General Discussion

orangecrush

(22,132 posts)

89. Pretense at law.

Reply to UTUSN (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 27, 2024, 01:28 AM

Yesterday

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

UTUSN

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Drumpf isn't barred from office for *INSURRECTION* our pretense at LAW is over with. [View all] UTUSN Thursday OP

Make it so, America BoRaGard Thursday #1

Laws and The Constitution simply don't apply to him bif Thursday #2

Laws and consequences are for the Poors NotHardly Thursday #35

Pity our Attorney General didn't do anything about it for four years. sop Thursday #3

Pick your preferred AG- Schiff? Kirschner? Weissman? Yates? Fiendish Thingy Thursday #7

This message was self-deleted by its author sop Thursday #8

That take on the issue is ridiculous on its face. n/t xocetaceans Thursday #39

Explain your reasoning. Fiendish Thingy Thursday #57

K & R malaise Thursday #4

All well and good, except Republicans control congress. Fiendish Thingy Thursday #5

If they vote 2/3 to let it go, fine: At least we went through the motions. UTUSN Thursday #10

It would take a majority to pass a disqualification resolution. Fiendish Thingy Thursday #14

Another ridiculous take that shows that the article is fundamentally misunderstood. n/t xocetaceans Thursday #42

So easy to leave one liner retorts Fiendish Thingy Thursday #58

The problem is that Vance would slide into the spot. Trump is just a puppet. Vance is aligned with the Vinca Thursday #6

Chips fall where chips may. The focus is on insurrection. UTUSN Thursday #12

True. n/t xocetaceans Thursday #43

I don't know it as bad as Vance is. He's more like a normal human being. Trump is a huge problem here. Walleye Thursday #26

"normal" can include being so icky as to make him allergic to being associated with. UTUSN Thursday #48

Yes, but I don't think he has the magnitude of insanity to be capable of ruining the whole country in one term Walleye Thursday #50

Maybe the plan is to get him elected and then disqualify him Buckeyeblue Thursday #59

This would only have been helpful at the ballot stage (as in MadameButterfly Thursday #9

No, the ballot stage was crapped on by the SCofUS. UTUSN Thursday #11

I'm aware of that MadameButterfly Thursday #13

Would stop "it"/what now? They did the ballot part, not the insurrection part. UTUSN Thursday #16

Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot because of the insurrection. MadameButterfly Thursday #18

My last clarity here is: They said couldn't keep it from running or from being on the ballot. Reason for it don't matter UTUSN Thursday #19

I thought the US Supreme Court - UNANIMOUSLY - rejected the whole "You can declare someone an insurrectionist without Midwestern Democrat Thursday #15

I'm no Legal eagle. The authors in the article go through (all) of the opposing arguments. UTUSN Thursday #17

Did every single Confederate (or any) go through a trial specifically about insurrection? UTUSN Thursday #20

No Southern_gent Thursday #21

So, they "removed the disabilities" for THEM. Not blanket for anybody/everybody else. UTUSN Thursday #24

Congress never Southern_gent Thursday #36

I'm no scholar but I think what's in the Constitution is what it is. UTUSN Thursday #49

From the article: Polybius Thursday #22

The focus is on insurrection, not partisan distractions. I think they are just disposing of a tangent there. UTUSN Thursday #23

You have a point Polybius Thursday #34

She wouldn't iemanja Thursday #40

This Southern_gent Thursday #60

*** Adam SCHIFF, Liz CHEENEE, Marc ELIAS - am looking at *you*! ********* UTUSN Thursday #25

Is there anything that says... Think. Again. Thursday #27

The Trail of wreckage starts with Nixon not being charged with treason for his back room dealing with North Vietnam to k yourout Thursday #28

The polls were the ultimate court. Unfortunately, trump won. Silent Type Thursday #29

The issue is insurrection, period. Not ballots, polls, voting results, trials, etc. UTUSN Thursday #41

It'll be a long 4 years if we are going to claim insurrection should prevent trump from taking office. It won't work and Silent Type Thursday #54

It's not a 4 yrs' issue. The shelf life is Jan 20. It's not about jockeying for elections' advantage. UTUSN Thursday #62

who determines whether an insurrection took place? cadoman 19 hrs ago #90

Republicans and Congress are too busy rubbing their hands together over the thought of the outright bribes he will Walleye Thursday #30

Lets face it, the US is a lawless shithole country. nt yaesu Thursday #31

Some elected officials were refused to be seated in the Reconstruction Era bucolic_frolic Thursday #32

It's not going to happen Renew Deal Thursday #33

Going through the motions would be something. Later to be called profile-courage. UTUSN Thursday #44

A forgetable anectdote Renew Deal Thursday #70

If you really think about it, there should be overwhelming bipartisan support under the circumstances. Frank D. Lincoln Thursday #55

He should have been impeached and convicted after the insurrection Renew Deal Thursday #71

We must make this into an unforgettable national memory. Kid Berwyn Thursday #37

This is a year too late iemanja Thursday #38

No, did not rule on insurrection. Chips fall where chips may. UTUSN Thursday #45

So you are happy to throw out the will of the people iemanja Thursday #47

Not trolling me. The issue of insurrection is its own thing, not being enlisted by me for my voting expediency. UTUSN Thursday #53

The trolling is that something can be done about it iemanja Thursday #65

That's not even a definition of trolling, which is not the topic anyway. UTUSN Thursday #68

The topic isn't stopping Trump from taking office? iemanja Thursday #74

No, it's about insurrection. And trolling is different from flaming. UTUSN Thursday #76

Insurrection iemanja Yesterday #79

"can't handle disagreement" doesn't equate with authentic engagement. S'long. UTUSN Yesterday #81

Kettle, pot. iemanja Yesterday #82

C'mon, let's bid each other a nice g'bye. I'll start (again) : G'bye! UTUSN Yesterday #85

I thought we had already. iemanja Yesterday #86

You don't let it be. UTUSN Yesterday #87

LOL iemanja Yesterday #88

I'd absolutely being willing to throw out the will of 49% of idiots standingtall Thursday #64

50% iemanja Thursday #66

Elected reps are not bound to uphold the will of the people or popular opinion bucolic_frolic Thursday #51

"Make a stand" hadEnuf Thursday #46

It's as if Jefferson Davis was elected president in 1868. cer7711 Thursday #52

People might as well move on. garland won't do a damn thing. And tRUMP being charged w/ an insurrection? SWBTATTReg Thursday #56

K&R Native Thursday #61

Garland dropped the ball! Xoan Thursday #63

we've been over this 1000x WarGamer Thursday #67

If you would cite *one* court decision saying adjudication is necessary, UTUSN Thursday #69

so you're advocating... WarGamer Thursday #72

The only thing I am advocating is in the OP. If you're not going to cite the finding you claim, UTUSN Thursday #73

Trump could not pass even the most basic background check Skittles Thursday #75

Been over. orangecrush Thursday #77

Can't argue with a mysterious post.ON EDIT answering orangecrush here to not kick thread: UTUSN Thursday #78

Pretense at law. orangecrush Yesterday #89

He wasn't barred from running and he's not going to be barred from office Meowmee Yesterday #80

Doesn't mean he shouldn't be. But you're correct about that. UTUSN Yesterday #83

I didn't say it meant that, of course he should've been barred and he should be barred now Meowmee Yesterday #84

Well, obviously it was always legal for a criminal to run for President, and then hold that office, we just never knew msfiddlestix 17 hrs ago #91