I have been listening to the proceedings and it is fascinating. So far, I think the liberal argument is falling apart. Essentially the argument that the States have the legal authority for taking that State's candidates off the ballot for State elected offices (based on exclusion clause) and that right can be extended to candidates for National offices. So far, the Judges are challenging this right to extend it to National offices. Equally important, it could easily lead to a chaotic quagmire of a plethora of States countering by removing opposing candidates and resulting in having only a few States then elected the officer (the Presidency in this case).
In layman's term, the argument is invalid and they and full of shit. Everyone should listen to the entire session to understand the U.S. Constitution.
...as I said, fascinating but also very educational.
This was a great listen and very satisfying to hear even the radical left wing of the court express their doubts as to the validity of the arguments. That is to say, the pouty tantrum being thrown by the insolent "leadership" of my once-great state. I'm kind of bummed I have to wait a week before I troll Fishface Griswold, but delayed gratification is very gratifying.
And it sounds to me like his argument would require SCOTUS to first determine what constitutes and insurrection, and then to determine if states would have the right to acts to disqualify an insurrectionist.
LOL I love they way the are making Murry stick to argument and not go off on tangents.
His point stands regardless, however; the Constitution is not very ambiguous in a lot of wording, but ambiguity has been applied and stacked over top of it due to decades -- really centuries now -- of contradictory laws and SCOTUS decisionmaking as well as various legal and philosophical arguments detracting from it, perverting it and complicating it.
When people have to see and dictate things like "intent" and apply modernity to it in accepted arguments that change the fundamental understanding of vast swaths of people, things have gotten quite sketchy.
I have been listening to the proceedings and it is fascinating. So far, I think the liberal argument is falling apart. Essentially the argument that the States have the legal authority for taking that State's candidates off the ballot for State elected offices (based on exclusion clause) and that right can be extended to candidates for National offices. So far, the Judges are challenging this right to extend it to National offices. Equally important, it could easily lead to a chaotic quagmire of a plethora of States countering by removing opposing candidates and resulting in having only a few States then elected the officer (the Presidency in this case).
In layman's term, the argument is invalid and they and full of shit. Everyone should listen to the entire session to understand the U.S. Constitution.
...as I said, fascinating but also very educational.
Same here. This is interesting. Big day for Anons, first this then Tucker tonight.
This was a great listen and very satisfying to hear even the radical left wing of the court express their doubts as to the validity of the arguments. That is to say, the pouty tantrum being thrown by the insolent "leadership" of my once-great state. I'm kind of bummed I have to wait a week before I troll Fishface Griswold, but delayed gratification is very gratifying.
The Commie lawyer from Colorado got shit all over by all of the justices except for maybe The Wise Latina.
Otherwise, it was a shit show for Colorado.
And it sounds to me like his argument would require SCOTUS to first determine what constitutes and insurrection, and then to determine if states would have the right to acts to disqualify an insurrectionist.
LOL I love they way the are making Murry stick to argument and not go off on tangents.
We need more of this everywhere for everyone.
Understanding the US Constitution shouldn't be like reading a complex legal contract. It should be a basic understanding for all Americans.
Hillsdale college offers a free online Constitution class.
You're absolutely right, and they're based.
His point stands regardless, however; the Constitution is not very ambiguous in a lot of wording, but ambiguity has been applied and stacked over top of it due to decades -- really centuries now -- of contradictory laws and SCOTUS decisionmaking as well as various legal and philosophical arguments detracting from it, perverting it and complicating it.
When people have to see and dictate things like "intent" and apply modernity to it in accepted arguments that change the fundamental understanding of vast swaths of people, things have gotten quite sketchy.