Liberal Forum

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 10:56 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:56 pm

This went to a court of 7 VERY liberal judges.  It was a 4/3 decision. 
How do you think that's going to hold up in front of an appeals court, much less a 6/3 Conservative court?

clearly defined.
----------------------------------------------------------

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdf

We think that the term “Officers of the United States” as used in Art. II, defined to include “all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government,” is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an “Officer of the United States,” and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by § 2, cl. 2, of that Article. Id. at 125–26 (citation omitted; quoting United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508, 510 (1879)); see also id. at 132 (“Unless their selection is elsewhere provided for, all officers of the United States are to be appointed in accordance with the Clause. . . . No class or type of officer is excluded because of its special functions.”); id. at 136 (noting that prior cases allowing restrictions on President’s removal power had been careful not to suggest that his appointment power could be infringed). Applying this understanding, the Court in Buckley unanimously held that the Appointments Clause required that the enforcement, regulatory, and other administrative powers of the Federal Election Commission could properly “be exercised only by ‘Officers of the United States,’ appointed in conformity with”

74
 

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 10:16 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:16 pm

Why do you keep repeating yourself when the Constitution says you're wrong?

show where the constitution says I am wrong.

maineman » 01 Jan 2024, 11:29 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 11:29 pm

he is as dumb as a box of rocks.

What HE thinks the Constitution says and what SCOTUS may say are not synonymous.

Ask him how many votes it takes to pass a bill in the US Senate when all senators are present and voting!  lol

trump said he would be a dictator from day one.  he would abolish the constitution, order executions at will, take away homes and also let all the cop beaters out with immunity and replace the army with them.

it is not rocket science to see that all trump supporters are as dumb as rocks.
 
 

jerrab » 01 Jan 2024, 11:49 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 11:49 pm

show where the constitution says I am wrong.

I already have.  The appointments clause, for one. 

jerrab » 01 Jan 2024, 11:44 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 11:44 pm

clearly defined.
----------------------------------------------------------

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/U ... 1251-1.pdf

We think that the term “Officers of the United States” as used in Art. II, defined to include “all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government,” is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an “Officer of the United States,” and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by § 2, cl. 2, of that Article. Id. at 125–26 (citation omitted; quoting United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508, 510 (1879)); see also id. at 132 (“Unless their selection is elsewhere provided for, all officers of the United States are to be appointed in accordance with the Clause. . . . No class or type of officer is excluded because of its special functions.”); id. at 136 (noting that prior cases allowing restrictions on President’s removal power had been careful not to suggest that his appointment power could be infringed). Applying this understanding, the Court in Buckley unanimously held that the Appointments Clause required that the enforcement, regulatory, and other administrative powers of the Federal Election Commission could properly “be exercised only by ‘Officers of the United States,’ appointed in conformity with”

74

"We think that"  directly contradicts your "clearly defined" claim.
And repeating yourself, isn't going to magically make your beliefs come true. 

golfboy » 02 Jan 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 9:33 am

"We think that"  directly contradicts your "clearly defined" claim.
And repeating yourself, isn't going to magically make your beliefs come true.

the suprema's court conclusion.

golfboy » 02 Jan 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 9:33 am

"We think that"  directly contradicts your "clearly defined" claim.
And repeating yourself, isn't going to magically make your beliefs come true.

unless the president is specifically excluded he is considered to be an officer.

golfboy » 02 Jan 2024, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 9:32 am

I already have.  The appointments clause, for one.

the reason the amendment exists is to prevent officers engaged in rebellion or insurrection to ever gain office again. it is ridiculous to say that they would want a president involved in rebellion or insurrection  to be president again. if it said a president involved in a rebellion or insurrection should surely be elected again then it would be allowable. but this is obviously would be a scenario the authors did not want. the intent of the writers is to be examined and the intent would show that a president involved in rebellion or insurrection would not be allowed to gain office again.


 

golfboy » 02 Jan 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 9:33 am

"We think that"  directly contradicts your "clearly defined" claim.
And repeating yourself, isn't going to magically make your beliefs come true.

it is laughable that you  think the writers of the amendment would want a president who engaged in a rebellion or insurrection to be president again

golfboy » 01 Jan 2024, 10:56 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 10:56 pm

This went to a court of 7 VERY liberal judges.  It was a 4/3 decision. 
How do you think that's going to hold up in front of an appeals court, much less a 6/3 Conservative court?

the court ruled against trump many times about the election.

 

jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 10:30 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 10:30 pm

the court ruled against trump many times about the election.

Nope.  They mostly refused to hear the cases. 
Sorry not the same thing.

jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 4:25 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 4:25 pm

it is laughable that you  think the writers of the amendment would want a president who engaged in a rebellion or insurrection to be president again

He wasn't.  That's why 4 liberal prosecutors and 91 crimes alleged, don't include the crime of insurrection.
 

jerrab » 02 Jan 2024, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 2:41 pm

the reason the amendment exists is to prevent officers engaged in rebellion or insurrection to ever gain office again. it is ridiculous to say that they would want a president involved in rebellion or insurrection  to be president again. if it said a president involved in a rebellion or insurrection should surely be elected again then it would be allowable. but this is obviously would be a scenario the authors did not want. the intent of the writers is to be examined and the intent would show that a president involved in rebellion or insurrection would not be allowed to gain office again.

There was no insurrection.
 

golfboy » 03 Jan 2024, 8:25 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 8:25 pm

There was no insurrection.

   In your opinion.
Colorado,Maine and other states have a different opinion.
It's a civil case so the burden of proof is less.
Like O.J.
He wasn't convicted in a criminal court but lost his in civil court.
Trump hasn't fared so well in civil cases lately and from what his lawyer is saying he's nervous that the Supreme Court will rule against him.
As well he should be.

 

Squatchman » 03 Jan 2024, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 9:23 pm

   In your opinion.
Colorado,Maine and other states have a different opinion.
It's a civil case so the burden of proof is less.
Like O.J.
He wasn't convicted in a criminal court but lost his in civil court.
Trump hasn't fared so well in civil cases lately and from what his lawyer is saying he's nervous that the Supreme Court will rule against him.
As well he should be.

Opinions.  That's why it matters that Trump hasn't been charged with the crime of insurrection.
 

maineman » 01 Jan 2024, 11:29 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2024, 11:29 pm

he is as dumb as a box of rocks.

What HE thinks the Constitution says and what SCOTUS may say are not synonymous.

Ask him how many votes it takes to pass a bill in the US Senate when all senators are present and voting!  lol

mainbitch can't rub 2 synapses together to come up with an original thought. 
 

golfboy » 05 Jan 2024, 8:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:24 pm

mainbitch can't rub 2 synapses together to come up with an original thought.

Do you have any new one-liners, or are you all about recycling the old ones over and over and over and over and over again?

Tell us again about those 50 votes, moron!  lol

Squatchman » 03 Jan 2024, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 9:23 pm

   In your opinion.
Colorado,Maine and other states have a different opinion.
It's a civil case so the burden of proof is less.
Like O.J.
He wasn't convicted in a criminal court but lost his in civil court.
Trump hasn't fared so well in civil cases lately and from what his lawyer is saying he's nervous that the Supreme Court will rule against him.
As well he should be.

What definition of insurrection will be used?

maineman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:41 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:41 pm

Do you have any new one-liners, or are you all about recycling the old ones over and over and over and over and over again?

Tell us again about those 50 votes, moron!  lol

Sad mainbitch is too stupid to understand what irony means. 
 

golfboy » 10 Jan 2024, 10:28 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2024, 10:28 pm

Sad mainbitch is too stupid to understand what irony means.

I understand irony.  I also understand arithmetic.

I understand that, years ago, when you said, "YES *******, FIFTY VOTES ARE ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO PASS A BILL IN THE SENATE WHEN ALL SENATORS ARE PRESENT AND VOTING" you were DEAD WRONG, and I know that you have been scurrying away from that quote, back-pedalling and tap-dancing ever since, because you cannot bring yourself to admit that you stepped on your own little dick.