Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • French Rage
    replied
    "I love my kid so much I'd rather see them dead than be something I'm ever so slightly uncomfortable with initially."

    Leave a comment:


  • MissThundercat
    replied
    Indiana: "we're not taking your kid because you're Christians and she's trans, we're taking her because if she comes home, the abuse will continue and her eating disorder won't be treated."

    Supremes: "we ain't touching this. Indiana's decision stands."

    Parents: "they are persecuting us!"

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/...f-trans-child/

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Part of me wonders if Roberts has been politely or not so politely nudged by people close to him. Like maybe his grandkids won't talk to him
    He's doing his usual thing of signaling sanity on the small stuff so he can go nuclear on the big stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    SCOTUS: Messin' with Texas, at least for now.
    Part of me wonders if Roberts has been politely or not so politely nudged by people close to him. Like maybe his grandkids won't talk to him

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
    As of two hours ago, sounds like Texas national guard is setting up more razor wire
    I know how this one ends.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deutsche Gopher Fan
    replied
    As of two hours ago, sounds like Texas national guard is setting up more razor wire

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by bronconick View Post

    A question of if the Federal government controls border policy being 5-4 instead of 9-0 is terrifying.
    Agreed, this should have been 9-0 without even any kind of written decision because the Supremacy Clause still god damn exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    SCOTUS: Messin' with Texas, at least for now.
    A question of if the Federal government controls border policy being 5-4 instead of 9-0 is terrifying.

    Leave a comment:


  • FadeToBlack&Gold
    replied
    SCOTUS: Messin' with Texas, at least for now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bronco
    replied
    I mean sure, it is clear that just any 'person' is prevented, but [The Orange A**clown] is no mere 'person'.
    -Some cultist, probably

    Leave a comment:


  • French Rage
    replied
    That said, some states like CA limit to two consecutive, but say nothing about lifetime, thus Jerry Brown was elected twice a generation ago and twice a decade ago. But federal is pretty explicit, assuming people follow it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

    Its pretty explicit. No one can be elected more than twice. Starting in 1947. Only Truman would have been allowed to run for a third term because it explicitly states whoever was President when the law was argued before Congress was grandfathered in.

    There is no legal argument to be made. The 22nd was put in place to prevent anyone from getting a third term and there is no wiggle room. Trump already hinting he would seek one is unconstitutional and even the SC would be against it since many of the Founders were.

    edit: Fade beat me by just a smidge!

    Leave a comment:


  • FadeToBlack&Gold
    replied
    22A is pretty blunt:

    No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
    There's a bit more language regarding grandfathering those who held the office during or prior to the amendment's proposal & ratification to avoid an ex-post facto conflict, but that is obviously now irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • St. Clown
    replied
    Originally posted by rufus View Post
    Also, Grover Cleveland only served two terms.

    He won, served a four year term, lost, got re-elected four years later, and served another four year term. Just like Trumpie would do, if he wouldn't suspend further elections during his second term. Which you know he'll try to do.
    I know Cleveland only served two terms. I was curious if the POTUS numbering oddity is something TFG would or could exploit as a loophole in the 22nd Amendment to connive his way into a third term.

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    Also, Grover Cleveland only served two terms.

    He won, served a four year term, lost, got re-elected four years later, and served another four year term. Just like Trumpie would do, if he wouldn't suspend further elections during his second term. Which you know he'll try to do.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X