Based on how Kavanaugh was qqing about democracy yesterday it seems like Trump will go back on the ballot

which is good in my opinion I mean he is just going to lose anyway so why not lol

Tracking

if you dont have an army of basement dwellers tracking your posts for gotcha moments, do you even PARD?

Toronto man spends his entire time on PARD bashing Trump but doesn't make a peep about Justin Tradeau. Shocking!!

Try not to gamble your life away bud I care about you.

Can't complain about cost of living in Toronto if all you do is gamble and do drugs.

Can't blame Asian and Hindu people for "stealing your jobs" just because you were too lazy to get an advanced degree.

Sorry not sorry pal

Gorsuch has this kind of autistic streak in him where he really likes the law exactly as its written with no thought to other considerations. Your boss tells you stay with the truck, and the law says you can be fired for abandoning property? Then it doesn't matter if you would die, you can be fired if you don't stay with the truck, there is no exception for your boss telling you to die. The law says no discrimination based on sex? Doesn't matter if it was passed in the 1800's, discriminating against trans people is based on sex.

So I could see him getting on board with declaring this an obvious insurrection and so Colorado is obviously fine doing what they're doing.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 9 2024 12:13pm

It seems to me that a major point is who gets to determine whether someone is an insurrectionist or not, and how? The SCOTUS isn't going to review that (Whether Trump or 1/6 was an insurrectionist/insurrection), as I understand that is a fact of the case found in the two lower court rulings. To accept CO would likely mean that other states would attempt to disqualify candidates from the ballot under similar pretenses--actual or alleged. Is SCOTUS likely to punt this to Congress?

The concern that candidates would get excluded based on doing an insurrection can be immediately solved by just laying down a test for insurrection and letting the circuit courts deal with it. The supreme court justices are outright ignoring that the situation they are describing already exists. We already have 50 states with 50 different ballot access qualifications that already excludes 99.9% of candidates, including large third party candidates like RFK. There is no constitutional requirement to exclude somebody based on not being part of a registered political party with 100k votes or whatever other such nonsense most states have.

So I find this criticism to be frankly dishonest. If you are on the supreme court you are already keenly aware that "what if 50 states all have different concerns" is the intentional state of the system. As the lawyer for CO explained, states have a near plenary power to run their own elections, including challenging ballot access.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 9 2024 12:37pm

But aren't the various, common disqualifying metrics largely quantifiable and invariable? Age, national origin, citizenship, etc. The idea of "Insurrection" is more subjective, no?

this is so fucking good lmao