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.
Murray argued that if the SC doesn't remove Trump from the ballot, should he win then democrats would have to stop Congress from certifying the electors.
Lol, isn't that the "insurrection" behavior they've charged Trump with.
how the fuck was violently seizing land with guns and creating the CHOP/CHAZ NOT insurrection, but an unarmed guided tour and putting feet up on desks in our nation's capitol WAS?
Here is what I don't understand. President Trump has never been convicted, or even charged as an insurrectionist. So how can they disqualify as a insurrectionist.
BAM 💥💥💥 Justice Brett Kavanaugh DELIVERS REALITY CHECK TO Colorado Attorney and HIS EFFORT TO EXCLUDE TRUMP from Ballot:
... ‘Trump HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH an Insurrection’
I’m gonna call it right now… They’re not gonna do anything for the United States of America, for free and fair elections, or for free and fair legal system.
They’re going to overturn it - even the liberal justices are hinting towards it. Plus the Griffin case precedent solidified that it has to go through Congress first before insurrection ban is declared.
I agree. Even the liberal justices seem to see how easily the Republican states could (and probably would) then do the same thing to a Democrat candidate. If they uphold this, we essentially no longer have a country. I think even the liberal justices don't want that as their legacy.
“Virgin Islands are also very much in play … so will be hearing about them later on today or in the evening” - … will Putin say something about St Little James?
Be interesting to know who is funding those protesters.
Thanks for posting this fren.
Update: Interesting that Thomas ask first question. Here does not usually ask questions.
Loquacious Liberal judges trying to find a loophole in order to pervert the laws, by complicating argument.
I can't wait till the Hank Johnson of the court, Ketanji Brown, the equivalent of hiring someone with down syndrome to be air traffic controller, to make a statement. She is probably listening in on this debate like a lip thumbing idiot.
Manner of selecting eligible candidates, and Manner of determining eligibility candidates are two different things.
In other words Colorado is throwing a Hale Mary pass up to supreme court in hope that a majority of judges might catch it.
Gosh, the people that still believe the 1/6 narrative - even with the cases all falling apart, are truly retarded. Mouth breathing useless sheep. They need more boosters injected immediately.
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.
What they are forgetting is:
Well put.
Hell YEAH!!! All of the above...
stupid idiots are desperate outside the court.. a sign saying "REMOVE TRUMP"
Update it's adjourned until Friday 16th of Feb @ 10am ET.
Wait, they are confirming devolution? 🤔
My have they awakened. ⏰️
LOL
Is anyone counter-protesting them?
I’ve been watching. Haven’t seen many MAGA unfortunately.
Then again, Washington DC is enemy territory. Fools go where even angels fear to tread.
Must be nice to protest without having to worry about the dungeon
Casting Pearls Before Swine.
What would that accomplish besides getting a bunch of us arrested?
40 minutes in and I’m thinking about the ⚽️ the whole time
Even the lib justices sound skeptical.
~ Kagan
They know it will flip in two seconds to remove Biden
Murray argued that if the SC doesn't remove Trump from the ballot, should he win then democrats would have to stop Congress from certifying the electors.
Lol, isn't that the "insurrection" behavior they've charged Trump with.
He's giving up the democrats game plan.
https://x.com/cspan/status/1755640243401752932
God, I hate hearing liberals talk about J6. Fucking idiots.
On of my favorite things to do is to goto the Supreme Court website and listen to cases. Thanks for reminding me of this one today.
Thanks for the linkie fren.
Here's the one for Trump's speech after at Mar-a-lago.
https://rumble.com/v4c0jyw-live-president-trump-gives-remarks-on-supreme-court-case-at-mar-a-lago-2824.html
put it up we will sticky
sry fren, was watching the feed....it was on the one above. All good.
Thanks o7
Thanks.
The constitution will hold. Its being tested like never before in history.
how the fuck was violently seizing land with guns and creating the CHOP/CHAZ NOT insurrection, but an unarmed guided tour and putting feet up on desks in our nation's capitol WAS?
Here is what I don't understand. President Trump has never been convicted, or even charged as an insurrectionist. So how can they disqualify as a insurrectionist.
BAM 💥💥💥 Justice Brett Kavanaugh DELIVERS REALITY CHECK TO Colorado Attorney and HIS EFFORT TO EXCLUDE TRUMP from Ballot: ... ‘Trump HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH an Insurrection’
I’m gonna call it right now… They’re not gonna do anything for the United States of America, for free and fair elections, or for free and fair legal system.
A BIG FAT NOTHING
They’re going to overturn it - even the liberal justices are hinting towards it. Plus the Griffin case precedent solidified that it has to go through Congress first before insurrection ban is declared.
I agree. Even the liberal justices seem to see how easily the Republican states could (and probably would) then do the same thing to a Democrat candidate. If they uphold this, we essentially no longer have a country. I think even the liberal justices don't want that as their legacy.
“We have a big night tonight” - … Tucker?
“Virgin Islands are also very much in play … so will be hearing about them later on today or in the evening” - … will Putin say something about St Little James?
Branson is in a pickle.
Trump says he has great confidence in Speaker Mike Johnson.
Be interesting to know who is funding those protesters.
Thanks for posting this fren.
Update: Interesting that Thomas ask first question. Here does not usually ask questions.
Loquacious Liberal judges trying to find a loophole in order to pervert the laws, by complicating argument.
I can't wait till the Hank Johnson of the court, Ketanji Brown, the equivalent of hiring someone with down syndrome to be air traffic controller, to make a statement. She is probably listening in on this debate like a lip thumbing idiot.
Manner of selecting eligible candidates, and Manner of determining eligibility candidates are two different things.
In other words Colorado is throwing a Hale Mary pass up to supreme court in hope that a majority of judges might catch it.
I'm hearing that the supreme courts hands are tied because of the appeals court, and that this is going to end Trump's campaign... Today
I kid you not, I just read it.
And also, Dick Durbin asking Clarence Thomas to recuse himself...
I mean, this is getting absolutely ridiculous
Save it because the exact opposite is going to happen in.a few hours.
I'll probably get a 12 pack on ice for that moment
Is there a recording somewhere?
Gosh, the people that still believe the 1/6 narrative - even with the cases all falling apart, are truly retarded. Mouth breathing useless sheep. They need more boosters injected immediately.
J6 is the wrap-up smear to end all wrap-up smears.