4
Inhimwekek 4 points ago +4 / -0

The founders were agreed on what? Recall? If so then they should have said so in the Constitution, says SCOTUS,

1
Inhimwekek 1 point ago +1 / -0

No one individual should ever be trusted with this sort of responsibility. Either you are giving the power to a dictator or you’re creating one.

-1
Inhimwekek -1 points ago +7 / -8

Trump or McConnell? Because, and downvote me all you like, only one of them is still in office.

6
Inhimwekek 6 points ago +6 / -0

Source: US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

4
Inhimwekek 4 points ago +4 / -0

It’s not permitted under federal law, so Utah couldn’t pass a law saying it could be done.

1
Inhimwekek 1 point ago +1 / -0

He was acquitted only in the impeachment trial, which wasn’t a criminal case, to which double jeopardy would attach, and what was filed is a civil case and double jeopardy doesn’t apply there.

22
Inhimwekek 22 points ago +27 / -5

And if you could recall a Senator that might matter....but you can’t. Would be nice if people learned the rules before wasting time doing something stupid.

3
Inhimwekek 3 points ago +4 / -1

Thank you, voice of sanity. However, that doesn’t seem to have stopped many from deciding that a winter storm means “they” are manipulating the weather, God help us.

3
Inhimwekek 3 points ago +3 / -0

It’s a pretty big claim to make with no source, I’m thinking. I haven’t ever heard that.

3
Inhimwekek 3 points ago +3 / -0

Where was that info on the 12 nukes “reported?”

7
Inhimwekek 7 points ago +7 / -0

I just want to throw this out there....is it possible that a person named John Heretohelp is NOT the greatest legal mind of the century and might be, gasp, wrong?

2
Inhimwekek 2 points ago +2 / -0

All that comes out of the 19th is a yes or a no. If it’s a yes, then there will be a date for oral arguments. Then Court will hand down a decision some time after that. Could be October, could be a little earlier, but probably not much.

People keep asking if this case would be expedited, but you have to understand that from the Court’s position there would be no reason to do so, even if they decide to hear any of the cases. They DID expedite the Texas case, remember?

8
Inhimwekek 8 points ago +8 / -0

And just a small correction, not a trial. These cases are on appeal. SCOTUS doesn’t hear trials, they hear appeals, which means only the limited issues raised in the parties’ briefs. There are no witnesses and no evidence, only the justices asking questions of the lawyers.

4
Inhimwekek 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thanks for this info.

1
Inhimwekek 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m going to start downvoting every post with obvious spelling errors. I think I’m going to be very busy.

6
Inhimwekek 6 points ago +6 / -0

Two thirds to convict. After conviction would take only a majority to vote that he couldn’t hold office again.

11
Inhimwekek 11 points ago +11 / -0

Because they are not telling the truth.

7
Inhimwekek 7 points ago +7 / -0

Like with the purported Kavanaugh call, if a sitting Governor said this to the President it would be the top story everywhere. Didn’t happen.

9
Inhimwekek 9 points ago +9 / -0

Agreed. He may have thought it, but he certainly didn’t say it. Articles like this are ridiculous.

1
Inhimwekek 1 point ago +1 / -0

In a little more than four hours, noon ET (Washington DC time....although that’s what time it’s been scheduled and then once it stated at 1 pm, so take that with a grain of salt).

1
Inhimwekek 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trump’s attorneys have said they don’t plan to focus on election fraud, but will talk about unconstitutionality of proceeding and first amendment issues. They may have changed their minds, but this is what they said before trial started.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›