This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@boudinMan Government is being used to prevent someone who clearly violated the Constitution from running again. But the Republican Court ruled for the Republican. No surprise there.
boudinMan · 61-69, M
@windinhishair and what about the three non-conservatives on the court... care to expound not that?
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@boudinMan They originally dissented, with Sotomayor writing the dissent. After some horse trading, they agreed to make the ruling unanimous, with their "concurrence" consisting of the dissent rewritten to disagree with the unnecessary breadth of the ruling. Justice Barrett agreed with the lack of need to make the ruling so broad, and wrote her own opinion.
This ruling does not bode well for Trump in his immunity case before the Court. There are few things that could have changed the three liberal justices' position, but an agreement of the Court to rule against Trump in that case is one of them. That is the more important issue anyway.
This ruling does not bode well for Trump in his immunity case before the Court. There are few things that could have changed the three liberal justices' position, but an agreement of the Court to rule against Trump in that case is one of them. That is the more important issue anyway.
BohemianBabe · M
@boudinMan We tried that in 2020, Trump didn't accept the outcome. This is why Authoritarians should be banned from elections.
boudinMan · 61-69, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment