quote Originally posted by theBDub: I find it most interesting how what I’d think of as the clearest defenses weren’t (to my knowledge) attempted by Trump’s team. I can’t really argue with what you said at all.

I haven't really looked, to be honest, but I know they've appealed it and asked the Supreme Court to decide. For that matter, if / when the Supreme Court decides, it'll make that decision for all other ~16 states that are currently trying to bar Trump from running under the same pretense. I'm curious what the Democrats will do next as their strategy of preventing Trump from winning the White House again. They've clearly pulled out all the stops.

quote Originally posted by randye: Since I'm such a generous guy this Christmas season I'll help you out: "First impression is a new legal issue or interpretation that is brought before a court. In a case of first impression, the exact issue before the court has not been addressed by that court, or within that court's jurisdiction, thus there is no binding authority on that matter. In Fiore v. White, 562 Pa. 634, it was held that “a case of first impression is one that presents an ‘entirely novel question of law’, which ‘cannot be governed by any existing precedent".

It always annoys me when people use misplaced words in an attempt to sound smart. Like... "traveling in uncharted territory." They make it sound like they're out in the open seas with a tall ship. They're literally deciding on a legal matter, can't they just say... "It is our opinion, on something we've never done before, that..." Yeah... I get it, it doesn't sound as fancy... but at least it's not fake.

But Randye... wasn't there a court case with a judge that they removed from office who served in the Civil War, and it had to go through the legislature first? Seems that precedent does in fact exist. Do they not have Google or what am I missing here when they say they've never ruled on something like this?

(Honestly, this is so silly... Trump has nothing to do with this, and none of this even remotely meets the level of treason. At best... ... I mean, at ABSOLUTE best, the J6 people would be guilty of sedition, which sounds a lot worse than it really is. And the 14th Amendment basically addresses Treason (not by name), but doesn't at all address sedition. And if Trump of all people was guilty of sedition, then literally every person that ever stormed the Capitol building over the past 100 years (6 separate times, almost all from Democrats) would all be guilty of sedition.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 12-21-2023).]

quote Originally posted by theBDub: *Democrats* are the ones undermining confidence in our government…? Is this serious? This has been a *staple* of the MAGA crowd. I don’t know how you can say this with a straight face.

Anyone with an open mind (not necessarily a Republican) can easily see the direction the Democrat party is headed; I know a bunch of registered Dems that don't agree with Dem leadership. One doesn't have to be a Conservative to agree with Joe. Very few agree with the Joe in the Oval Office. Current polling shows three Republican candidates all beating Biden in 2024, With the current policies of the Biden administration concerning Crime, the Southern Open Border and the Economy, the Dems are looking down a pretty rocky road leading to a huge lack of confidence in government. Those issues don't even include the distrust most Americans are experiencing in the alphabet agencies under Biden.
------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-23-2023).]