VakAttack

I just said that they should not have done this to Trump. Separately, I disagreed with your characterization of the Biden case and the evidence therein. Thirdly (and this is new) it's not the same thing, even under the current allegations, Biden isn't accused of insurrection or rebellion. Stop talking definitively if you don't know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what you're talking at about at this point and are just digging your heels in and rambling. All of this has been explained, multiple times.

Dude, are you drunk?

Lots of undocumented folks here in central Florida in harvesting, mostly in peanut farms and orange groves. I don't have anything to add on the TX law, it seems repugnant and openly racist, and also likely violates federal law, since immigration is under federal purview.

Dude, the courts didn't make anything up, the allegations were made by citizens, WTF are you even doing right now?

This is just a fundamental lack of understanding about how our system works; the elected representatives are authorized to act on behalf of their constituents, they are not required to seek approval for every single decision they make.

Allow me to be clear with you, since you seem to be struggling: I do not think this should have happened. I think the interpretation requiring a conviction is how it should be interpreted. I disagree entirely with your characterization of the current Biden situation; there is currently zero direct evidence and very little even circumstantial evidence of anything, whereas we have Trump on video.

There literally IS a remedy available, that's what Colorado SC just did (although the order is currently stayed until 1/4/24 or SCOTUS rules on it.)

I don't know, but that happens all the time in our system; that's part of SCOTUS' main function is to make decisions on federal issues where states disagree.

I've already said I would be fine if SCOTUS interpreted this as needing a conviction and also that I thought this was a loser issue for the Ds.

There is not "no evidence." There's a lot of recorded evidence. Again, you just don't agree with it or see it the same way as this court did. I'm sorry that this hurts your feelings.

The reasoning is not suspect, you just don't agree that he engaged in an insurrection; if the court feels he did (which apparently they did) it's a perfectly sound legal reasoning. And now SCOTUS will decide if a conviction is required, which it is not under the strict textual reading of the 14th, but arguably can be if you interpret language more broadly and from other parts of the document and how we interpret things in the modern legal world. I'm fine with that interpretation, but it flies in the face of how Rs typically demand the document be read (usually in the context of the 2nd Amendment, but generally all throughout).

It's definitionally how our system works. That's why we have the three branches of government to act as checks and balances on one another. These citizens felt a law was violated, so they went to court to seek to have the law enforced.

This may be how SCOTUS seeks to go around this, but that is not a textualist reading of the 14th. A conviction is not required under the textualist reading. What the Ds are doing this cycle is basically almost a mirror image of what the Rs did in 2020 (and what most political incumbent parties do). No primary debates for any incumbent president since 1976, I believe. And then you have what's happening in the Rs this year where they're just not requiring that Trump even participate.

No conviction required under the strict text of the 14th Amendment, which is typically how Rs want the Constitution interpreted vs. the more "living document" approach that Ds favor. The decision is legally sound, but politically a loser for the Ds, IMO.

This is a testament to the battle going on constantly w/ athletes, coaches, etc and fans. This is an entertainment product, but the coaches and athletes act like the ONLY thing that matters is the NCAA tournament; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since they all treat it that, it becomes true. So what's the point of paying for and watching the other events?

Interesting! Playing devil's advocate, isn't that part of this SPECIFIC job? Part of the reasons why they are given special powers and protections?

https://www.wspa.com/news/national/florida-deputys-legal-team-says-he-didnt-have-an-obligation-to-stop-parkland-school-shooter/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co Lawyers for the fired cop in Parkland say he has no duty to protect the students? Does he? Should he have a LEGAL [not moral] duty?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/07/cyber-ninjas-arizona-election-audit Thank you for bringing to everybody's attention yet another thing that fell apart under any sort of scrutiny, the vaunted Cyber Ninjas audit (and the entire company itself, which you can read about it shutting down above along with the thorough rebuttal of all of it's claims). But here we are still holding it up as if it was some sort of substantive win for people questioning the election. But it's also illustrative of my earlier point to @ionel. The "Cyber Ninjas" made dozens of wild claims, it was rebutted with 93 pages, and we still have people pretending it (and it's claims) were valid.

I'm not putting forth anything that requires evidence, so what evidence would you have liked? Every sentence written doesn't requiree evidence, however if you're making factual claims on things you don't have personal knowledge of, it's on you to provide evidence to back it up...as the election deniers have repearedly failed to do for just over three yeara now. I swear, you try so hard to sound intelligent by repeating things you've seen others say as if it's a gotcha, but you just look foolish.

To what end? You'll already have people who only see the first "report" and never see or care about any follow up. Then, even what nothing happens (a quick glance at the Georgia legislative calendar shows that it's out of session and has no public meetings scheduled until late May). The first place I can find that posted the above is "The Leading Report" which can also be found discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites And then, even when it's all disproven (again) you'll just have people say something like: Or you could have someone post like 65 Tweets and say "disprove them all" and who has the time or inclination to do that when we're living lives? False information is so much easier to propogate than truth because it can just be made up whole cloth without anything backing it up; it takes 3 seconds. Doing the research to disprove things can take hours or days. So there's no "winning" these discussions, especially with people who have no interest in looking at what's actually happening. But, when it goes in front of the people who have the time, wherewithal, and resources to look at it, vet it, and put it under scrutiny, it loses every time. Which, instead of causing any introspection, just lead us back to: Which of course is offered with no evidence even of that. And on and on.

The "they" here is specifically the person tweeting, apparently named Cari Keleman, but also more generally the Rs and MAGA faithful engaging in ejection denialism who lose at every turn when their claims are subjected to even the slightest scrutiny, let alone in a courtroom.

Cool. In classic modern R fashion, they just say things without providing any evidence.

I'm glad these women will get significant remuneration for the damage that was done to them. F u c k Giuliani. As to the other part, yet another substantive legal victory against Trump world and the MAGA Election Conspiracy in real court rooms where real evidence is presented while Rs keep spinning their wheels trying to create the appearance of equal malfeasance on both sides and claim they have evidence without ever producing anything of substance.

Oh, I'm pretty sure they can have counsel at a closed-door deposition.