Search results

For some comparison, during United States v. Nixon:

Then we'll disagree. Their actions speak loudly. I don't believe the conservative members, one of which is married to someone who was involved in the election interference directly, are acting in good faith here, frankly. They gave up the opportunity to hear it in December, they gave a long...

As stated earlier, they could have chose to hear the case back in December. Why wait? Nixon's case was viewed as serious enough for them to hear right away, without waiting for the appeals court. One would think a former president facing actual charges, a significant step up from Nixon's civil...

I think it is a very safe bet to imagine that, out of the four judges needed to bring a case, at least one is a conservative justice, based off of the breakdown of the court right now. Do you really think the three liberal justices on the court would want to hear a case that the appeals court...

Not necessarily, hence the court cases and the reasons the states felt confident to push for this in the first place. The amendment doesn't state by what mechanism (or indeed, if any) is needed to verify that a person"engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or...

The sole goal is the republican SCOTUS judges attempting to delay the final verdict to after the election - Which, if Trump won, would cause the DoJ policy of not prosecuting a Sitting President/President Elect to theoretically prevent the case from continuing. The entire point, as the...

Just read the actual transcript rather than guessing: Trump attorney says presidents can’t be prosecuted for selling pardons or ordering murders It was not "arrest the sitting president" it was "can a former president be held liable for illegal actions taken as president, after they are no...

Do you understand why the judge asked that question? The judge asked if his legal team's idea of what "absolute immunity" means would cover that. They answered that, yes murder, would fall under that. They had to answer "yes", because otherwise absolute immunity wouldn't be absolute. It is...

Some brief highlights from the finding:

Excellent news.

It's genuinely misery-inducing that this is something we'd have to consider. I'd hope that that level of conservative hatred against the very foundations of the country itself isn't that high, but with the number of governors openly supporting ignoring the constitution and the judicial branch...

Federalizing the national guard isn't something Abbott can say "no" to - For the National Guard members, it's a lawful order, and they would face court martial if they refused to follow orders and stop blocking Border Patrol's access to the park. Eisenhower and Kennedy both federalized to deal...

It's unfortunately a very common trend in conservative positions. Things always framed in terms of defending oneself, one's family. Ignoring the fact that the people attempting to come in are doing so in order to try and pursue a better life for themselves and their families as well. They don't...

They can disagree with it all they want - But the SCOTUS ruling is the final say of the Judicial on this case. The administration has plenty of Border Patrol officers that were already cutting the wire prior to Texas illegally restricting access. Those officers continue to be ready to cut the...

Are you adding anything to the conversation here, or are you just going to continue to drop links without any commentary?

Howie Hawkins was on the ballot in 2020. He's not on in 2024. That's not because he was removed, it was because he didn't apply. You don't keep ballot access every election year. You have to apply, present paperwork, and qualify every election to get onto the ballot. If, for example, a...

So he's planning on pardoning people who broke the law to go trespass into the Capitol to show their support for him. That seems bad.

He got one count of Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds. I think that it's probably a bad idea to follow in right behind the guys breaking down a temporary barricade to the Capitol. But yeah in general trespassing into places you aren't allowed to be in is a...

It doesn't seem like it when they're refusing to follow the checks and balances of the Judiciary. I do not believe rejecting SCOTUS like this is following the Constitution.

Conservatives can try and twist this all they want - But if they want to reject the SCOTUS ruling, then I will continue to say that Abbot and the republican politicians do not care about law and order.