOTUS upheld.)

 

HAVING SAID THIS,

It is no less gratifying to witness the unanimous bench slap delivered to all the wise-ass academic, corporate media and Twitter constitutional law experts

who got this so, so wrong.

 

 

Edited by BillsFanNC
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

raised-palms-up-unanimous-decision-votin         UNANIMOUS !

 

 

 

.

Add all nine members of the US Supreme Court to the list of people the mental patients on the American left believes are "threats to democracy". 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 4
×
×
  • Create New...